Re: Mechanical discussion

[Baelon Drakeson]

Two mechanics questions regarding house actions.
1. Does it take an action to equip a unit (i.e. spend a wealth for an equipment upgrade)?
2. Are we using the wealth holding limit from the core book (2 per domain) or from Out of Strife, Prosperity (varying limits based on holding type)?

<
snip>

1. Takes an action.
2. No firm decision on limits yet as I've not checked where each house is. Inclined to go with the Out of Strife, Prosperity limits.
<
snip>

1 - Follow-up question: The upgraded armor for Personal Guard is essentially full plate, though that is not explicitly stated. Would upgraded Personal Guard armor benefit from the AP reduction house rule for plate?

2 - I support using the OoSP limits. For one thing it doesn't make sense to not have enough room to hire a new personage;
for another it would eliminate the incentive to invest in barren scrubland (cheapest possible domain - plains with no features) just to have a place to put some new wealth holding.
To save you a little time - House Drakeson's current projects will max out our lands under the core book limits... which is why I asked in the first place. :;
):

I wanted to make sure that these questions didn't get lost in the flurry of posts on Guerrillas and Support;
particularly the PG armor upgrade question as it will have a bearing on our month 6 house action is, and thus will come into play in the clan war.

To continue with my attempt to save you some time, assuming no changes from the chronicle starter, here are the wealth holdings &
core book limit ratio for each house:
Coldbrook: 1/4 +3 = 4/4
Bartheld: 3/4 +1 = 4/4
Dulver: 5/4 (!) +1(?) = 6/4 (assuming the orphanage is a wealth holding)
Kytley: 2/4 [no known changes]
Marsten: 2/4 +1 = 3/4
Tullison: 4/2 (!!) [no known changes]
Longshore omitted because they are not in the starter so I have no idea what their starting setup might have been.
So every player-occupied house is near, at, or over the core book limits, assuming no significant changes from the chronicle starter.

[Theomore Tullison]

It does bears mention that GR are rather notorious about breaking their own rules when making example characters/houses/etc..

[Baelon Drakeson]

It does bears mention that GR are rather notorious about breaking their own rules when making example characters/houses/etc..

That is abundantly clear. Luckily in this case it is a matter of which of two distinctly different rules works best for us, not a matter of trying to interpret a vague rule from error-ridden examples.

[Nathaniel Mason]

Well.. it depends on what rules are being used and how you interpret them.

Core says 2 Wealth Holdings per Domain. I think we can ignore this since OoSP has superseded the holding system.

OoSP says up to 4 Settlement Holdings and no limit on Personage Holdings. (Which I agree with. I don't think there should be a limit on Personage Holdings. It makes no sense that a large town would be limited to... say a Maester and an Artisan.) Nor do I think there should be a limit on Lifestyle Holdings, since they are often part and parcel of the structure they belong to. (Having a castle chapel and crypts should not preclude you from having gardens or a library.)

The only real limit is estate holdings at 1 per domain. (Personally I would increase this to two as the estate holdings are closest to what Core Wealth holdings should be.)

So House Bartheld has 1 Estate Holding (Vineyard) with room for 1 more in the second domain.
They have 2 Personage Holdings (Artisan and Maester) of which there is no limit.
Settlement Holdings are difficult because some require a town or defensive structure, but some do not. Abbey specifically says it's not subject to the settlement limit and I would argue that holdings like Tolls aren't either for the same reason. In any case, Bartheld would have 1 settlement holding and be open to at least 1 other based on population. There is no indication if the settlement holding limit is either per domain or House as a whole. If it is per domain, it would be wiser to have your Hall and your town in separate domains.

[Baelon Drakeson]

Core says 2 Wealth Holdings per Domain. I think we can ignore this since OoSP has superseded the holding system.

If we could just assume that this conversation wouldn't exist. It is precisely on the topic of whether or not to use the core rule or the OoSP rule, as it was previously stated that we are not using everything from OoSP.

Also, quick note, I'm about 90% sure that tolls don't count towards the settlement limit.
As for the 1 estate rule, I think we should keep it- there should be some incentive to expand (and remember there are ways to get new lands other than armed conquest).

[Nathaniel Mason]

Core says 2 Wealth Holdings per Domain. I think we can ignore this since OoSP has superseded the holding system.

If we could just assume that this conversation wouldn't exist. It is precisely on the topic of whether or not to use the core rule or the OoSP rule, as it was previously stated that we are not using everything from OoSP.

Since we are using a great deal of OoSP, I think the simplest thing would just say it's the standard, and if there is anything specifically from Core we want to keep, we can do that.

Also, quick note, I'm about 90% sure that tolls don't count towards the settlement limit.
As for the 1 estate rule, I think we should keep it- there should be some incentive to expand (and remember there are ways to get new lands other than armed conquest).

I am about 53% raise it, 47% keep it.. so whatever is fine. 1 Estate per domain does give good reason to buy up lands.

[Theomore Tullison]

Well, I'd submit that it may be an idea to treat OoSP as a supplement that one may ignore if one so wishes (or more likely, lacks access).

I kinda like that book though, so if I were narrating at the table, we'd be implementing all changes in it.

[Yoren longshore]

It's a good point Theomore brings up: maybe someone doesn't have OOSP.
That may change a lot... Is there anyone who doesn't have the expansion?

[Ser Jorah Holt]

Puts his hand up

[Yoren longshore]

Then I believe we shouldn't really use it, as it gives me and others a mechanical advantage, and advantages are generally not fair...

[Athelstan]

That depends, if that person is not in charge of making House Fortune rolls, than he really isn't affected as long as the person doing the rolls has access to it he can just discuss the options that can be build in their Domains allowing the players without to book to also have an opinion on House building.

[Daveth Coldbrook]

Counterpoint: I *do* have it, and I'm the one who decides civil policy for House Coldbrook. Where I feel it appropriate for the other players to weigh in, I explain the various options for their consideration in a manner that doesn't require the book.

Edit: Ninja'd by Athelstan!

[Nathaniel Mason]

I agree with Daveth. Besides. If you need it. It's $5. Not very much at all to support the game we get so much enjoyment from. It's also free if you choose to do about 10 minutes of digging on the net. Anyone who needs the supplement can get it easily enough.

[Reader]

1 - Follow-up question: The upgraded armor for Personal Guard is essentially full plate, though that is not explicitly stated. Would upgraded Personal Guard armor benefit from the AP reduction house rule for plate?

1. Yes.

[Ser Jorah Holt]

and just because I don't have it, doesn't mean it shouldn't be used. We can always share information

[Theomore Tullison]

Me? I prefer simplicity, you should be able to play and enjoy dragonsdance with nothing but the quickstart rules and friendly advice from the rest of us.

Which means that one player house should be allowed to play with only the main book if they wish to. If another wants to play around with stuff from OoSP, then why not? That book nerfs stuff like mine, port and the combination of the latter with the market, which generally is a good thing IMO.

I'd be somewhat concerned if one goes with "
The best of both worlds"
approach though.

[Yoren longshore]

Part of a bigger war discussion:

1"
Hit box"

2 Charges
3 OP and redundant units
4 Fixes

1 "
hit box"

this is a simple issue to fix regardless of which way we do it, but it has to be done: On an individual level, having the ability to strike diagonally makes sense, you may strike between two opponents to reach a third. However at the warfare scale, we are talkning of units, here this will be strange. As the square has only one place to tuch its diagonal counterpart only a single man may strike that turn, which on a warfare scale is neglible. I think this will be silly, but that is just my opinion, and there is an argument of keeping it the same as individual combat to make it simple that speaks against it.

2 charges:

Charge
You command a unit to charge the enemy. The unit then combines a move with a single attack. The unit can charge any foe within its sprint Movement. The unit takes –1D penalty to its Fighting test but increases its base damage by +2 on the attack.

Move
This simple command moves a unit at its normal rate (to wheel, change direction, and so on) or sprint. If you order the unit to sprint, the unit must move in a straight line.

What this means is that the infantery is essentially useless in attack, unless they first get one turn to Wheel in and then one turn to actually run. "
Straight line"
must, given that warfare happens in 10x10 grids be either from the same letter or the same number, unless they'll be stranded in the middle, causing more issues than anyone can be bothered to fix.

3 Infantery is largely trash. Example: if an Archer unit stands in close combat with a raider unit, it is still better in all aspects of war. Cavalery keeps a role as its extremely heavily armored and extremely mobile. Personal guards are usefull to an extent due to armor. Archers, scouts and warships are extremely usefull due to range and engineers are absolutely insane, due to their abilities to wipe out 3 units a turn from a mile away.

Criminals, Garrison, Guerillas, Infantry, Mercenaries, Peasant Levies and sailors are all pretty much useless. Now, we could simply ignore these issues, as it's equal for all and we'll not see too much mass combat, and dragons ruin this balance slightly, but i still feel that it should be possible to fix it....

4 I want to see epic clashes between infantry, supported by cavalry. I want to see epic warriors weathering hailstorms of arrows to strike at the underbelly of the defending army. I want to see catapults throwing old horse carcasses across city walls, I want it all to be awesome and in balance! Therefore i spent a little time highlighting the issue and will air a few ideas:

Infantry gets better armor and more HP, They are also able to charge regardless of their direct facing.
OR they are able to move in unison, as then archers cannot annialate them anew each order.
or a combination of the two.
We could also see, archers, warships engineers and horses gets nerfed a little down to create a more equal battleground. Horses gets double HP over everyone else without using XP, and that is in addition to having the best armor and the best attack rates, and the best movement, they are inhuman for petes sake
Or give all units more HP, to give them that staying power that limits that glasscannon first strike.

This is just my one nickle, does anyone else have better solutions?

[Theomore Tullison]

Charging opinions:

This is an interesting case where charging is worded differently in warfare and combat chapters.

In combat, it says "
can charge anyone up to 2x movement away"
.
In warfare it says "
can charge anyone within it's sprint movement"
.

Sprint movement in warfare is something I read as 4x normal movement, but must be in straight line as per the move order.

Interestingly enough, RAW is that a combat charge can go around obstacles whereas warfare charge cannot.

As for attacking, the book merely says that "
engaged"
=adjacent. On the combat scale, it's 1x1 squares, and it doesn't make much sense not allowing attack over the diagonals then. A bit more tricky when it's 10x10 squares, since the diagonal there may in extreme circumstances be one man in each unit with 1 yard apart, and then you could have the rest of them have men from their own (or even another unit) between them and that of the unit to the diagonal.

And if you go and look into facing, those rules seems to assume that adjacent does not include the diagonals.

So my conclusion as far as warfare goes is that:
-Charge is in straight line
-Fighting attacks doesn't work over diagonals.

The observations on unit strengths from the book, while I may well agree to them (but need sleep soon so didn't look closely), requires some pretty hefty houseruling (more like full rehaul of the warfare system) to properly address, so I'm not sure if that's what we want reader to spend time on.

[Yoren longshore]

Increase units staying power through AR by 5 and nerf bows by giving them agility instead of agility plus 2. Don't let horsemen use their horses health and make their lances an impact weapon. This may fix the worst of the problems... or just make mass combat abstract with only a few dice rolls.

[Kevan Lyras]

Ok, I'll add my thoughts on this as well:

1) Hitbox: I already stated my preference to stay consistent with the melee fighting rules, but in the end I really don't care enough about this. We need a ruling from Reader and move on either way.

2) Charging: You are right, that the rules say one must charge in a straight line and we should play accordingly. However, I strongly suggest that a diagonal charge should be possible as well: a) It is a straight line, so not against the rules as written b) it increases the usefulness of infantry units, which helps with your topic 3
-->
In the end, we need a ruling from Reader on this as well

3) Balancing issues: Yes, there are things one probably could change, but in my opinion, this is not the game to do that:
- Changing rules for balancing reasons in this case requires a couple of cycles of changes and subsequent testing leading to rules changing frequently as new 'fixes' get tested and assessed. Thiss is not really ideal for an ongoing game with so many players invested
- We just have not yet had enough battles to really assess the whole thing. We would need a few more battles with changing characteristics (e.g. one side has to defend a certain point on the map / additional use of terrain etcetc)

Ah, one more thing:

unless they first get one turn to Wheel in and then one turn to actually run

We are playing without 'facing' rules, so far, so this should not be an issue?

[Reader]

1) We can experiment in the next warfare scenes with no diagonal attacks and see the effect.
2) A diagonal line is a straight line.
3) Infantry is reasonably cheap and people won't be allowed to pack their armies with cavalry.
4) Happy to hear suggestions and implement house rules - much of the point of the initial fights is to get us all familiar with the rules and iron out kinks. For example, cavalry HP could be Horse endurance -1 etc.
- The glass cannon aspect doesn't bother me too much, keeps things moving at least.

[Theomore Tullison]

Main issue with cavalry is that you get 5 power worth of additional abilities for free. Infantry is only 1 power cheaper, so I don't know what you mean by "
reasonably cheap"
.

Cavalry gets better armor, better damage and better movement, and 5 power worth of abilities for that 1 power compared to infantry.

As long as we are talking heavy cavalry, and Westeros being the knightly society it is (ie: mounted knightly types are probably better trained and equipped than infantry, and thus more durable), I don't think the cavalry stats are wrong,though it's just that their price should be +15 IMO.

5 power because horse abilities
6 power because better movement, better damage/armor/discipline and that having 5 stats rather than 3 is huge...

+15 might actually be cheap.

[Benedict Marsten]

That may be a reasonable idea. It would reflect the cost of horses and maintaining them and the better armor.

[Athelstan]

*Just give infantry sane armor as Mercenaries, improve armor to 6 to reflect "
heavy"
infantry
*Give units an increase their CD as if they are using shields.
*Raiders should get same armor as Garrison and improve to 5AR as normal.
*Give Infantry type units some bonus Health of perhaps +1 so they have lasting power vs. Archer units.

It's cheaper to field trained archers than trained infantry and hit almost as hard as cavalry.
Shields should account for "
something"
so we could have some type of advanced order

"
Raise Shields"

Difficulty +3 or +6
Upon successfully issuing this order, the commanded unit uses their shields to protect against enemy fire and continue to advance slowly.
Marksmanship tests have -1D against the unit or maybe -2 Damage. Move only half distance.

[Gwyneth Drakeson]

Shields down! Divert emergency power!

I CANNA DO IT SIR

...

Wrong forum. Excuse me.

[Sponsored content]