Re: Kh'iff

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Beth Fulton wrote:

> G'day Derk
> 
>  >G'day Beth (hope I get the accent
>  >sort of right, only had one week of
>  >practice ;) )
> 
> Sounds good to me ;)

Whew ;) I have to visit your country again, sometime. Spent only a week
in
Perth, and have a serious 'want to go back and see more' ache ;) Did get
to see and photograph humpbacks though, which was absolutely great. Oh,
and got to beat Ozzies around the head with a sword ;)

> >I see the Kh'iff as a people of poor 
>  >desert/plains nomads, traditionally
>  >hunters, who drift in large packs
>  >across the plains they inhabit. They
>  >have little in the way of advanced
>  >technology, except for the gauss rifles
>  >which prove to be of great help in
>  >hunting their tough-hided prey.
> 
> Did they develop these weapons themselves or do the "acquire" them?

Acquiring, I'd imagine. Sort of a 'first things first' thing ;)
 
>  >The Kh'iff evolved from a canine stock,
>  >with very much of a pack-like
>  >social structure. Kh'iff are not
>  >great individualists, much preferring to
>  >do things with their pack.
>  >The effect of this pack mentality is
>  >that Kh'iff squads test as one
>  >motivation level lower than normal,
>  >when they cannot see any other Kh'iff
>  >squads (of their own pack/platoon??).
> 
> Not a bad idea, though even pack animals don't usually have a problem
being 
> on their own, they're just ot as successful ;)

Whoops. I think I woke up a biologist? ;) I was mainly thinking that,
under stress situations, they'd look to their pack for support?
 
>  >The sole exception to the above rule
>  >are their expert huntsmen/stalkers,
>  >(snipers)  who found the courage to
>  >face danger on their own, and hence do
>  >not suffer the penalty. However, their
>  >'difference' also caused them to
>  >distance themselves from their birth-packs,
>  >and as a result, they cannot
>  >attach to squads.
> 
> They could also just be juveniles yet to find a pace of their own or
exiled 
> old leaders, if so they could probably join a squad, but the squad
would 
> need to take a reaction test each turn to see if they were allowed to
stay.

Mmm. What did you think of the 'takes up one action of outcast and
leader,
if within x inches' suggestion, made earlier?
 
>  >Kh'iff lack the advanced communication
>  >networks that allow other nationalities'
>  >officers to have such great impact on the fight.
> 
> That's fine, but they should probably also get a slightly longer range
"no 
> comms required range", both for game balance and because they probably
have 
> better senses and long range communication abilities.

Yes, I like this suggestion. 9 inches sound fair? Or should it be more
to
your mind?
 
>  >NOTE: This ONLY applies to communication,
>  >NOT to other tests involving leadership value.
> 
> I'd probably actually modify all leadership tests a little, if you
don't 
> mind a little book-keeping. I'd give all leaders a -1 to their role,
but if 
> they fail 3 times in a row (probably needs to be played a bit to get
the 
> number right) then the leader is challenged and the squad spends a
turn 
> sorting out whether the leader remains as is or changes (I'd just use
a 
> standard leader replacement role here, if you get a "no shift in
quality" 
> result then the old leader held firm, otherwise there's a new leader
with 
> the appropriate new quality). If the old leader is given the boot,
then he 
> either has to leave, or the squad has to take a reaction test to keep
him 
> around.

Mmm. Sounds like fun, but also sounds like it could be a good bit of
work. 

Something else I was thinking about; maybe a deceased leader should
result
in two suppression markers instead of one, as the pack sorts out who's
the
boss now?
 
>  >The Kh'iff wear heavy hide coats,
>  >giving them an effective armour of D6
> 
> I'd probably stick with D6.

I think we all pretty much seem to agree on this, then.
 
>  >I'm thinking of giving Kh'iff 8"/d8
>  >movement rate, even in their robes...
>  >Although I'd imagine they'd slow
>  >down faster in undergrowth.
> 
> Sounds sensible.

Do you think an extra table for dealing with terrain types is called
for? (What is difficult terrain, what is rough terrain, etc, for them?)
 
>  >- - Close Combat
>  >
>  >The Kh'iff are very sensitive to the
>  >weight of numbers. I'd like to give
>  >them an extra penalty if outnumbered,
>  >and a bonus if outnumbering. Is this
>  >feasible or does this wreck the system?
> 
> Sounds OK to me. Maybe they have to take a reaction test NOT to attack
a 
> panicked unit. Maybe they could be rated as causing fear? There's also
the 
> possibility that if they see a friendly squad go in then they'll stand
a 
> higher chance of joining the close combat too (in which case I
wouldn't 
> give them too much of an extra boost for greater numbers).

Hmmm. I didn't want to make them close combat monsters, too much. Seems
too easy to give this to anything that looks alien. On the other hand, a
case CAN be made for it. 

I like the 'have to charge a panicked/shaken/broken unit' - test.

As for the 'seeing another cquad go in', I'm more leaning towards
tweaking
the weight of numbers, here.

Cheers,

   Derk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine

iD8DBQE6ysa5JXH58oo6ncURAmwOAKDt/Wsdvhn4rlWgcSlbWcU9daNiQACfSZsT
0Zem8a7uOxMLiZzqX+li3L4=
=oGZ6