Tournament pack rules updates

[DM]

Night Fighting: After a reread of this, with the appropriate markers, I can see where this would add tons of realism and enjoyment without too much record-keeping. Without the markers, this will grind the game to a screeching halt as folks will argue who is or is not illuminated, using searchlights, or exactly where the Starshells are. This is definitely an "Invest in markers or leave out" rule set, imho.

I'm enjoying a brief spell of connectivity, so here's a thought before the line drops out agsin - I wrote the night fightig rules. I admit I didn't include comemnts about markers because (perhaps rather naively) I thought that players would have figured out for themselves that they were useful. Perhaps there will be alittle space to add some helpful comments to the OoB rules just prior to publication.

PS I've been out of the loop for ages and probably won't have time to go through the whole thread (or others posted over the last 2-3 weeks) so you'll just have to cope without my words of wisdom on these issues (or rambling c**p, depending on your POV )

 

[Soulmage]

The house rules posted in this thread add complexity becuase they change the core damage rules, core mechanics. Not one trait but the core damage procedure. Any change to the RAW adds complexity. As few changes as possible were made when it came to changing anything in the core book.

That's not the case. Just because you're changing an existing rule does not mean you're adding complexity.

In this case, with respect to damage, you're simplifying by having ALL kinds of weapons work the same way. As I discussed in my original suggestion, the damage resolution process isn't any more complex. You just figure what you need to do damage normally. Everything over that is a possible critical.

With respect to the night fight and bad weather rules. . my proposed rules are DRASTICALLY simpler than the ones either in the core rulebook or with the proposed modifications. Furthermore they are much faster and easier to use in play because the need for all kinds of spotting checks has been eliminated.

The night fight/bad weather rules were very much in need of a significant overhaul. As I mentioned my friends and I never use them in their current form anymore because they simply drag the game out and make things less fun.

 

[juggler69uk]

If you believe your rules are so much better then write a set and sell them on the open market, You had made a point of view on your version and that is valid as everyone can have their view , if you are not happy with the final outcome of the OOB then you are free to carry on with your own version. but theres no need to labour the point (somewhere in this thread Did you not advocate that the others should not crow about their own rules)

I do find it unfortunate that people are getting defensive about 'their baby' and start posts with long versions of . . . "our ideas are kewl and they work! Don't try to change them."

On a personal note I am happy with the modifications as written, Im not sure I would be if they were changed drastically, especially the core parts

 

[Soulmage]

I haven't done anything but respond to comments made about the proposed rules. That's the nature of debate.

I'll be happy to change my opinion on the various issues when somebody shows me a compelling argument to do so. Flank speed for instance, I've already changed my initial position - in response to some valid points.

Unfortunately, not everyone is being so open minded, and in the absence of genuine arguments resort to irrelevant comments about how into the game they are or whatnot. None of which matters at all to whether the rules stand adequately on their own to produce a game that strikes a balance between historical simulation and fun.

As far as selling my own rules. . . I have done some professional freelance development work. That is. . . I take other people's ideas and find ways to improve them. Yes, game companies pay people to do that. But writing your own rules from scratch takes a special kind of creativity that I don't feel is a strength of mine.

 

[Thunder]

I like some of your House rules Soulmage, thanks for posting them. I find them well thought out and agree with many of your supporting points.

The Damage Dice/Weak Trait is probably one we will incorporate into our games. I agree with you, it is not more complicated than what we do now in our games and the added realism is always a good thing.

Can you write them up in a semi-final format and post them on a website? www.boardgamegeek.com is a great site for these kinds of files. Free.

Peace

 

[Soulmage]

Yeah, I will put them up there. Got a few tweaks to make as a result of this discussion, but I'll try to get them up there soon.

 

[juggler69uk]

On the to hit a 7+ target issue, I think the new rules should be enough, I dont think the game needs an extra roll just to allow any ship on the table a shot at killing a fast moving destroyer (when they shouldnt realistically get one).

Not to mention you still cant hit all the time so why draw an arbitary line at 9

for example Target destroyer is 6+
bad weather -1
Extreme range -2
fast moving -1

With No other modifiers this would need a 10 and then 11 if the night modifier applied, and even more if a second shot with your "splash" rules

As to your modified damage/crit rule I have a question ~ Correct me if I am wrong but, with your rules are you saying that (with no other modifiers) a ship firing AP can NOT cause a crit on a ship that has an armoured deck (due to the -1) as the best it can roll (modified) is 6 which only equals the armour (therefore no crit)

 

[Soulmage]

On the to hit a 7+ target issue, I think the new rules should be enough, I dont think the game needs an extra roll just to allow any ship on the table a shot at killing a fast moving destroyer (when they shouldnt realistically get one).

Not to mention you still cant hit all the time so why draw an arbitary line at 9

for example Target destroyer is 6+
bad weather -1
Extreme range -2
fast moving -1

With No other modifiers this would need a 10 and then 11 if the night modifier applied, and even more if a second shot with your "splash" rules

Well, the new rules address the destroyer issue when they are close in, but not at longer range.

U.S.S. Johnston was hit by 3 14" shells from the Kongo while closing for a torpedo attack run using flank speed and evading. Without some kind of additional mechanism, that kind of result isn't possible. Freak hits happen.

You feel that a straight d6 roll is enough, which is fine. Personally, I feel that end-on destroyers outside 10" being completely unhittable by any primary weapons and all but the beefiest of battleship 2ndary weapons strikes me as unrealistic.

As my proposed rule stands 7s will be unlikely, 8s very rare, and 9s will be all but unheard of. So creating another rule to address rolls higher than 9 doesn't seem worth it. However, situations where a 7, or maybe an 8 is needed to hit a destroyer, will come up fairly frequently, so it makes sense to create a mechanic for handling those "freak hits" IMO.

As to your modified damage/crit rule I have a question ~ Correct me if I am wrong but, with your rules are you saying that (with no other modifiers) a ship firing AP can NOT cause a crit on a ship that has an armoured deck (due to the -1) as the best it can roll (modified) is 6 which only equals the armour (therefore no crit)

Not sure I understand your question. Seems like you're missing some key information.

What is the armor rating of the target ship would be the first question. I'm guessing you are referring to an armor 6 ship?

If so, I'm not sure how you drew that conclusion.

AP shell vs. armor 6 ship = range of 2-7 on the DD. Possible crit on a roll of (6+1) 7.

An armored deck doesn't factor into it at all.

In the case of plunging fire (the only time an armored deck matters), the armored deck would reduce the DD range of results from 3-8 back down to 2-7. A critical hit is still possible, just as if plunging fire were not involved.

 

[juggler69uk]

Sorry info was sketchy at best, try something simpler.

For instance Without any modifiers the german 11" guns (deutschland & scharnhorst classes) and any smaller main armament can not cause any crit of any kind against a 6+ armour

 

[juggler69uk]

U.S.S. Johnston was hit by 3 14" shells from the Kongo while closing for a torpedo attack run using flank speed and evading. Without some kind of additional mechanism, that kind of result isn't possible. Freak hits happen..

Freak hits are just that, they dont always need to be factored in or the game play suffers, or you play a more detailed rule set

Plus your example above sort of decries your flank speed cant turn rule

 

[Soulmage]

Sorry info was sketchy at best, try something simpler.

For instance Without any modifiers the german 11" guns (deutschland & scharnhorst classes) and any smaller main armament can not cause any crit of any kind against a 6+ armour

No they cannot cause criticals against 6+ armor with an armored deck. Those are the most powerful and best protected ships in the game, and 11" guns are just not going to cut it.

Historically, the Scharnhorst and her sister would have been dramatically outclassed by any ship with that level of protection and guns to match. . . and the game supports that situation.

Scharnhorst & Gneisenau were certainly powerful warships for their day. But they were first launched in 1936. Even at that time, although they were well armored, they were undergunned.

Scharnhorst's nine 28 cm (11 inch; in fact 283 mm - 11.1 inch), main guns, though possessing long range and quite good armor-penetration power because of their high muzzle velocity, were no match for the larger caliber guns of most of the battleships of her day, particularly with the flooding and technical problems that were experienced. The choice of armament was a result of their hasty commissioning.

If a later proposal to upgrade the main armament to six 15 inch (380 mm) guns in three twin turrets had been implemented, Scharnhorst would have been a very formidable opponent, faster than any British capital ship and nearly as well armored. But due to priorities and constraints imposed by World War II and later the war situation, she retained her 11 inch guns throughout her career.

So, in the game, as in RL Scharnhorst and Gniesenau are deadly to battlecruisers and below, but clearly outclassed by a true battleship.

Look at it this way. . . of all the Royal Navy ships in the first book. Only the King George V class battleships are immune to criticals from the Scharnhorst. This does not disturb me greatly. Everything else. . . including Queen Elizabeth class BBs can be critted by the Scharnhorst.

Or how about this. . .

Should the Scharnhorst, an undergunned battlecruiser trying to play with the "big boys" be able to blow up a "state of the art" Iowa or Yamato class battleship in a single shot? If they have the ability to critical ships of that caliber. . . the most powerful ships in the game. . . then that is what you are saying.

I just don't see that as realistic. Scharnhorst was tough and nasty, and brutal on lighter ships she encountered. But she was a commerce raider and no match for a true 1st rate battleship.

 

[Soulmage]

U.S.S. Johnston was hit by 3 14" shells from the Kongo while closing for a torpedo attack run using flank speed and evading. Without some kind of additional mechanism, that kind of result isn't possible. Freak hits happen..

Freak hits are just that, they dont always need to be factored in or the game play suffers, or you play a more detailed rule set

So freak hits like the Hood, or the rudder of the Bismarck should not be modeled?

Or should only freak hits that actually happened historically be modeled? In other words, the Hood should come with a special rule for exploding spectacularly, or Bismarck should come with a special rule regarding her rudder's susceptibility to damage.

Plus your example above sort of decries your flank speed cant turn rule

Well, if you revisit my earlier posts, you will see that I ammended my flank speed suggestion after some discussion to simply be -1 to turning score. Thus highly manuverable ships like destroyers can still turn while flanking. . . they just can't slew their whole ship around like a teenager skidding out on a dirt bike.

 

[E Nicely]

The house rules posted in this thread add complexity becuase they change the core damage rules, core mechanics. Not one trait but the core damage procedure. Any change to the RAW adds complexity. As few changes as possible were made when it came to changing anything in the core book.

That's not the case. Just because you're changing an existing rule does not mean you're adding complexity.

.

But it is very much the case. Go find someone that publishes games and ask them. I'm not talking about the effort that goes into printing them either. Then come back here and post their answer. Learn a rule, play it, learn a new rule and play that instead. That's simpler?

 

[Soulmage]

The house rules posted in this thread add complexity becuase they change the core damage rules, core mechanics. Not one trait but the core damage procedure. Any change to the RAW adds complexity. As few changes as possible were made when it came to changing anything in the core book.

That's not the case. Just because you're changing an existing rule does not mean you're adding complexity.

.

But it is very much the case. Go find someone that publishes games and ask them. I'm not talking about the effort that goes into printing them either. Then come back here and post their answer. Learn a rule, play it, learn a new rule and play that instead. That's simpler?

That has nothing to do with rule "complexity." That is an issue of what is known in game designer circles as "rule mastery."

As players play a particular game, they build up quite a store of knowledge about the rules of that game. Then, when rules changes or a new edition comes along, much of that knowledge is now obsolete and the game must be re-learned to an extent.

When WotC released D&D 3.5 this was a big concern to many folks. The issue was that D&D 3.5 wasn't dissimilar enough to 3.0 that people would come to it as they would a whole new system. . . but at the same time it wasn't similar enough that their accumulated mastery of 3.0 could be relied upon. Therefore, until they built up their new mastery of the game, a lot of rulebook checking would have to be done.

Unfortunately, the obsolescence of rule mastery is part and parcel of a thriving & evolving rules set. The only way to prevent it is by never changing the rules. Personally, I'd rather have a game for which new rules are released and which improves over time. If I didn't feel that way, I'd still be playing 1st edition D&D, or the original Fletcher Pratt naval warfare rules as they appeared in the 30s.

Fortunately, rules mastery develops over time. Yes, there is a learning curve any time there is a significant rules change, but that learning curve is only temporary. Then everyone becomes familar with the new system and things are fine.

The key is not to release new rules updates so frequently that people never have a chance to develop a level of mastery with the existing rule set before new ones are released. In this case the decision has already been made to release Order of Battle with rules updates. Therefore that is a non-issue. The only question is what rules are going to be released with it and how good will they be?

Now, if you were part of the playtest group for OOB, and you gained mastery with a particular way of doing things, then have to experience the learning curve once the supplement comes out because Matt & Co. went a different way for whatever reason. . . that is part of the price one pays for getting to play with the system early. Its happened to me plenty of times.

Personally, I will gladly spend a little extra time studying rulebooks, if it enhances my play experience. I don't think we need to worry about a new version of VaS any time soon. . . so we need to make sure we get as much as we possibly can addressed in THIS rules update.

 

[E Nicely]

Unfortunately, the obsolescence of rule mastery is part and parcel of a thriving & evolving rules set. The only way to prevent it is by never changing the rules. Personally, I'd rather have a game for which new rules are released and which improves over time. If I didn't feel that way, I'd still be playing 1st edition D&D, or the original Fletcher Pratt naval warfare rules as they appeared in the 30s.

Fortunately, rules mastery develops over time. Yes, there is a learning curve any time there is a significant rules change, but that learning curve is only temporary. Then everyone becomes familar with the new system and things are fine.

The key is not to release new rules updates so frequently that people never have a chance to develop a level of mastery with the existing rule set before new ones are released. In this case the decision has already been made to release Order of Battle with rules updates. Therefore that is a non-issue. The only question is what rules are going to be released with it and how good will they be?

Now, if you were part of the playtest group for OOB, and you gained mastery with a particular way of doing things, then have to experience the learning curve once the supplement comes out because Matt & Co. went a different way for whatever reason. . . that is part of the price one pays for getting to play with the system early. Its happened to me plenty of times.

Personally, I will gladly spend a little extra time studying rulebooks, if it enhances my play experience. I don't think we need to worry about a new version of VaS any time soon. . . so we need to make sure we get as much as we possibly can addressed in THIS rules update.

The "thriving and evolving" part of VaS has already been written and submitted to the publisher. It's in OoB. This isn't a Columbia Games living rulebook and it's not D&D. It's been written, tested, and submitted to the publisher. The Weak trait was put to the public. The higher up on all this might make a couple of changes. You personally don't like the tourney changes and want to rewrite some rules. You've come up with some house rules for your group and anyone else that want to use them. Great. If you read enough miniatures games message boards you'll find ten sets of house rules just like yours for any game that's been around for a few years. Have fun with your house rules.

As far as "mastery" goes you must be talking about those D&D designers you mentioned. You don't really know what the design process involved was or what the playtesting process was like for OoB or VaS. You've made it really obvious you don't. A wargame is different than an RPG, the Vas design and playtest process was a lot different than other wargames I've playtested. The design process of OoB was a lot different than VaS since it was a collaboration. A collaboration for a wargame supplement. How much experience have you had with "rules mastery" and wargame supplements? A lot different than the Manual of the Planes or the 3.5 Monster Manual. You're bringing up an RPG design philosophy and already said many times you're new to naval wargames and you want to make assumptions that simply aren't true. I'm curious soulmage, what other wargames do you play?

 

[juggler69uk]

Yes Gneisnu etc were outclassed and no match for said more modern battleships, they would be hit, critted and blown out of the water,

However That was not the point, The only point was whether it was possible for them to get a damaging hit back and as you pointed out they had relatively good AP (even though not in the game), also as you pointed out "Freak hits happen" dont they (certainly may occaisionally warrant more than just one point of damage pre hit)

......So freak hits like the Hood, or the rudder of the Bismarck should not be modeled? .....

Or should only freak hits that actually happened historically be modeled? In other words, the Hood should come with a special rule for exploding spectacularly, or Bismarck should come with a special rule regarding her rudder's susceptibility to damage.

...so it makes sense to create a mechanic for handling those "freak hits" IMO.

So its ok for you to allow for freak hits in one place but deny them in others, thats fine, they are your house rules enjoy them but I think I will play the game as released (when the book comes out) a good few times before I even consider "house ruling" them, I dont intend this to be a harsh criticism, But you do seem to contradict yourself a lot in your various "debates"

 

[Soulmage]

However That was not the point, The only point was whether it was possible for them to get a damaging hit back and as you pointed out they had relatively good AP (even though not in the game), also as you pointed out "Freak hits happen" dont they (certainly may occaisionally warrant more than just one point of damage pre hit)

They certainly can damage those ships back. One point of damage is the default damage for any weapon in the game.

As I mentioned, I'm O.K. with it not being possible for the Scharnhorst to severely damage or even destroy an Iowa class battleship in a single hit. Evidently you disagree. Fair enough.

 

[Soulmage]

......So freak hits like the Hood, or the rudder of the Bismarck should not be modeled? .....

Or should only freak hits that actually happened historically be modeled? In other words, the Hood should come with a special rule for exploding spectacularly, or Bismarck should come with a special rule regarding her rudder's susceptibility to damage.

...so it makes sense to create a mechanic for handling those "freak hits" IMO.

So its ok for you to allow for freak hits in one place but deny them in others, thats fine, they are your house rules enjoy them but I think I will play the game as released (when the book comes out) a good few times before I even consider "house ruling" them, I dont intend this to be a harsh criticism, But you do seem to contradict yourself a lot in your various "debates"

Sorry for the confusion. That section of my reply was facetious. My point was that the system needs to accomodate ALL kinds of freak hits. . . not simply recreate only those freak hits that actually happened.

 

[Soulmage]

The "thriving and evolving" part of VaS has already been written and submitted to the publisher. It's in OoB. This isn't a Columbia Games living rulebook and it's not D&D. It's been written, tested, and submitted to the publisher. The Weak trait was put to the public.

This was Matt's comment

Well, none of this has gone into OoB yet, so feel free to discuss. The above rule in particular I fought with the playtesters over, primarily because it breaks the simplicity.

So, opinions?

So clearly he was asking for feedback and not necessarily just on the weak trait. I provided my thoughts. What he chooses to do with them is up to him.

Since then I've been refuting arguments against my rules which mostly consist of "we playtested this and we like it this way."

I realize you have an emotional investment in the rules not being exactly the way you submitted them. I have no such investment one way or the other. I won't be upset at all if Matt chooses not to use my rules.

What I *do* want to see, is OOB shipped with the best possible rules it can be.

If you have a problem with my rules you should start pointing out gameplay-based reasons why they are flawed and yours are better.

Instead you waste everybody's time attacking my "credentials" (which I assure you are substantial). I won't bother going into them however because your credentials and my credentials are COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. We are not interviewing for a job here, we are trying to make sure OOB is as good as it can possibly be.

A rule needs to stand on its own as far as gameplay and simplicity. . . regardless of who created it or how long it took them to come up with it. I've pointed out several areas of concern with the proposed rules and have heard very little in the way of responses that address the points I raised. But a whole lot of "we were the playtest team and you should just go along with what we say!"

You keep wanting to make this discussion about people. . . and its not. Its about rules. So please, if you have legitimate concerns with the way my rules would play, by all means share them. I would like to hear them because maybe we can come to an even better solution. As I mentioned earlier, I've already adjusted my thinking in some areas based on good feedback that was provided.

If you've got nothing to offer in the way of rules input, then I don't see that we have anything further to discuss.

 

[juggler69uk]

Sorry for the confusion. That section of my reply was facetious. My point was that the system needs to accomodate ALL kinds of freak hits. . . not simply recreate only those freak hits that actually happened.

My last thoughts on this before I let it go...... I take it accomodating ALL kinds of freak hits does not include any chance of the Scharnhorst etc ever scoring a freak hit (of more than one point), of any sort, on any more up to date ship... or are you saying that there is not one square inch on any 6+ ships where an 11" shell could hit that would cause some sort of crit effect

Note: you also disallow the 12.6" guns of the Caio Duilio and the 13" of the Dunkerque from doing crits against 6+ armour (without modifiers) as they are not AP

My point was supposed to mean that , perhaps there should be, without writing specifics that would clog the game.

So Thats why I would prefer the rule as changed and allow weak guns to do crits to armour <=3+, Unless theres some other compromise out there