Has anyone on the list experimented with using a different die type than a D6?
I've been thinking about changing to a D10 or D20, so that I can use more dice
modifiers. As the system stands, you can only mess with the dice rolls only so
much (mods for shields, armor, etc.) so grafting
"Lock-on" ECM rules is a little difficult. If so could you post any
ideas to the list? The only thought I've had is that if you used a D20 you
could have a much bigger modifier and still be able to hit.
> John D. Hamill wrote:
One way to do it is to convert the old tables to the new dice, by percentage.
example: The unscreened damage table -- 1-3 on 1d6 is 50% (17% x 3)
= 1-10 on 1d20
Doing this, you can convert the tables to any dice roll.
> At 02:05 PM 8/27/97 -0500, you wrote:
I haven't thought about it. The system as it is is pretty fast paced. You can
do a reasonably sized fleet action in 3 hours, which is what I like about it.
I'd hate to slow it down with die mods.
That having been said, you might be better off using d12s. A d12 is simple to
convert from a d6 (just double the numbers and round; a "6" to hit on a d6
becomes an "11" or "12" to hit on a d12) and you still have room to add die
mods.
> Allen at 23:09 27/08/97 -0400, you wrote:
You
> can do a reasonably sized fleet action in 3 hours, which is what I like
This is probably the best idea for all those who want many mod tables, however
you could always use die shifts, as in SG II,as your actual modifier!
Jon (T.C.)
Sprayforming Developments Ltd. [production tools]
made in
[prototype times]
'The future is now'
Message text written by INTERNET:FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
> [quoted text omitted]
That having been said, you might be better off using d12s. A d12 is simple to
convert from a d6 (just double the numbers and round; a "6" to hit on a d6
becomes an "11" or "12" to hit on a d12) and you still have room to add die
mods.
<
D12s are a particuarly nice choice, as you can just use the number of screens
on the target as a negative modifier to the roll and the probability curve is
fairly close to the produced by the shield rules in the book. (level 3 shields
are not quite as effective under this, but based on what I've seen, that's
more of a feature than a bug.)
Ray
> Sprayform wrote:
You
> >can do a reasonably sized fleet action in 3 hours, which is what I
I thought that shifting die types would be more in line with the other FMA
games, but I couldn't think of a way to incorporate it without making it look
like a kludge. The reason I wanted to increase the die modifiers beyond what
they are already is doing space combat set in the Aliens universe. If you've
seen the Colonial Marines Handbook you can see that space combat in that
universe is a lot like modern sub warfare, with stealth and suprise being MUCH
more important that it is in the standard FT game. With that in mind I wanted
to come up with a system to
add lock-ons, breaking lock-ons, "spoofing" sensors using ECM and
decoys, etc. Any ideas any one has would be greatly appreciated.
P.S. I would like to thank everyone on the list for their treatment. I've been
on some lists that; as soon as I posted anything; there was an immediate
reaction of "get this moron out of here!". It is proof of the high quality of
people who play GZG games.
Message text written by INTERNET:FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
> [quoted text omitted]
You could always allow level 4+ shields in your 1d12 games... I assume
you are refering to the unshielded table?
<
No, what I mean is that level three shields under the d12 system I proposed
are not as protective as level 3 shields under the d6 system.
Damage breakdown of d6 based system found in Full Thrust 0 Screens: 50.0%
chance of 0 damage, 33.3% chance of 1 damage, 16.6% chance of 2 damage 1
Screen: 66.6% chance of 0 damage, 16.6% chance of 1 damage, 16.6% chance of 2
damage 2 Screens: 66.6% chance of 0 damage, 33.3% chance of 1 damage, 0%
chance of 2 damage 3 Screens: 83.3% chance of 0 damage, 16.6% chance of 1
damage, 0% chance of 2 damage
Damage breakdown of d12 based system (shields as a neagtive modifier to the
die roll) 0 Screens: 50.0% chance of 0 damage, 33.3% chance of 1 damage, 16.6%
chance of 2 damage 1 Screen: 58.3% chance of 0 damage, 33.3% chance of 1
damage, 8.3% chance of 2 damage 2 Screens: 66.6% chance of 0 damage, 33.3%
chance of 1 damage, 0% chance of 2 damage 3 Screens: 75.0% chance of 0 damage,
25.0% chance of 1 damage, 0% chance of 2 damage 4 Screens: 83.3% chance of 0
damage, 16.6% chance of 1 damage, 0% chance of 2 damage
Under the regular rules, you have a 1 in 6 chance of causing 1 point of damage
with each die against a target with level three shields. Some people have
found that this makes capital ships (DNs, SDNs,) too hard to kill.
Under the d12 system, the odds improve to a 1 in 4 chance of causing 1 point
of damage per die.
Ray
> Earl R. Forsythe II wrote:
You could always allow level 4+ shields in your 1d12 games... I assume
you are refering to the unshielded table?
> At 10:43 AM 8/28/97 -0500, you wrote:
> P.S. I would like to thank everyone on the list for their treatment.
God, what lists were those? I'll have to avoid them. To be honest, this is by
far the most civil group I've seen. Very few flame wars (and those few that
MIGHT be considered such were short), good signal to noise ratio, very polite.
I'm not sure why this is. I suppose it's because we all have a fairly common
set of interests, but we're also fairly mature (intellectually, if not always
chronologically). I've seen other groups with common interests break out into
flame wars at a drop of a hat. I just don't know what it is about this group.
I noticed the same thing at GenCon; the list members were about the same in
person as they were in print.
> God, what lists were those? I'll have to avoid them. To be honest, this
the
> list members were about the same in person as they were in print.
I think it might be that Jon's game dont have a lot of glitz and shiny toys
for it that would attract anyone but those who are looking for good, solid
substance. The first time I played DSII I was put off by the lack of visuals
and nifty "toys". After borrowing the book and reading front to back I really
liked it.
Must be the anti-MTG game. They make my skin crawl.
That
Chuk Guy
> God, what lists were those? I'll have to avoid them. To be honest, this
the
> list members were about the same in person as they were in print.
So why is it that my fiancee always tells me to grow up? ;-)
I've been on both of the Warhammer 40K lists and they are like the lists
described. Obnoxious and intolerant people rule those two lists (my apologies
to anyone here who is on them, but that was the impression I
got).
I told people I liked the basic infantry for my army (Imperial Guard) and that
I thought the characters and tanks were a waste of time and then I got several
very abrupt replies that if I liked them so much, then it was no wonder that I
lost so often (50% of the time). And they regularly broke out into huge flame
wars over very trivial things and in the end the only reason you knew what a
thread was actually about was because of the subject line. Some of the
messages were VERY rude.
But I love this list and I really loved the Epic Space Marine list before the
release of Epic97. That was great list to be on. More like a chat line than a
gamer's mailing list. <Sigh>
In a message dated 97-08-28 11:46:55 EDT, you write:
> I thought that shifting die types would be more in line with the other
I wrote a set of FMA rules for Full Thrust a while back (during my unemployed,
plenty of spare time phase:) that handled fire control and EW pretty well. I
tested them a couple of times and they worked pretty well, played pretty quick
once you got used to the central concept, and very even bloodier than standard
FT combat! If I can find the file I can email you a copy.
Later
Brian