Depending on the type of pass/fail, each method I can think of has issues:Nnelg wrote:How about have subduing be a pure pass/fail thing, so if you fail to subdue your target you do no damage at all?
If it's pure pass/fail type (same chance for all units), it's harder to avoid abuse. If everyone has the same chance, then a horde of low-level scrubs can take down a high-level unit easily.
If it's adjusted for level, then we need to create a new mechanic. My preference is to tweak existing mechanics whenever possible.
Even if we use the mechanism that we're discussing (Fatigue damage), and instead make that pass/fail, you run into situations where a unit cannot attack a unit without killing it, but also cannot do enough damage to ever subdue it. I'd rather just make it a cumulative damage type that does less damage.
That ends up being essentially a straight -3 damage penalty over the long run, which negligibly impacts high-damage targets but might change low-level units's chances from slim to impossible. It also eliminates the chance for a Critical Success/Failure Subdue attempt.Nnelg wrote:And instead of damage adjustment, how about just rolling 1d6 on the attack, instead of 2d6?
Agreed, but not because it's easier. Attacks to Subdue shouldn't be that easy to make, so a 1/2 damage penalty seems right. We could even add abilities that increase Fatigue damage for attackers who wish to specialize...0beron wrote:I would tweak it to half damage just for ease though.
I think I'm going to rule that attempts to Subdue must come from an adjacent unit (the attacker must carefully control the attack), so while Fire attacks COULD be used, it's unlikely that they would be unless the battlefield is already well-controlled.0beron wrote:The only question left to answer is whether Fire attacks can do this too. I think Marbit's post suggested that they can't, though I could see arguments in either direction so I just wanna make sure.