About AD and rolling 6 to pass shields quark

[scuy]

I myself find it strange that when you roll AD dice a roll of a 6 bypasses shields. The harder it because to hit, the easier it becomes to bypass shields based on the number of hits on a given target. I think my solution would work well, but what do you guys think?

example 1:
4+ to hit target
50% to hit target
33.3% of these hits will bypass shields.

example 2:
5+ to hit target
33.3% to hit target
50% of these hits will bypass shields.

example 3:
6 to hit target
16.7% to hit target
100% of these hits will bypass shields

I believe there should be a step added after rolling AD dice to hit target. so that the chance to bypass shields would be an even spread no matter how many AD dice are thrown, and not create the problem of shields not doing their job.

My Solution
----------------------
Roll AD dice to hit.
>>Roll a number of dice equal to the number that hits. Any 6 rolled bypasses shields.<<
Roll Damage....

In this way the chance to bypass the shield is fixed at 16.6% (1/6 chance) of the number of hits to target.

 

[tlee33]

I myself find it strange that when you roll AD dice a roll of a 6 bypasses shields. The harder it because to hit, the easier it becomes to bypass shields based on the number of hits on a given target. I think my solution would work well, but what do you guys think?

Good point, but more dice rolling just slows the game down even more. If it doesn't bother you then, its probably a good idea. You could just roll 1d6 for every "hit" and on a 5 or 6, it gets passed the shields. (having it bleed thru shields on just a 6 alone is too low)

 

[McKinstry]

I find it plays simple and fast as is but then I'm a huge believer in 'if it works, don't fix it.'

Another step of die rolling really defeats the whole purpose behind a faster, simpler game than FC.

 

[scuy]

I myself find it strange that when you roll AD dice a roll of a 6 bypasses shields. The harder it because to hit, the easier it becomes to bypass shields based on the number of hits on a given target. I think my solution would work well, but what do you guys think?

Good point, but more dice rolling just slows the game down even more. If it doesn't bother you then, its probably a good idea. You could just roll 1d6 for every "hit" and on a 5 or 6, it gets passed the shields. (having it bleed thru shields on just a 6 alone is too low)

I agree that more dice rolling would slow any game. I am unsure how much slower it would make it in this system which is pretty clean and smooth. Which I like a lot. I think it would be offset by lowering the number of dice for the Damage Chart.

I did think about it having a 5-6 roll, but in my mind it felt that the percentage spread was better and inline with the format of the rules, of a base 4 to hit a target. I felt that because the format of rolling a 1d6 and being a 4-6 is a hit, that the designers may wanted the bypass shield to be 1/6 chance.

 

[tlee33]

I did think about it having a 5-6 roll, but in my mind it felt that the percentage spread was better and inline with the format of the rules, of a base 4 to hit a target. I felt that because the format of rolling a 1d6 and being a 4-6 is a hit, that the designers may wanted the bypass shield to be 1/6 chance.

The problem is that by introducing another roll, your % chance is even harder if you only make it bleed on a 6. Basically, now you need to roll a 4-6, and then a 6 for Shield Bleed. So before, it was a 1 out 6 chance, and now you're reducing it to less than 10% chance (1 out of 12, if I'm calculating correctly). Where as if you use a 5-6 fo Shield Bleed, this is a 1 out of 6 chance. It's been a while since I've done probability so correct me if I'm wrong. This is also assuming that you need a 4+ to hit.

 

[scuy]

The problem is that by introducing another roll, your % chance is even harder if you only make it bleed on a 6. Basically, now you need to roll a 4-6, and then a 6 for Shield Bleed. So before, it was a 1 out 6 chance, and now you're reducing it to less than 10% chance (1 out of 12, if I'm calculating correctly). Where as if you use a 5-6 fo Shield Bleed, this is a 1 out of 6 chance. It's been a while since I've done probability so correct me if I'm wrong. This is also assuming that you need a 4+ to hit.

Your right, rolling a 5-6 would be a better representation. I broke out my trusty excel and created the odds calculator so I could see it more clearly, hope my formula and spreedsheet is correct. Now it looks cleaner. Thanks for your used of your working brain, my seems to have stopped functioning.

AD Dice Score / pass shield on 6
-------------------------------
6 / 0.06
5 / 0.11
4 / 0.17
3 / 0.22
2 / 0.28
1 / 0.33

 

[archon96]

Honestly after months of playing and being annoyed by photons getting past shields. I find the system easy to learn and too teach. Changing now seems kind of pointless. There are how ever a few other mechanics that could be tweaked such as effectiveness of IDF.

 

[GamerDude]

I myself find it strange that when you roll AD dice a roll of a 6 bypasses shields. The harder it because to hit, the easier it becomes to bypass shields based on the number of hits on a given target. I think my solution would work well, but what do you guys think?

...

I believe there should be a step added after rolling AD dice to hit target. so that the chance to bypass shields would be an even spread no matter how many AD dice are thrown, and not create the problem of shields not doing their job.

While I get you trying to make things work better there was a significant factor missed - that there are modifiers on the AD die roll. The "4+ to hit" is *after* modifiers. The "Natural 6 bypasses the shields" is just that, a Natural 6 on the die no modifiers.

Accurate +X - A ship can have "Accurate +2" (meaning it will hit on anything but a Natural 1), but that doesn't mean the attack will bypass the shields on a Natural 4, 5, or 6.
Distance Penalty - Firing a weapon at more than half its range puts a -1 on each AD, meaning a Natural 5 or 6 is needed to hit but this doesn't negate the Natural 6 bypassing shields.
Weak - This weapon has a -1 penalty on each AD (see "Distance Penalty")

So a Weak weapon firing at something far enough away to impose the Distance Penalty would be suffering a total penalty on AD of -2, necessitating a Natural 6 to hit which would also bypass shields. **This combination should be addressed the "auto critical or nothing"**

-*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*-
Al B. [B-)
Listowner
FOR MGP MINIS: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/MGP-Minis-Aids (since 2012)
FOR TRAVELLER: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/MGT-Aids The Original, serving since Sept 2008

 

[scuy]

While I get you trying to make things work better there was a significant factor missed - that there are modifiers on the AD die roll. The "4+ to hit" is *after* modifiers. The "Natural 6 bypasses the shields" is just that, a Natural 6 on the die no modifiers.

Accurate +X - A ship can have "Accurate +2" (meaning it will hit on anything but a Natural 1), but that doesn't mean the attack will bypass the shields on a Natural 4, 5, or 6.
Distance Penalty - Firing a weapon at more than half its range puts a -1 on each AD, meaning a Natural 5 or 6 is needed to hit but this doesn't negate the Natural 6 bypassing shields.
Weak - This weapon has a -1 penalty on each AD (see "Distance Penalty")

I am discussing about the percent chance of hits bypassing shields once they have already hit the target. This is kind of what I am talking about also. Why would a "2+ to hit" have a lesser chance to bypass shields compared to a "6 to hit"? Granted you would hit more often before determining if a shot bypassed shields or not. I feel that the percent chance should be the same or less.

example: comparing one hit at different chances to hit.
"2+ to hit", there would be a 20% chance to bypass shield. (1 out of 5)
"6 to hit", there would be 100% chance to bypass shields. (1 out of 1)

I realize that the base chance to hit on a 1d6 is 17%, I am using percent based on the actual hit.

So a Weak weapon firing at something far enough away to impose the Distance Penalty would be suffering a total penalty on AD of -2, necessitating a Natural 6 to hit which would also bypass shields. **This combination should be addressed the "auto critical or nothing"**

This is what I am trying to address. =p
I don't see the accurate being the issue, because shields are there to stop the shots that hit, not the shots that do not hit. I look at "Accurate +X" being a weapon system has a better chance to put rounds on target, once there is a hit the shields will defend the ship from fire. When the shield doesn't stop the hit there would be a bleed though, so my thinking is that to increase your chance to get shots though you need more shots fired at a given target.

 

[GamerDude]

I am discussing about the percent chance of hits bypassing shields once they have already hit the target. This is kind of what I am talking about also. Why would a "2+ to hit" have a lesser chance to bypass shields compared to a "6 to hit"? Granted you would hit more often before determining if a shot bypassed shields or not. I feel that the percent chance should be the same or less.

Well, as others have said... why add *another* die roll...

And besides, a 17% chance to just bypass shield is huge as it is adding more rolls to give "regular" hits that chance to be a critical... not worth the burden of taking extra time for a small gain.

That's my opinion but if what you're looking to do really enhances your enjoyment of the game then by all means go for it.

-*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*-
Al B. [B-)
Listowner
FOR MGP MINIS: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/MGP-Minis-Aids (since 2012)
FOR TRAVELLER: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/MGT-Aids The Original, serving since Sept 2008

 

[dix]

I see what you're saying about poor hit probabilities having an increased probability of shield penetration per hit. It struck me as a little odd, too. However, I do not think that adding another set of die rolls is a good idea. There are already enough die rolls in the system already. One must roll for a hit, then roll for damage, then possibly roll for critical hits, and then, some crits call for additional die rolls. And, of course, there is a die roll for damage control at the end of the turn. A better idea, IMO, is to have every fourth hit in a volley penetrate the shields. If the damage is less than four hits, then there is no penetration. This would, however, make larger ships more effective as they have more weapons and are more likely to have larger volleys that would reach the penetration threshold. Point values would likely be skewed.

 

[locarno24]

The counter argument, though, is that the things most likely to pierce shields (proportionately to the number of hits) are therefore weapons with a lower (or non-existent) accurate trait.

Which, conincidentally, generally correspond to the torpedoes and heavy guns rather than phasers. Which seems right to me; they are a bigger kaboom at the point of impact, hence it should be more likely you'd experience bleed-through.

 

[McKinstry]

Assuming an average game with 10 ships per side in the 1500-2000 point range, by Turn 3 the forces will generally be in full contact. Between split fire and multiple weapons systems, that would be easily 2 added rolls per firing ship and thus 20 added rolls per side per firing turn for a total of 40 added rolls per turn. Figuring 30 seconds to calculate, roll, resolve etc., that's an added 20 minutes per turn. Assuming 3 turns of really intense fire before killed and crippled really lowers the rolling amounts, you are still likely adding an hour or more to a full game.

 

[scuy]

Assuming an average game with 10 ships per side in the 1500-2000 point range, by Turn 3 the forces will generally be in full contact. Between split fire and multiple weapons systems, that would be easily 2 added rolls per firing ship and thus 20 added rolls per side per firing turn for a total of 40 added rolls per turn. Figuring 30 seconds to calculate, roll, resolve etc., that's an added 20 minutes per turn. Assuming 3 turns of really intense fire before killed and crippled really lowers the rolling amounts, you are still likely adding an hour or more to a full game.

This is a good break down.

 

[Stu--]

Just to re-awaken this... because it was the first question I was asked when introducing the rules on Saturday to my club.. 'shouldn't shields be better at long range, not worse..'

My instant thought was 'yes, they should'
and that's really the crux of the question isn't it.

My thought is to try 'natural sixes at long range require a follow-up 4+ on the same die'
This adds a single d6 roll, which can be done simply by grabbing all the sixes you see and chucking again, any 4+ do indeed hit the hull and 1-3 hits shields.

Any thoughts?

 

[billclo]

Just to re-awaken this... because it was the first question I was asked when introducing the rules on Saturday to my club.. 'shouldn't shields be better at long range, not worse..'

My instant thought was 'yes, they should'
and that's really the crux of the question isn't it.

My thought is to try 'natural sixes at long range require a follow-up 4+ on the same die'
This adds a single d6 roll, which can be done simply by grabbing all the sixes you see and chucking again, any 4+ do indeed hit the hull and 1-3 hits shields.

Any thoughts?

This could be resolved by using a D6 at short range, needing a "6" to penetrate the shields, and using a D12 at long range and needing a "12" to penetrate the shields. There you go, no extra die rolling...

Figure if you need a 5-6 to hit at long range:
If you roll a D6, a 5 hits, and a 6 penetrates (16% of the time).
If you roll a D12, a 9-11 hits, and a 12 penetrates (8% of the time).

 

[Stu--]

When i first read that I didn't like it (because then it's no longer a D6 game)

But actually, that'd work just right.. wonder if it'd be jarring to move between dice though.
it does, however, mean you need to know your range bands first or you'd roll the wrong die - and people do not always know what ranges they're at.

 

[billclo]

When i first read that I didn't like it (because then it's no longer a D6 game)

But actually, that'd work just right.. wonder if it'd be jarring to move between dice though.
it does, however, mean you need to know your range bands first or you'd roll the wrong die - and people do not always know what ranges they're at.

But you need to know your range bands anyways so you can figure up the hit chances...

Say you're firing 4 disruptors and 6 Phaser-1 from a D7 at a Federation ship , at a range of 11".
Disruptors are still in short range, so you use 4 D6 and need 3-6 to hit, with a 6 penetrating.
The Phasers are at long range (9" or over), and so you grab some D12 and roll, needing a 9-11 to hit, and a 12 to pentrate.

This could be helped by using a color coded range band chart; someone posted one which I shamelessly borrowed. Modify it so that long range is a very different color and tell the players when you are in the X colored range band, use a D12 instead.

 

[Captain Jonah]

One sixth of shots fired will go through shields. So one sixth of shots will be square on accurate, focused onto a single point and therefore overload the shields and bleed through.

These represent shots that are more accurate than average, all of the energy of the shot is in one place, not spread across half the length of the ship.

Shots that do not bleed through spread their energy across the shields.

A snap shot taken between two ships, both manoeuvring hard, is far more likely to hit the shields at an angle or track across the ship at shorter ranges. At longer ranges those shots that glance or graze at close range miss completely.

Ships firing at longer ranges are not more likely to get hits through shields, they are less likely to get messy hits that spread damage across the shields since the messy hits completely miss.

In terms of using a D12. Go ahead, in your games, do what you think will help. For the gaming public at large a D12 is some sort of bizarre thing they may never see. Just about every house in the country has D6, many board games have them after all. D12s, strictly a hardcore gaming thing.

 

[Stu--]

Hi Jonah.. not sure what your point is here - surely anyone on this forum is a 'hardcore gamer'

Sounds like you're saying you just like the rules as they stand, though?..