Author Topic: Some new ideas  (Read 583 times)

gornhorror

  • Rules Team
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1810
  • Goony goo-goo!
Some new ideas
« on: July 09, 2018, 08:18:35 PM »
So after my discussions with Eric this past weekend we came up with some possible rules changes.

Here's what we came up with.

1) Fearsome gives the opponent a -1 dice, Terrifying also  adds a -1 to courage

2) No charge bonus or impact hits for a unit that is making post rout attacks, just use base dice and rear attacking bonus

3) If a unit is flank attacked and not pinched, on the defending unit players turn he can spend a command action to face the enemy.  They still suffer the -1 dice for the turn they are flanked and the turn that they use a command action to face the enemy.  This simulates the effect of being out maneuvered but it's not a permanent situation.

4) Playing with the idea that your courage only goes down -2 when you go into the red.  No -1 courage for being in the yellow.  -1 dice still applies.

5) We also might like the +1/+1 for the spear bonus.

That's all for now kiddies.

We will be trying these rules out to see if they can balance the game further.



Where's this shade, that you got it made?

Fingolfin

  • Playtester
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 148
  • A Elbereth Gilthoniel!
Re: Some new ideas
« Reply #1 on: July 09, 2018, 09:13:55 PM »
So after my discussions with Eric this past weekend we came up with some possible rules changes.
2) No charge bonus or impact hits for a unit that is making post rout attacks, just use base dice and rear attacking bonus

This is a massive nerf to Knights and any other frontloaded unit that attempts to completely break through on the charge turn. In the case of Knights, they would actually do more damage if you said they got the charge bonus and no rear attacking bonus. As it stands, Knights, if they charge a 2/2 unit, are highly likely to force a Rout Check. If the unit fails, the Knights are very likely to simply kill them. All told, the Knights would do about 12 damage to the enemy if it broke on the charge turn. With this rule, the knights would do around 9 damage, not even killing the unit in question. If you said that the Knights had the Charging bonuses, but no rear attacking bonus, they would do about 10 damage. Thing is, that extra point of damage is exceptionally important in a game where the vast majority of units have 10 hitboxes.

4) Playing with the idea that your courage only goes down -2 when you go into the red.  No -1 courage for being in the yellow.  -1 dice still applies.

Again, this is a nerf to frontloaded damage unit and alpha strike armies. This would greatly encourage players to make grinding armies since the chance of a rapid breakthrough, already risky, is further reduced.

5) We also might like the +1/+1 for the spear bonus.

I quite like this idea, honestly.
'Utúlie'n aurë! Aiya Eldalië ar Atanatári, utúlie'n aurë! The day has come! Behold, people of the Eldar and Fathers of Men, the day has come!'

Steel for humans, silver for monsters, gold for the witcher.

Hannibal

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4692
Re: Some new ideas
« Reply #2 on: July 10, 2018, 09:34:30 AM »
I agree with Fingolfin.  It's a good thing these ideas are in the house rule section because #1-4 are DOA for the rules team forum.

gornhorror

  • Rules Team
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1810
  • Goony goo-goo!
Re: Some new ideas
« Reply #3 on: July 11, 2018, 12:17:34 PM »
I agree with Fingolfin.  It's a good thing these ideas are in the house rule section because #1-4 are DOA for the rules team forum.

That's all find an dandy cause it seems that people are playing with house rules more and more often lately because the actual rules are either un-fun, flawed or both.  With the new ranged rules, this will most likely continue.

Where's this shade, that you got it made?

Hannibal

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4692
Re: Some new ideas
« Reply #4 on: July 11, 2018, 01:47:29 PM »
Hey, if you guys are having fun, that's all that matters.  It'll be sad to lose you guys as playtesters, but that's life.

Just remember that official tournaments will have to use official rules.  I know some people on the forum now won't want to use those rules, but I'm confident Battleground will make a comeback once we start putting out new releases and we need to use the official rules for YMG events.

gornhorror

  • Rules Team
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1810
  • Goony goo-goo!
Re: Some new ideas
« Reply #5 on: July 11, 2018, 04:00:05 PM »
Hey, if you guys are having fun, that's all that matters.  It'll be sad to lose you guys as playtesters, but that's life.

Just remember that official tournaments will have to use official rules.  I know some people on the forum now won't want to use those rules, but I'm confident Battleground will make a comeback once we start putting out new releases and we need to use the official rules for YMG events.


Who said I was going to stop playtesting? Or anybody else for that matter.  That's an incorrect assumption by you.  I just said that people will playing with house rules more often, whether it be in a tournament or at a Battleground get together.

I guess there would be myriad of reasons why, because they don't want to track ammo, or play a fearsome creature because the ability sucks, or play tons of skirmishers because they are too powerful, or even be matched-up against historicals while playing fantasy because it's an uphill climb to win.  To name a few that I can think of.

Where's this shade, that you got it made?

Hannibal

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4692
Re: Some new ideas
« Reply #6 on: July 11, 2018, 06:44:31 PM »
Who said I was going to stop playtesting? Or anybody else for that matter.  That's an incorrect assumption by you.  I just said that people will playing with house rules more often, whether it be in a tournament or at a Battleground get together.

My point was that if you're using house rules when playtesting or at a tournament, then those results aren't valid.  You can't draw conclusions when, for example, a game uses old ammo rules, or old final rush rules, or a set of homebrew rules like here.

Furthermore, the more and more you guys play with house rules, that's more and more your play style will drift from the main game.  In essence you'll not have as much practice playing real Battleground.

gornhorror

  • Rules Team
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1810
  • Goony goo-goo!
Re: Some new ideas
« Reply #7 on: July 18, 2018, 03:27:15 PM »
Just so people know that Marcus showed interest in #1 and #3 above.  These were some of the proposals that were discussed.  I like #1 and could see why Eric would like #3.  He was stating that it didn't seem fair if a unit is flanked ( I guess also rear attacked for that matter) that the bonus and the position should last the entire combat.  He did mention that if the unit is engaged with another unit(i.e pinched) that this ability would not be allowed and the position would remain constant.

Now that I've had a few days to think about it I wouldn't support #2.  I like the whole I run you over effect if you fail a rout check on the charge turn, especially for cavalry. 



« Last Edit: July 18, 2018, 03:46:07 PM by gornhorror »
Where's this shade, that you got it made?

Hannibal

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4692
Re: Some new ideas
« Reply #8 on: July 19, 2018, 06:46:08 AM »
Just so people know that Marcus showed interest in #1 and #3 above.

Interested as a house rule?  Or an official rule?  If the former, then cool!  If the latter, then this conversation belongs in the Rules Team section.

For the record, I'm not completely against discussing the idea behind these rules.  Just those specific proposals would earn a veto from me if this made the jump to the Rules Team.

For example, with #1, I've been very clear I find the dice penalty to be not the right feel for Fearsome.  I'm not against the Courage penalty, but IIRC, Marcus vetoed that idea for Fearsome in the Rules Team.  That's why I haven't pushed it:  once Marcus or I veto something, that's the end of the conversation.


With #3, in order to get behind something like that you'd have to include some penalty like a unit that is charged in the rear/flank becomes Disrupted immediately.  Then I might be okay with #3.  To me Battleground is a game of maneuver and if you drastically reduce the penalty for being outmaneuvered, then Battleground stops being a game of maneuver.  And that is a bad thing, IMO.

RushAss

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3866
  • Eat your beets - Recycle!
    • My Facebook.  Where you can see my, uh... face.
Re: Some new ideas
« Reply #9 on: July 19, 2018, 03:02:03 PM »
Just so people know that Marcus showed interest in #1 and #3 above.

Interested as a house rule?  Or an official rule?  If the former, then cool!  If the latter, then this conversation belongs in the Rules Team section....

...With #3, in order to get behind something like that you'd have to include some penalty like a unit that is charged in the rear/flank becomes Disrupted immediately.  Then I might be okay with #3.  To me Battleground is a game of maneuver and if you drastically reduce the penalty for being outmaneuvered, then Battleground stops being a game of maneuver.  And that is a bad thing, IMO.

This has always been something that bothered me.  I never thought it to be game breaking, I just find it strange that an Earth Elemental couldn't simply turn and face a unit of Militia that had engaged it on the flank.  There was a vote put forward for this years ago but it didn't pass through.

IIRC the proposal was almost identical to #3 but your opponent still received the flank penalty on the turn that the unit in question turns to face the enemy.  So the sequence would be like this:

Player A's turn - One of their units final rushes one pf Player B's unit on the flank.  Their unit get's the +1 skill while Player B's unit suffers the -1 die penalty for attacking to the flank.

Player B's turn - Player B burns a Command Action to have his unit turn to face the enemy but their unit still suffers the -1 die penalty for that turn and Player A's unit still get's the +1 skill til the end of the turn.

So in this case Player A's unit still get's the full benefit of flanking for 2 turns and he sucked a CA out of Player B.  Not too bad of a benefit IMO.  I don't think it's a bad idea.  The question is whether or not it's justified adding more even rules to remedy a situation that is irritating to some.  FWIW, I have had a decent amount of players question the current flanking rule during demos through the years but none where violently opposed to it.
"We are young wandering the face of the Earth
Wondering what our dreams might be worth
Learning that we're only immortal for a limited time"
-Rush, Dreamline

Hannibal

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4692
Re: Some new ideas
« Reply #10 on: July 19, 2018, 03:50:29 PM »
This has always been something that bothered me.  I never thought it to be game breaking, I just find it strange that an Earth Elemental couldn't simply turn and face a unit of Militia that had engaged it on the flank.

This is the way that I think of it:  when a unit (be a unit of guys or an Earth Elemental) gets hit on the flank it has lasting effects.  Even when it's single combat being hit when you don't expect it rocks you 'back on your heels' so to speak.  And that has a lasting effect throughout the engagement.

Leave the Earth Elemental in the "flanked" position is a mnemonic to reminder players that the unit has been hit in the flank and is reeling, which grants the other guy a bonus to hit.  It's less about actually the units are in that physical position and more about a reminder about the effect the unit is currently under.

NegativeZer0

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 637
Re: Some new ideas
« Reply #11 on: July 20, 2018, 09:14:03 AM »
This is the way that I think of it:  when a unit (be a unit of guys or an Earth Elemental) gets hit on the flank it has lasting effects.  Even when it's single combat being hit when you don't expect it rocks you 'back on your heels' so to speak.  And that has a lasting effect throughout the engagement.

But why?  Why is it a lasting effect? 
Quote from: Chad_YMG
Cards are definitely good to have, but I like punching my opponent in the face, too!

Hannibal

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4692
Re: Some new ideas
« Reply #12 on: July 20, 2018, 09:56:07 AM »
But why?  Why is it a lasting effect? 

For a unit:  their formation is partially broken.  Ranked units, even elite ones, are much like a claymore mine:  point towards enemy for maximum effect.  When they are hit on the side, their formation is part way to being Disrupted.  They will not have an opportunity to reform & regain their formation until the fight is over, because the guys are too busy fighting for their lives to reorder into a solid formation.


For a single guy (like an EE):  in the two decades that I have done martial arts, I can tell you that when you are surprised by an enemy, you're on the defensive basically to the end of that engagement[1].  Once someone surprises you, you're always playing catch-up to his actions.  He is completely in control of the fight and "winning" for you is usually disengaging and returning back to 'zero' position at the start. 

Now with a big guy we have to extrapolate a little bit because we have no real world parallel of a bunch of normal sized guys fighting a single big monster.  That said, IMO, I feel that the unit of guys would operate close to real world in that when they flank the enemy they would keep the pressure up on them.  And the lone guy would be totally on the defensive ad reactive, like how a single fighter would be in a real world fight.


[1] "Engagement" is defined as when the two fighters are actively fighting.  Either throwing punches, kicks, grappling, etc.  Once the two separate and 'reset' the engagement has ended.  In single combat (e.g. MMA), there are several engagements in a single fight.  The idea with flanking (or pinching, or rear charging) is that the unit never gives the big guy the chance to reset.

gornhorror

  • Rules Team
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1810
  • Goony goo-goo!
Re: Some new ideas
« Reply #13 on: July 20, 2018, 01:52:10 PM »
Normally the effect would be permanent.  However, with this proposal you can use a command action to fix the result.  When you do, the penalties/bonuses are still in effect for that turn.  So a minimum of two combat turns if you fix it right away.  I think that is still pretty good for the attacker.

For the defender, having the effect go on forever is definitely not fun.   Being surprised definitely puts you at a disadvantage, but not everyone who has ever been surprised couldn't recover.   
Where's this shade, that you got it made?

Hannibal

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4692
Re: Some new ideas
« Reply #14 on: July 20, 2018, 03:33:34 PM »
For the defender, having the effect go on forever is definitely not fun.   Being surprised definitely puts you at a disadvantage, but not everyone who has ever been surprised couldn't recover.   

I disagree.  If you let a unit get outflanked by being outmaneuvered or because you protected the flank with a unit that was too weak for the job, then you deserve what happens.  Yes I'm aware that sometimes you can just bone a Courage check or your opponent rolls hot, but it's a dice game.  When you sit down at the table to play you accept an element of randomness.

Battleground is a game of maneuver.  It rewards skilled play by granting large bonuses for outmaneuvering your opponent.  It's an integral part of what makes Battleground such a great game.  I have zero interest in reducing that aspect of the game.  If you guys want to do this as a house rule, then by all means, go right ahead.  Please do.  I don't want to stand in the way of you guys having fun.