Paper tires and infinite range

[NexusGameTheory]

Pretty much every game we have played I have tweaked the arena size down from the bigger style ones I started with and basically the games get better with smaller arenas.

I think this game does so well with tighter spaces. If you have 8 cars, then sure, go for Double Drum style size arenas, but we are doing 4-6 players and 6-8 tiles is more than enough.

At this point my recommendation to most groups would be to go for much smaller arenas and then worry about going bigger if they need it. Even racing arenas, 8 tiles can begin to feel like a lot.

I don't know if that helps?

[Jumpster]

It does, how can I get more dashboards without buying additional game copies?

I still am thinking about tweaking range rules. Even without loss of control, it seems that even if your target isn't moving (ie no dice to roll) it should be harder to hit than being adjacent

[beetle496]

Originally Posted by Jumpster

I guess it was 3x6.

Okay, that is perfectly sensible. (But not what you were describing earlier.)

I happened to roll the gear on the green die on every D1 on the A side of the tiles while staying on the road.

One thread, two Murphey’s Rules! Tires in 6e prolly last less than 100 miles with perfectly tame driving, unless you have High Density Radials.

That's around the double barrel arena no? Didn't seem too big.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Jumpster

I still am thinking about tweaking range rules. Even without loss of control, it seems that even if your target isn't moving (ie no dice to roll) it should be harder to hit than being adjacent

Plus, there could be scenarios with targets (which, by definition, are out-of-control).

Originally Posted by NexusGameTheory

At this point my recommendation to most groups would be to go for much smaller arenas and then worry about going bigger if they need it. Even racing arenas, 8 tiles can begin to feel like a lot.

Four curves, four straights, very straightforward. You will still have the situation where someone loses control on corner, and every other car — even the ones on opposite corners — fire at that car. What is that, 6+ turning key lengths? No defensive dice. No range penalty. Seems like a defect with RAW. I agree with you that smaller arenas will be generally be more fun than larger ones, but that is not a good reason for the rules to break for modestly larger arenas.

Originally Posted by Sam Mitschke

We built the base game so that going out of control makes you a sitting duck. Losing control should be terrifying and something you constantly try to avoid.

True and fine points, but orthogonal to this gap wrt range. Did you play test range giving defensive dice instead of re-rolls? What is your suggestion for players that want something a little different here? I really appreciated the back-and-forth that happened on the thread about explosive damage!

Originally Posted by Jumpster

Also we did have fun! Everyone I've played with so far has agreed that this version captures the feel without the complexity.

+1

We did think the infinite range weapons is something we'll have to figure out somehow though.

Also +1

[NexusGameTheory]

In playing some higher point games, everyone has a number of defensive dice from gear. Mean they still get those when out of control, and can take advantage of range re-rolls.

So it seems like the biggest problems mostly exist under this subset of situations where all the below are true if I have this right:

1. Long Ranges
2. Lower Point Games

An easy house rule would be something simple like every four car lengths (2 turnkeys) gives a "range shield" instead of a range re-roll. It doesn't give extra defense dice which might be more unbalancing than using the "cover" rules and so using longer range as "cover" seems like an alternate way to handle it.

Thoughts?

[NexusGameTheory]

Now that I have said the above, I thought of even an easier house rule that I like more.

Just allow anyone to convert three "range re-rolls" to a shield. Just effectively trade them in. Statistically, that is similar assuming someone has enough dice to begin with.

Where that above is broken is that range re-rolls don't help someone if they only have a couple of defense dice and they are already showing shields. so the above idea does make Range a more powerful part of defense, but it is very easy to work with and doesn't come in to play till someone gets three or 6 re-rolls from range.

Thoughts on game balance for this one?

It will likely have the effect of slowing the game down a little as range is a better defensive strategy thanit was before.

[scimon]

I think if / when I play on a large map I'll make sure there is copious cover. So long range sniping without crossing some kind of cover is unlikely. That was you'll generally get *some* defence.

[Jumpster]

I like the "convert range refills to shield" option, since your counting anyway it doesn't add significant overhead. It also makes sense for armor types that don't add dice and helps balance bad luck (my sons are amazed at my ability to roll slips when maneuvering). What mechanics/balance would this break?

[beetle496]

Originally Posted by NexusGameTheory

An easy house rule would be something simple like every four car lengths (2 turnkeys) gives a "range shield" instead of a range re-roll. It doesn't give extra defense dice which might be more unbalancing than using the "cover" rules and so using longer range as "cover" seems like an alternate way to handle it.

I am not sure what you mean by extra defensive dice being more unbalancing than treating range as cover. Cover, an automatic shield, is better than a re-roll or adding a defensive die.

I would like to see the rules simplified: All defenses are dice. Speed (when not out of control) gives yellow defensive dice, add more for range, add more for partial and full cover. Ace tokens should still reman an (optional) re-roll. Cards/Crew/Accessories remain as-is.

The status quo is that some defenses are dice, some are re-rolls, and some are straight-out shields. It detracts from Vroom-Vroom, Pew! Pew!

The suggestion to have range give Shields makes range too valuable IMHO. I already didn’t really like it that cover is so dependable, so my recommendation to make most every defense mean more dice helps with that. Dice are fun!

[Magesmiley]

Originally Posted by Sam Mitschke

We built the base game so that going out of control makes you a sitting duck. Losing control should be terrifying and something you constantly try to avoid.

Unless your names is Possum.

[NexusGameTheory]

Originally Posted by beetle496

I am not sure what you mean by extra defensive dice being more unbalancing than treating range as cover. Cover, an automatic shield, is better than a re-roll or adding a defensive die.

Yes, an automatic shield is probably better than a chance at a shield on the immediate roll (see white die for possible, but statistically unlikely, an improvement over a single shield).

I was just trying to say I hadn't done any thinking yet on how unbalancing any changes might be. It seems like they were very careful on balancing lots of items and ESPECIALLY careful to make sure the "best" way to get defense dice was to go fast, thereby encouraging players to go vroom vroom. But the game balance was already built around allowing for cover, so I figured a "little more cover" probably wouldn't break anything. And since they had been so careful about adding defense dice, I really hadn't done any thinking on the potential unbalancing of how more dice might interact with builds that have lots of ACE rerolls or other factors. That was the unbalancing I was referring to, the larger game impact, less that specific roll.

More defense of any kind, shields or extra dice, for range, does some to make Range a more important defensive factor and make the speed you are going less important. Potentially creating a different play experience.