https://daveswargames.blogspot.com/2019/04/conquerors-of-paellos-sector.html

Please let me know if I have missed anything.

7 minutes ago, LTD said:

https://daveswargames.blogspot.com/2019/04/conquerors-of-paellos-sector.html

Please let me know if I have missed anything.

Wonderful, thank you very much!

In.

8 hours ago, The Jabbawookie said:

Unstable hyperlanes: when a fleet uses a red hyperlane a D6 is rolled. On a 1 or 2, 10% of the traveling force is destroyed or scarred.

What would happen if a lone ship flew through a hyperlane and rolled a 1 or 2? Would it get scarred?

Also, I'm not sure why Vassal is even mentioned in the rules. Realistically speaking, battles never take place over Vassal, even if they're evenly matched.

9 hours ago, LTD said:

You can hold a baby and a bottle in one hand and type with the other.

I testify to this reality.

Considering it...

@The Jabbawookie What is the deadline to submit?

5 hours ago, The Jabbawookie said:

Each attacker and defender contributes one. Both the ability to bombard and, eventually, the 14 GF cap on-world should compensate.

Any reason not to stick with "vanilla" risk rules eg at most 3 attack and 2 defend?

It would save you a lot of time as GM...

Also, can you explain mechanistically how a 4 on 5 attack might work under your rules?

4 dice are rolled for attackers, 5 for defenders. What is the last defense dice compared to?

On 4/10/2019 at 9:05 AM, FortyInRed said:

Any reason not to stick with "vanilla" risk rules eg at most 3 attack and 2 defend?

It would save you a lot of time as GM...

Also, can you explain mechanistically how a 4 on 5 attack might work under your rules?

4 dice are rolled for attackers, 5 for defenders. What is the last defense dice compared to?

"The highest attack die is pitted against the highest defense die, etc. Tied pairs of dice go to the defender. Unmatched dice are added to the lowest matched die for a side."

I think this means if the attackers roll 9, 3, 8, 2 and the defenders roll 5, 1, 3, 8, 4

Match them like this:

9-8

8-5

3-4

2-3

Then that defender's unmatched 1 gets added to the defender's 3, making it 4 (although in this example, it wouldn't change the outcome).

Attacker loses two and defender loses two.

Can't say I envy Jabba, who has to process all this...

EDIT: Forgot that we'd be using a D6. So there wouldn't be 8 or 9 results. Whoops!

3 hours ago, FortyInRed said:

Any reason not to stick with "vanilla" risk rules eg at most 3 attack and 2 defend?

It would save you a lot of time as GM...

Also, can you explain mechanistically how a 4 on 5 attack might work under your rules? 

4 dice are rolled for attackers, 5 for defenders. What is the last defe  nse dice compared to?

Typically, the last die is dropped, isn't it? Like it is in risk. I.e., it isn't compared to anything.

I agree that the standard risk rules seem better. They were chosen for a reason, after all. Given that ties already go to the defender, having the defender have an equal (or greater, if they outnumber the attacker) number of dice could potentially swing the results too heavily in the defender's favor.

If we still have buffs debuffs, if they are from LTDs system. I think that should be open info or LTD, now a player, would have an advantage 😉

6 hours ago, FortyInRed said:

Any reason not to stick with "vanilla" risk rules eg at most 3 attack and 2 defend?

It would save you a lot of time as GM...

Also, can you explain mechanistically how a 4 on 5 attack might work under your rules?

4 dice are rolled for attackers, 5 for defenders. What is the last defense dice compared to?

2 hours ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

Typically, the last die is dropped, isn't it? Like it is in risk. I.e., it isn't compared to anything.

I agree that the standard risk rules seem better. They were chosen for a reason, after all. Given that ties already go to the defender, having the defender have an equal (or greater, if they outnumber the attacker) number of dice could potentially swing the results too heavily in the defender's favor. 

The main reason we aren't going with the standard rules is they'll take longer to resolve. This should be quicker and less prone to stalemate or gridlock, especially given the defender's ability to immediately reinforce. The lowest pair of dice being boosted is to solve scenarios where 7 attack dice lose to 1 lucky six without leading to a big difference in major conflicts.

If problems arise, we may switch to default rules. But for now, let's see if we can maintain the same level of speed as previous games. After all, it was previously impossible to invade at a disadvantage; now it's just a long shot.

14 minutes ago, The Jabbawookie said:

The  lowest    pai  r of dice being boosted is to solve scenarios where 7 attack     dic  e lose to 1 lucky six.

Respectfully, this statement makes me think you might want to brush up on how Risk rules work.

7 attack dice can only be defeated by 1 defense dice if the defender ties/beats the attacker 7 times in a row. You don't compare one defense dice to 7 attack dice.

According to this Risk probability calculator, you can expect that to happen less than 1% of the time if I'm reading this correctly:

http://diceroll.stritar.net/risk.html

That tells me you're adding complexity for a case that will almost never happen.

Also, I fail to see how this will be faster for you given that there are calculators that will literally do this for you:

http://www.morningtoast.com/feature/risk/result.php

I promise I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just confused by your logic. If there is some secret "just trust me" reason then I'll shut up and leave it be.

2 minutes ago, FortyInRed said:

Re  spectfully, this statement makes me think you might want to brush up on how Risk rules work.

Nope, you're right, no offense taken. It's clearly been a while since I've played Risk. Standard rules it is.

Currently looking for starting location submissions from @One-Eyed Emperor , @Bertie Wooster (if you're in,) @Matt3412 and @BiggsIRL . I'll set the deadline for... 36 hours.

2 hours ago, Matt3412 said:

If we still have buffs debuffs, if they are from LTDs system. I think that should be open info or LTD, now a player, would have an advantage 😉

My advantages are innate.

But to set your mind at rest we have no buffs or debuffs. Vanilla sides are we.

I have updated the rules via blog to reflect the RISK ground combat changes.

This change gives a slight advantage to the attacker over the F'Tarq rules, and a large advantage over the "roll a d6 for every unit" rules we had temporarily.

This is fine.

In using the Risk Dice Roller FortyInRed linked to above, it sometimes happens that an attacking GF survives even if the battle is lost, even if you set it to "0 must survive". This is because in standard RISK one soldier cannot attack since it would leave the territory empty behind it.

In that situation would the GM allow the GF to retreat back to the fleet, or would the GM force a battle of 1 GF vs whatever defenders remain? You would have to roll the dice physically.

EDIT: the solution is simply to use the calculator, but give the attacker an additional GF for default - so if 10 GF are attacking, use the calculator as though 11 were attacking - the results come out the same - just remember to report the surviving GF as 1 less after the battle.

2 minutes ago, LTD said:

In using the Risk Dice Roller FortyInRed linked to above, it sometimes happens that an attacking GF survives even if the battle is lost, even if you set it to "0 must survive". In that situation would the GM allow the GF to retreat back to the fleet, or would the GM force a battle of 1 GF vs whatever defenders remain?

The battle would continue until one side has no forces left. I can complete the battle manually.

Check my edits above.

Kashyyyk University Archaeology Department

Grrrrraaaarrrrr! Hhhummghhra nwurrr rowrigghh.

Rowrigghh hrmkuhhrnnn.

Grrrrrwwwwwrr!

I need to sit down and read all the rules tomorrow (Freezer time is not conducive to fresh understanding) before committing to play.

I'm in. Are we submitting a 200 point fleet like last time?

4 hours ago, Bertie Wooster said:

I'm in. Are we submitting a 200 point fleet like last time?

Yep. You don't have to submit it before you get your starting locations, but are certainly welcome to.

Also, is this the OC thread? Safe to assume once we get starting locations we can begin IC. I have something...special..planned

8 minutes ago, FortyInRed said:

Also, is this the OC thread? Safe to assume once we get starting locations we can begin IC. I have something...special..planned

this is correct

Alright, something came up and One-Eyed Emperor had to drop.

I have starting locations from everyone currently confirmed to be playing, and feel we have a low risk of overlap. You will therefore be receiving your starting locations. If you haven't made a fleet yet, please do so. I have fleets from Matt, idjmv, LTD, Bertie and GNIPs right now.

Remember, these are your sheets. So long as you are accurately communicating necessary information, modify them however you like. As always, planets you discover are yours to name; just make sure the first letter fits with the system.

Do we start with any ground forces as part of the 200 points and do we need ground forces to hold a planet (not just take it to begin with)? @The Jabbawookie