Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Future Wars => Sci-Fi Small Skirmish Games => Topic started by: Gabbi on December 31, 2016, 06:34:17 PM
-
Here it is another first impressions thread. Played today our very first game. We stripped down rules to the very basics: two crews composed of: two troopers, one elite, one heavy weapon, one leader. Leader and heavy weapon were slightly different, the emaining three were exactly the same across the two crews. Almost every model was from AT-43 prepainted line.
We didn't used any of the mission and environment tables and settled for a basic kill'em all type of game.
When yesterday I've prepared the crews I was a bit upset by how dispersive the book is, on how many traits and special rules I would be supposed to remember and so on... But I have to say, as others before me have already stated, that the game actually flows more slick than you could think by just looking at the rulebook. Sure, a QRSheet is the basic minimum I would expect in a book so dense in tables, but hopefully that will come somewhat in the near future. In the meantime I've made a quick and dirty one myself.
Here are some pics:
(https://s23.postimg.org/njxgjd4gn/IMG_3151.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/njxgjd4gn/)
The battlefield. All Infinity foldable terrain.
Not the best in variety, but it's very handy if you have to move to play your game.
(https://s23.postimg.org/yxjzukezb/IMG_3153.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/yxjzukezb/) (https://s23.postimg.org/xjscz9fpz/IMG_3155.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/xjscz9fpz/)
(https://s23.postimg.org/5xplekwd3/IMG_3156.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/5xplekwd3/)
(https://s23.postimg.org/vuj9r700n/IMG_3157.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/vuj9r700n/)
First casualty of the game :(
(https://s23.postimg.org/609h1f00n/IMG_3158.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/609h1f00n/)
But I'll have my revenge: see that armored suit up there...? >:D
All in all, a fun and brutal game. We've already decided for a second game next week :)
This times we'll use the full rules for scenario generation.
-
Played another game. This time, we used full rules.
First of all, the squads:
My Tyranids (Militia, Hive Mind).
(https://s27.postimg.org/ohchdvddf/Tyranids.jpg)
Tyranid Warrior: Extra Arms, Claws, Leadership, Veteran, Tough.
Plasma Rifle (count as Deathspitter), Light Combat Dress (count as carapace).
50pts
2x Genestealers: Insectoid, Extra Arms, Claws, Ambidexterity, Fast 2, Weapon Master 2, Reactive.
2x45, 90pts
2x Termagants: Insectoid, Extra Arms, Claws, Fire into Melee (hive control), Diminutive, Assault Rifle (count as Fleshborer).
2x30, 60pts.
Friend's COGs (Bounty Hunters, Hard to Kill).
(https://s27.postimg.org/48kieeooj/Cogs.jpg)
- Ambidexterity, Difficult Target, Stealth, 2x Vibro Blades, Stealth Suit
- Ambidexterity, Veteran, Hvy Blaster, Power Armour
- Ambidexterity, Plasma Rifle, Combat Dress
- Ambidexterity, Leader, 2x Molecular Slug, Light Power Armour
We rolled the scenario with gladiatorial combat, but re-rolled it (requiring to change squad layout once I've done it is simply bad game design, if you ask me), and got the capture enemy scenario. As condition, we got the EMP-whatever (on roll of 1 weapons malfunction). A bit odd for Tyranids, that use organic weapons, but we kept it as is.
Sadly, I have to say that I think I don't like the game very much. It's not the loads of tables, it's not the randomness, but these two factors together makes me not enjoying the experience. If I have to deal with a fiddly and clunky ruleset, I'll do, but the experience has to be worthy. Sadly, I don't think it's the case: the outcome of the battle is too much tied to the die roll and so very unrewarding. To make a different example, Frostgrave also use the D20, and also more often than not the modifiers you can try to achieve for you (by playing smart) won't make a big difference, as the variance of the die roll result is very wide, but Frostgrave has a very straightforward ruleset, it's very easy to pick up and everything fits in a "light" game experience. Here we have a cumbersome ruleset that doesn't rewards good play, imho. Maybe I'll give the game one more chance, most probably I'll try Void Pirates next.
-
I think I'm missing something. What's the rule set?
EDIT: That'll teach me to click recent threads in the side bar. I'm such a nob. lol
-
You're right anyway, added game name in title :)
-
Great stuff!
-
Hello,
Void Pirates ist easy to play, but i miss a mechanism in the rules that shines. Very flat. Didn't like it. You can make it better of course. For example add an interesting activation System like in Rogue Stars, Bolt Action, or Fistful of Lead.
I realy want a game, with simple mechanisms that generate tough decisions and/or excitement and/or recourse management.
Due to this preferences one of the best rulessets of all time for me is EDEN (Happy Games Factory). A genius who made them (only shooting is a bit too fidely)!
The core rules of the LotR Ruleset are great, too (heroism points combined with the activation system + nice close combat system that generate real battle lines).
But yeah, to find some in the SciFi Setting of this sort of quality is hard, so that i am writing my own now.
Good luck.
-
Uhm, don't know. I do love games based on the "Song of" engine (albeit being sold the same rule system over and over again has somewhat worn me a bit), but while Rogue Stars is also the most original and "different" iteration of the system (to date), it also has lost most of its capability to generate the tough decisions you're mentioning. Since two failures on activation roll does not cause turnover anymore, I really don't see any point in rolling fewer than three dice every time. Anyway, that's not the point. As said, my issue with the game is the combination of clunky-ness and randomness: the latter makes me unwilling to justify the first.
Also, on "flat" ruleset, I'm not so straight adverse. Sure I too prefer -as a long time gamer- rulesets with some distinctive aspect, with personaliry, with that genius solution that makes them stand among others. And yet, one of the games I like the most to play is Dark Age (CMoN), that has a ruleset very "vanilla", apart maybe the "squadlink" idea, is a very "plain" ruleset. Notwithstanding, everything is so well assembled, the game is so streamlined that everything feels "right". Plus, it's a very brutal game: enter combat, and something will die. This leads to fast games that reward very aggressive playstyle. Totally love it, trifling that I don't consider a very original system. It's fun, I enjoy it, what else should matter? I'll be willing to play a game right now, if I had the chance. Thinking on playing a game of Rogue Stars makes me willing to check what's on TV this night.
Regarding Eden, I've seen the miniatures around the web, but never considered it (as none of the factions had ever caught my eye/imagination). I see the rules are downloadable for free. Will check them. Thanks for pointing these out.
-
Uhm, don't know. I do love games based on the "Song of" engine (albeit being sold the same rule system over and over again has somewhat worn me a bit), but while Rogue Stars is also the most original and "different" iteration of the system (to date), it also has lost most of its capability to generate the tough decisions you're mentioning. Since two failures on activation roll does not cause turnover anymore, I really don't see any point in rolling fewer than three dice every time.
Two failures on activation does not cause a turnover automatically. But according to the rules, the non-active player can attempt to take the initiative by spending a reaction. So one failure will give them a chance. Roll three dice and fail to activate on all three, well you just gave them three opportunities to take the initiative if they want. Or attempt to react twice and then try to take the initiative. This roll has a TN of 16, but is modified by non-active player's leadership trait and the number of stress, pin, or wound markers on the active player's crew. This can mean an easy turnover of initiative even if you decide to only roll one dice. You probably will almost always roll three dice on that first activation, but each successful activation adds stress to the crew member. You roll three successful activations, that crew member now has three stress markers and at a -3 to activate them again. This makes them harder to activate a second time, meaning you may not want to risk rolling more than one die as your stress goes up. At the same time, your opponent may not want to perform reactions to keep their stress levels lower in preparation for taking the initiative. Or you may want your opponent to have the initiative, but don't want to necessarily just pass it to them. So you continue to press your luck with activations waiting for them to try and take it. Once they have it, your crew loses all their stress. The tough decisions are still there, I just think they are a different kind. In other Song games, your chance to activate is always the same. In this game, it fluctuates based upon how much you use the same crew member. I also think the scenario can have an impact on your decisions as well. Are you defending an objective? You may want to attempt reactions to maneuver into a better position. Or is your crew better at ranged combat than your attacker? Then you may want to steal the initiative early and light them up before they get within their effective range. Did you design your crew to be better at reacting than activating? Then you might never want to take the initiative.
-
You roll three successful activations, that crew member now has three stress markers and at a -3 to activate them again. This makes them harder to activate a second time, meaning you may not want to risk rolling more than one die as your stress goes up.
Nope. the crew member gains stress per action it makes, not per successfull activation. The rulebook clearly states you are not forced to spend all the successfull activations into actions. This just to clarify rules. So I can still want to roll three dice even if I need just two actions, and eventually "wasting" one with no penality.
Anyway, once a model has lot of stress, I still will want to roll three dice, to increase the chance of rolling at least one success: rolling one die once your TN to succeed is above 11 (due to stress tokens), means that you have more chance to gift a free reaction roll to your opponent than getting one action for yourself. So, imo, the only strategy is roll three dice o don't roll at all, whatever the status of your figures. Also, your opponent would need a 10+ to use those missed roll as reactions, not counting eventual stress tokens present on his models (moreover: tokens that once the initiative will swap, will remain on his models).
The more I think about it, the more I think the original Song of Blades and Heroes is a better game. It's simpler yet more challenging, imo.
-
Hello,
Void Pirates ist easy to play, but i miss a mechanism in the rules that shines. Very flat. Didn't like it. You can make it better of course. For example add an interesting activation System like in Rogue Stars, Bolt Action, or Fistful of Lead.
I realy want a game, with simple mechanisms that generate tough decisions and/or excitement and/or recourse management.
Due to this preferences one of the best rulessets of all time for me is EDEN (Happy Games Factory). A genius who made them (only shooting is a bit too fidely)!
The core rules of the LotR Ruleset are great, too (heroism points combined with the activation system + nice close combat system that generate real battle lines).
But yeah, to find some in the SciFi Setting of this sort of quality is hard, so that i am writing my own now.
Good luck.
Haven't played Void Pirates but I agree with your wishes: simple mechanics, tough decisions, fun games
SoBH is excellent in that regard. Im still not sure if I love or dislike Rogue Stars. Id have loved it to be more SoBH and less complex. Maybe using its shooting rules (which inSoBH are not sufficient for SF IMO) and going to D10 would have been the best?
I'll do this or an SoBH/LotR Crossover one day...
-
Nope. the crew member gains stress per action it makes, not per successfull activation. The rulebook clearly states you are not forced to spend all the successfull activations into actions. This just to clarify rules. So I can still want to roll three dice even if I need just two actions, and eventually "wasting" one with no penality.
Anyway, once a model has lot of stress, I still will want to roll three dice, to increase the chance of rolling at least one success: rolling one die once your TN to succeed is above 11 (due to stress tokens), means that you have more chance to gift a free reaction roll to your opponent than getting one action for yourself. So, imo, the only strategy is roll three dice o don't roll at all, whatever the status of your figures. Also, your opponent would need a 10+ to use those missed roll as reactions, not counting eventual stress tokens present on his models (moreover: tokens that once the initiative will swap, will remain on his models).
The more I think about it, the more I think the original Song of Blades and Heroes is a better game. It's simpler yet more challenging, imo.
I do not see the logic in rolling more activation dice than you intend to use. I know that you don't take stress if you don't use them, but you run the risk of giving your opponent reactions or the chance to take the initiative. The reactions would occur before your actions and if they take the initiative, you would lose your successful activations altogether. I don't have the exact math on it. But it would seem to me, the more dice you roll the greater your chance of failing. With a TN of 11, you fail 50% of the time. On one die that gives your opponent a 50% of being able to roll for a reaction or a take the initiative. But if you roll two dice with the same TN, you now have twice as many chances of losing the 50% roll and allowing them a reaction or a take the initiative roll before you act. For the risk you are taking of failing anyways, I just can't see the logic of always rolling three dice if you don't have a plan to use three actions. If all I want or need to do is make one sprint action to get my crew member out of line of sight, I personally wouldn't roll two or three dice to do it. That is giving my opponent one or two chances to do something before I can complete my action even if I succeed. If I only roll the one die, I am either going to make it out of line of sight, my opponent is going to react, or attempt to take the initiative. If they fail to take the initiative or remove my model from play, then I am free to try again. The more I think about it, rolling one die for each activation would seem the better option on subsequent activation attempts of the same model after the first activation. You don't take stress for failing to activate and it minimizes your chances of allowing reactions.
-
the more dice you roll the greater your chance of failing.
But also the more chance on succeeding.
With a TN of 11, you fail 50% of the time. On one die that gives your opponent a 50% of being able to roll for a reaction or a take the initiative. But if you roll two dice with the same TN, you now have twice as many chances of losing the 50% roll and allowing them a reaction or a take the initiative roll before you act. For the risk you are taking of failing anyways, I just can't see the logic of always rolling three dice if you don't have a plan to use three actions.
Because if I need, say, two actions, rolling two dice and hoping to get two successes is -unless the involved model someway has a very low TN- very naive.
If I plan to make two actions, and I need 8s, I'll roll 3 dice, not 2, the fact that I'll fail one is very likely due to probability calculation. If I roll just two dice, I'd more likely obtain one success and one failure, than two successes. Rolling again a further activation, this time with penality because the model would have stress, will simply put me in a worse situation: roll one and just hope it will connect, or roll two dice, aiming for one success and one failure? (thus scoring two successes and two failures total, instead of 2:1)
The point -imo- is not playing trying to avaoid your opponent getting reactions, because that's impossible, but playing considering possible reactions.
If all I want or need to do is make one sprint action to get my crew member out of line of sight, I personally wouldn't roll two or three dice to do it. That is giving my opponent one or two chances to do something before I can complete my action even if I succeed. If I only roll the one die, I am either going to make it out of line of sight, my opponent is going to react, or attempt to take the initiative. If they fail to take the initiative or remove my model from play, then I am free to try again.
You'd roll one die at say 50/50 and hope for the best? Really?
If you roll three, sure your opponent will have one or two chances to react (or steal Initiuative, but only if you have quite a number of stress/pin/wounds, otherwise stealing Initiative would be very unlikely), but he have to make the rolls, at TN10, and after that you will have your action to do. (speaking considering an average result of 2:1 or 1:2).
If you roll just one die, and you fail, your opponent get a chance to react and you get nothing. Your opponent could have done something and you've accomplished nothing, you're at the same point than before.
This said, even taking into account your point of view on activations, to me SBH remains a better game: way more intense and challenging, that require though decisions to be taken, and that achieve it with a simpler and more streamlined set of rules. In comparison, RS is more clunky and less rewarding. Imo, not worth the effort.
-
Well the discussion about whether or not to roll more dice than you intend to spend on actions, the back and forth about why you should or shouldn't do so, constitutes a "tough decision" from a gameplay POV, depending on the relevant circumstances.
-
Well the discussion about whether or not to roll more dice than you intend to spend on actions, the back and forth about why you should or shouldn't do so, constitutes a "tough decision" from a gameplay POV, depending on the relevant circumstances.
I don't think so. I'm pretty sure I'll always roll 3 dice, so no tough decisions for me. Can't speak for my interlocutor, but he too seems pretty sure on when he will roll one die only instead of three, so I don't see many tough decisions on his side (and even then, that would still not true for me. For what it counts, another person could consider choosing head or tail a hard choice, that would not make it true for me).
This said, the generation of though choices is a welcome feature in a ruleset, but it's secondary, to me, to the rules system itself. As already said, RS -imo- is too clunky and random to be enjoyable to me. This is for the combinations of the two: I can enjoy a simple and very random game, or a clunky one if I feel the game is worth the effort. RS is -to me- a unrewarding gaming experience. This is my main issue with the game, prior that if it generates hard difficult choices or not.
-
I don't think so. I'm pretty sure I'll always roll 3 dice, so no tough decisions for me. Can't speak for my interlocutor, but he too seems pretty sure on when he will roll one die only instead of three, so I don't see many tough decisions on his side (and even then, that would still not true for me. For what it counts, another person could consider choosing head or tail a hard choice, that would not make it true for me).
I can see circumstances where you'd want to roll only a single dice to minimise the chance of an opponent fulfilling a mission. For example, if you are shooting from cover at an opponent in cover who needs to move 8" to a prisoner and release him, you don't want to risk his getting three reactions in a row that would give him a chance of accomplishing that. So there would be considerable wisdom in just taking single activations. If you fail and he reacts on a single die, he can only leave cover and expose himself to more fire. But if he gets a chance to roll two dice, he might get to the prisoner - while three would give him a chance of accomplishing his objective without being shot at.
I think it's in that sort of knife-edge, inching-towards-the-objective decision-making that Rogue Stars really shines.
-
I can see circumstances where you'd want to roll only a single dice to minimise the chance of an opponent fulfilling a mission. For example, if you are shooting from cover at an opponent in cover who needs to move 8" to a prisoner and release him, you don't want to risk his getting three reactions in a row that would give him a chance of accomplishing that. So there would be considerable wisdom in just taking single activations. If you fail and he reacts on a single die, he can only leave cover and expose himself to more fire. But if he gets a chance to roll two dice, he might get to the prisoner - while three would give him a chance of accomplishing his objective without being shot at.
I think it's in that sort of knife-edge, inching-towards-the-objective decision-making that Rogue Stars really shines.
Uhm, I see your point, but I think it's somewhat of a corner case. The forementioned SBH asks for though choices more often -if not every single turn- with a way more streamlined ruleset.
Also, as already stated a couple times before, the "though choices" subject is just a secondary one. I think I have better games games I love more to play regardless the fact that RS calls for though choices or not.
-
Well of course there's not much point arguing about whether a given person likes a rule set or not. But Rogue Stars does ask players to make choices, they just aren't the same choices as SoBH - and at the same time, they aren't only corner cases. The activation/turnover connection is certainly more attenuated in Rogue Stars, thanks to stress. It's not a game about keeping initiative so much as balancing doing more against the chance of succeeding at doing it. And the non-active player certainly needs to be smart about seizing initiative, as she does not want to start with a bunch of exhausted Characters.
I don't see much use in maxims like "I will always roll 3 dice" or "I will always roll only so many dice as I actions I want to take." I'll take my choices in context, instead.
-
So? For you these are though choices, for me they are just trivial, or no choices at all. Look, I'm thinking if I want to discuss this any further: everyone has express his thoughts pretty well, and except for the example from Hobgoblin above, I mostly remain of my opinion. I may be wrong, but I feel the same about the others. I don't see many room for exchange, honestly, and sure I'm not very much interested into repeating myself or reading the same statements over and over again.
I don't see much use in maxims like "I will always roll 3 dice"
Maybe you don't see the use of it, but that's what's happened in all the games I've played (two - not so much, I admit). Not me, not my oppontent ever rolled less that 3 dice, and honestly I don't feel there are so much situations where I could consider do differently.
-
No worries, it's not so much about changing your mind (who cares? as you might say) but rather presenting a different perspective for any folks who may be reading this exchange.
-
And here I am to contradict myself. Twice. I had said I wouldn't had palyed RS again, and I had said that I wasn't interested in discussing it anymore. But. But I wanted to play one more game just to check a few opinions. After all, if the game could prove to be worthy, I'd have only to gain from it.
This time I played with a different friend. I said him nothing just to see what his behaviour would have been. To the other hand, I've played trying to consider more the option of rolling less than 3 dice for initiative. Well, I had never thought that it would be a good idea to roll fewer than 3 dice, and my opponent always rolled 3 dice. Now, this alone wouldn't had made me post here as it adds nothing to my position, nor it responds anything particularly significative to others' opinions. But I had realized something during this last game. Something that *maybe* could be of some interest to others, just for the love of debating. Obviously, if one's goal is simply to prove "being right" all this would lose its purpose.
Anyway, playing trying to analyze the game to check others' opinions, had made me notice and think about this: every player has a target goal to roll he feels comfortable to try to steal initiative. This Number can vary from player to player (some players will play in a more reckless way, try to steal initiative when ther need just a 10 or more, other will play in a more conservative way, trying to gain initiative once the opponent has gained more stress so they'll need to roll a lower number, say a 5), and also from time to time into the game (i.e. more forward into the game, when the opponent is near scoring an objective, a usually more cautious player can decide to try to get initiative earlier). Regardless of conditions, the TN the player will feel "right" to go for initiative would be obtained by a mix of stress, pin and wound tokens. Now, regarding stress, it has no relevance if they are gained in his own turn, or during the previous turn as reactions. Once the total count of tokens will reach the TN felt as ok, the currently inactive player will go for it at the first occasion. And once the models of the active player will start to have some stress on them, the chance to fail at least one roll will be real independently on how many dice a roll a player roll at a time. Even if the player rolls 1 die at a time, if he will not fail this roll, it would probably fail the next one: as stress starts to accumulate this is inevitable. My point is: struggling to avoid your opponent's reaction -considering just for the sake of discussion that you can achieve that- will put you in the condition of having your oppponent get more actions in his own turn (when he could also go more easily for 2 or 3 actions in a row) before he accumulate the total numebr of tokens you will feel confident for trying to get initiative.
I hope I have expressed myself clearly, I've re-read the above text a couple times and it seems comprehensible to me, but I already know what I want to say ^^
Now, if reactions would not provide stress, or if stress would be removed from both crews at the change of initiative, that would make me more worried about providing reactions to my opponent, that in such a case would actually be "free" actions. I don't know if designer ever considered this idea and if he discardet it and why, but I'm mildly curious in investigating it. Unfortunately, I don't enjoy the game very much, so I don't see myself playing it again, really, even if for the noble purpose of academic research. But in case someone will ever consider my thoughts and will try the game this way, please let me know.
-
Let me see if I understand your argument: The main reason to roll less than three dice is to avoid reactions. But multiple activation failures could create multiple reactions, which in turn could create more stress on the reacting opponent. The reacting opponent carries over that stress once she seizes initiative, making it easier to seize the initiative from her more quickly. Therefore by rolling less dice, you are making it harder for yourself to steal initiative back once you have lost it.
I also didn't say anything about this conversation to my opponent - wanted to see whether he would ever roll less than three dice, which he did on multiple occasions. I also rolled fewer than three dice sometimes. In some cases, it was to avoid a reaction (e.g., a shot that seemed likely to put one of my Characters OOA). But the more important reason was to prevent the opponent from attempting to seize the initiative before I could, for example, get a vulnerable Character into cover.
-
Let me see if I understand your argument: The main reason to roll less than three dice is to avoid reactions.
If I have understood your -and others- argument, yes.
But multiple activation failures could create multiple reactions, which in turn could create more stress on the reacting opponent.
Yes.
The reacting opponent carries over that stress once she seizes initiative, making it easier to seize the initiative from her more quickly. Therefore by rolling less dice, you are making it harder for yourself to steal initiative back once you have lost it.
No. It would not be harder or quickier. I would try to steal the initiative "at the same time" (aka, same number of cumulative tokens, aka once I'll feel somewhat safe to risk a free pin removal vs the chance of getting initiative). I have to take a certain number of actions on the face -say 10?- be them reactions or actions doesn't change very much (except for very specific cases as example above, that i still feel are corner cases, for what it's worth).
-
OK then I don't understand what you mean.
A player has a TN in mind where she would rather attempt to seize initiative instead of attempting a different reaction - presumably it is 10 or lower (but obviously it could be higher in a situation where seizing the initiative is critical).
The more reactions (other than rally) her opponent takes while she is active, the more stress he will already have when he seizes initiative from her. Therefore, he is starting closer to whatever TN at which she will attempt to steal the initiative back than if he had taken fewer reactions while she was the active player. The more he reacts while she is acting, the more quickly she will attempt to seize initiative back after she loses it. Do you disagree?
-
OK then I don't understand what you mean.
A player has a TN in mind where she would rather attempt to seize initiative instead of attempting a different reaction - presumably it is 10 or lower (but obviously it could be higher in a situation where seizing the initiative is critical).
Correct.
The more reactions (other than rally) her opponent takes while she is active, the more stress he will already have when he seizes initiative from her. Therefore, he is starting closer to whatever TN at which she will attempt to steal the initiative back than if he had taken fewer reactions while she was the active player. The more he reacts while she is acting, the more quickly she will attempt to seize initiative back after she loses it. Do you disagree?
I don't follow you here. I'm not sure on who's who and do what. Maybe it's the late hour, maybe it's my proficiency in English.
Anyway, my point is:
Say I'll try to seize initiative from you once I'll need a 8 -more or less. Please keep in mind that these aren't exact numbers. Read any number as "around the number". This means, earlier in the game when presumably you don't have pin or wound markers, I'll want to wait until you have 8 stress tokens on your models, ok? If you start a turn after having reacted 2 times, I'll let you go until you'll had performed 6 actions. If you start your turn after having reacted 4 times, I'll try to get the initiative at the first chance after you'll had performed only four.
Now, obviously, reactions could be more valuable anyway because you perform them early. So if killing my model during a reaction in my previous turn is better than killing it in your following turn. But if you react more, you'll start your turn with more stress, and you'll eventually fail more activation rolls early. So while we wait you getting the number of stress I feel ok to try getting the initiative, I'll get some reactions, too; while, if you hypothetically start your turn clean of stress, you'll grant me fewer opportunities to react while we approach the TN I feel right to try to get the initiative back. It's a trade: if you react more, I'll react more.
Everything assuming average dice, ofcourse.
-
I think we are actually on the same page - just to be super clear:
Player A starts in our example as the active player. Eventually Player B seizes the initiative. The more reactions (other than rally) that Player B made while Player A was the active player, the more quickly Player A will seize initiative back. This is because Player B will start as the active player with more stress than if Player B had taken fewer reactions.
If Player B doesn't take reactions, he is more likely to retain initiative longer after seizing it. The only thing Player A can do to influence this is to roll more or fewer dice while she is the active player. If Player B takes lots of reactions, he is less likely to retain initiative longer after seizing it - plus Player A would be well advised to aggressively attempt to seize so as to become active player with little or no stress.
Of course, this doesn't take into account the wounds and pins. Taking some stress to inflict a wound is probably a good deal.
-
If Player B doesn't take reactions, he is more likely to retain initiative longer after seizing it. The only thing Player A can do to influence this is to roll more or fewer dice while she is the active player. If Player B takes lots of reactions, he is less likely to retain initiative longer after seizing it
Agree, I just don't think is deeply meaningful to try influence this. As said, If my opponent gets more reactions I'll get more, too.
plus Player A would be well advised to aggressively attempt to seize so as to become active player with little or no stress.
Yes but... I don't know. Sure if my opponent start his turn with lot of stress, I'll try to get initiative earlier thus I'll probably start my turn with less stress. So I agree. Point is, what is the weight of this? (honest question, not a rethoric one). The flow of turns will remain a more-or-less fixed number of actions+reactions every "full turn" (i.e. one turn as active player for both players).
This whole new argument (the one I started after my last game) is not very much on "always roll three" as much as is about "what if change of turn would remove stress from both crews". This is an idea that struck me. I can figure I will be more worried of allowing my opponent to take reactions, so the number of dice rolled would be (or at least, I think it will be for me) more crucial.
-
If my opponent gets more reactions I'll get more, too.
Not sure about this.
Player A is active, Player B takes lots of reactions and seizes initiative. Player A seizes initiative back with her first or second reaction; so in fact Player B taking a lot of reactions means - assuming Player A wants initiative back - that Player A will actually not have to take many reactions subsequently. Of course, again, this totally excludes any discussion of wounds and pins.
Now, is this significant? The real question is, how much better is it to be the active player rather than the reactive player? Because what we are really getting at is, taking initiative and - all other things being equal - holding onto it for a longer rather than shorter amount of activations.
It strikes me that one of the themes of this conversation is, is there really much difference between having and not having the initiative? I think there are two major differences: (1) it is easier to act (TN8) than reaction (TN10); and (2) the active player has more decisions to make (which is really just the definition of initiative). And obviously (2) is the issue we are actually talking about here - do the decisions the active player gets to make give the active player that much of a tactical advantage over the reactive player?
So the main thing that only the active player gets to decide is how many dice to "ante" on an activation. This is twofold: the active player is deciding how many actions one of her figures might potentially take (at TN=X) as well as how many potential reactions an opposing figure could take. This is the specific question we have been talking about, whether this choice has a significant tactical impact.
I think the answer is yes. As the reactive player, I am usually getting one reaction die out of my opponent's three-dice activations. Because movement and firing range distances are fairly short, I just can't do much with a single die (aside from seizing initiative and rallying). Reacting is not good enough if you are trying to accomplish something more than simply attacking the enemy, and it's not even that good even if you are just attacking the enemy - barring a really devastating attack, which is actually only good because it makes it easier for you to seize initiative, again just highlighting that it is better to have initiative than to not have it.
-
Not sure about this.
Player A is active, Player B takes lots of reactions and seizes initiative. Player A seizes initiative back with her first or second reaction; so in fact Player B taking a lot of reactions means - assuming Player A wants initiative back - that Player A will actually not have to take many reactions subsequently. Of course, again, this totally excludes any discussion of wounds and pins.
You're right: it's quite the opposite. If my opponent reacts more, I'll get initiative back earlier, if he does not react very much, I'll probably get a few more reaction till we get to a condition where I'll try to get initiative back.
Now, is this significant? The real question is, how much better is it to be the active player rather than the reactive player? Because what we are really getting at is, taking initiative and - all other things being equal - holding onto it for a longer rather than shorter amount of activations.
It strikes me that one of the themes of this conversation is, is there really much difference between having and not having the initiative? I think there are two major differences: (1) it is easier to act (TN8) than reaction (TN10); and (2) the active player has more decisions to make (which is really just the definition of initiative). And obviously (2) is the issue we are actually talking about here - do the decisions the active player gets to make give the active player that much of a tactical advantage over the reactive player?
So the main thing that only the active player gets to decide is how many dice to "ante" on an activation. This is twofold: the active player is deciding how many actions one of her figures might potentially take (at TN=X) as well as how many potential reactions an opposing figure could take. This is the specific question we have been talking about, whether this choice has a significant tactical impact.
I think the answer is yes. As the reactive player, I am usually getting one reaction die out of my opponent's three-dice activations. Because movement and firing range distances are fairly short, I just can't do much with a single die (aside from seizing initiative and rallying). Reacting is not good enough if you are trying to accomplish something more than simply attacking the enemy, and it's not even that good even if you are just attacking the enemy - barring a really devastating attack, which is actually only good because it makes it easier for you to seize initiative, again just highlighting that it is better to have initiative than to not have it.
I see. You're right again. But:
- this doesn't prevent me thinking the game could be more tense if both crews would clear stress at turnover.
- this somewhat supports my approach of roll more dice without bothering too much if your opponent gets reactions (because the more he reacts, the few he will actively act in his own turn). At least until you think your opponent will choose to react. I can see you may want to be a bit more cautious once the stress (and eventual pins and wounds) collects on your models.
Now, this second point makes me thinking of some strategy to keep initiative longer. Not easy, as D20 is very random, but if I react and act early in my turn with the same 2-3 models, and keep a couple "clean" to activate later, I could start using these once I think my opponet will try to get initiative back. Even better if these models to activate later are veteran or elite. Now, this can be pointless, because I can be able to get action on 6+, all the math on my side, but D20 is a bi*ch. But I usually play following probability so I'd go for it. Now, why this is good? Because what I think is genius about SBH and I truly love, is the activation system and how it forces you to struggle activating first what it's easier to accomplish or what's important to do. And usually the two doesn't coincide. This seemed somewhat lost in RS due to its different activation system. But if I nominate figures to be activated first and other to activate later, the flow of the game could make me face though decisions when I could possibly want to activate earlier one of the figure I kept to activate later...
Is this making any sense for you? ^^
-
Interesting discussion. I've played or reffed a few more games recently, as my son swats aside any enquiry about a game of HOTT or Dragon Rampant with a demand for Rogue Stars. And he's got his friends interested too.
One thing I've noticed is that as we get more used to the game, various initiative strategies are evolving. One is the "sit and wait" strategy. This usually emerges against power-armoured opponents: not trying to take the initiative, but just letting the opposing forces rack up stress tokens as they struggle to achieve their objectives. It seems to work chiefly because the power-armoured player is content to take hits and will roll freely to try to grind out the necessary actions, even if the opponent is getting multiple reactions to one, and because sometimes a reactive shot will get through. Basically, the relative safety that power armour affords leads to stressed and pinned characters overextending themselves.
The other is a "maximum disruption" strategy that involves trying to grab the initiative at every turn. Every reaction is used for an initiative bid, even if it's the opponent who has stuff to do (rescuing a captive in our last game).
Both of these exploit the swinginess of the D20. I'm sure other ploys will evolve as we play more games.