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.

I should have my own box today. Will see what shinies are inside.

About the reviews, it's the same than critics for cinema; it can vary a lot, depending from the point of view. I still believe there are a lot of people who didn't agree with the original game design of NAS and try to come back now so that everyone can see they were right.

Games are all about what we feel when playing. If you start with an already negative opinion, it's harder to have fun with something you don't agree in the beginning.

Il will try on my own with players who never heard of this before, be it on forum or youtube. We'll see if our feelings are the same of that Dice Tower guy.

I like how you think sarouan. Also it'll be inter sting to see what it looks like when America gets all their copies since that just now starting to ship.

 Sarouan wrote:


Il will try on my own with players who never heard of this before, be it on forum or youtube. We'll see if our feelings are the same of that Dice Tower guy.

I play a lot of my games at meetups with strangers. So I often see real time the opinion of a solid 20-30 people with a new game. Usually the quality of a game is if people want to replay it. Sadly, right now no one ever wants to play SDE which makes me sad as I have hundreds of painted SDE minis itching to be played with. I get regular requests for AQ and people seem to come out of the woodwork for many of the CMoN games.

Regardless if I like or dislike, if other people dislike it, it doesn't get played.

I plan to make the rounds with NAS, and see if it sticks.

Wow, I had no idea the SDE 2.0 ruleset was that bad.

Have you tried playing SDE with one of the Lootmeter variants, like Retro?

I actually have kind of gotten use to 2.0.

I was not a fan at first, but after really, really, REALLY, letting the rules sink in, I can run it pretty smoothly these days- at least in arcade mode. I've run the Forgotten King models enough at this point I know the abilities pretty well, and most hangups come from throwing new heroes in the mix that I haven't tried out before.

Nobody in my family wants to play against me as Consul since they know I'll go after them with no mercy whatsoever.

If they can smooth things out for Legends release, it'll be for the better I'm sure.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Wow, I had no idea the SDE 2.0 ruleset was that bad.

Have you tried playing SDE with one of the Lootmeter variants, like Retro?

Here is the rub. Boardgamers don't like to homebrew or fix games. RPGers would rather just play D&D or something else using the minis. I do agree many of the variants help a lot, especially Lootmeter, but 'so what?'

SDE straddles a fence between 2 communities and fails at both.

I can hand AQ to 4 people at a boardgame meetup and walk away and they can play it and most times overwhelmingly like it.

I can hand SDE2.0 to 4 people at a boardgame meetup and walk away and either they get bored, have too many problems getting the rules right or quickly see the imbalance, game the crap out of it and say 'let's not play that again.'

I personally am a mini collector, so I like excuses to push specific minis around a board. I played 40k for 20 years. I personally can rehab games when I like the models. Others will not.

NAS has the potential of possibly straddling a 3rd area, the annual bloodbowl/dreadball people, but I suspect if they hit the same problems as they are very 'mathhaammer' oriented, they will say 'lets just play bloodbowl instead?'

Time will tell. I am totally willing to give NAS the test by handing it to 4 random people and watching their experience. Otherwise I will write a ninja D&D module.

Ahh... got it. I wasn't aware that you weren't always personally reffing the game.

Got my box yesterday. Took an Elemental Master and a Ninja Master pledges, with extra ronins and samurai.

Sadly, I hurt my back when taking it back home from the post office. Shouldn't have done this by foot.

Miniatures are really nice and the plastic used as material is good. The packaging was a bit meh - just plastic bags, nothing to really protect the miniatures. I got a few bending here and there and two miniatures were broken at the feet. Nothing that some superglue or warm water can't manage, fortunately.

About the rules, I just read the book. They are fairly simple, actually - not really a lot of pages and, unlike Super Dungeon Explore, there aren't that many cards to play. It's easy to get started with the generic ninja teams, since everything you need to know is on their game sheets.

You just have to accept the way combats are handled. There is an internal balance that can only work if you let the rolls as they are. I don't really care about that math wars, but I believe someone who never played a board game before can easily start with NAS.

Of course, the real fun is with League plays, which allow the players to really customize their own teams. Challenges (scenarios, if you want) are quite different and there are only three that are focused on injuring the enemy team - the other 5 are more played on objectives, placement and movement.

So far, I don't really agree with the negative feelings. They look a bit exaggerated to me - and I believe it's more because the people at their source just don't agree with the game design of NAS more than the game system being really bad. But then, I will need to play a few games to be totally sure.

About the target public...I'm not really sure NAS is intended for casual boardgamers. It's quite similar to Blood Bowl or Advanced Heroquest - it sures uses a board to play, but the intent is more about making a ninja team and see its evolution through the challenges. It's intended for campaigns - and everyone knows that those playing them aren't really the same who play Monopoly from time to time (please be aware I mentioned "Monopoly" as just an example; whatever the game, it is fine - I just mean that not all "boardgames" are meant for the same people).

Those saying that people will just play Blood Bowl instead of NAS because BB has "better rules", well...I will just say you don't play Ninjas trying to get a messenger out of the field or searching for crates in BB games. BB rules are designed for a Fantasy American Footbal game. NAS rules are designed for Ninja teams fighting each other in a Ninja tournament. That's totally not the same thing, and you will have troubles to adapt the rules of another game to get the same feeling.

Only the hardcore fans will really go through all the work and trouble to adapt their favorite rules for another game. Because, yes, it takes a lot of time and preparation. Most of the players will just use the original rules of the game they want to play, instead. You can see that as well for 40k, a game said to be full of flaws but still have a lot of players around the world.

I agree with you that the concept that "its just like blood bowl lets go play blood bowl instead" is flawed

NAS has all kinds of different missions and different teams while blood bowl has one mission with different teams.

I also thing that alot of people are put off cause someone told everyone its a brawler. And its not. Brawling just happens to be one part of it.

I hope the community is able to spread the word about the perceived intent vs the actual intent of the game over time.

So I played again at the weekend. We started a little league, made proper teams, gave everyone silly names... That in itself was quite entertaining, and I think really helped to enrich the game. We played a game of capture the medal. I managed to capture one medal, my opponent didn't manage to get mine. The game was quite fun, and I think I would like to play it again. The only thing that might put me off is that it took a really long time to play. Hopefully, games will get faster when we're a bit slicker with the rules, but I don't think it's ever going to be the game that you can play three of in an evening.

I'd be happy to eat my words, with what I said about the combat system, but sadly I think it's still bit meh. Fortunately, I didn't notice it as much this game, as I was busy trying to steal medals, so it wasn't such a big deal. I think I may have gotten used to the idea of combats being deterministic now, so it doesn't annoy me as much (though I still think it's a bit of a design flaw). There are a few things still that I might need to houserule: I'd like for moon cards to play a bigger role in the game, and I'd like to for KOed ninja to spend at least one turn recovering, rather than moving straight back onto the board, but those things might just be personal preference.

It wasn't super strategic, but it was an okay little game of running around trying to bash each other, and the tackle zones Influence zones, add a bit of strategy (though Kunoichi can ignore them quite easily). It's an okay game. I would say a lot better than SDE 2.0 arcade mode, at least.

Just got my copy today. Pieces and board look spectacular. I am, however, missing a piece. Byakko was missing from my Tora clan which is a real shame. I was really looking forward to modding Wolverine and or Tora from Mini Ninjas

 Smacks wrote:
There are a few things still that I might need to houserule: I'd like for moon cards to play a bigger role in the game, and I'd like to for KOed ninja to spend at least one turn recovering, rather than moving straight back onto the board, but those things might just be personal preference.

Well, they will spend a round (or more) out of the game if more than one Ninja is being injured a turn. You can only cycle injured models into your Training Ground at a rate of one a turn, unless you sacrifice your Moon Card Draw/Remove Stun action to move 2 in instead. If the Moon Cards aren't that helpful in practice, it's true that everyone might just move 2 every turn when possible.

Perhaps this rewards concerted aggression? As in, rather than picking off the odd straggler, trying to wipe out half the opposing team to clear the way to objectives?

I'd be interested to hear how 4-player games go vs. 2-player ones. They might just be too slow.

 Bioptic wrote:
Well, they will spend a round (or more) out of the game if more than one Ninja is being injured a turn. You can only cycle injured models into your Training Ground at a rate of one a turn, unless you sacrifice your Moon Card Draw/Remove Stun action to move 2 in instead. If the Moon Cards aren't that helpful in practice, it's true that everyone might just move 2 every turn when possible.

Perhaps this rewards concerted aggression? As in, rather than picking off the odd straggler, trying to wipe out half the opposing team to clear the way to objectives?

The problem I found in my games is that it isn't "first in first out", no matter how many ninja are in recovery you can always cycle the teams biggest hitters like your Chunin or your Hero, straight back in first. So there is no "clearing the way", because the biggest roadblocks pop straight back up. I think it's generally better to get ninja back than to draw a card. This is contrary to how I want the game to play, because I like the card mechanic. So I don't really like having something in the game that actively dissuades players from using cards.

Weak ninja like Kunoichi might get left in recovery for longer, but that's not such a big deal.

So, I'm not clear what the fuss is on the dice mechanic? Granted I only read through the rules last night briefly, but I don't see the huge issues.

The dice effects don't reverse depending on who picks the die used in combat resolution. The defender may get to pick from his pool or the attacker from theirs depending on number of dice not canceled.

The odds don't change per say, just who gets to pick from the options, which is pretty 'normal'. Unless you are saying all advantage should lie with the attacker?

I don't think Defense is meant to be viewed as armor, but a mix of defensive fighting styles, skill, dodging, armor, et al. In which case I don't see to much of an issue with it.

Plus, Stealth seems really easy to pick up, for a bonus attack, and if you backstab that is a bonus, and using cheap fast kunoichi to start your plan can net the assist attack so that you can smack down on foes depending on how you play.

 Maniac_nmt wrote:
So, I'm not clear what the fuss is on the dice mechanic? Granted I only read through the rules last night briefly, but I don't see the huge issues.

The dice effects don't reverse depending on who picks the die used in combat resolution. The defender may get to pick from his pool or the attacker from theirs depending on number of dice not canceled.

The odds don't change per say, just who gets to pick from the options, which is pretty 'normal'. Unless you are saying all advantage should lie with the attacker?

I don't think Defense is meant to be viewed as armor, but a mix of defensive fighting styles, skill, dodging, armor, et al. In which case I don't see to much of an issue with it.

Plus, Stealth seems really easy to pick up, for a bonus attack, and if you backstab that is a bonus, and using cheap fast kunoichi to start your plan can net the assist attack so that you can smack down on foes depending on how you play.

The main issue is that the 'winner' is decided before a dice is rolled.

And that the previous system which was scrapped 10 days before they went to print (and all the games cards and mechanics are still written for the previous mechanic) are based off a system where the 'winner' is not decided before the dice are rolled.

So the current system was not at all playtested and has created a mostly worthless exercise because 'I win' if I attack with more dice no matter what which is seen as a flaw in most game design circles. Not saying the old 'cancel your own dice' mechanic was better, but at least the game's rules seem to be written for it and there is at least not a 100% guarantee of 'winning' every single roll. I suspect with real playtesting, this mechanic would have undergone yet another change.

Personally, I think an exploding mechanic would help. Make 'doubles' of a symbol add +1 to the victory count or something so it isn't a guarantee of win/loss. It accomplishes what the old 'match your own dice' did without making your personal odds worse. When people see a timewasting mechanic when the outcome is basically pre-decided, and it slows down the game and doesn't add much, they know it.

nkelsch wrote:

 Maniac_nmt wrote:
So, I'm not clear what the fuss is on the dice mechanic? Granted I only read through the rules last night briefly, but I don't see the huge issues.

The dice effects don't reverse depending on who picks the die used in combat resolution. The defender may get to pick from his pool or the attacker from theirs depending on number of dice not canceled.

The odds don't change per say, just who gets to pick from the options, which is pretty 'normal'. Unless you are saying all advantage should lie with the attacker?

I don't think Defense is meant to be viewed as armor, but a mix of defensive fighting styles, skill, dodging, armor, et al. In which case I don't see to much of an issue with it.

Plus, Stealth seems really easy to pick up, for a bonus attack, and if you backstab that is a bonus, and using cheap fast kunoichi to start your plan can net the assist attack so that you can smack down on foes depending on how you play.

The main issue is that the 'winner' is decided before a dice is rolled.

And that the previous system which was scrapped 10 days before they went to print (and all the games cards and mechanics are still written for the previous mechanic) are based off a system where the 'winner' is not decided before the dice are rolled.

So the current system was not at all playtested and has created a mostly worthless exercise because 'I win' if I attack with more dice no matter what which is seen as a flaw in most game design circles. Not saying the old 'cancel your own dice' mechanic was better, but at least the game's rules seem to be written for it and there is at least not a 100% guarantee of 'winning' every single roll. I suspect with real playtesting, this mechanic would have undergone yet another change.

Personally, I think an exploding mechanic would help. Make 'doubles' of a symbol add +1 to the victory count or something so it isn't a guarantee of win/loss. It accomplishes what the old 'match your own dice' did without making your personal odds worse. When people see a timewasting mechanic when the outcome is basically pre-decided, and it slows down the game and doesn't add much, they know it.

You don't win though. You get to choose, and your choice could still be made for you. You may be able to choose between 'kill me' or 'kill him', but it doesn't reverse dice effects. Void does the same thing, regardless of who picks it, the effects aren't determined by the attacker picking it or the defender picking it.

I could see having dice of your element counting double, otherwise how often do you need to worry about 'your element'.

Getting to choose is a "win", better than letting your opponent choose.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Getting to choose is a "win", better than letting your opponent choose.

Yes, but it isn't as bleak as it sounds.

Earth - defender stunned
Fire - All models in attackers zone are stunned
Spirit - Attacker Injured
Void - Defender Injured
Water - move attacker up to three spaces then put defender in it's influence zone

So, really only Spirit is really bad for the attacker. Water could be, but isn't outright terrible. The affects don't change depending on who picks. If you are only 1 die difference, it may not even come into play. Unless you are down by two, what is the major beef?

It also means attacking isn't an insta win? Charging doesn't insta win in 40k, Fantasy, Warmaster, Ronin, Saga, or any other game I've played.

With +1 for stealth, +1 for back stab, even a 4 defense model is within reach of a 2 attack character. Throw in an assist and even 5 def is in reach. You can use a fast model and lock up with a defender, then move a backstab model in for another +1.

The crying seems more on 'man, I should just win if I go first or it should always be in my favor' when that isn't the case in a lot of games or the inspiration material. It does also mean you do need a little tactical positioning and movement to tackle the beefy defense guy (and there are not that many beefy defense guys in the game, most being a 2 or 3 defense).

I would agree that element affiliation is not really used to its full potential, but when even my meager 2 attack model can get a +2 and slam into your expensive 4 defense model at even odds, come on... Mountain out of a mole hill.

Consider d20 combat, roughly:
1 = Crit Fail (GM's discretion...)
2-X = miss
X-19 = hit!
20 = Crit Hit (double damage)

Spirit is just a Crit Fail, same as "Gets Hot!". WIth NAS using 6 faced-dice, a natural conversion looks like this:
1 = Crit Fail
2-5 = push / stun / effects
6 = Crit Hit

No biggie.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Consider d20 combat, roughly:
1 = Crit Fail (GM's discretion...)
2-X = miss
X-19 = hit!
20 = Crit Hit (double damage)

Spirit is just a Crit Fail, same as "Gets Hot!". WIth NAS using 6 faced-dice, a natural conversion looks like this:
1 = Crit Fail
2-5 = push / stun / effects
6 = Crit Hit

No biggie.

Yes, but that is a bad analogy. It isn't crit fail, it is the other guy hit you and you missed, vs you hit him and he missed, vs some other result. Defenders don't sit passively while you hit them waiting for their turn to hit back. Combat is a fluid/dynamic thing. The dice rolling is an attempt to represent this.

There are only 10 models in the rule book with a defense of 4 or higher and only, with only 2 or 3 with a 5 defense. There are only 5 models with a 1 attack, of which 3 are ranged shooters who get a bonus at range that takes them to at least 2 if not 3 attack.

Meaning there are only 2 models who are at a disadvantage vs these model 4 def figures. Both are runners, not meant to be front line fighters. They would, however, be good ways to also net the assist attack...

So, providing you don't run in with no thought or planning, odds are still with the attacker in the game, which seems to be what folks want and are upset about.

But when you are rolling 4 dice, the chances of getting 4 'crit fails' is virtually zero. Even with the cancelling mechanic, being able to choose means 'you have won'.

Unlike Bloodbowl where there is only one roll for both players results, the person defending is rolling for no real reason. Sure you can maybe cancel a few dice out, but the impact to the odds by doing so is negligible to the point that it is simply a waste of effort.

If the defender rolling serves virtually no purpose, why not simply make a comparison of stats like risk, and have a single roll?

Attacker half of defender = Roll 3 dice, Defender chooses
Attacker less than defender = Roll 2 dice, defender chooses
Equal stat = Roll 1 die, accept result
Attacker greater than defender = Roll 2 Dice, Attack chooses
Attacker Double defender = Roll 3 Dice, Attacker chooses

Then the chances of attacking and getting double void or a single dice void is actually possible to a statistical level where it needs to be considered. The large number of dice being rolled and the weakness of the cancellation mechanic makes an attacker being forced to pick void so remote it is not even a consideration outside that one time you saw someone maybe once roll trip-void.

It is a timewaster mechanic which doesn't really enhance the game and barley impacts the outcome.

I would rather have a super simple mechanic like Risk, or have an exploding mechanic that allows 'double symbols' to do something to offset the guaranteed finality of combat. Like Double Affinity as a defender allows you to remove an attackers dice of your choice or something. Anything to actually make rolling 7-9 dice and matching the symbols not a giant waste of time.

 Maniac_nmt wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Spoiler:

Consider d20 combat, roughly:
1 = Crit Fail (GM's discretion...)
2-X = miss
X-19 = hit!
20 = Crit Hit (double damage)

Spirit is just a Crit Fail, same as "Gets Hot!". WIth NAS using 6 faced-dice, a natural conversion looks like this:
1 = Crit Fail
2-5 = push / stun / effects
6 = Crit Hit

Yes, but that is a bad analogy. It isn't crit fail,

No, the analogy holds. In NAS, a crit fail == "take a wound with fluff that the defender hit you".

If it were combat, then *both* players would be rolling Attack dice for damage / effect.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Maniac_nmt wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Spoiler:

Consider d20 combat, roughly:
1 = Crit Fail (GM's discretion...)
2-X = miss
X-19 = hit!
20 = Crit Hit (double damage)

Spirit is just a Crit Fail, same as "Gets Hot!". WIth NAS using 6 faced-dice, a natural conversion looks like this:
1 = Crit Fail
2-5 = push / stun / effects
6 = Crit Hit

Yes, but that is a bad analogy. It isn't crit fail,

No, the analogy holds. In NAS, a crit fail == "take a wound with fluff that the defender hit you".

If it were combat, then *both* players would be rolling Attack dice for damage / effect.

It is combat. It is just simplified into a single result. It isn't a crit fail or crit hit, it's not meant to replicate a Nintendo rpg (or doesn't seem like it to me) which has one guy go while the other guy stands there and takes the hit, then waits to hit back. It's both guys fighting. Otherwise, why bother rolling to cancel or changing out who moves pieces. Both players are rolling dice to determine effect. The guy who has less canceled chooses which effect to come into play, and it could be 'argh you got me' because that is the only option left.

It's a step up from Heroclix, and more like a standard table top where both guys fight. Remember, it's defense not Armor Class you are rolling against. That is, their ability to defend themselves vs attack, which implies fighting back, or does to me anyways.

Plus, as I said, pretty much everyone has better or equal attack values to vs defenders. It may take a little positional play, but why shouldn't it? Why should the guy with a knife not need to work to take on a tank?

At any rate, I'm just trying to provide an alternative perspective to it. I'll be playing it this week, but the rules don't make me go 'yeah, that is wrong'.

 Maniac_nmt wrote:


At any rate, I'm just trying to provide an alternative perspective to it. I'll be playing it this week, but the rules don't make me go 'yeah, that is wrong'.

But it is all just odds... Why pointlessly add steps or mechanics which have minimal impact on the results when you can grossly simply the rolling and have statistically similar results? There is virtually zero chance anyone will 'void Yahtzee' themselves, and the dice cancel mechanic has virtually no meaningful chance at increasing those odds to a point where it actually matters. So why not simply remove the dice matching mechanic and have the attacker do a single roll and adjust the number of dice accordingly to offset the dice mechanic?

And people who are trying to wave the jedi hand and say everything is ok misses out on the major reason the dice matching mechanic even existed...

*ORIGINALLY YOU COULD MATCH AND ELIMINATE YOUR OWN DICE*. That means your 4 Dice attack could attack someone with 3 Dice, and you eliminate 2 of your own dice via a match and suddenly your attacking with 2 dice vs his 3. Seee? Now you have a valid reason why the defender even has a reason to roll dice because the game expected a mechanic where the defender could walk away with a win. The issue became, more attack dice = worse odds and a poorly thought out mechanic was scrapped, for a statistically pointless version of the mechanic. It isn't like this new mechanic was actually playtested or had the game written to make it deep and tactical. It is a half-baked reaction to the grossly negative reviews of the playtest rules and someone being like 'but I like my symbols and matching is fun... we have to find a way to keep it!'

The whole exercise for matching dice only made sense during the old version of the rules because there was mechanics to make the defender's rolls relevant and meaningful. Now they are like a 1% adjustment to an almost guaranteed success which slows down and complicates the game.

 Maniac_nmt wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Maniac_nmt wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Spirit is just a Crit Fail, same as "Gets Hot!". WIth NAS using 6 faced-dice, a natural conversion looks like this:
1 = Crit Fail

Yes, but that is a bad analogy. It isn't crit fail,

No, the analogy holds. In NAS, a crit fail == "take a wound with fluff that the defender hit you".

If it were combat, then *both* players would be rolling Attack dice for damage / effect.

It is combat. It is just simplified into a single result.

Sure, in NAS; however, a more natural, simpler, clearer way of getting a single result is by rolling a single d6. That is all that I'm saying. There is a better and more obvious way of doing this that doesn't require this whole Rube Goldberg mechanic of rolling lots of dice to throw a chunk of them away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:
Unlike Bloodbowl ...

Blood Bowl is coming!


This is kinda squeezing the window that NAS had as a Dreadball-like replacement for Blood Bowl.

nkelsch wrote:

 Maniac_nmt wrote:


At any rate, I'm just trying to provide an alternative perspective to it. I'll be playing it this week, but the rules don't make me go 'yeah, that is wrong'.

But it is all just odds... Why pointlessly add steps or mechanics which have minimal impact on the results when you can grossly simply the rolling and have statistically similar results? There is virtually zero chance anyone will 'void Yahtzee' themselves, and the dice cancel mechanic has virtually no meaningful chance at increasing those odds to a point where it actually matters. So why not simply remove the dice matching mechanic and have the attacker do a single roll and adjust the number of dice accordingly to offset the dice mechanic?

And people who are trying to wave the jedi hand and say everything is ok misses out on the major reason the dice matching mechanic even existed...

*ORIGINALLY YOU COULD MATCH AND ELIMINATE YOUR OWN DICE*. That means your 4 Dice attack could attack someone with 3 Dice, and you eliminate 2 of your own dice via a match and suddenly your attacking with 2 dice vs his 3. Seee? Now you have a valid reason why the defender even has a reason to roll dice because the game expected a mechanic where the defender could walk away with a win. The issue became, more attack dice = worse odds and a poorly thought out mechanic was scrapped, for a statistically pointless version of the mechanic. It isn't like this new mechanic was actually playtested or had the game written to make it deep and tactical. It is a half-baked reaction to the grossly negative reviews of the playtest rules and someone being like 'but I like my symbols and matching is fun... we have to find a way to keep it!'

The whole exercise for matching dice only made sense during the old version of the rules because there was mechanics to make the defender's rolls relevant and meaningful. Now they are like a 1% adjustment to an almost guaranteed success which slows down and complicates the game.

The odds a given symbol will come up are 1-(5/6)^n for a given player. It could be argued that defenders have no 'direct' way to influence that, which is somewhat true (positioning, as an example, could mess up the attacker's ability to generate extra dice, but the physical model itself often has no way to directly bump defense ala stealth or backstab), but the odds can be influenced by an attacker due to their ability to generate more dice depending on their actions. The odds you get two of the same in your own roll are of course worse. The odds of rolling 'yatzee' are abysmal to begin with, so being able to cancel that is semi irrelevant (i.e. you roll a slew of one or the other ko's someone, is low, and the does it matter what the cancelation odds are to beat that rarity?).

As to why symbols vs a D6, that has nothing to do with odds and everything to do with marketing. Why does X-wing use custom dice, why does Saga, why does any other game? You could easily use the generic dice and do the same (Saga even tells you the conversions for D6s), but making a custom sweet of dice means you lock up your market.

Re: symbols, they symbols aren't obvious (i.e. Chinese characters), and the opposite matching adds more memorization. It's messy..

 Maniac_nmt wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 Maniac_nmt wrote:


At any rate, I'm just trying to provide an alternative perspective to it. I'll be playing it this week, but the rules don't make me go 'yeah, that is wrong'.

But it is all just odds... Why pointlessly add steps or mechanics which have minimal impact on the results when you can grossly simply the rolling and have statistically similar results? There is virtually zero chance anyone will 'void Yahtzee' themselves, and the dice cancel mechanic has virtually no meaningful chance at increasing those odds to a point where it actually matters. So why not simply remove the dice matching mechanic and have the attacker do a single roll and adjust the number of dice accordingly to offset the dice mechanic?

And people who are trying to wave the jedi hand and say everything is ok misses out on the major reason the dice matching mechanic even existed...

*ORIGINALLY YOU COULD MATCH AND ELIMINATE YOUR OWN DICE*. That means your 4 Dice attack could attack someone with 3 Dice, and you eliminate 2 of your own dice via a match and suddenly your attacking with 2 dice vs his 3. Seee? Now you have a valid reason why the defender even has a reason to roll dice because the game expected a mechanic where the defender could walk away with a win. The issue became, more attack dice = worse odds and a poorly thought out mechanic was scrapped, for a statistically pointless version of the mechanic. It isn't like this new mechanic was actually playtested or had the game written to make it deep and tactical. It is a half-baked reaction to the grossly negative reviews of the playtest rules and someone being like 'but I like my symbols and matching is fun... we have to find a way to keep it!'

The whole exercise for matching dice only made sense during the old version of the rules because there was mechanics to make the defender's rolls relevant and meaningful. Now they are like a 1% adjustment to an almost guaranteed success which slows down and complicates the game.

The odds a given symbol will come up are 1-(5/6)^n for a given player. It could be argued that defenders have no 'direct' way to influence that, which is somewhat true (positioning, as an example, could mess up the attacker's ability to generate extra dice, but the physical model itself often has no way to directly bump defense ala stealth or backstab), but the odds can be influenced by an attacker due to their ability to generate more dice depending on their actions. The odds you get two of the same in your own roll are of course worse. The odds of rolling 'yatzee' are abysmal to begin with, so being able to cancel that is semi irrelevant (i.e. you roll a slew of one or the other ko's someone, is low, and the does it matter what the cancelation odds are to beat that rarity?).

As to why symbols vs a D6, that has nothing to do with odds and everything to do with marketing. Why does X-wing use custom dice, why does Saga, why does any other game? You could easily use the generic dice and do the same (Saga even tells you the conversions for D6s), but making a custom sweet of dice means you lock up your market.

You totally are missing the point. The original game and the odds were based around cancelling your own dice, which drastically changes the dyanmic and the odds. Rolling doubles when attacking with 5 dice is much easier, and removing those 2 dice have drastically changed the chance of you succeeding and can possibly make you lose the ability to choose. Without such a mechanic, the eliminating opponents dice has a zero chance to change the outcome of who chooses and has minimal chance to force multiple voids.

Again... Since the eliminate your own dice makes the outcome pre-decided before dice are rolled, and the cancelling mechanic barley impacts the ability to force a bad result on the attacker, why bother with it?

You are defending a system which is pointless in its execution, wastes time, not playtested at all by the creator and a majority of the rules are written for a mechanic which was removed days before printing. All we are saying is since every little dance a game makes you do is just to provide an outcome based upon odds. If I want your success to be 50%/50% I could make you flip a coin. I could make you roll a 4+ on a D6. I can make you roll a 2,6,7,8, or 12 on 2d6. All have the same odds of 50% success but the last one is pointlessly complicated for no real reason. That is what is happening with NAS now that the match your own dice mechanic was removed. With out matching your own dice potentially impacting the 'who chooses' outcome, the matching opponents dice has no real purpose and due to the attacker always choosing in most situations, eliminating dice to force voids is statistically insignificant to a point of not even needing to exist.

Anybody else get two of the large golden-colored statues? I was expecting just one. Mez

 Mezmaron wrote:
Anybody else get two of the large golden-colored statues? I was expecting just one. Mez

One of the stretch goals unlocked a second.