Hey guys, my thought is for more movement in combat, let me give you some background on my idea.
I've played alot of skirmish games and two things about the ones I really enjoyed the most were 1) Opposed dice rolls which we already have so thats all fine :)
and 2) was movement in melee: games like GW's LOTR and Inquisitor, or Asmodee's Okko had movement based on the melee combat where based on the results you could push back your enemy or surround them in a compromising position.
Now it worked differently in those games - for LoTR it was the winner of the melee who would push his enemy directly back. If the enemy couldn't be moved back due to being surrounded by enemy or terrain, then they would be more likely to be killed when they lose a melee exchange, Okko has a similar system (even though that is technically a grid based board game it still is a skirmish and a good one at that) - the difference is that with LoTR the figures do not stay locked in melee as they do in Bushido.
Inquisitor was somewhat different in that if you responded to a melee attack with a dodge, you could move your figure 2inches, this allowed you to circle or fall back towards a more advantageous position.
In skirmish games with such a small model count, I think such movement is a necessity to adding to the atmosphere, excitement and tactics of the game over static models, particularly with one such as Bushido where once figures get into melee, they can be there for quite a while. (Anima Tactics this wasn't so much an issue because melee tended to be pretty decisive once a good hit was landed or a melee was initiated with good tactics, even then you had a 2inch free movement option to circle and stuff)
How to implement something like this for Bushido even if just as a house rule, I'm not entirely certain - maybe after a melee is fought whoever succeeded their attack by the higher success level can move their enemy back 1 inch and then immediately follow up to be still in melee? Add in a -1CP penalty for fighting in a compromised position i.e. pushed back into water etc?
That was off the top of my head, but what do you think?
Interesting idea and i'll really like to hear how some playtesting went. Are you thinking along the lines of.
- 1 CP if a model is unable to move 1" away.
What if a model successfully attacks immediately move the Target model 1" away and then move the attacker 1" directly towards that model. This way you would have the fliud movement your looking for. You'd have to think of restriction on where the model could move ie Through ZoC could it move into BtB?
"To a real warrior, power perceived may be power achieved."
The game already has those. There are slams, throws, knockdowns and shoves and others, all based on the Success Level of the attack (which you already mention). All the Slam, Throw, Knockdown and Shove triggers already do that.
No, not every model has that, but I don't think every model should. It's already a property of certain fighters that distinguishes them from others. Mikio, the sumo wrestler, has all his triggers cause throws or movements and he has them offensively and defensively. Temple is chock full of things that do this. The Gorilla, Kenko, Master Ekusa, Riku and Yumi (and more than likely Hotaru as well) already all have "move the enemy around or knock them over" triggers as a part of their abilities.
So I could see it being something possible. You'd make a "generic trigger" of Say SL 1 or 2 of "move enemy 1", then move into contact with them" but you'd have to figure out how that would interact with disengaging and other such things for models being moved around, to figure out which form would be best within that.
There are some people that call me... Polar_Bear
In fact, most do.
Come see me over at http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/.
Bakemono 1: By the force of many, you loose combat and you are pushed back!
Bakemono 2: Whos the idiot pushed our victim out of contact?
Bakemono 3: Dont worry, he just died because he followed and attacked again without any outnumbering bonus...
Just one drawback of this.
And giving -1cp if you dont have room in your back means effectivly doubling any outnumbering bonus.
It couldn't really be a CP debuff, really, because the rule would have to be assuming you're going to lose the combat that you wouldn't have a place you could be pushed to. Since you're only pushed when you lose, taking a penalty before you've lost would really suck. "We think you might lose this battle and you've got nowhere to back-up to, so we're going to impose a penalty on you now in case you lose later." It would also mean nobody would EVER stand near terrain if they could avoid it. "Hmm... I could move there, but just because if I eventually lost a combat I'd be pushed, and therefore I'm taking -1CP now because of it, I think I'll just not go near that terrain."
At best, if a model could not be pushed back you'd get a bonus to your wound roll. But with how hard it is to get a +1 already, having your back next to a wall would give anyone that wins a combat against you the effect of doing a charge. That's pretty powerful considering a charge takes a complex action. Instead, it'd like giving yourself the "Weak" trait. Which, of course, again, makes it mean that terrain becomes a detriment to you if you're ever near it.
So in the end, while it wouldn't be hard to put into the game in one sense (simply making it a generic trigger that everyone has access to), it would 1) make it so the throws, slams and other movements already on some models less special, 2) make terrain a real detriment on the battlefield if it affected how you were wounded or how many dice you got in your CP. Plus, as before, what about disengaging and other such things involved.
Also... I'm not sure about not seeing movement while in combat. I'm constantly shifting around my opponent so I can get another model in melee (there's only so much room around a model to get another one in B2B and sometimes you just need to move to make space) or to get a slam line set up so I can hit another model, or moving myself out of a charge movement of another enemy (if they don't have a straight line to get into melee with me, they can't charge me).
There are some people that call me... Polar_Bear
In fact, most do.
Come see me over at http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/.
Dont really agree the arguement about not being able to apply a -1 CP for not being able to move back. Thats easy to see from the outset of a Melee exchange. I dont think that making the terrain more impacting on the game as a bad thing either. I think that people are maybe miss understanding the first few statements about being unable to move back as it would require you to be quite blocked in to incur the -1CP.
It would be a choice i think so it wouldnt affect the bakemono mob.
Not saying it'll be a rule (perhaps optional?) but i think people are missing what The Masked Ministrel is suggesting and that its worth a game or two testing.
"To a real warrior, power perceived may be power achieved."
I like the idea for a mechanic for effectively 'trapping' models, would give bakemono more of a chance against really big stuff, and mean a little more tactical manuevring rather than just running at models waving your arms around (maybe that's just me)
I think giving everyone the ability to shunt stuff around would mean re-writing Mikio a bit, which would be a shame, remember
Never tell me the odds: Han Solo;)
(avatar from http://www.sillof.com/C-samuraiwars.htm)
Large mobs of models already get a bonus from simply having a lot more activations compared to others. You can activate your models and attack others, denying your opponent the ability to dictate fully what their own models do in a turn. There's the Outnumbered rule that is already making your enemy lose CP if you have multiple enemies engaging them. You can also block models in simply by moving 3 models so there's no way the enemy can move. Having yet another bonus to mobs I'm not really seeing as necessary.
In general, if you made it so whenever you were close to a piece of terrain where you "couldn't back up" (a term still in need of being defined) you got an inherent penalty to your CP, then nobody would ever want to be close to a piece of terrain.
There are some people that call me... Polar_Bear
In fact, most do.
Come see me over at http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/.
I agree with the fact that melee locks figures a little too tightly, but I'm not certain that the LotR model would be the best for Bushido. There are already a lot of fun abilities that do that, and if nothing else, they'd have to be changed.
One thing you could easily try is to just make it easier to leave melee. Possibly allow it to be combined with making an attack against another figure.
(If the only penalty for leaving melee is, say, that the moving figure suffers an attack where she must place all dice in defence and the other only uses one dice, then we might be getting a more mobile battle. (And a single bakemono won't be able to lock Hiro, but he'll think twice about disengaging from Zuba.) And if that's too good perhaps the figure counts as being outnumbered if she enters another combat, and that she cannot in any way attack the figure she left.)
One thing the game actually does not need is more incentives to clump all together, like subtracting yet another die from the CP for being surrounded.
I'm all for terrain making more of a difference, though. Games where terrain plays a part, and is not just blobs of things hindering movement and possibly giving cover, tends to make the playing area prettier*.
* Not that the boards I've seen folk make are not pretty, far from it. Just a general observation.
I follow the rules of bushido. I am a bushi.
He wont. Defense into attack+his other feat= headless Zubas last words: Thats not fair! I just wanted to stop him...
There are already some models able to do "more mobile" combat by easier disengaging. And some other models designed to push others around. Its all there, but not for everyone.
As Jason said, those models would loose their role in the game. You would need a complete redesign of models and the game system.
Include a rule from another system doesnt work usually, because it is followed by lots of unwanted consequences.
Yes, iam not a fan of the Lotr rules. And no, iam not saying its a bad idea to expand the system a bit.
I just say: This is not working.