08-11-2018, 02:02 AM | #21 | |
Join Date: May 2018
|
Re: Tied AdjDX and Initiative
Quote:
|
|
08-11-2018, 03:28 AM | #22 |
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Arizona
|
Re: Tied AdjDX and Initiative
Fistfuls of multi-colored dice, baby! ;-)
|
08-11-2018, 03:34 AM | #23 |
Join Date: May 2018
|
Re: Tied AdjDX and Initiative
In my own RPG, I actually changed the mechanics to increase the number of dice because one of my players really really wanted to roll even more dice. We were already using dice pools but I guess he wanted more dice in the pool!
|
08-11-2018, 02:30 PM | #24 |
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: Tied AdjDX and Initiative
We took the doubling of damage from Pole Weapons and the double/triple from rolling a 3 or 4 to mean roll that many more dice, not roll the normal number and multiply. It was nicely dramatic and ominous (and gratifying, if you were the one doing the damage) to roll a bunch of damage dice at once.
|
08-11-2018, 05:16 PM | #25 |
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Arizona
|
Re: Tied AdjDX and Initiative
LOL! People are strange sometimes, but I always learn something from them...and as long as everyone is having fun, it's okay with me!
|
11-11-2018, 05:43 AM | #26 |
Join Date: Mar 2018
|
Re: Tied AdjDX and Initiative
I just noticed on p 107, a change made in response to this thread: "If adjDX is tied, the figures on the side with initiative go first. Within that side, if it matters, the figure with the highest basic DX goes first. If there are still ties, roll the dice."
|
11-11-2018, 08:43 AM | #27 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Pacheco, California
|
Re: Tied AdjDX and Initiative
Yes, the testing process worked for those issues that were noted and clearly communicated. The fixup process only introduced two additional mechanical typos.
There were several items that nobody caught during the test. One of these was a garbled sentence and the rest where logical inconsistencies between different elements.
__________________
-HJC |
11-11-2018, 09:36 AM | #28 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
|
Re: Tied AdjDX and Initiative
I like the revised rule (p. 107).
|
11-11-2018, 10:08 AM | #29 |
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: Tied AdjDX and Initiative
I prefer the original rule, because it makes more sense to me.
i..e.: The new rule creates a physical side-effect which only applies when figures happen to have the same adjDX. It also leads to goofy gamey tactics, such as: "Oh, we lost initiative, and they're making us move first, and we know we have several figures with the same adjDX as them, so we should move to avoid combat this round, or else those figures will fight worse this turn. We'll wait until we win initiative to move to engage." Even if we try to rationalize that making sense, and even if we like the type of play that encourages, it is weird that it only has effect to the degree that there are opponents with equal adjDX. Also, I don't think initiative needs to be any more powerful than it already is. |
11-11-2018, 04:10 PM | #30 | |
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Florida Peninsula, Earth, Sol Sytem
|
Re: Tied AdjDX and Initiative
Quote:
|
|
Tags |
house rules, initiative |
|
|