Darkness Rising - Rules (v2.0)

[MarbitChow]

A clarification on all the modifications to Fire - do casters still have the ability to target specifically (Call the Shot, right?) or are we "dumb" shooters too now?
Methinks BLAND may not like the direction this is all going...

Casters are 'dumb' shooters as well. If you want to be able to single a target out, buy Hoboken.

BLAND hasn't used Support/Coordinate at all, an remains an ungodly damage-dealer that can hit a bulls-eye 18 squares away. The new rules give BLAND 2 mighty blows for free (4 if he had the defense to use them all...). BLAND has little to complain about.

Well we've never really abused the support/Coordinate trickery

You haven't. I can. The question is - do you want these tactics used against you?

[bob the 6th]

Ok, so by giving spending the fire actions of a fair number of archer units, they could deal some damage to a stack and OMGWTFBBQ one unit. Outside of level four units with called shot, this isn't that impressive. Yes it could start sniping high priority targets... but they could already do that.

Also, I should point out... I made Rudy with the direct intention of USING COORDINATE/SUPPORT... including speculation on the crazy numbers it could produced. Still, I don't see why it is so terrible when the main problem comes from level 4 units at the minimum, which are a pain to get.

[Nnelg]

Well, I might be a little biased, but I don't see why making coordinate and support target stacks is such a big deal. It has the same effect as the normal version, given that actually hitting a target is still random.

It's a big deal because Archers are already overpowered compared to infantry. Unless you want the game to degenerate into modern-style combat (where every unit is ranged)...

Will we be able to order our NPCs to keep a specific formation?

When a squad moves, it moves in formation. You won't need to order them to, and you can't order them NOT to without disbanding the squad.

Will we be allowed to order them to change formation, at least? (Possibly using a regroup action?)

And can we at least tell them when to move, so that they won't leave anyone behind? (Or will follow the PC, when he moves?)

[MarbitChow]

Will we be allowed to order them to change formation, at least? (Possibly using a regroup action?)
And can we at least tell them when to move, so that they won't leave anyone behind? (Or will follow the PC, when he moves?)

Yes. Your units aren't stupid. If you order a move action in a mixed squad, they'll delay until the lowest phase so that they all move together and avoid being sniped (unless you deliberately order them to do so; to draw fire, for example). If the PC orders them to follow (and delays until they can), they'll stick right by him.

I'll resolve the orders as intelligently as I can, without trying to screw you guys over by deliberately bad placement. As the GM, I've got unlimited resources to screw you over; I don't need to make the game artificially difficult by making your own units untrustworthy (assuming Military units; unled uncroaked could wind up being quite stupid, of course).

[bob the 6th]

See, the huge range is a bit of an issue... but melee gets targeting, and more AP. They can heavy from level one, and add other big buffs...
I don't know... perhaps have archery get a different version of coordinate? Call it volly, they have to all attack as a group on one target stack. If they do they all get a bonus to combat equal to their average level they can divide among the group.

So a stack of 6 level 1, a level 2, and a level 4 volly. they get +1.5 combat each, or +12 to one member. or a group of level 2s with a 4th level warlord would get a +2.25 per member, or +18 to one member.

sound better? can still get some serious damage on, but not the same over nine thousand bonus.

[Werebiscuit]

See, the huge range is a bit of an issue... but melee gets targeting, and more AP. They can heavy from level one, and add other big buffs...
I don't know... perhaps have archery get a different version of coordinate? Call it volly, they have to all attack as a group on one target stack. If they do they all get a bonus to combat equal to their average level they can divide among the group.

So a stack of 6 level 1, a level 2, and a level 4 volly. they get +1.5 combat each, or +12 to one member. or a group of level 2s with a 4th level warlord would get a +2.25 per member, or +18 to one member.

sound better? can still get some serious damage on, but not the same over nine thousand bonus.

The problem with co-ordinate/support is that melee can get +6 max becuase of targetting/adjacency whereas archers can get +24. and thats only with co-ordinate it gets worse now that they can co-ordinate AND support at level 2. Giving them access to +48 Even at level 4 with 2 level 4's supporting a warrior can't apply +48
How do you propose we resolve ?

[MarbitChow]

How about a compromise:

Archers can target squads w/ Support / Coordinate, but Support / Coordinate only grant +1 Combat / +0 Defense when used with Fire actions, and we require that all Combat Modifiers only apply to units in the same squad, so that limits the craziness even further. So, it can still be used, but unlike with Melee attacks, you can't finesse the position of the target to do as much damage. A paragon archer in a squad of skilled Level 2s could still get +28 Combat for his 2 shots, and the units don't suffer any defensive penalty.

[Werebiscuit]

How about a compromise:

Archers can target squads w/ Support / Coordinate, but Support / Coordinate only grant +1 Combat / +0 Defense when used with Fire actions, and we require that all Combat Modifiers only apply to units in the same squad, so that limits the craziness even further. So, it can still be used, but unlike with Melee attacks, you can't finesse the position of the target to do as much damage. A paragon archer in a squad of skilled Level 2s could still get +28 Combat for his 2 shots, and the units don't suffer any defensive penalty.

If a paragon warrior can also get +28 from a skilled level 2 squad...I don't see any objection

[MarbitChow]

If a paragon warrior can also get +28 from a skilled level 2 squad...I don't see any objection

With a skilled level 2 Warrior on each side, you could get +24 (2 support, 2 coordinate). Put 3 spearmen behind you, and that's another +30.

If you need that kind of bonus for something standing in front of you, odds are that you are going to be severely hurt in the process, which is something that the Archers don't have to risk. Also, flying targets laugh at your stack.

[MarbitChow]

Survey: Raze Cities?
The comic supports it, and most games support it. Do we want to implement it? We'd simply need to determine the shmuckers gained for razing a city, and the cost to pop a level 1 city on a raze city hex.

I'm assuming that a razed city would generate 3/4ths of the shmuckers required to raise the city to its current level. Assume it costs 2000 shmuckers to upgrade a razed city hex to Level 1.

Razing a city of each level would result -
1: 1500 (0.75 * 2000)
2: 4500 (0.75 * (2000 + 4000))
3: 11250 (0.75 * (2000 + 4000 + 9000))
4: 23250 (0.75 * (2000 + 4000 + 9000 + 16000))
5: 42000 (0.75 * (2000 + 4000 + 9000 + 16000 + 25000))

Thoughts?

[Swodaems]

I don't see any problems with you giving us the ability to raze cities. The numbers seem right for it. I do, however, wish for a "delevel" mechanic. (IE. If we want to change Tenebris from a 5 to 4 with out a "delevel" mechanic, according to the razing rules, we would have to first raze the whole thing for 42000 and then rebuild for 31000, netting us 11000 or 44% of the cost of raising it to level 5 from level 4. To "delevel" it to 4 would be to get a bit more money out of it.)

That was prior to Nnelg's suggestion that ballista & catapult get limber/unlimber actions to transition between move & fire. Now, a catapult / ballista would need to move into range (I'm assuming 24 squares plus 6 squares per elevation, and giving Fire attacks 18 squares plus 4 squares/elevation), and limber, then load, then fire. That gives defensive catapults / ballista 1 or 2 shots to kill operators. It also gives an advantage to fliers who can shoot at grounded archers from out of range.

I am forced to ask how far Logan's Run's wall is from the hex border. Could we take this city by just sending in Cupid? With enough space between the wall and the hex border, he could do it alone. He'd be an elevation level higher than the enemy and they wouldn't be able to hit him. Since Logan's Run has no door, the enemy archers can't move out of the walls to a place on the ground where they could hit him. They could retreat to the cover of the houses, but that denies them the opportunity to shoot at our troops advancing across the field.

Also, we're going to be popping a lot more fliers in coming turns and making sure every city we have is equipped with a tower.

How about a compromise:

Archers can target squads w/ Support / Coordinate, but Support / Coordinate only grant +1 Combat / +0 Defense when used with Fire actions, and we require that all Combat Modifiers only apply to units in the same squad, so that limits the craziness even further. So, it can still be used, but unlike with Melee attacks, you can't finesse the position of the target to do as much damage. A paragon archer in a squad of skilled Level 2s could still get +28 Combat for his 2 shots, and the units don't suffer any defensive penalty.

There goes a plan to use Bill's skele archers to boost an array of level 4 characters with fire at Logan's run. Now they can only boost Bill. (I assume the word 'stack' could easily be replaced with the word 'horde' in the above quote.)

[MarbitChow]

The only 'delevel' mechanic in the Comic was Sizemore, so I'm going to assume that's a Dirtamancy function, and even that didn't really look selective - just from Level 5 down to 1. I'd rather just keep Raze & Restore as the delevel mechanic instead of implementing 2 rules.

You won't be able to take the City by sending in Cupid. Although Range Limits have been discussed in the Rules set, the rules were not updated to include them before I declared the rules 'final', so at present, archery is still officially unlimited in range.

I'm not sure that the Elevation modifiers for range will make it into the final rules for Fire actions; I'll probably only end up including it for Siege Structures, to give a slight advantage to the defenders. Archers & Fliers will almost certainly always be able to engage each other.

[Werebiscuit]

If you need that kind of bonus for something standing in front of you, odds are that you are going to be severely hurt in the process, which is something that the Archers don't have to risk. Also, flying targets laugh at your stack.

And these appear to be some of the benefits that archers tend to forget they have, when they go on about warriors other big buffs...

... but melee gets targeting, and more AP. They can heavy from level one, and add other big buffs...

Currently warriors are the worst kind of fighting units for adding 'combat adds' to due to adjacency & targetting ( thanks for making the spearman point BTW ) I'd suggest armour as a means to make a difference but that'd mean more bookkeeping and is probably what heavy ( or beefy) already does anyway.
And opponents don't even have to be flying to laugh at a warrior stack...an archer up a tree would destroy a warrior stack currently.

I don't want to nerf archers....I wan't to ensure theres a valid choice between warrior, spearman and archer. But currently on the battlefield its archer ( with 7 adjacent adds) > spearman (with 5 adjacent) > warrior (2 adjacent). I'm hoping we can come to a solution as each should have their place.

[MarbitChow]

I don't want to nerf archers....I wan't to ensure theres a valid choice between warrior, spearman and archer. But currently on the battlefield its archer ( with 7 adjacent adds) > spearman (with 5 adjacent) > warrior (2 adjacent). I'm hoping we can come to a solution as each should have their place.

I'm currently lumping Warrior & Spearmen together. I'm assuming that the Warrior builds are going to combine damage & defense, while the 2nd row of spearmen will lean more towards damage (or bodyguarding to spread the damage out). I want to balance Melee vs. Ranged, with each type getting multiple effective builds. But I think scaling back the support / coordinate Archer madness, and eventually implementing ranges, will go a long way towards balancing the scales.

I'm also thinking about granting warriors & spearmen additional Defense & Hits as they level in addition to the regular Combat Stats, but we'll save that for the next round of rules enhancements.

[Nnelg]

I'm also thinking about granting warriors & spearmen additional Defense & Hits as they level in addition to the regular Combat Stats, but we'll save that for the next round of rules enhancements.

Have you considered adding a rule to say that you can't dump all your combat stats into one stat each level?

I suppose it's not really something that's up for consideration now, but it would help curb the ridiculousness of current min-maxing a bit.

[MarbitChow]

Have you considered adding a rule to say that you can't dump all your combat stats into one stat each level?

Nope. That's another one that's not going to happen. Archers, Shockamancers, Healamancers, Dollamancers, Bodyguards - all have very good reasons to dump everything into one stat. I added the ability to put your stats wherever you want because I didn't want every unit to be mostly the same. (The original rules only allowed units to choose 1 pt. to allocate each level.)

I *like* min-maxing. I assume most gamers do as well.

Warriors and Spearmen still need a bit more lovin'. Defense isn't a stat most people raise, due to 'ignores defense' attacks. Making melee just a bit tougher than everyone else fits into the genre, and would (slightly) offset the advantage Ranged units get.

But again, this is still in the idle musing stage - nothing will change until the next major rules revision, which will be months away if the past is an indication.

[Nnelg]

I *like* min-maxing. I assume most gamers do as well.

Well, I personally loathe it. (And I would guess that, if asked, the majority of wargamers would as well.)

What's fun for me is choosing between multiple valid tactical options. Min-maxing works opposite to this, reducing the number of valid options to one, where winning or losing is decided more by who manages to enact their min-maxed strategy better than any real tactical decisions made in-game.

[MarbitChow]

That's fine for table-top wargaming, or even on-line computer gaming, when you get responses back in near real-time. As the current discussion has proven, the more choices that are provided, the longer it takes to come to a consensus, and that's no fun either. Darkness Rising isn't a wargame. It's an RPG with wargaming elements.

[Nnelg]

Hm... Then perhaps when we finally start the next mission, we can use the parallel strategy thread to get a head start on planning the one after that.

[MarbitChow]

Under the Unit Creation, Leveling, and Special Abilities section, I clarified targeting subgroups if a stack physically splits into smaller groups.