Jump to content
S..Mike

3rd Edition Critical Hit Table

Recommended Posts

Interesting chart for this edition, there's a lot of changes to take in.  I like that you've combined a couple of systems into one chart, that's a step in the right direction.  I see that most of the effects retain the same flavor as in v2, with some mechanical changes.  I like most of these changes, there was some thought to making sure that they apply to all factions, such that, for example Dindrezi don't have ignore no shields.  Also, where's 11-12?  That said, I do have a few critiques.

I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that effects should scale in approximate "badness" as you deviate from the average roll of 7, with 2 and 12 being the "worst" results possible.  Reactor overload is really bad now, I can see even a T1 getting gutted on an unlucky series of rolls.  Whether you consider this good or not largely relies on if you're rolling ore receiving hits, I imagine.  I assume 12 will be something similarly traumatic (the current one is pretty meh in most circumstances).

Given the scaling, I think some of the effects are clearly less worse than others.  I'm particularly concerned with the Defence Systems Overload.  While it's certainly nice that models without a cloak or shield do something now, getting a Disorder marker is exceptionally meh compared to the effects against ships that rely on these technologies to fight.  I'd like it better if you'd roll again on the sub-systems chart instead of having an effect that might or might not actually do anything.

If you could post the mirror for Reactor Leak and Reactor Overload, it would be appreciated.  It's hard to consider the balance of those effects when you can't see what they're weighted against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that the full chart is available, I can say that Reactor Leak and Chaos and Disarray have an interesting balance between them.  While Reactor Leak presents more immediate damages within the current turn, C&D presents at least potentially far greater downside in future turns.  I think this match-up is interesting and the preferred option would likely pass back and forth between the two depending on where you're at in a turn and other similar factors.  Having no clear-cut option be a winner is exactly where you want to be, good job.

That matching between Reactor Overload and Fold Drive Rupture though...  I'm not sure what to say.  Is the additional damage a step in the right direction?  Absolutely, and I want to acknowledge that.  In the current version these effects are so mismatched in strength that it isn't even funny.  However, I'm not sure how to rate the possibility of damaging additional ships against moving in a random direction.  You aren't likely to go off the table (you have to be close enough to an enemy for them to have enough guns to punch your CR, after all), and colliding with a planet is a total luck-based situation depending on your table setup and randomness in the roll.  I would rate this as worse than Reactor Overload, particularly if people are still encouraged to tightly group in v3 to get SRS coverage.  In the current meta, a Reactor Overload can hit a surprisingly large amount of targets due to this clustering.

I would suggest then that maybe moving the damage for Rupture to 4D3 (or 3D3 if you don't want the damage floor to be that high, though I think 4D3 is a better balance to match up with no likelihood of multiple ship impacts) instead of 2D6 might lend some more balance? This would make the minimum roll much better (for damage) and the maximum roll the same, while making both extremes less likely.  It would basically serve to better cluster the result around the average result and reduce the luck factor.  I think having a higher minimum with the same maximum makes for a good trade-off versus Reactor Overload.  No potential for hurting multiple ships would be balanced by a guarantee of a more significant hit against the main target.  Fold Rupture has always been detrimental to an individual ship (by putting it out of coherency range for PD/SRS) rather than a hazard to the fleet, and this would reinforce that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, alextroy said:

Reactor Overload for 2d6 Hull Points. All Ships within 6" take damage off a single roll.

We really want to go back to the days of a lucky turn one Crit ends the game?

its not all that different in 2.0, they just extended the range (which makes it more epic, its squad has to be that close)

but it rarely turned tides completely

1. you have to crit

2. you have to roll snake eyes,  1/36 chance

3. 2d6 has to kill it, or no boom :unsure:

4 if it kills its an attack using double the hull value, so for cruisers 8 to 10 AD by old models, not devastating

however, when you do get lucky and one shot the battleship with  a 1 in 36th chance crit, and roll 12 damage on 2d6 (also 1/36) and it blows up with 24 AD criting all who are near...yes that changes the game, but THAT GAME WILL NEVER BE FORGOTTON           REMEMBER DRAMOS! or at REMEBER THE (ship name)

 

and if luck strikes that hard, in or against your favor, the rest of the game was going that way anyway right ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just as an aside, its super fun to paint squad and individual insignia on your ships, and list some of there greatest achievments :) 

I have a frigate that on 2 occasions has finished a tier one capital with a very lucky solo shot...they always target it first now :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a few things wrong here @Polaris.

Yes, you need to crit the ship, roll the Snake Eyes and then destroy it with 2d6 damage (6-8 HPs will be the average result). This is Stage One Lucky. Still, in 2.0, you couldn't destroy anything bigger than at Battlecruiser this way. Now even a Dreadnaught can fall victim to this.

Then there is Stage 2 Lucky. Regardless of how large or small the ship you Reactor Overload off the board, you roll one damage roll of twice it's HPs. Your average 4 HP Cruiser means 8 AD, while a 8 HP Battleship means 16 AD. The result of this one roll is applied to every ship within 6". If your 8 AD results in 10 Hits (I do this on a semi regular basis), every ship within 6" takes 10 Hits! Get out your dice, because it is Critical Hit time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know,  its just that it's so rare, we usually didn't get too upset when it happened, mostly cause t's so darn cool :) 

but hey if your not a fan, just house rule that it does 2d6 to the model in question, or a set 5, no boom

whatever your local meta wants :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, alextroy said:

Yes, you need to crit the ship, roll the Snake Eyes and then destroy it with 2d6 damage (6-8 HPs will be the average result). This is Stage One Lucky. Still, in 2.0, you couldn't destroy anything bigger than at Battlecruiser this way. Now even a Dreadnaught can fall victim to this.

 

if that's the case, battlecruisers are still the only thing threatned, the damage hasn't changed fro 2.0 just the radius

8 minutes ago, alextroy said:

Then there is Stage 2 Lucky. Regardless of how large or small the ship you Reactor Overload off the board, you roll one damage roll of twice it's HPs. Your average 4 HP Cruiser means 8 AD, while a 8 HP Battleship means 16 AD. The result of this one roll is applied to every ship within 6". If your 8 AD results in 10 Hits (I do this on a semi regular basis), every ship within 6" takes 10 Hits! Get out your dice, because it is Critical Hit time.

very true, but like I said, if lucks against you, you may as well lose in turn one anyway, so you can start the next game :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, alextroy said:

Reactor Overload for 2d6 Hull Points. All Ships within 6" take damage off a single roll.

We really want to go back to the days of a lucky turn one Crit ends the game?

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the many complaints about the 2.0 Reactor Overload, I don't expect there will be many players less than pleased at making that result even more extreme. a 1/18 (5.6%) chance (both 2 and 12 result in 2d6 HP Damage) of a ship just disappearing from a barely Critical Hit is not 'awesome' its 'deflating' and game changing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to some it is a downer, and an annoyance, different flavors, different tastes, but hey in that case houserule another effect, one your local group can agree on (i'd still be happy to play without the reactor overload, as long as it was established before the match begins, and not once tragedy strikes)

but personally I'm glad it's there :) 

(admittedly if it was the other way around, I may have a difficult time houseruling in a giant explosion :))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, alextroy said:

Given the many complaints about the 2.0 Reactor Overload, I don't expect there will be many players less than pleased at making that result even more extreme. a 1/18 (5.6%) chance (both 2 and 12 result in 2d6 HP Damage) of a ship just disappearing from a barely Critical Hit is not 'awesome' its 'deflating' and game changing.

I thought it was 1/36 for snake eyes and 1/36 for 12 damage, making this event a 0.077% chance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, the table is as good as the actual one. The most interesting result is the one, where your opponent chooses the disabled weapon system. :)

Edit: and i have to correct my chance calculation, it is 0.15% as the 2d6 will happen for 1-1 and 6-6. -_-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Brimat said:

I thought it was 1/36 for snake eyes and 1/36 for 12 damage, making this event a 0.077% chance?

While the chance of doing 12 HPs in one shot is indeed that small, it is not particularly relevant.

There is 1/36 chance of rolling Snake Eyes and a 1/36 chance of rolling Box Cars.

  • 1/36 + 1/36 = 2/36 = 1/18
  • 1/36 = 0.0278 = 2.78%
  • 1/18 = 0.0556 = 5.56%

So we have a 5.56% chance of getting a result that gives 2d6 HP of damage. Under the current rules, the vast majority of ships have 6 or less HP. The chance of rolling at least 6 on 2d6 is 72.22% (thanks www.anydice.com). Which means:

  • 5.56% * 72.22% = 4%

There it is. Using the 2.0 stats, this means is a 4% chance that any Critical Hit will destroy your ship if it is not a Large Capital Ship (Battlecruisers excluded). Those ships will just be neutered into uselessness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: misread the post I was responding to.

I'm not sure that having, on average, 1 out of 25 Crits blow up a ship from full HP is a good choice.  I'm also not sure it's a bad choice.  I'm curious to see how the new issue design deals with things like game length; it is possible that this is a deliberate attempt to clear models faster and speed things up.

That said, I already get irate over the vagaries of the Exploding Dice system.  While the long-term averages work out fine, there is an extreme amount of short-term variation.  We've actually discussed in my group more than once using a dice simulator to calculate out expected hit pools for each ship in the game, and then moving those totals over to the appropriate number of Heavy Dice instead to reduce the extreme variability.  While thematically it's cool to have a Frigate blow up a Dreadnought (take that Deathstar!) in the course of an actual game it just feels like **** to be on the receiving end.  You're exercising proper threat identification and focus fire on ships that are vastly more likely to hurt you...and you get demolished anyway because your opponent throws down a whole handful of 6's and then chains them together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel this argument depends very heavily on how competitive your games are, and your own mental approach to the game.  If you fully understand that the dice can suddenly, immediately, and probably totally swing the game's outcome beyond any action you could've taken; is that genuinely a problem?  If you're playing this game as a vocation, or for some amount of money then I can understand where the problem comes from.  However, that just makes the outcome more closer in spirit to gambling for money, in the sense that sometimes the hand you're dealt simply can't win.  Granted some might point out bluffing in poker, but then I might point out just playing blackjack or the slot machines.

Regardless of metaphor, how restrictive do you want to make this game?  Does it have to be as tight as chess before it will be appropriately fun to play?  I understand there is a straw which broke the camel's back, and Reactor Overload is a mighty big straw.  However, it's not a surprise that it exists, only when it eventually happens.  If you're playing with friends for fun, house rule it until everyone agrees it is more fun to play with.  Just duplicate Fold Drive Rupture into it's place, unless you hate both these options equally.

The only strong case I can see being really made about this, is how it interacts with tournament play and is it a problem?  Otherwise it's really just a matter of personal preference, and frankly aesthetics are so diverse you're just not going to please everyone who decides to take a look at your system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the other thing I always loved about it, was there was a chance :) 

even if all you had was a frigate, they could roll 1s, you could roll 6s, and that reactor may just go

extreme example, but it meant the game COULD swing, did it? usually no, but there was hope, in a freak accident :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's say we've an 800pt game. I have 1 Tier 1. Lucky shot turn 1 turns into a crit and you get either the 2 or 12 (so ~5%).

2d6 damage on my 8HP battleship? It's either dead or so crippled it needs to Fold Space out.

Now we play our 800pt game where I have 600pts to your 800pts.

Also, my admiral is dead or gone and you've a massive edge on battlelog and likely a spare activation across the game duration.

Now also imagine that my faction tends to short range brawling, I want to be getting into 16 inches to maximally be effective and knife fighting even better. You have 2-3 turns in which to get those crits and I'm likely doing little to you.

I'd be of a mind to laugh at the results and then just restart the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeh 5.5555>%

then about a 25% chance to outright kill, 33% to badly cripple about a 33% to hurt bad and then that small aprox 10% chance it's basically a crit

....yeh I can see the point that in any tournament a roughly 2 - 3% chance for the game to swing any game on a crit....hurts, perhaps we need to revist the fold space escape to maybe only 1D6  - leaving 1 big badda boom, so a 2.75% chance and then only half being real game changers.....

I can see the arguments that having that much swing is bad for any competitive scene but what one in 72 games decided by 2 dice rolls....I personally can accept that for the deeper more thematically fun side of that lucky rookie 1 shotting the death star sorry Foundry 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.