Racer: The Cavalry Fix Rule

[nyys]

Missed this one the first time around. I like the thematic effect the ability has. That of being difficult to target from a ranged attacker. Heck, I'd be happy with just 1 extra defense die.

Originally Posted by sherman

Heroscape doesn't fix units by adding new rules, but by adding new units.

Agreed, something like this I doubt would ever be errataed (sp?), but maybe a future unit will give them a boost.

[Dredd Stev]

The cavalry are not broken. At all. In the least. You are proposing a fix to something that works just fine, and in so applying this "fix" are venturing into the realm of breaking them.

If you find that they are falling too quickly to ranged fire then you need to stop charging them out into the line of fire. That huge movement score is just as good as an extra defense or two in most cases, keeping them safely in the back while still being able to threaten the front lines. The "racer" ability that you propose (while pretty cool) would require a jacked up price in both the grocks and the templars, +2 defensive versus all ranged attacks? with the offensive abilities they already have? Gimme a break!

I think this idea suffers from "Meta-Game Syndrome". The desire to take a figure and tweak it, change it and paint it up so it fits more snugly in the 500point-double blind-24startzone-kill em all-on a BoV style map. Granted both the cavalry squads have a hard time finding success in the above game setting, but that is hardly an indication that they are broken and in need of some sort of added defensive ability.

[Sherman Davies]

Originally Posted by Dredd Stev

The cavalry are not broken. At all. In the least. You are proposing a fix to something that works just fine, and in so applying this "fix" are venturing into the realm of breaking them.

I think this idea suffers from "Meta-Game Syndrome". The desire to take a figure and tweak it, change it and paint it up so it fits more snugly in the 500point-double blind-24startzone-kill em all-on a BoV style map. Granted both the cavalry squads have a hard time finding success in the above game setting, but that is hardly an indication that they are broken and in need of some sort of added defensive ability.

Thank you; I spoke with chas about this idea the other day and this is pretty much what I told him my position was. You put it much better, though.

[flameslayer93]

Originally Posted by Dredd Stev

The cavalry are not broken. At all. In the least. You are proposing a fix to something that works just fine, and in so applying this "fix" are venturing into the realm of breaking them.

If you find that they are falling too quickly to ranged fire then you need to stop charging them out into the line of fire. That huge movement score is just as good as an extra defense or two in most cases, keeping them safely in the back while still being able to threaten the front lines. The "racer" ability that you propose (while pretty cool) would require a jacked up price in both the grocks and the templars, +2 defensive versus all ranged attacks? with the offensive abilities they already have? Gimme a break!

I think this idea suffers from "Meta-Game Syndrome". The desire to take a figure and tweak it, change it and paint it up so it fits more snugly in the 500point-double blind-24startzone-kill em all-on a BoV style map. Granted both the cavalry squads have a hard time finding success in the above game setting, but that is hardly an indication that they are broken and in need of some sort of added defensive ability.

The only thing that you have to remember is this, the templars in real life charged on the battlefield as major threats because they were skilled cavalry. Although I agree that your method would increase their life span in HS, it will also make them even less viable in most if not all typical matches outside of Capture the Flag or other such roles. Tournament style games do receive most of the "good" thoughts when putting in the sense of value of figures, but using a figure outside of any powerful design means that your intentionally setting yourself up to lose. Using a Venoc defensively is like saying I give up. Cavalry deserve to actually fight, not be hiding away in the back. Especially thanks to their cost. Since the only way to win is to kill figures or reach a goal, these lower defense figures will be fighting one way or the other.

[chas]

Since this discussion is continuing, I thank everyone for their input so far. Here are some more of my thoughts:

I've been unhappy with the cavalry since they were issued, way back when. I can't say there aren't a few other Herscape figures I pray will get future help the proper way, with the powers of future Army Cards--so nobody's games become obsolete. But the cavalry I'm unhappy with as a class. It would be interesting to hear what today's designers think of these figures, as they are the ones "fixing" old figures in this way.

DreddStev: Actually, I only started playing tournament games at all last year. I usually play on much larger boards, and have since 1994. You make good points about the cavalry perhaps being balanced properly, if one uses the correct tactics with them. I can only say that I have tried them out in many, many different situations, and they always fail to perform reasonably well. I want them to work! This means being fairly powerful--as they were in their original historical/fantasy periods/settings, and as their extra plastic and points cost requires. If they worked better and were more popular, we'd probably be getting more cavalry. WOTC doesn't stint to put extra plastic into the other large and huge figures. Is there a different reason we don't get more thematically popular mounted units?

To Sherman Davies: my best and oldest pal in Scape, I ask what is an FAQ but an Errata in Disguise, and we have many of them for Scape. How about Taelord's added Stealth Flight--here the exception proves the rule! It doesn't happen often, but it happens. I'm saying this is a rare case that I am proposing after many disappointing games with the cavalry, and even trying out powered up cavalry customs from another person.

Kolakoski: always around here in NYC and on the site to bust my chops! Yes, I'd say a Combo Rider (different figure being carried on seperate mount) would get Racer as well. Although I'm not adding it to the rule for simplicity's sake as of now, when only two mounts in the entire game can do this. You could argue against it from a historical perspective (riders inexperienced in riding them) but it works from a fantasy adventure perspective (the Carry ability representing an uncanny ability of a mythological being).

FlameSlayer93: (Edited) I think Nerak and the regular Swogs should get the bonus too. Thanks for mentioning them.

Wriggz: For the "political" reasons of getting this rule accepted or tried out by others, I don't want to include any figure in it but the mounted cavalry cards! A trained cavalry unit bonds rider and mount in a way different from another type, although I do love my "wolvies" (Deathstalkers).

Kaiyu0707: The "four-legged" requirement may sound 'silly' to you, but it was a carefully considered way to include some Army Cards and not others, after going through a number of them. (My apologies to the 3 and 5+ legged communities). The movement speed/rate requirement also works, but I think it is more likely to need further modification by future Army Cards that could be issued. Its more likely that we'll get slower (heavy) cavalry than multi-legged ones we consider "regular" cavalry--as opposed to beast riders like Drow D-Riders who I would not include in Racer.

This is also meant to be the simplist fix imaginable; in one sentence. Some of the more complex suggestions (like Rich10s) made here will work too. But in designing custom superheroes and other figures and offering them onsite, I have heard time and again about "how we do it it Scape." And this is how I make changes in other games and in my own miniatures rules, as I rarely do--simply. (I once fixed an entire board game with a one sentence fix).

[flameslayer93]

Originally Posted by chas

FlameSlayer93: I'm not understanding you here. My Swogs have four legs. How about yours?.

Where are you picking that from? If you mean:

How about the Swog Rider? Maybe to replace "four-legged mounts" we could put an original movement value of 7 or more. This way the wording at least partially official.

Then that point was to allow the option for possible Heavy Calvary with the 7 move scheme. Since the number of legs on both Swogs and Templars isn't technically recorded on the card, I'd figure I would give a broad ability for the fixing rule.

[AceofShadows]

Originally Posted by flameslayer93

Where are you picking that from? If you mean:

Then that point was to allow the option for possible Heavy Calvary with the 7 move scheme. Since the number of legs on both Swogs and Templars isn't technically recorded on the card, I'd figure I would give a broad ability for the fixing rule.

I think what he means is that there is no reason (in his eyes) that the swog shouldn't receive the defense bonus. However, I agree that the swog is just fine as it is, and would have too great of a survivability for 25 points.

[AceofShadows]

I think the "extra calvary attack" should go like this:

Templar-Trampling steed "At any time during your movement, you may roll the 20-sided die for an adjacent small or medium figure. If you roll a 1-16, nothing happens. If you roll a 15-18, the figure receives one wound. If you roll a 19, the figure receives two wounds. If you roll a 20, the figure receives 3 wounds. If you cause aleast one wound with Trampling Steed, you may continue your movement. Figures that recieved a wound from Trampling steed may not roll leaving engagement attacks this turn."

I kept the chance a little low because you get three chances every turn. Also, there needs to be a correction in officialish wording so that not all Templars can continue movement when just one succeeds to trampling steed and only one must stop moving after a failed trample. However, this also suffers from the original weakness of the Templars, the engagement rule, as failing could mean no galloping steed next turn. Something else to add is that instead of the extra defense from range, the Templars (and maybe the Groks) can get extra defense from melee guys (to compensate for the attack weakness from engagement) I imaging that it is harder to hit a guy on a horse than a guy at your level (kinda like height advantage as the templar kinght is technically positioned higher than the attacking figure)I also imagine it's easier to hit a guy with a gun, arrow, etc. than to hit him with a sword, axe, etc. I think I have more to add later, but here's another idea, passing swipes for the templar, imagine the templar attacking a guy then racing off to another never stopping and leaving little room for a leaving engagement strike.

[flameslayer93]

Originally Posted by AceofShadows

I think what he means is that there is no reason (in his eyes) that the swog shouldn't receive the defense bonus. However, I agree that the swog is just fine as it is, and would have too great of a survivability for 25 points.

In my explanation, I was meaning to include the Swog Rider. Not keep him out.

[chas]

Flameslayer: My apologies, I was confusing Swogs with Groks! I haven't even thought about the Swogs, which I'll have to do. Thanks for mentioning them.

(Edit) I think both Nerak and regular Swogs should get Racer, since they're supposed to be heavier and nastier units than the Orc infantry/archers.

[Sylvano the Wasabus]

I'm with you all the way on this one, Chas.
I'm a Templar freak, and they were a gift from my kids to me- so imagine my horror when I found that this storied group are too weak and not worth their points.
I'm not going to buy the "specific" argument- that the Templars are good in some situations, and not in others, so don't draft them unless you expect that specific situation. They aren't the obsidian cavalry.
They should be a terrifying, strong multipurpose force. Historically they were feared elites and I want them to retain that.
And I want to use them as much as I can. At my house Sir Dupuis and the Templars have had their stats increased and their points lowered so that they are always relevant and usable. Fortunately house rules are the house rule at my house.

Chas, your fix is great. Simple and direct, just the way Valhalla likes it.

[Dredd Stev]

Originally Posted by Sylvano the Wasabus

I'm with you all the way on this one, Chas.
I'm a Templar freak, and they were a gift from my kids to me- so imagine my horror when I found that this storied group are 1)too weak and not worth their points.
2)I'm not going to buy the "specific" argument- that the Templars are good in some situations, and not in others, so don't draft them unless you expect that specific situation. They aren't the obsidian cavalry.
They should be a terrifying, strong multipurpose force. Historically they were feared elites and I want them to retain that.
And I want to use them as much as I can.3)At my house Sir Dupuis and the Templars have had their stats increased and their points lowered so that they are always relevant and usable. Fortunately house rules are the house rule at my house.

Chas, your fix is great. Simple and direct, just the way Valhalla likes it.

1) I Hate this argument... But there's not much more to say about it. I guess it comes down to how you define "worth their points". 9 times out of 10 when someone makes this very general claim about a figure's worth they mean that they will often not kill their own point investment in enemies figures, which is possibly the very worst way to gauge a particular figures in game value.

2) I'm not sure why you wouldn't buy this argument... as it's true for just about every figure in the game. Certain figures have match ups where they shine, and others where they get crushed. Granted there are some figures that have a hard time against more figures then they shine against (the inverse is also true) but thats a very core concept of army building. Some units fit much better as a counter draft than for blind drafting, it has always been (and should continue that way).

3) House rules are all well and good, you should do what you want to have fun at the table. That said of all the ways to costomize the game I think messing with the army cards is the easiest way to break the game. The only benefit I can see from altering the Templar so drastically (increased stats AND lowered cost...yikes) is to help them work better in the standard metagame (500point-blind-draft-24startzone on a BoV style map). While your tweaks may have made them a better fit in this style of play I am positive that in a higher point and startzone situation you would have a amazingly broken army centered around them.

It seems to me that the players that are for this "fix" (Can you fix something that is not broken?) all say the same thing in one way or another:

"I was very excited to have the templars come out, they are one of my favorite historical figures and look super cool. I think they are uber bad-ass and just want them to crush opposition on the field because they were so elite in their time period. I hate how I can't charge out and wreak things with them, they don't play like I THINK they should."

They are a devastating force if deployed properly and with the right support staff, on the right map. I feel for you guys, I really do, but the templar were not designed with the standard metagame in mind. It's just that simple. Their high move can be amazingly powerfull on the right map (games where you get to see the battlefield before drafting) and can be a superb counter draft (High defense unique-heavy armies) and not to toot my own horn but in my game group my friends always cringe when I field these guys (with the proper support staff of course). I've got a reputaion of crushing armies with just two squads of em'. Though I would rarley (if ever) draft them under the metagame standards. The templar (and the groks to a lesser extent) are a niche unit, it sucks that they aren't all around core figures like their cousins the KoW but just because we'd like them to be doesn't mean they are somehow broken and in need of tweaking.

Don't say that they suck and need to be fixed up because they don't play the way you wish they would. It's one thing to want a Calvary unit that works in the metagame, but don't come down on the Templar as being sucky or broken cus your last tourney army went 0-5 with tempsx3 and Sir Dup! There is far, FAR more to this game than the metagame, heroscape is just too vast and dynamic to limit your analysis of a unit to that single context.