IIRC the idea is being tossed around that we bring down the # of champions but make then so they don't perma-die (teleported back to nearest city and take a substantal hit in XP...or something).

Or just a chance to lose items?

Or a chance to sustain new negative traits? I recall Derek mentioning a trait that reduced your healing rate to 1 permanently. Those sorts of traits could really spice the death thing up, especially if you provide a spell or a system to remove such death-traits. Could also open up for pre-emptive protection, cast a spell on someone and he can safely die sort of thing.

"Or a chance to sustain new negative traits?"   <--- I dig this one - each war wound tells a story.

Maybe champions require a certain special building that they can claim as their own before they agree to join you? A castle, an ivory tower... If the champion dies it returns to whichever city has his building. Gradually you would be able to hire more champions up to a certain limit as you research new champion building types.

Maybe you can only build a limited numbers each type of the champ buildings. Either any champion could stay in any type of champ building (and perhaps the building that the champion resides in gives some sort of a bonus to the champ), or then different buildings are required for different types of champs. Castles/Palaces are for royal champions. Ivory towers are required for wizards, Grand Estates for all sorts of academics, underworld for thieves and other shady champs.

Go tell Derek! Quickly, before someone comes up with something better! COMMIT! COMMIT!

I would definetly prefer a negative trait route, they could stack upon each defeat, & could take a long time to recover from (lose the neg trait), and/or could cost so much mana to remove said effect - this would penalize losing your hero but would still allow them to stick around

& I'm worried about knocking out the # of champions, I like making huge maps & unless we can make champions ourselves, I fear there may not be enough to go around (I'd like to have maybe 50-100 major f'r'actions and @ 3 times the minor,  with as many wildlands as possible in my 'epic' game)

Like this as well (kinda like Dom3 ).    I play for the experience; not always to win against the AI.  If I receive a spectacular beating at the hand of the AI, I will be just as happy (ok almost as happy) as if I had won.

Can't say I like this system, I think it would hurt immersion and seem kinda tacked on. You would think that retreating exists for situations exactly like this. If the AI's champions are not getting away then maybe let them cheat a bit so that if they lose in PvE their champions automatically escape.

If you want to add an AI friendly way for champions to be resurrected instead of auto-respawn I would prefer to see something with more depth, story, and plausibility. A spell, quest, or item could be cool ways to do it. Even a spell you start with would be better than spontaneous anti-combustion. I think a higher level death and life spell would be better but it's up to you. You could even have a death one that requires you sacrifice one champion to get another back, or a life spell that allows you to take traits from fallen champions. Doing a quest to resurrect a fallen friend would be epic but probably hard for the AI. Having a rare item that you occasionally find that allows you to resurrect fallen champions would allow you bring the game back-story into it, instead of it just happening without explanation. 

Edit: I also like negative traits, and it would combine easily with any of my ideas.

One thing I noticed in this thread that nobody commented on:
Visually, the tactical battles look way better than they did in WoM. The UI is pretty, the animations are realistic, and the armor designs look interesting.

I like the negative traits idea. It would be cool if any time death would occur, a champion would instead have a small chance to die, and otherwise take a negative trait. I'd do something like pick a random number between one and 20 and subtract the number of negative traits that the champion currently has from that. If the number is less than 1, the champion dies. Otherwise, he gets a new negative trait. And sovereigns should get a chance (but perhaps a small one?) to pick up a negative trait on death as well, despite their mortality being city-related.

I like the negative traits as well - and would add that some positive traits can only be acquired through negative traits. E.g.

Scarred Veteran
Requires: Three wound traits
Benefit: Absorb 1 damage from each incoming attack against the hero (thus when being dealt 7 damage, 1 is absorbed and only 6 are effectively dealt).

Having a couple of positive traits come out of a hero's losses goes a way to keep interest in the hero after he/she's been defeated.

Just like in D&D; a death (and resurrection) costs 1 point in constitution; or one level.

Agreed, battles look really neat! In the second battle where two spearmen gets shot down by arrows, great animation!

A unified difficulty should be set by the quest level:

Quest level 1 should involve light treks and unarmored foes.

Quest level 2 should have light treks and lightly armored foes or perhaps one large monster.

Following a pattern like this would make things pretty simple. This is where adding some flavor text to give the human player an idea of what they will find is key. This can me mimicked in the xml to give the AI the same information. If you gave the AI a an overall combat rating of the dungeon, the distance any objective would be spawned, and the number of enemies, you would be on the right track. 

I like the negatrait idea. I can already think a few terrible ones. \

Hero is unable to drink liquor. 

That reminds me a bit of Mordheim, the table top game

How about a ransom and if accepted, a negative trait? Persons of importance could be captured instead of outright killed, ransomed based upon some calculation of their worth (XP, items, etc.), and if the ransom is refused, executed?

[Edit] Let me clarify further:

If a champion reaches 0 hp in a tactical battle and his/her side wins, he/she doesn't die but instead needs to take a random negative trait and/or stat reduction such as -1 to constituion or something similar. If a champion is wounded and then his/her side flees, he/she is captured, held for ransom, and if ransom refused, executed. Certain monster types such as spiders would never hold for ransom - not enough intelligence for that.

If a champion reaches 0 hp in a tactical battle and the opposite side wins, he/she is captured, held for ransom, and if ransom refused, executed. Again, ransom is determined off monster type or intelligence check.

Just thinking Game of Thrones type thing: if an important person is captured they are held for ransom/gain.

[Editx2] Instead of automatic execution if ransom declined, maybe, depending on the opponent, champion can change allegiance to spare his/her life. For example, I lose a tactical battle to an enemy AI. Ransom is demanded, I refuse or am incapable of making payment. Champion decides to switch allegiance to spare his/her life.

[Editx3] Could introduce a 10% chance (or some other value) that if a champion reaches 0 hp they die thereby leaving no chance for capture/ransom. With that said, could introduce a positive trait to champions where if they are mortally wounded to 0 hp, it reduces the chance of death to 9%, 5%, or some other value. Call it survivability, battle luck, or something similar. Could also consider a charisma check that if captured, enemy never executes the champion.

Just thinking out loud here.