Author Topic: Oathbound...a new idea  (Read 13101 times)

Kevin

  • Playtester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5139
Re: Oathbound...a new idea
« Reply #30 on: August 27, 2015, 10:50:54 AM »
From a pure game mechanic point of view, I like option 1.  More creative.

Of course, "I Kill You Meself" has the flavor of the Boss Orc killing the first (and maybe second) Orc/Goblin to run.  "Ordered Retreat" involves most of the Half-Orcs/Wildmen moving back while a few sacrifice themselves as rearguard to buy their comrades time.

What's the flavor justification for a number of High Elves dying?
However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results. - Winston Churchill

RushAss

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3816
  • Eat your beets - Recycle!
    • My Facebook.  Where you can see my, uh... face.
Re: Oathbound...a new idea
« Reply #31 on: August 27, 2015, 11:39:19 AM »
My thinking is that a few of the High Elves still run off, but the bulk of the unit remains.
"Art as expression, not as market campaigns
Will still capture our imaginations"
-Rush, Natural Science

Kevin

  • Playtester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5139
Re: Oathbound...a new idea
« Reply #32 on: August 27, 2015, 12:32:13 PM »
Actually, that's pretty good.  Especially since if a few cowards run off the ones who remain are a bit braver.

Play with it and if it looks good we can try it at Championship 2016.
However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results. - Winston Churchill

gornhorror

  • Playtester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1722
  • Goony goo-goo!
Re: Oathbound...a new idea
« Reply #33 on: August 27, 2015, 11:54:52 PM »
My thinking is that a few of the High Elves still run off, but the bulk of the unit remains.

What I was thinking was that a few warriors run in and sacrifice themselves to regain a foothold in the fight because they are Oathbound to complete the task and failure is not an option.

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

GoIndy

  • Playtester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
Re: Oathbound...a new idea
« Reply #34 on: August 28, 2015, 09:16:29 AM »
I'm not certain this is any better than the normal Oathbound card, chuckle.  I can remember playing Marcus and he had 3 rout checks, and I thought...this Oathbound card is complete bullshit.  Of course, now he'd get to play it reactively, but still.

gornhorror

  • Playtester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1722
  • Goony goo-goo!
Re: Oathbound...a new idea
« Reply #35 on: August 28, 2015, 12:05:05 PM »
I'm not certain this is any better than the normal Oathbound card, chuckle.  I can remember playing Marcus and he had 3 rout checks, and I thought...this Oathbound card is complete bullshit.  Of course, now he'd get to play it reactively, but still.

Complete bullshit as in it's too powerful?  Or complete bullshit as in it totally sucks....
Where's this shade, that you got it made?

Kevin

  • Playtester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5139
Re: Oathbound...a new idea
« Reply #36 on: August 28, 2015, 12:41:36 PM »
He means "too powerful," having hit the one situation (3+ simultaneous, important rout checks) where Oathbound is pretty good.
However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results. - Winston Churchill

gornhorror

  • Playtester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1722
  • Goony goo-goo!
Re: Oathbound...a new idea
« Reply #37 on: August 28, 2015, 01:19:07 PM »
Yeah.....just wasn't sure.  But that's what I was leaning towards....but with Tim, you just never know... ::)
Where's this shade, that you got it made?

RushAss

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3816
  • Eat your beets - Recycle!
    • My Facebook.  Where you can see my, uh... face.
Re: Oathbound...a new idea
« Reply #38 on: August 28, 2015, 01:34:53 PM »
He means "too powerful," having hit the one situation (3+ simultaneous, important rout checks) where Oathbound is pretty good.

There's actually another situation.  Your High Elven unit gets pinched and you really want it to stay there, so you play Oathbound for the +2 courage and you pass.  Your High Elven unit takes it's beating and has to roll another courage check because it got pounded into the red/yellow.  Since Oathbound gives you the +2 courage for the turn, you still get the +2 courage for that check as well.  I'd call that pretty good.
"Art as expression, not as market campaigns
Will still capture our imaginations"
-Rush, Natural Science

Hannibal

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4559
Re: Oathbound...a new idea
« Reply #39 on: August 28, 2015, 01:52:15 PM »
Yup.  Its why I've been such a strong opponent of making any official changes to Oathbound.  One thing that has come out of this campaign is that local players have seen the potential for how nasty High Elves would be if they got an auto-pass or a reroll.  Now of course nothing conclusive can be drawn from a campaign like Empires (where game balance is huddled in a corning, sobbing and gently rocking back & forth), but they're seeing the potential for how nasty they can be.  Of course, nobody here spends points on frivolous things like "ranged fire" and so I can understand that if someone likes to light a couple hundred points on fire by taking HE bowmen, he'd prefer there be something to balance out that self-imposed handicap.

(I hope that last sentence came across as light-hearted as is was intended.  If not, post-facto trigger warning!)

gornhorror

  • Playtester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1722
  • Goony goo-goo!
Re: Oathbound...a new idea
« Reply #40 on: August 28, 2015, 04:25:13 PM »
Yup.  Its why I've been such a strong opponent of making any official changes to Oathbound.  One thing that has come out of this campaign is that local players have seen the potential for how nasty High Elves would be if they got an auto-pass or a reroll.  Now of course nothing conclusive can be drawn from a campaign like Empires (where game balance is huddled in a corning, sobbing and gently rocking back & forth), but they're seeing the potential for how nasty they can be.  Of course, nobody here spends points on frivolous things like "ranged fire" and so I can understand that if someone likes to light a couple hundred points on fire by taking HE bowmen, he'd prefer there be something to balance out that self-imposed handicap.

(I hope that last sentence came across as light-hearted as is was intended.  If not, post-facto trigger warning!)

I think that reactive courage cards are even nastier in factions with many cheap units.  What I've noticed is that when I'm playing High Elves and I'm outnumbered (almost always) it's really hard to win if I can't even get a scrub unit to fail a rout check so I can start to even the score a bit.  My opinion is that reactive courage cards are even more needed in factions like the High Elves where failing even one rout check is usually catastrophic.  

Now my new idea is a reroll, but it's not an autopass like IKYM AND you take a point of damage.  So it's not full-proof.

My comments in the session reports where I bitch that High Elves are loosing all of their battles, you can take them with a grain of salt.  I know the player is inexperienced and the added rules throw everything off balance.  It would be nice if they won a match or two though!!!!:)
« Last Edit: August 28, 2015, 08:34:35 PM by gornhorror »
Where's this shade, that you got it made?

gornhorror

  • Playtester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1722
  • Goony goo-goo!
Re: Oathbound...a new idea
« Reply #41 on: August 30, 2015, 07:57:11 PM »
I was just looking at the wording that Marcus used for my new idea for Oathbound and I think it may need to be changed a bit.  Not drastically however.

This is what he said:

Quote
Play whenever one of your units fails a rout/courage check.   Reroll the check at +1 courage.  If the second roll succeeds, mark off 1 red box.  This damage cannot force another courage check.
Quote


I think it should be:

Oathbound: You may play Oathbound whenever one of your units fails a courage/rout check.  Mark off one red health box and re-roll the check at a +2.  The marked box can not force another rout check.

I think the damage should be caused whether the check is passed or not.  It's the brave contingent of High Elf warriors that are rushing in to sacrifice themselves for the greater good so that their comrades might have a chance to fight on.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2015, 08:05:57 PM by gornhorror »
Where's this shade, that you got it made?

gull2112

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4197
  • From the RUSH faction
    • Meditations on Brain Injury
Re: Oathbound...a new idea
« Reply #42 on: August 30, 2015, 10:00:31 PM »
Quote
I think the damage should be caused whether the check is passed or not.  It's the brave contingent of High Elf warriors that are rushing in to sacrifice themselves for the greater good so that their comrades might have a chance to fight on.

I agree with you here, but with a different concept of what's happening. Troops rout to avoid death. Oathbound is a way of saying, "we're going to hold on a little longer" and by virtue of the battlebrothers who sacrifice their lives in so doing, there is a better chance that the death inspired rest will hang in there.
"Rules are only as good as the book they're bound in."
http://gullsbattleground.blogspot.com/

Zelc

  • Playtester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1072
Re: Oathbound...a new idea
« Reply #43 on: August 31, 2015, 09:46:00 AM »
I'm not a huge fan of the 1 red box drawback.  It only makes a difference if your unit takes total HP - 1 damage.

Can I make a crazy suggestion?  Give them I Kill You Meself instead.  It's both better and worse than the current suggestion:
  • It's worse because unlike Orcs, High Elves have higher Courage to begin with.  They don't get as much benefit from the "autopass" courage vs. the reroll + a bonus.  Also, High Elves have higher stats and fewer yellow boxes than Orcs, so 1 damage is a larger penalty. Unlike marking off a red box, marking off 1 damage puts the unit closer to a red check.
  • It's better because there's still a 1 in 10 chance of failing a check at 14 Courage, and again the whole point of this change is to reduce the variance of High Elves.

If you still think I Kill You Meself is too strong in High Elves, make it so you can't play it on a unit in the red (or units in the red only get a reroll).

Besides, outside of Mithril, the High Elf cards really aren't that strong.  Giving them a stronger card isn't going to make their command deck nuts.


Example text:
Play after one of your units fails a Courage check. Deal 1 damage to that unit. This damage does not cause additional rout checks.
If that unit is in the red (after taking the 1 damage), reroll the Courage check.  Otherwise, it passes the Courage check instead.

Or alternatively:
Play after one of your units fails a Courage check.
If that unit is in the red, reroll the Courage check.  Otherwise, it passes the Courage check instead, and deal 1 damage to that unit (this damage does not cause additional rout checks).
« Last Edit: August 31, 2015, 11:02:51 AM by Zelc »

gornhorror

  • Playtester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1722
  • Goony goo-goo!
Re: Oathbound...a new idea
« Reply #44 on: August 31, 2015, 12:33:18 PM »
I'm not a huge fan of the 1 red box drawback.  It only makes a difference if your unit takes total HP - 1 damage.

Can I make a crazy suggestion?  Give them I Kill You Meself instead.  It's both better and worse than the current suggestion:
  • It's worse because unlike Orcs, High Elves have higher Courage to begin with.  They don't get as much benefit from the "autopass" courage vs. the reroll + a bonus.  Also, High Elves have higher stats and fewer yellow boxes than Orcs, so 1 damage is a larger penalty. Unlike marking off a red box, marking off 1 damage puts the unit closer to a red check.
  • It's better because there's still a 1 in 10 chance of failing a check at 14 Courage, and again the whole point of this change is to reduce the variance of High Elves.

If you still think I Kill You Meself is too strong in High Elves, make it so you can't play it on a unit in the red (or units in the red only get a reroll).

Besides, outside of Mithril, the High Elf cards really aren't that strong.  Giving them a stronger card isn't going to make their command deck nuts.


Example text:
Play after one of your units fails a Courage check. Deal 1 damage to that unit. This damage does not cause additional rout checks.
If that unit is in the red (after taking the 1 damage), reroll the Courage check.  Otherwise, it passes the Courage check instead.

Or alternatively:
Play after one of your units fails a Courage check.
If that unit is in the red, reroll the Courage check.  Otherwise, it passes the Courage check instead, and deal 1 damage to that unit (this damage does not cause additional rout checks).


My idea was to make it a bit different that IKYM.  However, if it's found to be not strong enough in it's current form, I'm willing to try out your second idea listed here.

I agree with you about the High Elf command cards.  Mithril is great but the rest of them are meh.   The Subtle Mastery card should be make one of your "to damage" rolls a 1.  It would make more sense in this army.  That being said, I'll be happy if the new Oathbound card idea works out.  That's the one that I feel is most needed.
Where's this shade, that you got it made?