Regeneration becomes quite a bit stronger.

I'm not totally sure how to do this, but I would just advise to make sure you have a clear objective in mind. In other words, why do you want to make the game last longer? What part of the fun are you trying to prolong and get more out of? Those are the kinds of questions I would ask and evaluate based on.

Personally, I think doubling the wounds of each figure would be better than halving the damage. Doubling wounds wouldn't nerf mortal strikes a you suggest, at least not relative to damage. For example, 1 mortal strike against a rune golem is still 4 damage, regardless of whether the golem has 2 wounds or 4. Basically mortal strikes and damage wouldn't be changing relative to each other at all. If you just half the damage, then you effectively are doubling armor which is just a massive buff to mortal strikes and would make things like Ravos way more powerful relative to non-mortal striking units.

Also be aware that by increasing game length and unit durability (no matter which route you take with that) you are effectively buffing certain upgrades (and maybe units) and nerfing others. For example, Terrifying Heraldry (which dishes out a panic token at the end phase) becomes much more powerful if engagements last longer. You also would be nerfing certain kiting and hit-and-run strategies. For example when I play elves against undead, I don't usually try to actually dominate the field. Instead, I find a weakness in their formation and try to take out their quickest units using cost-effective trades. Once I do that, I run away till round 8 ends and win because I won an early trade and then just avoided my opponent for the remainder of the match. If the game lasts for 12 rounds, that's not possible so many elf strategies and units would be much less effective due to their opponent always having the time they need to catch all their forces. Ranged units in general would be much weaker in this format since they rely on crippling your opponent's units before they arrive.

If you're fine with these kinds of changes, go for it. Otherwise if you just want a longer play experience, then I would recommend trying 300-400 points armies on a 9'x4' play area. That way you still preserve most of the unit's strengths and weaknesses (although it would still change things a bit since the deployment distances would be longer, I just feel like this change would be less dramatic).

In any event, I'm excited to hear how it goes in your game!

If you play with the damage-to-defense, you decrease the value of mobility and increase the value of defensive abilities and morale effects. Executioner and necromancer definitely become must-haves. Latari take the short end of the stick.

So I'm going to question the increased length of the game. Once units HAVE engaged with each other -- how interesting have your decision points become? Mostly its a slug fest until one side dies, unless they have to reform from a fear or whatever (also -- keep that in mind, by doubling the game length you give many more opportunities to let morale have an effect on the outcome). Personally I like the fact that progress is made pretty quick when these engagements happen, rather than rolling dice back and forth.

Good arguments across the board, definitely didn’t think about regen. I think there’s answers for reanimates and Maro, but I’m less certain on simple balances for Devouring Maw, Bilehall, or Shard.

I personally am ok with kiting and hit and run being less viable, as I prefer to outmaneuver then stay in the fight with my Elves, but that’s obviously personally subjective and bad for a group format.

My logic for 12 turns was to lengthen the game enough that units still die, without playing a 4 hour game, or just playing 8 rounds where nothing dies.

regarding decision making going away once engaged, if each unit just picks a counterpart to square off and engage, I agree the game becomes pointless and more turns just makes it worse, but I’d argue that by lengthening the combat you allow for as much and potentially even more maneuvering and strategy than before, as tactics like fixing, disrupting, enveloping, etc are allowed to play out to their fullest extent and can take place over multiple turns instead of having to happen all at once or not at all.

5 hours ago, jcshep19 said:

regarding decision making going away once engaged, if each unit just picks a counterpart to square off and engage, I agree the game becomes pointless and more turns just makes it worse, but I’d argue that by lengthening the combat you allow for as much and potentially even more maneuvering and strategy than before, as tactics like fixing, disrupting, enveloping, etc are allowed to play out to their fullest extent and can take place over multiple turns instead of having to happen all at once or not at all.

I see where you're coming from, here, but I don't think your idea really gets you there. One side will generally want to pair off and engage in a way that's favorable to them, and nothing about drawing out combats prevents them from doing so in just as many turns as before. So I don't think the units that would envelop, counter-charge, and disrupt will be available to do so, because they'll still get just as engaged as they do now by the other side, and will be forced to try to fight their way out of combat just as slowly as the unit they're supposed to be supporting or ganging up on.