Vulture Totem Question

[DogOWar]

     Is it possible for a totem to pick up another model (smaller) and carry him/it across the table.  For instance, could a totem pick up and carry a Talon Lord, and then put him down somewhere else.  Would it cost an action to pickup, and then another to release?

     I say yes it could.  they would have to be in base to base and then it would cost an action to pickup.  When the totem lands, all the Talon Lord need do is move.  What do you people think?

[Wedge]

To my knowledge there is no actual rule for carrying in Chronopia.  I have played plenty of scenarios that allowed it for purposes of the scenario, but never as a hard fast rule.  I would say that you'd have to convince your own group that this is acceptable.

Come up with reasonable limitations for it and present it to your group... they'll probably sign off on it.

Without an addendum to the rules your not going to see carrying in Chronopia.

[DogOWar]

To my knowledge there is no actual rule for carrying in Chronopia. I have played plenty of scenarios that allowed it for purposes of the scenario, but never as a hard fast rule. I would say that you'd have to convince your own group that this is acceptable.

Come up with reasonable limitations for it and present it to your group... they'll probably sign off on it.

Without an addendum to the rules your not going to see carrying in Chronopia.

The Totem has the special ability to pick up an opponent and then drop him from height for falling damage.  I just figured if it can do that it ought to be able to pick up a friendly and then put him back down.

I see your point though, which is why I asked.  I'll see if the guys will O.K. it.  Thnaks for your input.

[Manic _Miner]

 What about the rules for the War Torkha as it can carry passengers.

[DogOWar]

What about the rules for the War Torkha as it can carry passengers.

A good point.  But since it is specifically refering to the Torkha, I don't know if it would be enough.  I think it should be allowed, but I'll let my guys decide the subject.  It would be cool though.

[joshuaslater]

Thom naysayed me on the Dark Tusk Totem picking up a hero, and running like a rugby player across the board.  With the Vulture Totem, however, we in the Philly crew have allowed this manoever, but the movement of the Totem also uses the actions of the Vulture Marksman, or whoever, being carried.  This prevents the whole thing turning into a different version of Sky Chariot.  I would suggest if you guys house rule this, to try it the way we do.  It hasn't proved to be crazy unbalancing.

Cheers.

[troy-the-just]

and that was my follow-up question, carry the marksmen, fire away.  i understand the possibility of tipping the balance of the game, but on the other hand, if a unit that is picked up by the totem can only try to break away or engage in combat,  why couldnt a marksmen fire away?  probably need some penalty for flying around, i agree this is quite a bit farther down the road than air-lifting a talon lord, just thought it was interesting.

[joshuaslater]

I was thinking more in terms of airlifting the marksman to a raised piece of terrain; having flyers with missiles probably goes too far against the grain, but it's fun to think of these ideas. 

[Wedge]

And there is where I would tread lightly if posing the idea to my group.  I think the idea of the passenger having to spend his actions WITH the carrier is a good idea.  Being able to fight while carried (shooting missiles etc.) would be a little unfair don't you think?

[Topkick]

Not sure if this is the answer you are looking for but you asked --

Personally I would reject the idea out of hand. The Totems sacrificed themselves becoming little more than mindless brutes to save their people. Making them do tricks is both demeaning to their stature in the eyes of their followers as outlined in the fluff and cheesy with regard to game mechanics. Just my opinion.

[troy-the-just]

And there is where I would tread lightly if posing the idea to my group.  I think the idea of the passenger having to spend his actions WITH the carrier is a good idea.  Being able to fight while carried (shooting missiles etc.) would be a little unfair don't you think?

wedge, depends if i am playing the vultures or not.   

i do think that is a little too far

[troy-the-just]

Not sure if this is the answer you are looking for but you asked --

Personally I would reject the idea out of hand. The Totems sacrificed themselves becoming little more than mindless brutes to save their people. Making them do tricks is both demeaning to their stature in the eyes of their followers as outlined in the fluff and cheesy with regard to game mechanics. Just my opinion.

i would land more on the mindless brute option, they dont have the finesse, etc., neccessary to carry out that kind of manuver, communication with the totems is very minimal at best, and this kind of action would take coordination and team work, probably not going to happen..  I dont really agree with demeaning, in my opinion, killing devout good, is killing devout good.  Dwarves are all about innovation in warfare.  maybe we could limit this that they would only carry their keeper as that is the only person they can communicate with.

[DogOWar]

And there is where I would tread lightly if posing the idea to my group. I think the idea of the passenger having to spend his actions WITH the carrier is a good idea. Being able to fight while carried (shooting missiles etc.) would be a little unfair don't you think?

@Wedge-- Although the idea occured to me about the Totem/Marksman,  I threw it out the window almost immediately.  Its just to open to abuse.  There has to be limitations on it if it were even to be used.  THis whole thing is why I originally asked the question.  Game balance is incredibly important to me.  In fact, I think it would be hard to find a more fair minded player than myself.  I won't even claim a victory if I feel the game we are playing has too many questions, its just not right.

[troy-the-just]

[ I won't even claim a victory if I feel the game we are playing has too many questions, its just not right.

not that you have had a lot of opportunities lately.......

[DogOWar]

Not sure if this is the answer you are looking for but you asked --

Personally I would reject the idea out of hand. The Totems sacrificed themselves becoming little more than mindless brutes to save their people. Making them do tricks is both demeaning to their stature in the eyes of their followers as outlined in the fluff and cheesy with regard to game mechanics. Just my opinion.

@Topkick--I like the mindless brute theory.  It is a good way to explain why they could not do this.  I do like Troy's idea about the keeper though, its a nice middle ground, but it would still have to be tested to see if to overbalancing.  

Now as far a demeaning goes......how demeaning is it to drive your living God at your enimies with a GOADING SPEAR?  From the fluff, I have always taken it that most if not all the Totems on the battlefield these days are former Keepers that have gone "native", IMHO.  Even then, to use one of your own, who dedicated his/her life to taking care of the Gods and in the process losing all self by turning into Totems themselves, isn't very nice either.  I just tell myself that this is something they knew and accepted when they took the job.

Now as far as "Cheesy" goes.....I have found in my 30 years of strategy/RPG/boardgames that the difference between "cheesy" and "good tactics" often depends on which side of the board you are sitting on.   Now, I'm not saying that to save my argument, but because in my experience its "generally" true.  Take for instance the afore mentioned Sky Chariot.  I have a player that just blatantly refuses to defend if the opponent has SKy Chariot.  I mean, how "balanced" is it that a lotus eater can drop an unactivated warband behind your lines and not even have to have LOS?  Now I don't get to upset about this myself, although there should be LOS to the target area,IMO, but I can live with it.  NOw, on the other hand troy-the-just would probably argue the complete opposite on the subject, as he plays CL and loves the spell.  As in most things perspective is everything.  


THe reasons I asked this question were for many of the same reasons you give for nah-saying it.  I am deeply committed to being fair.  I wanted different perspectives on the subject to "check" myself.  I have yet to find a game where every base has been covered.  Its almost impossible to playtest every tactic concievable in a game, which is why there are several editions to most games, ours included.  I also ask these questions so that any new players to the game, or those who are coming back to the fold, will know ahead of time, and possibly save some argument.

I sincerely hope this does not come off to harsh Topkick, I have great respect for our forum members, even if we don't see eye to eye all the time.  I am just trying to express my opinion in a clear way.