General Erfworld Rules Discussion

[Nihila]

Well, Bogroll doesn't have "Heavy" as a special.

Also, in TBfGB, units can only have up to 1.5 times their HP as Attack.

[Chris Goodwin]

Well, Bogroll doesn't have "Heavy" as a special.

Ahhh, true. The wiki does list his Class as Heavy Unit, but when his stats are viewed by Parson in the comic, Heavy doesn't show up anywhere. This tells me, among other things, that Heavy is a Class, not a Special, and should be listed accordingly.

Also, in TBfGB, units can only have up to 1.5 times their HP as Attack.

That's where I got it from, then. I don't have a problem with making it 2 times, as in my system Combat points cost 3x as much as Hits, and the only units that would regularly push that limit would either be very small or very expensive. A dwagon with 20 hits and 40 combat would cost at least 140 points and have an upkeep of at least 140 schmuckers per day.

[WaterMonkey314]

Is it possible that "heavy" isn't really a formal classification at all, but rather a reference phrase? In naval terminology, you can have "capital ships" (e.g. battleships and aircraft carriers, but not heavy cruisers), but the fact of being a capital ship doesn't make it any better than a non-capital ship - the term just signifies that the ship is a potent combatant.

Edit: forgot to finish the thought

So, a "heavy" unit might just be what a side considers to be a powerful unit that it would base its strategy on. I don't think we've seen "heavy" and "non-heavy" versions of the same unit, which would support this idea.

[Nihila]

If I understand Chris's combat system correctly, I think that I see a potential exploit. As smaller units would be much cheaper to produce, a unit with 1-1-1-2 would cost 11. On the other hand, Kaed's Stabber,6-4-2-4, would be a 22. With Leadership and Fabricated Weapons and Armor, Transylvito-style tactics would become dominant quickly. With Level 5 Warlords on both sides and medium equipment on both sides, the units become 1-7-7-2, against 6-10-8-4. At a ratio of two small units per stabber, the additive system overwhelms the stabbers.

Sample Combat:
7 Combat x2=14
8 Defense x1=8
Total Damage dealt=6
Stabber croaks.

10 Combat x1=10
7 Defense x2=14
Total Damage dealt=0
Mini units uninjured.

For upkeep:
1 Stabber+2 Medium equipment=32
2 Minis + 4 Medium equipment=42

The only disadvantage for the Minis is a slight upkeep increase.

And, WaterMonkey, I think Parson states in an early summer update that most heavy units can't enter Tunnels and Sizemore or Maggie stating that Heavies can't use mounts.

[Chris Goodwin]

If I understand Chris's combat system correctly, I think that I see a potential exploit. As smaller units would be much cheaper to produce, a unit with 1-1-1-2 would cost 11. On the other hand, Kaed's Stabber,6-4-2-4, would be a 22. With Leadership and Fabricated Weapons and Armor, Transylvito-style tactics would become dominant quickly. With Level 5 Warlords on both sides and medium equipment on both sides, the units become 1-7-7-2, against 6-10-8-4. At a ratio of two small units per stabber, the additive system overwhelms the stabbers.

Reading Kaed's thread, I see his stat format: HP-Combat-Defense-Move. Makes them 4-2-4-6 and 1-1-2-1 in my notation. Just had to get my mind around them. Using my formula, this makes the stabber cost 30 and the minis 11.

There are two parts you may have missed:

• Each side rolls 1d10 and adds to their total, and the difference is the damage per unit the side does (could have a huge bearing on the situation)
• Each unit can only deal as much damage as its Combat score. (doesn't seem to come into play so far)

On average you'll see the numbers you came up with, but you've still got plenty of room for outliers.

Some of the so-far-unwritten assumptions I've been making, which might figure into your scenario:

• Stack bonus is +1 for 2-3 units, +2 for 4-7 units, +3 for 8+ units
• Warlord's bonus adds to the stack rather than each individual unit.
• A Warlord fights as part of the stack and therefore his stats are included.
• Maps are approximately at the scale of what we see in the comic. Which leads us to units with higher Move scores, at the very least, making them more expensive.
• Equipment adds to units' base Combat scores for purposes of the maximum damage the unit can deal out, but (importantly) bonuses don't.

But I'll run the scenario with the stats you describe.

If we take the following, spelled out for my benefit:

• Stabber: C4, D2, M4, H6
• Warlord: L5, C5, D3, M5, H7

Stack of 2, for a stack bonus of +1. Warlord for bonus of +5. The stack's total attack (Combat) is 15 and Defense is 11.

Not having a handy Warlord writeup, I'm assuming he's one better than the Stabber in everything. The minis get the same Warlord:

• 7xMini: C1, D1, M2, H1
• Warlord: L5, C5, D3, M5, H7

Stack of 8, for a stack bonus of +3. Warlord for bonus of +5. The stack's total attack is 7 (Minis) + 5 (Warlord's Combat) + 5 (Warlord's bonus) +3 (stack bonus) is 20. Defense is 18.

That's not even taking equipment into account. If each of them had medium equipment, the mini stack's total is increased by 8 while the stabber+warlord is increased by 2.

Keeping this in mind... each mini (with medium weapon, for +1 to Combat) could deal a maximum of 2 damage, the Warlord (also with medium weapon) a max of 6. The minis, between them can only deal 14 damage which, admittedly, is enough to take out both the stabber and the Warlord, but is also a limiting factor. If they didn't have the weapons, the minis would presumably swarm their opposing Warlord, taking him out, and their Warlord hits the Stabber, potentially knocking him down to 1 HP. Next round he's dead, of course, having lost his stack bonus, his Warlord bonus, and his Warlord.

Yes, there is a reason why Transylvito-style tactics work. Although from this I also see your point on the GM. Doombats are cheap to produce, cheap to feed, and for that reason somewhat expendable. Transylvito has them because they had a source, placed there by the GM. This also makes me think there needs to be some kind of balancing factor on equipment. I will think on this.

I also have a feeling that scaling this up to, say, 7 Stabbers + 1 Warlord vs. 1 Dwagon + 1 Warlord would give you a similar result.

I see your initial scenario was...2 minis? That changes things considerably. Below stats include medium weapon and armor for each unit.

• 2xMini: C2, D2, M2, H1
• Warlord: L5, C6, D4, M5, H7

Total base attack: 10. Stack bonus: +1. Warlord bonus: +5. Total attack 16. Total base defense: 8. Stack bonus: +1. Warlord bonus: +5. Total defense 14.

• Stabber: C5, D3, M4, H6
• Warlord: L5, C6, D4, M5, H7

Total base attack: 11. Stack bonus: +1. Warlord bonus: +5. Total attack 17. Total base defense: 7. Total defense is 13.

Remember, each mini can deal a maximum of 2 damage each round. Tactics come into play a lot more heavily here. It could be that the minis and their Warlord all dogpile the opposing Warlord, while the Stabber+Warlord dogpile their opposing Warlord. Leaving both warlords dead, and 2 Minis vs. 1 Stabber. 2 minis at 5 attack vs. stabber at 3 defense, and one stabber at 5 attack vs. 2 minis at 5 defense. At this point it comes down to dice rolls; it's likely, but by no means certain, that the minis will outlast the Stabber. It's also likely that the Stabber will take down at least one mini, turning the tables in his favor. It would be a hard fight, but I think the Stabber would eventually come out on top.

Sample Combat:
7 Combat x2=14
8 Defense x1=8
Total Damage dealt=6
Stabber croaks.

10 Combat x1=10
7 Defense x2=14
Total Damage dealt=0
Mini units uninjured.

You forgot to include the Warlord on (edit:) both sides (edit:) as a combatant in these calculations...

And, WaterMonkey, I think Parson states in an early summer update that most heavy units can't enter Tunnels and Sizemore or Maggie stating that Heavies can't use mounts.

The only thing we've seen borne out in the comic is that Heavies can't use mounts. We see several examples of Heavy units in the tunnels, all of which are on the smaller side of Heavy: spidews, golems, sourmanders, tchochkes.

[Chris Goodwin]

I thought I might game out the combats to show how I envision them working. I'm using the random number generator at http://www.random.org/ to generate numbers between 1 and 10 for the d10 rolls.

In the scenario of 2 minis + Warlord vs. Stabber + Warlord, all with medium weapons and armor:

• 2xMini: C2, D2, M2, H1
• Warlord: L5, C6, D4, M5, H7

Total base attack: 10. Stack bonus: +1. Warlord bonus: +5. Total attack 16. Total base defense: 8. Stack bonus: +1. Warlord bonus: +5. Total defense 14.

• Stabber: C5, D3, M4, H6
• Warlord: L5, C6, D4, M5, H7

Total base attack: 11. Stack bonus: +1. Warlord bonus: +5. Total attack 17. Total base defense: 7. Total defense is 13.

Assume the minis' side is the initial attacker.

Round 1:
Minis attack Stabber's side.
Minis roll: 4 + total attack = 20
Stabber roll: 3 + total defense = 16
20-16=4. Minis side does 4 hits per unit to Stabbers side. Minis side does a total of 12 hits to Stabbers. Each of the minis does 2 hits (their max), leaving 8. The Warlord does 6 hits (his max). The remainder is lost. The Warlord does his hits to the Stabber, while the minis do their hits to the opposing Warlord.

Counterattack:
Stabber roll: 1 + 17 = 18
Minis roll: 1 + 14 = 15. (Edit: originally they rolled 3, but I screwed up did the math with 1. Instead of going through the whole combat and fixing it, I'm changing the roll.)
18-15=3. Stabber's side do 3 hits per unit = 6 damage. The Stabber and the Warlord each opt to do 3 damage to the minis.

End of round: Stabber has taken 6 damage and croaks. Each mini has taken 3 damage and croaks.

Round 2:
Recalculate. Now it is just Warlord vs. Warlord, no stack bonus. They each get their own level bonus, but it all cancels out. They each have a base attack of 11 and base defense of 9. One of them is wounded, having taken 4 hits and leaving him at 3.

Minis roll: 8 + 11 = 19
Stabbers roll: 4 + 9 = 13.

Minis side does 6 points per unit to the Stabbers side. That's 6 points, there being one unit with a base Combat score of 6 (including weapon).

The counterattack:
Stabbers roll: 5 + 11 = 16
Minis roll: 3 + 9 = 12

Stabbers side does 4 points per unit to the Minis side, for 4 points.

Result:

Stabbers' warlord with 3 HP - 6 hits = -3 hits, and croaks.
Minis' warlord with 7 HP - 4 hits = 3 hits, leaving him wounded.

It was a reasonably close fight. I call poor dice rolls on the Stabber's side as the cause of his loss.

[Nihila]

Meh. Parson says that bonuses are multiplicative, which would only occur if a bonus was applied to each unit. But anyways.
If the ratio of Minis to Stabbers is taken further, to 7 Stabbers+Warlord and 19 Minis+Warlord, without equipment, little changes(7 Stabbers=210 points, 19 Minis=209 points).

Stacks of 8+, for +3. Leadership +5.

Minis: 19(Minis)+5(Warlord)+3(stack bonus)+5(Leadership)=32 Combat. 30 Defense.
Stabbers: 28(Stabbers)+5(Warlord)+3(stack bonus)+5(Leadership)=41 Combat. 25 Defense.

With Medium Equipment, things change.

Minis: 38(Minis)+6(Warlord)+3(stack)+5(Leader)=52 Combat. 50 Defense.
Stabbers: 35(Stabbers)+6(Warlord)+3(stack)+5(Leader)=49 Combat. 33 Defense.

That's a whole new situation. In this scenario, the slow Minis will begin to crush everything with sheer numbers. The Stabbers need Luckamancy to croak even one Mini, while the Minis pound the Stabbers mercilessly. Now, the upkeep will get cumbersome, at 21 a unit, but it's still less than a Stabber.

And yes, I agree that in the scenario you calculated, there was just bad luck, but in the scenario I outlined now, I think that bad luck would stop factoring in.

On the subject of Heavies, I think Parson says that Spidews have a special ability... Tunnel Capable? Maybe Jetstone gives a lot of their units that.

[Chris Goodwin]

Meh. Parson says that bonuses are multiplicative, which would only occur if a bonus was applied to each unit. But anyways.
If the ratio of Minis to Stabbers is taken further, to 7 Stabbers+Warlord and 19 Minis+Warlord, without equipment, little changes(7 Stabbers=210 points, 19 Minis=209 points).

Stacks of 8+, for +3. Leadership +5.

Minis: 19(Minis)+5(Warlord)+3(stack bonus)+5(Leadership)=32 Combat. 30 Defense.
Stabbers: 28(Stabbers)+5(Warlord)+3(stack bonus)+5(Leadership)=41 Combat. 25 Defense.

With Medium Equipment, things change.

Minis: 38(Minis)+6(Warlord)+3(stack)+5(Leader)=52 Combat. 50 Defense.
Stabbers: 35(Stabbers)+6(Warlord)+3(stack)+5(Leader)=49 Combat. 33 Defense.

That's a whole new situation. In this scenario, the slow Minis will begin to crush everything with sheer numbers. The Stabbers need Luckamancy to croak even one Mini, while the Minis pound the Stabbers mercilessly. Now, the upkeep will get cumbersome, at 21 a unit, but it's still less than a Stabber.

Giving both sides medium weapons and armor is a major difference in cost: Stabbers at 290 (+10 points per unit, 8 units, for +80), Minis at 409 (+10 points per unit, 20 units, for +200). With the Minis side at a net +119 points, I'd expect a slaughter.

If we make it a bit more even: Stabbers have medium weapons and armor, Minis only have medium weapons, making it 290 for the Stabbers and 309 for the Minis, we get:

Minis: 52 Combat, 30 Defense.
Stabbers: 49 Combat, 33 Defense.

Much closer margin in both combat stats and point cost. That tells me at least that the point costs are roughly fair. Now, both sides will just rip each other to shreds, barring magic. Edit: What the Minis side gains in hits per unit (average 19 hits per unit * 20 units = 380 hits!!!) they lose drastically in only being able to funnel 2 hits through each mini (38 for the minis + 6 for the warlord = 44 DPR*). The Stabbers are in a similar boat (average 19 hits per unit * 8 units = 152 hits) being able to funnel 5 each through 7 Stabbers (for 35) and 6 more for the Warlord (for 41 DPR). The Minis still have a slight edge based on numbers. I'm still comfortable with it.

Note that buying units with +1 to their Combat stat is a +3 point difference, while giving them a medium weapon is a +5 point difference; same for Defense and armor. Is that made up for by the fact that if you're strapped for schmuckers you can stop paying the upkeep on the weapons and watch them vanish, while leaving your units intact?

* DPR = Damage Per Round

[Nihila]

Well, one thought would be to have some Dollamancers paired with a side, creating weapons and armor at the front, then letting it disband. Expensive in juice, cheap in points and Schmuckers. For the sake of an argument, I'll make the force 1 Warlord, 4 Mini Dollamancers (21 each), and 11 Minis. 84+121=205. Though, the Dollamancer creation, disband, creation... could be an exploit, though there's a very heavy long-term cost in juice for it. Let's see what that makes the stats.

36 on the Minis' Combat. 49 on the Stabbers' Combat. 33 Defense all. So, overall, the Minis... will probably lose, though the declining stack bonus might shift things for the Stabbers.

I'm also not really sure I like the fact that Warlords get annihilated in the first round of combat.

And, what, besides applying Leadership to each unit, would make it the bonus a "force multiplier," as Parson describes it in Book 1, Page 125, Panels 2-3?

[Chris Goodwin]

Well, one thought would be to have some Dollamancers paired with a side, creating weapons and armor at the front, then letting it disband. Expensive in juice, cheap in points and Schmuckers. For the sake of an argument, I'll make the force 1 Warlord, 4 Mini Dollamancers (21 each), and 11 Minis. 84+121=205. Though, the Dollamancer creation, disband, creation... could be an exploit, though there's a very heavy long-term cost in juice for it. Let's see what that makes the stats.

36 on the Minis' Combat. 49 on the Stabbers' Combat. 33 Defense all. So, overall, the Minis... will probably lose, though the declining stack bonus might shift things for the Stabbers.

Yeah, I still think I'm ok with it. (Oh, don't forget to add +10 to each of the Dollamancers for their Caster discipline... )

(I'd also say that the weapons and armor increase the unit's "point value" even though they don't necessarily increase its point cost. If that makes sense; it does to me...)

I'm also not really sure I like the fact that Warlords get annihilated in the first round of combat.

I'm not either. But, the higher the Warlord's level, the bigger a target he is -- if you could eliminate a stack's +10 bonus with one shot, who wouldn't take that? I have no idea how to discourage it mechanically without resorting to some kind of "patch" rule. (Which would be something like "Units can only apply damage to Warlords after all other units have been damaged or croaked.")

And, what, besides applying Leadership to each unit, would make it the bonus a "force multiplier," as Parson describes it in Book 1, Page 125, Panels 2-3?

"Force multiplier" is a technical term used by Parson. There's discussion of it in the Wiki at http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/Talk:Bonus. It doesn't mean a literal multiplication of combat bonuses; it actually comes from modern Earth military usage, where we typically don't have a way of quantifying combat power the way we do in a game. One guy versus 10 guys is going to result in the slaughter of the one guy, unless you give him a gun with 100 shots; that makes the gun a force multiplier.

To be honest, I think applying Leadership to each unit would reflect the comic better, especially in relation to the discussion about Transylvito style. It would also make Minis the preferred unit type across the land, as well as making Warlords an even bigger target than they already are. If a +10 bonus is a big target, how big a target is +80? Every engagement would be "Units meet. Warlords croak. Remaining forces fight unled until one side or the other is finished." That's one of the main reasons I don't want to do it; others are to keep things mathematically a bit more simple, and to keep some semblance of balance on the battlefield.

Btw, Nihila, I didn't mean to turn your thread into "discussion of Chris's game". If you want me to I'll start another thread. If you're okay with continuing to discuss it here I have no problem with that.

[Chris Goodwin]

If I have to ask the question, the answer is yes.

New thread for my game is here.

[Nihila]

I am entirely okay with discussing any ruleset here, as long as the creator is ready for a comprehensive attempt to ([joke]make him or her cry. [/joke]) show any possible problems in their system. I just don't have quite the dedication to make a full system, I'd probably just use someone else's almost completely.

However, I think that to fix the Mini exploit and the Warlord's casualty rate in two rule patches would be to firstly allow a Warlord to designate units to guard it as long as those units spoke Language and secondly to make it so that Mounts never spoke Language and neither did units with {(less than 4)<interchange on preference with>(3 or less)} Hits. The Minis would not be able to guard their Warlord, the Stabbers would, the Minis get stomped. (As proof of the statement about my lack of dedication, this rule is stolen from Kaed's game, with the bit about Language added to patch the Mini problem.)

Also, if each Warlord can designate a number say, equal to his level to guard him, the rule makes some sense. Bodyguards exist, and I think that an order of that specificity would need to be conveyed in speech.

Overall, this would be fairly consistent with events in the comic. In the Faq Gap Battle, I would mechanize it as having the huge GK stack broken into 10 or so little stacks, one of which had Stanley, Jack, and their dwagon, and the rest just spread out. The Doombats targeted the stacks and overwhelmed them due to Leadership and stack and the dwagons' lack thereof, but Artifact, Leadership, and mild stack bonus wrecked Cesar, but due to Stanley focusing on mass elimination, his attack spread out to the whole stack, only wounding Cesar.

[Chris Goodwin]

I am entirely okay with discussing any ruleset here, as long as the creator is ready for a comprehensive attempt to ([joke]make him or her cry. [/joke]) show any possible problems in their system. I just don't have quite the dedication to make a full system, I'd probably just use someone else's almost completely.

Heh. Feel free to whack at it over there. I want it to be beaten on comprehensively.

However, I think that to fix the Mini exploit and the Warlord's casualty rate in two rule patches would be to firstly allow a Warlord to designate units to guard it as long as those units spoke Language and secondly to make it so that Mounts never spoke Language and neither did units with {(less than 4)<interchange on preference with>(3 or less)} Hits. The Minis would not be able to guard their Warlord, the Stabbers would, the Minis get stomped. (As proof of the statement about my lack of dedication, this rule is stolen from Kaed's game, with the bit about Language added to patch the Mini problem.)

Hmmm. There's something there. If a Warlord is attacked, its player can automatically designate other units in the same stack to take the damage (as well as any other effects, like Poisoning) instead. The HP worth of units have to be at least as many HP as the Warlord would take (you couldn't throw one Mini to take 20 HP worth of damage), or all of the other units in the stack. Designating on the fly, so to speak. I would even say it's automatic, at least as far as the "in-game fiction" is concerned; units can to an extent react to their Ruler or Overlord's orders automatically, and surely one of those orders is "Protect your Warlord." There might be some circumstances under which this doesn't work, though; I recall various instances of "Target their leadership!" Figuring out how to do that is a separate issue.... maybe if you declare that it's either all or nothing. You have to declare it before attacking, you have to do enough damage to take out the Warlord, and he can't have enough guards in stack with him to suck down the damage. Just spitballing...

(I do have a -3 point Special: Non-Speaking, which essentially turns the unit into an animal. It can still understand and react to commands; I'm thinking of the scene in Book 1 where Jillian is trying to take down Stanley's dwagon and giving verbal commands to the stack of gwiffons she's with, including designating them by number.)

Also, if each Warlord can designate a number say, equal to his level to guard him, the rule makes some sense. Bodyguards exist, and I think that an order of that specificity would need to be conveyed in speech.

Overall, this would be fairly consistent with events in the comic. In the Faq Gap Battle, I would mechanize it as having the huge GK stack broken into 10 or so little stacks, one of which had Stanley, Jack, and their dwagon, and the rest just spread out. The Doombats targeted the stacks and overwhelmed them due to Leadership and stack and the dwagons' lack thereof, but Artifact, Leadership, and mild stack bonus wrecked Cesar, but due to Stanley focusing on mass elimination, his attack spread out to the whole stack, only wounding Cesar.

Maybe at a certain level, entire stacks get treated like units.

More on this later. It's late....

[Nihila]

Hmmm. There's something there. If a Warlord is attacked, its player can automatically designate other units in the same stack to take the damage (as well as any other effects, like Poisoning) instead. The HP worth of units have to be at least as many HP as the Warlord would take (you couldn't throw one Mini to take 20 HP worth of damage), or all of the other units in the stack. Designating on the fly, so to speak. I would even say it's automatic, at least as far as the "in-game fiction" is concerned; units can to an extent react to their Ruler or Overlord's orders automatically, and surely one of those orders is "Protect your Warlord." There might be some circumstances under which this doesn't work, though; I recall various instances of "Target their leadership!" Figuring out how to do that is a separate issue.... maybe if you declare that it's either all or nothing. You have to declare it before attacking, you have to do enough damage to take out the Warlord, and he can't have enough guards in stack with him to suck down the damage. Just spitballing...

But, when Sizemore took out the leaders, they were in a separate stack, thereby allowing the bomb to eliminate them after Shockamancy. Shockamancy+surprise has been the big capture/assassinate ploy. Also, I would say to the gwiffon orders, the gwiffons are responding to Natural Thinkamancy, but I would say for the guarding that the order to guard a Warlord is too complex to be accurately conveyed over Natural Thinkamancy.