Annoying Game Questions You Want Answered

Thaluikhain · Post by **Thaluikhain** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:42 am

Sustained fire dice for the old old Necromunda (and 2nd ed 40k) had one Jam face, two 1s, two 2s and one 3. So on average one dice of sustained fire was 1.5 shots with a risk of jamming. When they re-did Necromunda (not the current Necromunda, they tweaked old Necromunda some time back) they got rid of that, IIRC, you just rolled a normal D3 for each sustained fire dice.

Something I'd been toying with for a skirmish game I'd been mucking about with, was that you'd get more shots from an action if you fired in the same direction for your previous action, normally having 2 actions per turn. That was to encourage "move or fire" without enforcing it.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 11:28 am

Cyberpunk 2020 promotes its combat as being, like, fast and frantic. But watching a how to play on youtube, actually from R. Talsorian, makes it seem... less so.

How slow is Cyberpunk 2020 combat, actually, and is there a better cyberpunk skirmish system?

pragma · Post by **pragma** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:16 pm

I ran a bunch of cyberpunk when I was first starting out in gaming, and I do recall the combat as being both fast and frantic. This was driven primarily by high lethality, when a character did something the world noticed. However, I mistrust my recollection because I was inexperienced and had a tenuous grasp on the rule set.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 9:04 pm

So basically, all the "ok, check to see if the cover ablates" kind of stuff doesn't matter because people die too quickly for it to matter?

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:08 am

How do I make a warhams 3 to 7e style hit wound save odds chart in excel that shows the result of an attack hitting on 1-6 wounding on 1-6 save on 2-6 and a save after that on 2-6

There’s online rollers but I’d like to see it all in one chart

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Sat Mar 16, 2019 2:03 pm

It's a fairly simple multiplication table. Did you want the actual tutorial, or just the table itself?

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Sat Mar 16, 2019 3:27 pm

Ah thanks, yeah I meant tutorial but this is great

pragma · Post by **pragma** » Sat Mar 16, 2019 6:53 pm

Prak wrote:So basically, all the "ok, check to see if the cover ablates" kind of stuff doesn't matter because people die too quickly for it to matter?

Basically yes, I don't remember a fight where anyone made it from the start to cover. Possibly as a consequence, I don't remember any rules for ablating cover.

In general I found the cover rules intuitive and quick, and they played nice with shotguns, grenades and other area attacks. There were other, less graceful rule interactions. Contests weren't well defined (there wasn't a universal rule for them) so hand-to-hand combat felt a bit ad hoc. Also, a player once used autofire on multiple targets, but because you only rolled for hit location once, he hit them all in the head. It was a funny game, but I got a lot of joy out of it.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:16 pm

I've sort of... wound up writing my own basic cyberpunk rpg.

Y'all have fucking ruined me.

But it's basically a hack of Cyberpunk 2020, so I'll probably be using the basic combat rules with some modifications, almost certainly lowering damages. So maybe the cover rules will matter.

Whiysper · Post by **Whiysper** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 9:52 am

You'll want to not use the 'botch on a 1' rule, either, if it's still a 1d10 system. Because we played way too much CP2020, and it was an ongoing fucking farce for that very reason.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 2:16 pm

Yeah. Botching 10% of the time seems... absurd. I do kinda want to retain some kind of "you're under a lot of stress, what with forty pounds of lead flying through the air, and you fuck up" but I'm not sure how practically incorporate that...

Whiysper · Post by **Whiysper** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 2:45 pm

Some people (and possibly later versions of the system?) do a sort of 'botch confirmation' roll, wherein having rolled a 1, you roll again, and on a 3-10 you just fail. On a 1 or 2, consult the botch table and do something catastrophically stupid.

Obviously the threshold for 'truly fucking up' can be tweaked here as desired - IIRC they do 6-10 fail, 1-5 botch, rather than the 1-2 botch suggested above.

deaddmwalking · Post by **deaddmwalking** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 6:48 pm

For fun, it might be interesting if the 'botch' confirmation was a 10, you failed in a way that was spectacular but also effective. Like, you completely missed the person you were aiming for, but the fixture you hit collapses onto the person.

10% 'botch', with 10% of those as unintended successes (1% of rolls), 70% as 'normal failures' (7% of rolls) and 20% as 'true botches' (2% of rolls). That way when people roll a 1, they have at least a little hope of something potentially beneficial happening.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 9:53 pm

I like that, actually. Allows for "I Just Shot Marvin" esque moments. I know there's a scene in at least one actually cyberpunk movie where that sort of "successful botch" happens, but I can't think of it.

Thaluikhain · Post by **Thaluikhain** » Tue Mar 19, 2019 4:22 am

Is worrying about model facing in games like 40k or Necromunda a good idea? It allows you to have, say, different armour or cover saves to the front 90 degree arc, and thus make flanking worthwhile (and flanking should be worthwhile), but I'd imagine it'd get slow and fiddly having to determine model facing for everyone and you'd get arguments over edge cases.

Not so bad for 40k vehicles when most of your army isn't a vehicle, I guess, and with clear corners on most of them, though you could make the bases of your models for that.

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Tue Mar 19, 2019 4:27 am

Thaluikhain wrote:Is worrying about model facing in games like 40k or Necromunda a good idea? It allows you to have, say, different armour or cover saves to the front 90 degree arc, and thus make flanking worthwhile (and flanking should be worthwhile), but I'd imagine it'd get slow and fiddly having to determine model facing for everyone and you'd get arguments over edge cases.

Current necromunda does that, the steroid hulk goliaths have 'furnace plate' that gives a better save to the front arc, and I believe hand held shields also do that.

But I think this gets really fiddly when you consider that models are posed in different ways so facing isn't consistently measured by where the model is looking or where the nipples are facing.

I figure the solution is to have an enfilade fire/flanking rule where if you're struck from 180 directions the directional armor doesn't count. I'd go with 180 because that's easy to eyeball, 90 degrees will lead to arguments and roll-offs.

having enfilade/flanking fire rules also encourages infiltration, deep strike, speed for more than just "I want to chop 'em in hand to hand". Like imagine a squad of 5 kommandos sneaking behind 10 marines, opening fire not to deal damage but to use the enfilade rule to reduce their armor save vs the 20 boyz in front of the marines.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Tue Mar 19, 2019 5:02 am

You probably want to put actual facing markers on the base if you do that - little notches around the edge or have the model literally standing on an X or whatever, so you can then measure a straight line out from that. Less of an issue if you're using 180 degree arcs I suppose.

You could also just do the D&D style flanking rules to get some effect, where if you can rule a straight line from one attacker to the other and that line passes through the target, you get the flanking bonus. Doesn't handle "my shield only covers my right side" or "surprise attack from behind" when not otherwise engaged from the front, but it also makes it quick and easy to resolve.

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:37 am

What's a good catch all word for the penalties to hit that accrue due to the target being far away, fog obscuring the view, the target moving very fast, you are firing from an unstable platform, etc.

I'm thinking of just "cover" as I'm used to saying that in old editions of 40k where a zippy fast antigrav vehicle and a holosuit give cover saves.

But is there a snappier word?

The way I'm planning on using it is you have your to-hit bonuses, then you compare it to a target number. So the TN would be called "cover #" or something else.

ex: "I have +4 to hit, vs a cover of 5..."

Blade · Post by **Blade** » Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:35 am

You can use "concealment" and keep cover for actual cover in order to have the difference between "you're harder to hit" and "you're behind something that is protecting you" which can be useful for stuff like area effect weapons

Thaluikhain · Post by **Thaluikhain** » Tue Mar 19, 2019 12:14 pm

Hmmm, 180 degrees or the models being directly between 2 enemies seems like it'd be a lot easier to resolve, thanks.

OgreBattle wrote:What's a good catch all word for the penalties to hit that accrue due to the target being far away, fog obscuring the view, the target moving very fast, you are firing from an unstable platform, etc.

I'm thinking of just "cover" as I'm used to saying that in old editions of 40k where a zippy fast antigrav vehicle and a holosuit give cover saves.

But is there a snappier word?

The way I'm planning on using it is you have your to-hit bonuses, then you compare it to a target number. So the TN would be called "cover #" or something else.

ex: "I have +4 to hit, vs a cover of 5..."

Hmmm..."Difficulty" and "Protection" seem a bit generic, and "Miss chance" isn't quite right.

I was tinkering with something similar, and had thought to use the same mechanic for shooting at things in cover as shooting at jetbikes (with different values for different speeds traveled last turn, and who would need facing arcs to be relevant), so I might nick your name when you find a good one.

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Tue Mar 19, 2019 1:30 pm

Because shooting targets are called targets, maybe just calling it “target number” already works

“The jetbike moving at advancing speed gets +2 to its Target Number”
“Long range adds +1 to TN”
“Fog adds +1 to TN for shooting through...”

Or Target Class If your rules already use TNumber

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Wed Mar 20, 2019 5:39 am

How's the star wars tabletop skirmish game? Worth learning from?

So I like the fleshwound system in 40k Kill Team... any other skirmish games with quick to understand "You are wounded and penalized it makes you more likely to die" type rules?

Mordheim had rolling to stun/knockdown/KO

Thaluikhain · Post by **Thaluikhain** » Wed Mar 20, 2019 10:35 am

Old and new Necromunda had something similar to Mordheim, though new Necromunda just has you lose a point of toughness for each Flesh Wound, you are otherwise fine. Old Necromunda takes off 1 BS and 1 WS, not sure if you can get Flesh Wounded more than once.

I also like that sort of system, though I was thinking of having different injury tables for different models. Preferably with all models in one army using the same to avoid over complicating it, just having one for the humans and another one for the zombies and so on. Maybe exceptions for notable monsters/heroes, not sure if I want any of those.

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:31 am

My usual reaction is one injury table works, you then adjust other elements like wound rolls armor saves modifiers instead of using different tables

But I can see it working for radically different bodies like how warhammer 40k 2e and rogue trader had differentiate vehicle tables... still even for that a shared table also works and makes calculations easier

Something I’m working on is a damage number subtracted by ones save 1d6.

If number is positive you deflect damage
If number is 0 you take stun damages
If negative you take that negative number in wounds... but wounds are not cumulative you simply replace a worse one. So -1 doesn’t get affected by further -1’s but -3 will replace it. You also take penalties to rolls based on wound number so having -1 wound makes you likely to suffer a worse wound from the same attack

You then get taken out of action at -4.

Thaluikhain · Post by **Thaluikhain** » Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:36 am

Sure, you could do it that way, I was thinking of getting rid of all the wound rolls and armor saves and modifiers. And I was thinking of simple tables with 3 options on them rolling on a d3, with one always being "out of action", so they aren't too complicated.

Admittedly, I'm not sure if that's such a good idea, I just wanted to lighten the rules a lot, and that might have gone too far.