(( Warlord and emcdunna,
Do forgive, I did not mean to sound like I was thinking your comments were boring, nor was I implying that this topic be shut or merged or anything.
I was just making sure that I was following what was happening and, just in case, giving you guys the heads up that you had derailed your own, initial topic.
In some ways, it does seem like your thoughts might be better served as PMs between the both of you.
Anyway, some thoughts based on your other topics...
1) As a thought about Leadership vs. Splitting Leadership up into Other Stats:
What about the idea of "Orders"? What I mean is, there are other systems where troops are allowed to perform X number of orders per turn. An Order would be something like "Charge", "Move", "Regroup", or "Fire" for example. You're more unruly, conscripts, or ill-trained troops tend to get 1 - 2 Orders per turn, while Regulars get 2 - 3, and Vets / Elites get 3+. Command groups then add +1 Order either via a radius from them, or for whatever unit they are in. I've seen it a lot in Chronopia, as well as Medival Spear and Lance, and it seemed to work pretty well, as well as reinforce the idea that some units weren't as... open to taking commands as others.
2) As a thought about Panic:
While I understand that Panic can really upset some armies, I've been on the receiving end of being shot at, exploded, and charged. Being in two wars does that to you. Anyway, a lot of people do lose their nerve in those situations. Some are able to recover quickly. Others... not so much. As such, I find Panic to be a realistic representation of Soldiers thinking "I ain't getting paid enough to die."
If you aren't keen on Panic, what about the idea of "Disorganized", "Shaken", or "Routed" to represent units that haven't fled-fled off the field... but are considering that option (with Disorganized not really considering it, but Routed making it a definite possibility). I've seen similar effects in the board game Civil War from Avalon Hill. Having stages of demoralization also would have the meta effect of making a Lord or Hero choice (who tend to offer better Charisma / Leadership) a more viable / Important option, over the current Meta of Level 4 Wizard Boss.
3) A thought about Stupid:
To me, Stupid's real purpose isn't to penalize particular troops, but to lower their cost, so they can actually be fielded in play. If you remove Stupid, you'd have to up-cost that same unit by some percentage. For example, Tuichi Huichi's Raiders, who are on the old-style Cold Ones, would be crazy BOSS sick, if they weren't subject to Stupid (even with their Cold Blooded trait).
For that matter, if you remove Stupid, you should get rid of Frenzy and Impetuous as well.
As an aside, I don't find "Animosity" to be colorful... I find it the way that GW balanced the fact that Orcs, otherwise, have a huge bonus that they basically don't pay for. Swap a point of Initiative for a point of Toughness, and no real cost change? Where do I sign up?!?
Also, a lot of spells / magic items convey Stupid onto other stuff. Those effects would have to be changed, and the spell / item phased out / repriced, or given different powers.
Speaking of spells... that's a good segway...
4) Thoughts about Spells:
I kinda like how each lore has a Lore trait. It is akin to how D&D offers bonuses to certain spheres or effects, depending on what Deity you choose; or, how in WoW all Paladins can heal... but Paladins who focus on Healing get better options.
To me, overall every lore will have attack spells, augment spells, and debuff spells. The Lore Attribute helps separate the spheres a bit more.
Also, if you make it that any wizard knows all the spells of a given lore, what would the advantage be to use a higher level wizard? If I can cast all 6 spells from the Fire Lore with my Fire Apprentice, I'd never bother getting a Fire Wizard. Especially if you are using your idea of limiting power dice. If my Apprentices can use any spell from the lore they've picked, I'd flood my character pool with apprentices, to open up several casting options, as well as getting more chances to channel.
Right now, limiting the number of spells you know to what your wizard level is, does help balance the game a bit, as it curtails spell-combo abuse. If I have a Level 4 and a Level 2 wizard, I might or might not get the spells that best synergize across lores. But... if I have two level 2 wizards with open access to the entire lore, I'd definitely be able to determine what spell-combos offer the best synergy, at the cheapest cost to cast.
For example, if I pick four Light Wizards, under the current rules, only One should have Banishment. If we make all spells in a lore open to any level of wizard, I now cast Banishment Four Times. That's some serious Zorch!
Anyway, I hope that helps some. ))
