TLDW version - Play a game in a way that feels good to you. 🙂 Things I forget to mention in the video; - I'd never use D12's for CBT. The bell curve resolution actually compliments the highly restricted movement and condensed and warped range bands that are intrinsic to this edition of the game. 🙂 - Conversely, the D12 system compliments the absolute freedom of movement and facing supplied in Alpha Strike. There are very few Mechs in the game that can't escape at least to Medium Range from Point Blank in a single move, thus imposing a free penalty of a 2pt shift in Target Number. Put yourself obstructed and now that's a 3 point shift. If you're skill 4 (avg) that shifts you significantly farther away in a 2D6 system vs a linear amount in a D12 system. Freedom of movement gives you access to modifiers in a way CBT tends to do far less.
@@HotelCharliHill ok so I looked it up, it's a house rule called Variable Damage rolls. Here's the thread I found about it online: Variable Damage 2.0 (Method 1) I still feel like the current system for this is pretty weak. I was inspired by DFA's thread and their blog for rolling weapons hits and damage locations. Their method for rolling weapon hits is pretty cool. Essentially, 1d6 (yellow die) is a pilot die, every 1d6 after (different colored/size die) represents a weapon system. The pilot die applies to all weapon die after the roll. For Alpha Strike, using this method for Variable Damage, it would work like this: Let's say the to-hit was 7. - Roll pilot die 1d6 (yellow die) results in a 3. - Roll 1d6 per damage. Let's say the unit does 3 total damage. Roll 3d6 (white die). Results are 5,2,4. - The unit combines damage die results with the pilot die. This would be 8,5,7. The unit causes 2 damage. - For 0*, you would just roll 2d6 for the to hit roll, then roll 1d6 to determine if damage is caused (3+ causes damage). You can probably roll 3 die together. 1 yellow, 1 white, and 1 red as a "minimal damage die"). It sounds complicated, but when you roll some dice, you will see it that it is a lot faster using a dice pool like this when there are a lot of units on the board. It's seemingly better than rolling 2d6 to see if you hit and then rolling #d6 and sorting out the ones that hit. Or better than rolling a pool of d12 or 2d6 per point of damage (other house rules others have used). You no longer need to have the "1 damage minimum" rule as well. With what I propose hits are more in line with the odds of rolling 2d6/bell curve. The lower the to-hit, the more damage you are likely to do, JUST like in Total Warfare. It also speeds up Variable Damage because hits are more concentrated depending on your pilot die result. If you have a high pilot die you increase your odds of scoring multiple hits. Likewise, if your pilot die is low, you have a lower chance of scoring multiple hits. If you read DFA's blog, it explains how the odds work for Total Warfare... some of that translates here and I feel it works better for Alpha Strike because it retains the focus on speed. The current system for variable damage does this poorly. It requires an extra dice roll and you can score a hit on a low target number and whiff all of your damage by rolling under a 4 on all of your d6 (basically, the odds of flipping a coin). The damage results are independent of the bell curve so you get some strange results. Also, I would propose that when Variable Damage is in play, it applies to all damage except for Charge and DFA attacks. Currently physical attacks are not lumped in with this. This would also mean you would roll a die for damage bonuses (like for rear and melee attacks). EDIT: Example, dice are rolled together for each example: TLDR: you roll a bunch if dice equal to the unit's damage and basically deal damage for how much come up that beat the target number
@@HotelCharliHill I think just play it as is. 1 is a possible to-hit target even with 2d6, but 2d6 has 100% chance on 1 *and* 2. With 1d12 you can miss a 2. This slightly offsets the power of increased crit chances for rolling 12s.
Back in high school (late 80's) we used 4d6 for Battletech. 2 dice were for the "to-hit" roll, and the other two for hit location. We figured with targeting systems and size of mechs they should hit more often and be easier to pinpoint locations. So you could choose how to apply the 4 dice. Sped the game up and made them very exciting.
I really like this. It might make sense to tweak the location table a bit to reward higher numbers more than lower numbers. This would really be a much more engaging way to play. You could really run with this and design Battletech 2.0!
I once played in a World War 1 naval battle game that had excruciating rules for both to-hit rules and damage results. It put BattleTech to shame. It relied on a d20 to hit and it would take minutes to just calculate the to-hit rolls. I noticed after a few rounds in that most of the to-hit rolls always had to be in the 10+ range unless ships got into real close-quarters battle. So I suggested we roll the d20 first, then figure out if we needed to spend the time to calculate the to-hit roll based on the result. An immediate 50% improvement in speed, right? Blank stares. "But how will we know what number we have to roll?". I wasn't invited back.
Played in a d12 Western game at GenCon where a "1" was an auto miss and "12" an auto hit. We spent a minute figuring out every target number for a 1 in 6 chance where it didn't matter.
I like that long shots are more improbably with 2D6. Making that shot in spite is part of what makes the experience for me. Color matching pairs makes rolling a bunch at once easy enough. However as you say it's your game. As long as you and everyone you're playing with are happy with your house rules do whatever you want.
I tried a few different things, but once I got color matched pairs of 2D6 I never looked back. It’s honestly just as fast and who doesn’t love fistfuls of dice?
Seeing the concept at first... Hard nope Hearing a fun factor and more unteresting spread...curiousity peaked high And you explaining it and why you do it. Golden in this day and age
House rules are very important for the reasons you stated. One of the issues that comes up in discussions are new players who have never played a system asking for the common house rules. I tend to advise playing at least a few games with things as written, then after they know the core system then start to introduce changes. Know the rules before you bend/break them. There's also the issue that everybody else's house rules will be for different reasons so you are introducing a fair bit of madness to someone who doesn't even know the basics yet.
I have watched this video several times since it was uploaded, purely for the ten-minute preamble. So well-put! I really appreciate all your enthusiasm and commitment to sharing the games you enjoy and showcasing cool stuff outside The Usual fare.
My youngest has played Battletech since he was 3. He now knows the actual rules, but I think coming over to my mother's house and seeing 50 mechs on the table and him spouting rules he was making up on the fly was the best day ever! He actually likes Classic Battletech better than Alpha Strike. Thanks for making this video Ash. We love watching your videos.
I have introduced my kids to playing battletech alpha strike, and we use your dice rolling conventions. It has made it lots easier, faster, and even the 6yr old gets it and is having fun.
When I first started teaching other people classic BattleTech, I quickly came to the conclusion that the base pilot and gunnery numbers that the game pushes you towards will ruin the game for the vast majority of people you teach it to. They only need to be slightly lower for the gameplay to become sufficiently dynamic without making everything too easy. The side effect of this being that the length of games shorten drastically, and thus end within reasonable timeframes. There are plenty of elements of the BattleTech ruleset that are too traditional for their own good and have not been reconciled with reality. I find it incredibly weird that a certain subset of players are so hesitant to change rules that aren't fit for purpose when the multitude of supplementary rulebooks for the game are designed such that you can pick and choose rules to suit the play experience you want.
I agree completely. For me teaching my friends or just for a quick fun game we just make everything 3,4 or 2,3 for all skills to just make it go by faster and seem like things are more fair haha
Death From Above Wargaming has some house rules on their website that clean things up considerably. And you're right, it's wild that Catalyst doesn't adjust things slightly to be less "well, I just shotgunned every weapon *around* your mech from 300m away"
@@paulbrozyna3006 TBH since I wrote that I realized it's more just that "insane grognard player base"'s insistence on not playing in later eras, only playing in 3025 where every mech was hot garbage.
I am testing a modified version of this where we use variable d12 dice for each potential damage and you just need to meet the final "to-hit" number. So if you have 4 damage at long range and need 8 to hit, you roll 4d12: each that rolls 8 or better hits.
I like the bell curve of the 2d6 for classic. It makes the longshots feel like lucky shots it adds a bit of change a more chaos to the dynamics of the game. May test the d12 for alpha strike still.
I like the case for altering game rules - the d12 modification breaks the simmy elements of Battletech (3xCrits, distance being less relevant, weapons not missing or hitting together because they share targeting means) but it's fun hearing about other ways people play
Oh my god this came at the perfect time for me. Im fairly new and was messing around with force comps and i just spent so much time messing with the probability difference between 2d6 and 1d12. Im just gonna use the 12 from now on.
I definitely agree with you about the handful of D12s being better than the pilot dice for the same reasons you give here. But I don't necessarily agree that switching from 2D6 to handful of D12 is better for Alpha Strike or the BattleTech idiom. I feel like the bell curve is built into the way that most dice rolls happen in the game - a target number of 7 or lower is meant to be significantly easier than one of 8 or above, and flattening that curve reduces the utility of units who's lifeblood is making sure that they can't be hit easily. Hovertanks and light, fast mechs live by that +3 or +4 movement modifier and a wolfpack of Pegasus tanks won't be as fearsome against the D12 system. Similarly in full BattleTech the bell curve is built into the location table, with the facing torso being a 7 making it the most likely location to be hit. This might be me preferring the bell curve as a way for altering probability though, as much as I enjoy Infinity I find the swingy nature of the face to face rolls frustrating sometimes. And I'm an old BattleTech grognard with decades of experience with the game the way it is so that's absolutely going to be a factor in my attitude. The bucket of dice method is a lot more modern and does have solid maths to back it up, just maybe not the right maths for how I play BattleTech? I'd probably sooner accept this system with a ground-up rebuild of the rules, because in your games you still need to go back to 2D6 to resolve crits as that's harder to rework. All that said, you're right about crits being not a big deal in Alpha Strike because under the default rules units generally go from full armour, to almost breached, to either 1 turn with their structure exposed or just straight to dead. It's a problem that's exacerbated when you have some of the monster Clan Assaults out on the table that can make anything south of 60 tons disappear by looking at them. My group and I have debated using the variable damage rule but haven't had a chance to try it out yet.
The trick to using a D12 in CBT would be to restrict it to gunnery and piloting rolls. For other things you would still use the standard dice rolls. There would still need to be a few tweaks to deal with things like whether Ultra AC's jam or not, but that's easily dealt with. What Battletech really needs a rule set somewhere between CBT and AS, where mechs still retain some of their 'crunchy' details, but the overall game play is faster with less detailed bookkeeping.
@LitanyAgainstFear Except that would make it a 1 in 12 instead of 1 in 36, so it would happen a lot more often. My thought would be that if you did roll a 1 there would be a 'saving throw' of sorts to help maintain that 1/36 chance. In short, if you roll a 1, roll an additional d12 and on a 1-4 it jams, otherwise it's fine. If something jammed on a 2 or 3, then a d12 of 1 would be the same odds.
pretty sure the point of the 2D6 vs a D12 was to make it weighted towards the 5-9 results as opposed to even across the board. From game design perspective having the rare shots that much harder makes it more fun generally speaking. Pushed it from a random outcome to one more bound by the tactical use of speed and cover (ie playing the game on the table rather than hoping the dice liked you).
The chance of rolling any particular side on a D12 is the same, and the chance of any particular result on 2d6 is a bell curve centered on 7. But your chance of rolling *above* any given Target Number is surprisingly similar. For example, the chance of rolling a 8 *or better* on 2d6 and D12 is identical. And the chances are pretty close for any other TN too. So, it can easily replace Gunnery and crit checkrolls. But the fact that it isn't a curve would be pretty dramatic for *picking* a value, like hit locations in Classic.
@@cargo_vroom9729 12 is either 1/12 or 1/36. 11+ is either 1/6 or 1/12. Those aren't close. Those are your long shots OP is talking about. An 8 isn't a long shot.
@@SendarSlayer "Close" is subjective. My point was the "X or better" mechanic means the chance-to-hit-TN graphs have the same shape. even though one method produces an intrinsic bell curve and the other doesn't. It was a lot closer than I intuitively thought.
My son and I change rules all the time to make it fit the scenario we want to play (prior to starting the scenario). He's almost 8 and his enjoyment is far more important than sticking to the black and white of the text.
I played GURPS by emulating the effects of a 3d6 roll on d20. That was mostly for aesthetical reasons (like the feel and look of icosahedron), but it also had an unexpected advantages of significantly speeding up the game and making success chance way more transparent for players.
A large part of the character of your channel stems from your boundless enthusiasm for the hobby. Thanks for letting us watch over your shoulder. BTW: I've been a wargamer for about 45 years and have rewritten rules in most games at some point. Good for you for making the games your own.
Some good points about house ruling things here. I think people tend to be sticklers for RaW because, among other things, it’s more convenient/easier to stick with things as written in the rule book than it is to experiment with your own changes, especially if you have limited gaming time each week - if you’ve only got say three-four hours to play a game each week, you probably don’t won’t to spend most of it testing ideas to see if they make the experience better or worse for you and your mates (even though ironically it could improve your weekly games in the long run). Another factor is I think convenience of reference; it’s more convenient to just refer to the rule book everyone has in common than, refer to said book and then cross reference with notebooks of house rules. There’re more reasons I can’t think of off the top of my head, but ultimately you raise good points; those are reasons why you’re not doing it, not reasons why you shouldn’t do it. Side note, I wonder if there’s any correlation between people falling out of the mindset of adapting/changing the rules as they would do in the days of say Rogue Trader, and the demise of officially backed creativity ala the deodorant tank; could you chart people becoming more bookbound with creators like GW dropping DIY bodging articles from their books? 🤔. Are modern gamers just so used to having everything provided for them that it just doesn’t occur to them that they have the ability to step outside the lines?
I think there will always be two camps in gaming that are diametrically opposed; the romantics and the academics. Romantics are preoccupied by the philosophy and feeling of the experience, the academics are preoccupied by the outcomes. It’s the same division of people that care more about the destination, or the journey. It’s not really reconcilable without some meeting in the middle.
I've started playing with D12s with my kids and friends who are getting into the game, the faster flow and easier dice rolls are very popular with everyone, especially when they're used to two D6. Much smoother gameplay, especially for people new to tabletop.
I like this video a great deal. One of the Main things that drew me away form other nerd hobbies is how the play in Miniatures games is the play was much closer to how I played as a young child. I did not understand this going in it took me a while to realize it but once I put it together I started to realize that I was much better at playing when I was young and that Idea really Velcro-ed it self on to my mind.
As a wargamer going back to 1974. I found some people could manipulate D6 rolls. Forcing use of dice cups. trays and towers D12 usage is a good alternative to 2D6.
thank you so much for this video. My wife and I change rules for how we play with each other all the time! it makes the game more enjoyable and easier for us to understand in a lot of cases. after I watched it, I restarted it and made her watch it too. very awesome advice!
My first thought was about the math, but it was quickly replaced with the thought that it would speed things up and not change things dramatically. I agree with the do what you want to do way of thinking.
"play the game you want to play" 👍 Between two gamers who agree on a set of rules, whether modified or not, fun is absolutely the point of gaming. If a change leads to the game being fun or interesting, why wouldn't you do it? As a long-time TT gamer who has changed a lot of rules for the sake of fun (or sanity!) I heartily approve. Loved the probabilities explanation. Linear vs curve is one of those levers you can use to make a change without rewriting a pile of rules. Tournament games are obviously a different beast, but even then, if all the players consent to a modified rule, why wouldn't that be valid?
Modified rule for fun FTW! We play modified rules BT:AS too! We drop the field to 3x3, and half model movement if you want to shoot. Can still sprint full speed and not shoot. Also ranges are 3"/12"/21".
Thank you for the detailed explanation. My purist mind immediately went to „why in all that is holy doesn’t he use 2d6. It’s blasphemy!“ Now I know better. =)
Tuomas Pirinen had such a cool story how he got hired by GW. Loved reading his articles in WD. The d12s confused me, but I didn't get mad. BTech videos are ones I never miss on your channel.
Love what your saying and I am glad someone said it. We have always made our own house rules for games as far back as I can remember. The big one for use is in Titanicus we allow different carapace options for a warlord like the 1st and 2nd edition, just half the points and dice rolled; and we allow carapace weapons on arms and vice versa. I have always played for fun, after all thats what a game is about.
Rules as written are just the publisher's opinion. When I started Alpha Strike with my kids I watched a bunch of your videos and then decided to try it with the d12 rule, and it has always worked really well for us. So thanks for that!
As soon as you buy the rules, you can do whatever you want to. It is amazing how many people ask permission to change something that suits their play style. It is a game, you should at the very least enjoy the experience.
I 100% agree with your philosophy. At the end of the day, as long as you’re playing, you’re doing it right. That said… Personally I’ve looked at the math quite a bit and explored several options. The pilot die is an interesting compromise between the all in damage and the roll per damage. I looked at making modified D12’s that more closely match 2D6 results. I even designed and printed up a 36 card deck that you can quickly draw from. I still use it for critical hits because I put the crit results on the cards. At the end of the day however, I have a bunch of different color 2D6 pairs and we roll for each point of damage. I came to the conclusion that I was trying to solve a problem that didn’t exist. It’s no faster to roll D12s or flip cards, and all the modifiers and tables are balanced around 2D6
I would say that as long as everyone involved is rolling with the same dice, be it 2d6 or 1d12, it's fine because then any differences in the odds of how they roll are the same for everyone. But if one player is using a d12 and the other is using 2d6, then no, as is shown in the video the results/odds would be different.
I always learnt that when playing games for fun it doesn't matter if you get the rules wrong, as long as your consistent it's fair. As you say as long as both players use D12's then it works. I think D12's make sense when rolling multiple dice, as rolling multiple pairs of D6's is a massive pain.
I don't know how true this is, but I read in an article about the design of DnD that this was the same line of reasoning for why Gygax wanted to use polyhedral dice, specifically the d20, so that there was an equal chance of results for checks and to-hit rolls that you don't get rolling d6s.
I love CBT for crunchy, AS is too lite for me, so I rewrote a basic set of rules to make a speedier compromise, it squishes everything into d6 rolls, turns armor into a saving throw and structure into a hitpoint pool, with a basic location chart used for critical hits. It plays like a OPR/40k/BT hybrid. All damage is roughly halved, structure points are roughly halved, heat is abstracted a bit-- weapons fire in classes with primary weapons fired one at a time and smaller weapons fired together as "banks" of linked weapons. The goal was to speed up play and allow more mechs per side. I added a morale mechanic and a stability mechanic, and chassis and weapons special traits that make weapons more tactical. Ballistic and indirect weapons can be used to rattle an enemy into being pinned or shaken, PPCs can cause static discharge that hards sensors and gunnery, and so on. So when you build lances there is a benefit to making a theme for their use on the battlefield. It's been pretty fun and quick in playtesting
I think this works fine for Alpha Strike (I agree with your pinned comment that it would be awful for CBT, although that has more to do with the fact that there are a lot more tables that rely on the normal distribution of 2d6), but you have to be conscious that this is going to nerf the strength of any units that have high TMMs. The reason this can be an issue is that PV is balanced assuming the game is run on the 2d6 distribution, and values high speed (and thus high TMMs) highly. Because 1d12 can produce 12 distinct results, whereas 2d6 can only produce 11, and since the "extra" value that 1d12 can roll is the worst possible result, 2d6 will be disproportionately better at low to-hit values, and disproportionately worse at higher ones. Units with high TMMs, which rely on that speed to survive and pay for that speed in PV, rely on being able to easily force your target number up, and since the parity point is at 8+ (both 1d12 and 2d6 have about a 41% chance of hitting an 8+), those units will be hurt more by this change. I wouldn't be able to look my opponent in the eye and tell him that his 28 PV Fire Moth Prime is really just as good as my 28 PV HBK-4G when his chances of dying to just about any 'mech are now 1 in 4 at 10+ instead of 1 in 6, and are close to 3 times greater (just below 3% to just above 8%) at a 12+ than they were before. Combine this with the fact that your chances to hit don't improve as much as you close, and savvy players would start to lean towards long range firepower, though that simply isn't as effective in AS as can be in CBT so it's less of an issue. Regardless, I agree with you 100%: do whatever you want with the rules! Just be sure you understand what you're doing when you start playing with the fundamental math though, as it can be very easily to unintentionally change things dramatically.
Ash I agree I finished the video and my blog on Wordpress they’re your miniatures this has been my mantra for years. 100k subs keep up the excellent work my brother!
game design has evolved over time. in the 60s thru the 90s, most games used a variation of D6. not because of the mathematics, but because most families owned a family board game (monopoly - most common) which used the D6. while various games attempted to use different mechanics or methods for variable resolution, D&D was the most successful for using different sided die to change the variables. today's gamer is not just familiar with the different types of dice, but usually owns several sets. as someone who's been gaming since the late 70s, I absolutely will look at the rules as written, play test and then make some adjustments. as stated by several others, classic will continue to be 2D6, but other versions, I may try 1D12.
The theory, as I understand it, is that one aims center mass, making the center torso at 7 (1&6, 2&5, 3&4, 4&3, 5&2, 6&1) the most likely outcome. Beyond this, I love changing rules to adhere to my idea of story; a space opera, character driven player, not a competitive player.
By the way most game tornments Video game or Table Top are set up for fair and balanced play or whatever play they are going for... So they too pick and choose what rules from what book to play or even homebrew if needed... So yeah your fine.
Going to be painfully honest: I don't like this system, at all. I enjoy lots of light mechs that rely heavily on the bell curve probability provided by 2d6 to survive while they close the distance, supported by skilled-up snipers who utilize distance to reduce the effectiveness of return fire. Most of the former are also close-range fighters, and while that means they benefit from the reduced hit probability at short range, it means they're dramatically easier to hit at long range. The latter are also easier to hit at long range, and now lack the armor to survive more efficient return fire. Take the Adder or Kit Fox, for example. Neither has the armor to slug it out up close, nor do they have the TMM to skitter around their opponents. They rely on staying in the long-range band with a +4 for range that cuts both ways. Against a Skill 4 opponent, that means they're relying on the opposition needing a 10+ to score hits (Skill 4 + Long Range + TMM 2). With 2d6, they will get hit roughly 16% of the time. With 1d12, they will get hit 25% of the time. Lighter 'Mechs with TMM 3, like the Locust, are even worse off as they try to close to weapons range against similar opponents (Skill 4 + Medium Range + TMM 3), as with a TN of 9, they'll be hit 33% of the time instead of 28% of the time. Sure, you can rely on hard cover to mask movement, but the result is the same - past a TN of 8, the margin of error becomes notably slimmer for a playstyle where you're already living on the razor's edge. The inverse is also true: for large brawlers with small TMMs, it inexplicably becomes easier to miss them. A Thunderbolt with TMM 1 at medium range against a Skill 4 opponent has a TN of 7 (Skill 4 + Medium Range + TMM 1). On 2D6, hit rate is 58%, versus 50% for 1d12. The heavier 'Mechs, already more survivable than their faster peers due to their extra armor, become even more survivable at typical engagement distances. I understand why you're doing this, and you're right, I can't stop you, but I'm looking at the second order effects of how this changes the gameplay balance beyond "making it fairer to hit at range and miss up close," and I'm really not liking what I'm seeing on paper, especially due to my preferred playstyle. Maybe you're seeing something different on the table, but that's my take.
Which is totally fine because we’re allowed to want different things from the game! Summary of that point; you value the resolution of outcomes during the experience from your description. I’m valuing the ‘feeling’ of the process and tempo of gameplay as well as linear versus elastic probability visualization. Those are different goals so it’s totally reasonable we value different things and feel differently.
@@GuerrillaMiniatureGames exactly. I'm pretty sure that if (and in fact i will) explain your system to my old pal who still play classic battletech quite often, he will keep 2d6 because he want a more "simulationist" feeling...and he will not disagree to use d12 if we play alpha strike, because for him alpha strike is more like a cinematic way to play battletech.......
That's fascinating.... I never would have thought about it. There's only one way to get a 7 with a d12... but you can get a 7 in multiple ways from 2 dice. That's crazy... But is this why the percentages change? I wonder what the math for every digit would be. I also wonder what is done in Battletech when you arrive on a '1' with a d12?
Fantastic video! If you can alter rules to make them more pleasing to play for you, you absolutely should! Narrative scenarios and enjoyable games are what I enjoy playing and its great to see you tinkering with rules to make them more fun and bodging whatever you want to make the game more fun to play and I'd love to see more folks do it rather than slavishly following the rules as written. I'll have to have a bash using D12's for Alphastrike and see how I get on.
Great video and really interesting! Honestly I might give the D12 system a shot down the line when I get the chance to buy some more D12s, since I love Variable Damage but having only 5 sets of 2D6 personally it can be a bit hard when you start overheating and stuff. I'd honestly love to see you on the Play On Tabletop channel some day, I feel like you and them have a really similar mindset when it comes to thematic, romantic, and story-driven wargames! I'd LOVE to see you teach them Alpha Strike! EDIT: On the note of customization too, It's perfectly fine to not only take stuff out you feel is clunky and difficult, but also put in stuff that is complicated if it makes the enjoyment of the game greater. Every now and then I'll play a game of AS where I use a progressive TMM system. So the further you move in a turn (up to your maximum) the higher your TMM. It's a bit complicated, but with some printed off tokens to put next to your mechs (tokens just say +1, +2, +3, etc.) it's easy to remember. Makes the close game combat very interesting and speed is still king, but if a lighter mech wants to stay in short range of an opponent they might have to take the hit of a lower TMM as they circle each other to get that kill.
I've recently decided to try using a D12 for to-hit rolls and PSRs in both Classic and my modified version of Alpha Strike for the linear probability. We play with Electronics, Tactics, and Leadership skills added to Gunnery and Piloting, so having each point of change in target number equate to the same change in chance of success made it much easier to balance the things yo can do with the extra skills. Plus, by my estimation, making target numbers above 8 easier and below 8 harder should let me reduce the BV impact of high skill pilots, since they're more likely to have the lower target numbers. That really helps if one of my players is fielding high-skill Clanners.
I like the D12's, I will try that next time. Last time I played we did pilot dice 2 D6 method. We like having the higher chance for critical hits, so we don't limit it to only one dice can crit. If we do D12's, we'll probably let any result of 12 crit, but only 1 per roll.
Yeah right, we all know Ash has invested in a D12 mine and he's just drumming up business to raise his share price. I'm no mathematician, but bell curves getting flattened or not, all I see when I watch Ash playing Alpha Strike is two blokes enjoying the heck out of a game, so there's that.
That's an interesting 20:10 proposal. I never considered rolling different size die for hits or damage. 1d12 would Save on rolls And clutter. I liked how you associated it with mathematics explaining how fixed values don't impact the role. It determines your lowest role to achieve a hit where anything above that is a hit. I think what I'll end up doing is creating a probability distribution chart and seeing what the impact is with respect to 2d6 or 1d12. Take care and kudos on an excellent idea.
You have a convert for using D12s for Alpha Strike. When playing D&D, I totally respect "Rules as Written", but often I will Rule for Fun. Thanks for taking the time to explain the logic behind using D12s.
So agree with all you said here! Heck, I would even use d12 for CBT, because CBT in person takes ages even for the most simple fights (nowadays I only play CBT using digital tools like MegaMek or flechs as the amount of rolling for everything is not that fun anymore for me).
The terrain and Mats kind of abstract all the ranges so the 2D6 roll works well to reward how restrictive movement is in CBT. But yeah; why not try it?
Great video. Most important point to me was the inference that without the use of the D12 there would have been fewer Battletech videos. Right there you got my vote for the D12. Regardless, the statistical explanation was very accessible. It shows using D12 doesn’t break the game and has some advantages if you want a smoother distribution of outcomes. As a former statistician, I approve!
I played D&D for 10 years before I rolled to hit and damage dice at the same time. It felt amazing. Now I'm straight up rewriting portions of Alpha Strike to teach the game to my kids.
I skipped the two D6 rule for shooting but I instead converted it like if a Mech attack of three pips I Roll three D6 for the PIP as my attack move i used to skill of the pilot like a regular will be four or higher for hits Modifier still exist like if there blocking terrain or jumping so we just use it as optional so there’s nothing wrong with that.
I enjoy house rules too. I have a nice collection of the Clix game and use house rules to play a version of Alpha Strike with them. Take whatever the printed range value on the dial and multiply it by three and play on a 6'x4' table and you have Alpha Strike scale while the simplicity of the Clix dials. The Clix game is a 3D6 game, where 2D6 of one color are what determines critical hits, so I might do what you are doing with a D12 as my "pilot" die.
Well, me and my friend have use the D12 system in about 10+ games, I think..they have made the game enjoyable..so Thankyou ash..love the channel..cheers.
Can anyone explain the pilot die that’s rolled? How does a better or worse pilot die effect the number on the die and how does the number on the die effect the actual shots?
Every change that speeds up BT is a good change in my book. 😀 I've been playing BT since 1994 but I still don't get over how weird some of the players are. I mean Warhammer or Warmachine player can be very obnoxious, but BT players can be WEIRD. So I really appreciate this rebuttal of the "YOU FORGOT TO REROLL YOUR ENDO STEEL, YOU PEASANT!"-crowd.
Just gave this a try with a buddy over the weekend. Wow! What a difference, this opens up the game and makes it tactical at all ranges. I thought lights would become useless, nope, my Locusts were just as critical as my Awesome and Thunderbolt. Thank you sir for sharing this. Note to Grognards, of which I am one, this is the Alphastrike you are looking for. I still love and play classic BT with 2D6, but I will only play Alphastrike with D12s from now on.
I have not yet played Alpha Strike, so I neither agree nor disagree on the d12 - but I completely agree on making the game and its rules yours for maximum fun. My game group made up rules-changes for both Necromunda and Gorkamorka, for example. And we added a bunch of scenarios, equipment, event cards, etc.
I like the message of the video, gotta admit I almost didn't bother to watch it because the title read like "You should make this change to this game like I did and play the way I like!" to which my brain was like "don't tell me how to play!" lol. EDIT: I think it was the "(and so should you)" part.
People have been selling 'Alpha Strike' wrong. They call it 'fast paced' Battletech, or 'dumbed down' Battletech, but it's actually 'Warhammerized Battletech,' and that's a good thing. Alpha Strike is a game where you can (and should) play big games with big armies of a dozen or more units (which would take like 10 hours and tedious record sheet tracking in Classic Battletech), because it works so much better as a 'big war game.' The D12 system you advocate is the icing on the cake that makes it all work. The only other thing Alpha Strike needs is faction army lists so that armies become more unique and distinguished.
our group has been playing for over 30 years. same campaign since 1991. the smallest battle is company v company and usually battalion v battalion. we use mixed forces and other expanded items (Aero and artillery). a company size battle (12-20 pieces per side) is usually a 2-3 hour game. a battalion size battle (40-80 pieces per side) is usually a 4-5 hour game. we have a list of house rules we use. some improve the speed of game play and some add details that the advanced play doesn't cover. for the most part, our games last between 8-12 turns and at most 15 turns. typically a turn is 20min (total - not for each player).
I use the roll to hit with 2d6 then roll a d6 for each point of damage and a 3+ is damaging. With a minimum damage of 1. It’s in the rule but at an optional rule. With that said I do like your d12 system since it make the game faster.
I think it would have helped to show the flat curve vs the gen pop curve. Your D12 is faster, but the probabilities ARE different. That’s important if you think it is or not if you don’t. But, it is a diff game. I think it can be meaningful depending on how the game was designed and how important the probabilities are to the mechanics as intended. In the end, play what you want how you want. Hell , use a deck of cards to resolve if you want. I treat almost everything as ‘beer and pretzels’ gaming - it’s about fun. But I’ve seen people throw dice and figs because they get upset.
Thanks for sharing, excellent as always, that's an interesting concept and there's some merit in this method I guess. One immediate problem I can see is. It's a personal choice of course, but for me this simplifies the gameplay just too much. Especially when rolling hit location. What I mean is, it makes sense for the centre torso to be easily hit, far more likely than cockpit or arms, since technically it's a large location in the centre of the target, hence it's usually better armoured so it can absorb a likely more frequent damage. Chance of rolling the centre torso with 2D6 is 16.6%, left and right torso about 14%. Hitting the centre torso with 1D12 has the same 8.3% chance as rolling either the leg or cockpit locations. Just my opinion, but 2d6 just work better with the hit location design. I reckon, were 1D12 more common in the 80's we would possibly use a different location rolling system in BT.
![[#2024MAMA] ROSÉ (로제), Bruno Mars - APT. | Mnet 241122 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dgGqD28J6aQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![[MV] A leap of faith...ความเชื่อใจครั้งสุดท้าย (From "Petrichor the series")](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/U1piZH2CNXA/mqdefault.jpg)
TLDW version - Play a game in a way that feels good to you. 🙂
Things I forget to mention in the video;
- I'd never use D12's for CBT. The bell curve resolution actually compliments the highly restricted movement and condensed and warped range bands that are intrinsic to this edition of the game. 🙂
- Conversely, the D12 system compliments the absolute freedom of movement and facing supplied in Alpha Strike. There are very few Mechs in the game that can't escape at least to Medium Range from Point Blank in a single move, thus imposing a free penalty of a 2pt shift in Target Number. Put yourself obstructed and now that's a 3 point shift. If you're skill 4 (avg) that shifts you significantly farther away in a 2D6 system vs a linear amount in a D12 system. Freedom of movement gives you access to modifiers in a way CBT tends to do far less.
What do you do on a roll of 1? Reroll? Or Crits/headshot :D
@@HotelCharliHill honestly yeah, how would that be dealt with
@@MKmaki6094 Maybe he explains it in the video... TLDW :P
@@HotelCharliHill ok so I looked it up, it's a house rule called Variable Damage rolls.
Here's the thread I found about it online:
Variable Damage 2.0 (Method 1)
I still feel like the current system for this is pretty weak. I was inspired by DFA's thread and their blog for rolling weapons hits and damage locations. Their method for rolling weapon hits is pretty cool. Essentially, 1d6 (yellow die) is a pilot die, every 1d6 after (different colored/size die) represents a weapon system. The pilot die applies to all weapon die after the roll.
For Alpha Strike, using this method for Variable Damage, it would work like this:
Let's say the to-hit was 7.
- Roll pilot die 1d6 (yellow die) results in a 3.
- Roll 1d6 per damage. Let's say the unit does 3 total damage. Roll 3d6 (white die). Results are 5,2,4.
- The unit combines damage die results with the pilot die. This would be 8,5,7. The unit causes 2 damage.
- For 0*, you would just roll 2d6 for the to hit roll, then roll 1d6 to determine if damage is caused (3+ causes damage). You can probably roll 3 die together. 1 yellow, 1 white, and 1 red as a "minimal damage die").
It sounds complicated, but when you roll some dice, you will see it that it is a lot faster using a dice pool like this when there are a lot of units on the board. It's seemingly better than rolling 2d6 to see if you hit and then rolling #d6 and sorting out the ones that hit. Or better than rolling a pool of d12 or 2d6 per point of damage (other house rules others have used). You no longer need to have the "1 damage minimum" rule as well.
With what I propose hits are more in line with the odds of rolling 2d6/bell curve. The lower the to-hit, the more damage you are likely to do, JUST like in Total Warfare. It also speeds up Variable Damage because hits are more concentrated depending on your pilot die result. If you have a high pilot die you increase your odds of scoring multiple hits. Likewise, if your pilot die is low, you have a lower chance of scoring multiple hits. If you read DFA's blog, it explains how the odds work for Total Warfare... some of that translates here and I feel it works better for Alpha Strike because it retains the focus on speed. The current system for variable damage does this poorly. It requires an extra dice roll and you can score a hit on a low target number and whiff all of your damage by rolling under a 4 on all of your d6 (basically, the odds of flipping a coin). The damage results are independent of the bell curve so you get some strange results.
Also, I would propose that when Variable Damage is in play, it applies to all damage except for Charge and DFA attacks. Currently physical attacks are not lumped in with this. This would also mean you would roll a die for damage bonuses (like for rear and melee attacks).
EDIT: Example, dice are rolled together for each example:
TLDR: you roll a bunch if dice equal to the unit's damage and basically deal damage for how much come up that beat the target number
@@HotelCharliHill I think just play it as is. 1 is a possible to-hit target even with 2d6, but 2d6 has 100% chance on 1 *and* 2. With 1d12 you can miss a 2. This slightly offsets the power of increased crit chances for rolling 12s.
10:18 is when he starts talking about the actual d12's
Thank you! He took forever to get to the point!
Back in high school (late 80's) we used 4d6 for Battletech. 2 dice were for the "to-hit" roll, and the other two for hit location. We figured with targeting systems and size of mechs they should hit more often and be easier to pinpoint locations. So you could choose how to apply the 4 dice. Sped the game up and made them very exciting.
I like that you included extra player choice.
I like this a lot.
smart!
I really like this. It might make sense to tweak the location table a bit to reward higher numbers more than lower numbers. This would really be a much more engaging way to play. You could really run with this and design Battletech 2.0!
Great idea. Thanks for sharing.
“You’re not here so you can’t stop me” was the best way to end the discussion. Laughed my ass off.
I once played in a World War 1 naval battle game that had excruciating rules for both to-hit rules and damage results. It put BattleTech to shame. It relied on a d20 to hit and it would take minutes to just calculate the to-hit rolls. I noticed after a few rounds in that most of the to-hit rolls always had to be in the 10+ range unless ships got into real close-quarters battle. So I suggested we roll the d20 first, then figure out if we needed to spend the time to calculate the to-hit roll based on the result. An immediate 50% improvement in speed, right? Blank stares. "But how will we know what number we have to roll?". I wasn't invited back.
Played in a d12 Western game at GenCon where a "1" was an auto miss and "12" an auto hit. We spent a minute figuring out every target number for a 1 in 6 chance where it didn't matter.
On a d12 crit/pilot die topic. If you require a 1d3 confirmation roll, so 5-6 on a d6, than it becomes 1/36 chance to crit like 2d6.
I like that long shots are more improbably with 2D6. Making that shot in spite is part of what makes the experience for me. Color matching pairs makes rolling a bunch at once easy enough. However as you say it's your game. As long as you and everyone you're playing with are happy with your house rules do whatever you want.
I tried a few different things, but once I got color matched pairs of 2D6 I never looked back. It’s honestly just as fast and who doesn’t love fistfuls of dice?
Seeing the concept at first... Hard nope
Hearing a fun factor and more unteresting spread...curiousity peaked high
And you explaining it and why you do it. Golden in this day and age
House rules are very important for the reasons you stated. One of the issues that comes up in discussions are new players who have never played a system asking for the common house rules. I tend to advise playing at least a few games with things as written, then after they know the core system then start to introduce changes. Know the rules before you bend/break them. There's also the issue that everybody else's house rules will be for different reasons so you are introducing a fair bit of madness to someone who doesn't even know the basics yet.
I have watched this video several times since it was uploaded, purely for the ten-minute preamble. So well-put! I really appreciate all your enthusiasm and commitment to sharing the games you enjoy and showcasing cool stuff outside The Usual fare.
I love it! One of my friends always says "It is FASA, not NASA". :)
As a game designer I use 2d6 to approximate normal distribution, that's why they used it in this game as well.
My youngest has played Battletech since he was 3. He now knows the actual rules, but I think coming over to my mother's house and seeing 50 mechs on the table and him spouting rules he was making up on the fly was the best day ever! He actually likes Classic Battletech better than Alpha Strike.
Thanks for making this video Ash. We love watching your videos.
I have introduced my kids to playing battletech alpha strike, and we use your dice rolling conventions. It has made it lots easier, faster, and even the 6yr old gets it and is having fun.
When I first started teaching other people classic BattleTech, I quickly came to the conclusion that the base pilot and gunnery numbers that the game pushes you towards will ruin the game for the vast majority of people you teach it to. They only need to be slightly lower for the gameplay to become sufficiently dynamic without making everything too easy. The side effect of this being that the length of games shorten drastically, and thus end within reasonable timeframes.
There are plenty of elements of the BattleTech ruleset that are too traditional for their own good and have not been reconciled with reality. I find it incredibly weird that a certain subset of players are so hesitant to change rules that aren't fit for purpose when the multitude of supplementary rulebooks for the game are designed such that you can pick and choose rules to suit the play experience you want.
I agree completely. For me teaching my friends or just for a quick fun game we just make everything 3,4 or 2,3 for all skills to just make it go by faster and seem like things are more fair haha
Well put!
Death From Above Wargaming has some house rules on their website that clean things up considerably.
And you're right, it's wild that Catalyst doesn't adjust things slightly to be less "well, I just shotgunned every weapon *around* your mech from 300m away"
@@colbyboucher6391 that’s because they don’t want to alienate their insane grognard player base.
@@paulbrozyna3006 TBH since I wrote that I realized it's more just that "insane grognard player base"'s insistence on not playing in later eras, only playing in 3025 where every mech was hot garbage.
I am testing a modified version of this where we use variable d12 dice for each potential damage and you just need to meet the final "to-hit" number. So if you have 4 damage at long range and need 8 to hit, you roll 4d12: each that rolls 8 or better hits.
I like the bell curve of the 2d6 for classic. It makes the longshots feel like lucky shots it adds a bit of change a more chaos to the dynamics of the game.
May test the d12 for alpha strike still.
I like the bell curve for too-hit, but I long ago upped the base pilot and gunnery skill by one for faster games.
I like the case for altering game rules - the d12 modification breaks the simmy elements of Battletech (3xCrits, distance being less relevant, weapons not missing or hitting together because they share targeting means) but it's fun hearing about other ways people play
Oh my god this came at the perfect time for me. Im fairly new and was messing around with force comps and i just spent so much time messing with the probability difference between 2d6 and 1d12. Im just gonna use the 12 from now on.
I definitely agree with you about the handful of D12s being better than the pilot dice for the same reasons you give here. But I don't necessarily agree that switching from 2D6 to handful of D12 is better for Alpha Strike or the BattleTech idiom. I feel like the bell curve is built into the way that most dice rolls happen in the game - a target number of 7 or lower is meant to be significantly easier than one of 8 or above, and flattening that curve reduces the utility of units who's lifeblood is making sure that they can't be hit easily. Hovertanks and light, fast mechs live by that +3 or +4 movement modifier and a wolfpack of Pegasus tanks won't be as fearsome against the D12 system. Similarly in full BattleTech the bell curve is built into the location table, with the facing torso being a 7 making it the most likely location to be hit.
This might be me preferring the bell curve as a way for altering probability though, as much as I enjoy Infinity I find the swingy nature of the face to face rolls frustrating sometimes. And I'm an old BattleTech grognard with decades of experience with the game the way it is so that's absolutely going to be a factor in my attitude. The bucket of dice method is a lot more modern and does have solid maths to back it up, just maybe not the right maths for how I play BattleTech? I'd probably sooner accept this system with a ground-up rebuild of the rules, because in your games you still need to go back to 2D6 to resolve crits as that's harder to rework.
All that said, you're right about crits being not a big deal in Alpha Strike because under the default rules units generally go from full armour, to almost breached, to either 1 turn with their structure exposed or just straight to dead. It's a problem that's exacerbated when you have some of the monster Clan Assaults out on the table that can make anything south of 60 tons disappear by looking at them. My group and I have debated using the variable damage rule but haven't had a chance to try it out yet.
The trick to using a D12 in CBT would be to restrict it to gunnery and piloting rolls. For other things you would still use the standard dice rolls. There would still need to be a few tweaks to deal with things like whether Ultra AC's jam or not, but that's easily dealt with.
What Battletech really needs a rule set somewhere between CBT and AS, where mechs still retain some of their 'crunchy' details, but the overall game play is faster with less detailed bookkeeping.
@LitanyAgainstFear Except that would make it a 1 in 12 instead of 1 in 36, so it would happen a lot more often. My thought would be that if you did roll a 1 there would be a 'saving throw' of sorts to help maintain that 1/36 chance. In short, if you roll a 1, roll an additional d12 and on a 1-4 it jams, otherwise it's fine. If something jammed on a 2 or 3, then a d12 of 1 would be the same odds.
pretty sure the point of the 2D6 vs a D12 was to make it weighted towards the 5-9 results as opposed to even across the board. From game design perspective having the rare shots that much harder makes it more fun generally speaking. Pushed it from a random outcome to one more bound by the tactical use of speed and cover (ie playing the game on the table rather than hoping the dice liked you).
The chance of rolling any particular side on a D12 is the same, and the chance of any particular result on 2d6 is a bell curve centered on 7. But your chance of rolling *above* any given Target Number is surprisingly similar. For example, the chance of rolling a 8 *or better* on 2d6 and D12 is identical. And the chances are pretty close for any other TN too. So, it can easily replace Gunnery and crit checkrolls. But the fact that it isn't a curve would be pretty dramatic for *picking* a value, like hit locations in Classic.
Also Battletech is just old enough that d12s weren’t really an option, but yes the game is built around the pyramid curve.
@@cargo_vroom9729 12 is either 1/12 or 1/36. 11+ is either 1/6 or 1/12. Those aren't close.
Those are your long shots OP is talking about. An 8 isn't a long shot.
@@cargo_vroom9729chooses literally one number away from the middle of bell curve lmao
@@SendarSlayer "Close" is subjective. My point was the "X or better" mechanic means the chance-to-hit-TN graphs have the same shape. even though one method produces an intrinsic bell curve and the other doesn't. It was a lot closer than I intuitively thought.
My son and I change rules all the time to make it fit the scenario we want to play (prior to starting the scenario). He's almost 8 and his enjoyment is far more important than sticking to the black and white of the text.
love the mech warrior back drop. The concept of this game immediately took me back to all those old 90's mech games i used to play.
Mech warrior 2 was awesome
I really enjoyed your discussion of why you modified the rules to use a D12 instead of 2 D6. Thank you.
I played GURPS by emulating the effects of a 3d6 roll on d20. That was mostly for aesthetical reasons (like the feel and look of icosahedron), but it also had an unexpected advantages of significantly speeding up the game and making success chance way more transparent for players.
A large part of the character of your channel stems from your boundless enthusiasm for the hobby. Thanks for letting us watch over your shoulder.
BTW: I've been a wargamer for about 45 years and have rewritten rules in most games at some point.
Good for you for making the games your own.
Some good points about house ruling things here. I think people tend to be sticklers for RaW because, among other things, it’s more convenient/easier to stick with things as written in the rule book than it is to experiment with your own changes, especially if you have limited gaming time each week - if you’ve only got say three-four hours to play a game each week, you probably don’t won’t to spend most of it testing ideas to see if they make the experience better or worse for you and your mates (even though ironically it could improve your weekly games in the long run).
Another factor is I think convenience of reference; it’s more convenient to just refer to the rule book everyone has in common than, refer to said book and then cross reference with notebooks of house rules.
There’re more reasons I can’t think of off the top of my head, but ultimately you raise good points; those are reasons why you’re not doing it, not reasons why you shouldn’t do it. Side note, I wonder if there’s any correlation between people falling out of the mindset of adapting/changing the rules as they would do in the days of say Rogue Trader, and the demise of officially backed creativity ala the deodorant tank; could you chart people becoming more bookbound with creators like GW dropping DIY bodging articles from their books? 🤔. Are modern gamers just so used to having everything provided for them that it just doesn’t occur to them that they have the ability to step outside the lines?
I think there will always be two camps in gaming that are diametrically opposed; the romantics and the academics.
Romantics are preoccupied by the philosophy and feeling of the experience, the academics are preoccupied by the outcomes.
It’s the same division of people that care more about the destination, or the journey. It’s not really reconcilable without some meeting in the middle.
I've started playing with D12s with my kids and friends who are getting into the game, the faster flow and easier dice rolls are very popular with everyone, especially when they're used to two D6. Much smoother gameplay, especially for people new to tabletop.
I like this video a great deal. One of the Main things that drew me away form other nerd hobbies is how the play in Miniatures games is the play was much closer to how I played as a young child. I did not understand this going in it took me a while to realize it but once I put it together I started to realize that I was much better at playing when I was young and that Idea really Velcro-ed it self on to my mind.
As a wargamer going back to 1974. I found some people could manipulate D6 rolls. Forcing use of dice cups. trays and towers D12 usage is a good alternative to 2D6.
thank you so much for this video. My wife and I change rules for how we play with each other all the time! it makes the game more enjoyable and easier for us to understand in a lot of cases. after I watched it, I restarted it and made her watch it too. very awesome advice!
My first thought was about the math, but it was quickly replaced with the thought that it would speed things up and not change things dramatically. I agree with the do what you want to do way of thinking.
except that's not true, it does change things dramatically...
"play the game you want to play" 👍
Between two gamers who agree on a set of rules, whether modified or not, fun is absolutely the point of gaming. If a change leads to the game being fun or interesting, why wouldn't you do it? As a long-time TT gamer who has changed a lot of rules for the sake of fun (or sanity!) I heartily approve.
Loved the probabilities explanation. Linear vs curve is one of those levers you can use to make a change without rewriting a pile of rules.
Tournament games are obviously a different beast, but even then, if all the players consent to a modified rule, why wouldn't that be valid?
Explaining your math felt like being short-changed
Modified rule for fun FTW! We play modified rules BT:AS too! We drop the field to 3x3, and half model movement if you want to shoot. Can still sprint full speed and not shoot. Also ranges are 3"/12"/21".
Yeah it's called a bell curve. It was taken into account when the rules were written.
I did the 2 d6 per damage, the pilot d6 plus shots, and now I will try this way.
Thank you for the detailed explanation. My purist mind immediately went to „why in all that is holy doesn’t he use 2d6. It’s blasphemy!“
Now I know better. =)
Tuomas Pirinen had such a cool story how he got hired by GW. Loved reading his articles in WD.
The d12s confused me, but I didn't get mad. BTech videos are ones I never miss on your channel.
Love what your saying and I am glad someone said it. We have always made our own house rules for games as far back as I can remember. The big one for use is in Titanicus we allow different carapace options for a warlord like the 1st and 2nd edition, just half the points and dice rolled; and we allow carapace weapons on arms and vice versa. I have always played for fun, after all thats what a game is about.
Rules as written are just the publisher's opinion.
When I started Alpha Strike with my kids I watched a bunch of your videos and then decided to try it with the d12 rule, and it has always worked really well for us. So thanks for that!
As soon as you buy the rules, you can do whatever you want to. It is amazing how many people ask permission to change something that suits their play style. It is a game, you should at the very least enjoy the experience.
I 100% agree with your philosophy. At the end of the day, as long as you’re playing, you’re doing it right. That said…
Personally I’ve looked at the math quite a bit and explored several options. The pilot die is an interesting compromise between the all in damage and the roll per damage.
I looked at making modified D12’s that more closely match 2D6 results. I even designed and printed up a 36 card deck that you can quickly draw from. I still use it for critical hits because I put the crit results on the cards.
At the end of the day however, I have a bunch of different color 2D6 pairs and we roll for each point of damage. I came to the conclusion that I was trying to solve a problem that didn’t exist. It’s no faster to roll D12s or flip cards, and all the modifiers and tables are balanced around 2D6
I would say that as long as everyone involved is rolling with the same dice, be it 2d6 or 1d12, it's fine because then any differences in the odds of how they roll are the same for everyone. But if one player is using a d12 and the other is using 2d6, then no, as is shown in the video the results/odds would be different.
I always learnt that when playing games for fun it doesn't matter if you get the rules wrong, as long as your consistent it's fair. As you say as long as both players use D12's then it works. I think D12's make sense when rolling multiple dice, as rolling multiple pairs of D6's is a massive pain.
Check out the old compendium, it had free movement rules in it which I used during the 90s. Classic style with no mapsheets.
Moving across the map using a tape measure was a blast. Save the last/first inch of your movement for facing change.
I don't know how true this is, but I read in an article about the design of DnD that this was the same line of reasoning for why Gygax wanted to use polyhedral dice, specifically the d20, so that there was an equal chance of results for checks and to-hit rolls that you don't get rolling d6s.
I love CBT for crunchy, AS is too lite for me, so I rewrote a basic set of rules to make a speedier compromise, it squishes everything into d6 rolls, turns armor into a saving throw and structure into a hitpoint pool, with a basic location chart used for critical hits. It plays like a OPR/40k/BT hybrid. All damage is roughly halved, structure points are roughly halved, heat is abstracted a bit-- weapons fire in classes with primary weapons fired one at a time and smaller weapons fired together as "banks" of linked weapons. The goal was to speed up play and allow more mechs per side. I added a morale mechanic and a stability mechanic, and chassis and weapons special traits that make weapons more tactical. Ballistic and indirect weapons can be used to rattle an enemy into being pinned or shaken, PPCs can cause static discharge that hards sensors and gunnery, and so on. So when you build lances there is a benefit to making a theme for their use on the battlefield. It's been pretty fun and quick in playtesting
I think this works fine for Alpha Strike (I agree with your pinned comment that it would be awful for CBT, although that has more to do with the fact that there are a lot more tables that rely on the normal distribution of 2d6), but you have to be conscious that this is going to nerf the strength of any units that have high TMMs. The reason this can be an issue is that PV is balanced assuming the game is run on the 2d6 distribution, and values high speed (and thus high TMMs) highly. Because 1d12 can produce 12 distinct results, whereas 2d6 can only produce 11, and since the "extra" value that 1d12 can roll is the worst possible result, 2d6 will be disproportionately better at low to-hit values, and disproportionately worse at higher ones. Units with high TMMs, which rely on that speed to survive and pay for that speed in PV, rely on being able to easily force your target number up, and since the parity point is at 8+ (both 1d12 and 2d6 have about a 41% chance of hitting an 8+), those units will be hurt more by this change. I wouldn't be able to look my opponent in the eye and tell him that his 28 PV Fire Moth Prime is really just as good as my 28 PV HBK-4G when his chances of dying to just about any 'mech are now 1 in 4 at 10+ instead of 1 in 6, and are close to 3 times greater (just below 3% to just above 8%) at a 12+ than they were before. Combine this with the fact that your chances to hit don't improve as much as you close, and savvy players would start to lean towards long range firepower, though that simply isn't as effective in AS as can be in CBT so it's less of an issue. Regardless, I agree with you 100%: do whatever you want with the rules! Just be sure you understand what you're doing when you start playing with the fundamental math though, as it can be very easily to unintentionally change things dramatically.
Ash I agree I finished the video and my blog on Wordpress they’re your miniatures this has been my mantra for years. 100k subs keep up the excellent work my brother!
You know what, I like your explanation of how modifier stacking weight is over-valued compared to the dice chance of 2d6 vs 1d12.
Definitely going to show this to my friends, thanks!
Well said dude. Guidelines more than rules is the way I usually roll with most of my hobbies :)
game design has evolved over time. in the 60s thru the 90s, most games used a variation of D6. not because of the mathematics, but because most families owned a family board game (monopoly - most common) which used the D6. while various games attempted to use different mechanics or methods for variable resolution, D&D was the most successful for using different sided die to change the variables.
today's gamer is not just familiar with the different types of dice, but usually owns several sets.
as someone who's been gaming since the late 70s, I absolutely will look at the rules as written, play test and then make some adjustments. as stated by several others, classic will continue to be 2D6, but other versions, I may try 1D12.
This video starts at 10:15 if you want to skip the rant
The theory, as I understand it, is that one aims center mass, making the center torso at 7 (1&6, 2&5, 3&4, 4&3, 5&2, 6&1) the most likely outcome. Beyond this, I love changing rules to adhere to my idea of story; a space opera, character driven player, not a competitive player.
the thing that i truly hate about this is that i was all excited and ready to try out the D6 skill die system. But this just makes way more sense
By the way most game tornments Video game or Table Top are set up for fair and balanced play or whatever play they are going for... So they too pick and choose what rules from what book to play or even homebrew if needed... So yeah your fine.
@10:20 When the actual explantion begins.
A gamer after my own heart.
Going to be painfully honest: I don't like this system, at all. I enjoy lots of light mechs that rely heavily on the bell curve probability provided by 2d6 to survive while they close the distance, supported by skilled-up snipers who utilize distance to reduce the effectiveness of return fire. Most of the former are also close-range fighters, and while that means they benefit from the reduced hit probability at short range, it means they're dramatically easier to hit at long range. The latter are also easier to hit at long range, and now lack the armor to survive more efficient return fire.
Take the Adder or Kit Fox, for example. Neither has the armor to slug it out up close, nor do they have the TMM to skitter around their opponents. They rely on staying in the long-range band with a +4 for range that cuts both ways. Against a Skill 4 opponent, that means they're relying on the opposition needing a 10+ to score hits (Skill 4 + Long Range + TMM 2). With 2d6, they will get hit roughly 16% of the time. With 1d12, they will get hit 25% of the time. Lighter 'Mechs with TMM 3, like the Locust, are even worse off as they try to close to weapons range against similar opponents (Skill 4 + Medium Range + TMM 3), as with a TN of 9, they'll be hit 33% of the time instead of 28% of the time. Sure, you can rely on hard cover to mask movement, but the result is the same - past a TN of 8, the margin of error becomes notably slimmer for a playstyle where you're already living on the razor's edge.
The inverse is also true: for large brawlers with small TMMs, it inexplicably becomes easier to miss them. A Thunderbolt with TMM 1 at medium range against a Skill 4 opponent has a TN of 7 (Skill 4 + Medium Range + TMM 1). On 2D6, hit rate is 58%, versus 50% for 1d12. The heavier 'Mechs, already more survivable than their faster peers due to their extra armor, become even more survivable at typical engagement distances.
I understand why you're doing this, and you're right, I can't stop you, but I'm looking at the second order effects of how this changes the gameplay balance beyond "making it fairer to hit at range and miss up close," and I'm really not liking what I'm seeing on paper, especially due to my preferred playstyle. Maybe you're seeing something different on the table, but that's my take.
Which is totally fine because we’re allowed to want different things from the game!
Summary of that point; you value the resolution of outcomes during the experience from your description.
I’m valuing the ‘feeling’ of the process and tempo of gameplay as well as linear versus elastic probability visualization.
Those are different goals so it’s totally reasonable we value different things and feel differently.
@@GuerrillaMiniatureGames exactly. I'm pretty sure that if (and in fact i will) explain your system to my old pal who still play classic battletech quite often, he will keep 2d6 because he want a more "simulationist" feeling...and he will not disagree to use d12 if we play alpha strike, because for him alpha strike is more like a cinematic way to play battletech.......
That's fascinating.... I never would have thought about it. There's only one way to get a 7 with a d12... but you can get a 7 in multiple ways from 2 dice. That's crazy... But is this why the percentages change? I wonder what the math for every digit would be. I also wonder what is done in Battletech when you arrive on a '1' with a d12?
Fantastic video!
If you can alter rules to make them more pleasing to play for you, you absolutely should!
Narrative scenarios and enjoyable games are what I enjoy playing and its great to see you tinkering with rules to make them more fun and bodging whatever you want to make the game more fun to play and I'd love to see more folks do it rather than slavishly following the rules as written.
I'll have to have a bash using D12's for Alphastrike and see how I get on.
Great video and really interesting! Honestly I might give the D12 system a shot down the line when I get the chance to buy some more D12s, since I love Variable Damage but having only 5 sets of 2D6 personally it can be a bit hard when you start overheating and stuff.
I'd honestly love to see you on the Play On Tabletop channel some day, I feel like you and them have a really similar mindset when it comes to thematic, romantic, and story-driven wargames! I'd LOVE to see you teach them Alpha Strike!
EDIT: On the note of customization too, It's perfectly fine to not only take stuff out you feel is clunky and difficult, but also put in stuff that is complicated if it makes the enjoyment of the game greater.
Every now and then I'll play a game of AS where I use a progressive TMM system. So the further you move in a turn (up to your maximum) the higher your TMM. It's a bit complicated, but with some printed off tokens to put next to your mechs (tokens just say +1, +2, +3, etc.) it's easy to remember. Makes the close game combat very interesting and speed is still king, but if a lighter mech wants to stay in short range of an opponent they might have to take the hit of a lower TMM as they circle each other to get that kill.
Well spoken. Excellent video. Thank you!
I've recently decided to try using a D12 for to-hit rolls and PSRs in both Classic and my modified version of Alpha Strike for the linear probability. We play with Electronics, Tactics, and Leadership skills added to Gunnery and Piloting, so having each point of change in target number equate to the same change in chance of success made it much easier to balance the things yo can do with the extra skills.
Plus, by my estimation, making target numbers above 8 easier and below 8 harder should let me reduce the BV impact of high skill pilots, since they're more likely to have the lower target numbers. That really helps if one of my players is fielding high-skill Clanners.
I like the D12's, I will try that next time. Last time I played we did pilot dice 2 D6 method. We like having the higher chance for critical hits, so we don't limit it to only one dice can crit. If we do D12's, we'll probably let any result of 12 crit, but only 1 per roll.
We've taken a stab at using this die rolling system and like the game SO much more this way.
Yeah right, we all know Ash has invested in a D12 mine and he's just drumming up business to raise his share price.
I'm no mathematician, but bell curves getting flattened or not, all I see when I watch Ash playing Alpha Strike is two blokes enjoying the heck out of a game, so there's that.
I agree, my group does that all the time.
That's an interesting 20:10 proposal. I never considered rolling different size die for hits or damage. 1d12 would Save on rolls And clutter. I liked how you associated it with mathematics explaining how fixed values don't impact the role. It determines your lowest role to achieve a hit where anything above that is a hit.
I think what I'll end up doing is creating a probability distribution chart and seeing what the impact is with respect to 2d6 or 1d12. Take care and kudos on an excellent idea.
You have a convert for using D12s for Alpha Strike. When playing D&D, I totally respect "Rules as Written", but often I will Rule for Fun. Thanks for taking the time to explain the logic behind using D12s.
So agree with all you said here! Heck, I would even use d12 for CBT, because CBT in person takes ages even for the most simple fights (nowadays I only play CBT using digital tools like MegaMek or flechs as the amount of rolling for everything is not that fun anymore for me).
The terrain and Mats kind of abstract all the ranges so the 2D6 roll works well to reward how restrictive movement is in CBT. But yeah; why not try it?
Totally using D12s when I play.
Great video. Most important point to me was the inference that without the use of the D12 there would have been fewer Battletech videos. Right there you got my vote for the D12. Regardless, the statistical explanation was very accessible. It shows using D12 doesn’t break the game and has some advantages if you want a smoother distribution of outcomes. As a former statistician, I approve!
I played D&D for 10 years before I rolled to hit and damage dice at the same time. It felt amazing. Now I'm straight up rewriting portions of Alpha Strike to teach the game to my kids.
I skipped the two D6 rule for shooting but I instead converted it like if a Mech attack of three pips I Roll three D6 for the PIP as my attack move i used to skill of the pilot like a regular will be four or higher for hits Modifier still exist like if there blocking terrain or jumping so we just use it as optional so there’s nothing wrong with that.
I enjoy house rules too.
I have a nice collection of the Clix game and use house rules to play a version of Alpha Strike with them. Take whatever the printed range value on the dial and multiply it by three and play on a 6'x4' table and you have Alpha Strike scale while the simplicity of the Clix dials.
The Clix game is a 3D6 game, where 2D6 of one color are what determines critical hits, so I might do what you are doing with a D12 as my "pilot" die.
Most of the fun in battletech to me is the 2d6 system, it gives weight to added benefits/negatives
What a brilliant video. I would love to see more of the weird and wonderful stuff that is born from Ash’s creativity. I miss Realm Quest!
Well, me and my friend have use the D12 system in about 10+ games, I think..they have made the game enjoyable..so Thankyou ash..love the channel..cheers.
Great speech. Love the energy.
Can anyone explain the pilot die that’s rolled?
How does a better or worse pilot die effect the number on the die and how does the number on the die effect the actual shots?
Every change that speeds up BT is a good change in my book. 😀
I've been playing BT since 1994 but I still don't get over how weird some of the players are. I mean Warhammer or Warmachine player can be very obnoxious, but BT players can be WEIRD. So I really appreciate this rebuttal of the "YOU FORGOT TO REROLL YOUR ENDO STEEL, YOU PEASANT!"-crowd.
Just gave this a try with a buddy over the weekend. Wow! What a difference, this opens up the game and makes it tactical at all ranges. I thought lights would become useless, nope, my Locusts were just as critical as my Awesome and Thunderbolt. Thank you sir for sharing this.
Note to Grognards, of which I am one, this is the Alphastrike you are looking for. I still love and play classic BT with 2D6, but I will only play Alphastrike with D12s from now on.
Stoked you gave it a try and enjoyed it!
I have not yet played Alpha Strike, so I neither agree nor disagree on the d12 - but I completely agree on making the game and its rules yours for maximum fun.
My game group made up rules-changes for both Necromunda and Gorkamorka, for example. And we added a bunch of scenarios, equipment, event cards, etc.
Tried the d12 after watching you and tried it out. Made the game faster and
More fun for us :)
I really love your gaming philosophy man. My hobby is improved by watching your hobby. Keep on rolling sir!
I like the message of the video, gotta admit I almost didn't bother to watch it because the title read like "You should make this change to this game like I did and play the way I like!" to which my brain was like "don't tell me how to play!" lol.
EDIT: I think it was the "(and so should you)" part.
I was wondering when you would start freestyling, given all the MF Doom / Wu Tang references over the years
Honestly, I wish more games used a non-D6 system.
Totally agree. D6 just doesn't allow for granularity because you are either just 1/6 chance for everything or tied to the bell curve of 2d6.
If you want a looser bellcurve than 2d6 but not as straight as a d12, try a 1d8+1d4 combo.
Great gaming words of wisdom!🍻
People have been selling 'Alpha Strike' wrong. They call it 'fast paced' Battletech, or 'dumbed down' Battletech, but it's actually 'Warhammerized Battletech,' and that's a good thing. Alpha Strike is a game where you can (and should) play big games with big armies of a dozen or more units (which would take like 10 hours and tedious record sheet tracking in Classic Battletech), because it works so much better as a 'big war game.' The D12 system you advocate is the icing on the cake that makes it all work. The only other thing Alpha Strike needs is faction army lists so that armies become more unique and distinguished.
our group has been playing for over 30 years. same campaign since 1991. the smallest battle is company v company and usually battalion v battalion. we use mixed forces and other expanded items (Aero and artillery).
a company size battle (12-20 pieces per side) is usually a 2-3 hour game.
a battalion size battle (40-80 pieces per side) is usually a 4-5 hour game.
we have a list of house rules we use. some improve the speed of game play and some add details that the advanced play doesn't cover. for the most part, our games last between 8-12 turns and at most 15 turns. typically a turn is 20min (total - not for each player).
I use the roll to hit with 2d6 then roll a d6 for each point of damage and a 3+ is damaging. With a minimum damage of 1. It’s in the rule but at an optional rule. With that said I do like your d12 system since it make the game faster.
One of your best videos!
I exactly like the the difficulty variation for higher numbers
I think it would have helped to show the flat curve vs the gen pop curve. Your D12 is faster, but the probabilities ARE different. That’s important if you think it is or not if you don’t. But, it is a diff game. I think it can be meaningful depending on how the game was designed and how important the probabilities are to the mechanics as intended.
In the end, play what you want how you want. Hell , use a deck of cards to resolve if you want. I treat almost everything as ‘beer and pretzels’ gaming - it’s about fun. But I’ve seen people throw dice and figs because they get upset.
We gave the d12s a try. It really worked out good.
As I'm re-reading a rulebook after the first time I'm already thinking of ways to "make it better". 😁
Thanks for sharing, excellent as always, that's an interesting concept and there's some merit in this method I guess. One immediate problem I can see is. It's a personal choice of course, but for me this simplifies the gameplay just too much. Especially when rolling hit location. What I mean is, it makes sense for the centre torso to be easily hit, far more likely than cockpit or arms, since technically it's a large location in the centre of the target, hence it's usually better armoured so it can absorb a likely more frequent damage. Chance of rolling the centre torso with 2D6 is 16.6%, left and right torso about 14%. Hitting the centre torso with 1D12 has the same 8.3% chance as rolling either the leg or cockpit locations. Just my opinion, but 2d6 just work better with the hit location design. I reckon, were 1D12 more common in the 80's we would possibly use a different location rolling system in BT.
Exactly, rules are relative.