Topic: Simplifying initiative issues!
Started by: Eamon Voss
Started on: 5/12/2003
Board: The Riddle of Steel
On 5/12/2003 at 4:55pm, Eamon Voss wrote:
Simplifying initiative issues!
One of the few things I don't like about the TROS combat system is all that complexity involved in dealing with buying off initiative during simultaneous hits. I am cooking up my own system, and wouldn't mind any suggestions on how to do it.
My basic concept is to follow these steps:
1. Reflex roll off, with roll modified by length differences
(So if I have a long weapon and you have a medium weapon, you suffer a -1 die penalty to your roll.)
2. If you lose the above, you can then buy off the difference by expending dice from your combat pool. The maximum difference you can buy off is equal to your perception rating. Your opponent can do the same.
3. If this goes to a tie, then the strikes land at the same time.
Comments? Criticisms? Arguements that the current system is fine?
On 5/12/2003 at 6:32pm, Jake Norwood wrote:
RE: Simplifying initiative issues!
Sounds pretty good to me.
Jake
On 5/12/2003 at 9:20pm, Bob Richter wrote:
Re: Simplifying initiative issues!
Eamon Voss wrote: One of the few things I don't like about the TROS combat system is all that complexity involved in dealing with buying off initiative during simultaneous hits. I am cooking up my own system, and wouldn't mind any suggestions on how to do it.
My basic concept is to follow these steps:
1. Reflex roll off, with roll modified by length differences
(So if I have a long weapon and you have a medium weapon, you suffer a -1 die penalty to your roll.)
2. If you lose the above, you can then buy off the difference by expending dice from your combat pool. The maximum difference you can buy off is equal to your perception rating. Your opponent can do the same.
3. If this goes to a tie, then the strikes land at the same time.
Comments? Criticisms? Arguements that the current system is fine?
It's certainly a lot simpler (thank heavens!) but I'll have to try it in play to see how it works.
On 5/12/2003 at 11:21pm, Wolfen wrote:
RE: Simplifying initiative issues!
Anyone with a game going who decides to give this a try, I personally would welcome any feedback on how it works. I'm generally a game purist, and attempt to play a game as intended and written with as few modifications as possible, but buying initiative is indeed a sore spot.
On 5/13/2003 at 6:23am, Aaron wrote:
RE: Simplifying initiative issues!
Only problem I can see is that unless one fighter scored alot more successes on the REF test, nearly all REF rolls to determine initative would result in simultaneous attacks. Only those who were doing one of the defence and attack combined maneuvers wouldn't spend those CP to make their attack simultaneous. For them it doesn't matter either way.
Aaron
On 5/13/2003 at 7:44am, Jake Norwood wrote:
RE: Simplifying initiative issues!
Well, you know that if you don't buy initiative (or just ignore the rule), then all you've got to do is (if both throw red) roll a contest of reflex with the winner striking first. If that ties then a contest of wp. If that ties, then it's simultaneous. This is in the standard rules, too.
Jake
On 5/13/2003 at 11:16am, Eamon Voss wrote:
RE: Simplifying initiative issues!
Aaron wrote: Only problem I can see is that unless one fighter scored alot more successes on the REF test, nearly all REF rolls to determine initative would result in simultaneous attacks. Only those who were doing one of the defence and attack combined maneuvers wouldn't spend those CP to make their attack simultaneous. For them it doesn't matter either way.
Yep, ain't it grand? Makes combat uncertain, dangerous if you will. And gives people a good reason to up their perception.
On 5/14/2003 at 6:54pm, Bomilkar wrote:
RE: Simplifying initiative issues!
Eamon Voss wrote:Aaron wrote: Only problem I can see is that unless one fighter scored alot more successes on the REF test, nearly all REF rolls to determine initative would result in simultaneous attacks. Only those who were doing one of the defence and attack combined maneuvers wouldn't spend those CP to make their attack simultaneous. For them it doesn't matter either way.
Yep, ain't it grand? Makes combat uncertain, dangerous if you will. And gives people a good reason to up their perception.
Nice solution! I think I will use this one in my game, only with both players secretly setting a die to the number of dice they want to loose from their CP to gain the initiative. That will make for a nice mind-game of risk and bluff. I've seen a rather similar mechanism in a Czech TROS-like board game called "Arena" (not to confuse with "Titan: The Arena"), where a bunch of gladiators (the usual suspects - an assassin, a barbarian, a team of orcs...) fought against each other using different maneuvers which they had to plan out in advance. Oh, and of course there was said die for the attack-and-block mechanism. Really nice game (OOP, sadly).
On 5/14/2003 at 8:00pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Simplifying initiative issues!
Huh, any chance it was based on the old Gladiator game by AH? That used plotted turns too.
Mike
On 5/15/2003 at 2:15am, arxhon wrote:
RE: Simplifying initiative issues!
OMFG! I remember that Gladiator game. It was quite a bit of fun, once you hacked your way through the rules. 'Groin shot! Instant death!"
On 5/16/2003 at 5:19pm, Bomilkar wrote:
RE: Simplifying initiative issues!
Mike Holmes wrote: Huh, any chance it was based on the old Gladiator game by AH? That used plotted turns too.
Mike
I don't know, but I just found a link to a review of the game:http://globetrotter.crosswinds.net/index.htm?E&game/eArena.htm
When I checked the link to "Altar Games", I found out (that is: I guess, I found out - the English site is under construction, and I don't understand a single word of Czech) that the game is still in print, but that none of the promised expansion sets are currently in development.
It's a nice game with really interesting mechanics and maneuvers but no must-to-have, especially now that there is TROS, which can be used for the same purpose.