Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Do not get me started on the VCS. Seriously. I have work to do, which I've been neglecting for reason of cold. I simply won't have time to go through all the problems with the VCS and do what I have to do this week! Please! Think of my schedule! My poor, innocent schedule!

 warboss wrote:
Thanks! Ditto! I saw some posts of yours over on RPG.net about Ogre but I haven't been following the official forums of late. I will likely pop in once both nublitz and the north pdf come out and I see the final fruits of both HG labors.

Yeah, more or like the same ^_^. Also, Im very happy with my purchase so far, although it is immense xD (And also... HG could learn a lot from Ogre, you know... it really is a very nice game).

I'd actually be fine with them resetting the universe completely in a Battlestar Galactica fashion. I can't speak for others but the WOTA and to a lesser extent Interpolar war are my favorite settings and I'd be fine with them rebooting the universe to the years around WOTA (pre, during, and after) as an optional campaign setting. Basically, it would be North versus South versus CEF just like in the RPG 1st edition. I don't think it would be a good idea for the basic setting as they'd invalidate a ton of models (all of nucoal, most of paxton, etc) but I'd like the option to play in that time period. That said... when the core universe and rules are such a mess, an offshoot alternate campaign is a very low priority. Still.. in the imaginary alternate reality where I've won the Powerball Lottery and bought the Heavy Gear IP, an alternate campaign setting with some expanded northern/southern/CEF units (like stealth gears and upgraded hovertanks) with a Battlestar Galactica rebooted storyline would be happening. Heck, I'd even get Brandon to write some steamy intros to the various chapters!

Yeah, I'd be happy if they just did a "NuHG" setting aking to Galactica, actually, one not tied to the past setting, made from the ground up to support the kind of setting the game needs. We don't need to crap around a setting because it doesn't really work for that, just fix it reimagining the setting completely into something that works! Just don't try to hide it into the current one with timeline events, please?

Also yes, a WOTA setting would be very sweet, actually. And you're not alone wanting to buy HG, you know . We should start building a trust fund and see if they tank completely (I think this new edition is probably the last round for them, if it tanks).

As for PRDF, I'm fine with them having all the stuff you said AS LONG AS THEY ACTUALLY PAY FOR IT. I can't stress that enough but it doesn't seem to matter. The whole point of the VCS is to quantify benefits and charge for them. I fully admit that the VCS has flaws (like undercharging for detect which IMO is the third most important combat stat) but if they insist on using it for some armies then other armies should use them as well. If something needs to be changed (like MAC upgrades going to 0tv cost with PRDF), then they should be changed for EVERYONE via the existing FAQ/errata system and not just added to some favored factions only. If the RFB gets melee with the Paxton upgrade, it should cost more OR be retroactively applied backwards to other armies as it is better in some and not others. The VCS may be flawed but I fear that Heavy Gear has turned into some mecha parody of animal farm where all gears are created equal (under the VCS) but some gears (Paxton) are more equal than others (free or undercosted stuff!).

I... don't know. Many of the new stuff sounds stupid, to me (particularly the ECCM... NO! ECCMs ARE NOT GUNS! THEY DON'T WORK THAT WAY! NOW SIT!). But as I said, nothing you cound't fix redoing the core assumptions and doing a setting custom made for the wargame, instead of the current hodge podge. As to costs... yeah.

mrondeau wrote:
Do not get me started on the VCS. Seriously. I have work to do, which I've been neglecting for reason of cold. I simply won't have time to go through all the problems with the VCS and do what I have to do this week! Please! Think of my schedule! My poor, innocent schedule!

Hey, the VCS worked... for the RPG. See above. I'm also not really a fan of army special rules and the like. Heck, one of things I liked about HG on the beginning was the fact that there were no s"special rule buttlerflies", and everyone worked off from the same core, with no special snowflakes at all.

Oh man, I wasn't following the PRDF changes. ECCM as a gun? What? Okay...I guess its an attempt to get models with ECM/ECCM something to do, since they cant' be used as how they should be. Way to break something by trying to band-aid a fix.

Also, why, why, why would you change the stats of a weapon for just one faction? It was stupid in NuCoal, and it's even stupider with the PRDF.

Also, the snipered trait is stupid, and should die in a fire. It's the weirdest way to again patch a change to a weapon, instead of just fix the weapon. It usually manages to turn the weapon into not a sniper weapon, but something else entirely.

I agree that PRDF should pay for Crossfire immunity, I found it fairly easy to get, enough to come up at least once a game if not more.

ECM they should pay for, but not much, currently. It's kind of a horrible problem with PRDF. ECM on standard models is everywhere, makes them unique, but the rules on ECM have been stupid for ages. Instead of fixing ECM in any way, they just go stupid and toss an patch to allow people to remove it. But I'm rehashing.

Hopefully the new rules will manage to fix ECM enough to make it meaningful enough to have low level ECM on GPs.

ferrous wrote:
Oh man, I wasn't following the PRDF changes. ECCM as a gun? What? Okay...I guess its an attempt to get models with ECM/ECCM something to do, since they cant' be used as how they should be. Way to break something by trying to band-aid a fix.

I was exaggerating a bit for effect, but... yes, basically.

They have devised the "Aggressor EW" suite for ECCMs (and why for ECCMs instead of ECMs eludes me, TBH), that you can add to a unit that already has ECCM for a "mere" +10TV. That allows you to make direct fire attacks (using the EW skill) against enemy units (that are NOT Comm events, because I say so). The shot can:

- Give a unit Stun due to "EM overload". With a radio unjammer.
- Force a unit to drop a speed band and not change facing because obviously you jam their hidraulics and mechanic throttle. With a radio unjammer.
- Make the target unable to initiate or receive any comm event. Even the ones from autocomm range, that are supposed to be done with tight beam lasers and actual hand signs. With a radio unjammer.

Also, why, why, why would you change the stats of a weapon for just one faction? It was stupid in NuCoal, and it's even stupider with the PRDF.

Also, the snipered trait is stupid, and should die in a fire. It's the weirdest way to again patch a change to a weapon, instead of just fix the weapon. It usually manages to turn the weapon into not a sniper weapon, but something else entirely.

Yes to both. Yes, changing the stats of a weapon makes the weapon tables moot (and then, why you have that?), and yes, the current Sniper trait is nuts.

I agree that PRDF should pay for Crossfire immunity, I found it fairly easy to get, enough to come up at least once a game if not more.

ECM they should pay for, but not much, currently. It's kind of a horrible problem with PRDF. ECM on standard models is everywhere, makes them unique, but the rules on ECM have been stupid for ages. Instead of fixing ECM in any way, they just go stupid and toss an patch to allow people to remove it. But I'm rehashing.

Hopefully the new rules will manage to fix ECM enough to make it meaningful enough to have low level ECM on GPs.

ECM as is has loads of problems, the first being it needs an action.

It's a bit more fair to say that it's an electronic warfare upgrade to enable one specific subset to have something to use its ECCM stat for.

But the ninja strike force with the EW weapon and upgraded stealth capabilities doesn't get crossfire immunity.

And it's possible that it's a test balloon for other future changes to the ECM/ECCM rules. Or giving the ninja strike forces similar options.

 solkan wrote:

But the ninja strike force with the EW weapon and upgraded stealth capabilities doesn't get crossfire immunity.

Incorrect. All paxton units except leagueless get for free Advanced Small Unit Tactics which grants crossfire immunity. It's not as good as the PRDF one that is permanent and not removable but they do start with free crossfire immunity.

I thought 'Ninja Strike Force' was probably a reference to the Black Talons, but that could just be my interpretation.

A vehicle creation system/VCS doesn't make sense in the context of a wargame like this, especially if it only uses fixed costs. Because it takes NO account of inherent synergies in design!

If you value +1 FCS, ATM and high detect separately, then adding them together makes a monster.
If you have +1 FCS, a great weapon and piss poor detect, then your unit sucks.
If you have -1 FCS, Horrible Armor/Stats, and linked MRPs, your unit is still effective, but cheap.

This sort of thing is why all modern wargames design using a hollistic approach where you adjust points not from a slavish 'Ok this item costs this much' sense, which is plain daft, but a 'This unit's effectiveness overall tends to fall between comparable unit X and Y.

 Balance wrote:
I thought 'Ninja Strike Force' was probably a reference to the Black Talons, but that could just be my interpretation.

I'm talking about the CTF paxton faction that has stealth specialty rules like "shadow warriors" and is pretty much tailor made for "shinobi" special forces teams. That is also the faction that gets the EW "attack" rules being discussed... as well as the ability to start the game "hidden" at no additional TV or action cost.. on top of free starting immunity to crossfire. This is on top of free LD and EW CGL stat boosts. It really pays to play the army of the lead playtester.

 warboss wrote:

 Balance wrote:
I thought 'Ninja Strike Force' was probably a reference to the Black Talons, but that could just be my interpretation.

I'm talking about the CTF paxton faction that has stealth specialty rules like "shadow warriors" and is pretty much tailor made for "shinobi" special forces teams. That is also the faction that gets the EW "attack" rules being discussed... as well as the ability to start the game "hidden" at no additional TV or action cost.. on top of free starting immunity to crossfire.

OK, I misunderstood.

I don't get any input on game design issues (I'm contracted for web design/support) but from what I've seen the new rules look to be close to a clean slate. The VCS is dead, although it's been on life-support for a while (used as a guideline, but not the final determinator). I have some definite concerns with the most recent new rules release I've seen, and my current stance is that I want honest comments about them, even if they're negative. I see some good ideas that I think need to be reviewed and hammered into an overall design that is a good game and respectful to the setting. That's my hope, anyway.

 warboss wrote:

 solkan wrote:

But the ninja strike force with the EW weapon and upgraded stealth capabilities doesn't get crossfire immunity.

Incorrect. All paxton units except leagueless get for free Advanced Small Unit Tactics which grants crossfire immunity. It's not as good as the PRDF one that is permanent and not removable but they do start with free crossfire immunity.

Ah, I misunderstood how the abilities were laid out, and thought the "immunity until worn down" rule had been redone as the sub-faction specific "completely immune to crossfire" rule.

I don't know enough about the other faction specific rules to know whether PRDF should be more expensive across the board to force "To make up for their limited numbers, ..." to be accurate on the table.

 Killionaire wrote:

This sort of thing is why all modern wargames design using a hollistic approach where you adjust points not from a slavish 'Ok this item costs this much' sense, which is plain daft, but a 'This unit's effectiveness overall tends to fall between comparable unit X and Y.

That's the kind of thinking that gets quickly black-listed in DP9 playtest. I'm not kidding in any way.
Up to FiF (I wasn't involved with BD, so I can't speak from my own experience, but everything I hear about it is that it was probably even worse than usual), the VCS was considered more reliable than playtests. In fact commenting actual TV values for units was frowned upon, since the VCS was accurate by default.
If you ever wondered about how Mambas could upgrade to HGLCs for 0 TV, you now know why.

warboss wrote: It really pays to play the army of the lead playtester.

The playtest manager and main writer, actually.

 Balance wrote:
(...) a good game and respectful to the setting. That's my hope, anyway.

That's what the few people remaining that still care a little would like to hope, against hope.

Assuming someone was willing to go through the Gear Garage data files tweaking point values for a renegade point balancing, is there any chance of finding the list of "These point values should be changed for balance" in one place? Or without having to comb through discussion threads?

This has been an interesting thread. A lot of veteran players, well known in the (tiny) HG community, and all the most reasonable, insightful and most importantly, rational players who have been burned for being rational by white-knight fans and a company that refuses to help itself, and would prefer to stick it's head in the sand.

Well, I think then we can sadly say, that if DP9 don't do a paradigm shift away from FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED THOUGHT PATTERNS...

Heavy Gear is Dead.

Ehhh i'd say "dead" in the way the GW Specialist games are. No support, but still a small player base. Honestly the only difference between the two is there's no unified fan system for HG yet other than the loose ones people have floating around that got mentioned.

Who can what the future will hold, but the next bit of information about the alpha is out today.

The modified Silhouette dice mechanism seems nice enough in Badlands Rally.

Yeah, hard to say, I haven't used them before. I understand what it's trying fix, though the check/roll system is a bit confusing at first read.

Not sure I like some of the stat changes, but it's hard to say until I know more. I definitely would've preferred higher TVs for granularity, instead of lower. In a system where the default value is 100, instead of 6, there is more room to grow. This was one of the issues with the old system, since it only allowed for +/-5 TV increments, so chopping out useless cruft from a model would yield massive gains and put the model into the same price range as other models who started that low and were subpar in comparison.

But... again, I don't want to jump the gun too much there.


Most of the weapon stuff looks good and stuff we've talked about on the forums for ages, like splitting up the RoF trait from Rocket Packs and Autocannons

Though I don't know what L/M/H Pen is, I'm a little leery of it. My big fear is that they will soften armor to the point where dedicated tank destroyer weapons won't be needed against tanks.

Also, I'd hazard a guess they've added Light Snub Cannons to the game, judging from the tables. Not sure what to think of that yet. Just noting it =)



So, I'm somewhere slightly below "Cautiously Optimistic", maybe, "Pessimistic, but Hoping"?

solkan wrote:It's a bit more fair to say that it's an electronic warfare upgrade to enable one specific subset to have something to use its ECCM stat for.

Honestly...

The only units that have ECCM are the Chieftain, Chieftain IV, Cataphract Lord, Greyhound, Uhland Lord. Wild Skirmishers and Wild Ferrets (I went and checked ). Of those, only the wild variants can be added for anything other than the CGL. The CGL always will have other things to do with their actions, and even if they didn't, a place where you can shoot directly an enemy unit from 2 x Autocomm is usually a place where the CLG doesn't want to be.

Even then... +10TV to be able to spend an action trying to give a Stun to a unit, when Stun is how it is? Or reducing the speed of a unit? Or blocking his comms? Well... usually shooting him would be quite more effective, particularly if those 10TV are spent in a weapon. Or coordinating fire for the rest of the CG.

And even then, it doesn't make sense at all xD.

But the ninja strike force with the EW weapon and upgraded stealth capabilities doesn't get crossfire immunity.

warboss has answered this one completely already.

And it's possible that it's a test balloon for other future changes to the ECM/ECCM rules. Or giving the ninja strike forces similar options.

Not sure about that, but if you want it to do other things, I'd advocate for things like degrading sensors, FC systems and the like, not this. And for ECM, not ECCM

Killionaire wrote:A vehicle creation system/VCS doesn't make sense in the context of a wargame like this, especially if it only uses fixed costs. Because it takes NO account of inherent synergies in design!

If you value +1 FCS, ATM and high detect separately, then adding them together makes a monster.
If you have +1 FCS, a great weapon and piss poor detect, then your unit sucks.
If you have -1 FCS, Horrible Armor/Stats, and linked MRPs, your unit is still effective, but cheap.

This sort of thing is why all modern wargames design using a hollistic approach where you adjust points not from a slavish 'Ok this item costs this much' sense, which is plain daft, but a 'This unit's effectiveness overall tends to fall between comparable unit X and Y.

Agreed, that's why I said it was fine for the RPG, not the wargame. For the wargame it just can't work as intended. Maybe (maybe) with the one from SilCORE, that added the total ACC to the calculations of weapons, but the way it is... and even then, only for weapons.

warboss wrote:I'm talking about the CTF paxton faction that has stealth specialty rules like "shadow warriors" and is pretty much tailor made for "shinobi" special forces teams. That is also the faction that gets the EW "attack" rules being discussed... as well as the ability to start the game "hidden" at no additional TV or action cost.. on top of free starting immunity to crossfire. This is on top of free LD and EW CGL stat boosts. It really pays to play the army of the lead playtester.

Yeah ^_^. It sounds like my nephew when he's playing pretend with my old VOTOMs.

Killionaire wrote:This has been an interesting thread. A lot of veteran players, well known in the (tiny) HG community, and all the most reasonable, insightful and most importantly, rational players who have been burned for being rational by white-knight fans and a company that refuses to help itself, and would prefer to stick it's head in the sand.

Yeah, it's been cool to see this kind of people over here . A nice thread.

Well, I think then we can sadly say, that if DP9 don't do a paradigm shift away from FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED THOUGHT PATTERNS...

Heavy Gear is Dead.

Probably, and unfortunately. I'm still very attached to the setting.

ferrous wrote:Yeah, hard to say, I haven't used them before. I understand what it's trying fix, though the check/roll system is a bit confusing at first read.

It kinda is, yes. I would like to hear the reasons for it, to see what they were going for.

Not sure I like some of the stat changes, but it's hard to say until I know more. I definitely would've preferred higher TVs for granularity, instead of lower. In a system where the default value is 100, instead of 6, there is more room to grow. This was one of the issues with the old system, since it only allowed for +/-5 TV increments, so chopping out useless cruft from a model would yield massive gains and put the model into the same price range as other models who started that low and were subpar in comparison.

But... again, I don't want to jump the gun too much there.

It would depend on how much the swaps change the units, I guess. Games like Warmahordes don't have problems with low point costs, but they haven't many options.

Most of the weapon stuff looks good and stuff we've talked about on the forums for ages, like splitting up the RoF trait from Rocket Packs and Autocannons

Though I don't know what L/M/H Pen is, I'm a little leery of it. My big fear is that they will soften armor to the point where dedicated tank destroyer weapons won't be needed against tanks.

I'm guessing the L/M/H Pen would be either Penetration against Light/Medium/Heavy units or Penetration for Light/Medium/Heavy hits. But who knows ^_^

Also, I'd hazard a guess they've added Light Snub Cannons to the game, judging from the tables. Not sure what to think of that yet. Just noting it =)

Hm. Didn't notice that.

So, I'm somewhere slightly below "Cautiously Optimistic", maybe, "Pessimistic, but Hoping"?

The second so far, yes XD.

The L/M/H pen I think relates to the weapon strength. So instead of a different line for each weapon, all the ACs have equal range and traits, just different strength depending what your gear is carrying.

Arrow Jaguars now have LATMs so they may be trying to streamline the weapons some or open more options, in current weapons like the GLC.

UN Test Pilot wrote:
The L/M/H pen I think relates to the weapon strength. So instead of a different line for each weapon, all the ACs have equal range and traits, just different strength depending what your gear is carrying.

Arrow Jaguars now have LATMs so they may be trying to streamline the weapons some or open more options, in current weapons like the GLC.

Ah, good point. That's quite different.

Been reading a bit the Badlands Arena rulebook (it appears to use at the very least an early variant of the same system).

If they are using basically the same system, that means that you always roll 2d6 +/- bonu and penalty dice, and that attacking a unit would involve 3 rolls: an attack roll, a defense roll and a third damage roll.

According to BR, if you hit an objective you check MoS for the attack roll, and pick that many dice. Then compare Power of the attack versus the armor of the objective, and add or substract as many dice to the damage roll as the difference. You roll those dice, and every 4+ is a damage point. From the blog, we can see that a Hunter has 6 damage points (5/1) and a Jaguar has also 6 (4/2).

So... let's check:

If I have a Hunter shooting a Jäger at Optimum range (+0 dice) and by the rear (+2 dice) with a LAC (Pen 6, Burst 1 [in BR is +1 dice, so I'll use that]), he'd be rolling 5 dice with GUN 4+. Let's say the Jäger is fleeing at Top Speed (+1 dice), so he would be rolling 3 dice with PILOT 4+.

Let's say the Hunter rolls 6, 6, 4, 2, 1 and the Jäger rolls 5, 4, 2. That would mean a final roll of 8 vs. 6, for a MoS of 2.

That would mean the damage roll would start with 2d6. In the blog post, we can see a Jäger (well, Hunter) has Armor Rating 6, and if we're correct assuming a LAC has PEN 6, that would mean no additional dice.

So shooting a Gear in the back with a LAC would, on average, mark around 1 damage point, of the 6 a regular Gear has. That's not really too impressive ^_^

Albertorius wrote:

ferrous wrote:Yeah, hard to say, I haven't used them before. I understand what it's trying fix, though the check/roll system is a bit confusing at first read.

It kinda is, yes. I would like to hear the reasons for it, to see what they were going for.

I don't know if you're asking 'why are there two systems', 'why use the check system' or 'why not use a dice pool system', but I happen to be able to answer all of them.

The check system - by which I mean roll XD6, take the highest, and add +1 for any additional (secondary) dice that meet or exceed the target number - was chosen as it preserves elements the 'reliability' of the Silhouette system, but allows the dice to generate a broader spectrum of results. Under stock Silhouette, you really only get 3 results from the dice - 4, 5, 6. You then added +/- modifiers to get your final outcome. But once you have +3 points of modifiers (in either combination of directions) the dice contribution begins being less 'important' to a given outcome. Adding dice to the system means you compress the results towards the 5, 6 range (and add 7, 8 results if you're using the cinematic rules), but those still aren't that common compared to a basic result of 5, 6.

One common thread about Heavy Gear is that the predictability of the dice mechanics is a positive thing, as it's more pronounced than most other wargames. Most other games have a truly random roll (Infinity, Mercs, 40k) to determine results, while a few use a bell curve (WM, Gruntz) and Malifaux has a quasi-deterministic randomness (since you can count cards). Rolling the dice under Sil tends to be relatively pointless; ironically you're not so much trying for a 'good' result as you're trying to avoid the fumble. If you roll a 6 and your opponent rolls a 5, the dice didn't really contribute to the outcome all that much; that only happens when you get a 5 vs 2 matchup (or similar) which is fairly rare in the grand scheme of things.

So the core ideal behind the check mechanic is to make the dice roll more important to the final outcome, but still preserve that 'determinism'. The basic roll is 2D6, so in most cases you're going to see results from 4 to 7. Models with a good augment rating (the target number looking thing) will see the higher scores more often than those that have a bad augment rating (5+ or 6+) but those models will still tend towards a result of 4, 5 or 6. As an example, if you roll a defense check and the dice show [5, 4], that's a result of 5 for any model with a 5+ or 6+ augment, like a tank or Mammoth. It's a 6 for any model with a 4+ or better augment, like a Hunter, Jaguar or Cheetah.

In basic Sil, good tactics rewards you with a modifier, making your success very likely. Instead the new system rewards you with dice, which interplays with your augment rating so that models with better equipment have a better chance of a superior outcome, while models with poor ratings simply tend to be pushed towards the basic 'extrema' of 6. As an example, if you flank your opponent and crossfire them, you used to get effectively a +2 to your roll. Now, you get +2D6 to your roll. A model with a 4+ attack augment has the potential to roll anywhere from a 4-9, with common results in the 5-7 range. A model with 3+ attack tends to get the 6-9 result more commonly. A model with a 6+ attack will tend to get the 6. So everybody is rewarded, but you still need the 'superior' equipment to make the absolute best of the situation.

The reason this was chosen over a more traditional dice pool was because dice pools are highly random in their outcomes. If you 4D6 and count successes end up with anything from 0-4 results, but your outcome skew can vary wildly. You might get 2 successes, you might get 4, you might get none. Adding dice widens the outcome space, but doesn't necessarily skew your result towards a predictable mean. That was considered undesirable, due to the predictability point I raised above.

As for the dual systems in play.... originally the concept was *only* the check, with a fixed target number like normal Sil has. Mostly because it was considered 'easier to understand' the dual system was put into play. I argued that it was probably better to have one coherent system (as either approach has warts) as that would be simpler than what is present in a dual roll system, but for various reasons (I can't discuss) the dual system was kept.

Hopefully that answers your question Albertorious. That's about the extent of what I may answer, unfortunately. Dave will probably be putting up something that eventually addresses this question at some point, but they have to manage the rollout (not me). I'm just an quasi-innocent bystander at this point

I'm going to rearrange the post a bit to be able to answer first to this:

 IceRaptor wrote:

Hopefully that answers your question Albertorious. That's about the extent of what I may answer, unfortunately. Dave will probably be putting up something that eventually addresses this question at some point, but they have to manage the rollout (not me). I'm just an quasi-innocent bystander at this point

Thank you very much for the detailed explanations. It actually helps a lot to see what the intention of the rolling system is, and why was selected.

Albertorius wrote:

Interesting, and very true that the reliability of high skill characters is a plus of the system, at least in my mind. That said, if using a dice pool, wouldn't changing the target number of the dice by skill level have helped keep at least partly that same reliability?

Sorta, but the number of dice that you roll is also a factor. In 'roll, count successes' system (assuming no other feedbacks) the target number influences the total number of successes that you can get on average, but not on a particular roll. You can have a 2+ target number and in most cases you'll get at least a single success, and probably multiples. But if that goes to 4+, the result you can expect becomes far more random; you might get 1, you might all of them, you might not. Basically, the skew inherent on a given roll increases as you add more dice, which you need to do to get a larger spread of successes. Rolling 2D6 gives you 36 possible permutations of the outcome; rolling 6D6 gives you 6^6 = 46,656.

This is a problem (in my perspective) because you don't make thousands of rolls during a wargame session; you generally make in the ballpark of 50-100. 40K spreads this problem out by making each 'roll' consist of 20 dice or more; you're likely to on any given roll to see the distribution play out. But if you keep the number of dice rolled low (which was chosen for historical reasons), its possible (and more likely) to see the skews in the distribution because you don't get as large a set for the randomness to work out.

It's also worth nothing that with a dice pool type system, you aren't guaranteed 'success' as you add more dice, just the possibility of success. Even with 10D6 and a 4+ target, you might end up getting no successes. Whereas the 'deterministic' aspect of Sil says that 'making good decisions' rewards you with a larger percentage of success. That's another reason roll + keep wasn't adopted.

TL;DR - the choice was made to keep 2D6 as the base roll, and 6D6 as the max. That limited the usefulness of roll + count successes.

 IceRaptor wrote:

Sorta, but the number of dice that you roll is also a factor. In 'roll, count successes' system (assuming no other feedbacks) the target number influences the total number of successes that you can get on average, but not on a particular roll. You can have a 2+ target number and in most cases you'll get at least a single success, and probably multiples. But if that goes to 4+, the result you can expect becomes far more random; you might get 1, you might all of them, you might not. Basically, the skew inherent on a given roll increases as you add more dice, which you need to do to get a larger spread of successes. Rolling 2D6 gives you 36 possible permutations of the outcome; rolling 6D6 gives you 6^6 = 46,656.

This is a problem (in my perspective) because you don't make thousands of rolls during a wargame session; you generally make in the ballpark of 50-100. 40K spreads this problem out by making each 'roll' consist of 20 dice or more; you're likely to on any given roll to see the distribution play out. But if you keep the number of dice rolled low (which was chosen for historical reasons), its possible (and more likely) to see the skews in the distribution because you don't get as large a set for the randomness to work out.

It's also worth nothing that with a dice pool type system, you aren't guaranteed 'success' as you add more dice, just the possibility of success. Even with 10D6 and a 4+ target, you might end up getting no successes. Whereas the 'deterministic' aspect of Sil says that 'making good decisions' rewards you with a larger percentage of success. That's another reason roll + keep wasn't adopted.

TL;DR - the choice was made to keep 2D6 as the base roll, and 6D6 as the max. That limited the usefulness of roll + count successes.

It's very interesting to read this kind of thing, at least to me. Now I can see why exactly you went for that, and the reasons that led to it.

I was commenting something to that effect about the system with someone, about how the system as I understood it helped pilots with better skill maximize the effect of positive bonuses (as in, more dice will help anyone get a higher base roll, but highly skilled pilots would benefit more of the other dice, on average), and that it felt neat. Good to see it was intended

Didn't know that there was a hard limit on dice pool, though. That changes things too.

EDIT: When you say roll + keep you make me think of L5R, you know

Albertorius wrote:
I was commenting something to that effect about the system with someone, about how the system as I understood it helped pilots with better skill maximize the effect of positive bonuses (as in, more dice will help anyone get a higher base roll, but highly skilled pilots would benefit more of the other dice, on average), and that it felt neat. Good to see it was intended

Yeah. It has it's benefits, but also falls down a bit with things like cover and bigger models. Even if you add 3-4D6 to a roll (for cover), but your augment is 6+, cover only helps you get that 6. It won't help you avoid the shot completely, which can be counter-intuitive to some people. Like most things, it has pros and cons, but overall I hope it captures the feeling of Sil while fixing some of the issues of Sil.

Albertorius wrote:
EDIT: When you say roll + keep you make me think of L5R, you know

As a die-hard L5R fan, I think that as well. And believe you me, roll and keel was playtested...

It's good to see IceRaptor commenting on this stuff again. Thanks for the explanations and discussion as it has been somewhat lacking on the official channels for months. Just tread carefully though as you don't want to be accused of being a hater again just for posting a a reasoned, detailed, and lengthy explanation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albertorius wrote:

Killionaire wrote:This has been an interesting thread. A lot of veteran players, well known in the (tiny) HG community, and all the most reasonable, insightful and most importantly, rational players who have been burned for being rational by white-knight fans and a company that refuses to help itself, and would prefer to stick it's head in the sand.

Yeah, it's been cool to see this kind of people over here . A nice thread.

As someone who chimed in on the old rpg.net thread years ago during my self imposed exile from HG, it has been interesting to see this become the minis forum offsite discussion area (as opposed to a minis thread on an rpg forum). I started it as just a place to collate some common issues (as kind of a part 3 to my first two threads on community thoughts/suggestions on the future of HG) and it's grown into the defacto HG thread. I'll still be updating the News and Rumors thread once there is something concrete to post.

 warboss wrote:
It's good to see IceRaptor commenting on this stuff again. Thanks for the explanations and discussion as it has been somewhat lacking on the official channels for months. Just tread carefully though as you don't want to be accused of being a hater again just for posting a a reasoned, detailed, and lengthy explanation.

Amusingly enough, this thread is also more active than the official boards, and that's before going into the noise/signal ratio.

Alpha files to be released tomorrow on Jan 31. Look like there is going to be a new round of discussion.

Thanks Ice. Yeah, that's a good explanation, and looks like an evolution over changes you've proposed in the past. I too would've preferred one unified roll type, but I think even original Blitz has two rolls, contested/uncontested, so only so much complaining can be done.

The only real complaint may be that it's more rolling and more dice, but whaddaya gonna do, I think something had to be done, as the standard SIL system tied too much into a single roll and made high damage weapons good at everything, and most band aid attempts to fix that ended up being kind of confusing and a little wonky.

It also opens up the game to more perks/flaws affecting the damage roll, like HEAT and reactive armor (I hope they don't call it anti-HEAT or whatever) So I like that possibility.

 IceRaptor wrote:
TL;DR - the choice was made to keep 2D6 as the base roll, and 6D6 as the max. That limited the usefulness of roll + count successes.

Hm. Judging by this...

My early alpha play testers figured out a way to get a 15D6 attack check

(from the dev blog)

...it would appear that the 6d6 max limitation has been revoked.