Lion Rampant Alternative Rules Question

[Argonor]

I know some ppl play LR/DR without letting a failed activation roll count as a turnover.

When doing so, do you alter the points costs of units somehow? Some units are very easy to activate, and some are very difficult, which is probably reflected in the points costs.

I gave it some thoughts, and as the most likely outcome on 2d6 is 7, I could imagine adjusting the point costs relative to the activation roll's difference to 7:

-1 for each 1 lower than 7/+1 for each point higher than 7.

This would somewhat prevent the possibility of getting a LOT of very cheap units at a lower cost than justified - but I am not quite certain if it is actually necessary to do so.

Any thoughts are welcome!

(I also consider getting TMWWBK and introduce the unit leader rules to LR/DR, but I don't know if that is easily doable)

[monkeylite]

Maybe all subsequent activation can be at -1, after a failure. -2 after two failures in a turn, etc.

[Stéphane]

Maybe all subsequent activation can be at -1, after a failure. -2 after two failures in a turn, etc.

I did arrived at the same conclusions. Just add the following condition "if the unit don't change the order between two following tests".

[Codsticker]

I know some ppl play LR/DR without letting a failed activation roll count as a turnover.

When doing so, do you alter the points costs of units somehow? Some units are very easy to activate, and some are very difficult, which is probably reflected in the points costs.

I'm not sure that is necessary; I don't think it changes the value of individual units in relation to each other enough to warrant a points adjustment. After all, the rule doesn't increase the likely hood of those Mounted MAA moving, it just means you will get a chance to move the peasants after the nobles refuse.

[Polkovnik]

I'm not sure that is necessary; I don't think it changes the value of individual units in relation to each other enough to warrant a points adjustment. After all, the rule doesn't increase the likely hood of those Mounted MAA moving, it just means you will get a chance to move the peasants after the nobles refuse.

I disagree - I think a rules change like this will have a big impact on points and balance. Currently the more powerful units like knights/elite riders are very good in combat in relation to their points cost, but this is balanced by the fact that it is difficult to move them and risks a turnover. This risk could put you off including them in your army, and you certainly wouldn't want more than one such unit. Without the risk of a turnover these units become much more powerful, and having multiples of them in the army would make sense.
So something like what the OP suggests would be necessary IMO if you are going to make such a rules change. 

[Codsticker]

I disagree - I think a rules change like this will have a big impact on points and balance. Currently the more powerful units like knights/elite riders are very good in combat in relation to their points cost, but this is balanced by the fact that it is difficult to move them and risks a turnover. This risk could put you off including them in your army, and you certainly wouldn't want more than one such unit. Without the risk of a turnover these units become much more powerful, and having multiples of them in the army would make sense.
So something like what the OP suggests would be necessary IMO if you are going to make such a rules change. 

You could be right but as everyone playing is essentially using using the same resources I just don't see that as a "balance" issue and the restrictions in the book work well at curtailing excess.

Argonor: I would try it and see. In fact a good experiment would be to take a retinue with the maximum number of MMAA (for example) and square them off against a "regular" list in a variety of scenarios.

[pws]

We used to give units 12" from the leader (including the leader) a ReRoll every turn - option nr 7 - by default.
It works great.
So if you roll 7 during leader skills choice, just roll again till you got a different abilities .
Ciao

[blacksoilbill]

PWS: That's a very simple but clever approach to the issue.

[SteveBurt]

Our only house rule was that if you fail the very first activation, you can re-roll it.
That means you can (almost) always do something. We had one game where one side rolled 4 or less on their first activation 3 turns in a row, while their opponent activated pretty much everything. That made for a poor experience.
The 'first roll mulligan' means you can pretty much always activate something (there's a 1 in 36 chance of a 4 or less on two successive rolls), while not changing the game mechanics, which we like.

[SteveBurt]

We used to give units 12" from the leader (including the leader) a ReRoll every turn - option nr 7 - by default.
It works great.
So if you roll 7 during leader skills choice, just roll again till you got a different abilities .
Ciao

That leader skill gives you *one* re-roll per turn. Not a re-roll on every unit within 12"; that would be way too powerful.

[Basin is BACK]

The Pikeman's Lament (Lion Rampant for the pike-and-shot era) gives a +1 to activation rolls if the unit is within 12" of your leader (officer), which I know some people have used for the other Rampants as well.

Personally, I don't use it in LR as I think the rule reflects the increased professionalism of the later period that is not necessarily appropriate for medieval forces, but I'm sure that's a gross overgeneralisation on my part.