Variable Damage discussion

[Papabees]

With the release of what appears to be a new rule book: https://www.facebook.com/battletechgame/photos/a.10153004834233148.1073741831.19541048147/10155367360018148/?type=3&theater

(hopefully one book with errata, which would be great) and the recent leadership change. I thought I would lobby the new powers that be for an amendment to an optional rule. Variable Damage. Most of the people I have conversed with in person or online via Facebook who use this rule simply make an attack roll for each point of damage, rather than one attack roll and then a bunch of d6s. FREX, my Atlas does 5 damage at Medium and needs an 8 to hit. I pick up 5 sets of matching dice and roll all five at once. I roll a 5, 5, 7, 8, and 9. I do two damage to my target.   

My reasons for wanting the change:

One, it feels more like regular Total Warfare for the Grognards. You do three damage, grab three pair of matching dice and roll. Creates a nice bridge.
Two, the game play balances really well like this but I understand that there are many who like the one attack roll rule. It keeps them happy as this is strictly optional.
Three, (This is admittedly a bit selfish) Although it would be an optional rule, it would lend credibility to how a large part of the community plays. So if I wanted to run a game at a Con I could just say "Variable Damage Optional Rule" and everyone would know what was going on.
Four, It's actually a bit faster than the current variable damage because while there are multiple sets of dice it is actually only one roll instead of 2.
Five, The bell curve works out really well to keep various types of units from overwhelming the game in a vast array of scenarios.

Thanks for any consideration.   

[Adrian Gideon]

No promises.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

It's not a bad house rule, and maybe even better than the book rule as is.  I'm not a fan either way, however.  The reason is when I play Alpha Strike, I play it to get in big games.  Not on the order of company per side.. but more like battalion per side!  Making each unit's attack take at least twice as long to resolve isn't something that is conducive to the way I like to play Alpha Strike.

So my "take it or leave it" point of view on Variable Damage is this: I prefer the book version than a seperate attack roll per point of damage, and it's not because it'd take even longer than one extra roll to see how much damage is dealt following a successful hit.  In my view the raison d'être for multiple attack rolls is to make it more likely to hit.  That's obviously not at all the same thing as varying the amount of damage a successful hit deals.  And I get that that distinction is a large part of the appeal over the existing rule, if not the entire reason to prefer it.

But there's a significant downside to making hits more likely: it devalues fragile units that rely on a high TMM.  Again being more able to kill those fragile/high TMM targets may well be what the aim is for... but the PV re-evaluation was also started to address the game balance.  I'm not a fan of an optional rule that exists to address fundamental game balance, esp when it's already being addressed :)

[Papabees]

No promises.

I'm just pleased that you're willing to consider it.

[Papabees]

It's not a bad house rule, and maybe even better than the book rule as is.  I'm not a fan either way, however.  The reason is when I play Alpha Strike, I play it to get in big games.  Not on the order of company per side.. but more like battalion per side!  Making each unit's attack take at least twice as long to resolve isn't something that is conducive to the way I like to play Alpha Strike.

So my "take it or leave it" point of view on Variable Damage is this: I prefer the book version than a seperate attack roll per point of damage, and it's not because it'd take even longer than one extra roll to see how much damage is dealt following a successful hit.  In my view the raison d'être for multiple attack rolls is to make it more likely to hit.  That's obviously not at all the same thing as varying the amount of damage a successful hit deals.  And I get that that distinction is a large part of the appeal over the existing rule, if not the entire reason to prefer it.

But there's a significant downside to making hits more likely: it devalues fragile units that rely on a high TMM.  Again being more able to kill those fragile/high TMM targets may well be what the aim is for... but the PV re-evaluation was also started to address the game balance.  I'm not a fan of an optional rule that exists to address fundamental game balance, esp when it's already being addressed :)

I totally get your point of view, but... as you stated you are not a fan of either so for players like yourself (not saying one way is better than another) the change makes no difference if you are likely to never use it anyway. However, there are a large portion of us that really like it.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

Well, it potentially involves me when someone else wants to use it and I don't.

I was saying why.  To boil it down and reiterate:  I think it's a superior rule, granted.  However the reason I'd take the book version over it still is because outside of a vacuum, it negatively impacts game balance.

And it doesn't just negatively affect game balance, it'd do so in a magnified way if the PV re-eval goes thru.  High TMM is going to make PV go up, but if they're even easier to kill despite being more expensive that's a Bad Thing. 

[Papabees]

Well, it potentially involves me when someone else wants to use it and I don't.

I was saying why.  To boil it down and reiterate:  I think it's a superior rule, granted.  However the reason I'd take the book version over it still is because outside of a vacuum, it negatively impacts game balance.

And it doesn't just negatively affect game balance, it'd do so in a magnified way if the PV re-eval goes thru.  High TMM is going to make PV go up, but if they're even easier to kill despite being more expensive that's a Bad Thing.

Fair point. I am legitimately curious about one thing though, you mentioned attacks taking twice as long. How so? If I shake my hand and roll the dice once, regardless of how many I grab, isn't the time the same? Or did you mean the time is takes to kill a thing not actually roll the dice?

[Tai Dai Cultist]

Fair point. I am legitimately curious about one thing though, you mentioned attacks taking twice as long. How so? If I shake my hand and roll the dice once, regardless of how many I grab, isn't the time the same? Or did you mean the time is takes to kill a thing not actually roll the dice?

Well the book version is: Roll to hit.  On a successful hit, then roll a handful of dice=the base damage, then apply hits to target.  Obviously slower than not using variable damage as it adds a second step to each attack.

OTOH rolling 2d6 per point of damage then applying appears to be just as fast on paper perhaps, but in reality it wouldn't be so.  You have to find/gather/match pairs of 2d6s in sufficient number of the base damage to prepare the roll.  Or just roll one set of 2d6 sequentially.  In all likelihood, rolling sequentially is going to be just as fast if not faster than assembling your pool of dice prior to making your one big roll.  And either way, still slower than the book version as you're not required to carefully assemble a prepared pool of matched pairs of dice.


To reiterate though: my aversion to the popular house rule as you describe is what it does to game balance for fragile but high TMM targets.  If it only takes 1-3 damage to destroy them, they stop being worth their PV when you can more reliably sock a little damage onto a hard-to-hit target.  Even moreso if/when PV re-eval goes live and their PV costs are increased.

[Xochi]

While it seems like a fun idea, I have to agree with Tai I would rather do it the book way.

If I have an Atlas that does 3 4 3, vs a Dire Wolf that does 9 7 2 and we both need 7 to hit, the chances of each of us rolling a 7 is equal. The chances of him rolling 4-5 of the 9 as a 7 or above is much higher than me rolling 3 dice with an average of 2 being 7 or above.

Yeah the Direwolf if it hits the 7 it will hurt more its a clan death machine, but he only gets 1 chance (aside from SPA) just like me.

[Papabees]

Well the book version is: Roll to hit.  On a successful hit, then roll a handful of dice=the base damage, then apply hits to target.  Obviously slower than not using variable damage as it adds a second step to each attack.

OTOH rolling 2d6 per point of damage then applying appears to be just as fast on paper perhaps, but in reality it wouldn't be so.  You have to find/gather/match pairs of 2d6s in sufficient number of the base damage to prepare the roll.  Or just roll one set of 2d6 sequentially.  In all likelihood, rolling sequentially is going to be just as fast if not faster than assembling your pool of dice prior to making your one big roll.  And either way, still slower than the book version as you're not required to carefully assemble a prepared pool of matched pairs of dice.

Ah got it. Fair point.

[Adrian Gideon]

It’s all good. It may seem to be a “fan rule” but we came up with both behind the scenes and the version in the ASC is what won out.

The core mechanic (hit or miss, full damage) will be unchanged. Can’t say for the optional variable damage rules as of yet.

[Papabees]

It’s all good. It may seem to be a “fan rule” but we came up with both behind the scenes and the version in the ASC is what won out.

The core mechanic (hit or miss, full damage) will be unchanged. Can’t say for the optional variable damage rules as of yet.

Appreciated.

[Mattlov]

I've used this same alternate rule.  The place we ran into problems was:

1.  What if I want to split fire between two (or more targets)?

2.  What if those targets are in different range brackets?

It's a question that is difficult to answer and maintain balance.  In the end, we only allowed firing at targets in the same bracket, and an additional +1 modifier to hit any secondary targets.  But it isn't a great fix.

[DarkJaguar]

At most, This could be handy as an alternate variable damage, in my opinion.  Just yesterday we played a game that saw four company level units, plus aerospace and support ground vehicles in play (1,520 PV total on the board).  We use variable damage (along with a glancing blows house variant).  Rolling a single to-hit isn't a terribly big deal, and then picking up a few D6's to roll damage doesn't slow stuff down too much, and certainly adds interest.  However I do not think we could have completed our game if I had to roll on average 4 attacks per unit (With a range of 1 to 9).  That comes out to around 200 2D6 rolls per combat phase.

It would be a neat option to use in lance on lance engagements, sure.  But I just don't see it scaling well.

[Papabees]

At most, This could be handy as an alternate variable damage, in my opinion.  Just yesterday we played a game that saw four company level units, plus aerospace and support ground vehicles in play (1,520 PV total on the board).  We use variable damage (along with a glancing blows house variant).  Rolling a single to-hit isn't a terribly big deal, and then picking up a few D6's to roll damage doesn't slow stuff down too much, and certainly adds interest.  However I do not think we could have completed our game if I had to roll on average 4 attacks per unit (With a range of 1 to 9).  That comes out to around 200 2D6 rolls per combat phase.

It would be a neat option to use in lance on lance engagements, sure.  But I just don't see it scaling well.

I'd argue that rolling 50 rolls of 2d6 to hit and then picking up additional d6s for the current variable damage takes more time as you are rolling twice to determine damage rather than once. I think in the scenario presented you'd cut your dice time by at least a third.

[Papabees]

I suppose we can walk around it all day, I just wanted to throw it out there because, again it's optional so if one doesn't like it they don't have to use it, and there ar e a number of players who like it.

I appreciate that a number of other players feel different and respect that. We all have differing tastes.

[DarkJaguar]

I'd argue that rolling 50 rolls of 2d6 to hit and then picking up additional d6s for the current variable damage takes more time as you are rolling twice to determine damage rather than once. I think in the scenario presented you'd cut your dice time by at least a third.

You would maybe be correct, if over 50% of shots didn't miss.  We roll 50 units worth of shots, and then at most 25 units worth of damage. ;)

[Papabees]

Real world example. 54 mechs plus battlearmor only took three hours with many new players. m.facebook.com/groups/181229652276169?view=permalink&id=546787519053712&comment_id=547011709031293&notif_t=group_comment_reply&notif_id=1521510842238402&ref=m_notif 

[Mattlov]

It would be a neat option to use in lance on lance engagements, sure.  But I just don't see it scaling well.

It has worked just fine for my games of 2 companies or more per side.

If you are playing lance vs. lance, you should probably just be playing Battletech.   :))

[nckestrel]

It has worked just fine for my games of 2 companies or more per side.

If you are playing lance vs. lance, you should probably just be playing Battletech.   :))

Hey, no telling other people what to play. (Goes back to playing three unit BattleForce games..)

[Von Ether]

Everyone has their motivations when it comes to these sort of rules.

For my local meta, we broke out Variable damage when certain players starting bringing in things willy-nilly from the Master List that did 6 or 8 damage. The VD gave smaller units a longer lifespan -- especially if they utilized cover.

Oddly enough, once we started nailing down playing in specific eras and using the lance formation rules, those guys faded away.

[cavingjan]

I suspect rather extensive playtesting would show that the PV costs will need to be increased for the higher damage units.

[iamfanboy]

What I've done is have different sized d6s, one size (bigger) for the to-hit roll, one size for the variable damage (usually a lot smaller) and rolled them at the same time. If the big d6s miss, then you don't worry about it and move to the next roll. If it hits, THEN you count the small d6s.

Most units still fit in a handful and there's not THAT much extra time spent assembling your dice pool. The unfortunate: It leads to moments where you whiff and see that all the small d6s came up as hits. "Man, I would have CRUSHED you!"

[Fear Factory]

Throwing it out there, but I remember wayyyyyyy before Alpha Strike (Quick Strike) there was a player that used the missile hit chart for variable damage.  Even came up with a modified chart that worked better.

I feel like rolling for each point of damage captures BattleTech's use of the 2d6 bell curve nicely.  I don't like the current rule, using 1d6 per point and there is a 1 damage minimum.  Either way, you're picking up more dice, but I would rather spend more time rolling 2d6 per point (bell curve) opposed to rolling for a hit then throwing down a bunch of d6 for results that don't make much sense.  Shoot, just dust off the ol' the box-o-dice we used to use for LB-X Autocannons.  Problem solved.

If I had my way:

- Attacks are considered single attacks (per unit) so critical hits do not stack.
- Roll 2d6 per point of damage caused.
- Special physical attacks (DFA/Charge) do full damage.

[sadlerbw]

two things:

1) when I play with variable damage at home, we just roll 2D6 for each point. It works out close enough to the official variant. It made more sense to my kids, especially since you roll 2D6 for darn near everything else in the game anyway.

2) I'm not a huge fan of optional rules in general. Variable Damage has always felt, to me, like something that didn't need to be officially published, but something that should have just stayed as a house rule. This is for two reasons: First, rules bloat is a thing, and I think it is best avoided. I like my optional rules to have a specific purpose that is spelled out like, 'Do this to make the game harder' or 'do this to make this mechanic less random' or 'if you don't want to keep track of X, just do Y instead'. I don't like optional rules that don't give me some explanation as to what they are going to do to game balance or why I should have any interest in using them. I sort of know what VD does to game balance through experimentation, but mostly what it does is make people less mad about missing on a low to-hit number. Second, we stopped using it for games with more than about 4-5 units per side because it didn't matter as much. Once you got enough units on the board, missing any given shot wasn't as big of a deal since you were still throwing enough dice for the law of averages to help you out.

[Wrangler]

I found as virgin player to AS that it made game more variety and perhaps less lethal.  sure it does appeal to the old school Battletech player, but i've spoken with younger people who played it and the standard rules finding it added more to it.

[Fear Factory]

two things:

1) when I play with variable damage at home, we just roll 2D6 for each point. It works out close enough to the official variant. It made more sense to my kids, especially since you roll 2D6 for darn near everything else in the game anyway.

2) I'm not a huge fan of optional rules in general. Variable Damage has always felt, to me, like something that didn't need to be officially published, but something that should have just stayed as a house rule. This is for two reasons: First, rules bloat is a thing, and I think it is best avoided. I like my optional rules to have a specific purpose that is spelled out like, 'Do this to make the game harder' or 'do this to make this mechanic less random' or 'if you don't want to keep track of X, just do Y instead'. I don't like optional rules that don't give me some explanation as to what they are going to do to game balance or why I should have any interest in using them. I sort of know what VD does to game balance through experimentation, but mostly what it does is make people less mad about missing on a low to-hit number. Second, we stopped using it for games with more than about 4-5 units per side because it didn't matter as much. Once you got enough units on the board, missing any given shot wasn't as big of a deal since you were still throwing enough dice for the law of averages to help you out.

I play tested it a few times.  My frustration from the official rule is that if you have an 11+ to hit, you can hit with one lucky roll, and the d6's can potentially cause full damage.  It has not happened to me, it was close, but still seemed weird after playing a game where you roll 2d6 per weapon on a bell curve.  Variable Damage, as it stands, just doesn't do it right.  Complexity would actually work well for Variable Damage considering things like Skidding still exists.

[Scotty]

Counterpoint: things like Skidding probably shouldn't still exist.

[Fear Factory]

Counterpoint: things like Skidding probably shouldn't still exist.

No, it should not.  However, unlike Skidding, Variable Damage is actually a good idea.

[sadlerbw]

Counterpoint: things like Skidding probably shouldn't still exist.

 :thumbsup: I’m ok with that. This is BattleTech, not Formula WAAAAAAGH!

[wolfspider]

The gaming group that we play with use 2d6 for each point of damage and it doesn't slow down the action. We have 2 battalions on 2 battalion size games and we completed the game in about 6 hours. We regularly do a Wed night game with a battalion on battalion and we complete those in roughly 3 hours. So I am all for this change but I can understand if it is not for everybody.

[Fear Factory]

So we're basically stuck between using a pool of dice and rolling for each point of damage.  I think I figured out a middle ground....

For to hit rolls, divide the to hit target roll by 2 (round normally) to find the chance to hit and roll 1d6 per point of damage.

Example:

Two CN9-A Centurions fighting at medium range, clear terrain, skill 4, both moved, will need a 7 to hit.

1) Divide the TN (7) by 2 = 3.5 (round normally) to 4.
2) Unit does 3 damage at medium range.
3) Hit dice target number is now 4+.  Roll 1d6 per point of damage.

Edit:  Another example, one centurion stands still.  To hit is now 6.

1) 6/2 = 3.
2) Unit does 3 damage at medium range
3) 3+ TN for each 1d6.

Let's say we have a PXH-1 Phoenix Hawk shooting at a Spider, both moved normally, skill 4, medium range, clear terrain.

PXH-1 vs SDR-5K

1) TN with modifiers is 9.  9/2 = 4.5.  Round normally to 5
2) Hawk does 2 damage at medium range
3) 5+ TN for each 1d6

Other way around

1) TN with modifiers is 8.  8/2 = 4. 
2) Spider does 1 damage at medium range
3) 4+ TN for 1d6.

It still pays attention to the bell curve, but it also eliminates multiple dice rolls.  You're not rolling for a hit and then throwing down multiple dice, no damage minimum needed, just throw down all the D6's.  For 0*, just roll the die twice or maybe put a +2 modifier on it so you don't need to roll again.

[GoldBishop]

I mean not to blaspheme, but me and mine have really enjoyed the 1d12 per Point method over the 2d6... if only for fewer dice lost tumbling into obscuring terrain, or off the tables and under book cases (we do have a few excited dice rollers to tolerate, so its really a non-issue that we corrected for ourselves).

Yes, we're aware the bell curve doesn't work as well with a single die vs a pair... but the simplicity of it (and the love for a lesser-loved polyhedral die) appeals to us.  YMMV

[Descronan]

I mean not to blaspheme, but me and mine have really enjoyed the 1d12 per Point method over the 2d6... if only for fewer dice lost tumbling into obscuring terrain, or off the tables and under book cases (we do have a few excited dice rollers to tolerate, so its really a non-issue that we corrected for ourselves).

Yes, we're aware the bell curve doesn't work as well with a single die vs a pair... but the simplicity of it (and the love for a lesser-loved polyhedral die) appeals to us.  YMMV

My group does the same and we love it. It seems to solve the PV problem with glass cannons without having to mess with the PV.

[sadlerbw]

My group does the same and we love it. It seems to solve the PV problem with glass cannons without having to mess with the PV.

Yeah, but 1D12 vs 2D6 is a WAY different probability curve, even if you are talking less-than-or-equal-to. That isn't something i would change just to make rolling multiple things at once easier.

[Descronan]

Yeah, but 1D12 vs 2D6 is a WAY different probability curve, even if you are talking less-than-or-equal-to. That isn't something i would change just to make rolling multiple things at once easier.

Sure, but abstraction of Alpha Strike does far more to change the game than changing the dice. And it solves the problem of a unit with 6/5/5 damage missing every shot against a glass cannon with a to-hit of 11 at short range. That big beast should hit at least SOMETHING with all those weapons.

Also, in btech, that 6/5/5 unit probably has a dozen weapons. That's multiple rolls of 2d6 vs. a single roll of 2d6 in Alpha Strike. So its not as simple as saying "bell curve". Each point of damage in AS could represent multiple weapon systems so your probability of hitting with something is far greater in btech than hitting those high TMM units in Alpha Strike.

Bottom line - its a game. Making it easier and more fun is the goal. If that means changing the dice, why not?

[Papabees]

Sure, but abstraction of Alpha Strike does far more to change the game than changing the dice. And it solves the problem of a unit with 6/5/5 damage missing every shot against a glass cannon with a to-hit of 11 at short range. That big beast should hit at least SOMETHING with all those weapons.

Also, in btech, that 6/5/5 unit probably has a dozen weapons. That's multiple rolls of 2d6 vs. a single roll of 2d6 in Alpha Strike. So its not as simple as saying "bell curve". Each point of damage in AS could represent multiple weapon systems so your probability of hitting with something is far greater in btech than hitting those high TMM units in Alpha Strike.

Bottom line - its a game. Making it easier and more fun is the goal. If that means changing the dice, why not?

Well said.

[cavingjan]

For D&D, I adopted a mode of rolling the attack and damage dice at the same time. That practice works well here too. If you attack with a 3 dmg unit, use 3 smaller dice and 2 bigger dice of a different color at the same time. No wasted time rolling the damage later. You just have to be able to distinguish the damage dice from your attack dice.

[wesdyer]

I'm coming a bit late to this party, but I prefer the house variable damage rule over the written variable damage rule too. Keep it optional, but it seems to address more of the reasons to use it than the currently written variable damage rule does.

The rules without variable damage (plain old Alpha Strike) and the house variable damage rule have exactly the same average damage output for a given shot. Not almost the same but exactly the same. The odd one out is the currently written variable damage rule which significantly reduces the average damage output. That seems strange.

Even though they have the same average damage output, the rules without variable damage and the house variable damage rule have vastly different variances on damage and it goes both ways. Without variable damage, you get flyweight mechs dancing around dodging deadly shots turn after turn and you get big nasty expensive heavy hitting mechs that go down really fast with a few lucky shots. What the house variable damage rule does is pull both of those scenarios towards average damage output, killing the flyweight faster and the heavy weight slower. For example, if a regular skill pilot in a Warhawk C shoots at medium range at a Fire Moth (to hit 10) then with both rules the expected damage is 1 per turn. The problem is that normal rules will require many rounds to get that average and kill the Fire Moth while with the house variable damage rule you would expect 1 damage on round one.

Interestingly, in large enough games, you really don't need the house variable damage rule at all because there are so many units that the problems with the variance disappear and damage output more closely resembles the average turn to turn, but in smaller engagements say like company size and smaller then variable damage makes a big difference making it less likely to dodge the shots and survive with a flyweight and less likely to take a few super lucky big hits on that expensive mech. So you only need to add the extra complexity when the numbers are smaller, making it less onerous.

I share the concern with earlier posters that the changes to PV to penalize light mechs might make the house variable damage rule double penalize them, but the rule is optional.

Side note -  I do wish something like the house variable damage rule was done to actually change the dynamics of lights rather than just making them more expensive.

[Paradox]

Wesdyer,
I concur with you comments 100% and they echo my opinion.
My preference would be for the house variable damage rule be introduced to actually change the dynamics of lights rather than just making them more expensive.

[Fear Factory]

Well, I thought the example I posted was a good compromise of rolling for each point AND rolling 1d6 per point.  You wouldn't have to change anything with light units.