Empires X.1 Rules Revision

Your new games, homebrews, mods and ideas. Forum games go here.

Re: Empires X.1 Rules Revision

Postby GJC » Wed May 07, 2014 3:55 pm

Deo wrote:
LTDave wrote:How about limiting Fodder to A and B units?



The thing is that is what worries me. Going back to what GWvsJohn was similarly talking about a few pages ago. You could design a massive glass cannon at the higher point values and rest assured that that unit could not be touched till the fodder was dead.

For example I quickly put together a G that is 10/76/3/6. If there is no way at all to attack it till all fodder (or if its lucky) in the stack is dead, then I would just make a bunch of high HP and Defense fodder and stick 14 in a stack with two of them. Not counting the fodder units, that is 152 attacks from units that can not be killed till the rest of the stack is dead. I even stuck siege on it for good measure so now the two of them would destroy the defense structure they attack in two phases.


Well, as I understand it, your stack's damage drops as they take hits. The fodder units might die first, but if your stack loses 50% of its total hits, then it loses 50% of its total attack as well, no matter who dies first. Fodder would be good for preserving your high-value units from becoming casualties, but I don't think it'd actually be the meatshield you're expecting here.
User avatar
GJC
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 9:25 am

Re: Empires X.1 Rules Revision

Postby Silversought » Wed May 07, 2014 4:10 pm

Keeping the Combat reduction in mind, GJC's right, Deo. There's something to be said for using a screening stack for a high combat tank, but fodder itself will just make it less likely the tank will be a casualty.
Silversought
 
Posts: 229
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 10:17 pm

Re: Empires X.1 Rules Revision

Postby GWvsJohn » Wed May 07, 2014 4:39 pm

But you can create an army with a small number of effectively invulnerable glass cannons and multiple highs defense/hits D/E specials that are cheap and easy to replace.

I think hits should be divided evenly among units in a stack, then pooled for units of the same type and whole models removed if possible.

Edit: Actually, Leadership should play a role here. We know Warlords can direct combat. If your stack has a Warlord you should get to choose where the hits go.
GWvsJohn
 
Posts: 571
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 9:52 pm

Re: Empires X.1 Rules Revision

Postby GWvsJohn » Wed May 07, 2014 4:43 pm

GWvsJohn wrote:But you can create an army with a small number of effectively invulnerable glass cannons and multiple highs defense/hits D/E specials that are cheap and easy to replace.

I think hits should be divided evenly among units in a stack, then pooled for units of the same type and whole models removed if possible.

Edit: Actually, Leadership should play a role here. We know Warlords can direct combat. If your stack has a Warlord you should get to choose where the hits go.


Double edit: I also think Warlords should take hits last.
GWvsJohn
 
Posts: 571
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 9:52 pm

Re: Empires X.1 Rules Revision

Postby Silversought » Wed May 07, 2014 4:49 pm

GWvsJohn wrote:But you can create an army with a small number of effectively invulnerable glass cannons and multiple highs defense/hits D/E specials that are cheap and easy to replace.

I think hits should be divided evenly among units in a stack, then pooled for units of the same type and whole models removed if possible.

Edit: Actually, Leadership should play a role here. We know Warlords can direct combat. If your stack has a Warlord you should get to choose where the hits go.

Having a Warlord choose where the hits are taken makes battles take longer and depend more on player input.

Maybe by default hits go first to the lowest defense units in a stack.
Leadership means hits are divided evenly amongst the stack.
Lucky makes you count as a higher defense unit (higher than all non-lucky, apply normally for other lucky units) when unled, and with leadership you don't take hits until everybody else is down.
Fodder means you count as a lower defense unit (lower than all non-fodder, apply normally for other fodder units) when unled, and with leadership you take all hits until you're down.

Thoughts?
Silversought
 
Posts: 229
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 10:17 pm

Re: Empires X.1 Rules Revision

Postby GJC » Wed May 07, 2014 4:56 pm

That might be too much complexity, since dave would have to keep track of unit hp in battles, and weight the unit's combat averages. If he okays it, though, I'd be cool with it.
User avatar
GJC
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 9:25 am

Re: Empires X.1 Rules Revision

Postby Silversought » Wed May 07, 2014 5:02 pm

Not during battle, GJC. Just for determining casualties post-battle.

Stack takes X hits during battle, post-battle hit assignment follows those four rules (1 or 2 if you don't have those specials)
Silversought
 
Posts: 229
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 10:17 pm

Re: Empires X.1 Rules Revision

Postby SeraphRedux » Wed May 07, 2014 5:11 pm

I agree with the warlord should be the last unit in the stack to fall (unless specifically targeted somehow?), but I should point out that Dave did not in fact add Lucky to the ruleset, only Fodder. Therefore, any ruleset shouldn't include them (Unless Dave merely forgot to put them in the PDF, and is intending Lucky to still be a thing).

Also, should there be a special that makes a unit start garrisoned? Or an option to make units popped automatically be garrisoned when you pop them?
User avatar
SeraphRedux
 
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 5:17 am

Re: Empires X.1 Rules Revision

Postby Silversought » Wed May 07, 2014 5:18 pm

You can pop units as garrison units, Seraph. Already did this with some of my MobBits.
Silversought
 
Posts: 229
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 10:17 pm

Re: Empires X.1 Rules Revision

Postby Deo » Wed May 07, 2014 5:30 pm

SeraphRedux wrote:but I should point out that Dave did not in fact add Lucky to the ruleset, only Fodder. Therefore, any ruleset shouldn't include them (Unless Dave merely forgot to put them in the PDF, and is intending Lucky to still be a thing).



The last post on page four, the most recent post of specials from dave, listed lucky so I assume its in there.
User avatar
Deo
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:40 pm

Re: Empires X.1 Rules Revision

Postby SeraphRedux » Wed May 07, 2014 5:58 pm

Deo wrote:
SeraphRedux wrote:but I should point out that Dave did not in fact add Lucky to the ruleset, only Fodder. Therefore, any ruleset shouldn't include them (Unless Dave merely forgot to put them in the PDF, and is intending Lucky to still be a thing).



The last post on page four, the most recent post of specials from dave, listed lucky so I assume its in there.


I was just going by the pdf which has one but not the other. That is something to note, though. I'm not sure when he last updated the pdf, so the post might be the better thing to go by.
User avatar
SeraphRedux
 
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 5:17 am

Re: Empires X.1 Rules Revision

Postby Deo » Wed May 07, 2014 6:00 pm

SeraphRedux wrote:
Deo wrote:
SeraphRedux wrote:but I should point out that Dave did not in fact add Lucky to the ruleset, only Fodder. Therefore, any ruleset shouldn't include them (Unless Dave merely forgot to put them in the PDF, and is intending Lucky to still be a thing).



The last post on page four, the most recent post of specials from dave, listed lucky so I assume its in there.


I was just going by the pdf which has one but not the other. That is something to note, though. I'm not sure when he last updated the pdf, so the post might be the better thing to go by.



Which PDF? The one on the first post does not work for me, and the one in the main Erflia thread appears to not have been updated yet.
User avatar
Deo
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:40 pm

Re: Empires X.1 Rules Revision

Postby GJC » Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 pm

User avatar
GJC
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 9:25 am

Re: Empires X.1 Rules Revision

Postby LTDave » Wed May 07, 2014 6:15 pm

I took out lucky, and I might take out fodder as well if folks think it is too much / exploitable.

I'm starting to think "Skirmisher" is too powerful as well. I might remove that.

Nothing is set in concrete just yet! For those folks who are on 3rd design of units, stop. Unless you really enjoy that sort of thing. There is no rush here. I will make a final set late on my Friday night, and start turn 14. As your turn comes up, you can solidify your unit design. Without giving too much away, I don't think turn 14 is going to be big on battles - mostly vainglorious posturing.
User avatar
LTDave
 
Posts: 2374
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 7:53 pm

Re: Empires X.1 Rules Revision

Postby BrimStone » Wed May 07, 2014 6:24 pm

Personally I love tinkering with the units and designs :).
BrimStone
 
Posts: 170
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 11:25 am
Location: Bay Area, California

Re: Empires X.1 Rules Revision

Postby Deo » Wed May 07, 2014 6:30 pm

LTDave wrote:I took out lucky, and I might take out fodder as well if folks think it is too much / exploitable.

I'm starting to think "Skirmisher" is too powerful as well. I might remove that.

Nothing is set in concrete just yet! For those folks who are on 3rd design of units, stop. Unless you really enjoy that sort of thing. There is no rush here. I will make a final set late on my Friday night, and start turn 14. As your turn comes up, you can solidify your unit design. Without giving too much away, I don't think turn 14 is going to be big on battles - mostly vainglorious posturing.


Worst comes to worse you could adjust stuff on the fly if it feels like it is too powerful or difficult to counter.
User avatar
Deo
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:40 pm

Re: Empires X.1 Rules Revision

Postby SeraphRedux » Wed May 07, 2014 6:31 pm

Deo wrote:Which PDF? The one on the first post does not work for me, and the one in the main Erflia thread appears to not have been updated yet.


Somewhere on page 5 (least my page 5). I remember talking about if he should link that in the first post of this thread, for this exact reason.

LTDave wrote:I'm starting to think "Skirmisher" is too powerful as well. I might remove that.


I'd recommend taking skirmisher out, and bring Earthshaker, Footbiter, and Battlecwap back up to (4) for +8 efficiency. I remember stating that they invalidated Packmind, and that they should be either +7 or Packmind should be (3), but you did both. Since you lowered Packmind to (3), you can put the Earthshaker, Footbiter, and Battlecwap back to +8 without invalidating it as long as Packmind is staying at (3).

Those three specials are invalidated by Dance Fighting as they are currently, anyway, so it'd also fix that issue.


LTDave wrote:Nothing is set in concrete just yet! For those folks who are on 3rd design of units, stop. Unless you really enjoy that sort of thing.


Hit the nail on the head. But I fully understand things are in high octane flux, it's just a lot of fun theory cwafting.


Also, yay for vainglorious posting. :D
User avatar
SeraphRedux
 
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 5:17 am

Re: Empires X.1 Rules Revision

Postby GJC » Wed May 07, 2014 6:33 pm

Also, yay for vainglorious posting. :D

I believe he said "posturing", but posting is accurate as well.

Agree with the skirmisher issue.
User avatar
GJC
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 9:25 am

Re: Empires X.1 Rules Revision

Postby Deo » Wed May 07, 2014 6:37 pm

SeraphRedux wrote:
Deo wrote:
LTDave wrote:I'm starting to think "Skirmisher" is too powerful as well. I might remove that.


I'd recommend taking skirmisher out, and bring Earthshaker, Footbiter, and Battlecwap back up to (4) for +8 efficiency. I remember stating that they invalidated Packmind, and that they should be either +7 or Packmind should be (3), but you did both. Since you lowered Packmind to (3), you can put the Earthshaker, Footbiter, and Battlecwap back to +8 without invalidating it as long as Packmind is staying at (3).


I am actually ok with that as even though it is cheaper and could be slightly more effective, Packmind only gives you the equivalent +8 bonus if you stack with 16 units, which is normally handicapped by the effective end of bonuses you get with a 8 unit bonus. Packmind is actually ensuring that at 16 units it gets the same bonus per unit as the normal stack of 8 do.

Stacks get a bonus up to +8
Packmind stacks get a bonus to +16. But only if every unit is packmind and of the same type!!

This means no mixed stacks for packmind units unless you dont want it to be an equal bonus to Earthshaker and the others.

I think it makes sense for it to be 1 point cheaper and to have a +1 point advantage, as you lose the ability to have as effective mixed stacks and you need to actually have 16 units to achieve the +8.
User avatar
Deo
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:40 pm

Re: Empires X.1 Rules Revision

Postby GWvsJohn » Wed May 07, 2014 6:41 pm

Letting Warlords direct hits makes things easier, not harder. Side with warlord just makes a priority list of targets and Dave allocates the hits that way. It's easier than trying to to find a fair way to randomize them.
GWvsJohn
 
Posts: 571
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 9:52 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Your Games

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: SeraphRedux and 1 guest