0beron wrote:Recall that different kinds of casters have described the same or similar phenomena in different ways, so taking the word of a single caster as canon on everything is a dangerous bet.
LTDave wrote:Oberon - the problem with Combat - Defence = Hits is that it is possible to build a stack with Defence so high that no casualties are ever taken. We've encountered this in the Battle for Gobwin Bump series, 1 through 4. You end up with a single big stack in a hex, rather than multiple stacks of 8.
LTDave wrote:The problem (as I see it) with the Erf-sim games (from NewErf to Titanic Mandate to the team vs team games run by Bland and others) is that it is all way too complicated for the GM's to run. The rules have got to be simple - it's the players that make the game fun by interacting with each other.
Lord of Monies wrote:Complexity does belong in an important battle, I agree. I've probably just made it more complicated by looking at the part from book 0 where clay explains how luckamancy works. Maybe I'm still confused like Wanda, but it seems like the best explanation we're going to get for combat and it seems to suggest that a single roll would count for anything. So no 2d6 or 4d4 to ensure a good minimum roll still, but everyone is capable of a critical fumble. A lowly piker could take out someone like Ossomer, if luck decreed it. Although the piker could still only do as many hits as he could while the likes of Ossomer would easily have plenty more hits in reserve, so there must be more to it than I first thought. Perhaps, if I think of this in dnd terms, the die roll that describes the event rather than determines it is equivalent to the attack roll of dnd. What is rolled allows the GM to describe what happens whether it mean your arrow missed by miles, your sword hit but scraped along their armour harmlessly, or you stab your rapier through their eye.
The die roll, then, doesn't have anything to do with increasing or decreasing damage. Any unit's stats are fixed as anyone else can see them. Combat - defense = hits dealt, pretty simple mathmancy. Luckamancy is expanding the odds, allowing a unit to have a wider variety of choices that may or may not include good choices, such as parrying the attack instead of trying to strike but failing. This is dnd then. Combat is simple, if my interpretation of the erfworld flavour here is correct. All damage is fixed depending on the combatants, even crits which I imagine to be a simple multiplier of damage, and the rolls are an attack roll against an opposed defense roll. The type of unit in question determines how many sides it has, translating to how many options it has available to it, with alterations depending on circumstances like sneak attack or environmental factors.
Let's take, as an example, Countess Artemis' attempted shot at Sylvia here. Artemis is a lvl 8 Warlord in a position of cover holding a clear shot at Sylvia's exposed back. Sylvia herself is a lvl 6 Warlord, so right off the bat Artemis is going to have a higher sided dice, however Sylvia is also benefitting from a Decrypted bonus as Wanda is in the same hex. This might be enough to balance out the negative she would receive from being in an exposed position, meaning that in all Artemis still has the higher-sided die. For argument's sake, let's say Artemis has a d20 while Sylvia is a d16. Take away the environmental factors and on her next shot she gets the crit she suspected, so she could have rolled a 20 and got her crit on sylvia, but sheer amounts of luckamancy decreed that her role was instead, say, 15 while Sylvia also had some great luckamancy and rolled a 16. The one number difference is what saves Sylvia by the narrow margin of the arrow flying in front of her eyes and making her aware. Luckamancy is all in the attack roll, not the damage.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests