Heroica: Glory Amongst The Stars - Rules & FAQ

[Kintobor]

Question: when rolling for Meditate, is either Occult, Religion, Arcana, or Nature that is rolled, or can it be a combination of them?

[Waterbrick Down]

Just now, Kintobor said:

Question: when rolling for Meditate, is either Occult, Religion, Arcana, or Nature that is rolled, or can it be a combination of them?

I've just been using the highest one as it still is a sort of proficiency check. But that should probably be clarified in the FAQ.

2 hours ago, Duvors said:

Obscurement

The following is a proposed system based on the effects of the spell Photonic Modulation.

Obscurement is a system that comes into play whenever a character is, well, obscured. Most of this system can be modified to suit specific circumstances but the following is a general baseline.
Firstly, Obscurement comes in several levels. These are:

• Light Obscurement ~ -2 to Perception Checks and Ranged attacks.
• Moderate Obscurement ~ -4 to Perception Checks and Ranged attacks.
• Heavy Obscurement ~ -6 to Perception Checks and Ranged attacks.
• Total Obscurement ~ -8 to Perception Checks and Ranged attacks.

Obscurement has two forms. The first is AoE Obscurement which applies its penalties to all characters in a designated area, as well as all such checks into and out of it. Directional Obscurement on the other hand, requires some visual demonstration.

Round tiles are Pips, square ones are... well, Tiles. Pips demonstrate firing positions, Tiles demonstrate defending positions. The big yellow block is a source of Obscurement.

• The white Tiles are not adjacent to the source of the Obscurement and Attacks and Perception Checks against them are not affected by the Obscurement rules.
• The purple Tiles apply Obscurement penalties to Attacks and Perception Checks from the red, orange, and yellow Pips, but not the green Pips, who have an unobstructed line-of-sight on them.
• The indigo Tile does not apply penalties to the green and yellow Pips, but does to the orange and red ones.
• The blue Tile would only apply penalties to the red Pips
• The black Pips do not take penalties to their Attacks and Perception Checks due to being adjacent to the source of Obscurement.

Thoughts?

So in order to benefit from directional obscurement, you have to be next to the source (Purple, Indigo, Blue, not White Tiles), but the attacker can't be next to it as well (Black Pips)?

[Duvors]

3 hours ago, Waterbrick Down said:

So in order to benefit from directional obscurement, you have to be next to the source (Purple, Indigo, Blue, not White Tiles), but the attacker can't be next to it as well (Black Pips)?

Yes. It's set up that way so that people don't have to take it into account for every attack that passes through a source, and so that a person taking cover behind it can make perception checks and attacks without being hindered by their own cover. This can be changed in specific instances should the MM wish too, but in general it ought to default to this.

@Dutch Thriceman Unless I'm mistaken, you could easily move to F5 and attack from there.

[Zepher]

Yeah, I'm not totally sure if we're allowed out of the cockpit! Kirwin could also try to fall back to put us within melee range... but that might sacrifice the ram. I know Bers is annoyed that he can't hit with melee (which is, of course, fun for me to observe and hopefully fun for the player, if not the character). Can definitely see him try to pick up ranged combat after this mission so he has both options. Could be a cool roleplay moment. But, regardless, defending and rallying are good in this game! I think everyone has felt like they're contributing! I have, and I'm out of spirit and out of melee!

[Kintobor]

I don’t believe I ever stated you were confined to just the cockpit. 

So long as your icon is on the speeder, you can move around it. The only one stuck in one spot is Kirwin, and even then they have the ability to move the speeder around.

[Classic_Spaceman]

@Waterbrick Down: Character Point Questions: 
Dropping Spirit from 1 to 0 gains me 2 CP, and increasing Smarts from 2 to 4 (to gain an extra Proficiency) costs 4 CP, correct? 
 

[Waterbrick Down]

4 hours ago, Classic_Spaceman said:

@Waterbrick Down: Character Point Questions: 
Dropping Spirit from 1 to 0 gains me 2 CP, and increasing Smarts from 2 to 4 (to gain an extra Proficiency) costs 4 CP, correct? 
 

Correct.

[Classic_Spaceman]

16 hours ago, Waterbrick Down said:

Correct.

OK - How does this look? 
7 CP to start. 2 CP to raise Velocity from 2 to 3. 4 CP to raise Smarts from 2 to 4. Stealth Proficiency added. 1 CP remaining. 

Character Points: 1/15 
Vitality: 6 
Velocity: 3 
Strength: 2 
Skill: 3 
Smarts: 4 
Spirit: 0 
Proficiencies: Artillery Weapons 1, Perception 1, Insight 1, Deception 1, Stealth 1 
Known Spells: N/A 
Equipment: Modular Sniper Rifle (Calibrated Energy Artillery Weapon), Radiation Gauntlet (Standard Energy Armour), Farsight Goggles 
Inventory: Cloaking Generator, Hacking Chip, Translator Cube, Plasma Potion 2x 
Credits: 80 
Locker: Blackguard Security Standard Issue Blaster (Standard Energy Short Range Weapon) 
 

[Waterbrick Down]

12 minutes ago, Classic_Spaceman said:

OK - How does this look? 
7 CP to start. 2 CP to raise Velocity from 2 to 3. 4 CP to raise Smarts from 2 to 4. Stealth Proficiency added. 1 CP remaining. 

Character Points: 1/15 
Vitality: 6 
Velocity: 3 
Strength: 2 
Skill: 3 
Smarts: 4 
Spirit: 0 
Proficiencies: Artillery Weapons 1, Perception 1, Insight 1, Deception 1, Stealth 1 
Known Spells: N/A 
Equipment: Modular Sniper Rifle (Calibrated Energy Artillery Weapon), Radiation Gauntlet (Standard Energy Armour), Farsight Goggles 
Inventory: Cloaking Generator, Hacking Chip, Translator Cube, Plasma Potion 2x 
Credits: 80 
Locker: Blackguard Security Standard Issue Blaster (Standard Energy Short Range Weapon) 
 

That would be correct.

[Classic_Spaceman]

2 minutes ago, Waterbrick Down said:

That would be correct.

Good! 👍
 

[Duvors]

@Waterbrick Down, what happened to the part of the rules about combined checks?

[Waterbrick Down]

9 hours ago, Duvors said:

@Waterbrick Down, what happened to the part of the rules about combined checks?

Looks like it may have been inadvertently deleted on the rules update, I'll get a new version or put something in the FAQ.

[Waterbrick Down]

So as I'm considering the actions, we should probably include something in there about Rally and Defend only impacting the next Round of combat, otherwise we'll probably have stacking Rallies and Defends round after round.

[Zepher]

I thought that the stacking was an intended part of the RAW! But I can see how that would be difficult to keep track of on the MM side of things.

[The Legonater]

20 minutes ago, Waterbrick Down said:

So as I'm considering the actions, we should probably include something in there about Rally and Defend only impacting the next Round of combat, otherwise we'll probably have stacking Rallies and Defends round after round.

Do you mean to the exclusion of impacting the current round of combat? I'm not sure I'd be a fan of that. 

[Duvors]

33 minutes ago, Waterbrick Down said:

So as I'm considering the actions, we should probably include something in there about Rally and Defend only impacting the next Round of combat, otherwise we'll probably have stacking Rallies and Defends round after round.

You don't need to go that far. Simply add 'you may not apply this bonus multiple times to the same character'. Removes most of the silliness, keeps uses from being wasted, and still allows multiple people to pour their actions into a single character.

[Waterbrick Down]

4 hours ago, The Legonater said:

Do you mean to the exclusion of impacting the current round of combat? I'm not sure I'd be a fan of that. 

Nope, it's more that if you choose to Defend someone and then they don't get attacked for the next 4 rounds and you do another action for the next 3 rounds, the Defense wouldn't carry over.

4 hours ago, Duvors said:

You don't need to go that far. Simply add 'you may not apply this bonus multiple times to the same character'. Removes most of the silliness, keeps uses from being wasted, and still allows multiple people to pour their actions into a single character.

I'm good with multiple players rallying/defending the same player and in agreement with the idea that you can't stack your own Defend/Rallies on the same player. I'm wondering about the above scenario, where you Defend a player say Round 1, then attack on Round 2, 3 and 4 and the target you defended doesn't get attacked until Round 4. Or alternatively where you Rally someone but they don't choose to attack for another 3 rounds.

[karmajay]

It seems fair that it just last for the targeted persons next turn. If they don't get targeted or don't attack their next turn then the bonus goes unused. Also what is the problem with defends or rallies stacking for a round?

 

 

Edited October 9, 2021 by karmajay

[Duvors]

9 hours ago, Waterbrick Down said:

I'm good with multiple players rallying/defending the same player and in agreement with the idea that you can't stack your own Defend/Rallies on the same player. I'm wondering about the above scenario, where you Defend a player say Round 1, then attack on Round 2, 3 and 4 and the target you defended doesn't get attacked until Round 4. Or alternatively where you Rally someone but they don't choose to attack for another 3 rounds.

Personally I don't see it as an issue. I'd much rather let it persist and minimize the chances of it being 'wasted'.

[Waterbrick Down]

4 hours ago, karmajay said:

It seems fair that it just last for the targeted persons next turn. If they don't get targeted or don't attack their next turn then the bonus goes unused. Also what is the problem with defends or rallies stacking for a round?

 

 

Nothing wrong with it stacking from multiple players on a round, the issue is more if Player A rallies Player B on Round 1 and then Player B doesn't attack and then Player A rallies Player B again, should Player B get 2 rallies from the same player?

1 hour ago, Duvors said:

Personally I don't see it as an issue. I'd much rather let it persist and minimize the chances of it being 'wasted'.

There's a lot of things that can potentially be wasted, I guess what I'm trying to avoid is battles where the first few rounds the players continuously retreat out of range until everyone is "buffed" up.

[Duvors]

1 hour ago, Waterbrick Down said:

There's a lot of things that can potentially be wasted, I guess what I'm trying to avoid is battles where the first few rounds the players continuously retreat out of range until everyone is "buffed" up.

Then I'd recommend making changes to the rules targeting the most egregious abuse of the system (see above) and designing enemies and encounters to counter the strategy in general. I personally think it's a perfectly valid tactic when it's viable, its only issue is that it's sort of boring if allowed to go unimpeded, which is exactly what you didn't do last round I may add.

By the by, I'm assuming Ronin will be able to act this round?

[Waterbrick Down]

5 hours ago, Duvors said:

Then I'd recommend making changes to the rules targeting the most egregious abuse of the system (see above) and designing enemies and encounters to counter the strategy in general. I personally think it's a perfectly valid tactic when it's viable, its only issue is that it's sort of boring if allowed to go unimpeded, which is exactly what you didn't do last round I may add.

By the by, I'm assuming Ronin will be able to act this round?

Oh I'm not complaining about this round, it's more this round made me realize it's just one more thing that future encounters/MM may need to keep in mind. Yes Ronin will get to act.

[Waterbrick Down]

Further thought, if someone is currently unstable, should their previous Rally/Defend action go through on subsequent rounds?

[Kintobor]

I think since the action's already been made, it goes through, but that's just me. An attack isn't cancelled if you go down, and neither is a spell. Let's keep things simple.

[Duvors]

29 minutes ago, Waterbrick Down said:

Further thought, if someone is currently unstable, should their previous Rally/Defend action go through on subsequent rounds?

I personally think this goes well over the line between 'preventing cheese' and 'punishing the player for things they have no control over'. In all honesty I think you're being exceedingly overzealous about this, I feel it's better to let the rules stabilize so people can actually learn them instead of whipping ourselves into a paranoid frenzy of rule-bloating in the futile pursuit of a perfectly balanced system. Anyway, the effectiveness of rallying and defending is heavily contingent on the players rolling well to begin with (see, this round).