Divinity

[elgin_j]

I've discovered this part of the board somewhat late but have enjoyed reading through the various development proposals.  I especially noted Chad's comments that the system is currently weighted in favour of defensively strong, rather than tough armies, and the implications this had on army selection - I tend to agree.  That said, I didn't think on the face of it that an army of women would be the natural choice for a tough army unless you bring in the flavour of gods...

To that end, I offer a proposal for the faction ability:

Divinity

Spend one CC to check the Divinity box on an Amazon unit.  Divinity increases the toughness of this unit by +1 to represent the blessing of the gods to protect them from harm.  The check box can be removed during close combat to inflict 1 damage to an enemy currently engaged with that unit.  If an Amazon unit routs while possessing Divinity the blessing is removed and the unit takes 1 damage.  Any unit that routs, regardless of its Divinity status at the time, is permanently denied Divinity for the rest of the game.  No non-Amazon unit  (mercenaries, Centaurs, etc) may be given Divinity.

The flavour behind this is that it is the blessing of gods that allow the faction its toughness, not any inherent training or physical robustness.  This, to my mind, fits well with a female faction.  Conseuqently, by disgracing the gods and fleeing from the enemy the unit incurs their wrath in the form of physical damage and a refusal by the gods to bless them once again.  The ability to remove the blessing to inflict damage also makes it tempting for the weaker units that one might not necessarily waste such a CC on.

Key to making this work would be to ensure that the faction has average Courage and there is not a glut of Courage-enhancing CCs in the deck.  This would make the faction tough on the first few rounds but see them increasingly brittle as time goes on, thereby ensuring what is on the face of it an especially strong ability can actually become a liability.  It will also mean that it is not an automatic choice as the threat of permanently losing the ability and suffering damage due to a rout will make a player wary of committing this to damaged or weaker units.

Thoughts?

[gull2112]

I like this. My only concern is with the rout/permanent loss aspect. Not from a flavor perspective, as that definitely fits, but from a practicality standpoint. There would have to be a way to mark a unit as previously routed so it didn't get re-blessed. It is also uncommon that a unit that routs actually rallies and gets back into the fray, most of the time they die en-rout or if they come back it is as greatly weakened. My point being that I don't think it would be actually that significant a detail that it is worthy of the trouble of incorporating it.

[Kevin]

Too strong, IMHO.

The Dwarven Rune of Uruz is a well balanced faction ability, and it gives a bonus die.  A bonus to any stat is something like 1.5x - 1.8x as good as a bonus die.  Yeah, I know you make it go away and slap the unit if the unit routs, but routing units are usually as good as dead anyway. 

I could see *maybe* a faction ability that would give +1 to toughness but permanently remove an attack die.  That would probably balance, but I can't think of any "flavor" justification for that.

[gull2112]

Or you could say that the unit has +1 toughness untill attacked, just like the DE coven's curses.

[lazyj]

+1 to this idea.

While I totally see Kevin's point that you don't want to overdo it with an army ability, I think this is the way to balance the current tension between "YMG wants x/3 defense" and the pushback that "Amazons in platemail are a tough sell". In fact I would think that if you DON'T do something like this, it might be better to scrap Amazons as the faction and try something else fantastical that fits more easily with a "Tough" theme (Insects, Golems, Trolls, Giants, Vikings, etc). Cause there seems to be an awful lot of covering the same kind of ground here about what this faction is supposed to be...

As far as feedback on the Divinity idea: what I don't like is that it's too hard to track a checkbox that now has a permanent "don't check me" modifier. I think it's easier to say that if a unit with the box checked routs, it takes an additional damage.  But I still don't think that's enough of a penalty. Why wouldn't I spend all of my CA marking as many of those boxes as I can? There has to be something else.

Here's a thought: it seemed to me that the faction still has this two separate Goddess thing going on. Almost like there are two sub-factions. So maybe you restrict it so that an army can only have boxes checked for one Goddess. So if a basic Sword unit dedictated to Artemis had the box checked, you couldn't check it on the Spear unit next to them because they are dedicated to Dionysus.

Anyway, my $.02

[Chad_YMG]

I think we'd need a hybrid of lazyj's ability (which is much too strong) and Gull's alternative (which is a touch weak).

Giving a permanent +1 toughness to a unit is worth 40+ points for a normal unit, which will mean that it's generally going to be smart to use it for any unit that looks like it has a chance of losing its fight.  Giving one +1 toughness is marginal -- it's not as good as a command card, so you'll only use it when it's favorable due to RPS or when combining it with a CC is hot.

I think the ability probably works if there are two boxes.  For one CA you mark any that are unmarked and then each time a unit is attacked you remove a box at the end of the attack.  So long as at least one box is marked, the unit gets +1 toughness.

[Kevin]

I like the double-use toughness thing a lot.  Two questions remain:

1 - Should this count as playing a (blue) command card?

2 - Does the player have the option not to uncheck a box?


I'd vote yes on #2 so that it isn't popped off by marginal long range fire or shirmishes or whatever.  I'm agnostic on the first question...but lean toward yes, fearing that the ability might be slightly too strong otherwise.  But probably a good question to leave for playtesting.

[lazyj]

Hmmm... So it becomes "Spend 1 CA to check 2 boxes on the unit. As long as a card box is checked, that unit has +1 toughness. Each time the unit is attacked, erase one card box after the attack is resolved." I could get behind that.

To Kevin's points, I would think this would not count as a blue command card, which further differentiates this faction as a "Tough" faction.

I would also think, especially given that stance, that the Amazon player would not have the option to leave a box checked after an attack. Which makes marginal yet annoying missile fire highly attractive when facing off against them.

Would the elite / heavy units possibly get more boxes to check? Also, is there still a penalty to routing with a box checked?

[ZiNOS]

This is a very good idea!

Everything actually.

I agree that the box should always be unchecked after the attack. This makes the Stand and shoot armies that we all hate and we do not use anymore since they are more or less nerfed (DE not accounting) more appealing.  And i actually like the image of force field Amazons charging on a line of archers and tearing them to pieces, chain mail bikinis or not.

And the idea of the heavy units or only the elite having three boxes and not two is even more sexy!

Whoa! I think I just had a gaming 'hard-on'.       

Point to take under consideration. If a unit is attacked by 3 archers, will it have to erase one box or three? I vote for one.

[lazyj]

Thats a good point. It should probably be something like "in the courage phase after they have been attacked, uncheck a box." But that does mean there's now some memory involved...

But otherwise why wouldn't I plunk with a skirmisher first to use up the checkbox and then attack with my heavy cav? Which is probably the point Kevin was making earlier. There shouldn't be a bonus given to the attacker for choosing which order the attacks happen.

It could just be that instead of being attack based, it's time based. So one box gets unchecked every M&C phase, and as long as there's a box checked they are +1. That prevents the player from just checking every box willy nilly.

[Zelc]

It would be nice to have a faction ability that can be pre-buffed, sort of like the Dark Elves.  Maybe make it -1 box every time they take damage?  It'd make combat a bit swingier, but it prevents the weak attack problem and gives it some flavor.

[elgin_j]

I like the idea of losing the bonus after you've been attacked.  Far more elegant than my fix to enforce extra damage after a rout.  Having two boxes also means that players can ensure that any given unit can survive a round of missile fire followed by close combat and also ensures the player will get the chance to check the boxes again.  Seemingly powerful but the chronic drain on Command Points would make it only selectively used.

[Chad_YMG]

I think multiple attacks should remove multiple boxes, but I agree we don't want to create a strange stacking thing where I use my crappy attack to get rid of the last box and then my good attack comes through, even though they're simultaneous.  I'd suggest a balance of, "At the end of combat, erase one box for each attack that unit received" or somesuch.

[ZiNOS]

About the name of the ability. Are we going to keep the Classical feel of the army?

If yes, how about

Aegis of the Faithful

or

Aegis of the Pure?

[Chad_YMG]

Done -- I'm going to change the official update I just posted!