Fear = Useless

[Mexico]

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.   

But is a T-Rex fearsome or terrifying?  Terrifying reduces opponents' courage by 1 for the fear check.  That would still make most units, without (Roman or Umenzi) modifiers, very unhappy.

Also, keep in mind how unnatural a treant would be - I'm thinking at least as awe-inducing as that 200' elm tree that just died up in Maine (so big it made the national news).

[lazyj]

Incremental changes are the order of the day. I propose we all do some testing with the slight change here that is at least tacitly endorsed by official type people. If it still seems to need beefing up then I do like Mexico's ideas too.

[Quelmotz]

I think I sort-of agree with Mexico's reasoning of a longer-lasting fear. But the real issue is how to implement it. It can't be based on courage of the fearsome unit since an elephant/t-rex is obviously much more scary than a treant. It can't be based on combat stats either, since Heavy Infantry, for example, suck at combat but are amazing in defense.

So the only way I can think of is point cost.

Maybe if a unit costs less than half of a fearsome unit's cost, it gets the (-1) -0/-0 every turn until its owner spends a command action to remove it. If this might be overpowered against spearmen, maybe make it not apply to units with spears or something like that...

If a fearsome unit costs three times as much (or more) as the unit it is engaged with, the unit gets (-1) -0/-0 every turn AND has to take a fear check every turn.

Comments? Do you think it's too complicated?

[lazyj]

Too complicated. The way I see it, the fewer words needed to explain a rule, the better. And I still think making a small change is better.

[Chad_YMG]

I'm glad to see people like the small change.  I think it's also very flavorful, since 99% of fear checks are taken by groups of troops so the automatic -1 attack reflects the idea that even if the unit holds together and fights at full skill and power there's at least some guys in it who are flinching.

[jhenke]

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

Gull,

Did you play with Matthew? I told him on Monday that he needed to try this game out...I'm hoping my start of pulling him to the darkside worked and you got him going Thursday.

My initial sales point for him: things go boom. Lot's of things go boom.

Then, the value of the game....

Tell me we good cop/bad copped him...and if so, how'd he like it?

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.   

I'm glad to see people like the small change.  I think it's also very flavorful, since 99% of fear checks are taken by groups of troops so the automatic -1 attack reflects the idea that even if the unit holds together and fights at full skill and power there's at least some guys in it who are flinching.

I can't tell you how much that explanation really works for me.

[gull2112]

I don't think Matt really "took" to it. I've known him for almost thirty years now and it never struck me as his kind of game, so I was a bit surprised when he went with the suggestion that he try it out. He is much more a "Chaos Marauders" kinda guy, which we played afterwards.

Basically, his response was, "Cool, let me show you the games I brought!
Translation:
"That didn't suck as much as I expected, but don't make me play it again."

[ajax98]

Let it simmer. 

[gull2112]

There is always an opportunity to do nothing.

[jhenke]

as Ajax says, now we let it brew a bit.

Let him, in the future catch us in a game in progress. He has a foundation for it now...he's seen it. Being able to watch it in play without the pressure of play...that's next. He's had the band-aid ripped off...

He is much more the Chaos Mauraders type, but he's been playing other games with us on Monday (and buying them too)...I honestly think he'll take to this one once he has it down in the end. Just no pressure. Plus, with his layoff, it's low cost for a ton of game and we have the packs. We just have some beers, some dice tumble...and we mix in other games...when i ask him for strategy thoughts as you pound me down...who knows...

Just let the sounds of the forest come back to normal...

The world is full of opportunity.

[Hannibal]

I'm glad to see people like the small change.  I think it's also very flavorful, since 99% of fear checks are taken by groups of troops so the automatic -1 attack reflects the idea that even if the unit holds together and fights at full skill and power there's at least some guys in it who are flinching.

I'll be honest, I would love this change.  Essentially Fearsome becomes a weak card that always works, with the option to be a really good card.

[Quelmotz]

Incremental changes are the order of the day. I propose we all do some testing with the slight change here that is at least tacitly endorsed by official type people. If it still seems to need beefing up then I do like Mexico's ideas too.

Well I thought the rules for the orders and movement were quite confusing too. I had to read it a few times and even so I only understood the rules reasonably after a few games. I don't see why it couldn't just have been "measure from the front center point to the closest center point on the enemy".

[ajax98]

Well I thought the rules for the orders and movement were quite confusing too. I had to read it a few times and even so I only understood the rules reasonably after a few games. I don't see why it couldn't just have been "measure from the front center point to the closest center point on the enemy".

I had similar experiences, I too thought that moving "to the closest center point on the enemy" would be more efficient.

But then it dawned on me, battles are not about "efficiency" but getting done what can be done. Plans are about efficiency. And we know what happens to plans when it meets the enemy.

One of my long term pet gripes has been the huge amount of info and control a player has over a war game. Once I came to understand how all this game's mechanics come together and work to produce a game that comes very close, IMO, to reflecting the true face of this kind of warfare.

This is primarily due to the processes that take the player a step or two back from controlling all the minutia. One important factor in that is what I refer to as the Fog of War. This is accomplished primarily through the current Facing Rule. To me it is the central key component to making this game what it is.

For further extrapolation on this, please read my thread Fog of War.

There are many things written on warfare. In generalities, it is often conceded that Defending is easier than Attacking. Attacking is the art of overcoming the many advantages inherent to Defending.

Just consider that the Facing "problem" is that last hurtle to overcome to see the concrete results of your efforts.
As we use to say, it's all about Headspace and Timing.

[gull2112]

Last night James and I threw down and that report will come later. Pertinent to our business here is the way fear worked. We used the method where facing a fear causing opponent cost the unit 1 hit die,and if he failed the fear check the full penalty went into effect. I am happy to report that we found this method very satisfactory and very easy to implement.

[lazyj]

Yup! I agree - fear worked perfectly this way. Even if I was on the brunt end of it.