Fear = Useless

[lazyj]

Mike, I don't think this is too much to track. We keep the Yellow Question mark on a unit that becomes engaged with the fear unit, flip it to the other side if they fail the check. Yellow Question mark = (-1)0/0 and Yellow Flag = (-1)-1/-1

I am not optimistic about when to schedule our next playdate. Thursday maybe? Saturday? Frickin Real Life.

[gull2112]

We're a go for thursday.

[Quelmotz]

Good to see my suggestion seems to be popular.

But it's technically Lazyj's suggestion that got me thinking of a sort of automatic penalty and an extra penalty if the fear check is failed.

Anyway, I always found it strange why fear never caused any courage penalties. The suggestions of having a default fear -1 penalty and -2 for terrifying also got me thinking about this. What about something like an additional (-0) -1/-1 AND C-1 if you fail a fear check? Would it be too painful?

[ajax98]

I can think that adding C-1 would definitely make a difference for tactical considerations.

[Niko White]

Good to see my suggestion seems to be popular.

But it's technically Lazyj's suggestion that got me thinking of a sort of automatic penalty and an extra penalty if the fear check is failed.

Anyway, I always found it strange why fear never caused any courage penalties. The suggestions of having a default fear -1 penalty and -2 for terrifying also got me thinking about this. What about something like an additional (-0) -1/-1 AND C-1 if you fail a fear check? Would it be too painful?

I'm generally very leery of courage penalties, yeah; failing rout checks is bad enough that a courage debuff can make a player feel bad disproportionate to the actual game effect.  (In other words, rout checks are so nasty to fail that while -1 courage isn't very powerful, and thus would in theory be relatively cheap, failing the check due to that -1 courage would make a player hate the game more than that cheap cost justifies.)  This is even further complicated by the fact that any failure like that is going to seem like an absurdly unlucky chain of events: get charged, fail your initial fear check, get the rout check forced, fail that one due to the penalty...I just feel like that'd feel like so much had to go wrong for you that you'll be really unhappy.

I like the -1 die even if you pass thing a lot, though.

[lazyj]

I think I'll try and cajole Mike into playing with the simplified (-1) always, additional -1/-1 to fail check with no courage modifiers. All I want is a small tweak - I don't want to overcompensate, and I fully agree that if that chain of events would happen as Niko described I'd be plenty pissed.

So first with the minor tweak, maybe later with the Courage tweaks. Will be sure to report after the fact!

[gull2112]

Fear me.

[ajax98]

Fear the DE. 

[Mexico]

Considering I love playing Undead, and have been playing a lot of Umenzi lately, I'm a fan of tweaking the Fear effect into something more game-relevant.  In all the games I've played, I think an opponent has failed ONE fear check (and I've failed a few vs. Kevin's damn Carthaginian elephants!).  The effect is somewhat lethal if it does, in fact, occur.  But it almost never does!

My proposed tweak to the tweak on the table would be to add a courage limit.  I.e., if the unit with fear has a lower base courage than their opponent, the opponent automatically passes the fear check.  So Hawkshold and the more experienced historical/fantasy units would rarely be required to take a check, and the inexperienced troops would be more likely to take one and/or fail.

Take that one step further (perhaps complicating needlessly, but I'm a sucker for this kind of stuff), and factor in the difference in courage between the units.  A unit with Courage +/-X vs. the fear-causing unit would add or subtract that difference to their morale for the subsequent Fear check.

What say ye all?

[gull2112]

I just played a game with a new player and my treant did cause fear and it did make a difference.

Take that one step further (perhaps complicating needlessly, but I'm a sucker for this kind of stuff), and factor in the difference in courage between the units.  A unit with Courage +/-X vs. the fear-causing unit would add or subtract that difference to their morale for the subsequent Fear check.

I like it in concept, but I agree that it overly complicates the system. I'm all for whatever is simplest. By itself, the rule is not complicated, but when combined with the total rules system it is part of a web of special conditions. I realized this as I was trying to explain the game today, the tutorial basics are pretty simple, but everything else starts to add up. Just adding in all the modifiers for combat can be pretty tiresome, I accept that, I even like them, but no more. This is why I think the best solution to the fear is make it permanent until removed by a command action.

[ajax98]

I would avoid "permanent" as the emotion of Fear tends to occupy an unfocused mind. Once you are doing something, like fighting for your life, the fear goes away.

[gull2112]

It tends to go away unless you're in a mob and then it is difficult to dispell. My point is that it is believable either way. My strongest comparison is the rule where a unit can not turn to face an attacker, if you're engaged on the flank or rear that's the way it stays, even if you're a Treant and you're attackers are a bunch of goblins. I'm not saying that isn't plausible, but if you are going to rule it thusly it is not too much a stretch to rule fear as permanent until removed. It would be unrealistic for it to last forever, my point is that any unit that is suffering from it will probably be rallied as soon as possible and that it is a leader's job to inspire the troops. It would be possible for a unit to remain under fear for a whole game, but it is so unlikely that designing a timed mechanic to obviate that situation is needlessly burdensome.

[ajax98]

Which is why I would think that it is the inherent ability of the unit Leader to be doing so without costing a CA. That one turn is long enough.

If the Leader is good enough to be in charge of the unit and he has the ability and authority to follow his SO, then he ought to be able to check the 'fear' of his troops.

[Kevin]

My proposed tweak to the tweak on the table would be to add a courage limit.  I.e., if the unit with fear has a lower base courage than their opponent, the opponent automatically passes the fear check.  So Hawkshold and the more experienced historical/fantasy units would rarely be required to take a check, and the inexperienced troops would be more likely to take one and/or fail.

Take that one step further (perhaps complicating needlessly, but I'm a sucker for this kind of stuff), and factor in the difference in courage between the units.  A unit with Courage +/-X vs. the fear-causing unit would add or subtract that difference to their morale for the subsequent Fear check.

Not sure about basing a unit's scariness on its own courage.  Compared to the Ravenwood Fighting Tree Thing, or whatever it's called (courage 14), the Tyrannosaurus Rex is a relative coward (courage 12), but I imagine a charging T-Rex bearing its foot-long teeth as it roars as being a good deal scarier than a tree thing shuffling forward, leaves waving in the wind.   

[ajax98]

That's what I would have written.