|
|
Post by phreedh on Apr 1, 2010 18:20:05 GMT 1
So, there have been a few discussions on the yahoo group and here on the boards regarding poor quality troops (ie Q4+ and Q5+).
How about gathering it here, in one thread, instead of accidently derailing Andrea's thread re SBH 4.4? =)
The way I see it, there are a few problems with the application of the Quality attribute when you play homogenous warbands. As we in my group love narrative, and basically use SBH as an RPG without the role playing, this has been a bit of a problem. I know the original intent (and my original intent when getting SBH) is to play a more competitive game, using mixed warbands with maybe an orc or two, some skeletons, a few humans and maybe a dark elf. The system works very well under those circumstances. For my whole argumentation, let's assume I'm playing an orc warband with no leader versus a human warband with a leader.
First problem is really two, but both have the same cause; the "turn over problem". The orcs causes turn overs much more often than the humans. This in turn leads to out running, as the orcs roll less dice AND succeed on less dice as well. In the end, humans get many more activations. One can argue that the orcs have more models, but that's usually only one or two models.
Next problem is morale. One gruesome kill, and the orcs are very likely to be toast - even more so if they have been winning and are close to the opponent's table edge but with opponent troops inbetween! This can lead to very abrupt and unsatisfying game ends. I've given a suggestion on changes to the fleeing behaviour and status in the 4.4 thread. Those changes would ease the ill effects of mass routing while still having it be a massive drawback for the fleeing faction.
There is also another problem with morale though, or rather in what the Quality attribute represents. "The model's willingness to fight, reaction speed, initiative and morale." says the rules... Now, let's have a look at human light infantry vs human heavy infantry. Light infantry has Q3+ and C2. Heavy infantry Q4+ and C4 and also short move. Is it reasonable that the armored, more elite unit type is much more likely to flee? I don't think so. This is more of a roster question than anything else though.
I have been thinking about this A LOT! and I can't say I've found any easy ways to "fix" what might not be a real problem with the system but rather my expectations on the system.
Here are some ideas I have kicked about though. They're single ideas, not all of them will mix with the others. I'm just brain storming basically.
Two failures do NOT cause a turn over. Reasoning: It's bad enough to have your troll just stand around doing nothing. Why should the rest of your team suffer? Downside: Removes the strategic decisions on what to activate first. Instead you can just freely activate your troll first, if it works it works. If not, you can go ahead with your other fellas. Might not be the best idea.
Two natural 1 causes a turn over. Same as above, but to maintain the risk of activations snake eyes will cause a turn over. This has the added benefit that it levels the playing field, ie any kind of troops have the same chance of causing turn-overs and the Q-difference will dictate only that miniature's own willingness to fight. I like this approach better and will house rule it next time we play just to test it. I'm sure you've tried something similar during development, Andrea. What's your opinion on this?
Leveling of the Q attribute and tweaking with skills. At the moment, there are only positive Morale affecting skills (Fearless, Steadfast, Gregarious etc). We could also have negative skills, like "cowardly". Might exist in expansions, I don't have all of them. Likewise, we could have skills changing the effects of failed activation rolls - assuming the regular turn over rules are used. Like "this model causes a turn over only on three failures" or "this model is not affected by turn overs".
In other discussions regarding the poor Q troops, I've seen mentions of altering the point costs etc - but that doesn't really solve any problems IMO. Instead of 10 crappy guys who ends your turn prematurely, you'd have 15 guys and an even higher risk of getting shafted.
I know not all of my ideas are great, and I'm not expecting anyone to take them at face value. Hopefully they can provide a base for discussion though and "our" game can be improved even more. I might have a different perspective than most others as we don't play "competitive" games as such, but rather an "adventure" type of game.
|
|
|
|
Post by phreedh on Apr 1, 2010 18:21:26 GMT 1
And uhm... sorry about the wall of text. =(
|
|
|
|
Post by The Beer Ogre on Apr 1, 2010 19:14:16 GMT 1
The thing is... if you are taking a lower Quality... it is typically because you want to make your model cheaper. By removing the penalty (i.e. greater chance of a turnover) you are removing the "downside" to having a poor Quality.
However, a model can balance a poor Quality with a better Combat score... consider this...
A Human with Q:3+ C:3 is 30pts... but an Orc with Q:4+ C:4 is also 30pts...
The Orc might roll a turnover more often and isn't as disciplined, but it is more difficult to beat in combat.
The way round the poor Quality problem is tactical. When you don't want a turnover (say when you are moving important models), you roll fewer D6 to activate... when you are down to your last few models... go for it and roll 3D6 as at that point it shouldn't matter if you roll a turnover.
If you are playing a campaign, there are also awards you can get that allow you to re-roll some failed Quality checks. These are invaluable to low Quality warbands like Orcs.
|
|
|
|
Post by charger3604bbl on Apr 1, 2010 19:28:51 GMT 1
From our campaign I learned quite well that it is near impossible to do do anything against a warband with Q: 2 (whether it's natural or from a leader.) There is no reason not to take as many Q: 2 guys as possible; the points difference between 3 and 2 is negligable compared to the benefit you get.
I really like the idea about only snake eyes causing turnovers. Q: 2 warbands already roll all three activation dice and steamroll a warband with a worse quality; this would help level the playing field.
I would use this only in competitive play however, and only with SBH (for now.) Fear and Faith, and any other scenario games where the players don't supply their own warband should be designed to take the Quality issue into account.
Chris
|
|
|
|
Post by phreedh on Apr 1, 2010 19:49:26 GMT 1
Beer Ogre - while you're right in theory, you're missing the point of my original post. I'm taking a lower Quality model because the warband is all orcs, as our campaign dictates it. Not because I'm min-maxing in a tournament. This discussion is all about the perspective.
Also, the turn-over is not the only down side of a poor quality stat. You also have morale failures and actual less activations.
I could have combat 10 on all orcs, and I would still be out manouvered by elves. If it's a scenario which doesn't involve clobbering everything moving to a red pulp the higher combat is a pretty small comfort. Also, combat 4 is not exclusive to low quality. The discussion is about low quality models effect on the game, especially when a warband is 100% low quality.
Basically, I want to play adventure games. I don't want to switch system to Broadsword Adventures and start book keeping head wounds and leg wounds. I want to keep it simple, with a rule set I like and enjoy. However, I get the feeling SBH is more designed for pick-up-and-play one-offs than anything else.
Chris:
Why would you only take the snake eyes variant in competetive play? If anything, I'd want it in beer & pretzel games to get a more epic clash which doesn't end in a blue puff when 5 of 9 miniatures in a war band buggers off due to a gruesome pasting. Yes, it happened to me - and yes, I am a bit bitter as I had custom built terrain (simple, but still) and painted up some miniatures for that scenario only. =) With different quality-related rules (morale, activation) things might've looked very different.
|
|
|
|
Post by charger3604bbl on Apr 1, 2010 19:52:06 GMT 1
However, a model can balance a poor Quality with a better Combat score... consider this... A Human with Q:3+ C:3 is 30pts... but an Orc with Q:4+ C:4 is also 30pts... The Orc might roll a turnover more often and isn't as disciplined, but it is more difficult to beat in combat. One on one, yes. A group of better quality humans will quickly surround him and crush him with the -1 for multiple combatants. The way round the poor Quality problem is tactical. When you don't want a turnover (say when you are moving important models), you roll fewer D6 to activate... when you are down to your last few models... go for it and roll 3D6 as at that point it shouldn't matter if you roll a turnover. And as you only roll one or two dice, slowly advancing up the field, the warband with the better Q: has already taken the objective or maneuvered into an easily defended position where it can use it's cover and speed to quickly pick your warband to pieces. If you are playing a campaign, there are also awards you can get that allow you to re-roll some failed Quality checks. These are invaluable to low Quality warbands like Orcs. I believe there is only one warband advancement to counter a failed Quality check, and they come at a hefty price depending on what the objective for victory in the campaign is. Our campaign was judges strictly on campaign points, and spending those could seriously hurt one's chances of winning. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love this engine. It's one of my few core games I still play, and I will continue to play and support it. Every ruleset has parts that people like and dislike, and I'm just dicussing options for house rules instead of saying one way is right or wrong. Chris |
|
|
|
Post by charger3604bbl on Apr 1, 2010 20:47:00 GMT 1
Chris: Why would you only take the snake eyes variant in competetive play? If anything, I'd want it in beer & pretzel games to get a more epic clash which doesn't end in a blue puff when 5 of 9 miniatures in a war band buggers off due to a gruesome pasting. Yes, it happened to me - and yes, I am a bit bitter as I had custom built terrain (simple, but still) and painted up some miniatures for that scenario only. =) With different quality-related rules (morale, activation) things might've looked very different. Only to keep play cometitive. There are a fair number of scenarios that need speed as well as brute stregth, and I think it would give everyone a better chance at winning some games. Of course if people wanted to use this in casual games it would be fine, too. I just wouldn't use it in a scenario I designed. If things go badly due to a morale roll or something, we play again! Chris |
|
|
|
Post by The Beer Ogre on Apr 1, 2010 21:03:59 GMT 1
Beer Ogre - while you're right in theory, you're missing the point of my original post. I'm taking a lower Quality model because the warband is all orcs, as our campaign dictates it. Not because I'm min-maxing in a tournament. This discussion is all about the perspective. If your campaign limits you to a particular spread of stats (and special rules... you didn't say if you are)... then it is not the fault of the system that you are getting more turnovers. If you are running a campaign then I would imagine you have rewards and stat improvements? They are the solution to your Quality problems. Also, the turn-over is not the only down side of a poor quality stat. You also have morale failures and actual less activations. As I said above... poorly disciplined... I understand that lower quality will result in more morale failures. I could have combat 10 on all orcs, and I would still be out manouvered by elves. If it's a scenario which doesn't involve clobbering everything moving to a red pulp the higher combat is a pretty small comfort. Also, combat 4 is not exclusive to low quality. The discussion is about low quality models effect on the game, especially when a warband is 100% low quality. If a scenario is designed to ignore a models Combat score, then the lower Quality model will always have the advantage... that's one poor scenario... Anyway... if you discuss the effects of Quality (high or low) in a vacuum (i.e. without considering Combat and special rules), then you are ignoring a big part of the game. Basically, I want to play adventure games. I don't want to switch system to Broadsword Adventures and start book keeping head wounds and leg wounds. I want to keep it simple, with a rule set I like and enjoy. However, I get the feeling SBH is more designed for pick-up-and-play one-offs than anything else. Perhaps... however, I think it depends how your campaign is structured. Chris: Why would you only take the snake eyes variant in competetive play? If anything, I'd want it in beer & pretzel games to get a more epic clash which doesn't end in a blue puff when 5 of 9 miniatures in a war band buggers off due to a gruesome pasting. Yes, it happened to me - and yes, I am a bit bitter as I had custom built terrain (simple, but still) and painted up some miniatures for that scenario only. =) With different quality-related rules (morale, activation) things might've looked very different. It also could be just bad luck... a few bad rolls is all it takes to beat any SBH warband... Would you mind posting the stat profiles you are using. The stat lines I use for basic Orcs in my own campaign is this... ORC SOLDIERPTS:35 Q:4+ C:4 Special Rules: Honorbound My Orcs are noble-savages, a warrior race, like WoW Orcs and Klingons, rather than GW greenskins or Lord of the Rings monsters. Honorbound [+3pts]This model automatically passes morale checks as long as it is in base contact with an active enemy. Maybe something like that would help your Orcs...? |
|
|
|
Post by The Beer Ogre on Apr 1, 2010 21:20:56 GMT 1
One on one, yes. A group of better quality humans will quickly surround him and crush him with the -1 for multiple combatants. ;D As long as we're making up scenarios... I'll have an equal number of Orcs... a brick of Q:4+ C:4 Orcs is pretty mean! Especially my Orcs!!!  (see above) And as you only roll one or two dice, slowly advancing up the field, the warband with the better Q: has already taken the objective or maneuvered into an easily defended position where it can use it's cover and speed to quickly pick your warband to pieces. This is an ideal situation... you assume that such a situation is possible in a given game. Meanwhile, I'm going to rely on my "Orc Brick"... I can guarantee that will turn up! I believe there is only one warband advancement to counter a failed Quality check, and they come at a hefty price depending on what the objective for victory in the campaign is. Our campaign was judges strictly on campaign points, and spending those could seriously hurt one's chances of winning. But there is an award... albeit an expensive one... if you think the cost is too high, perhaps you should agree to some campaign rules like... Warbands with a low Quality score get a 25% discount on the Quality reroll award, while low Combat warbands get a 25% discount on the Combat reroll award. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love this engine. It's one of my few core games I still play, and I will continue to play and support it. Every ruleset has parts that people like and dislike, and I'm just dicussing options for house rules instead of saying one way is right or wrong. No bother... the rules are meant to be tweaked to fit your own games... it supposed to be fun after all...  |
|
|
|
Post by phreedh on Apr 1, 2010 22:45:22 GMT 1
Beer Ogre, as I said - we're not playing the game as a series of competitive matches where we get awards to pimp out our "teams". The orcs are not "my" orcs, they're just... orcs. =) We've done that tournament type of campaign, but what we're looking at now is to have an over arching story line where my mate plays the main characters' party and I would play his opponents, of different kinds, in a series of maybe ten scenarios. While his warband would gain experience and change over time, I wouldn't have a warband. I'd only act as a "game master", or rather facilitator and use the opponents the story dictates.
I still think the turn-over rule is a buzz-kill in its current form, and it severely limits the fun in using lower quality models. I would never field a troll (as written in the rule book) with a throng of orcs (as they are in the rules) as it would be turnover galore. I wouldn't want to play versus it either. My enjoyment was defenitely lesser when I played humans vs an orc gang fielded by my cousin. The same way he didn't exactly cheer with joy when his Q3 gang won on a walk-over by my Q4 gang as they all failed the morale test and fled.
I want to make any Q-roll (be it activations or morale) less decisive. Hence my suggestions. There will still be turn-overs, there will even be turn-overs on the first activation. However, you can attempt to move a troll with two dice. It's not even likely he will move - but at least the other guys will be able to do something. Better Q-average will still mean more activations. I don't see the problem, really. Or well, I do see one. There would be less agonizing over in which order to do things, as you're more likely to be able to act with all your models - which is sort of the point of the tweak anyways. =)
|
|
|
|
Post by theswlion on Apr 1, 2010 23:10:11 GMT 1
For my whole argumentation, let's assume I'm playing an orc warband with no leader versus a human warband with a leader. I guess I have a problem with this whole argument. I think the game is built and designed around having a leader leading a warband. The warband is more effective with a leader, and I would expect the Orc warband to have a hard time without a leader. In fact, if it had one, I would concentrate on killing it, to reduce the effectiveness of the warband. I've played Q4 warbands with leaders against better Q warbands with leaders and won the game. Without a leader, I would expect to lose efficiency in the warband and have more turnovers. I don't know why I would ever field a warband without a leader, but I may see it in the case of a particular scenario. However, if that scenario is along the lines of an "Alll Out Battle" then I will expect to have a hard time winning the game. I think the majority of SBH (and FL) is about resource allocation and managing your troops with the leader. Maybe you guys need to wait for the Tales of Blades and Heroes to do what you want to do. |
|
|
|
Post by phreedh on Apr 2, 2010 7:33:40 GMT 1
I don't know why I would ever field a warband without a leader Me neither, and so far I've never played a game where both sides don't have a leader. =) Forgot a thought I had yesterday. Another suggestion on how to change turn-over... and I also thought about how changing the turn-over behaviour as I'm suggesting would lower the value of a leader, as he no longer help prevent turn-overs. Anyways, the turn-over alteration: When a model fails two (or more) activations, he gets no actions but doesn't cause a turn-over. You could use the snake-eyes rule here too, to get the risk of turn-overs. |
|
|
|
Post by richjones on Apr 2, 2010 8:21:26 GMT 1
I don't think there is any problem if one plays the game properly ... taking any group without a leader doesn't make any sense what so ever unless it is a very small high quality squad like say SG-1 or in fantasy terms maybe some 'hit' elves! Actually even with my SG-1 or commando 4 men squads one is a leader (and not normally the hero 'action man').
We often use Quality 5 'rank and file' troops and our mainstay troops are Quality 4 with Leaders and NCOs being Q3. Heroes are normally only Q3. Where people go wrong is not taking leaders and trying to pimp out most of the warband leaving the only choice to take some crappy characters at the end and letting them lag.
I see songs basically as a semi opposed RPG where most characters will have some abilities or where the leader and heroes will have some 'extras' to use as cannon fodder. Turn overs are what make the game, deciding how many dice to throw is what gives the 'simple' game a deal of its tactical appeal.
Make the Quality more homogeneous or make it have less effect and you are basically going to be playing a different game. Do this and make the groups less RPG like by not using abilities and then you are going to be playing a rather dull and boring IGO UGO very predictable game.
SOBH is basically a VERY SIMPLE game mechanic wise but one which really is aimed at around 10 characters - no one is going to play a boring IGO UGO game with 10 characters!
By not specifying what one has to take and what one doesn't leaves the games very open and enjoyable, players can cater the band to their style of play ... the down side is some combinations are not going to work and leaderless lower quality bands are a prime example. Just like in real life leave a group of soldiers of any era without a leader and they are NOT going to get around to doing a lot believe me and would be very quick to sidle away " there were millions of 'em Sir ...."
Best thing about SOBH is that whatever genre you have to be playing, no matter how fun, fantastical or historical the games are you have to use common sense and 'real life' ideas to succeed ... if one doesn't it is hardly a failing of the rules!
Rich J
|
|
|
|
Post by The Beer Ogre on Apr 2, 2010 9:17:08 GMT 1
Beer Ogre, as I said - we're not playing the game as a series of competitive matches where we get awards to pimp out our "teams". The orcs are not "my" orcs, they're just... orcs. =) We've done that tournament type of campaign, but what we're looking at now is to have an over arching story line where my mate plays the main characters' party and I would play his opponents, of different kinds, in a series of maybe ten scenarios. While his warband would gain experience and change over time, I wouldn't have a warband. I'd only act as a "game master", or rather facilitator and use the opponents the story dictates. I still think the turn-over rule is a buzz-kill in its current form, and it severely limits the fun in using lower quality models. I would never field a troll (as written in the rule book) with a throng of orcs (as they are in the rules) as it would be turnover galore. I wouldn't want to play versus it either. My enjoyment was defenitely lesser when I played humans vs an orc gang fielded by my cousin. The same way he didn't exactly cheer with joy when his Q3 gang won on a walk-over by my Q4 gang as they all failed the morale test and fled. I want to make any Q-roll (be it activations or morale) less decisive. Hence my suggestions. There will still be turn-overs, there will even be turn-overs on the first activation. However, you can attempt to move a troll with two dice. It's not even likely he will move - but at least the other guys will be able to do something. Better Q-average will still mean more activations. I don't see the problem, really. Or well, I do see one. There would be less agonizing over in which order to do things, as you're more likely to be able to act with all your models - which is sort of the point of the tweak anyways. =) So what you are saying is you have designed a tournament format that favours one side over the other. If you want a house rule that protects your Q:4+ team from cascade morale failure, then you can introduce the following rallying rule for them... something like this... Back to the Fray!
When a model fails a morale check and flees within a Short distance of a friendly model that is not fleeing. Make a Quality check on 1D6. If this check passes, the model stops fleeing.That isn't going to make your Orcs activate more often... which would I think would unbalance a game... but it should keep them on the table a bit longer. If you really... really... want a rule to help your Orcs activate more often... how about this - Press On!
When a model rolls for activations, if it rolls a natural 6 on one of its activation dice, it does not score a turnover, regardless of the number of failure on the other dice.Hope that helps...  |
|
|
|
Post by The Beer Ogre on Apr 2, 2010 9:27:07 GMT 1
Oh... and just because I like posting it...
If anyone thinks low Quality troops are bad... then field 5 of these (in a 300pt battle)...
Steam Hulk
Pts:60 Q:4+ C:5
Special Rules: Artificial; Big; Heavy Armour; Shooter (long); Short Move
The Steam Dwarves (from my little Fantasy setting) use these things as walking field artillery. They are monstrous... and had to be limited to only two (maximum) per warband!
Enjoy... ;D
|
|
(see above)
