Brainstorming on rules changes that might tweak the Umenzi down a bit

[BubblePig]

I don't think you should cap spells unless you are going to cap archers, too. AFAIK archers are priced with a certain number of attacks in mind, and so for that matter are javelins. Also, doesn't this go against not having to keep track of what happened in previous rounds?

[Hannibal]

I don't think you should cap spells unless you are going to cap archers, too. AFAIK archers are priced with a certain number of attacks in mind, and so for that matter are javelins.

My statement supposes a certain understanding of the formula, sorry.  The determination of cost and # of turns shooting for archers is more precise than spells were, I think.  So if Chad wants to limit the # of spells to that "reasonable" amount, what he's saying is that they were undercosted originally.

Also, doesn't this go against not having to keep track of what happened in previous rounds?

Well, technically that particular wine bottle has been uncorked.  But more to the point, you already do track what happened in previous rounds: you mark the hexed unit until its next attack, which could be several turns.  I don't think its terribly egregious to have a person count the number of spell tokens on the table.  If we set the number at 3 spells per shaman, you're asking someone to count to 3, 6, or 9  (maybe occasionally 12).

[gull2112]

One of the things to consider, just throwing it out there, is to represent the effects of backing up as an offensive weapon is that if a unit is being backed up by a unit that is touching at least half its card, the line unit mitigates the dice penalty for being in the Yellow/Red.  Maybe ignores being in the Yellow and only suffers (-1)-0/-0 for being in the Red.  This would represent a unit pushing from behind as well as troops trickling forward.  (And yes, pushing is a weapon.  Pre-gunpowder melee was something between a bar fight and rugby scrum, so extra mass helped trample the other guy)  Maybe include something in there about the backup unit has to have as many unchecked damage boxes as the guy being backed up, so you couldn't pull it off by backing up a Treant with Brownies.

This opens another can of worms, tasty chewy gumi worms in my opinion, but worms none the less. In a game that generally rewards a wide army over a deep army, saying that a unit doesn't suffer the penalty for being in the red or yellow if it is backed up by another unit would be pretty cool flavor wise, but I would most assuredly want to require that the units start the game being backed up, as this would require more coordination then just happening to be in the right place at the right time. It also leaves the door open for a future faction ability that would allow certain troops to be given the backup orde after setup, as part of regular play.

[Hannibal]

saying that a unit doesn't suffer the penalty for being in the red or yellow if it is backed up by another unit would be pretty cool flavor wise, but I would most assuredly want to require that the units start the game being backed up, as this would require more coordination then just happening to be in the right place at the right time.

Why?  You figure that a (+1)+0/+0 is 20-30 pts, so even in the best of cases you'd be paying at least 70 pts for a unit and getting 60 pts of benefit from it.  If you didn't want something crazy like Militia backing up two Greatswords just require that the backup unit have equal offensive skill and/or power or some such. 

Edit:  that's not to say the idea is perfect as is, just saying the concept isn't that off balance as to need more than a little massaging to make it work.

[ChimpMasaki]

Back to one of Chad's original concerns with Umenzi, the hex/bless spam or spell-spam, to me the solution on that isn't terrain objectives.  I always work backwards from the desired effect, which seems to be preventing spell-spam by Umenzi, limiting them to a 'reasonable' amount of hexes & blesses.

If that's the case, I'd suggest start with determining what number you consider reasonable.  Then I think the simplest way to do it would be to just limit the amount of hexes/blesses to that number per spellcaster unit.

Kevin raises a point that enemies who hang back will benefit from not having additional spells cast on them once that cap is hit.  That is true, but usually if an enemy is hanging back its because they're shooting, so those Hexes will probably come off.  The bigger point though is that if Shamans are costed at getting a "reasonable" number of spells, then not getting more than that because the enemy hangs back doesn't make the Shamans less good that than their points say they should be.  For example, if the idea is that a Shaman unit should have 4 spells happen before the lines hit (and are priced accordingly), and he hangs back giving you a 5th turn, then you still got your money's worth out of the unit.

This completely mirrors my thoughts on the problem.

I don't think you should cap spells unless you are going to cap archers, too. AFAIK archers are priced with a certain number of attacks in mind, and so for that matter are javelins.

This is where the difference between the Umenzi Spells and the archers becomes apparent. The majority of ranged attacks start the battle out of range - so counting how many shots they get works from when the armies are within that range. If there are ranged attacks that can hit the Umenzi from turn 1 then the Umenzi player is making a fair trade of taking more hits but buffing more units. When the opposing army has no ranged attacks/ all ranged units are out of range and the Umenzi are delaying, they are essentially getting "free" buffs and slowing the game down.

Heck, if there is a cap on the maximum number of spells the Umenzi can have active why not let them cast them before the battle starts? That way no one has to wait for the Umenzi to "set up".

Personally I like Chad's initial suggestion for altering the follow rule. As for stacking weenies - I have no problems with it. The more weenies getting stacked to stop any given unit, the more points that are essentially getting thrown away.