Uniquely Common

[GaryLASQ]

Originally Posted by Xotli

Is that what it's called? The PDF had a different name ... Race to Immortality or somesuch. Perhaps it was an older version.

Race for Immortality is just the name for a scenario for it. the map itself is called Brusymlund. will make another scenario for it some day...
https://heroscape.glasq.com/battlefields/hsbf0019.html

[Xotli]

Originally Posted by GaryLASQ

Race for Immortality is just the name for a scenario for it. the map itself is called Brusymlund.

Ah. Well, we aren't using the scenario, just the map, so I guess I should refer to it as Brusymlund (assuming I can figure out how to pronounce that ... is that Norse?).

Thanx for the link!

[GaryLASQ]

Originally Posted by Xotli

is that [Brusymlund] Norse?

sort of. it's pieced together from the Norse word Bru which means Bridge, Sym (not Norse) becuase the map is symmetrical, and Lund, Norse for Land. (Broo-sim-lund)

did the same thing for my map Muspellgata. Muspell is Norse for Desolate, as in Muspellheim which means "Land of Desolation". and Gata is Norse for Path/Road/Gate. so my made up name Muspellgata means "Road to Desolation".

back on topic (sort of)...had a thought. using the army i spelled out above, i wonder what would happen if team players didn't bother keeping track of who's Blade/Arrow Gruts or Swogs was who's. when one dies just decide who "takes the hit" on the army card. this would give each player access to all commons on the team. hmm...

[Xotli]

Originally Posted by GaryLASQ

sort of. it's pieced together ...

Ah, cool.

Originally Posted by GaryLASQ

back on topic (sort of)...had a thought. using the army i spelled out above, i wonder what would happen if team players didn't bother keeping track of who's Blade/Arrow Gruts or Swogs was who's. when one dies just decide who "takes the hit" on the army card. this would give each player access to all commons on the team. hmm...

Could be cool. I don't have enough orcs to try it myself tho.

OTOH, I do now have 3 squads of Marros ... I think I'll try a battle with them and see if it's really impossible to kill 'em off.

[jcb231]

Originally Posted by Xotli

Here's a question that may or may not relate: Do you guys actually use multiple cards for multiple commons? 'Cause it's always seemed to me like you don't really need to. Putting order markers on one of each common card is the same as putting two on the same one, right? Specials that refer to a unit's card are the ones that only work on uniques (mind shackle, negation). I know there's the 2nd ed rule about "filling up" one card at a time when counting points, but I mean, really ... you can take care of that just by counting. In the end, what do you really need multiple cards for?

You don't need multiple cards at all, for any reason. I put all my extra common cards away in a cabinet to use as replacements if anything ever tears or gets damaged somehow.

People so often overthink commons....a marker on knights activates four knights, period. There's no need to keep track of what card they came from, therefore no reason to keep mutliple cards. So long as you have four knights alive, four knights move. It's always assumed that you would be filling up one card a time in order to maximize your move...ie, the card you are using for your order markers would always have the most living figures associated with it in order to get the most out of your turn. So you can imagine that the dead figures are simply filling up virtual cards, if you like. Or you can just not overthink it and toss them in the box.

[jcb231]

Originally Posted by RobWeaver

I still like to distribute casualties among the cards of commons I have rather than fill up one card at a time, but I'm told that's a no-no too. Since I'm the only player in our group who likes commons, and most of the time we play with my board, that's a rule that gonna stay.

Why do this? What point does this serve?

[jcb231]

Originally Posted by Xotli

This thread is the perfect place to ask a question I've been meaning to ask for a while.

So I've got my 2 MS, and I really have a burning desire to get some use out of those extra figures. So I thought of this idea:

Proposed House Rule: Elite Units

("Elite" was just a thought. It could be a different word if anyone has any other thoughts.)

Certain formerly unique units (but not all of them!) would be designated "elite" units instead. An elite unit basically has two properties:

*) In moving and attacking, treat it like a common unit.

*) When referencing the unit(s) from a special power, treat it like a unique unit.

That's it. Possibly there could be a limit on how many could be drafted (e.g. only up to 2 squads). But basically this provides the advantage of common unit movement, but it (theoretically anyways) should be balanced by the disadvantage of potentially having a healthy chunk of your army mind shackled or negated all at once.

Unique squads that I think should be allowed to be elite: Marros, Izumi, Zettians.

Unique squads that I think should definitely not be allowed to be elite: AE (too confusing with the Drop--do they all drop at once, or do you roll once per squad? just say "no"), Tagawa (Bloodlust across multiple squads just too powerful).

Unique squads I can't make up my mind about: KMA, Vikings.

Having multiple Marros would just be so cool, and having multiple Zettians might get them actually drafted for once (neither SpeedySonicX nor I have ever used them in any battle).

What do you guys think?

Moving and attacking with Uniques as if they were commons is potentially unbalancing. If you are going to use multiple uniques in the same army, the only way to make it reasonably balanced is to keep track of them separately, sad to say.

[GaryLASQ]

Originally Posted by jcb231

Why do this? What point does this serve?

because if you play with a round limit and determine victory based on total points for number of active cards, you could win by not having any cards "deactivated" by spreading out the casualties evenly.

but with the change in the 2nd edition rules, this isn't allowed.

[Xotli]

Originally Posted by jcb231

Moving and attacking with Uniques as if they were commons is potentially unbalancing.

Well, potentially, yes. But don't you feel that the possibility of having a healhy chunk of your army negated all at once helps balance that out? (Or mind shackled, which would be far worse, but not nearly as likely. But, let's face it: if you're playing with 3 squads of KMA and your opponent hits that roll, you basically just lost.)

Also, I think your statement is too general, because all uniques are not created equal. Playing with multiple Zettians is not going to unbalance anything, and I can't believe anyone here would disagree. OTOH, I think most people are going to agree that having multiple Tagawa's would be just evil.

So let's refocus: are there any uniques which wouldn't be unbalancing to have multiples of? If so, which ones?

[jcb231]

Zettians, I think, would be slightly unbalanced to just play flat out as commons....they are slightly too cheap for that. Their point cost would need to be raised if they were made common, I think, to allow for the common move rules.

Mulitple Tagawas would be evil, but not if they were all played as true uniques, and each card was kept separate, with its own markers. That could still be balanced.

The possibility of having a chunk of your army negated is a minor, minor thing, really....the gain of allowing uniques to move and attack like commons is HUGE. GIGANTIC. UNBALANCED.

Imagine if I had an army made up only of Syvarises.....8 of them perhaps. It would not be fair for me to just activate whichever Syvaris was in the best attack position each round...that would be incredbily unbalanced. If I kept each Syvaris marked with colored tape somehow to keep them separate and only activated the one I'd put a marker on, that could be balanced.

[Revdyer]

jcb231, what you describe is exactly our house rule -- multiple, color coded uniques, moving as discrete squads or heroes, not as commons.

It seems to work for us and it can be quite fun to have three Syvarises, even if you have to decide ahead of time which one you're going to activate.

I know these aren't official rules. I know not everyone would want to play this way. But it works for our weekly casual group and doesn't seem to unbalance the games noticably.

[Xotli]

Originally Posted by jcb231

Zettians, I think, would be slightly unbalanced to just play flat out as commons....they are slightly too cheap for that.

I think the common concensus on the forum is that they're underpriced as it is. This just helps them be worth what they're already priced at.

Originally Posted by jcb231

The possibility of having a chunk of your army negated is a minor, minor thing, really....the gain of allowing uniques to move and attack like commons is HUGE. GIGANTIC. UNBALANCED.

Again, you state this categorically, as if all uniques were some shining beacons of power who make the game tremble. And it just ain't so. Zettian Targeting isn't any better than Arrow Volley, and Berserker Charge isn't any better than Frenzy (actually, it's a bit worse). Some of these squads are not unique because they're so much cooler than commons; they're just unique because they happened to have the bad luck to end up in the MS.

So, no, I just can't see that allowing "uniques" to move like commons is "huge". It's sort of like saying "drugs are bad" without making a distinction between PCP and Tylenol.

I also think the negation thing is not minor. It takes Morsbane an average of 4 turns to negate someone. If you were playing with, say, 3 sqauds of Marros, he'd have 12 figures to sidle up to and start negating--he could just take his pick and never stick his neck out. In a 600 pt army, that'd be a quarter of your army negated in one fell swoop. And the mind shackle possibilities would be hideous to contemplate ... NGS + SBN == 10% chance of losing the entire battle to one lucky roll.

But that's just my take on it.