LOS D6 Limitations

[gdieckhaus]

One of the things that I found to be the most limiting when designing units for LOS was the D6 system.
There is not enough space in between the numbers to create a variety of units.

If there is a new version, I would like to see it move to a D10 system.

This would give the designers more room to create units that feel different.

[Kindred]

I disagree with this... mostly because d6 are simple and everyone has a bunch. d10s are not quite as easy to find and are generally more annoying to transport (they don't stack well)

[smokingwreckage]

Yeah, I'd go with D6. It did limit the scope a bit, but that's OK, you could go with other dice for a full tabletop version.

[Clark]

A d20 system could closely mirror the existing d6 roll, better than a d10.  The more obvious solution - if you want to get whacky - is to use d12.  I've been grappling with this on and off and the idea that sticks in my mind is to have "buffs" or "pips" or something that represent some fraction of a +/- 1 on the d6 scale.  Then you have three options a) ignore them and play old school b) if you can get +6 or -6 pips then you get +1 or -1 on your d6 roll c) if you have negative pips and you roll and exact kill, then the target gets a "save" equal to the negative pips; if you miss my one and have positive pips, then you get you get score a kill equal to the pips.

With the latter, you effectively have a d36 system that gives loads of possibilities. How it would all dovetail with pinning and wounding rules that hinge on the near miss factor might be an additional compllication.

[smokingwreckage]

Oh hi!

[smokingwreckage]

If the options are between tracking pips for several turns, or going to a D12 or D20, let me change my vote from "keep the D6" to "hurrah new funky dice". The pips idea has some merit in the abstract but makes the physical game-playing, organisation, storage, etc., more difficult.

[Clark]

This buff/pips system is no more complicated that rolling d% except that you are counting in base 6 rather than base 10. So you roll your d6's and then in the marginal cases roll more dice for the pips/buffs.

[grendeljd]

I'd vote for keeping the D6 system unless there is serious commitment to restructuring the whole game. That could be a ton of extra work that would add on to the timeline for relaunching this baby.

Otherwise, I tend to think it only needs a mild shift in die scale. I'd be happier with a simple step up to D8 or D10, primarily to eliminate the currently existing pesky extra D6 rolls required to reach a target number of 7 or 8, and give a little more Target # range to the existing weapons.

[smokingwreckage]

@Clark; the buff/pips require no tracking?

Numbers are no trouble, but tracking modifiers from turn to turn becomes exponentially more difficult as I pass my working memory limit.

For example I can track the nachtmacher counters in play, but add ammo counts and I have two sets to track. Add pips and I have three sets, each different in their organisational hierarchy and system implications. So while the pips are very conceptually elegant they are inelegant in physical play, if they need to be tracked per individual over more than one turn.

Just my thoughts. I'd be super happy to see a jump to D20, nix the "7-8" jiggery pokery, and avoid extra tracking over turns. But if the pips provide bonuses within the turn then that's a different thing and I'd have to think about it. I definitely think the pips would be awesome in a computerised version.

[Clark]

grendeljd makes a good point as to whether we want a one step or two step or three step process to figure out if you killed your target. 

[grendeljd]

grendeljd makes a good point as to whether we want a one step or two step or three step process to figure out if you killed your target.

Precisely why I would vote to keep it simple.

Back in the day, I started out playing 40K and loved it. When I discovered LoS I rather quickly abandoned 40K because I really preferred the more streamlined gameplay of LoS. No more need to roll/counter-roll/counter-counter-roll to resolve every damn shot you fired ( I grew to hate the armour save-roll system in GW).

In LoS it's a really slick & scary fire resolution system. No one is safe. Even multi-kill figures with armour modifiers can potentially be taken out with one shot from the right weapon. Having a few leadership points on your side can help, but they usually run out quickly. That's a core facet of what I love about it. I would say that any major, structural changes to the core system should strive to respect & retain that feel, not bog it down further.

Thus, a slight uptick in scale to D8 or D10 would be just right, IMO. I think that would also give some room to have a greater range of good-to-poor weapon types. I gotta be honest, I rarely used any figures that relied on weapons with a starting target number of 5+ (looking at you, sniperbot). I realize that 5+ on a D6 still represents a decent 33% base chance to hit, but I'd never count on it in a critical tactical situation.

A 5+ on a D8 isn't much of an improvement, but 37.5% is still a little more appealing, and anyway I still think the primary benefit of a D8 system would be to have a single die roll for target numbers up to 8. You might even be able to get away with very minimal adjustments to the existing D6 weapon target numbers with a shift to D8.

An area that I do feel LoS could use some serious new (optional?) rule expansions would be in equipment/weapon selection variety &/or a campaign system with carry-over experience bonuses. Something touched on in Junction Point, and I see it is an integral part of the core rules in that new Dead Zone game by Mantic.

[smokingwreckage]

Yeah the blistering fast and bloody play of LOS was a big draw for me. I'd not want to slow it. There's a lot of internet fandom and chatter focusing on very fast-playing rules; see Song of Blades and Heroes, or the dozen variants of FUBAR. Whether this translates into retail success I have no clue.

My thought is that it was often said, back in th' day,  LOS had a problem with scale; you couldn't go up much from a fiend without things breaking.

So I wonder if, with a bigger die, you might be able to expand the range of figures that can feasibly be played. Thus easing the transition from straight LOS to tabletop skirmish with regular infantry and vehicles? Deadzone doesn't try to get above the size of LOS heavy powered infantry and light vehicles. Theoretically it's a taster for a later, full-sized skirmish game, and they're using the Deadzone KS to stir up some chatter and get people to buy in, and to get their core troops in plastic from the get-go. Nevertheless it might be informative that they started at the 1-2 squads end of the spectrum.

Personally I think (imagine, really, I'm no industry insider) there's a fair market for skirmish sized games. Warmachine, Hordes, Deadzone, etc. So I'd be excited to see LOS much as it was, then a tabletop version for small tables with a lot of terrain; representing urban environments, industrial compounds, and freakin' big underground or shipboard actions. This is more "in range" of original LOS than a "full sized" two platoons and some armour game per modern 40K.

All of which is possibly of interest when deciding how much up-scalablity you want to biuld into the core LOS mechanics. And if you decide you want to be able to scale up, then I would be in favour of keeping the "one roll, one kill" lethality, even honing it a bit, and going with a bigger die.

[bobloblah]

I think the "feel" of gameplay in LoS is critical to what originally made it successful. It's not the backstory, components (other than the aesthetic of some of the miniatures), or art that people still rave about when they talk of their past love for the game: it's the gameplay.

Putting aside the more radical suggestions, even switching the die type will almost invariably alter the feel of gameplay. A big part of the reason for that is the deterministic nature of a D6 based system. When all rolls are done on a D6, each + or - 1 on the die is a much more significant portion of the final result. Taking an action that grants a + or - 1 is often a very simple decision due to the significant difference it makes on any given roll. The larger the die, the smaller the contribution from modifiers (I'll address scaling modifiers in a moment), the less deterministic the system. This makes an immediately noticeable, but subtle change to how a game "feels" in play.

Now, if you claim that you're not going to alter the percentages of such things (e.g. moving to D12 and doubling existing modifiers), the reason for moving to another die type becomes very shallow. You're basically looking to better represent a few edgecases that aren't handled well under the existing system. But are there enough of these to warrant siginificant changes to the game?

If one of the big drivers for changing the die type is diversity of units, I'd also point out that statistical diversity of units does not equal better gameplay. In fact, I'd argue that significantly increasing that diversity is more and more likely to lead to the game becoming a strategic instead of tactical affair. Look at WH40k - one of the most serious criticisms of the game is the fact that battles are won or lost before the minis hit the table. LoS is the opposite of this, with those tactical decisions in-game making all the difference. Most miniature games with extremely diverse selections of troops suffer from the "strategic problem," and I would argue that it's inevitable. The broader the range of units, the higher the odds that some units will either be universally better, or simply better than some other opposing unit under most circumstances. Beyond a certain threshold, point values cannot compensate for this.

Look at the G1 Nightmare and UNE Commando: the stat spread between them is slight, but the tactical implications are huge.

[smokingwreckage]

SO keep the D6 and restrict new features/units to things that work in that range?

[Clark]

One of the things I have relieved myself of is the notion that Legions of Steel requires a "business model".  That is part and parcel to the debate about rules and in particular the game system.  To sell more minatures is to sell the difference.  I will put it to the membership: how likely are you to buy a new fig that performs exactly the same as another fig you already own?

Personally, I consider the Black Box to be my masterpiece in terms of game balance and effect.  It is so simple: at short range you need a 4+ (50%), at long you need a 6+ (16.67%) and then I factored in movement and weapon performance.


Again, the question is "granularity". What is the smallest change in circumstance that we acknowledge in the game system?

I think we need a flexible system of optional rules that will allow player to decide for themselves what buffs or upgrades or whatever they are willing to reflet in the game.  The question is: "is there a market for it?" I am not talking in the economic sense but rather is there a desire among players to have figs or characters that differ in their abilities by something less than 16.6667%?