T5 Status, 10/6/2014

[DonM]

A T5 Combat update went out to the reviewers yesterday, along with a note that if they desired, they could report here on COTI how they see that process shaking out.

Progress is being made on the next Imperiallines issue, but I don't give dates...

Marc and I have a face-to-face tentatively scheduled for this Wednesday. Everyone cross your fingers on that.

Marc and I have discussed T5 errata... What would people prefer? Another errata update, or focus on the T5 Combat revision? I told Marc I'd ask for thoughts on that here (but no formal poll).

 

[thalassogen]

Please do a general errata update before continuing on the combat chapter.

 

[JFGarber]

I agree.

 

[thalassogen]

As one of the five reviewers I received an updated combat chapter yesterday and have sent in my comments a few hours ago.

I don't want to go into the details of the current state. But I want to let you know that progress is being made. I am beginning to see the coherent rule block now that so many of you claimed has always been there in T5; and the combat system starts to look good to me without sacrificing its core concepts and abstractness.

I am looking forward to the next iteration and especially the answers to my personal questions concerning the combat system. I wished the beta phase had been that progressive/constructive.

 

[Reban]

I'd also vote for a general errata update. As the playtest process for Combat seems to be working along nicely I think now would be a good time to answer some of the other errata before the update amount gets so big as to swamp us.

 

[Daddicus]

I'm for the errata as well. But, I won't whine or scream if it goes the other way.

 

[Ulsyus]

I would ask how much is going to change in T5 with changes being made? Okay, I just asked it. This is purely from an effectiveness perspective. If a pile of stuff is going to get changed, then focusing on the changes rather than putting out errata to mechanics that are going to be changed may be more efficient.

If the maths on that is too hard, my vote is for the errata.

 

[OjnoTheRed]

My view is similar to Ulysus'. If the combat chapter has a lot of consequential changes, then it makes sense to put it out first before cleaning up other errata that might become redundant.

If the combat chapter is an isolated case that only takes in combat-chapter related errata, then I'm for updating the other errata before moving on to give the reviewers more time.

 

[Licheking]

The changes in the combat chapter do affect other areas such as starship weapons and how that damage is dealt with along with some skill bits and from there a knock on effect to the makers based on how things now work.

I love where the combat chapters are going the changes aren't massive just better explained and streamlined with better flow throughout. It all ties in nicely and feels to me like Traveller should.

I have seen the new update and don't have too many questions now so its looking good to me.

 

[cym0k]

With Ulysus in opinion. Nail the big stuff down, then polish it. But, either is progress so forge ahead...

 

[dalthor]

Been out myself, still recovering from med issues, but I'd like to see errata, then the combat update, please.

May be another 6 weeks before I'm back to any kind of consistent presence, gonna have a LOT to catch up on, and a lot of work to do.

C U all l8r.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Choices, choices.

First, I think I would go with full errata, but I am cool either way.

And yes, Personal Combat is looking good. I haven't finished looking at the new stuff completely, real life and all, but I like what I have seen. One nice thing is that Pen damage is now clearly defined as to what it does. So some new stuff and some old reworded and made much clearer, but for sure kids progress is being made.

In fact, I am thinking of running the meatspace crew through some playable Sophonts CharGen and then some Personal Combat. :devil:

 

[Ackehece]

First, I think I would go with full errata, but I am cool either way.

And yes, Personal Combat is looking good. I haven't finished looking at the new stuff completely, real life and all, but I like what I have seen. One nice thing is that Pen damage is now clearly defined as to what it does. So some new stuff and some old reworded and made much clearer, but for sure kids progress is being made.

In fact, I am thinking of running the meatspace crew through some playable Sophonts CharGen and then some Personal Combat. :devil:

I also see the same thing. Damage is much more defined and the mess with snap aimed etc is fixed.
Otoh I hope to see some improvements yet in melee damage as a person can there is a situation that can result in lopsided victories in ever case.
Impact damage from collisions also does not make much sense as of yet

It's definitely improving and should be great soon!

 

[Supplement Four]

The new drafts are light years of improvement over what was printed in the T5 hardback, but, like the above, I still don't think the rules are ready for prime time.

I need to dig into this new draft--I'll probably do that this weekend. But, my worry is that combat will take too long. There's too many rolls: Roll to hit; roll for hit location; roll for penetration; roll for damage. I think that will bog down play--especially with the T5 task system being used. All those dice...the figuring for Range and Size...then, all those rolls afterwards. We need to find a way to keep the granularity but streamline the combat round process.

 

[Licheking]

Penetration and damage are the same roll.

You will always need the roll to hit!

Location is the only roll thats new to this version and i like it and it should be kept.

I can't see any way to reduce the number of rolls, and as for figuring out mods for the to hit roll its usually 2 numbers max, size and cover/movement.

 

[Epee]

So is the "new and improved" to be trickled out to the masses or is a new beta cycle for a full re-write starting?

 

[ThornPlutonius]

But, my worry is that combat will take too long. There's too many rolls: Roll to hit; roll for hit location; roll for penetration; roll for damage. I think that will bog down play--especially with the T5 task system being used. All those dice...the figuring for Range and Size...then, all those rolls afterwards. We need to find a way to keep the granularity but streamline the combat round process.

I know we are all smart people who have probably thought about this, but multiple rolls can be condensed by rolling different colored dice at the same time (e.g., black for the basic To Hit roll, a pair of red for penetration/damage and a pair of white for location). If the hit is not made, the other dice can be ignored. If it is made, then note what the other dice rolled.

That said, I do agree with simplifying the process as much as possible and trying to find that sweet spot between too complex and too simplified. I thank those who are working to accomplish this.

 

[Supplement Four]

I don't think we should be hashing this out here. Let's just keep making our comments to Marc and keep on rolling.

But, I will be clear about what I meant. Maybe you others will think about this.

What happens during an attack in a combat round? It's a lot of damn steps! I don't think it's smooth at all.

1. Figure range to target in order to roll a number of dice for the attack throw.

2. Figure the Size of the target, then subtract that from Range, to use as a modifier.

3. Add in misc. modifiers, the the Tactics mod, target crouching, whatever.

4. Then roll to-hit, add up all dice and all modifiers and check this against the target number of Characteristic + Skill.



OK, done with the attack. Let's say we hit.



5. We roll hit location by throwing two dice, subtracting them from each other (Flux), then looking on a chart to see what location was hit. Different charts used for different types of beings.

6. Check to see if that part of the body is covered with armor. If it is, note the armor's Armor Value in that hit location.

7. Then we roll a number of dice for the damage of the weapon and compare to the AV, checking for penetration and counting any damage.

8. There can be several damage rolls (thus step 7 can be repeated three or four times if a weapon has damage with that many effects--like weapon that does Bang damage, Blast damage, and Bullet damage). Note that a separate hit location roll is also needed for each type of damage a weapon produces.

9. Implement any misc. effects, like a target going deaf from Bang damage or the target is knocked down. Sometimes, these effect require rolls (for example, roll 1D-2 for Knockdown stun rounds).

10. Target applies damage to his stats. Each damage die is rolled randomly, so if a character is hit with 3D damage, then that's three more rolls to determine, randomly, where each damage die will go.




I think that's a hell of a long, drawn out combat round. Multiply this by 5 PCs fighting 7 NPCs, and you've got a pretty bogged down game, imo.



EDIT: There's also a lot of bookkeeping that I'm not crazy about. For example, any armored hit location that is damaged fails to provide protection for the remainder of the encounter. This can be a real head ache for the Ref if he's got several wounded NPC's--having to keep up with who got hit where. And, players will have to record or remember where they where hit in previous rounds if hit a second or third time.

 

[robject]

Reference Supp4's last post, and then try to run combat with all characters on a deckplan.

How do you suppose that would go at a 'con?


I've been having similar fits thinking about BCS combat.

Now, ACS combat will be an extension of personal combat -- the core pieces are there after all.

 

[OjnoTheRed]

Reference Supp4's last post, and then try to run combat with all characters on a deckplan.

This relates to my chief question about PCS. I like the abstraction for many situations, especially outdoors; but what about tactical movement? I would be happy with abstracting tactical movement into "changing positions" within range band parameters, but I think making decisions about, e.g. the ability to reach cover in one round, adds to the game.

Supplement Four - I know you're looking at a draft that I haven't seen yet, and I'll go away and think about what you've said. But an initial reaction from me is that a lot of those calculations are effectively performed once - e.g. the C+S for a character and the size of the target and are then used repeatedly. Having said this, the hit location does sound a bit cumbersome; but at least it's clearer than what the rules currently say! I'd like to see this abstracted for NPCs, especially for a "shoot up the horde" kind of rule. But again, I'm not in the review process but I do trust the people who are.