Quick poll - which of these rules would you prefer?

[Charlie_]

A quick poll here - two options, which would you prefer? This is for my own ruleset. They are technically both identical in terms of statistics, but it is how they are worded / described that is different. I want to choose the one which is simpler / smoother both for experienced players new to the rules, and complete beginner wargamers who have never tried any other rules - which of these options would be easier for them to understand?


It's the old Leadership / Discipline test mechanism that I originally encountered as a youngster in Games Workshop rules, and no doubt is still used in some form or another by various modern games. Basically you roll 2D6, any result higher than the unit's leadership/disciplline value is a failure, anything equal or under is a pass.

Streamlining this for my rules, a few points occured to me:
1) - For all dice rolls throughout the game, rolling high should be good. So whichever player is rolling dice, for whatever reason, they will be aiming for 6s.
3) - A discipline value of 7 is average. In fact, almost every unit will have this value.
4) - There are situations which will effect this value with bonuses or penalties. By far the most common will be a commander increasing it by 1 point (there is potential for +2 bonus commander, but they should be rare).
5) - There is potential for units to be classed as disciplined (bonus) or undisciplined (penalty), but this is in no way required, and may never be used, it's just an option. Won't ever be used when introducing new players to the game.

So the old way is a roll of 2-7 is a pass, 8+ is a failure. Inverting this (so rolling high is always good), means 7+ to pass, it's the same statistically. The common bonus of a commander will mean a 6+ to pass (or if you prefer, simply add 1 to to number rolled, still looking for a 7 or higher to pass).


So, which of the following options would you prefer when approaching a new ruleset, and do you think would be a better way to word it for beginner wargamers?

Option 1

• All discipline tests are passed on a 7+. You are always wanting to get 7 or higher.
• A commander gives units a bonus - add this to the number rolled, still hoping to get 7 or higher. [Usually a bonus of 1, potentially could be 2]
• There are a few other situations that may increase or decrease the number rolled by 1.

Option 2

• Unless stated otherwise, discipline tests are passed on a 7+.
• A commander lets units pass discipline tests on a 6+ instead. [And potententially could be 5+]
• There are a few other situations that may change the roll required to pass a discipline test, for example 6+ or 8+.

Remember, these are supposed to be identically statistically. But which seems a smoother mechanism to you?

I know which one I'm leaning towards, would be interested to see what other wargamers prefer.

[fred]

I prefer option 1) a fixed target number with modifiers.

I think for both options you need to be clearer about the modifiers (although I get this may just be sample wording). Even if the modifiers are rare, its better to have them spelt out.

[Coenus Scaldingus]

As there is the possibility for several simultaneous modifiers, Option 1 seems by far the best. For option 2, you would have to spell out all possible interactions (i.e. normally 7+, if X 6+, if Y 5+, if Z 8+, if X and Y 7+, etc.). 1 is much clearer and allows you to flexibly add new modifiers or alter the base stat if desired.

[dadlamassu]

I prefer option 1.  In our games we also allow certain commanders who are unpopular and/or distrusted to have negative modifiers for discipline as the command structure is less likely to follow their orders.  Others have a negative effect on morale very few have both.

[Nordic1980s]

If the ruleset is for some specific genre like historical medieval warfare, the option #2 is better by allowing players to learn the rules by heart. Description suggests this choice.

If the ruleset is universal with warlocks and robots, option #1 is better as long as any of modifiers are taken into account before any dice are rolled. For to imaginarily modify a visible dice score dulls the players' excitement of the roll – gods decide the tin soldiers' fates through the dice scores and that must be honoured!

More similar discussion here.

[Sparrow]

I’d go with option 1

[Elbows]

If you're going with a set target number, then rule one is far more logical.

If I were going with a fixed morale number, I'd set it between seven and nine, and then each unit's leadership would be changed from a number to a modifier.

Instead of a unit being "Leadership 6", they'd be "Leadership -1".  A bog standard unit might be Leadership 0, a veteran unit Leadership +1 or +2, and a rabble or militia Leadership -1, or -2.  This would slot in with the officers giving bonuses (and I'm a big fan of involving poor leaders in games, but that's just me...).

This way the target number is always fixed, and everything else is a modifier.  However, with officers and modifiers, I'd lean toward making the target number slightly harder, like an eight or nine.

[Charlie_]

Thank you all for replying. Yes, i think I agree - option 1 is probably the one to go for.

I think for both options you need to be clearer about the modifiers (although I get this may just be sample wording). Even if the modifiers are rare, its better to have them spelt out.

Of course, what I originally posted wasn't actual a quote from the rules text.

As there is the possibility for several simultaneous modifiers, Option 1 seems by far the best. For option 2, you would have to spell out all possible interactions (i.e. normally 7+, if X 6+, if Y 5+, if Z 8+, if X and Y 7+, etc.). 1 is much clearer and allows you to flexibly add new modifiers or alter the base stat if desired.

Agreed.

I prefer option 1.  In our games we also allow certain commanders who are unpopular and/or distrusted to have negative modifiers for discipline as the command structure is less likely to follow their orders.  Others have a negative effect on morale very few have both.

Yes, I like the option to include that too. One way I incorporate it is having a deck of cards, each player takes say 2 before the game begins. Mostly bonuses, but some negatives, including poor commanders (which they HAVE to assign to a commander, or it could be randomly determined which). This happens once the armies are already deployed, to add a bit more chaos to the proceedings.

If the ruleset is for some specific genre like historical medieval warfare, the option #2 is better by allowing players to learn the rules by heart. Description suggests this choice.

If the ruleset is universal with warlocks and robots, option #1 is better as long as any of modifiers are taken into account before any dice are rolled. For to imaginarily modify a visible dice score dulls the players' excitement of the roll – gods decide the tin soldiers' fates through the dice scores and that must be honoured!

I'd disagree about #2 being better for learning the rules by heart - really all you need to learn for #1 is it's 7+, and there are occasional modifiers to the dice roll. For #2 you'd have to learn 'it's usually 7+... BUT 6+ in this situation, 8+ in this situation..... If both this AND this then it's 6+, etc....'.

Your second point is interesting - I guess whether the player wants to modify it before or after rolling is entirely up to them / you. So you could roll it, trying to get that 7 or higher, then apply a modifier if need be.... which will usually only be relevant if you roll a 6 or 8.
For example....
"Ok here we go.... A 6! Failure! Aha, but my commander takes that up to a 7! Success!"
or
"Ok here we go...... A 10! Obviously a success, regardless of any modifiiers!"

Or if preferred you can decide what number you are actually going to need to pass, considering the modifiers, if that's the way you prefer things.
For example....
"Ok, discipline test.... My commander gives me a bonus, so I need to roll 6+.... Here we go...... 6! A success!"
or
"Ok, disicipline test..... This penalty means I need to get 8+...... Here we go..... 4! Well that's definitely a failure!"

If I were going with a fixed morale number, I'd set it between seven and nine, and then each unit's leadership would be changed from a number to a modifier.

Instead of a unit being "Leadership 6", they'd be "Leadership -1".  A bog standard unit might be Leadership 0, a veteran unit Leadership +1 or +2, and a rabble or militia Leadership -1, or -2.  This would slot in with the officers giving bonuses (and I'm a big fan of involving poor leaders in games, but that's just me...).

Yes, that makes sense, but I think I want to keep all units as 'average' (thus passing on 7+), with the option for some being 'poor' or 'veteran' only if the players/scenario/umpire decide to add this extra element in.
Interestingly I think this is because of my genre - late medieval / early renaissance. I think 'ranking' every unit as militia/standard/veteran makes sense and works nicely in 18th and 19th century games. But for medieval games, I think such rankings are an unnecessary extra level of complication. Just class every unit as 'average' and see how they perform. If they failed all their tests and performed miserably, then so be it! Elite knights and men-at-arms can easily have this happen. If a unit performed really well, great!
Of course there is the option to give units the 'poor' or 'veteran' rule if you really want to push them one way or the other.
But I think I like the randomness of medieval warfare, rather than the more hierarchical ranking approach of later eras. In later eras, armies were organised formally into companies, battalions or whatever, some of which might have good or bad reputations...... In the medieval world, armies were just bunches of soldiers pulled together for a short period of time..... Let's see how they get on - anything could happen!
Dunno if that makes sense - it does in my head!




So I'm gonna go for option #1 I think.
Though of course, as I said, it's all identical statistically, it's just how we are going to read the rules, and how they can be made smoother and simpler for new players.

[fred]

As you say the maths are the same, but it is good that you are thinking about how this is presented to the players. While wargames are ultimately about maths and probability, hiding most of this away from the players is a sign of good design.

Interesting in your take on morale levels, I’d have thought with militias and levies at one end and knights at the other there is plenty of scope for better and worse morale levels. Although in any given game most units are likely to sit in the middle, but it can be an interesting challenge to pit more lower level units against an elite force. 

[Charlie_]

Interesting in your take on morale levels, I’d have thought with militias and levies at one end and knights at the other there is plenty of scope for better and worse morale levels. Although in any given game most units are likely to sit in the middle, but it can be an interesting challenge to pit more lower level units against an elite force.

Absolutely, there is room for that difference to be made just by choosing to give them the -1 and +1 discipline modifier if desired (which would be part of the advanced/optional rules section if you like). Just changing it by 1 point does alter the probability of passing and failing quite noticeably. And you'd be welcome to have a 2 point modifier if you wanted more extremes.
And there are lots of other optional attributes to choose for individual untis as well if you want to make them different in more unique ways (with names like 'unreliable', 'uncommitted', 'veteran fighters' etc, all definitely in the optional rules section).

In terms of the levy > knight morale range, actually in my specific era (the late 15th century), it's not so much about elite knights and hopeless peasants. All soldiers are just that, soldiers. Whether they are high-born nobility serving as men-at-arms (mounted men in full armour), or low-born infantrymen (who could be very well equipped and experienced themselves), they are all soldiers. So in game terms, all units are assumed to have the same discipline level (i.e. pass on 7+). And beyond that there are options to make them better or worse, if you so desire.

Something to add to my last post about 18th and 19th century games, is that armies might well consist of just identical units of musket-armed infantry (sure, the uniforms might be imperceptibly different, but they are all the same really!  ). So then it makes sense to want to rate them in terms of discipline and ability, to add variety.
Whereas in my late 15th century games, I might have one army consisted almost entirely of heavy cavalry, whilst their opponent is made up entirely of pikemen supported by some artillery. In such cases, adding an extra level to the rules by having to rank each unit's discipline seems entirely unnecessary, as the armies are so different anyway. Let's just assume they are all 'average', and all pass those tests on 7+. The rules for cavalry charges, pikes, disorder, and such are more worthy or our attention!

[Codsticker]

I would choose option 1 as well with the caveat that I would swap the first point from option 1 for the first point in option 2.  Allows for the option of a higher or lower number needing to be passed for certain, rare situations.