Author Topic: Variable Damage discussion  (Read 6843 times)

wolfspider

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 747
Re: Variable Damage discussion
« Reply #30 on: 17 May 2018, 12:03:04 »
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.
I may have a low amount of posts but I have a PHD in Battletech and mechs older then most people on this board!

Fear Factory

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4070
  • Designing the Enemy
Re: Variable Damage discussion
« Reply #31 on: 22 May 2018, 12:17:56 »
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.
« Last Edit: 22 May 2018, 16:58:42 by Fear Factory »
The conflict is pure - The truth devised - The future secured - The enemy designed
Maj. Isaac "Litany" Van Houten, Lone Wolves, The Former 66th "Litany Against Fear" Company

GoldBishop

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 667
Re: Variable Damage discussion
« Reply #32 on: 23 May 2018, 09:19:42 »
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
"Watch the man-made-lightning fly!"  -RaiderRed

Descronan

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 218
  • "No multi-pass."
Re: Variable Damage discussion
« Reply #33 on: 31 May 2018, 14:46:16 »
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

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1679
Re: Variable Damage discussion
« Reply #34 on: 01 June 2018, 10:47:41 »
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

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 218
  • "No multi-pass."
Re: Variable Damage discussion
« Reply #35 on: 06 June 2018, 07:57:02 »
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

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 952
Re: Variable Damage discussion
« Reply #36 on: 14 June 2018, 06:13:39 »
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

  • Spelunca Custos
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4470
    • warrenborn
Re: Variable Damage discussion
« Reply #37 on: 16 June 2018, 15:10:00 »
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

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Variable Damage discussion
« Reply #38 on: 18 June 2018, 21:05:34 »
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

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 33
Re: Variable Damage discussion
« Reply #39 on: 20 June 2018, 14:56:57 »
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.
Agent #902,  Toronto, Canada
Member of: Southern Ontario Battletech Society Facebook Group

Fear Factory

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4070
  • Designing the Enemy
Re: Variable Damage discussion
« Reply #40 on: 20 June 2018, 15:19:51 »
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.
The conflict is pure - The truth devised - The future secured - The enemy designed
Maj. Isaac "Litany" Van Houten, Lone Wolves, The Former 66th "Litany Against Fear" Company