Strange Aeons Solo Play

[Uncle Mike]

Not at all! I read this thread as much as anyone. Keep the ideas coming. 

[Sheerluck Holmes]

Not a bad idea, and well worth looking into further. A level of unpredictability certainly adds to a more interesting game.

[LidlessEye]

Actually, there may be a way to do just that without even fundamentally altering game mechanics or having to make up new stats.  In addition to the ability to resist horrific circumstances, Resolve represents the discipline level of a model.  So if each turn you were to roll a die and add the model's Resolve, then refer to a table, you could see what the model does for that turn.

[Sheerluck Holmes]

I am thinking in simpler terms - just roll on a chart to determine the actions - no need for new stats or more than one roll per figure's actions.

[underfire987]

Wow this sounds like its going to version 2.0 ! defo i will keep up too date on it as soon as you guys get this set up i will defo play it ( by then i should have time too XD)!

[Argonor]

So if each turn you were to roll a die and add the model's Resolve, then refer to a table, you could see what the model does for that turn.

I am thinking in simpler terms - just roll on a chart to determine the actions - no need for new stats or more than one roll per figure's actions.

I think those two solutions are basically the same - you have the chart, and the roll determines the nature of the Lurker's actions? Only difference is, the Resolve is added in the first. Should a Lurker be able to use the Resolve of a leader, if he/she/it is within Range (the Leader's presence brings out the worst in the Lurker)?

I finally figured out how multiple quotations work, doh...    

[Sheerluck Holmes]

I guess a lurker could use the resolve of a leader if in range, but it depends on what a player would want out of the chart? 

 Is it better to go for game objectives over killing agents? in which case a better resolve would keep the lurkers focused on the mission at hand.

 If bringing the worst out in a lurker means it goes nutty for combat, then it would be the reverse of that.

[Argonor]

Maybe this should be scenario specific? Or Lurker type specific? Or maybe resolve could be either added or deducted (this could be depending on specific Lurker as well; 'Normal' sentient beings might go for objectives, 'beastly' beings for blood)? Dunno... have to think a bit.

[underfire987]

Maybe this should be scenario specific? Or Lurker type specific? Or maybe resolve could be either added or deducted (this could be depending on specific Lurker as well; 'Normal' sentient beings might go for objectives, 'beastly' beings for blood)? Dunno... have to think a bit.

I would be worried about that. some of the lurkers are good at fighting whyll others are good at objectives. and the reslove is so vaired amonst them that you could have some real crazy things take place on them that is really bad for the lurker side and too easy for the threshold side ( like a cult leader running into close combat ect) i like the dice set up idea ( makes things much simpler than cards ) but why should it be based off of reslove? just my input anyhow !

[Bowman]

I would be worried about that. some of the lurkers are good at fighting whyll others are good at objectives.

I think we are conflating two separate mechanisms for solo play here. Allow me a quick run through. First, pick a side you want to play. Let's assume that you wish to play Threshold, therefore you only need cards for your Lurker forces. This is simply to randomize the "activation" process for the individual Lurkers.

Once the specific Lurker is "activated", I do an Aggression Roll on a D3 (D6 actually, you know what I mean). On a 1 the Lurker is somewhat tentative in his behavior, on a 3 he is somewhat aggressive and on a 2 he is somewhere in the middle. I have left the explanation vague on purpose as it totally depends on the scenario that you have picked.

OK lets make up a scenario. Lurkers have set up obelisks that are a certain distance apart from each other (being vague again). These form a pentangle whereby they wish to summon a Daemon. The threshold Agents are aware of this and have to "purify" or destroy the obelisks, and any Daemon that may have already been set loose. The Lurkers must do everything in their power to prevent this.

Now we begin play, with Threshold going first. The Threshold Agents begin at their end of the table and one agent proceeds to move forward to search for the nearest target obelisk.

I then select the card for a Lurker. It is the Lurker with a Tommy Gun. I roll a 3 on the Aggression Roll, meaning he is aggressive. As the Solo player I have to determine what that actually means in relation to the Scenario. I decide to move the Lurker directly at the Threshold forces. He is to get into cover and machine gun as many of the agents as he can, as they wander into range.

Next, the second Threshold turn.

Then I "activate" a Lurker with a knife. I roll a 2 on his Aggression Roll, giving him a "middle aggression" level. I decide that that means he will not simply stay put, nor will he aggressively try to engage the Threshold Agents. I decide to interpret that as the Lurker moving somewhat closer to the Agents, but hiding behind one of the Obelisks. He has no ranged weapon (just the knife), so he decides to hide behind and defend one of the obelisks, the only way he knows how, by eventual Close Combat.

Then the game proceeds with alternating Threshold activations and Lurker card drawn "activations". When all the figures have been activated, pick up the cards, shuffle them and begin again.

So, I still decide how the Lurkers "interpret" their aggressive or non-aggressive stances. Their behavior is not totally random (that's not fun either). Another player, in the same circumstances, may play the Lurkers totally different from me, as he would interpret the game and scenario very differently.

So, some questions:

1) Should the Aggression Roll be used at every card drawn activation?
2) Do we use Resolve characteristic? In this way, high Resolve figures act more autonomously and low Resolve figures act more randomly.
3) If we roll against a chart, will that make the actions of the Lurkers too deterministic? Isn't it better to make decisions based on the Scenario objectives?

Keep the good ideas coming!

Oh, ya, with all due respect, I'm not looking at this becoming Strange Aeons 2.0. I think the rules are fine as they are, and hats off to Uncle Mike. I'm thinking that these are house rule tweaks to allow some interesting randomizations suitable for solo play.

[Argonor]

This is more in line with my thoughts on it.

It might be too easy for Treshold, though, if they get a full activation for each card drawn though... Normally all of Treshold can be activated during a turn, due to their Character and the Lieutenants 

[Kamiya]

I agree with Argonor here,

This aggressive roll system is good, but if only the threshold gets to choose what agents they want to activate and the lurker gets card based randomized actication then the threshold gets a clear advantage. The lurkers also use command so they benefit in the same way of being able to choose in what order which unit they want to activate.

This is probably why Sheerluck Holmes decided to randomize the activation for both sides in the first place. Unless making up strict rules or some kind of activation stats for each lurker unit, it may be too hard to make a non randomized activation for the non player side.
I may be wrong though..

How about using each unit's resolve as not only for the aggression roll but also for activation sequence?? This provably results in the lurker leader units getting to be activated first due to their better resolve stats.

[Sheerluck Holmes]

This is probably why Sheerluck Holmes decided to randomize the activation for both sides in the first place. Unless making up strict rules or some kind of activation stats for each lurker unit, it may be too hard to make a non randomized activation for the non player side.

Pretty much.  By making it totally random you can't predict what will happen - especially if you throw a lot of 'blinds' and a 'end turn' into the deck to stop card counting.

 This way you will never know if you get to activate all of your agents before the turn ends... do you hold off on activating an agent in the hopes that an agent with command will be activated before the turn ends?

 When used this way the solo game gets a great level of uncertainty and increases the tension a lot.

 If I was to include a die roll to determine lurker actions (and I will play test it to see if it works) I would keep it fairly simple.

 At the moment the lurkers have two guide lines - go for the closest game objective or agent, which ever is closest. 

 I was going to thinker around with a "CY6!" solo system today, but I might have to tinker with a Lurker actions chart instead.

[Sheerluck Holmes]

OK - I just knocked together a variety of tables and flow charts and come to the conclusion that nothing extra is needed.

 As people will be playing scenarios they have the guide lines for lurker actions listed. The scenario objectives take priority for actions, unless the lurker in being attacked or in closer proximity to a physical threat.

 Play the lurkers as if they were your own - keep them intelligent and have them use cover etc.

Thus:
* Monster attack - the lurker always goes for the agents.

* Retrieve the artifacts - moving the markers if the primary objective, so they will attempt this unless an agent is closer to the objective or being attacked.

* Escape into danger - stop the agents, so attack.

 and so on.

About the only other guide for controlling lurkers is "do I wait for a commander to activate" or "just do it"?  I would adjust the solo play to the following to cater for this:

 If an Agent is within two moves of a lurker (and thus the lurker is in danger of being attacked) the lurker will attack the agent and not wait for command.

 If the Lurker is outside of command radius it will take an action.

 If the Lurker is within command radius, but not within two moves of an agent, it will wait for command.

 If the objective and an agent is within equal distance, then the agent should be considered a greater threat.

 These should be enough guide lines without complicating the solo rules or needing more dice rolls, which slows the game down.

Having said that, I would be happy to see game reports showing other peoples' ideas in action so we can all see how they work.

[Bowman]

This aggressive roll system is good, but if only the threshold gets to choose what agents they want to activate and the lurker gets card based randomized actication then the threshold gets a clear advantage.

I haven't found that in my games. But.....I tend to play larger BP games. Then, there are random events that are triggered by Threshold Agents. Sometimes they can find a magic spell, or sometimes they can inadvertently invoke a Zombie or two. They are usually not balanced games, and in yesterday's solo game, Threshold was destroyed.

This is probably why Sheerluck Holmes decided to randomize the activation for both sides in the first place. Unless making up strict rules or some kind of activation stats for each lurker unit, it may be too hard to make a non randomized activation for the non player side.
I may be wrong though..

Personally, I don't like to randomize the side that I am playing. Usually I play Threshold and they seem to have more complex objectives for my scenarios, than do the Lurkers. I want a randomized activation with some non-deterministic aspects to the Lurker moves too. Generally, the lurkers are only trying to stop the Threshold agents from doing their job, they are the reactive team.

As for the "End turn now" card, do you not find them annoying? I may have up to 11 activation cards for my Lurkers (6 Cultists with command, up to 4 Zombies and a Daemon) and still the "end turn" card comes up too often. Since I have only 4 Threshold Agents, their turn is always done early. Therefore, the "end turn" card generally interferes with the remaining Lurkers instead. I now have a "end turn now on a D6 roll of 4+" card, which is less intrusive.