E.C. Organizer
galneweinhaw
Commander
2646 Posts
    
 | | 03/22/2005 5:59 PM |
| | recovered topic 1115 | |
Join the Eternal Skirmish Campaign.
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. ~Dr Seuss | |
|
E.C. Organizer
galneweinhaw
Commander
2646 Posts
| | 03/22/2005 5:59 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by rgrayua
Okay, I think I have it now. I would take the starting level column out of Table 1-15b and just list the starting levels in text or bullet format before the progression table. I read that as they gained the ability to cast those level spells and was starting out at level 0.
| |
Join the Eternal Skirmish Campaign.
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. ~Dr Seuss | |
|
E.C. Organizer
galneweinhaw
Commander
2646 Posts
| | 03/24/2005 9:41 PM |
| POTIONS....
I'm not sure if anyone has ever used a potion in any campaign anywhere in the world [)]
In this campaign they have mostly been items to upgrade.
What does everyone think of each potion having 2 doses? This way you could use it once, then trade it in before it was used up ??????? | |
Join the Eternal Skirmish Campaign.
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. ~Dr Seuss | |
|
rgrayua
Sergeant
400 Posts
| | 03/25/2005 1:50 PM |
| I was going to ask about Potions. Your idea sounds good to me, since I have two potions right now.
How does the spell "Prayer" work? Does it do both Your Warband +1 attack/+1 save; Enemy Warband -1 attack/-1 save, or either but not both? | |
| |
|
E.C. Organizer
galneweinhaw
Commander
2646 Posts
| | 03/25/2005 2:21 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by rgrayua
I was going to ask about Potions. Your idea sounds good to me, since I have two potions right now.
How does the spell "Prayer" work? Does it do both Your Warband +1 attack/+1 save; Enemy Warband -1 attack/-1 save, or either but not both?
both | |
Join the Eternal Skirmish Campaign.
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. ~Dr Seuss | |
|
rgrayua
Sergeant
400 Posts
| | 03/25/2005 2:52 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by galneweinhaw
quote:
Originally posted by rgrayua
I was going to ask about Potions. Your idea sounds good to me, since I have two potions right now.
How does the spell "Prayer" work? Does it do both Your Warband +1 attack/+1 save; Enemy Warband -1 attack/-1 save, or either but not both?
both
OK bad for me. How about Spell Resistance, does the spell not affect enemy figures with spell resistance if the roll is made? | |
| |
|
Avatar of Skirmishes
tullywi
Sergeant
982 Posts
| | 03/26/2005 12:37 AM |
| I would agree with the potions having 2 doses.
That would be nice actually. | |
| |
|
E.C. Organizer
galneweinhaw
Commander
2646 Posts
| | 03/26/2005 2:55 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by rgrayua
OK bad for me. How about Spell Resistance, does the spell not affect enemy figures with spell resistance if the roll is made?
That's right. | |
Join the Eternal Skirmish Campaign.
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. ~Dr Seuss | |
|
jjbeezer
Sergeant
633 Posts
| | 03/28/2005 9:27 AM |
| I would suggest expanding the Medium weapon table to include two entries to do +5 sonic and +5 acid. They could be +1 weapon of Sound and +1 weapon of Acidity.
Another suggestion would be to double the range of getting an axiomatic/anarchic and holy/unholy weapon. This would reflect that there are two types of these weapons to pick up in that percentage range.
We now have two new artifacts being hunted. They will need to be added to the artifact section. | |
| |
|
jjbeezer
Sergeant
633 Posts
| | 03/29/2005 11:12 AM |
| | One more thing I noticed today. The summon monster III spell is quite a bit different between evil and good. Evil summons creatures up to X points. The good entry summons 1 creature up to X points. The other levels of the spell do not specify the number of creatures. | |
| |
|
E.C. Organizer
galneweinhaw
Commander
2646 Posts
| | 03/29/2005 9:49 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by jjbeezer
One more thing I noticed today. The summon monster III spell is quite a bit different between evil and good. Evil summons creatures up to X points. The good entry summons 1 creature up to X points. The other levels of the spell do not specify the number of creatures.
I think these are right form the cards, probably because evil has so many more options, the spell is limited to one creature so it's not so much better than the Good version... I'll cehck into it
| |
Join the Eternal Skirmish Campaign.
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. ~Dr Seuss | |
|
rgrayua
Sergeant
400 Posts
| | 03/31/2005 10:30 AM |
| I would suggest amending the voluntary failing morale saves rule to add that if that option is chosen, the creature cannot attempt to later rally. It was my impression that the point of this rule and the one allowing a creature to voluntarily flee the battle field was to protect valuable magic items, i.e. prevent their loss thru death or destruction.
Here's the situation that brought this to mind--Orc Champion charges HEBI, hits forcing MC, second +8 attack by Champ would have killed HEBI. HEBI is level 8 + 5 CR, so would only fail on 6 or less. HEBI decides to voluntarily fail MC, move out of base, no other opposing figures in base so no AOOs. Next turn HEBI rallies and next turn shoots Champ 3 times forcing MC on him. This is perfectly legal under the current campaign rule but could not happen in a sanctioned tournament (cannot voluntarily fail MCs). However, it seems to go against the spirit or intent (at least to my understanding) of the campaign rule. It seems like an unfair advantage for high-level, range sight figures, e.g. HEBI. Honestly I had never thought of using the rule that way, it's very clever. Anyone else have a problem with this? | |
| |
|
E.C. Organizer
galneweinhaw
Commander
2646 Posts
| | 03/31/2005 11:06 AM |
| Actually, the main reason I wanted to change the morale rule is because I thought it was silly that there are situations where you might WANT to fail a morale check, but still had to roll. And I kept thinking, well why don't you just run away then and save your skin? It seemed to me like a rule where you had to attack the guy next to you, even if you didn't want to, and could only not hurt him if you missed your roll. Not sure if that makes sense? It was a side effect that I liked that you could run away to save your items.
In the end, if you want to voluntarily fail an mc, it's a big risk too, 1st, you will loose a round, having to rally instead attacking or whatever you'd normally do, and second, there's the chance you could fail your rally and the guy would be gone. It's like a Faint Hope Clause ;)
Other opinions? Has any one else used this for other than running off to save your items?
Also, not sure how this campaigns rules compare to a sanctioned tournament, but I assume they are vastely different with levels and magic items and spell progression in everything else. One of the main goals of this campaign was to give a more RPG feel to the campaign =)
| |
Join the Eternal Skirmish Campaign.
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. ~Dr Seuss | |
|
jjbeezer
Sergeant
633 Posts
| | 03/31/2005 12:02 PM |
| I love the option to choose to fail the MC. I have not used it, but I have thought about it on many occasions.
I feel it is fair. You are still subject to AoO's for fleeing. You will lose your next turn for sure. You may never rally the unit and lose it.
Uses include removing your commander from the front lines, removing a ranged attacker from the front line, and removing any unit to within six squares of the Cleric of Lathander (tullywi).
I can see how it might favor the Good teams more than the Evil teams as they have more access to healing spells. I can see how it might favor ranged units as in rgrayua's example. However, I can see a commander giving is troops the order to flee/pull back if they are hurt severly. This is how I see this rule change playing out.
Being that my armies (with Cleric of St. Cuthbert) prefer melee and destroyed units over fleeing units, I will probably not use the rule. The only exception might be to try to save my commander.
Since the rule is not going to affect my teams, I do not have a strong befefit/drawback for keeping the rule. If it stays, ok. If it goes, ok. I just think it a neat change to the rules that adds more options to the game.
jjb | |
| |
|
E.C. Organizer
galneweinhaw
Commander
2646 Posts
| | 03/31/2005 12:26 PM |
| | that's right, tullywi used it against me with Ruin his Cleric of Lathander... i thought it was brilliant =) | |
Join the Eternal Skirmish Campaign.
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. ~Dr Seuss | |
|
Avatar of Skirmishes
tullywi
Sergeant
982 Posts
| | 03/31/2005 2:41 PM |
| I like the routing rule. I think of it sort of like jj said, the commander issuing an order to fall back and regroup. It isn't something I recommend all the time. Sometimes that one unit needs to sacrifice itself to hold the line at all costs.
The more I think about this the more I like this rule. In the example presented, the opposing Orc Champion causes a morale check against a HEBI. The Orc Champion gains a tremendous advantage if the HEBI doesn't run. In effect, the orc player is using the Elf's saves against him to gain an advantage. I think the rule should be implemented in regular D&D minis! | |
| |
|
rgrayua
Sergeant
400 Posts
| | 04/04/2005 4:44 PM |
| | I just wanted to see how everyone else felt about it. I'm fine either way and will adapt. It is different from the regular minis rules (which say you cannot voluntarily fail any save unless otherwise specified) and clearly different from the tournament rules. It does tend to favor good bands with healing and ranged attack bands over melee bands. Since I'm accustomed to playing Chaotic Evil, I instantly saw the negative for those bands, which must base and remain based to be effective. There won't always be an AOO, as in my case when the creature attacking causes the MC, unless you would like to amend the rules and allow an AOO by the creature causing the rout. Are there only 3 players with opinions on this? | |
| |
|
rgrayua
Sergeant
400 Posts
| | 04/06/2005 11:58 AM |
| | Another issue I'll bring up just in case no one else had thought of it, the use of Huge figures. I didn't consider the possibility because in normal tournaments they are only allowed in the Extreme format. They are usable in the campaign as long as meet the 70% rule. Two thoughts--(1) How about dropping the 70% rule? As long as the maximum game is 200, it wouldn't open up that much would it? No Huge Red or Huge Gold Dragons, no Deathwalker or Glabrezu. LG could building LSD plus commander in 150, which might be tough to face, but otherwise not too bad; and (2) One of the reasons given for not allowing Huges in regular play (aside from the power issue) is the map. Most Extreme format games are played on the Ancient Temple map which is larger and has 3 square hallways. The standard rule of two squares between tiles can really limit the Huge figures, they have to "squeeze" slowing their movement. This worked to my advantage in our match, it took the Treant a couple of turns to get off of its Assembly Tile (Ass. Tile 6). Should we require 3 squares between tiles to accomodate Huge figures? Since they are more powerful in many respects, is it okay to give them this disadvantage? I tend toward the latter, but thought I would throw it out there. Anyone object to allowing Huge figures? | |
| |
|
Zippy
Underboss
1992 Posts
Whitewater, WI
| | 04/06/2005 3:06 PM |
| 1) Potion 2 doses is a good way to make potions actually worth more than trade-in value.
2) Allowing huges is fine, but changing tile setup rules (i.e. 3 minimum gaps) is not - the 2 space already uses up the standard board pretty well - forcing 3-wide lanes would change play balance a lot and would often prevent placing 8 total tiles.
3)An option that might be more realistic for voluntary MC fails: IF you choose to Voluntarily fail a MC, the unit CANNOT rally. This represents RPG well: the unit has been instructed to "Run like heck if you are hurt bad, son - don't let the Crown of Supreme Arrogance fall into enemy hands whatever you do!" A voluntary withdrawal or regroup is already covered in the rules - you take AOO, fall back, and regroup or return ranged fire. This better preserves play balance (as previously mentioned, range / spell units gain a HUGE advantage being able to unbase for "free"). It still then allows preservation of precious items, but at a significant cost.
4) No, I'm not in the EC yet but soon will "apply within" - fresh meat for you vets to crush [B)] | |
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Reference Thread, H/W List, Champion of the Catoblepas | |
|
E.C. Organizer
galneweinhaw
Commander
2646 Posts
| | 04/06/2005 7:54 PM |
| | Zippy, why haven't you joined our campaign???!!!!! | |
Join the Eternal Skirmish Campaign.
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. ~Dr Seuss | |
|
rgrayua
Sergeant
400 Posts
| | 04/08/2005 8:54 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by galneweinhaw
It seemed to me like a rule where you had to attack the guy next to you, even if you didn't want to, and could only not hurt him if you missed your roll.
But you do not have to attack the guy next to you, you can walk away but there's a risk and it is called an Attack of Opportunity.
quote:
In the end, if you want to voluntarily fail an mc, it's a big risk too, 1st, you will loose a round, having to rally instead attacking or whatever you'd normally do, and second, there's the chance you could fail your rally and the guy would be gone.
It's not a risk when the figure voluntarily failing would have died on the second attack anyway i.e. HEBI with 20 hit points based by Orch Champ with second +9 attack untaken, AC19 needs a 10 50% chance to kill for anyone with better dice rolling skills than me. It just gives one player another chance to save the figure.
Here's another situation where it's unfair--Figures A and B are adjacent, Figure A attacks Figure B doing enough damage to cause a morale check with first attack, Figure B knows that he will die on the second attack, so he voluntarily routs. Figure A's player's phase ends. Figure B's commander is the Cleric of Lathander, he gets +8 + his level on rally attempts plus heals 10. The very next phase, Figure B rallies and heals 10, so instead of being dead he is now effective. How is that balanced for any other faction or commander? | |
| |
|
Richard II
Commander
3663 Posts
| | 04/08/2005 10:18 PM |
| 1) Does drinking a potion replaces attacks?
2) Who do I have to bribe to get spells added to the takeable lists? [:)] Specifically the Grim Necromancer's Summon Undead III? | |
 | |
|
Avatar of Skirmishes
tullywi
Sergeant
982 Posts
| | 04/09/2005 2:25 AM |
| Hello rgrayua,
You ask, "How is that balanced for any other faction or commander?".
My return question is, "How fair is it that my high commander rating helps out my opponent more than me?" LG doesn't have many units that can take a beating. (It also has almost none that can administer a beating.) If a high level commander sees that his unit has been deeply wounded and had a choice between encouraging his unit to stay next to the orc champion who could kill him next hit or run away to maybe get healed the next round, which do you think he would chose?
You are correct, by the way, the skirmish rules do allow units to walk away and take an aoo. They also allow a unit to make morale saves. Currently, my Cleric of Lathander has a commander rating of 9. He also has a spell called Prayer which adds 1 to the warband's saves. That means all my units that are in command have +10 to their saves. Why should that be an advantage to my opponent? Without this rule, my opponent can plan on my units staying in place and taking a beating. My only alternative is to move the Cleric so that the unit is out of command. Of course, with a speed 4 commander, it makes it a little tough to get back in command. Again, this type of action limits what I can do and helps my opponent.
When playing outside of campaigns, have you seen non-LSD LG warbands wipe the floor with CE? Generally speaking, the wins that I have seen from LG have occured because one or more of the big CE units have run. If they don't run and they have average rolls, CE generally wins. Giving LG more options when it comes to its commander ratings and morale checks does help out LG. I think that is a good thing. LG isn't the only faction that can benefit from this rule. As you mentioned, a HEBI that can take a few steps and avoid the killing blow would also benefit.
Yes, the rule helps out certain commanders and units more than others. I don't think it unbalances the game. In fact, CE has the best defenses against this rule - the Vampire Aristocrat and the Orc Champion. You don't want that HEBI to run? Make sure the Vampire is within 6 of it when it makes it's morale save. How about putting 2 orc champions next to it and only attack with one. If you miss, the HEBI has to take 2 aoos next move. If you hit and he runs, the other Orc champ gets to kill him. | |
| |
|
E.C. Organizer
galneweinhaw
Commander
2646 Posts
| | 04/09/2005 2:57 AM |
| rgrayua and tullywi,
this is a good debate and the kind I was hoping there was more of when I was establishing the rules for the campaign. I would appreciate other players from the campaign to chip in their take on this and other rules being discussed. | |
Join the Eternal Skirmish Campaign.
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. ~Dr Seuss | |
|
E.C. Organizer
galneweinhaw
Commander
2646 Posts
| | 04/09/2005 3:01 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Richard II
1) Does drinking a potion replaces attacks?
2) Who do I have to bribe to get spells added to the takeable lists? [:)] Specifically the Grim Necromancer's Summon Undead III?
1. yes
2. Post any additions or changes you want to see in this thread. I was originally only sticking with spells that are in the players handbook, but that is up for debate too =). Actually, I would appreciate if someone could posrt a compilation of all the new PHB spell from deathknell so I can add them.
Also, I have been waiting for more psionic powers before I added psionic to the spell progression.... think we have enough now? anyone interested in converting some of the powers from the Psionics HB to DDM? | |
Join the Eternal Skirmish Campaign.
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. ~Dr Seuss | |
|
rgrayua
Sergeant
400 Posts
| | 04/09/2005 10:41 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by tullywi
My return question is, "How fair is it that my high commander rating helps out my opponent more than me?" LG doesn't have many units that can take a beating. (It also has almost none that can administer a beating.)
Well it's debatable that your high commander rating helps your opponent, it does in this one instance but on initiative and placing terrain it helps you out quite a bit, so I beleive that is probably a wash overall. Sure LG can't dish out the damage and maybe (although that is debatable to) doesn't have any hit points. But they already have the highest ACs and now have tons of spells to raise those to incredible levels. Against Takasi last night, he had Dwarf Phalanyx fighters with ACs of 29 standing next to each other. A Champ needs a 16 to hit that, the Eye a 14, heck the Aspect of Lolth missed those buggers all night. My fodder generally has a hard time hitting your fodder; whereas, your fodder can often hit CE's big hitters (Eye with AC 11, FB with AC 10). Those are the trade offs built into the factions. We have to hope that WotC atttempts to balance the factions with these ideas in mind. We can debate how successful they are at that, but any change in the rules can upset that balance. You make some valid points, I've focused on it from the CD perspective because that is what I primarily play. I still think it unfairly shifts the balance.
quote:
When playing outside of campaigns, have you seen non-LSD LG warbands wipe the floor with CE? Generally speaking, the wins that I have seen from LG have occured because one or more of the big CE units have run.
Tournament games are timed, I generally see the LSD battles win because they are too hard to hit (especially when buffed) and have too many hit points to kill in 50 minutes. Paralyzing low saving Orc Champs or Eyes is gravy. It's especially bad in Assault. LG usually wins initiative unless I play Ryld. Firs turn buff LSD, LSC flies to tile on my side and waits.
quote:
In fact, CE has the best defenses against this rule - the Vampire Aristocrat and the Orc Champion.
So I need to include a 57 point figure in every band to counter this? And that somehow doesn't unbalance the game? He's a Commander 3, my Drow Wizard would have had to gain two levels before she could even include him. | |
| |
|
Avatar of Skirmishes
tullywi
Sergeant
982 Posts
| | 04/09/2005 1:02 PM |
| I wouldn't trade my high commander rating for a low commander rating. The advantages are too great. I agree with you there.
However, having a 1/20 chance of running means your opponent can play as if you were going to make the morale check and stay put. This is a huge tactical advantage to high attack, high speed, and high damage units.
The more I think about this the more humorous I find it. LGs greatest strengths are hurt because of the rules of the game. The PDK has been one of the best commanders for LG because he is durable, does decent damage, and has the fear cone. His commander effect though is basically useless and is very difficult to be used tactically. The Cleric of Lathander is a decent commander. His commander effect is all about failing the first morale check and being close enough to the commander to be in range for the second morale check. Not impossible to use, but certainly not very reliable. Speed 4 has one huge advantage over higher speeds, when a speed 4 unit routes it isn't going far. Unfortunately for LG, they rarely take advantage of their slow speed or their commander effects because morale checks are only positively effected by commander ratings. Now, throw in the campaign where commander ratings go up and the tactical advantages for speed or the commander effect is reduced to zero. As you mentioned rgrayua, the tactical advantage lies in the placement of terrain and in winning intiatives. It certainly doesn't lie in the other aspects of the game where the chaotic factions excel. | |
| |
|
Richard II
Commander
3663 Posts
| | 04/09/2005 2:12 PM |
| Some New Spells from Deathknell:
1) 3rd: Empowered Lesser Sonic Orb (range 6; 15 sonic damage) - Arcane. By extension we could also add empowered lesser fire/electricity/cold/acid orb spells. Although the only other ones that exist in ddm right now are fire and cold iirc.
2) 4th: Legions Undeniable Gravity (any warband, creatures lose flight, dc 16) - Arcane. I dunno about adding this one for general use.
3) 3rd: Legions Shield of Faith (your warband, +2 ac) - Divine.
4) 3rd: Bolt of Disruption (line, 15 sonic damage, dc 15) - Arcane.
5) 3rd: Summon Undead III (One or two undead with total cost 20 or less) - Arcane. | |
| |
|
rgrayua
Sergeant
400 Posts
| | 04/09/2005 6:05 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by tullywi
The Cleric of Lathander is a decent commander. His commander effect is all about failing the first morale check and being close enough to the commander to be in range for the second morale check.
This leads me to another advantage of LG that is maybe often overlooked. For a mere 10 points a Standard Bearer can convey the Commander Effect and Commander Rating of any number of commanders without actually putting those commanders at risk. Thus, for 37 points the Cleric of Lathander can have its figures voluntarily fail morale saves, then rally and heal 10 while staying far away from the action. Currently, LG is the only faction with the Standard Bearer or its equivalent. In this week's campaign scenario it was better for figures to stay and not rout, because then you had a 50% chance for the life force to save them. Of course with CE they fail morale checks and move so fast that they run out of command and cannot rally.
I would like to ask the game designers if making morale saves is such a detriment, why is Tyrannical Morale a Commander Effect and an expensive one at that. | |
| |
|
rgrayua
Sergeant
400 Posts
| | 04/09/2005 6:15 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by tullywi
I wouldn't trade my high commander rating for a low commander rating. The advantages are too great. I agree with you there.
The more I think about this the more humorous I find it. LGs greatest strengths are hurt because of the rules of the game.
Speed 4 has one huge advantage over higher speeds, when a speed 4 unit routes it isn't going far.
As you mentioned rgrayua, the tactical advantage lies in the placement of terrain and in winning intiatives. It certainly doesn't lie in the other aspects of the game where the chaotic factions excel.
Right and CE usually needs to make morale checks and due to low commander ratings quite often fail. Add in their high speeds and they are often off the board before they can rally, even knowing that you will spend the majority of your time on the opponent's side of the board, especially against the lawful factions. We are in total agreement, the tactical advantage of a high commander rating lies in terrain placement and choosing who activates first. Maybe the cost of those advantages is the fact that followers are more likely to not rout, even if that would be to your advantage. If Ryld were lawful good then he would be perfect, high commander rating for terrain and initiative, low commander rating for morale saves. Of course with CE and no healing, I need my guys to rally and keep fighting. | |
| |
|
Avatar of Skirmishes
tullywi
Sergeant
982 Posts
| | 04/09/2005 8:28 PM |
| Exactly rgrayua.
As the CE commanders level up in the campaign though, the CE figures become less likely to route which takes away one of CE's disadvantages. Without the morale check rule, LG loses more and more ground to CE warbands as the campaign progresses.
The best thing about the rule is that it gives the tactical edge back to each warband. Stay or go, it is up to you.
Also, there are ways to counter warbands that like to run. The closer you push the fight to their entrance the less likely they are to run. getting multiple units to surround a figure will discourage it to go.
Yes, the rule helps out some types of warbands more than others. I don't think it makes it impossible to beat these types of warbands. You might need to put a little more thought into it though. I would say that is a good thing. | |
| |
|
Takasi
Warrior
287 Posts
| | 04/11/2005 1:40 PM |
| I just want to clarify a rule. Is there anyway I can lose my Eversmoking Bottle? I didn't read the rules very carefully, and in my last game with rgrayua he said you can't lose major items. That appears to be the case from rereading the Spoils of War section but I want to make ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that I can't lose my eversmoking bottle, ever.
Can we add something that incorporates the darkness spell from D&D? Major a major item, or preferably as an arcane spell? Wind Wall, Fog and Darkness = w00t! :) | |
| |
|
E.C. Organizer
galneweinhaw
Commander
2646 Posts
| | 04/11/2005 9:10 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Takasi
I just want to clarify a rule. Is there anyway I can lose my Eversmoking Bottle? I didn't read the rules very carefully, and in my last game with rgrayua he said you can't lose major items. That appears to be the case from rereading the Spoils of War section but I want to make ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that I can't lose my eversmoking bottle, ever.
Can we add something that incorporates the darkness spell from D&D? Major a major item, or preferably as an arcane spell? Wind Wall, Fog and Darkness = w00t! :)
1. No, you can't loose major magic items.
2. Darkness spell? yes. just post what you think it should be like =) or copy it from a mini that has the ability.
I plan on updating the spells soon with some of the Deathknell ones as well as others if players post them.... still would like to stick to PHB spells though. | |
Join the Eternal Skirmish Campaign.
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. ~Dr Seuss | |
|
Takasi
Warrior
287 Posts
| | 04/11/2005 10:46 PM |
| People might want to debate if this is overpowered, but this is as close to the D&D game as you can get I think:
Arcane
2nd - Darkness (Touch; radius 4; All creatures within receive Conceal 6 and cannot be targeted with ranged spells, psionics or spell like abilities)
Daylight is a 3rd level spell you could cast to counter this, but other than removing darkness it has little skirmish utility.
There's also obscuring mist:
Arcane
1st - Obscuring Mist (Range 6; radius 4; All creatures within receive Conceal 6, cannot be targeted with ranged spells, can be removed by any cone or radius effect that deals damage)
Another spells I'd like to see:
Divine
3rd - Magic Circle Against Good/Evil (Touch; radius 2; Touched area prevents one good/evil creature selected by caster from entering; DC 16 negates)
What about adding in the concept of lists of known spells for wizards and clerics? Perhaps you could "buy" a known spell for the cost of a major item? You could still only prepare a number of spells equal to your base character plus any spell progression and present them during your reveal along with magic items, tiles and your warband. What does everyone think? | |
| |
|
jjbeezer
Sergeant
633 Posts
| | 04/14/2005 3:59 PM |
| A few more items to debate or change.
We added a new druid Level 1 spell called Charm Animal. Its discription is the same as the Collar of Command on the treasure table: animal or magical beast loses its difficult ability. Since the collar of command was introduced in the Miniatures Handbook before the Wild ability came out, I suggest we change the spell and the Collar to account for difficult and wild.
Lieutenants do not get to pick feats as the level up. They lose their ability to benefits from commander effects starting at level 2. What is everyone's thought on giving them the feat "Willing to Follow" when they reach level 5? If they abandon the Lieutenant level progression then they could lose that feat.
Another strange thing I noticed just now, in table 1-12 Medium Powers, the Minor Acid, Cold, Electricity, and Sonic resistance is Resist 10 while the Minor Fire resistance is only Resist 5. | |
| |
|
Avatar of Skirmishes
tullywi
Sergeant
982 Posts
| | 04/14/2005 7:52 PM |
| jjbeezer, you said: quote:
Lieutenants do not get to pick feats as the level up. They lose their ability to benefits from commander effects starting at level 2. What is everyone's thought on giving them the feat "Willing to Follow" when they reach level 5? If they abandon the Lieutenant level progression then they could lose that feat.
Did you mean to say "when" or "until"? I'm not sure what I think about either one. I'll think about it and post back.
On the Druid's spell, it sounds like a good idea to change the text for difficult and wild.
I would say that the resist powers should all match. | |
| |
|
rgrayua
Sergeant
400 Posts
| | 04/14/2005 9:34 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by tullywi
On the Druid's spell, it sounds like a good idea to change the text for difficult and wild.
Galneweinhaw may have already changed that. At least for my Collar of Command he added it removes Difficult and Wild, when it used to just say removes Difficult.
On the spells, as much as I would like to have a Darkness spell for CE, I think it might be unfair. Of course the Eversmoking Bottle does essentially the same thing, but is much harder to get.
Another question, are the "unique" items one of a kind? Could I get an Eversmoking Bottle even though Takasi has one? | |
| |
|
jjbeezer
Sergeant
633 Posts
| | 04/14/2005 9:41 PM |
| tully: I meant WHEN. That way it has to go a while as just a normal commander until he can benefit. It is not much of a benefit, but it will give you a reason to keep leveling a Lt.
I think that Unique items are just really rare, not exactly unique. Maybe unique to you, but I could see everyone getting a copy of a "unique" item if they rolled the same. | |
| |
|
Zippy
Underboss
1992 Posts
Whitewater, WI
| | 04/15/2005 12:17 AM |
| Comment on Darkness: I think for a 1st or 2nd level spell to grant mass Conceal 6 is somewhat too powerful. Perhaps balance this with a -2 attacks for all within area, or make it last 1 round. Perhaps Radius 2 instead of 4?
Also, making units non-targetable is a HUGE game effect, and again for a 1st or 2nd level spell is too powerful imho.
What do others think? I really like the idea of adding such a spell, just concerned on power balance. | |
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Reference Thread, H/W List, Champion of the Catoblepas | |
|
Zippy
Underboss
1992 Posts
Whitewater, WI
| | 04/15/2005 12:27 AM |
| You ask, "How is that balanced for any other faction or commander?".
My return question is, "How fair is it that my high commander rating helps out my opponent more than me?"
Well, How about this:
To avoid penalizing for high Command rating, we let you CHOOSE to add or not add your commander bonus. Then you remove the "High command rating penalty" without creating an exploitable loophole with rally/heal and rally/move effects in play. On the role playing side, the commander wants his unit to run back a bit and does not step in with direction / commands to change the unit's urges.
This maintains a lack of predictability while removing the high commander penalty, which as Tullywi pointed out is real. It also avoids the open exploition problem that several countered with, which is also a real concern.
What do you all think? | |
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Reference Thread, H/W List, Champion of the Catoblepas | |
|