Hello CB community! I'll try to keep it short. If Criticals would be on a 1 instead of the Success Value, it would: -speed up gameplay by a few percent (edit: around 5% per die rolled are crits) -free up brain power diverted from calculating the Success Value; -make faction symbols something to look out for -increase sales of official infinity dice ;) Cons: -veterans of the game would take time to adjust -some would see the old system inherit to the identity of infinity -bringing out such a rule update would require a new edition probably, as all the rulebooks are already printed like that Our in-house testing has worked out very well so far. Seeing a faction symbols is now much more enjoyable :). Cheers!
I was obviously joking, but nonetheless it's something to take into account. And you should rewrite also the "stats over 20" part.
For sure, some adaption will have to be done, but overall I think it's a good idea for the game. Especially when beginning it's easier to remember.
I honestly don't like it. You will have to calculate your target number anyway (how do you even know if you hit or miss if you don't?). And if it is a TARGET number, you should be awarded to hit the spot. It's one of the things I liked the most when I started the game. You need to roll high but under the target value. Not aiming for a 20. Or a 1. You aim for the target value.
On the topic of crits they still seem a little too good. The change from auto wound to extra damage roll might be good for TAGs and heaviest HI but for light HI with 3 arm and 2w getting crit by HMG without cover is on average way worse than old auto wound crit, even with cover it's technically better, but you still have the risk of going Unc from single shot. My slight nerf to crits: They still win FtF. They still make you roll extra dice for saving, but it only causes damage if you save base roll. This way it can't deal more damage than normal hit from that weapon. With any single save ammo it's easy, just roll 2 dice and if any or both are failed saves then it counts as 1 failed save. With EXP and DA you have to roll crit dice separate and apply it only if at least one of base rolls is saved. We already have to roll separate crit dice for fire damage, nothing new here. What do you guys think about that?
Looks like it's mostly "feels better when you see the faction icon" vs "values over 20 becomes more annoying to deal with" as success values still have to be calculated. Most dice have a preference, particularly the dice with two colours. You may be rolling with weighted dice without knowing it, though the weight usually isn't enough to predict a certain result a dice will tend to prefer either even or odd numbers (due to how numbers are distributed and grouped on D20s) The faction dice are, in my testing, particularly unpredictable. Some of the dice I tested were as bad as dual-coloured dice and some as good as the transparent dice. This isn't a big thing as long as no one is doping or drilling into their dice, but it is a thing.
@calculation: sure, yu have to calculate mods, but only if you dont roll a 1. This way you can start rolling: if 1 then dont have to calculate the opponents dice if no 1: you have to calculate as always. So there is a gain to be had.
Minor comment. Moving Crit values on a 1 favors higher stats/Mods. With having the taget number also eliminate your best roll, you slightly nerf things that would have won anyway without a Crit. Freeing up the highest result shifts FTF balance further in favor of the side with the higher target value. Meaning all the stuff that's already looking for relatively high numbers, Core Link BS Attacks, Smoke, CC gets a small bump to efficiency.
We're both rolling on 14s. You roll a 7. I roll a 1 (scenario A) or a 14 (scenario B). Under the rules, you win in scenario A and I win (and force an extra save) in scenario B. Under your proposal, I win (and force an extra save) in scenario A, and I win in scenario B. So it's not a neutral switch. It affects whether the non-crit roll wins or loses the F2F.
Ok, I think I understand what you mean, but I don't think that the odds change. Imagine it like this: With BS 14 the numbers on the die 1-13 from the old system are shifted to the numbers 2-14. You still have 13 sides that are hits and 1 that is a crit. Yes, die rolls have now different results, but the odds are the same. Edit to further explain: a 2 cancels only a single other number: 2 - like the 1 canceled only a 1 in the old system. a 3 cancels two numbers: 2,3 - like the 2 canceled a 1 and 2 did in the old system a 4 cancels three numbers: 2,3,4 - like the 3 in the old system. etc.
same odds https://imgur.com/3i0scAT weather it is 12vs12 or 6vs18, in both system the odds are the same. There are as many combination from the 400 combinations. They just shuffled around.
You might want to label your tables if you want them to be legible. But, good news - I already have a dice calculator written, and it was easy to tweak it to register 1s as crits instead of target values. Here are the results: Two units rolling on 14s, B1, dam 13, arm 0, each has a 29.52% chance to wound. If we change to a crit-on-1 system, each has a 30.32% chance to wound. The change comes because a roll of 14 is very likely to win even if it isn't a crit, whereas a roll of 1 will often lose if it isn't a crit. So making 1s crit gives each unit extra chances to wound.
Rolling on BS 14: Old System: 13 sides (1-13) hit, 14 is a crit New System 13 sides (2-14) hit, 1 is a crit The number of sides are the same to hit and as such the chance to hit is the same. The number also have the same odds of canceling like the old system has (see my post edit above). Maybe the following makes it clearer: a crit on a 1 still cancels all other regular hits from the opponent.
Maybe you missed the part where the same rolls have 29.52% odds under the current system, and 30.32% odds under your proposal? I think probably where you're erring is in not accounting for the fact that crits cause extra saves. But I could be wrong about where your error is. Point is you've got an error somewhere in your work, if you work out the odds to be the same, since the odds are in fact different by roughly 1%.
To make an easier to understand example BS10 target value vs a rolled 5 Current crits: 1, 2, 3, 4 loses FTF 5 ties 6, 7, 8, 9, 10(crit) wins 40% of possible outcomes are losses, 10% are ties, 50% are wins Crits on 1s 2, 3, 4 loses FTF 5 ties 1(crit), 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 wins 30% of possible outcomes are losses, 10% are ties, 60% are wins (net 20% increase to win FTF) It's a rather noticeable impact on balance. There is no difference if the target value is below the value to beat, so it only matters if you can beat the other guy's FTF without a Crit. This is btw one of the reasons why FAT2 was so terribly OP. Any success can cancel a rolled 1 - always, no expections FAT2 changed the worst possible success that any other success would cancel into the best possible result - which is much better than simply extending Crit range as it still leaves your (Target Value -1) in the pool to contest.
I think your flaw comes that you calculate vs a set number rather than all the results the opponent can roll. An Example Both have a BS3 to make it simple [ Roll Player A ] vs [Roll Player B] Old System 1vs1=tie 1vs2=B hit 1vs3=B crit 2vs1=A hit 2vs2=tie 2vs3=B crit 3vs1=A crit 3vs2=A crit 3vs3=tie 3 ties 1 A hit 1 B hit 2 A crit 2 B crit New System 1vs1=tie 1vs2=A crit 1vs3=A crit 2vs1=B crit 2vs2=tie 2vs3=B hit 3vs1=B crit 3vs2=A hit 3vs3=tie 3 tie 1 A hit 1 B hit 2 A crit 2 B crit The odds are the same, the numbers only shifted toward the top where the crit should be. a 5 in the old system would simulate a 6 in the new system, as explained in the odds edit above.
