Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

The Interesting Rules Ideas Thread

 Post subject: Re: The Interesting Rules Ideas Thread
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 11:11 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:34 pm
Posts: 548
Easy E wrote:
Yes adding choice is usually good. That's why non-replenishable dice pools are better, but then the tracking becomes burdensome. As designers, you always need to thread the balance to chieve what you want and mimic what you think matters.

I have seen to many games try for the "One roll to rule them all" method, and get just as bogged down in creating the Target Number instead of getting on with it and rolling some dice. :D


Blindhorizon wrote:
In all honesty for my i prefer to have a handful of dice and see the numbers rain down. So this is how i would utilize the idea i have put forth.


Easy E, I think your first point about non-replenishable causing tracking issues is very true. I do feel that polyversal (and other games) can overcome this quite well by creating useful, dynamic unit cards. If you look on the polyversal card, it is easy to follow the stream of information. The card looks very complex, but it still something I feel I could follow after one game.

I think for non-replenish-able things, and similar effects it is almost always better to use a card mechanic. I know it is still a resource that you have to deal with, but making them into cards gives you more flexibility in what they can do, while preventing players from mixing them up in the middle of a game.

Still that opens up an issue of complexity if you are using both cards for units and cards for once off effects. I would still play a game with both, but I don't know if I'm in the minority.(I found the mission cards in 40k enhanced the game rather than detracted, to give you a point of reference).

As to your other point about 'one roll', I feel exactly the same. I feel that having one roll to determine everything means that instead of easily knowing what number you need, and quickly moving on, you have to refer the roll to one chart, then another. When each roll has to be done separately(as they usually do in 'one roll' systems) it really limits the expand-ability of the game.

@Blindhorizon
When i first read your suggestion of rolling 1,2 or 3 on the die, then effectiveness being decided by die type, I thought it was interesting, but not necessarily a long term solution. (The aim to roll 1, 2 or 3, not the changing die type part) However after a few days of thinking on it, I see your point. I think that it gives some interesting options, while avoiding the 'one roll' problem Easy E mentioned.

I think that a similar system for how a weapon damages a unit would also be interesting. I haven't quite formed the idea yet, but to be able to have a standard format for a weapon's power, and then adjust either the die type, or the target number depending of the weapon's effectiveness against the opposing unit type, and the opponents armour value would be very interesting.

That may sound overly complex, but it shouldn't be. If the single shooting roll has taken into account range, terrain and so on, this would act similarly.

A machine gun would use an average level die. Say D8. If it was shooting against it's preferred enemy type, infantry, it would be reduced to D6. If it was shooting against a resistant enemy type, tank, it would be increased to d10, or even D12.

You then would have a modifier based on the enemy unit's defense value. For instance, heavy infantry like space marines would have a modifier meaning you need 1, 2 to wound.

This may seem complex, but with unit stat cards that incorporate simple tables it would be very clear. In addition, you would be able to account for a lot in one roll, because of the fact that you had two different methods of modification, depending on whether the mod was coming from the weapon or the opposing unit. This works really well(IMO) because you only have to look at the weapon info to work out what die type to use. THEN you only need to look at the enemy unit info to work out what number you need to reach.

Separating out the two functions in this way allows a lot of diversity in the rolls, without people having to remember too much. I remember when playing 2nd ed 40k, a major slow down issue was that there were multiple things that were altering the 'desired roll' on any dice roll, which made things take a while to work out. This should remove that issue.

Similar logic could be applied to the to hit roll if necessary, meaning only two rolls are needed for any result, and as many die as you wish can be rolled for each interaction, meaning it is very salable.

I'm still hoping to see polyversal scratches the itch I'm looking for, but this thread looks like a very promising backup ;)

_________________
Check out my youtube channel for Tutorials, Battle reports and other stuff in both 6mm and 28mm

www.youtube.com/user/ManticMoments


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net