jjbeezer
Sergeant
633 Posts
    
 | | 09/09/2005 10:54 PM |
| | recovered topic 8497 | |
| |
|
jjbeezer
Sergeant
633 Posts
| | 09/09/2005 10:54 PM |
| 1. Yes
2. I read it wrong at first and thought this was when you lost. This is a hard choice. My recommendation would be 500/500. However, you did not ask for recommendations, and that would really mess up the campaign standings from here on out. I always thought a Lt. should get more XP for leading their warlord's band to victory even after the warlord died. Therefore: Yes! | |
| |
|
The Mighty
jai
Commander
3235 Posts
| | 09/09/2005 11:39 PM |
| Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
[:)] | | | |
|
lowlevelstatic
Sneak
134 Posts
| | 09/09/2005 11:45 PM |
| 1. Yes
2. No
3. No
I think the second change goes even farther away from making Warlord level a good measure of warband power. If we're going to do pairings based on warlord level, then lieutenant experience and magic items should be relative to warlord level. This rule actually provides an incentive for retreating your commander when you've got the game won, because you can advance the lieutenants without gaining your warlord a level, which would put you into a higher bracket for competition.
For the third question, I have no idea why it would be worth making a rule for such a specific case. Does it affect anything but Regdar warbands and folks with anti-unique weapons? | | | |
|
oldcoast
Sergeant
394 Posts
| | 09/10/2005 12:10 AM |
| 1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
Edit: I'm not sure "exactly" what this implies after reading the other posts can we get a clarification on #3 | |
Check out The Old Coast my online Greyhawk campaign featuring all maxmini's members!, and.........Champion of Aspect of Zuggtmoy | |
|
Zippy
Underboss
1993 Posts
Whitewater, WI
| | 09/10/2005 1:47 AM |
| 1. Yes
2. Abstain
3a) YES, if that means the particular named warlord or Lt. is unique
3b) NO, if that means only one of that creature type can then be used in a warband (for example if I have a Dwarf Phalanx LT., then no other Dwarf Phalanx could be used in the same warband as the LT.) | |
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 | |
|
TKort
Sergeant
583 Posts
| | 09/10/2005 2:01 AM |
| 1. Yes (simple rules correction, barely even requires a vote, since as you said it mainly just fixes a loophole)
2. Yes (was my idea ) Although I hope people don't start being tools and TRYING to get their warlords killed just for more points for their Lt :). Keep in mind you get the same Lt exp now for any kind of win, but your warlord only benefits from the win if he lives.
3. I think I have to vote No here. If this was discussed elsewhere I missed it. It allows CG to give any creature 35 points or less a rather uncommon Special Ability under which they can benefit from Drizzt's rather substantial Commander effect (or Regdar's lesser one), and while LG also gets the Regdar one if desired, this change would definitely weigh in favour of CG. Besides, the wording of Unique is such that all it would do is make sure no one named two of their lieutenants the same thing. I think it's basically assumed/inherent without a rule which by it's wording might mess things up a bit :). If we come up with a new ability that is the same but under a different name I'm all for it, but I still don't see a necessity for it :).
Tkort.
| |
| |
|
Redgar
Warrior
178 Posts
| | 09/10/2005 7:44 AM |
| Hi all,
1. Yes
2. Abstain
3. No (see objections above, plus simplicity is a virtue... if a rule isn't needed/useful, don't include it!)
Just my 2 ep worth,
Redgar | |
Alea jacta est! | |
|
Gorgasim
Sneak
66 Posts
| | 09/10/2005 8:22 AM |
| 1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Not really needed imo. So No. | |
| |
|
rgrayua
Sergeant
400 Posts
| | 09/10/2005 10:17 AM |
| 1) Yes, since it was my complaint.
2) Yes, sounds okay, but lowlevelstatic's idea is a great one!
3) Yes, not sure if I see the game ramifications though. | |
| |
|
Richard II
Commander
3663 Posts
| | 09/10/2005 12:29 PM |
| 1) I guess i'll vote yes, although it does take away one of the major advantages of summoning warlords.
2) No. I think warlords should be the focus, and not lieutenants. If you want a lieutenant, keep your warlord alive.
3) No. I see no point to this. | |
 | |
|
Dino
Sneak
79 Posts
| | 09/10/2005 1:06 PM |
| 1)Yesanything to speed up the game
2)NOI agree with richard II the warloard should be the focus
3)NO!! think of what it be like if drizzit was commanding all those LT's extra +3 to attacks and saves and +5 damage... definatly not
Dino | |
| |
|
The Defenestrator
AesophDarkfable
Warlord
5628 Posts
| | 09/10/2005 1:14 PM |
| 1. yes.
2. yes.
3. no, doesnt make any sense for the positives, and the negatives are greater (drizzt, items that target uniques) | |
Im out- find me on Hordelings if you want to chat. | |
|
Aravis
Underboss
1155 Posts
| | 09/10/2005 2:08 PM |
| 1. Yes
2. Yes (I think it should be what zippy says..500/500)
3. No | |
Welcome to Eternal Crack...
"Corn is no place for a mighty warrior!"
Champion of the Frost Salamander | |
|
AcousticDevil
Sneak
55 Posts
| | 09/10/2005 2:57 PM |
| 1. Yes
2. I agree with Richard, so I gotta so say No.
3. Same thing, no point to this, No. | |
| |
|
Veliq
Warrior
300 Posts
| | 09/11/2005 12:56 AM |
| 1. Yes, but I personally won't ever be taking a summoning spell in this case. Summoning hurts you in most cases, as the summoned creatures don't have any chance of getting any bonus' such as through magic items, so always will be the easiest things to destroy to win a game.
2. Yes, but I am worried about the imbalances in pairings.
3. I don't see the need, but do see the units ramifications through Drizzt and Regdar. Unfortunately, I would hate to recieve a Unique slaying weapon and would feel cheated. This would always make it useful. Too bad we hardly see Drizzt fielded, maybe he needs a boost.
Please, feel free to question the rules as much as you like. That's the only way things ever get improved. Just ask Tkort, I hear he's made a few complaints of his own. | |
| |
|
Craw
Sneak
74 Posts
| | 09/11/2005 8:05 AM |
| Yes
No
No | |
Featherfall??! Who needs featherfaaaalll. . | |
|
TKort
Sergeant
583 Posts
| | 09/11/2005 1:04 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by galneweinhaw
RESULTS:
1. Y 12 N 3 PASSED
2. Y 7 N 5 FAILED (not enough consensus)
3. Y 3 N 9 FAILED
actually number 2 was 9 to 5, but whatever :)
| |
| |
|