How do you handle attacks & damage in your Alpha Strike Games

[MarauderD]

Hey all.  I've been playing Alpha Strike for about 3 years now.  Up until now, I've always played the standard, "All or Nothing" style of accounting for damage.  ex:  My Nightstar hits at medium range, that is 6 damage to your unit.  I started playing that way to learn the game for simplicity, and to keep the game fast so I could finish matches.  I'm starting to consider using the optional rules for damage.

So what do you do in your Alpha Strike games?  If you are interested in sharing, let me know the PV range you usually play with, and what method for attacks/damage you use, and why.  Cheers!

[MarauderD]

I generally play in the 500-1000 pt range, and have used All or Nothing for the past couple years as I picked up the game.

I'm considering trying Multiple Attack Rolls so there is a little more nuance and a little less insta-gibbing the next time I get a chance to play.  (who knows when that will be!)

[Lanceman]

A lot of my games have been introductory recently so I'm usually doing standard/all-or-nothing, but once folks are comfortable I like to move to MAR if they are up for it. It's fast and easy if you have enough unique pairs of dice, and reduces some of the swinginess you can get with all-or-nothing and adds a bit of tactical options since you can split fire between multiple targets.

[MyndkryM]

All or Nothing is what I'm most experienced playing with. The games move at a good pace. I have a feeling that using MDR (instead of MAR) could add that variable outcome feeling, without sacrificing speed of play. With a single attack rolls, a miss just then proceeds to the next unit until damage needs to be rolled.

Most BT players local to me play more Classic than AS...so All or Nothing is the most practical for those that do. 

[Charistoph]

We use MAR because it helps keep some of the feel and variability of Classic without tossing the whole thing under the bus.

We usually keep them under 70 minute games with forces of about 4-6 Mechs, or more if cheap auxiliaries are present.

[House Davie Merc]

One of the things that I've always liked about Battletech is that damage stacks.
That insignificant MG hit you got on round 4 from my Locust could cause that
PPC hit to penetrate by 1 point and cause a crit later on.

The " All or nothing" style of OG AS has always seemed about as anti-Battletech to me as
just about any rule in the history of any version of this game.

Every group I've ever seen has used the optional rule of 1 role per point of damage for so long
that they forgot what the original rule was.
I've long thought that the original rule should be outright replaced by the optional rule and
the critical hits table should be modified to reflect that change.

[Lanceman]

I have a feeling that using MDR (instead of MAR) could add that variable outcome feeling, without sacrificing speed of play. With a single attack rolls, a miss just then proceeds to the next unit until damage needs to be rolled.

MAR doesn't have to slow your game down. It tripped me up at first as well thinking about rolling for each point of damage, but using multiple pairs of matched dice (so if your mech does 3 damage you roll a blue pair, a green pair, and a red pair) let's you settle the whole attack as quickly as All or Nothing. Unless you are using some of the crazier variants like the Turkina Z you don't need that many. And it's an excuse to buy more dice!

[Elmoth]

We never go above 500, and a lot of our games tend to be smaller, as they are part of a RPG game. As such we prefer the granularity (sorta) of multiple attack rolls (one per point of damage) over all or nothing. it does not slow the game significantly, in our experience. But we do not use THAT many units.

Cheers,
Xavi

[paladin2019]

We use MAR because it helps keep some of the feel and variability of Classic without tossing the whole thing under the bus.

We usually keep them under 70 minute games with forces of about 4-6 Mechs, or more if cheap auxiliaries are present.

This is why I don't like MAR. If I want to play BattleTech, I'll play BattleTech. If I'm playing Alpha Strike, I'm playing it because it's the BattleForce successor, not BattleTech.

[Charistoph]

This is why I don't like MAR. If I want to play BattleTech, I'll play BattleTech. If I'm playing Alpha Strike, I'm playing it because it's the BattleForce successor, not BattleTech.

Well, none of us played Battleforce, so that relationship carries no meaning.

In addition to that, MAR makes units a lot more surivable.  It SUCKS to have your unit disappear when it first appears in LoS and Medium Range with no chance for variability.  Which is why we use it.

[Go For The Throat]

My group uses MAR when playing Alpha Strike. Despite the abstracted nature, even though most of us used it our first couple games, nobody in our group is a fan of the “all or nothing” nature of the Alpha Strike “RAW”.

[MarauderD]

I've noticed that one of the by-products (for me) of using "All or Nothing" damage is choosing units with very high medium range damage.  If you get two or three units doing 5-7 damage each, one round is deleting most Assault mechs (XL engines).  So I have really skewed to avoiding too many units that try to have rounded damage profiles, in favor of really pouring it on once the range closes.

With MAR, at least conceptually, having a few units doing 2-4 damage at long range gets really attractive, because you can do a few points of damage as things close (assuming you get that one good roll per 4 dice average).  Also, more crits do to the extra rolling would add some granularity.  Very attractive option. 

[Burzmali]

My group varies depending on the situation.  A couple of points to remember though:  MAR leads to TACs and MAR has a substantially different balance.

With MAR, TAC crits happen a lot more frequently, especially when folks are bringing lots of high damage units. A TAC crit is a 1 in 36 chance for RAW but closer to 1 in 6 for a damage 6 attack in MAR. This is cool until realize that Fire Control hits are tied for second most likely crit, which can easily remove an assault mech from being a threat for the rest of the match. This also leads to "Oops all crits" situation where units are lobbing shots back and forth at long range with targets of 11+ where as many as half of all hits are crits, which as any Xcom player can tell you, never feels good.

The other point is balance. RAW and MAR are substantially different. A Fire Moth H is easily worth 25 PV in RAW, but that's a hilarious waste of PV in MAR. The same happens on the other end of the scale where assualts with 10/10 armor/structure are going to rendered combat ineffective by crits long before they take enough damage to drop them.

[VanVelding]

We used Multiple Attack Rolls (for non-physical attacks) and quickly limited an attacker to inflicting one crit per turn. But mostly use the rules as-written.

[Charistoph]

We used Multiple Attack Rolls (for non-physical attacks) and quickly limited an attacker to inflicting one crit per turn. But mostly use the rules as-written.

The RAW of MAR does only allow for one Crit per unit Attacking, no matter how many Dice they Roll.

[MarauderD]

The RAW of MAR does only allow for one Crit per unit Attacking, no matter how many Dice they Roll.

I think this is a true, BUT, situation.  If you attack with MAR, have a natural 12, and damage structure, I think you can have two crits with a single unit.  Since I play with 12-20 units per side, that is a LOT of possible crits once you hit structure.  So I think the point Burzmali makes is valid.

VanVelding's house rule for that makes sense--one crit max per attacker.  Wouldn't effect lights/mediums and XL engine units very much, but would really help Assaults and Heavies with Standard Engines from being crit out light years before they die from structure loss.

[paladin2019]

I think this is a true, BUT, situation.  If you attack with MAR, have a natural 12, and damage structure, I think you can have two crits with a single unit.  Since I play with 12-20 units per side, that is a LOT of possible crits once you hit structure.  So I think the point Burzmali makes is valid.

VanVelding's house rule for that makes sense--one crit max per attacker.  Wouldn't effect lights/mediums and XL engine units very much, but would really help Assaults and Heavies with Standard Engines from being crit out light years before they die from structure loss.

It's not a house rule, it is a standard part of the optional rule. No more than one TAC can be scored on an attack. This does, however, mean that with MAR, you are rolling far more dice per attack so 12s will come up with more frequency per attack. If you are dealing 4 damage per attack for 6 attacks, you have 24 chances to score a crit rather than 6. (The house rule is to designate a single pair of dice as the controlling roll for determining TACs and a 12 on other rolls does not trigger one.)

[Burzmali]

It's not a house rule, it is a standard part of the optional rule. No more than one TAC can be scored on an attack. This does, however, mean that with MAR, you are rolling far more dice per attack so 12s will come up with more frequency per attack. If you are dealing 4 damage per attack for 6 attacks, you have 24 chances to score a crit rather than 6. (The house rule is to designate a single pair of dice as the controlling roll for determining TACs and a 12 on other rolls does not trigger one.)

Yeah, last time I had a match with lots of heavy units I took more crits than structural damage due to a mess of TACs. I'm not saying it's wrong, and there has been talk of using the house rules "only one set of dice can TAC", but it changes how you approach assaults.

[Charistoph]

I think this is a true, BUT, situation.  If you attack with MAR, have a natural 12, and damage structure, I think you can have two crits with a single unit.  Since I play with 12-20 units per side, that is a LOT of possible crits once you hit structure.  So I think the point Burzmali makes is valid.

VanVelding's house rule for that makes sense--one crit max per attacker.  Wouldn't effect lights/mediums and XL engine units very much, but would really help Assaults and Heavies with Standard Engines from being crit out light years before they die from structure loss.

I'm sorry, but even with normal rules, if you roll a 12 on a single roll for 6 Damage and you hit Structure, then you get 2 Crit Rolls.  MAR mirrors this by only allowing one 12 Crit Roll per Attacker.  All MAR does improve the chance for a non-Structure Crit Roll to happen.  MAR doesn't provide for 4 Crit Rolls because you roll 4 boxcars from a single unit (unless they Split Fire).

Yeah, last time I had a match with lots of heavy units I took more crits than structural damage due to a mess of TACs. I'm not saying it's wrong, and there has been talk of using the house rules "only one set of dice can TAC", but it changes how you approach assaults.

And I've had a Mercury II effectively made useless after taking 2 Crits from 2 Attacks in 2 different Missions (40t, 4A, 2S).  First time took both Damage out and the second was Fire Con which made Short Range shots like Long Range.  It's bound to happen when to get ANY hit on it was an 11 or 12. 

The only reason she stayed on the board for the first game was because she was also a Forward Observer for our Artillery AND she had a Probe (making one of the Artillery shots a 5+ To-Hit).  The second was she was part of an MHQ capture team going on a flank, and she was the most mobile of the 3.

[Burzmali]

I'm sorry, but even with normal rules, if you roll a 12 on a single roll for 6 Damage and you hit Structure, then you get 2 Crit Rolls.  MAR mirrors this by only allowing one 12 Crit Roll per Attacker.  All MAR does improve the chance for a non-Structure Crit Roll to happen.  MAR doesn't provide for 4 Crit Rolls because you roll 4 boxcars from a single unit (unless they Split Fire).

Yeah, TACs are more common in MAR because a.) you have n chances to roll a 12 in MAR, where n is your damage, as opposed to one chance in RAW and b.) you are likely to face more attacks as pecking targets to death at L range is more viable. On top of that, you are going to take more crits from Structure hits as it takes more hits, though the same number of attackers, to destroy a mech, beefy assaults are regularly combat ineffective long before they are destroyed.

None of this is specifically bad, it's just different the RAW, which means a mech that is a good deal for the PV under RAW could have a different value proposition under MAR.

Same goes for MDR, under MDR it's damage 1 units that are underpriced surprisingly.

[Shin_Fenris]

We do All or Nothing. I -prefer- the roll per available point of damage (and sometimes prefer rolling a handful o D12s to individual 2D6 rolls) but light 'Mechs get absolutely plastered real fast doing anything other than All or Nothing. When you have two armor and two internal structure, your only hope on that 4+ damage 'Mech is that they miss you with your high TMM. MAR allow a MUCH higher chance that they hit you, and repeatedly. Since the PV of fast lights takes into account their TMM, MAR tends to make them kind of a waste of points.

[Elmoth]

I have the opposite experience regarding lights :)

[CarcosanDawn]

As a newcomer to BT (on tabletop) - well, someone who played classic for a bit but came back for AS - my friends and I prefer All or Nothing. There's lots of reasons, but the main one is it frees up the old processor (brain) to focus on other rules - we play combined arms and as many optional rules as we can cogitate to try to get the feel of the universe right.

We tend to trust the abstractions made and the designer's awareness of the 2d6 bell curve/triangle.

[Burzmali]

We tend to trust the abstractions made and the designer's awareness of the 2d6 bell curve/triangle.

I'd agree if the designers weren't rabidly opposed to the "pilot die" house rule while simultaneously contending that Multiple Damage Rolls is balanced equal to MAR and RAW 

I'm not advocating pilot die or anything, but even a fistful of D12s has a closer damage curve to MAR and RAW than MDR.

[Charistoph]

I'm not advocating pilot die or anything, but even a fistful of D12s has a closer damage curve to MAR and RAW than MDR.

Not even close.  Every single number on a D12 has an equal chance of happening.  While the number after the Pilot Die will be just as flat as the D12, the Pilot Die still provides a starting point to the curve that the D12 just doesn't touch.  Of course in some cases that Pilot Die can basically mean "all hit" or "all miss", but it is still there adjusting the curve over the course of a game.

[nckestrel]

I'd agree if the designers weren't rabidly opposed to the "pilot die" house rule while simultaneously contending that Multiple Damage Rolls is balanced equal to MAR and RAW 

Who are these "designers"?

[MarauderD]

Who are these "designers"?

If it ain't you, I guess I won't feel bad about trying MAR and the Pilot Die.

[nckestrel]

If it ain't you, I guess I won't feel bad about trying MAR and the Pilot Die.

Yeah, that was confusing me.  But somebody offered an explanation that makes sense.  (Burzmali isn't refering to me or anybody else that has had anyting to do with the Alpha Strike attack options.)

[Brym]

I am personally a huge fan of the pilot die approach.  Splits the difference in terms of swinginess between MAR and all or nothing. 

[Burzmali]

Yeah, that was confusing me.  But somebody offered an explanation that makes sense.  (Burzmali isn't refering to me or anybody else that has had anyting to do with the Alpha Strike attack options.)

I'm been driven off a Discord server from an AS channel by a mob led by one of your coworkers for the crime of suggesting that the pilot die might not have been created by Satan, not even advocating its use. The natural assumption is that if folks associated with CGL are willing to drive folks off of discord servers over pilot die, that the feeling was shared by the organization in general. I might have poked the bear a bit but never did I get more dog piled than when pilot die was brought up.

Not even close.  Every single number on a D12 has an equal chance of happening.  While the number after the Pilot Die will be just as flat as the D12, the Pilot Die still provides a starting point to the curve that the D12 just doesn't touch.  Of course in some cases that Pilot Die can basically mean "all hit" or "all miss", but it is still there adjusting the curve over the course of a game.

Actually pretty close, especially when damages are in the 4+ range. Mind you that is in comparison to MDR. You point out that a D12 is flat, well, once you start rolling 4 or 5 for an attack, you get a similar bell curve to MAR, not perfect by any means, but way closer to MAR and RAW than MDR. Heck, expected damage doesn't even scale linearly with damage in MDR, three damage 1 units have almost twice the expected damage of a single damage 3 unit, no other damage system for AS has that property.

[Charistoph]

Actually pretty close, especially when damages are in the 4+ range. Mind you that is in comparison to MDR. You point out that a D12 is flat, well, once you start rolling 4 or 5 for an attack, you get a similar bell curve to MAR, not perfect by any means, but way closer to MAR and RAW than MDR. Heck, expected damage doesn't even scale linearly with damage in MDR, three damage 1 units have almost twice the expected damage of a single damage 3 unit, no other damage system for AS has that property.

Tell me you don't know anything about statistics without saying you don't know anything about statistics.

See, the problem is that with a single D12, you have a flat 1/12 chance of rolling any single number.  Because each of the numbers are a flat 1/12 chance of being rolled, there is no bell curve, but a flat line.  If you are getting a curve rolling 1 D12, then either have unbalanced dice, trick dice, are good at trick dice rolling, or simply under the Hellbie Curse.

With two dice, that changes remarkably and the only ones that match up to an equal chance are on opposite sides of the center mark.  With 2D6 that center mark is '7'.  There are 6 chances out of 36 to roll a 7.  There are 5 chances out of 36 to roll a 6 or an 8, and so on.  I've attached a chart showing all those numbers in the Quantity column.  The N+ Quantity is the number of chances that you could roll that number or higher (i.e. chance To-Hit).

With a Pilot Die, there will be a curve across a game, but not in an individual Attack.  The first roll provides the odds of reaching that N+ point, but after that it is still a 1/6 to reach a specific number.  Since it is a 1/6 chance, that's a flat plane  Those odds of hitting or exceeding that N+ go up the closer that Pilot Die gets closer to 6, but otherwise the odds are still a 1/6 to hit any one number on that second set of dice.

That is why the Crit Chart is set up the way it is.

Having more dice rolls provide more chances at reaching a certain number, but they are still going to be part of the same odds of happening.  That's part of the point of SRM, LB-X, and MedLas Spam, to provide more opportunities to reach an extreme of the bell curve.

[Elmoth]

I do not like the pilot die, because it tends to turn the roll into an all or nothing roll. If you roll a 5-6 in the pilot die, most/all your die will hit. If you roll low, almost none of your die will hit.

So it is effectiviely the basic (all or nothing) AS system with more dice being rolled. For that, I have basic asll-or-nothing Alpha Strike rules. Nothing bad with the pilot die per se, but it gives me none of the granularity I search when I use multiple rolls. Not created by satan, but to me just adds complexity to the game without giving anything real to it.

Xavi

[Burzmali]

Tell me you don't know anything about statistics without saying you don't know anything about statistics.

See, the problem is that with a single D12, you have a flat 1/12 chance of rolling any single number.  Because each of the numbers are a flat 1/12 chance of being rolled, there is no bell curve, but a flat line.  If you are getting a curve rolling 1 D12, then either have unbalanced dice, trick dice, are good at trick dice rolling, or simply under the Hellbie Curse.

With two dice, that changes remarkably and the only ones that match up to an equal chance are on opposite sides of the center mark.  With 2D6 that center mark is '7'.  There are 6 chances out of 36 to roll a 7.  There are 5 chances out of 36 to roll a 6 or an 8, and so on.  I've attached a chart showing all those numbers in the Quantity column.  The N+ Quantity is the number of chances that you could roll that number or higher (i.e. chance To-Hit).

With a Pilot Die, there will be a curve across a game, but not in an individual Attack.  The first roll provides the odds of reaching that N+ point, but after that it is still a 1/6 to reach a specific number.  Since it is a 1/6 chance, that's a flat plane  Those odds of hitting or exceeding that N+ go up the closer that Pilot Die gets closer to 6, but otherwise the odds are still a 1/6 to hit any one number on that second set of dice.

That is why the Crit Chart is set up the way it is.

Having more dice rolls provide more chances at reaching a certain number, but they are still going to be part of the same odds of happening.  That's part of the point of SRM, LB-X, and MedLas Spam, to provide more opportunities to reach an extreme of the bell curve.

I've had years of education and worked in statistics in industry for several years. I'm not lying when I say that D12 is closer to MAR and RAW than MDR is. MAR, MDR and RAW are identical at damage 1 and as you increase the damage MAR and RAW track pretty reasonably and MDR goes off into left field. D12s, that is rolling d12 for each damage point, is fairly different at damage 1, but due to the Central Limit Thereom, trends towards MAR as damage increases.

Don't believe me, run simulations, I have. Go ahead and record every attack made in a few different matches of AS and compare how likely the results are with each damage system, there will be one that notably stands out from the pack and it isn't D12s, it's MDR.

The thing with D12s is that it is heavily skewed at the ends, 12s and 1s are far more likely, but 7s, 8s, and 9s are pretty close to 2d6's results. In a match of AS are the majority of your rolls at TN 12 and 2 or at 7, 8 and 9? That's the reason D12 doesn't break the game, I don't use it myself, but the situation is more complicated that "D12 is flat, duh".

[nckestrel]

MDR changes the amount of damage across the board. Everybody takes less damage.  It reduces all damage from all attacks by the same amount (over time). 
d12s changes who takes damage, and who does not.  You even mention this, when you ask about whether or not you are more likely to need 7,8 and 9s, or 12s in your game.  What determines that? What units you are attacking.

That (d12s changing who takes the damage) is the more significant change (compared to all attacks doing less damage) in changing how the game balances.
MDR is actually less significant despite having a large numerical effect, because it applies that effect more universally, rather than applying it more to some units than others.

[Burzmali]

MDR changes the amount of damage across the board. Everybody takes less damage.  It reduces all damage from all attacks by the same amount (over time). 
d12s changes who takes damage, and who does not.  You even mention this, when you ask about whether or not you are more likely to need 7,8 and 9s, or 12s in your game.  What determines that? What units you are attacking.

That (d12s changing who takes the damage) is the more significant change (compared to all attacks doing less damage) in changing how the game balances.
MDR is actually less significant despite having a large numerical effect, because it applies that effect more universally, rather than applying it more to some units than others.

No, MDR doesn't.  Damage 1 units do an average of 1 damage on a hit, damage 3 units average 1.625 damage on hit. That is a way bigger difference than D12s vs. MAR. A force built with mostly 1/1/1 units will absolutely destroy an equal PV force of 3/3/3 units, their damage output is double what it is under any other damage system.

So, if you have 10 3-damage units and using one approved damage system their firepower is matched by 16 1-damage units and in another it take 30 1-damage units, but both systems use the same PV values, the balance of the system is wide enough to accept quite a few damage systems. On top of that, RAW gives a 6/6/6 unit a 1 in 36 chance of doing 6 damage on a 12, that's way more likely than six d12s coming up 12, so of the complaint is that d12s are too likely to do higher damage at 11 or 12s, well, RAW beats it hands down once damage creeps over 3 or 4.

I don't advocate D12s or pilot die, MAR and RAW are plenty for me, but the statistical area covered by MAR, MDR and RAW is so wide that you'd really have to try harder than D12s to find a system where every "flaw" in it isn't also present in one of the approved systems. Pilot die too "swingy", try RAW to get true swing. D12s letting too much damage at long range, RAW blows it away at higher damages. Balance affected too much, MDR doubles the effective fire power of damage 1 units.

Edit: Actually, closer to 21 vs 30 for MDR vs MAR, doesn't really change the issue though.

[Charistoph]

I've had years of education and worked in statistics in industry for several years. I'm not lying when I say that D12 is closer to MAR and RAW than MDR is. MAR, MDR and RAW are identical at damage 1 and as you increase the damage MAR and RAW track pretty reasonably and MDR goes off into left field. D12s, that is rolling d12 for each damage point, is fairly different at damage 1, but due to the Central Limit Thereom, trends towards MAR as damage increases.

Why are you talking as if I addressed MDR when I never mentioned it?  I was addressing your use of "bell curve" in relation to using D12s, which you never actually bothered addressing.

The thing with D12s is that it is heavily skewed at the ends, 12s and 1s are far more likely, but 7s, 8s, and 9s are pretty close to 2d6's results. In a match of AS are the majority of your rolls at TN 12 and 2 or at 7, 8 and 9? That's the reason D12 doesn't break the game, I don't use it myself, but the situation is more complicated that "D12 is flat, duh".

No, it really is as simple as "D12 is a flat plane".  You claim to have worked in statistics but ignore the odds.  How very interesting.

At the extreme ends we're going from a 1/36 (2.78%) to 1/12 (8.33%).  Meanwhile, you're taking 7 from a 6/36 or 1/6 chance (16.67%) to a 1/12 (8.33%), basically halving the chance.

For a To-Hit of 7 with a D12 you have a 6/12 (50%), while with 2D6 you have 21/36 (58.33%). It's only with a To-Hit of 8 that they break even 15/36 for 2D6 and 5/6 for D12.  It get better for D12s the higher you go with the following:
To-Hit: 9: 10/36 (27.78%) for 2D6, 4/12 (33.33%) for D12.
To-Hit: 10: 6/36 (16.67%) for 2D6, 3/12 (25.00%) for D12.
To-Hit: 11: 3/36 (8.33%) for 2D6, 2/12 (16.67%) for D12.
To-Hit: 12: 1/36 (2.78%) for 2D6, 1/12 (8.33%) for D12.

That doesn't even consider Crit Chances.  With D12s, that's a 2/12 (16.67%) that nothing will happen (assuming a reroll on 1s), while with 2D6, you're looking at 8/36 (22.22%).

While I won't deny that MDR does throw off how the game works (which is why we don't use it in our group along with being unintuitive), D12s do the same thing but for different reasons, and it is because D12s don't provide a bell curve to work with.

[nckestrel]

I'll admit you are correct on the 1 damage units in MDR not being affected.
I've used MDR next to never, so I really don't think about it much.  SAR/MAR are 99% of my games, so my opinion of d12s is overwhelmingly based on that.

[Burzmali]

Why are you talking as if I addressed MDR when I never mentioned it?  I was addressing your use of "bell curve" in relation to using D12s, which you never actually bothered addressing.

I mentioned MDR because that was my point. MDR generates results that are further from MAR and RAW than D12s do. As for bell curves and all that, how many dice are you rolling? On top of the 4 or 5 dice you might be rolling in a single attack, the "damage" inflicted on a mech is often the combined results of as many as a dozen rolls for MAR or D12s, once you have that many rolls, the central limit thereom means that you are effectively dealing with bell curves at that point. Any single die roll in d12 is less "bell-curvy" than 2d6's triangular distribution, but once you get to "how many attacks will it take to destroy a mech" and "how mech damage will my mech cause in a match" MAR, D12s, RAW, MDR and pilot die rapidly approach bell curves, with the variance being the only real difference with MAR buried at one end and RAW at the other.

I'll admit you are correct on the 1 damage units in MDR not being affected.
I've used MDR next to never, so I really don't think about it much.  SAR/MAR are 99% of my games, so my opinion of d12s is overwhelmingly based on that.

Honestly, I don't think it damages Alpha Strike's balance in the grand scale. The change in balance relies on players optimizing their play to the damage system. For casual games, folks are going to pick what they think is cool and and advantage will wash out and for competitive matches everyone has the same chance to optimize, as we see at tournaments these days with the Fire Moth being a mainstay. Trying to hard balance every possible choice is a GW hangup.

[Charistoph]

I mentioned MDR because that was my point. MDR generates results that are further from MAR and RAW than D12s do.

Just saying it is non-sequitur as it doesn't address my point.

As for bell curves and all that, how many dice are you rolling? On top of the 4 or 5 dice you might be rolling in a single attack, the "damage" inflicted on a mech is often the combined results of as many as a dozen rolls for MAR or D12s, once you have that many rolls, the central limit thereom means that you are effectively dealing with bell curves at that point. Any single die roll in d12 is less "bell-curvy" than 2d6's triangular distribution, but once you get to "how many attacks will it take to destroy a mech" and "how mech damage will my mech cause in a match" MAR, D12s, RAW, MDR and pilot die rapidly approach bell curves, with the variance being the only real difference with MAR buried at one end and RAW at the other.

The problem with theories is that they still need to be proven.  If you're seeing a bell curve on D12 results, then something funny is going on with either your dice or how you throw.

[Burzmali]

Just saying it is non-sequitur as it doesn't address my point.

The problem with theories is that they still need to be proven.  If you're seeing a bell curve on D12 results, then something funny is going on with either your dice or how you throw.

It's not my job to explain statistics to you. The central limit thereom means that combining the results of many dice rolls approximates the normal distribution, if you don't like that, that's not my problem. If you want to claim the central limit thereom "is just a theory" go dig up La Place's grave and debate with him, the CLT has been widely accepted for over a century.

[Charistoph]

It's not my job to explain statistics to you. The central limit thereom means that combining the results of many dice rolls approximates the normal distribution, if you don't like that, that's not my problem. If you want to claim the central limit thereom "is just a theory" go dig up La Place's grave and debate with him, the CLT has been widely accepted for over a century.

By definition a "theorem" is a theory.  A theory is an educated guess that has not passed all rigors of investigation.  If it had passed, it would be a law.

And again, if you're getting a bell curve off of something that has an even distribution, something is off.  The normal distribution for a D12 should be pretty much flat, especially the more inputs you provide.

[nckestrel]

A single d12 is flat.

A game of many d12 attack rolls is a bell curve. 

[nckestrel]

But this is getting out of hand.  If you want to discuss d12s, please take it to the fan rules.

[paladin2019]

By definition a "theorem" is a theory.  A theory is an educated guess that has not passed all rigors of investigation.  If it had passed, it would be a law.

A theory is something that hasn't been disproven empirically and an experiment is unfeasible due to scale, ethics, and/or other practical limitations on setting parameters and controls for a controlled experiment. Human evolution remains a theory because of these limitations.

[ActionButler]

**Mod Notice**

Please take the D12 conversation elsewhere.

[IronmanV2]

I am personally a huge fan of the pilot die approach.  Splits the difference in terms of swinginess between MAR and all or nothing.

This...

Plus pilot die just results in more feel bads during a game...  There is no fun to be had when you only need sevens to hit but roll a one on the pilot die.

MAR for real games and SAR for larger PV battles and teaching beginners.

[CarcosanDawn]

My 0.02:
D12s break high TMM units. A helicopter with TMM at long range is hard to hit with d12s and 2d6s, but is 4x easier to hit with D12s and I don't thing my buddy's poor Peregrines were priced that way lol.

MDR isn't something I use; it seems to be a measure to reduce lethality and our games are long enough as it is.

Pilot Die just feels like the 2d6 system with the MDR bolted on top - you either miss with everything, or you hit with some things. Only the missing with everything happens more often because if your pilot die is a 1 or a 2, you aren't likely to do much.

Multiple one damage units *should* do more damage than one high damage unit. There's a reason the Hunchback 4P is more reliably going to score 5-10 damage on an enemy than the Hunchback 4G is going to score 20.

[Burzmali]

Multiple one damage units *should* do more damage than one high damage unit. There's a reason the Hunchback 4P is more reliably going to score 5-10 damage on an enemy than the Hunchback 4G is going to score 20.

The question is should they average more damage. A 4P that does 5 damage a turn is averaging the same as a 4K that lands a 20 every four turns. That's the difference between RAW and MAR as well, MAR creates consistent damage, RAW is lumpy. Under either, a 2 damage unit will do twice as much damage over time, on average, than a similar 1 damage unit. MDR changes the math so that, over time, a 1 damage unit will do around 2/3rds as much damage as a 2 damage unit. Conceptually, that's not a problem, but from a balance perspective it means that 1 damage units, and low damage units in general, are a better deal for their PV in MDR than they are in RAW or MAR.

[CarcosanDawn]

I see that, and it makes sense. I play RAW so it hasn't come up the way you describe.

[Grizzly]

I play standard rules (single pair of attack dice) because I'm trying to finish games faster and while it makes little difference to adults, my buddy and I are teaching our kids to play and having them counting all those die results really slows the game.

[MarauderD]

I play standard rules (single pair of attack dice) because I'm trying to finish games faster and while it makes little difference to adults, my buddy and I are teaching our kids to play and having them counting all those die results really slows the game.

I have a 10 year old and 8 year old who like to 'play robots' with me, and we've always used the standard rules.  Adding up the dice takes forever as it is with an 8 year old.   

[Charistoph]

I play standard rules (single pair of attack dice) because I'm trying to finish games faster and while it makes little difference to adults, my buddy and I are teaching our kids to play and having them counting all those die results really slows the game.

I have a 10 year old and 8 year old who like to 'play robots' with me, and we've always used the standard rules.  Adding up the dice takes forever as it is with an 8 year old.   

One should always keep the capabilities of one's group in mind, of course.

[Normie]

My group has tried every variation brought up in this thread for attack & damage at the moment we use MDR. That said its more that it's the best fit for us than the best option. We tend to play 400-point games with formations, forced withdrawal, a turn limit (10 rounds), play on smaller tables and have objectives. We also have a somewhat of meta because we avoid duplicates for the most part, we like medium-heavy mechs, and no one really likes going above 3 lances. If you look at the complaints for MDR we avoid a lot of those pitfalls.

My suggestion would be to take advantage of the multiple rules out there and experiment. There seems to be a movement towards one way to play in a lot of miniature games and I don't know how healthy it is.   

[ActionButler]

Adding up the dice takes forever as it is with an 8 year old.   

Depending on the day, it sometimes takes a fair amount of time for this 41 year old...

[Brym]

This...

Plus pilot die just results in more feel bads during a game...  There is no fun to be had when you only need sevens to hit but roll a one on the pilot die.

MAR for real games and SAR for larger PV battles and teaching beginners.

See, I think some complete whiffs add to the drama, so I like it.  Sometimes you do get all your damage or none of it, and that's exciting.  But the RAW all-or-nothing approach is *too* swingy for my taste.  The pilot die mitigates that by making it possible to get a partial hit.

On the other hand, MAR is lacking in drama.  MAR means that you get *some* damage on the target quite frequently, and rarely do you completely hit or whiff.  That's makes combat a little less exciting to me.

That said, I think there's no one right answer here, it's all personal preference.

[Burzmali]

See, I think some complete whiffs add to the drama, so I like it.  Sometimes you do get all your damage or none of it, and that's exciting.  But the RAW all-or-nothing approach is *too* swingy for my taste.  The pilot die mitigates that by making it possible to get a partial hit.

On the other hand, MAR is lacking in drama.  MAR means that you get *some* damage on the target quite frequently, and rarely do you completely hit or whiff.  That's makes combat a little less exciting to me.

That said, I think there's no one right answer here, it's all personal preference.

Mathematically, pilot die is almost exactly the average RAW and MAR.

[Charistoph]

See, I think some complete whiffs add to the drama, so I like it.  Sometimes you do get all your damage or none of it, and that's exciting.  But the RAW all-or-nothing approach is *too* swingy for my taste.  The pilot die mitigates that by making it possible to get a partial hit.

On the other hand, MAR is lacking in drama.  MAR means that you get *some* damage on the target quite frequently, and rarely do you completely hit or whiff.  That's makes combat a little less exciting to me.

That said, I think there's no one right answer here, it's all personal preference.

I would think that the Pilot Die is far more swingy than MAR is.  If you're Pilot Die is a 1, then the max you're going to reach is a 7.  If you're looking at 8's to Hit, everything fails.  However, without the Pilot Die, one is more likely to get a pair of dice to hit.

[Elmoth]

How many rounds are your alpha strike games? Because I know that ours are not that long. >Given that, we prefer more attack rolls to tend to the average more than a few extreme rolls making or breaking the game. But as has been seen here, to each one his own. The pilot die to us is just another way of usoing the single attack roll with more dice, so we do not find it useful to add granularity; to us (your milleage can vary A LOT) it does not provide anything better than the experience we have with the RAW (single attack roll) and adds complexity. We like more granularity so we go for the Multiple Attack Rolls option instead.

But we never play games above 400 (and more commonly 250 points), with the very rare 500 point game. For extremely large games I assume we would default to the RAW to speed things up.

Xavi

[Brym]

I would think that the Pilot Die is far more swingy than MAR is.  If you're Pilot Die is a 1, then the max you're going to reach is a 7.  If you're looking at 8's to Hit, everything fails.  However, without the Pilot Die, one is more likely to get a pair of dice to hit.

Correct.  It's more swingy than MAR.  It's less swingy than the default all-or-nothing approach to combat in AS.  That's exactly why I like it.  Some swinginess for drama purposes, but less than all-or-nothing to make it feel a little less like the dice gods have total control over your destiny.

EDIT to add some math:

Take a simplified example where you are rolling for two points of damage and need a 7 to hit.  With the default all-or-nothing attack rolls, your chance of hitting (and doing both points of damage) is 21/36 (58.3%).  Your chance of whiffing entirely is 15/36 (41.67%).  There is, obviously, a 0% chance of hitting with only one point of damage. 

With multiple attack rolls, the chance of each point hitting is 21/36.  This means that you will hit with both points 34% of the time.  You will miss with both points 17.4% of the time.  And you will hit with only one point of damage 48.6% of the time.

With a pilot die, you would hit with both points of damage 42.1% of the time.  You miss with both points 32.4% of the time.  And you hit with only one point 25.5% of the time.

The math obviously changes with different to hit numbers, but the point remains the same that the pilot die option is the midpoint of swinginess.  E.g., if the to hit number is 5, the chances of both hit/none hit/one hits for all-or-nothing is 83.3%/16.7%/0%.  For MAR, it's 69.4%/2.8%/27.8%.  For pilot die, it's 73.15%/6.48%/20.37%.  In contrast, for a to-hit number of 9, for all-or-nothing it's 27.8%/72.2%/0%; for MAR it's 7.7%/52.2%/40.1%; and for pilot die it's 13.89%/58.33%/27.78%.

The effect is also more pronounced if you're rolling for more points of damage.  For example, if you were rolling for 6 points of damage and needed a TN of 7, your chances of whiffing entirely would be 41.67% as normal with the default all-or-nothing approach, but it goes down to only 0.5% with multiple attack rolls.  That's a huge swing, particularly in Alpha Strike where each point of damage is significant.  Your chances of hitting with all 6 points are 58.3% with all-or-nothing, and only 3.9% with multiple attack rolls -- also a huge swing. With a pilot die, the chance of whiffing entirely is 7.3%, and the chance of hitting with all six is 24%.

As mentioned, this is very much a personal preference thing.  But the thing I most often go back to is when a big-damage mech is unloading on a light mech.  Say, something that does 5 points of damage against a 3/2 A/S mech.  With all-or-nothing, you're either going to kill that mech or it's going to be undamaged.  With multiple attack rolls, you're very likely to partially damage the mech, with instant death or a scot-free escape both being quite unlikely.  But with the pilot die, all possibilities are on the table, and that makes it exciting to me.

[CarcosanDawn]

See, that makes it less exciting to me. When my Fusion Ontos is firing 10 medium lasers and 2 LRM-10s with dead fire ammo, it makes very little sense that only 2 medium lasers hit.

I get that that's the way "classic battletech" can work out, but there's a reason I prefer the Alpha Strike system - the lasers are firing simultaneously (fusion Ontos, not the ICE one with the limiter) and are linked to a computer that targets a single point - even if a human is doing the targeting, allowing it to miss. They move at the speed of light... why again did 8 miss the mech and one hit its pinky while the other hit its toe?

This is why the video games had to introduce the Ghost Heat mechanic and the like - players can link X number of weapons to a single button press and just dump all that damage into a single location like it is an AC-20. So they added Ghost Heat so you could only do it with different weapons (meaning they don't hit at the same time etc. etc.).

If I miss the light mech wholesale, fine, it's hard to hit. My pilot needs more time in the simulator maybe. If I hit the light mech with *any* of the lasers, I should hit it with all of them - or else my pilot is either dumb or the machine has the computer equivalent of cerebral palsy.

[Burzmali]

See, that makes it less exciting to me. When my Fusion Ontos is firing 10 medium lasers and 2 LRM-10s with dead fire ammo, it makes very little sense that only 2 medium lasers hit.

I get that that's the way "classic battletech" can work out, but there's a reason I prefer the Alpha Strike system - the lasers are firing simultaneously (fusion Ontos, not the ICE one with the limiter) and are linked to a computer that targets a single point - even if a human is doing the targeting, allowing it to miss. They move at the speed of light... why again did 8 miss the mech and one hit its pinky while the other hit its toe?

This is why the video games had to introduce the Ghost Heat mechanic and the like - players can link X number of weapons to a single button press and just dump all that damage into a single location like it is an AC-20. So they added Ghost Heat so you could only do it with different weapons (meaning they don't hit at the same time etc. etc.).

If I miss the light mech wholesale, fine, it's hard to hit. My pilot needs more time in the simulator maybe. If I hit the light mech with *any* of the lasers, I should hit it with all of them - or else my pilot is either dumb or the machine has the computer equivalent of cerebral palsy.

Which makes sense and is an argument in favor of the rules as written or RAW damage model as it is often referred. MAR is for people that like that BT feel where with enough lasers you can reliably do some damage. Pilot works for people that like the concept of MAR but either don't own enough dice or dislike the ability to grind out enough hits to kill lighter mechs with weight of fire. D12 is for those folks that want to pretend they are still playing a GW product.

[Brym]

Which makes sense and is an argument in favor of the rules as written or RAW damage model as it is often referred. MAR is for people that like that BT feel where with enough lasers you can reliably do some damage. Pilot works for people that like the concept of MAR but either don't own enough dice or dislike the ability to grind out enough hits to kill lighter mechs with weight of fire. D12 is for those folks that want to pretend they are still playing a GW product.

Succinctly put. 

[ActionButler]

**MOD NOTICE**

Any additional pilot dice and D12 posts will be moved to fan rules given that they are both fan rules.

[I am Belch II]

I didn't understand the "superior dice" for attack/damage.
A different color dice for the superior and then how many dice for damage.
It just seemed very different rolling one dice and then the extra dice for the weapon dice.
If the Superior dice rolls a 5 and then on the attack you roll a 6 and a 1, then its 11 and 6.
Didn't like it at first, but after a couple of times it made it faster and easier.