Thanks ynnen,
I'll read it with interest.
Meanwhile, this sunday, I'll donn my real armor and go postal on some unlucky guy (equally armored)
But...
Combat Training 102 >> Anatomy of a Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay combat turn
macd21 said:
There will be the unrealistic increasing difficulty problem - if you keep on spamming until the difficulty gets so high you can't succeed, how long does it take to reset to 0?
I would say, everytime you use the Action, you reset the recharge tokens to their full value of the card. So the longer you wait between uses of the action, the less fatigue and/or misfortune you will suffer. If you want it to "reset to 0", you just have to go by the RAW and wait til all tokens are removed.
ynnen said:
I've got to say, I've really been enjoying the spirited discussions on this particular article. It is interesting to see that of everything presented in the article, that the recharge mechanic is a hot topic for many forumites. We designed and tested a wide variety of different ways to have powers interact, scale, or trigger. We also spent a lot of time evaluating playability, accessibility, gameplay balance, variety, and efficiency.
I'll see if I can add a bit more information about the recharge mechanic in a future diary, to shed some more light on its role and function in the game.
nice to hear from you and , not that i didnt think so, but its nice to see that you read the posts and not just to block people
or when a report comes in
lol so yes i will look forward to that diary
ynnen said:
I've got to say, I've really been enjoying the spirited discussions on this particular article. It is interesting to see that of everything presented in the article, that the recharge mechanic is a hot topic for many forumites. We designed and tested a wide variety of different ways to have powers interact, scale, or trigger. We also spent a lot of time evaluating playability, accessibility, gameplay balance, variety, and efficiency.
I'll see if I can add a bit more information about the recharge mechanic in a future diary, to shed some more light on its role and function in the game.
That would be excellent! Even though I'm pro-recharge (at least until I test it), I think it would be interesting to read about some of the game design decisions and testing/evaluation that went into some of the main mechanics. Of course, I don't want it to pre-empt our rules previews, though!
DeathFromAbove said:
MMMmmm, sorry, but this is a random number. Why not 8, or 10 or 15 rounds?
Is it a random number, or does it represent the greatest frequency that the designers felt that backstabs would be possible? If you go with the increasing difficulty of spam attacks, then the increased difficulty you assign could be considered a 'random number'.
macd21 said:
DeathFromAbove said:
MMMmmm, sorry, but this is a random number. Why not 8, or 10 or 15 rounds?
Is it a random number, or does it represent the greatest frequency that the designers felt that backstabs would be possible?
It's the same. Since the opportunity to backstab is related to the specific situation, I can't felt a "recharge" number less then random.
macd21 said:
DeathFromAbove said:
MMMmmm, sorry, but this is a random number. Why not 8, or 10 or 15 rounds?
If you go with the increasing difficulty of spam attacks, then the increased difficulty you assign could be considered a 'random number'.
A rationale should be employed. Some action can generate fatigue/difficulty, others don't, like backstab that should be limited by the contingent situation.
DeathFromAbove said:
A rationale should be employed. Some action can generate fatigue/difficulty, others don't, like backstab that should be limited by the contingent situation.
The combat system is very abstract - the rationale is that the contingent situation doesn't arise more than once every X number of rounds. As for fatigue/difficulty - again the issue is whether that option is actually more entertaining and fun than the alternative, which is to not bother. I'm assuming FFG playtested other options and decided in this case that simpler was better (considering how many other complexities are in the system, I don't fault them for that here). And neither option is really more realistic than the other. Say you allow a backstab immediately following a backstab - is it really more realistic to add 5 to the difficulty? Maybe the realistic amount would be 8, with that dropped to 7 the next round, 5 after that, then 3, then 3 again, then 0? A 5-4-3-2-1 difficulty range is also pretty arbitrary. Alternatively the difficulty for a backstab within 5 rounds of a previous backstab could be 20-10-10-10-10-0. I mean, think about it - you try to backstab someone (say you fail)... the guy now know you are there and will probably turn to face you. He'll be wary of you from then on, so you have to wait until he's distracted enough to let you slip round behind him again... something that the RAW system assumes won't happen for 5 or 6 rounds, when you can try again.
macd21 said:
DeathFromAbove said:
A rationale should be employed. Some action can generate fatigue/difficulty, others don't, like backstab that should be limited by the contingent situation.
The combat system is very abstract - the rationale is that the contingent situation doesn't arise more than once every X number of rounds. As for fatigue/difficulty - again the issue is whether that option is actually more entertaining and fun than the alternative, which is to not bother. I'm assuming FFG playtested ...
Macd,
I really don't want to convince you that I'm right but, to me, playtesting ins't a good base to explaining every rules.
If you really want to find a rationale to justify every rule, you surely will suceed, no doubt in it.
So, as far as you enjoy it, keep it moving
Keep in mind, though, that you are fuelling the concept that these combat rules are all playtesting...
Every game, from boardgames, RPGs, and miniatures, has concessions made in the rules for gameplay. Simulation and realism can only go so far before they bog or change the flow of the game system. Sometimes these points can be seen during design, others during playtest. It comes down to, though, a mixture of ease of use/understanding and while still capturing the feeling/essence of what the rule wants to achieve.
dvang said:
Every game, from boardgames, RPGs, and miniatures, has concessions made in the rules for gameplay. Simulation and realism can only go so far before they bog or change the flow of the game system. Sometimes these points can be seen during design, others during playtest. It comes down to, though, a mixture of ease of use/understanding and while still capturing the feeling/essence of what the rule wants to achieve.
very true....im sure many people felt this way with DnD 3.5 ( ik i did) there was a complex rule for EVERYTHING!!!! and it took FOREVER to get it all down...and it became a great game....then 4E cam along and turn out to be a nice simple yet fun experience...but it is really to draw in the non pen and paper players....3.5 is the hardcore DnD fan game and where i must return to for DnD.....and i can see why people see that happeneing here....i understand....but! V3 isn DnD 4E.....its bigger then that....its more complex then we think....we only have gotten small tastes of the system....when we get to see the book....its gana blow our minds