[Rogue Stars] Another "first game impression" thread

[Gabbi]

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.

[Manchu]

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.

[Gabbi]

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.

[Manchu]

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.

[Gabbi]

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.

[Manchu]

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.

[Gabbi]

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).

[Manchu]

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?

[Gabbi]

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.

[Manchu]

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.

[Gabbi]

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.

[Manchu]

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.

[Gabbi]

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? ^^

[Hobgoblin]

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.