|
|
Post by bigbadbart on Aug 3, 2022 8:54:09 GMT
Hello. I am a member of OPR Poland group, we started actively promoting OPR games, going to most of the country major anime/scifi conventions and wargaming events, teaching people how to play and making game shows.
I have taught more than a hundred people how to play AoF:Skirmish and/or GF:Firefight. I am mentioning that because this post is based on my observations of the players during this time, especially children, which are a surprisingly large group of players we teach, we have a lot of old warhammer players learning OPR to play with their own children. You can not imagine amount joy in the eyes of the parents watching their children (if I remember correctly, 7 and 8 years of age) play unassisted by the beginning of third turn. This post intention is not of criticism, but further refinement of the game.
One section of the rules stand out as somewhat less intuitive than others, wound taking mechanism and stunning.
First of all, it is only test in the game where 'more on the dice' means worse. It also breaks/ignores "Modifiers: Regardless of modifiers, rolls of 6 are always successes, and rolls of 1 are always fails."
It's construction always requires some mental mathematics, as you always need to sum up wounds and dice, and then compare it to either 6 or 8 for models with tough(3). A lot more mental math than in full scale GF. And part of the rule is located within the 'tough' tag description.
It always slows down the game pace, especially with children and teen players.
Proposal of remedy:
Reverse the test logic and replace that rules section with:
If the target has taken at least one wound, roll one die, with total wounds number as test difficulty. So with 1 wound you test on 1+, 3 wounds on 3+ etc.
Models with with Tough(x) can add X to their dice roll. If failed, models is killed, otherwise it is stunned.
I am aware that this wording slightly decreases deadliness of the attacks in the game, but it will make handling of already stunned models more exciting. And will not break the basic modifiers rule, adding to the excitement.
It will also decrease the length of rules description in the books from 105 words (521 characters, 9 lines) to 52 words (256 characters, ~4 lines), so less than half of the currently used space. It will free up considerable space on Core Rules, as it will free up both some space on the front page, and shorten definition of Tough rule from the back page.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkcyde1980 on Aug 5, 2022 2:28:24 GMT
If you treat the wound rolls as a roll by the attacking player it becomes 6 good, 1 bad.
From a teaching perspective you could go:
Attacker rolls to hit
Defender rolls to block
Attacker rolls to wound
Defender then lays down/removes the model as indicated by the roll
|
|
|
|
Post by bigbadbart on Aug 5, 2022 5:50:55 GMT
So from interaction of Attacker-Defender, we make Attacker-Defender-Attacker. Makes whole procedure longer, and still does not solve additional mental mathematics dilemma. It is only test where you do not compare dice roll to a number already visible on the field, but you add dice roll to that number, and then compare it to one of three possible numbers(no tough, Tough(3), Tough(6)), which is visible on defender unit listing.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigbadbart on Aug 5, 2022 5:53:51 GMT
And it introduces a variation from full scale GF, where it is the one taking wounds who rolls to see if his unit gets pinned.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkcyde1980 on Aug 5, 2022 22:16:50 GMT
Someone is still rolling for wound, either the defender or the attacker, so I wouldn't think it would slow anything down.
Wounds are a part of the shooting and melee sections, with morale being it's own section so the defender still rolls for morale in both games.
You could use some Tough tokens and not take a wound marker until you lose your last Tough token. Then you're using the same D6+wounds trying to get a 6 and not having to do the 5+tough?
If you let the attacker roll to wound you could just teach it as
1 wound marker = 5+ to remove
2 wound markers = 4+ to remove
3 wound markers = 3+ to remove
Etc
I'm trying to think how I would teach kids, I understand it's a tricky.
If you want to add a house rule for 1 to be bad for the attacker rolling to wound you could say on a natural 1 the defender isn't stunned but they take another wound marker. It does mean you're never guaranteed of taking out a model but that would give better stories after the game of an unkillable grunt refusing to go down.
|
|
|
|
Post by grumpymuppet on Aug 6, 2022 6:30:52 GMT
I am with darkcyde on this one. It took three reads of your proposed alternative before I understood what was meant.
I think a great deal of the confusion is in the tough rule, which complicates a simple concept. Tough (3) should be Tough (2), and should read 'instead of taking a wound, reduce the tough value by 1'. (Tough (X) should be Tough (X-1).
I have always played / read that the attacker makes the roll, as it made sense to me. Easy enough to reverse: Defender rolls to see what happens, on a 1-2 they are KO's otherwise they are stunned with a -1 for every wound after the first.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigbadbart on Aug 6, 2022 15:54:09 GMT
Reversing the logic who takes the kill/stun test makes a ton of sense from the teaching perspective.
But still, it is the only test within the game where you need to calculate the test value you need to roll instead of comparing it to a already known number, visible on either warband listing or the field itself. And still, it violates/ignores 'Modifiers' rule. I was asked multiple times about why is the 1 not a fail/kill.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigbadbart on Aug 6, 2022 16:31:04 GMT
So, maybe a rewording of proposed logic: If the model has taken at least one wound, roll one die. If the number rolled is lower or equal than amount of wounds model has already taken, model is killed. If higher, it is stunned.
Models with with Tough(x) can add tough value to their dice roll.Kill probability should be equal to original rule. This wording does not violate "Modifiers: Regardless of modifiers, rolls of 6 are always successes, and rolls of 1 are always fails.". It can also add to the fun with every rolled six. We compare values, not calculate them. 48 words, approximately 4 lines. Keeping the defence and stun/kill test on the defender side could also speed up the play, as there is one less interaction/dice exchange. Defender rolls defence, 'fsck, I failed' and immidiately grabs the dice he is already looking at to roll the stun/kill. BTW: it looks like the difference on the stance we have is more of philosophical one. You see the stun/kill test as a part of the offence, I seem to see it as a save attempt, so part of the defence. So how we define success and failure of this test is derived from that. I really like this kind of nuances within discussion  |
|
|
|
Post by baradaeg on Aug 7, 2022 7:36:57 GMT
The 1/6 rule doesn't apply, because the check for wound effects is not a success/fail test, but a roll on an effect table.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lagi on Aug 7, 2022 9:44:29 GMT
bigbadbart have a good point and i like his rule. Its common that passive player roll for defense, so make sense that he will also do check stun/kill.
1/6 maybe dont apply, but this way we keep the same concept 6 is safe, 1 hurts.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkcyde1980 on Aug 7, 2022 12:32:19 GMT
Current rule (D6+1 trying to roll 5 or 6) gives a 33% chance to kill a normal model with 1 wound marker, yours changes it to 16% (D6 trying to roll 1). I'm not saying it's a bad rule or anything, just pointing out that it does change the percent.
From a simplicity point of view it's pretty good. Target # equals wound markers and Tough is easier to explain.
If you are also saying a 6 is always a success then there is a 16% chance a model survives any number of wounds, where as with the current rule once you get 5 you're done.
I guess I see it as a roll to see how much damage I did as the attacker and not how much damage I took as the defender.
Roleplaying background so I'm used to rolling to hit and rolling the damage I inflicted 🙂.
I can't remember who rolls the injury dice when I play necromunda, which is basically the same roll. I'll have to pay attention next time and see if I'm being hypocritical 😂.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigbadbart on Aug 8, 2022 19:40:31 GMT
Keeping the '6 good, 1 bad' intuitive rule and 'more on dice the better' logic for all dice rolls was what I am primarily aiming for. The exact wording could be modified to get back to 33% of the original rule. But, looking back on the competition skirmishes like Kill Team, soldiers durability was actually increased in second edition. Player managing handling of stunned models could be a non mechanical way to make the game even more emotional, and added attrition could make decisionmaking more tactical, as more characters will survive initial wound. But will he/she/it survive second one?  |
|
|
|
Post by grumpymuppet on Aug 11, 2022 3:57:35 GMT
I like bigbadbart's suggestion.
It needs to be tweaked a little to fit with the current rules and this complicates it. I don't think it can be avoided that we are actually rolling on a table:
1 or less: removed from play
2-6: Stunned
7+: no effect
-1 for every wound taken
+ X, where X is the Tough (X) value.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigbadbart on Aug 11, 2022 20:52:45 GMT
I would strongly suggest keeping the 'compare value of dice to value of tokens' and calculate it only for units with Tough, instead of always 'check what you rolled and then calculate the value'.
My reasoning is that you already know what you need to roll, without thinking, before you roll. Currently you always have to calculate that.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkcyde1980 on Aug 12, 2022 7:13:06 GMT
If you got rid of Tough and just gave everyone a wounds stat you can remove the +Tough to rolls part. Normal model = 1 wound, Tough 3 model = 3 Wounds, etc Then it just becomes, ------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Roll to Block For every hit that the unit has taken, the defending player must roll one die, trying to score the target unit’s Defense value. Each success counts as a block, and for each failed roll remove one wound from the model. 4. Check Injury Effects If the target has lost its last wound place one Injury Marker on it. Roll one die and compare it to the number of Injury Markers on the model to see what happens to it: • Lower or equal to the amount of Injury Markers: Knocked Out • Higher than the number of Injury Markers: Stunned
On a natural 6 the model is not Stunned but gains an additional Injury Marker.
Models are automatically Knocked Out if they have 6 Injury Markers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most games that I've seen, people track Tough like wounds anyway. Not sure if it's easier or harder to teach this way but it seems a good compromise of ideas in the thread.
Changed Check Wound Effect to Check Injury Effects because I don't like the same word, wounds in this case, being used to mean different things in games.
The last two rules mean that if a model has 5 Injury markers and rolls a 6 they are Knocked out. It also gives a model a chance to fight through the pain and stay active but causing themselves further injury in the process.
|
|
