Re: [HeroQuest-rules] Re: Running a gang

From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_rKNkEYSOv6syWObCwXwUhv1faC1SzoR7bRgdHqy989wNjaF8nYhZPRzK_0WXd4R5wYrb9A.yaho>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 03:11:39 +0100

On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:34:31PM -0700, David Dunham wrote:
> Alex answered me
>
> >any one person's augment was typically less than +6 --
> >> far less than the +10-+20 that people can augment themselves).
> >
> >If you're happy with that level of multiple self-augmentation, why not
> >multiple mutual augmentation?
>
> It's a lot simpler than trying to figure out the same thing on the
> other side -- as well as being faster in play.

Not sure I'm following your line of thought here, sorry -- you mean as in the opposition, who're an "undifferentiated mass" and hence for whom it doesn't make sense to use the augmentation rules?

> (Oddly enough, I think
> the HQ auto-augment rules are actually slowing the game down, since
> everyone scrounges for another one. And most of them do seem like
> they could be used automatically, without casting magic.)

Aside from the "all you can eat buffet" effect having changed from HW to HQ (i.e. from magical to non-magical augments), I'm not clear why this'd have changed in this respect. People do it more because they no longer have the 'personal overhead' of having to roll for it? (This assumes players don't _like_ rolling, so that can't be it...) Or because of the 'just wan leetle waffer-theen meent' effect -- they're less guilty about going for another thing with a smaller 'group overhead', and hence you get six automatics per, rather than two rolled (or whatever)?

(Something like this came up on the Forge, and one reply was to the effect of, if I may paraphrase brutally, screw 'em over once they go beyond the point of the 'social contract' about what's an appropriate number of augments to forage for. Trouble is there's no _rules_ help in establishing what this point is, it really is a purely local or social thing. (Setting aside the issue of whether to penalise them in rules terms vs. ignoring said pleas, throwing jaffa cakes at them, etc.))  

> They wanted to kill everyone (all of whom were non-combatants), so
> sheer numbers was probably the dominant factor for the defense.

Makes sense to me, if this relates directly to the above, so (some variation of) the CS/ME table would seem appropriate.

Cheers,
Alex.             Received on Wed 28 Apr 2004 - 19:11:45 EEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri 04 Jan 2008 - 22:57:32 EET