Globviously.
Gleesh!
Warhammer Lite - Doing away with Recharge tokens
http://users.telenet.be/Nisses/GameclockV2.jpg
PhantomDoodler: I kept it simple® than last time I hope
. I'll be using this thing on a trial this weekend. The above part is are just empty chits, 1 filled in the way I'll do it: Charactername & a number.
If a player takes an action, we roll, if it succeeds, he'll take a chit with his name on it, put the left side on the card, and the right side x spaces ahead of the dial.
It'll stay this way until the end of the turn, at which point we'll move the dial up one space. Any space that becomes active at the end, immediately recharges it's contents. This way, players all get their chits back at the same moment during the round. Slight difference with RAW: you don't recharge at the end of your action, but at the end of the turn. For reaction-action cards, this makes it a little bit slower. Other cards should be unaffected.
For players it's still simple: chit on your card? It's recharging.
Add/remove chits? Just move your paired chit up or down.
Duration? Unaffected.
Counting number of recharging abilities: unaffected.
Those with special recharges: just put a chit on it, but none on the clock (for example: recharges at moonrise...)
... so wait, are you trying to simplify things?
It's different for sure, it looks good and it can certainly do the job. I think it's a bit more complex and time consuming than just dropping three tokens on a card, but lets know how it works out
Doc,
Centralise mostly
Since I can't simplify (I have seen the light!) I'm going to reduce it to 1 central point, 1 moment during a turn, for everybody together.
And forget about your chits until the person that keeps initiative tells you it's up
I added an oven-timer kind of dial, because as soon as I made a mockup, I figured: it would be handy to easily see how much spaces exactly it takes to get to 5 or more.
I seem to have too much time on my hands lately, and I inevitably get struck by 12 different ideas. Lets hope after testing them all, at least 1 of them proves to be a keeper. This is a revisit, after a half-hearted attempt a few months ago.
I'll let you know how it turns out.
Gallows said:
Unless you have a good memory
lol. Now that would be the perfect solution, indeed. Unfortunalty, looks like human minds are made to forget. Poor pathetic humans.
@Nisses
Did you played the FFG Civilization board game? It has a spinning dial of the sort that works very well. It could give you some ideas!
Personally, I'm not too fond of this idea but... yeah, I understand where you're going with it.
To be honest aside from taking up a bit of table space I dont see a problem with the current setup - sure once and a while you forget to remove recharge counters but its not that hard to remember when you played which action and just remedy the fact .... the only real time consumer I see in our games (Im playing in Gallows group) is players not thinking about which action to take before their turn comes up and remembering their basic dice pool .... having to calculate from scratch each time
Boehm said:
To be honest aside from taking up a bit of table space I dont see a problem with the current setup - sure once and a while you forget to remove recharge counters but its not that hard to remember when you played which action and just remedy the fact .... the only real time consumer I see in our games (Im playing in Gallows group) is players not thinking about which action to take before their turn comes up and remembering their basic dice pool .... having to calculate from scratch each time
Yep. So a major time saver is to force everyone to pick their action right away and calculate their dice pool - when we have enough dice, they can even pick up the dice and be ready to make the check.
Picking an action, finding the dice, making the check and interpreting the check are by far the most time consuming part of combat. You can't so anything about making the check and reading the dice, but picking the action and assembling the dice pool can be done before your turn and if all players get that habbit it can be a major time saver.
We'll try this saturday and see if we can shave off time from this process... need more dice.
If we had enough dice each player could simply have his common dice pool for combat in front of him all the time and just add a few black and perhaps purple.
Gallows said:
We'll try this saturday and see if we can shave off time from this process... need more dice.
If we had enough dice each player could simply have his common dice pool for combat in front of him all the time and just add a few black and perhaps purple.
I just ordered a set of dice ...
- only problem is that the main content seems to be stance dice, where as far as I remember its usually always misfortune and difficulty dice we dont have enough of (maybe expertise too, when we reach a higher rank...)
Boehm said:
Gallows said:
We'll try this saturday and see if we can shave off time from this process... need more dice.
If we had enough dice each player could simply have his common dice pool for combat in front of him all the time and just add a few black and perhaps purple.
I just ordered a set of dice ...
- only problem is that the main content seems to be stance dice, where as far as I remember its usually always misfortune and difficulty dice we dont have enough of (maybe expertise too, when we reach a higher rank...)
Yeah the mix of dice in the set is stupid, but I guess it's just a matter of ordering enough of them.
It's the misfortune dice that are the issue mostly.
We currently have:
Blue: 20 (4 for each player and GM) Ok in combat when you have stance dice.
Green: 12 (2,4 for each player and GM) too few
Red: 12 (2,4 for each player and GM) too few
Yellow: 8 (1,6 for each player and GM) too few
Purple: 8 (for each player and GM) too few
White: 14 (2,8 for each player and GM) too few
Black: 10 (2 for each player and GM)) This is really bad
I ordered three packs and you ordered one. That gives us a new count of:
Blue: 32 (6,4 for each player and GM) OK
Green: 20 (4 for each player and GM) ok in most situations
Red: 20 (4 for each player and GM) ok in most situations
Yellow: 12 (2,4 for each player and GM) too few considering righteous successes
Purple: 12 (2,4 for each player and GM) too few , but can work if the dice are kept in a central location
White: 22 (4,4 for each player and GM) ok
Black: 14 (2,8 for each player and GM)
too few
To have a complete set for each player we would need to buy at least 5 sets more. Then the only die that would still be an issue would be the black with only 3,8 of those for each player. BUT it makes sense just to leave the challenge and misfortune dice in a central place, so each player just have one challenge as is the standard for combat. Then he can add the extra ones from the central location and put them back when done.
5 sets more and we should be set.
Blue: 47 too many , but who cares
Green: 30 (6 for each player and GM) perfect
Red: 30 (6 for each player and GM) perfect
Yellow: 17 (3,4 for each player and GM) perfect
Purple: 17 (3,4 for each player and GM) can work well if dice are in a central location
White: 27 (5,4 for each player and GM) perfect
Black: 19 (3,8 for each player and GM) too few in some situations , but keep the dice in a central location and it will work out
Jumping back a few replies:
Yes, I agree that gathering your dicepool & interpreting takes quite some time as well. Which is why I also already force the players to decide on their action up front.
Only solution to a quicker resolve there would be a tablet with your action cards & an automated roll. But then you lose too much of the feel of it. Who doesn't like to roll a big pile of dice?
As an update, I asked 2 people yesterday if they wouldn't mind trying a grid, and they were definitly up for it.
So it looks like I'm going to lean closer to Gallows' House Rules yet
Nisses said:
Jumping back a few replies:
Yes, I agree that gathering your dicepool & interpreting takes quite some time as well. Which is why I also already force the players to decide on their action up front.
Only solution to a quicker resolve there would be a tablet with your action cards & an automated roll. But then you lose too much of the feel of it. Who doesn't like to roll a big pile of dice?
As an update, I asked 2 people yesterday if they wouldn't mind trying a grid, and they were definitly up for it.
So it looks like I'm going to lean closer to Gallows' House Rules yet
Please tell me how it works out and if you get some additional ideas. My rules are very simple, and I like them to stay as close to core rules as possible.
Just an update for the grud system. Then using 4x4 squares as an engagement it's hard to let the effect be centered on one person. You'd need either 5x5 or 3x3. But I think 4x4 is perfect. I just decided that the player using the action can center the effect on a standup using any of the 4 central squares. This gives some control, but not complete.
Gallows said:
Please tell me how it works out and if you get some additional ideas. My rules are very simple, and I like them to stay as close to core rules as possible.
Just an update for the grud system. Then using 4x4 squares as an engagement it's hard to let the effect be centered on one person. You'd need either 5x5 or 3x3. But I think 4x4 is perfect. I just decided that the player using the action can center the effect on a standup using any of the 4 central squares. This gives some control, but not complete.
as an alternative how about stealing a bit of inspiration from D&D ... distinguishing between 'engagement' effects targeting a specific model .... vs. those affecting an area (ie. where its possible to target an empty square)
Where an attack targeting a specific target (vs. defence)... with secondary effects vs. all others in engagement could be translated to attack vs. creature w. effects on all others within 2 sq. (effectively making the engagement be a 5 x 5 sq.)
Then attacks targeting an engagement (ie. not attacking a specific target - not vs. target defence) - could be run as simply a 4 x 4 sq area, where its placement flexibility (not forced to center on a model) should compensate for the slightly smaller area.
Boehm said:
Gallows said:
Please tell me how it works out and if you get some additional ideas. My rules are very simple, and I like them to stay as close to core rules as possible.
Just an update for the grud system. Then using 4x4 squares as an engagement it's hard to let the effect be centered on one person. You'd need either 5x5 or 3x3. But I think 4x4 is perfect. I just decided that the player using the action can center the effect on a standup using any of the 4 central squares. This gives some control, but not complete.
as an alternative how about stealing a bit of inspiration from D&D ... distinguishing between 'engagement' effects targeting a specific model .... vs. those affecting an area (ie. where its possible to target an empty square)
Where an attack targeting a specific target (vs. defence)... with secondary effects vs. all others in engagement could be translated to attack vs. creature w. effects on all others within 2 sq. (effectively making the engagement be a 5 x 5 sq.)
Then attacks targeting an engagement (ie. not attacking a specific target - not vs. target defence) - could be run as simply a 4 x 4 sq area, where its placement flexibility (not forced to center on a model) should compensate for the slightly smaller area.
Yeah I've been thinking along the same lines. It's not that relevant right now, but lets check your actions and the wizards actions and see. I want to keep it very simple, so it's easy to remember.
Your suggestion is simple enough with two different types of AOE.
1. Targeting a specific target or square and then the effect expanding two squares around that center.
2. Targeting an area of 4x4 squares for all effects where there isn't a specific target.
Lets do that and see what happends when situations arise... then we can see if it works and feels natural with each card. I like the rules to be so that it's common sense what happends when you read a card, so we don't need house rules for specific cards or group of cards.
Gallows,
Where did you get your battle-grid map anyway?
Did you create one yourself?
Are there good methods for making on, or good sites where you can buy one?
Gallows said:
Yeah the mix of dice in the set is stupid, but I guess it's just a matter of ordering enough of them.
It's the misfortune dice that are the issue mostly.
We currently have:
Blue: 20 (4 for each player and GM) Ok in combat when you have stance dice.
Green: 12 (2,4 for each player and GM) too few
Red: 12 (2,4 for each player and GM) too few
Yellow: 8 (1,6 for each player and GM) too few
Purple: 8 (for each player and GM) too few
White: 14 (2,8 for each player and GM) too few
Black: 10 (2 for each player and GM)) This is really bad
I ordered three packs and you ordered one. That gives us a new count of:
Blue: 32 (6,4 for each player and GM) OK
Green: 20 (4 for each player and GM) ok in most situations
Red: 20 (4 for each player and GM) ok in most situations
Yellow: 12 (2,4 for each player and GM) too few considering righteous successes
Purple: 12 (2,4 for each player and GM) too few , but can work if the dice are kept in a central location
White: 22 (4,4 for each player and GM) ok
Black: 14 (2,8 for each player and GM)
too few
To have a complete set for each player we would need to buy at least 5 sets more. Then the only die that would still be an issue would be the black with only 3,8 of those for each player. BUT it makes sense just to leave the challenge and misfortune dice in a central place, so each player just have one challenge as is the standard for combat. Then he can add the extra ones from the central location and put them back when done.
5 sets more and we should be set.
Blue: 47 too many , but who cares
Green: 30 (6 for each player and GM) perfect
Red: 30 (6 for each player and GM) perfect
Yellow: 17 (3,4 for each player and GM) perfect
Purple: 17 (3,4 for each player and GM) can work well if dice are in a central location
White: 27 (5,4 for each player and GM) perfect
Black: 19 (3,8 for each player and GM) too few in some situations , but keep the dice in a central location and it will work out
This is why splitting dice up per player is a bad idea. If you share the pool, that's more than enough dice.
Doc, the Weasel said:
This is why splitting dice up per player is a bad idea. If you share the pool, that's more than enough dice.
No it's not a bad idea. It's just a rather expensive idea. But if saving time is your primary goal it's a great idea. If saving money is your primary goal it's not a great idea.
Gallows said:
Doc, the Weasel said:
This is why splitting dice up per player is a bad idea. If you share the pool, that's more than enough dice.
No it's not a bad idea. It's just a rather expensive idea. But if saving time is your primary goal it's a great idea. If saving money is your primary goal it's not a great idea.
Fair enough, though I'd dispute how much time it saves.
Doc, the Weasel said:
Gallows said:
Doc, the Weasel said:
This is why splitting dice up per player is a bad idea. If you share the pool, that's more than enough dice.
No it's not a bad idea. It's just a rather expensive idea. But if saving time is your primary goal it's a great idea. If saving money is your primary goal it's not a great idea.
Fair enough, though I'd dispute how much time it saves.
Finding dice, and making the check if by far the most time consuming part of combat in my experience. All the rest is very quick. If you have enough dice, it's much easier for people to just have their dice pool ready.
Gallows,
Where did you get your battle-grid map anyway?
Did you create one yourself?
Are there good methods for making on, or good sites where you can buy one?
It's a chessex battle mat. Very good quality. Just make sure you're using the right markers. Dry erase markers aren't good. You need wet erase markers. They are shown on the chessex website.
Doc, the Weasel said:
Gallows said:
Doc, the Weasel said:
This is why splitting dice up per player is a bad idea. If you share the pool, that's more than enough dice.
No it's not a bad idea. It's just a rather expensive idea. But if saving time is your primary goal it's a great idea. If saving money is your primary goal it's not a great idea.
Fair enough, though I'd dispute how much time it saves.
It saves some time
Not sure how much either.
BUT perhaps it's better to just enjoy it instead of making it a holy crusade to save time. I think that crusade will hurt the game more than spending 10 minutes too long on a fight.
Black Templars, forward the Crusade!
I programmed myself a diceroller for my android the past week. It interprets all dice together and shows me the endresult directly. Now *this* is saving me some more time
The players can keep all the dice and so they don't lose that lovin' feeling of gathering, rolling ,interpreting, but I prefer getting my results directly
Since starting with WFRP3 when it came out and campaigning now since late 2009 I have characters that are Rank 4. I have thought about house ruling this and house ruling that but EVERY time I do it I regret it. It seems to take away from, IMO, the delicate balance the developers had in mind. The classic example is adding a Challenge die to attacks to make them all "Average" difficulty.
As far as active defenses I am considering the following.
For each fortune die in an ability you also gain a misfortune die to those targeting against you.
For example: 2 Fortune in STR add to your attack rolls but also 2 misfortune on actions when you parry. This adds to improved defenses as well. So a character with Improved Parry and a fortune die in STR wearing Chain armor (Def 1, Soak 2) would have the attacking NPC add 2 challenge die and 2 Black before attacking.
This can be done for Block, Dodge, FEL (social combat) as well
For additional flexibility you could also have the characters decide if they want to purchase the fortune die to an ability as a misfortune defense or fortune die. Further you could also allow characters to purchase a point of Defense in place of a Fortune Die advancement if they have AGILITY as a career attribute.
My advice is be careful what you house rule---most likely you will change your mind later
limelight said:
Since starting with WFRP3 when it came out and campaigning now since late 2009 I have characters that are Rank 4. I have thought about house ruling this and house ruling that but EVERY time I do it I regret it. It seems to take away from, IMO, the delicate balance the developers had in mind. The classic example is adding a Challenge die to attacks to make them all "Average" difficulty.
As far as active defenses I am considering the following.
For each fortune die in an ability you also gain a misfortune die to those targeting against you.
For example: 2 Fortune in STR add to your attack rolls but also 2 misfortune on actions when you parry. This adds to improved defenses as well. So a character with Improved Parry and a fortune die in STR wearing Chain armor (Def 1, Soak 2) would have the attacking NPC add 2 challenge die and 2 Black before attacking.
This can be done for Block, Dodge, FEL (social combat) as well
For additional flexibility you could also have the characters decide if they want to purchase the fortune die to an ability as a misfortune defense or fortune die. Further you could also allow characters to purchase a point of Defense in place of a Fortune Die advancement if they have AGILITY as a career attribute.
My advice is be careful what you house rule---most likely you will change your mind later
Since we already know what the epic defence cards look like you could allow your players to buy those at level four.
They do about the same as the regular improved defence, but then add a bane and a challenge to the result.
Heroes expansion comming soon everywhere though.
I try to review my house rules often and certainly after each expansion with the goal of removing stuff from it rather than adding stuff. I want it as simple as possible.
I REALLY like your stat fortune die defenses idea. I made up my houserule for active defenses based on your excellent idea here :