***
but I find the "roll 1 D6" mechanism easier than the "opposed dice for
hit/miss followed by chits for damage resolution" mechanism makes for a
much quicker (or larger) game.
***
As long as it's one die roll, but a problem I have with games like 40K(tm) is
its apply modifiers and 'roll to hit, roll to wound, roll to save'. When I
made a complaint like this to a fan, he pointed out it takes time, but
simpler, to him, than looking up many tables. (Note the appropriate use of
'than' rather than 'then'.)
The opposed roll, I hope, at least, lets you roll all of the above at the same
time, giving you a fair variety of outcomes, though there's still the chit
pull afterwards.
Is it really quicker in Spearhead, or are there more steps? Does this give
enough range of outcomes?
Does this make sense? Does anybody care?
I guess the topic came to the surface for me in discussing introductory games.
While your troops may be hanging on the result of that string of rolls, if
there are more than a couple people per side, you may end up with impatient
players, and LONG turns.
Then again, I have issues with too many threshold rolls per turn in FTII on
occasion. It's one of the places I'd shoot the 'it's not really random'
members of my crowd, and run the process on a laptop.
Hi,
> As long as it's one die roll, but a problem I have with games like
When
> I made a complaint like this to a fan, he pointed out it takes time,
> The opposed roll, I hope, at least, lets you roll all of the above at
> Is it really quicker in Spearhead, or are there more steps? Does this
Ah no, its ALL done on modifiers (for each unit type, compared with
AT/AI
factor) and one D6 roll, a 1 is always a faliure, and a modified 6 is a
kill, 4/5 a suppression, everything is abstracted to the one piece=1
platoon scale, very simple, but that's what you want for a divisional scale
game
Oh, this topic is for me. :-)
The d6 system GW (and many others) uses is my least favorite system for all
the reasons you gave. It was designed to be simple, then they add modifier
after modifier until it is more complex than the alternatives. To make it
worse, 'some companies' require extra books(aka "codex") or a lifetime
subscription to their magazine to keep up to date on the latest
modifiers/rules.
The FMA system is breath of fresh air IMHO. It allows a nice level detail with
a few modifiers without becoming too bogged down. An all around good
compromise and good system IMHO.
BUT, I suspect I am in a small minority here, but I LOVE tables. A single,
well laid-out chart/table can have literally magnitudes more detail and
subtly than either of these systems if the tables are constructed correctly
(IMHO). Sure, you have to look up the result each time you roll a dice, but if
the tables can fit on a double sided sheet for play this is no real hardship
IMHO.
My two cents.
Hi Scott,
> Oh, this topic is for me. :-)
Me too!
> The d6 system GW (and many others) uses is my least favorite system for
Well this is where the SH system is different, it is a table of factors for
each vehicle, then 3 or 4 factors in total to apply, its very easy, and in a
couple of turns u know them all.
> The FMA system is breath of fresh air IMHO. It allows a nice level
yeah its good isnt it, not so keen on DSII, but each to their own.
> BUT, I suspect I am in a small minority here, but I LOVE tables. A
Um I like knowing as soon as the dice stops, but hey, as long as its quick and
simple.