Radical YCE: melee

[JawRippa]

The Stimmer with two pulverisers has a 3% chance of causing an injury roll before a reaction attack.

The Stimmer with a renderiser has a 55% chance of causing an injury roll before a reaction attack (even with 1 less attack).

The death maiden with two venom claws has a 91% chance of causing at least one injury roll and a 17% chance of causing two.

I have no idea how are you getting these numbers. In alternating attacks you can strike once or twice initially, depending on your attack difference. Here is the napkin math. Difference between D1 and D2 or Toxin is fairly significant, yeah, but numbers are not as bad. 65% vs 18%
To be fair we haven't experienced these problems as much simply because we play without new champions. Our group generally does not like new lore, nor overqualified 'super-champions'

1).

Spoiler: Death maiden with two claws charges Stimmer

She hits on 2+ (0.83), toxin kicks in on 3+ (0.67) (let's be generous and say that chem-synth triggers everytime) and rerolls 1's for poison blood, so total probability to for toxin to work is (0.67+(0.67*0.16)), furnace plates won't save stimmer ever because of AP-2 and 4 out 6 (0.67) results on an injury dice result either in OOA or SI which are identical because of coup-de-grace.
Total probability to OOA with a single attack: 0.83 * (0.67+(0.67*0.16)) * 0.66 = 0.43 = 43%, so a chance for a single attack to fail to OOA is 57%.
Two attacks kill stimmer (1-(0.57)^2)= 0.67 = 67% of the time.

Maiden with claws and always succeeding chem-synth kills Stimmer with no retaliation 67% of the time if she hits him twice and 43% of the time if she hits him once.

2).

Spoiler: Stimmer with renderizer charges Death maiden

He hits on 2+ (0.83), wounds on 3+ (0.67), mesh will save maiden on 6 due to of AP-1 and injury dice result either in OOA or SI (0.67), but also we have pulverise ability, which triggers when we flesh wound, so a total probability to get good Injury roll is (0.67+(0.33*0.67))
Total probability to OOA with a single attack: 0.83 * 0.67 * 0.83 * (0.67+(0.33*0.67)) = 0.41 = 41% , so a chance for a single attack to fail to OOA is 59%.
Two attacks kill Maiden (1-(0.59)^2)= 0.65 = 65% of the time.

A Stimmer with renderizer kills maiden with no retaliation 65% of the time if he hits twice and 41% of the time if he hits once.

3).

Spoiler: Stimmer with Pulverizers charges Death maiden

Pulverizers:
0.83 х 0.67 х 0.83 = 0.46 = 46% chance to take 1 wound, since it is damage 1 and maiden has two wounds. To take her out we need to roll 2 attacks and deal damage with both which is (0.46)^2 = 0.21 = 21%
Now for seruous injury roll with pulverize: 0.21 x ((0.67+(0.33*0.67))) = 0.18 = 18%

A Stimmer with pulverizers kills maiden with no retaliation only 18% of the time (and only if he strikes twice!).

 

[JawRippa]

@Kiro The Avenger , @Commissariat , what do you think about this method of CC?
I've tried rolling some test dice and it seems pretty fast to resolve. Most importantly, it is very close to original rules, so no need to rehash all traits. After initiatl testing:

• WS2+ agains WS2+ is interesting to resolve, an attacker is usually at least partially stopped, but some attacks still go through, so it pays to be attacker.
• Juve with WS5+ can occasionally get through defence of WS2+, but most likely won't achieve much.
• Gangers of WS4+ don't care much.

There are few things I'm not sure about:

• How to spread weapons used between multiple defence dice and attack dice. For example I have a plasma pistol and combat knife. Obviously I would not want to keep plasma shot for retaliation, not defence.
• Should it be possible to defend with pistols at all?
• Whether or not it is justified to have unwieldy or power to require 2 successes to cancel and how should unwieldy (without power) work against power (without unwieldy).

 

[Kiro The Avenger]

It's promising I suppose, some points though;

- I don't think you should be able to defend with a pistol.
- needing to go halfsies on defence dice with two melee weapons follows attacks and makes sense.

- is there a reason you need to attack at least once? If my Juve gets charged by a champion, why can't I go full defensive if I want?
- I'm not sure about needing two dice to block Unwieldy, that turns what's meant to be a downside into a pretty major upside. If you can only assign a number of defence equal to the number of enemy attacks, unwieldy weapons won't suffer much so don't need the huge buff.
- it will still need a reevaluation of costs. Power gets a big buff, multi-damage weapons become more important still as you can expect to land fewer hits.

The only conceptual problem I can see (vs the specific and workable problems above) is that it lowers the overall lethality of combat. Why would I spend so much effort building a melee fighter and working across the board when I can just pick up a bolter and twat them from the safety of my deployment zone?

 

[JawRippa]

- is there a reason you need to attack at least once? If my Juve gets charged by a champion, why can't I go full defensive if I want?

To make players who play too cautiously not to turn melee fights into a total slog. If a juve gets charged by a champion, they deserve to evaporate, unless they are really lucky.

- I'm not sure about needing two dice to block Unwieldy, that turns what's meant to be a downside into a pretty major upside. If you can only assign a number of defence equal to the number of enemy attacks, unwieldy weapons won't suffer much so don't need the huge buff.

Fair enough. I wanted to represent that these weapons are hard to deflect and to compensate for the fact that they don't get an extra attack, but perhaps thats not needed. If such melee weapon hits even once, it is usually enough to mess someone up.

The only conceptual problem I can see (vs the specific and workable problems above) is that it lowers the overall lethality of combat. Why would I spend so much effort building a melee fighter and working across the board when I can just pick up a bolter and twat them from the safety of my deployment zone?

Initiating a melee combat does not require LOS. It is cheaper to kit out fighters for (melee should be cheaper in general). Melee is not reliant on ammo. Unlike shooting downing an enemy almost guarantees you XP. If you fail to kill the target, you are now engaged and protected from enemy shooting, unless the model you are engaged with manages to retreat.

 

[Kiro The Avenger]

I see it as an unwieldy weapon may be hard to outright block, but they're easy to sidestep. Both are valid ways to avoid a melee attack.

Melee is typically more expensive than ranged, do you mean you'll be adjusting costs?

 

[JawRippa]

I see it as an unwieldy weapon may be hard to outright block, but they're easy to sidestep. Both are valid ways to avoid a melee attack.

Melee is typically more expensive than ranged, do you mean you'll be adjusting costs?

Yes, if we get to that point. Lasgun/Autogun should be 25 credits like it was in old Necromunda and be a general benchmark for weapons. Axe/Club/Knife should be balanced against each other and all cost 5 or 10 credits.

- needing to go halfsies on defence dice with two melee weapons follows attacks and makes sense.

I'd say no need to tie melee weapons to defence rolls. Its just a Weapon Skill check (after it has been reduced by 1), each success cancels one of attacker's successes. Two melee weapons alternating should be done only for leftover defender's attack dice which are used for reaction attacks.
Edit: So a Cawdor with a spear in base to base contact will defend themselves with a -1 penalty (it does not matter if his weapons has a -1 or +1 accuracy, defence rolls are not hit rolls). Making an actual reaction attack after defending themselves would result in a -2 though.

 

[NoOneII.]

The Parry Skill or Parry Traits on Weapons could and maybe should be considered in this. If the defender gets to roll himself to cancel attacks, it might be too powerful to also force the Attacker to reroll the leftover successful attack(s).
Maybe Parry simply gives another defensive die?

 

[JawRippa]

The Parry Skill or Parry Traits on Weapons could and maybe should be considered in this. If the defender gets to roll himself to cancel attacks, it might be too powerful to also force the Attacker to reroll the leftover successful attack(s).
Maybe Parry simply gives another defensive die?

I was thinking on making parry a special save which only works in melee. Special saves were a thing in NCE, the way they worked is they could be used alongside armour, could not be modified and ignored any AP. Most importantly, if you passed a special save, you were not even considered to have been hit, so no pin, blaze rad-phage etc.
Its a bit advanced though, I would not bother too much about parry as of now.

 

[Commissariat]

Whereas alternating attacks feels more dramatic, it takes a long time - also makes D2/Toxin desirable to skip the alternating attacks altogether, which seems contradictory to what you're attempting.

Overall this Attack/Defence die system seems vastly superior to alternating attacks. It is a suggestion that isn't equivalent to pretending WS+ is anything other than a X+ dice check.

If defender is not unarmed, they can choose to retaliate defensively when attacked in melee.

• They reduce their WS by 1 until the end of this fight.

Why reduce it by 1? Is it to prevent 2+ "melee saves" for combat beasts?

• Before any rolls are made, they set aside a number of attack dice. These dice are called defence dice.
  • Defence dice number can't be bigger than attacker's number of attack dice.
  • The defender needs to have at least a single remaining attack dice after setting defence dice aside.

So if a 1-attack model is charged, you're saying they are forced to retaliate and cannot try and defend themselves? IE: Lasgunner gets charged by turbo-demon.

What about a Juve that wants to try and fish for their unlikely block results to start alive?

Why not allow a 5 attack model defend against a 2 attack model with 3 dice? There is opportunity cost if they "waste" an additional defense success result that could have been a retaliation attack.

• Attacker rolls all of their attack dice. Defender rolls all of their defence dice.
  • Each success of defender cancels a single sucess of attacker, prioritising lowest rolls first.
  • Only a roll of natural six can cancel another roll of natural six.

This seems fine.

• After all defence dice are resolved, if defender is still engaged, they can retaliate with their remaining attack dice as normal.

Yes.


This is all based on a cursory glance. It may be discovered that this is inherently flawed too with play. However, so far, I am intrigued.

 

[Kiro The Avenger]

Something else that just popped into my mind.
Why can't the attacker use defence as well?
They're going to be attacked, surely they'll attempt to defend themselves as well.

 

[Daganisoraan]

Something else that just popped into my mind.
Why can't the attacker use defence as well?
They're going to be attacked, surely they'll attempt to defend themselves as well.

And then you enter an infinite loop where each attackes has a defense in response to his new attack.

 

[JawRippa]

Why reduce it by 1? Is it to prevent 2+ "melee saves" for combat beasts?

Yes.

Why not allow a 5 attack model defend against a 2 attack model with 3 dice? There is opportunity cost if they "waste" an additional defense success result that could have been a retaliation attack.

Because then a juve would never be able to scratch a high WS/A target. I want defense to be an effective measure, but one that reduces damage instead of fully preventing it. Also I really don't want players to be too passive in combat, both sides need to roll some attacks.

 

[JawRippa]

Something else that just popped into my mind.
Why can't the attacker use defence as well?
They're going to be attacked, surely they'll attempt to defend themselves as well.

I guess it could be possible. Obviously it does not start a loop. I feel like it'd be overcomplicating things and rarely needed
The sequence is:

1. attacker sets aside defense dice, then declares targets, targets choose to defend or not, sets their defense dice
2. attacker rolls hit rolls, defender defends
3. if defender is alive and retaliates, attacker can use defense dice
4. combat ends

We could test it, maybe it'd be okay. Also it brings me vibes of alternating attacks which I enjoy.

Edit: wait, does the attacker reduce their WS then if they choose to have some defence dice?

 

[JawRippa]

Here is a draft for Attack/Defend melee system. Also a sneak peak of how YCE Rulebook will look like. Any feedback would be appreciated.

 

[Daganisoraan]

Here is a draft for Attack/Defend melee system. Also a sneak peak of how YCE Rulebook will look like. Any feedback would be appreciated.

Just went through it...

So lets say a Juve WS 5+ charge a Leader WS 3+ Both have a single knife, facing each other

Juve has 2 attacks at 5+

Leader has the following options (to be chosen BEFORE the juve make his rolls, but rolled after)

-Make two defence rolls at 3+
-Make one defence roll at 3+ and one reaction attack roll at 4+ (if he's still able to fight after the Juve attack)
-Make two reaction attack rolls at 4+ (if he's still able to fight after the Juve attack)

 

[JawRippa]

@Daganisoraan
If a leader decides to defend at all, their WS becomes 4+, both for reaction attacks and defense. They could make 1 or 2 defense rolls of 4+ everything else are reaction attacks of 4+. Or they could choose not to defend and hit will all reaction attacks on 3+.

 

[Petitioner's City]

Here is a draft for Attack/Defend melee system. Also a sneak peak of how YCE Rulebook will look like. Any feedback would be appreciated.

Elegant, far more elegant than my old suggestions, the base game or anything else. Well done!

 

[Petitioner's City]

one question i have @JawRippa is what happens if a fighter retreats - is it the same basic mechanic as the base game?

 

[JawRippa]

one question i have @JawRippa is what happens if a fighter retreats - is it the same basic mechanic as the base game?

No. Since we finally solved melee problem (at least I hope so), I'm releasing a final draft really soon, that should answer all questions.

RETREAT(BASIC): Make an initiative check for this engaged fighter. If it is passed, they can move up to D6", staying further than 1" from enemies. If the initiative check is failed, each enemy fighter that is engaged with them can make reaction attacks, as if retreating fighter tried to Fight them.

 

[Petitioner's City]

No. Since we finally solved melee problem (at least I hope so), I'm releasing a final draft really soon, that should answer all questions.

RETREAT(BASIC): Make an initiative check for this engaged fighter. If it is passed, they can move up to D6", staying further than 1" from enemies. If the initiative check is failed, each enemy fighter that is engaged with them can make reaction attacks, as if retreating fighter tried to Fight them.

That's a nice improvement.

Will be great to see the draft as soon as possible - even a text draft. But thank you for taking the lead on doing this, it's looking very nice!