Darkness Rising

[HerbieRai]

You guys are posting fast today. I just got caught up with the new heavy rules.

1: 4/4/8/12 {12} fire
2: 6/5/12/12{14} fire
3: 8/6/16/12{16} fire
4: 10/7/20/12 {18} fire, heavy

I get another (7+3*3 =) 16 combat points. So my final stats are:
4: 20/13/20/12 {18} fire, heavy

Bland - I believe all units (including mounts) level up when they get experiance. I'm not sure if Marbit is playing that way or not though.

[BLANDCorporatio]

I'm not sure about good mounts but it appears we'll have decent FLYING mounts at least. If we all have flying by that route it makes ground based melee almost obsolete... I'm now unsure about any benefits of Heavy except using Cupids route.

The relative worth of Heavy is dependent on the quality of the mounts, in particular the ones that are easy to access. So it is true that this discussion is skewed more by personal bias than hard data.

That said, it appears that a Heavy Archer that maxes Combat is more viable than a non-heavy one that does the same.

I believe all units (including mounts) level up when they get experiance. I'm not sure if Marbit is playing that way or not though.

Nope. This has just been Jossed.

[MarbitChow]

It appears that there is enough desire (and arguments in favor) that I'll allow regular mounts to level. Uncroaked and Constructs will still not be able to, however.

[Exate]

Yuri is mighty lord of war!

1: 8 Combat / 8 Defense / 17 Hits / 8 Move. Attack, Heavy.
2: 11 Combat / 11 Defense / 21 Hits / 8 Move. Attack, Heavy.
3: 12 Combat / 14 Defense / 31 Hits / 8 Move. Attack, Heavy.
4: 14 Combat / 18 Defense / 35 Hits / 8 Move. Attack, Rage, Heavy, Leadership.

He will lead our warriors in smashing puny enemies!

Edit: Ah, right, dragon treasure. Either of the +2 stat rings would probably suit Yuri best. No strong opinions on which one.

You've got 8 Level 2 Warriors, 8 Level 1 Warriors, 8 Level 1 Spearmen and 6 archers. Rebuild them to whatever you desire, including mixing and matching.

And speaking of our warriors... let's review and discuss this. Here are some ideas.

L2 Warrior build:
1: 8 Combat / 8 Defense / 17 Hits / 8 {8} Move. Attack, Heavy.
2: 8 Combat / 14 Defense / 21 Hits / 8 {8} Move. Attack, Heavy, Mighty Blow x2.
This is meant to be an offensive tank unit, able to charge into the teeth of the enemy and come out alive. The balance of stats for that is something that I might not have a great handle on- more Hits, less Defense? Something else? Dance-Fighting for what will hopefully be a constant sizable bonus, instead of Mighty Blowx2 which was intended to let them swap their high Defense for a high Combat after surviving any ranged attacks while they close the distance?

L1 Warrior build:
1: 5 Combat / 5 Defense / 22 Hits / 8 {8} Move. Attack, Beefy, Mighty Blow, Guard, Dance-Fighting.
Dance-Fighting and Beefy combined should make for a respectable combatant here. Mighty Blow should give it a little more offensive punch and Guard a bit of versatility.

L1 Spearman build:
1: 5 Combat / 4 Defense / 12 Hits / 8 {8} Move. Strike, Guard, Support, Dance-Fighting.
Guard and Support make it a very useful second-line unit; Dance-Fighting provides a much-needed core stat boost. Honestly, I'm not sure what to throw their last AP into. One of Beefy, Well-Armed, or Well-protected, I suppose.

L1 Archer build:
1: 7 Combat / 3 Defense / 10 Hits / 8 {8} Move. Fire, Support, Coordinate, Dance-Fighting.
This was designed primarily for volley fire. Stand in ranks while dancing, have all archers both Support and Coordinate with a unit in the center to give it +6 Combat per supporting archer. This should let them pop single high-difficulty targets fairly easily. To make them less bound to formations and more flexible, we could swap one of the abilities for Mighty Blow.

[Swodaems]

We don't have to give all the NPCs of one type the same same stats or keep them in the same stack. With 40+ units, we're undeniably short on leadership units and making a couple of those lvl 2 warriors leaders/dancers would allow them to significantly boost otherwise unled units.

Can we make mounts that can dance?

[The Colonel]

I can lead zombie hordes. And marbit, PLEASE remove the stacked with requirements of thriller? Please? Or allow larger stacks for uncroaked?

[MarbitChow]

Can we make mounts that can dance?

Not at first, but if you level a beast, you can take Dance Fighting for it.

[MarbitChow]

I can lead zombie hordes. And marbit, PLEASE remove the stacked with requirements of thriller? Please? Or allow larger stacks for uncroaked?

I'll think about it. If I change it, it will be set up in such a way that only croakamancers and undead can be in the stack, and it will be capped at +4/+4 like regular dance fighting. I may also increase the number of units required to gain each level of bonus.

[The Colonel]

That is reasonable, I just wanted a LARGE HORDE of zombie dancers

[MarbitChow]

Updated rules to allow the creation of a HORDE. See thriller for details. Also updated Thriller. If you buy Dance Fighting, you get Thriller for free now.

[0beron]

*is now tempted to ask for a "Domo Arigato" spell to mimic Thriller*

[MarbitChow]

*is now tempted to ask for a "Domo Arigato" spell to mimic Thriller*

Probably not going to happen. Uncroaked have a natural time limit built into them. Constructs don't. The more time passes, the larger your army can grow.

[0beron]

True, but I have to spend juice to heal them after battles, and my focus is also divided since I'm responsible for magic items too. But it's a high level ability so not something we need to worry about at present...you can add it once we get there if it seems balanced.

[Exate]

As long as the issue of stacking and the application of bonuses has come up, I still think we should try and implement a stack bonus rule and do away with the hard cap on the number of units in a stack. It could basically work exactly like our dance-fighting works, maxing at eight units and decreasing thereafter. Then we could implement logical stacking restrictions, instead of absurdities like being able to freely restack with units on the other side of the battlefield who are doing something completely different when it's not the turn for anyone involved to move anyway.

With 40+ units, we're undeniably short on leadership units and making a couple of those lvl 2 warriors leaders/dancers would allow them to significantly boost otherwise unled units.

This is something I had not realized or thought of and it's probably the right move. Tough to argue against the utility of additional leadership, and we don't need heavy infantry that badly while we're playing defense.

[0beron]

I still think we should try and implement a stack bonus rule and do away with the hard cap on the number of units in a stack. It could basically work exactly like our dance-fighting works, maxing at eight units and decreasing thereafter.

I think it would be more straightforward to just cap the stack bonus at 8. So you can have more than 8 units in the stack, but never increase the bonus beyond 8.

[Exate]

I still think we should try and implement a stack bonus rule and do away with the hard cap on the number of units in a stack. It could basically work exactly like our dance-fighting works, maxing at eight units and decreasing thereafter.

I think it would be more straightforward to just cap the stack bonus at 8. So you can have more than 8 units in the stack, but never increase the bonus beyond 8.

More straightforward, yes. However, it would also make it optimal to shove as many units as possible into one giant stack alongside your highest-level warlord so that everyone gets the largest possible bonus. We need rules that make it generally preferable for units to stack into groups of eight except unit unusual circumstances.

Admittedly, this could be compensated for in a variety of ways- for example, leadership bonuses could start getting diluted or reduced when spread amongst larger stacks, or stacks could be required to follow the same set of general orders (a "target those archers" sort of thing, with details allowed for exactly who targets what within the stack but no one allowed to do something that isn't in line with the stack's unified orders for the round). But simply saying "stacks are unlimited and get a bonus that stops going up after the first eight units" will only make people want to shove as many units as possible into a stack which benefits from as many stackwide bonuses as possible, creating a superpowered megastack that encompasses their entire army.

Avoiding that sort of thing is why the hard cap of eight units per stack was a decent idea in the first place.

[0beron]

Okay, what about this:
Stack bonus caps at +8. For every 2 units beyond 8, the bonus decreases by 1.
Exception: Insert list of spells or specials that allow a stack to ignore this rule, such as Thriller.
Its simple and direct, easily to Mathamance

[MarbitChow]

I think we're introducing enough new mechanics into the mix at this point that I'd like to see the current rules play out without tweaking the stacking rules too much more. Between the Heavy/Mount rules, the new AP point costs, and the new Dollamancer abilities, the next scenario has enough 'new toys'. We'll revisit the stacking mechanics (and the rules in general) again after we play through one or two more scenarios.

[0beron]

Hmm yes Marbit makes a very good point. Alrighty then, onwards to battle!

[MarbitChow]

True, but I have to spend juice to heal them after battles

I missed this in the first read. You don't have to spend juice to heal constructs after the battle; all units (including constructs, uncroaked, etc.) are healed to full at the start of each turn, although uncroaked will still decay.