better TUNDRA rules
 

ok, so less than a day before the untimely demise of HQ i posted some ideas on better tundra rules. didn't have much time to dicuss it, did we?

let me qualify this first by saying i dont have any tundra sets yet and havent playtested these rules... and frankly who knows when any of us who werent the first 50 kids through the door at hasbro's online store are going to get any tundra. also, the standard tundra rules suck. we play on 10 master sets and it's already a ***** trying to get from one side of the map to the other without cutting your movement in half (we have other better rules concerning order markers to help this too). ok, rant over.

1. any movement that lands on a snow or ice tile at any point is -2 move, except flyers because it's stupid to penalise flyers in this case.

2. any figure standing on ice is -1 to attack and defend.

i think these rules are bit more elegant (meaning simple) and "common sensical" than the official ones while keeping with the feel of the game. i know some alternate rules for the tundra must have been discussed on HQ but i searched and searched for them and couldn't find them. i would imagine my rules arent too different from any other proposed rules. i also like the idea some of you suggested about falling though the ice but all the rules for that seemed rather awkward. here's my suggestion though i still find it a bit complicated.

optional 1. at the end of a round if a figure is standing on ice that is completely surrounded by other ice tiles then you roll a d20. 1-19 you survive, on a 20 the ice cracks and you die. at this point you could replace the broken ice with the ugly solid blue water tiles (they finally have a use!) you could also say that "huge" characters fall through the ice on a roll of 16-20. that could make for some interesting strategies. for the rest of the game, the new ugly blue tile would have the same properties as molten lava.

and if you really must penalise flyers for the snow try this...

optional 2. flyers are -1 to move if they land on snow or ice...or maybe just ice.

anyway....discuss.

Re: better TUNDRA rules
 

(Emphasis mine.)
Heresy! Clearly, fliers landing on deep snow or ice must do so carefully, sacrificing some forward momentum for the chance to land diffidently on an unknown depth of snow or breakable, slippery ice. Keep it simple and penalize everyone the same amount.

I like this! The whoopsie penalty.
How about building the water under the ice (water on level below and ice on top) and just lifting the ice off?

Eh. Must...penalize...fliers.

I don't think that flyers should get any free rides. They already have a big advantage, but by adding more rules that penalize everyone else inflates their value.

The cracked ice roll sounds hella fun! Gotta remember that one.

I played two games on Saturday and a game last night and I have no problem with using the heavy snow and heavy ice rules. The heavy snow on high elevation is a blast as it puts high ground figures at a movement disadvantage. In the last couple of games we've seen high movement figures drafted more often: Nerak and Gorillinators for starters.

But then again, we've been playing on a small battlefield, so I could see how you'd want to change the rules for a large scale battle.

Tell us how it goes when you get the sets and use them, Caravaggio.
I can tell you now, the Tundra sets with its glaciers just look freakin' fantastic.... 8)

if you compare "my" rules to the official rules i think you would see (especially using my optional rule 2) that fliers have less advantage over the non fliers in my version.

the official rules cut the non-flying characters movement in half (rounding down i believe) where my rules are much less harsh on the non flying units. also, the official rules basically say that fliers are -1 to movement when landing on a snow/ice space... which, i just realised, is the same exact thing i have if you use the optional rule 2. the reason i thought penalizing fliers was dumb is because i have never noticed any birds being slowed down by there being snow on the ground.

i'm glad you like my "whoopsie" rule. i thought it was stupid that the official rules didn't really differentiate between the properties of snow and ice.

now what about the breaking ice thing. you're right, that building ice over water would be the best solution, but that could also require quite a lot of extra water (which i have but most do not). i still think that the rules need to be streamlined a bit. one of the many beauties of heroscape is it's simplicity.

anybody have a bunch of ugly solid blue water they want to get rid of? i hate it, but it might work well for "freezing cold hypothermia water".

i certainly will. and yeah, the glacier sets look awesome! some of the photos i saw on HQ really started getting me excited about heroscape for the first time in a while. i was a bit down about availability of wave 4 and the tundra sets (especially the way hasbro sold out so fast) and i was really pissed about the rules, though i can see how if you have a small map and snow only covers the high ground how it might work ok.

here's a picture to help set the mood...

http://upload4.postimage.org/218265_.../snowwhite.jpg

i was kinda thinking that rather than emulating exactly the properties of molten lava, freezing cold hypothermia water could only take effect at the end of the round, giving figures thrown or summoned into it chance to escape death. i dont know... either way, i still like rules 1 and 2 (maybe optional rule 2) but the breaking ice rules still need some work. if i could get my grubby little fingers on a few sets (i'm thinking 5 will do...for now) that would help. damn you limited stock at hasbro online!

Firstly, I think the freezing water tiles can be like lava field, requiring an unblockable attack die at the end of the round.

Secondly, an alternative for fliers is an extra movement point to take off from heavy snow or slippery ice.

Thirdly, I suggest that slippery ice has the following movement option. If you walk carefully, you spend two movement points and move safely. If not, you can move normally, but for each tile you move onto, roll a d20. On a 1-5, you slip and end your movement there.

Fourthly, reduce effective falling distance (heavy snow only) by ten. This means 10 levels greater than figure height calls for 1 single attack die, 20 calls for 3 attack dice, and 30 levels calls for a 19-20.

Fifthly, I just felt like saying fifthly.

But shouldn't Nerak get to move freely through tundra tiles? And let's consider giving Moltarns water weakness on ice (either kind) and heavy snow (light snow isn't enough to melt around them and hamper them).


-Taeblewalker

However, birds cannot fly as fast or as far in falling snow (which, I think you can imagine would have to fall sometimes for there to be snow on the ground at all). Therefore, I think that flying units should be penalized the same as non-flyers. Plus, it makes things a bit more simple, which I like as well.

i can see penalizing the flyers the same as others if for no other reason than to keep it simple.

however, i dont think the disparity between flyers and non-flyers is as great as some of you seem to be arguing. the real disparity in my eyes is between ranged an melee units. since no flying characters are ranged, i would argue that not penalizing flyers helps limit the advantage that ranged units have over the melee ones (at least the flying melee characters!).

hmmm, its a difficult choice.

I said this in your last thread as well. My son and I are house ruling 1 movement point to traverse. I like the idea of yetis swinging through the glacier tops. This sets them up for first attack, which is the way it should be in their lands.

having not played the yetis, i'm unqualified to determine if rule is necessary for us yet. it's great that you like using it though.... and i do like the imagery of yetis swinging around glaciers.

in general though, i'm trying to avoid changing any rules printed on the cards themselves. the only card i have seriously considered reprinting is tealord, and that is simply to add the disengage power that he supposedly has by omission.

since the snow and ice dont have a card that goes with it, i guess i feel justified in reworking the haphazzard rules they slapped on the tundra.

probably doesnt make sense thought does it.


EDIT:
i just went by the hasbro site i re-read the yeti special abilities. i guess their "enhanced movement" would have to be re-written to work with the new snow/ice rules i've proposed anyway. i guess that t fit "my" rules the card would read "they take no penalties for movement on snow/ice". i dont know yet whether or not they should be subject to the -1 attack and defend when standing on ice. if so, i would suggest that having that advange PLUS a 1 point glacier traverse would make them a little too powerful.

if only i had some tundra to play with!

how about if? when you landed on an ice space you had to stop like on water spaces, then the next move the hero or squad made, you rolled a d6 or a d10 to determin the amout of spaces you could then move, simulating how "easily" the squad moved over the ice. It would also be cool if someone would make a custom with the micro corp on skies.