SFR, Inc.

Majiken · Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 8:00 pm GMT Post subject: More on (or Moron) Dragons

So Stan came over today for a couple of games...
(Still trying to get him on the Forum).

Treefolk versus Lava Elves. Had my rear end stomped the first game (TF players take note... include some magic in your army) by having my units wiped off the board by some devastating attacks and two black wyrms. But the second game the leafy ones rallied (after replacing some melee units with magic), for a terrain victory, grabbing the frontier and my home.

Now during this game dragons were summoned several times, with varying effects, but in most cases whatever army had to fight them usually slew at least one (if there were two). We both came to the conclusion that dragons really aren't a big threat like they're supposed to be.

My question? When dragon damage was increased, why not their total health? Why not make them worth 12 points instead of 10? Seems to me that if the jaws inflict 12, then it should take 12 to kill them (or 6 on a belly roll). Back in the beginning, jaws did 10, and it took 10 to kill them. Why increase jaw damage and not life?

In our discussion it made sense. Dragons become 'slightly' more powerful, and therefore are a bit more of a threat. Granted, when you're playing with a total of 24 health, they can be a major inconvenience, but up in the 36h range, we kind of shrug them off, especially if an army has the 8th face of a terrain.

We've decided to try it out in the next game.

Now that I've finished this long-winded post, the floor is open for discussion.
_________________
The Maj

Most people are like Slinkies ...
Not really good for anything,
but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.

ddicerc · Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 8:03 pm GMT Post subject:

Y'know, Joe has a serious point here. Better mark this day on the calendar.

This actually seems like a good proposal. Was this tried out by the rules committee (or whomever) when the dragon rule changes were made? If so, how did it turn out?
_________________
Steve "DDice" Braun
The Diceman's Gaming Pages: http://ddicerc.weebly.com
2014-2015 U.S. National Champion
(Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse...)

Sabredice · Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 8:23 pm GMT Post subject:

cliffwiggs

Firewalker

quote="Majiken"]So Stan came over today for a couple of games...
(Still trying to get him on the Forum).

Yes, Joe I am finally on the Forum.

Treefolk versus Lava Elves. Had my rear end stomped the first game (TF players take note... include some magic in your army) by having my units wiped off the board by some devastating attacks and two black wyrms. But the second game the leafy ones rallied (after replacing some melee units with magic), for a terrain victory, grabbing the frontier and my home.

You defeated me because I was tired and you had some else roll your Dragons. The Magic did not hurt, but I could have countered by changing my setup. The Treefolk, bah.

Now during this game dragons were summoned several times, with varying effects, but in most cases whatever army had to fight them usually slew at least one (if there were two). We both came to the conclusion that dragons really aren't a big threat like they're supposed to be.

My question? When dragon damage was increased, why not their total health? Why not make them worth 12 points instead of 10? Seems to me that if the jaws inflict 12, then it should take 12 to kill them (or 6 on a belly roll). Back in the beginning, jaws did 10, and it took 10 to kill them. Why increase jaw damage and not life?

In our discussion it made sense. Dragons become 'slightly' more powerful, and therefore are a bit more of a threat. Granted, when you're playing with a total of 24 health, they can be a major inconvenience, but up in the 36h range, we kind of shrug them off, especially if an army has the 8th face of a terrain.

We've decided to try it out in the next game.

Now that I've finished this long-winded post, the floor is open for discussion.[/quote]

Agree with you, let's see what happens.

Majiken

chuckpint · Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 11:28 am GMT Post subject:

Except for armies of Fireshadows winning Battlefests for many years, I've never heard of an all Firewalker army winning anything. Of course, almost no one uses just a single race. Even us Feral masters like to throw in a few other races with them. Like Treefolk. Shocked

ddicerc · Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 11:49 am GMT Post subject:

Majiken · Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 11:59 am GMT Post subject:

Majiken · Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:45 pm GMT Post subject:

Okay, just to bring this back on-topic again...

SFR guys, what about the original dragon question I posted? You remember it, the one about maybe boosting the total health points of dragons to 12?

Was this ever tried? What were the highlights of the discussion and the reasons for not doing so?

Inquiring minds wanna know!
_________________
The Maj

Most people are like Slinkies ...
Not really good for anything,
but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.

chuckpint · Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:12 pm GMT Post subject:

Ok, we have talked about it, but here's the problem. Certain things just don't scale when the amount of health in the game is changed. In a 24-health game, dragons are really deadly. In a 36-health game, you need at least 2, preferably 3 dragons to hurt most armies. In a 60-health game, dragons just don't do much at all. I've seen players laugh at 5 dragons when they escape without a scratch, and kill all the dragons. So the question is, do we make the dragons scale with army size or not? Making them scale makes them much more of a force to be reckoned with. However, it makes the game much more complex (ok, it's a 48 health game, what do dragons do again?). In the end, we just bumped the dragon damage up a bit, and left it at that.
_________________
You can never have too many dice.
First Place at the first ever Daemon Dice sealed starter tournament.
Battlefest tied for first GenCon 2012
Single Race Champion GenCon 2008-2009, Sealed Box Champion GenCon 2007,2009,
My collection is 21,500 Dragon Dice, 20,000 Daemon Dice, and others (too many to count).

eggsaladsandwich · Posted: Sun May 15, 2005 12:29 am GMT Post subject: dragons

just 1 mans opinion but i believe dragons should be much more powerful ,something onthe order of 15 hp/ 15 auto saves Shocked

. and all his attacks equally scaled up to make them truly dangerous to almost any size army Twisted Evil

.however this should be reflected with an increased summoning cost (maybe as high as 10) Rolling Eyes

.dragons should be the respected center piece in a game called "dragon dice" don't you think Cool

? just my 2 cents. den
_________________
"Another days useless energy spent." Moody Blues

ddicerc · Posted: Sun May 15, 2005 8:10 pm GMT Post subject:

I'd rather see a way to scale dragons to starting army sizes. A 15h/15autosave dragon, even at a 10 pt summoning cost, is essentially a "No Vacancy" sign on a terrain. The only alternative then is to summon it away, or summon another dragon to that terrain. (And at that size, the dragons may not even be able to kill each other!). A dragon should be more than a nuisance, but, despite the role-playing background of the game, a single dragon shouldn't be a total game-breaker for an army at full strength. (2 or more, maybe). Of course, scaling dragons would add another level of complexity to the game, but it might be worth a try.

One way would be to redefine dragon damage in terms of the dragon's health. For example, claws do damage equal to the dragon's health, tails 1/2 damage and roll again, jaws double damage, and breath equal damage plus a special effect. This isn't exactly the way it is now (but would be if dragons were 6h), but it's close enough for a start.

The other thing I'd like to see changed is that, if dragons become tougher, the reward for slaying a dragon should be greater. You have to really work your army to get a good effect from dragonslaying or a chest icon. I've probably not been able to promote like crazy more often than not, and usually get to promote maybe a single unit. This problem, however, I can't think of a cure for that wouldn't be exorbitant.
_________________
Steve "DDice" Braun
The Diceman's Gaming Pages: http://ddicerc.weebly.com
2014-2015 U.S. National Champion
(Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse...)

Nameless · dragonfoal Joined: 01 May 2005 Posts: 6

I really like the idea of scaling a dragon's health and casting cost according to starting army size, and then base the dragon's abilities on that health number. I think Total_Army_Size/4 may be a good formula. As for the dragon's abilities, I think DDiceRC's suggestion is on the spot. For example, in a 24 hp game, dragons would cost 6, have 6 health, 6 save, claws for 6, tails for 3 + re-roll, jaw for 12, breath for 6 + effect. If we get into fractions, it can just be rounded up to the next integer. If this is the case, each player may have to be restricted to only bring one dragon regardless of army size.

While I do agree that with dragons getting tougher, the reward for slaying one should be greater. However, I have no idea how to make the reward greater. Perhaps having a trophy pool of magic items from which you get to pick an appropriate reward to add to your army? Hey I like that idea. How about a pool of up to 1/4 of army size from which one could pick up to Dragon_Health/3 hp of items. It'd be like slaying the dragon and looting its treasures! Shocked

Oh and the treasure chest icon could reward the active army with a 1 hp item.

I must test out this idea when I get my dice. Very Happy

Deeghter · rare Joined: 03 Mar 2005 Posts: 2553 Location: Lost

As far as I recognized, you guys play 24/48/60 hp armies most of the times!?
Someone mentioned that a dragon is dangerous for a 24hp army, not so much for a 48hp army and almost no threat to a 60hp army.
Why not simply go and count 24hp= normal dragon, 48 (2x24) = 2 x normal dragon, 60 = 3 x normal dragon?
If someone can keep in mind that he has to bring a dragon for each 24 points, then he should be able too keep in mind hat each face has to be counted for example 3 times when playing with 60 hp.
That would keep the relativity without making it too complicated.

OK, someone would have to be a math professor if he wants to play odd numbers of hp, but there's always something, right? Wink

_________________

Mr. Green Fan Club President

Forum Games Record: W 5 / L 10

www.dragondicer.com
SFR's German electro-punk-bluegrass artist Deeghter @@ My S&JW Memorial Space! Tanx, Steve!

dead_mike · dragonsteed Joined: 27 Apr 2005 Posts: 51 Location: Canada

I believe there is already scaling of Dragons in this game - if you want a bigger, tougher, meaner Dragon then you just sommon more than 1 to the same terrain! Whether it is 1 Dragon, 2 Dragons, or 3 Dragons it is just like a 1 scale Dragon, 2 scale Drgaon, or 3 scale Dragon. With having multiple Dragons, the cost, damage, and health are all scaled in exact proportions. The only difference is that an army could kill 1/2 or 1/3 of the Dragon at a time and still be promoted - which is kind of like getting a greater reward for killing tougher Dragons. What I mean is, if you have 3 Dragons at your terrain and you manage to kill 1 a turn, then you get a total of 3 promotions out of it! I personally like the current Dragon rules (although Nameless' suggestion of a Dragon hoard of items is really cool), and would rather add the results of mulitple Dragons then try to divide a single Dragon's health and damage while I am playing Smile

dead_mike

ps - for some reason the Spell Check window wouldn't load so I appologize for any spelling mistakes in this post.

Nameless · dragonfoal Joined: 01 May 2005 Posts: 6

Using the number of dragons as the scaling factor decreases dragon effectiveness as the army size increases. In a 36 hp game, one dragon isn't a big deal while 2 can do some damage for a turn or so. Then one of the dragons gets slayed and the lone dragon can't do much on its own except on lucky rolls. Under the current model, I'm not convinced that dragons are worth their cost in larger games.

Deeghter · rare Joined: 03 Mar 2005 Posts: 2553 Location: Lost

Yep! Three dragons are three times as expensive as on alone and only useful when attacking together!
What I was talking about was ONE dragon made more effective in larger games without increasing the spell costs! That would create a creature as dangerous as in small games! (If necessary the spell costs might be adapted by adding one MP per scale if the dragon turns out to be too powerful now (like: 60hp game, dragon tripled, spell costs 7+1+1 / 36hp game, dragon doubled, spell costs 7+1 / 24 hp game, dragon unchanged, spell costs 7+0)
This still keeps it simple even for beginners!

I really agree that in a game called Dragon Dice a dragon should be a powerful creature, frightening the players when summoned to a terrain!
I mean look at all the rp games like D&D, Middle Earth etc...! In those games (and all fantasy movies) dragons always are fiery, mean, dangerous and powerful! That's what dragons are by nature!!
The present dragons seldom are more than a little pain in the butt (unless you play a 24hp game!)

BTW, I like to add 48hp games to the rules as a suitable army size (haven't tried with the new rules yet but I think there wouldn't be a big difference to former days!?
_________________

Mr. Green Fan Club President

Forum Games Record: W 5 / L 10

www.dragondicer.com
SFR's German electro-punk-bluegrass artist Deeghter @@ My S&JW Memorial Space! Tanx, Steve!

dead_mike · dragonsteed Joined: 27 Apr 2005 Posts: 51 Location: Canada

Deeghter · rare Joined: 03 Mar 2005 Posts: 2553 Location: Lost

You're missing a point here, I guess !?

Lightning strike is lightning strike! It always causes the same damage! I wanna destroy a target unit and I can do so!

But in dragons it means that a small army can hardly get the points together to save AND kill the dragon! That means the dragon is dangerous!
A large army can easily roll enough points to save for the dragon's hits AND simultaneously kill it!

In example one there was made a step forward in the game (as planned!). This was an effective successful move!

In example two there was a stagnant situation just leading to the summoning player to waste MP for a dragon which is useless! Wasted MP, wasted Action, wasted time!
See what I mean?
Dunno if I get something wrong here (I'm no playing pro yet) but in my opinion you can't compare the spells to the dragons!
_________________

Mr. Green Fan Club President

Forum Games Record: W 5 / L 10

www.dragondicer.com
SFR's German electro-punk-bluegrass artist Deeghter @@ My S&JW Memorial Space! Tanx, Steve!