|
Post by mrweasely on Apr 5, 2007 22:06:42 GMT 1
Gosh, thanks. I'll give it a shot.
|
|
|
Post by Goodgulf the Grey on Apr 6, 2007 2:45:32 GMT 1
Cool... I'll try it out too.
Thanks Sean!
|
|
|
Post by mrweasely on Apr 13, 2007 4:58:25 GMT 1
I've tried it. Seems good to me.
Giving the FP die box a 2nd row would be nice, since they have so many "dice" now.
|
|
|
Post by Goodgulf the Grey on Apr 14, 2007 4:06:39 GMT 1
I tried it today too. It works very well.
|
|
SevenSpirits
Nazgûl
PlayTester
Sauron meant no harm. He only wanted to draw the extra cards...
Posts: 283
|
Post by SevenSpirits on Apr 14, 2007 4:26:45 GMT 1
Cool.
As silly as it is that there isn't room for all the FP dice and tokens, I don't think I'm going to add another row for them.
|
|
|
Post by mrweasely on Apr 14, 2007 21:25:12 GMT 1
I've played with NATs quite a few times now, some basic, some Twilight. I'm starting to get a feeling that it has some problems. - Aragorn isn't worth it most (all?) of the time. Strider gives the FSP the cusion it needs to succeed. Aragorn takes two dice to make, and usualy only pays back half a die a turn. He sux.
- Gandalf the White isn't brought in until you need to defend an elven stronghold, or you're really worried about Rohan. Or not at all.
- Gandalf the Grey should guide the fellowship for a long time.
- Turn 1 or Turn 2, getting two more nations activated is key. I usually seperate Gimli to do this, and get the other activation through cardplay (Wisdom of Elrond, F!F!F!, There and Back Again, the Good Book).
- I'm not experiencing corruption problems. In the wilderness, if the chance of a tile is more than 55%, then I usually don't move. Swords occassionally play character cards!
- Only one eye in the hunt occassionally loses the Shadow the game.
- Free never uses elven rings. They're just not needed.
Some of these things are not changes for the better. The game's just more fun with companions running around the map. Strider all game is boring and wrong. Not being in a hurry for G the White is totally wrong. Having said that, the games have a lot more army play to them. Its not just [10/0/5] orcs beating up [1/1/1] strongholds again and again and again. That's good. I think the root cause is that the NATs are too powerful. Having a stable of 3-5 of them available makes the Free very flexible. The goal was to make them 50% of an action die, but in certain cases they're better than that (e.g. playing reinforcement cards). Sometimes I don't WANNA get Gandlaf, because I might roll a crappy Event, which would preclude my using a NAT for military adventurism.
|
|
|
Post by Goodgulf the Grey on Apr 17, 2007 1:59:15 GMT 1
Mrweasely, Do you think the NATs are too powerful or too flexible? I have only played about 5 games with NATs but they are a great idea for giving meaning to Active Nations. I think moving nations down the Political Track and mustering units is a big plus. What if you removed the ability to play an Event card (concerning that nation) and the ability to Counter-Attack within their borders? This would remove the Palantir and Army/Character capability from the card except for the ability to move an army. I think that this would still make National Action Tokens viable without making them superior (due to there flexibility) to an action die.
|
|
|
Post by mrweasely on Apr 17, 2007 3:00:29 GMT 1
I like your idea of deleting the "play event card" and "counter-attack" abilities, I think I'll try it in the next game.
|
|
|
Post by mrweasely on Apr 30, 2007 5:05:16 GMT 1
Well, it certainly does make it them weaker!
In some games the Free doesn't roll any will, and also only rolls 1-2-3s to muster with political NATs. Those are back-to-the-bad-old-days games for the free. Like only drawing 2 land in Magic the Gathering - its not really a game at all.
I think the card-play ability is actually good, since it gives some variablility in which nations the Free wants to activate early. Otherwise its always The North.
Its the Counter-attack ability that's too flexible. Its oftentimes clearly equal to an army die, which is pretty unlikely to roll (I have yet to roll one!), and pretty strong in some complicated midgame situations. Often stronger than an extra die/turn with a WoW up front of investment overhead.
|
|
|
Post by bluejackal on May 2, 2007 4:49:54 GMT 1
Obviously, your idea is very nifty.
And Counter-Attack certainly seemed potent (which you acknowledge it to be.) Finally, the political NATs are luck-dependent, which probably isn't necessary in WotR.
So how do you play using NATs these days?
Everything the same, but perhaps no Counter-Attacks? Since while the card-play ability is potentially potent, it also encourages flexibility/decision-making.
Also, for the Political NATs... what if you allowed or required two to be spent in order to move nations down the track? I'm not sure how this would impact early game, when you've only one NAT, but would the reduced randomness be worth it?
|
|
|
Post by mrweasely on May 2, 2007 6:54:37 GMT 1
I figured it was only a matter of time before someone broached this. I've flip flopped on the issue.
Old thinking: the luck isn't very big in the grand scheme of things. There's lots of other luck to mask it.
Then I got skunked, and suddenly it was an issue for me. I know, I know, I'm a whiner.
Half-measures are a little annoying, since it often happens that an odd number are spent on politics before other events make them irrelevant.
Tile drawing is a posibiity - say 4 muster tiles and 4 no-effect tiles - that should cover most games.
________________
To answer your other question, right now I'm off experimenting with ideas in the "Companions to Battle" thread. In that, I'm using NATs sans counter attacks, plus a bunch of ugly rules that hopefully will crystalize into something elegant someday.
|
|
SevenSpirits
Nazgûl
PlayTester
Sauron meant no harm. He only wanted to draw the extra cards...
Posts: 283
|
Post by SevenSpirits on May 2, 2007 8:14:36 GMT 1
I figured it was only a matter of time before someone broached this. I've flip flopped on the issue. Old thinking: the luck isn't very big in the grand scheme of things. There's lots of other luck to mask it. Then I got skunked, and suddenly it was an issue for me. I know, I know, I'm a whiner. Half-measures are a little annoying, since it often happens that an odd number are spent on politics before other events make them irrelevant. Tile drawing is a posibiity - say 4 muster tiles and 4 no-effect tiles - that should cover most games. How about just changing it so that the political advance happens on a 2,4 or 6? That way the results are more spread out. The simple fixes are always the best, imo.
|
|
|
Post by Goodgulf the Grey on May 4, 2007 15:57:12 GMT 1
I actually like the die roll part of Politics for NATs.
I have increased it to only 5-6 but allow modifiers to the roll.
If Elrond is mustered then +2, if a companion of that Nation or the FSP is with an army of the nation then +1 (Hobbits, Gandalf, and Aragorn would affect all of these nations).
I like complex fixes sometimes ;D
|
|
|
Post by mrweasely on May 4, 2007 17:16:15 GMT 1
The probableistic approach has some interesting decisions. Suppose Gondor is 2 from war, and has a muster and its NAT. The WK and 10 orcs are pulling into weapons range. take the 50% chance of mustering 1 down, and get the elite into MT, or take the 100% chance of getting in a regular?
I choose the 50% elite. Especially with elves instead of Gondor.
|
|
|
Post by Goodgulf the Grey on May 4, 2007 18:04:25 GMT 1
What about allowing NATs to muster Trebechets (in the expansion)?
Maybe spend a NAT and roll 1d6 with:
4-6 getting a Trebechet.
OR
5-6 getting a Trebechet if Nation is not At War and 3-6 getting a Trebechet if it is At War.
|
|