Hello everyone, just wanted to ask if someone has tried to use the descent attack dice with no X on it.

I dont own Imperial Assault but recently i just saw that the blue dice doesnt have any type of fail on it. I play the overlord mainly and my players often get quite frustrated when they roll an X and even when i do it because it usually **** up an entire game plan.

Has anyone tried to make it something like a 1 Distance(to help ranged chars if they roll aditional distance bonus on a yellow dice) and 1 Dmg (or maybe no dmg so melee heroes doesnt become too powerfull)? Could be this too unbalanced? Ive read that imperial assault players are quite happy with that decision that FFG made of not having a fail on their dices.

Sorry for my english, its not my main language.

Well, 1 miss chance in 6 is a great chance in my opinion, but it's ok. I jus wanted different 'blue dice' depending on character, creatures, level and so on. An eight sided, a ten sided...something like that. Tere was a discussion about that in another topic. I pointed that it's not very reallistic a dumb kobold archer have the same chance to hit like a master char, at the end of a campaign. But, you know, this is how life is.

By the way, Merry Christmas to everyone

I think you are asking about simply removing the x from the Descent blue dice, yes? Not taking the blue dice from Descent for use in IA, right?

If that's the case, I'd make two points.

1.) The tradeoff in IA is that characters who are supposed to be agile roll a white defense dice that has low defense results but a 1:6 chance to dodge all damage. There is still a miss/X result, it is just on the defense dice for SOME characters, rather than being on all attacks regardless of target. (You probably knew this, but it wasn't clear)

2.) I think having NO miss result would unbalance things (even though it wouldn't be unbalanced as the OL would benefit from it as well). It would remove a large portion of the chance element from the game, which would make strategies more foolproof, but having the occasional miss makes the heroes fallible, which is important for balance, IMO.

I've been interested myself in how descent would play with a complete swap for the Imperial Assault dice.

The results are slightly different, for example, whereas only the grey defence die has the X symbol, completely negating all damage, the black die will always either block at least 1 damage, or evade one surge. Little changes like this help balance the lack of the X result being on the blue dice.

On the whole, damage, range, and number of surges are similar overall, however how they are distributed is more spread.

I imagine if you swap everything it wouldn't affect the balance too much (but I could be completely wrong), however it would be difficult to pick and choose the dice. The only obvious issue I can see with a complete swap is that IA has no brown defence die.

I'd be interested to see if anyone has ran the numbers (the expected values look similar on the whole) or if there is something about he balance that I have completely overlooked.

There are damage calculators both for Descent and AI. Here you go:

https://chaoschaoticus.github.io/Descent-Damage-Calculator/

http://mattyellen.github.io/imperial-assault-calculator/

Just plug in your Dice and see whats happening.

Personally:

I like the idea of IA to give agile characters the possibility to evade all damage instead of the attacker being sloppy. However, canceling a surge is strong and should in my view be bound to an item (as it is right now in Descent)

Anyhow:

I really think you need the chance for an X in games like this as a randomizing element. Without it, plans could hardly fail and you'd know right from the start of an encounter who will win. I would also oppose the view that the blue die should have more faces (reducing the chance for an X). Yes, I agree it is very frustrating to roll the X but with a chance of 1:6 you have to take this into account (for all your plans). If the chance would be lower, people would take the assumption that they can't fail anyway and may be even more frustrated if the X shows up eventually. Also, the usefulness of re-rolls (favors, cards, hero abilities etc) would decrease drastically.

Having said all that, I think heroes like Reynhart the Worthy or Thaiden Mistpeak are the best choice for people who get easily frustrated. There are more heroes than have the possibility to re-roll the blue die or do something good with the X:

Karnon

Krutzbeck

Laurel of the Bloodwood

Lindel

Lyssa

Shilouette

Widow Thara

So, I dare say there are plenty of choices for people who get frustrated easily (I am one of them to some extent )

I think the dice system in Descent is pretty good. Regarding the X, maybe that could be more like a traditional 'attack' stat. Like an attribute test. If you want to hit with a melee weapon, you must make a strength check. In that way, the miss will feel more as a consequence of your choices, after all, you chose the hero with only 3 strength to be the berserker. In any case, to me the X feels a little too much like pure randomness that is not based on something meaningful. If Descent had a mechanic for a trade-off that would also be a good fix. Like, remove a power die to reroll the blue die on an X or give an attack stat to the weapon indicating how hard it is to land a hit with that specific weapon.

Imagine if every weapon had a number and you had to roll range (now called 'attack' or something) equal or greater than that number to hit. As a player, you are now making choices. Pick the weaker weapon that is easy to hit with, or the stronger weapon knowing very well your chances to hit are going to decrease.

I really like this idea of yours. I might experiment with the following houserule in my next game:

After rolling an X, a figure may choose to do one of the following:

Heroes:

Meele weapon or unarmed: Strength test.

Ranged weapon (non-magic): Awareness test.

Randged weapon (magic, non-rune): Willpower test.

Ranged weapon (magic, rune): Wisdom test.

Allys, Lieutenants, NPCs with Attributes:

Test highest Attribute.

Agents, Monsters, NPCS without Attributes:

Test with a target value of 3.

Failing a test means the attack is a miss as usual. Success in a test allows one reroll of the blue die. This can be done only once per attack. Other abilities, items or cards that influence the blue die or the X result can be applied either before using this ability or after rolling a second X, active player chooses.

This might help to appease players who are frustrated because of an X chain (it happened to us all at least once), and it would even make the decision which kind of weapon to use for each hero a bit more meaningful, but not overly so. In consequence there will be a lot less X results in meele, but there is still a higher possibility for ranged misses due to insufficient range. The heroes will potentially benefit more from this change, but as an usual overlord player I´m ok with that.

I think the dice system in Descent is pretty good. Regarding the X, maybe that could be more like a traditional 'attack' stat. Like an attribute test. If you want to hit with a melee weapon, you must make a strength check. In that way, the miss will feel more as a consequence of your choices, after all, you chose the hero with only 3 strength to be the berserker. In any case, to me the X feels a little too much like pure randomness that is not based on something meaningful. If Descent had a mechanic for a trade-off that would also be a good fix. Like, remove a power die to reroll the blue die on an X or give an attack stat to the weapon indicating how hard it is to land a hit with that specific weapon.

Imagine if every weapon had a number and you had to roll range (now called 'attack' or something) equal or greater than that number to hit. As a player, you are now making choices. Pick the weaker weapon that is easy to hit with, or the stronger weapon knowing very well your chances to hit are going to decrease.

I really like this idea of yours. I might experiment with the following houserule in my next game:

After rolling an X, a figure may choose to do one of the following:

Heroes:

Meele weapon or unarmed: Strength test.

Ranged weapon (non-magic): Awareness test.

Randged weapon (magic, non-rune): Willpower test.

Ranged weapon (magic, rune): Wisdom test.

Allys, Lieutenants, NPCs with Attributes:

Test highest Attribute.

Agents, Monsters, NPCS without Attributes:

Test with a target value of 3.

Failing a test means the attack is a miss as usual. Success in a test allows one reroll of the blue die. This can be done only once per attack. Other abilities, items or cards that influence the blue die or the X result can be applied either before using this ability or after rolling a second X, active player chooses.

This might help to appease players who are frustrated because of an X chain (it happened to us all at least once), and it would even make the decision which kind of weapon to use for each hero a bit more meaningful, but not overly so. In consequence there will be a lot less X results in meele, but there is still a higher possibility for ranged misses due to insufficient range. The heroes will potentially benefit more from this change, but as an usual overlord player I´m ok with that.

I like that you made a first attempt at 'improving' the dice system, though it is different from what I had in mind. Because this testing and rerolling drags out the attack and makes it somewhat more cumbersome. Also I was aiming at something that might replace the X completely. I don't think you should so easily get a second chance when attacking, when you decide to swing your axe there is no stopping! The problem of the X (imo) is not that an ever existing chance of failure is present, but that the X is not the best way to implement this randomness.

Maybe I didn't explain it well enough in my earlier post, so I will try to rephrase it:

The failure of an attack is currently an obstacle the players have to deal, instead of a tool they choose themselves to address an obstacle (monster or hero). The X rarely feels 'fair'. Especially if the Knight can't hit a zombie with a sword, but the Thief can suddenly use a magic weapon with great success in the same turn which can be comical in some situations.

What if stronger weapons were more difficult to hit with than weaker weapons? What if players can improve their characters chance to hit in some way?

Even if you can only chance your success rate by a small percentage, to me a failure that results from that would feel as my own gamble or me being reckless, and not RNGesus slapping me in the face.

I´ll argue that the X IS in fact fair in essence, because ANY figure can roll it. Now sure, heroes can get access to re-rolls, and the Overlord also has a few cards allowing him/her to do so as well.

I wouldn't be too happy about Warrior heroes missing less than any other archetype in melee because of their higher Might (closest to Strength). I have always understood a miss as not only being the attacker missing an attack, but also the defender making a succesful parade, or some environment-related event making the attack miss. Even though this raw X does not owe us any explanation (which is why I understand it can feel rather "dry" to some), I find it thematic in a sense. It's up to us to interprete it.

There has been talks about this X for a long time now, mostly people coming from IA complaining about it since it has no direct equivalent in that game. I´m not here to say what's right or wrong, to each his own, but I´ll say that rolling that blue die is the only moment in that game where I hold my breath and feel completely submerged by the experience this game can offer. So much can depend on it, and so much is building up before it. Then following a X, deciding to burn a re-roll or simply think over the strategy.

It can feel unfair to lose on a dice roll. Been there, done that, I won't argue that. But ****, if it wasn't here... I dunno. I would truly miss it. No pun intended, lol.

I don't get the hate over the "X". Since the times of D&D if you rolled badly on an attack you miss. Granted, rolling a '1' on a d6 is much more likely than on a d20, but the principal remains the same.

In addition to re-roll abilities, there are numerous options for players who just can't stand ever missing an attack. They can play as Reinhardt the Worthy, or take advantage of skills from classes like the Monk or Skirmisher, or items like the Golden Mask to never have to deal with a miss.

Its not like Imperial Assault was exempt either. The odds of missing were the exact same when attacking any figure with a white defense die, of which there are plenty.

This also allows lucky and exciting turn-around situations when one side is in dire straights. If attacks can never out-right fail, then there is the slow creeping inevitability of defeat for a losing side as they get worn away, feeling like they can never regain their footing the way they can if the winner suddenly starts whiffing.

I don't get the hate over the "X". Since the times of D&D if you rolled badly on an attack you miss. Granted, rolling a '1' on a d6 is much more likely than on a d20, but the principal remains the same.

In addition to re-roll abilities, there are numerous options for players who just can't stand ever missing an attack. They can play as Reinhardt the Worthy, or take advantage of skills from classes like the Monk or Skirmisher, or items like the Golden Mask to never have to deal with a miss.

Its not like Imperial Assault was exempt either. The odds of missing were the exact same when attacking any figure with a white defense die, of which there are plenty.

This also allows lucky and exciting turn-around situations when one side is in dire straights. If attacks can never out-right fail, then there is the slow creeping inevitability of defeat for a losing side as they get worn away, feeling like they can never regain their footing the way they can if the winner suddenly starts whiffing.

My point was never that the X is not a fair mechanic, in contrary, it is vital to the game. I just believe it has some poor gift-wrap. A lot of people think that in IA it is somewhat better presented because a miss not a failure (of not hitting), but it is a success (of dodging). You say players can choose hero's like Reynhardt, and I agree. But why do they chose them? Because they perceive that the X is not fair. You could then say that these players should suck it up, and I also agree with that, but let me give you an example. In WoW the mmorpg there used to be a penalty for being 'unrested' and a lot of people hated it. Blizzard then did something genius. They changed the 'unrested' condition to the normal situation and you could take some action in order to restore to what was previous the 'normal' condition. And people liked it because it now felt as a bonus instead of a penalty while in fact, nothing changed. I believe that if FFG would do something similar to the 'X' mechanic, Descent would be even better.

Note that some effects are based on an attack rolling a X, so the X is not necessarly the end of things either. The Overlord has a few plot cards using it, and Airborne from Infector deck. heroes also have a few cards if I´m not mistaken. Thus house ruling out the X would invalidate some of these cards, which for me defeats the question of getting rid of it at the first place.

But honestly I like the brutality of the X and I don't really feel like I would have liked a better "presentation" around it. You miss, next in line, thank you very much - kind of.

I also like that the X can be mitigated and is not completely absolute.

I think choosing a hero like Reinhardt helps building a slightly different strategy, rather than feeling forced to do so to get rid of something unfair. So this choice can be seen as productive.

The X was originally used in Doom: The Board Game, and its successor Descent first edition due to fixed armor values. There were no defense dice back then. Both the heroes and the OL could strategically plan their targets because they could more reliably calculate the expected number of wounds to be inflicted.

In addition, the damage and range were kept within a tighter probability range. Look at the blue attack die in 2nd ed. The results for range are 2,3,4,5,6, all with equal probabilities. In the original you could have 1,1,2,3,3 - much tighter.

Selecting your targets and predicting dice results was much easier in Doom and 1st Ed. The X helped from keeping these targets dying all the time for both sides. In 2nd ed, the defense, damage, and range results are way more widespread, and it can be argued that the X result could have been removed in the original design of 2nd. Ed, but I wouldn't mess with it now.

I don't really see how it can be concluded that the X would be less justified/relevant in D2E, for the reason that the variance of the range result is higher compared to the game's previous incarnation.

You brought up range, but damage-wise the variance on the attack roll is much tighter than that. Your comparison is flawed anyway, because in D2E you only roll ONE blue dice and that nearly all range comes from that dice roll (yellow/green only adding +1 at best), so it's not really comparable.

Then why would anyone want a tighter variance of range anyway? You want long shots to be possible in this game so you actually consider trying one. There are also Sorcery effects completely relying on rolling high numbers that would suffer from a tighter variance on the roll.

None of this matters at all because of the surges anyway?

Then about the part about being able to calculate/estimate the damage more accurately without the X or with tighter variance on the dice result, well that sounds ultra-boring in my opinion.

EDIT: yellow dice can give +2 range, my bad

Sorry, but I think my post is still relevant. I'll try to explain it in a different way.

2nd. ed uses a wider range result (2-6), tighter damage, single-use surges, and random defense. Combat results are much harder to predict, and so a hero or monster could fail an attack for many reasons:

- insufficient range,

- not enough damage,

- too high defense.

1st. ed used a narrower range result, higher damage output, stacked surges, and fixed defense. So you could calculate more easily the combat outcome, and very often a hero would say, "Yeah I'll kill that monster in one hit." Since you could predict the range more easily, it was unlikely to get a range failure. Since damage was higher and surges stacked, you could easily roll enough to kill most monsters. So, instead of failing an attack for several reasons, usually it was just one:

- rolling an X.

The X was basically the only thing that prevented both sides from calculating their plans perfectly. And to be honest, it was a little unrealistic. Why would a hero, otherwise able to take down an ogre in one hit, suddenly miss? Why does his accuracy never improve?

I believe 2nd. edition addressed this problem by inventing multiple ways to fail an attack. Missing due to the above three reasons makes the combat feel tighter in 2nd. ed. More realistic, I would argue. My point was that in 2nd. ed, since there were already all these steps taken to attempt to make combat more realistic, why on top of that, include a 1/6 chance of a critical miss?

If additional chance for a miss is needed, perhaps it could have been done differently. For example, in Imperial Assault, as others mentioned (although I have not played that game), it seems an "X-like" result is available for many, but not all, opponents. Others have suggested missing an attack based on an attribute-comparison, etc. There are other ways around it. My point was that a 1/6 chance of a critical miss may not have been necessary in 2nd. ed in addition to the multitude of other ways to fail. However, as I did not design the game, I can't say why it was included.

As for which combat system is "better," I think that's purely a matter of taste. I think we can all agree that having multiple or more realistic ways to fail an attack (as done in 2nd. ed) is more interesting than having an X result affect every hero and monster in the land.

Thanks for clarifying.

Well sure, if you shoot a Golem from long distance then yes there are quite a few ways for you to miss that attack, and that's not even considering the X. The X can be quite deceptive in that sense.

However I will claim that long shots are rarely seen. Heroes tend to stick together and avoid that problem. If they shoot from 5+ range it's because they have no other choice. My players would rather spend a fatigue to move closer one space to get that 4 range side of the dice on their side. Bearing in mind no bonus to range.

A monster can get a high defense roll negating the attack, that much is true. But without the X each melee attack would connect anyway. There are plenty of extra damage or surges you can get from various hero abilities or gear as long as you don't roll the X. I think it's nice these abilities are conditional.

I would think that the most represented case in the game is a standard melee attack against a small monster rolling a brown or a grey dice on defense. if the X was not there, there would be virtually nothing preventing them from dying every attack, really. It's an issue in the mid-late game where every hero attack is 5+ damage minimum. As the Overlord, I sometimes don't even get to roll the defense dice. Begininng of campaign sure, the X might not be needed as per your theory, but in the mid/late game I think it is essential.

Sorry, but I think my post is still relevant. I'll try to explain it in a different way.

2nd. ed uses a wider range result (2-6), tighter damage, single-use surges, and random defense. Combat results are much harder to predict, and so a hero or monster could fail an attack for many reasons:

- insufficient range,

- not enough damage,

- too high defense.

1st. ed used a narrower range result, higher damage output, stacked surges, and fixed defense. So you could calculate more easily the combat outcome, and very often a hero would say, "Yeah I'll kill that monster in one hit." Since you could predict the range more easily, it was unlikely to get a range failure. Since damage was higher and surges stacked, you could easily roll enough to kill most monsters. So, instead of failing an attack for several reasons, usually it was just one:

- rolling an X.

The X was basically the only thing that prevented both sides from calculating their plans perfectly. And to be honest, it was a little unrealistic. Why would a hero, otherwise able to take down an ogre in one hit, suddenly miss? Why does his accuracy never improve?

I believe 2nd. edition addressed this problem by inventing multiple ways to fail an attack. Missing due to the above three reasons makes the combat feel tighter in 2nd. ed. More realistic, I would argue. My point was that in 2nd. ed, since there were already all these steps taken to attempt to make combat more realistic, why on top of that, include a 1/6 chance of a critical miss?

If additional chance for a miss is needed, perhaps it could have been done differently. For example, in Imperial Assault, as others mentioned (although I have not played that game), it seems an "X-like" result is available for many, but not all, opponents. Others have suggested missing an attack based on an attribute-comparison, etc. There are other ways around it. My point was that a 1/6 chance of a critical miss may not have been necessary in 2nd. ed in addition to the multitude of other ways to fail. However, as I did not design the game, I can't say why it was included.

As for which combat system is "better," I think that's purely a matter of taste. I think we can all agree that having multiple or more realistic ways to fail an attack (as done in 2nd. ed) is more interesting than having an X result affect every hero and monster in the land.

I don't think the main reason to introduce (or keep) the X was because they needed randomness to the combat. Of course, they needed the randomness but FFG could come up with a dozen ways to added randomness (and therefore, excitement). But because they advertised 2ed as a 'streamlined' version, the X was the easiest way because it is very simple to understand. Every attack has 1/6 chance to miss is a hell of a lot easier to explain to (new) players than a more thematic, immersive, realistic system of attributes and adding numbers found on dice and calculating and taking into account all sorts of modifiers that affect your chance to hit. Especially since you already need to factor other variables in a dice roll such as pierce, surges, hearts, shields, and range. When I started playing this game I would often stare at the dice results trying to comprehend what they all meant for my attack. When I play with new players I notice that I now process this information a lot faster than them.