It's for my game fallen kingdoms which is already available in print and play. While I am revising the rules to update the files, I came across a minor complication that I could change with a new rule, but that would mean changing a not-so-thin portion of the game.
The rules work currently like this.
During a combat roll, the player roll 2D6, for each die of value 4+, one enemy unit is destroyed.
Now, each player has an intimidation level which is expressed by a value. If a player has an higher level than his opponent and scores at least 1 hit, an extra unit must retreat to a adjacent friendly territory. In other words you scared them.
Now the problem is that in the game, there are technologies that boost intimidation efficiency and Combat efficiency in different ways. For example, "Philosophy force player to have a 6 in his roll to be intimidated".
The problem is that intimidation depends on combat, so indirectly, tech that boost combat also boost intimidation. So I added an exception where you do not consider combat tech effects for determining if intimidation work. But that exception could be eventually complicated to manage or easily forgotten.
So I was thinking of finding a way for intimidation to be dependent on the rolls without being influenced by combat technologies.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
New rule idea.
One of the die the player rolls would be of a different color. If that die has a value of 3+, intimidation succeed. Results, the odds are slightly changed (see below) and you can end up in a situation where you intimidate without hitting your enemy, or you could hit and do not intimidate at all.
There can be 1 combat tech conflict with "strategy: you may re-roll once, any die roll of 1,2,3". In that case, the intimidation would be influenced. Philosophy would be changed for "need 5+ to intimidate". Here is the odds changes:
Original - with Philo. - Variant - with Philo.
Intimidation Succeed: 75% - 30% - 66% - 33%
Intimidation Failed: 25% - 70% - 33% - 66%
Variant Rule
Intimidation Succeed and 1+ hit: 59%
Intimidation Succeed and no hit: 9%
Intimidation fail and 1 hit: 16%
Intimidation fail and no hit: 16%
If the formatting above sucks, looks at the bottom of this page
http://bgd.lariennalibrary.com/games/fallen_kingdoms/index.php?n=Main.Va...
I want to know what do you think?
Which method do you prefer?
Which method does look more clear or easier to remember?
Do you find it odd to be able to intimidate without any hit & vice versa?
----------------------------------------------------------------
Note: For those who where interested in my game, after revising the rules, I might release the rules to the public to attract more players and since I intend to make a printed copy. I'll make an announcement when it happens.
But that is the problem, if you require units to hit before using the intimidation die, then increasing the chances to hit increase the probabilities to intimidate, which is what I want to avoid.
One of the reason why I decided to reuse 1 die twice is that a roll of 4+ on the intimidation will mean a hit. So most of the time, intimidation will generate a hit. The only situation is if a 3 is rolled, in that case, it's possible not to hit (depends on the 2nd die). I had to keep the 3+ rules to have odds similar to 75% (66% with new rules) 2+ would be too much ( 84%)
The cards has already been design to avoid conflict between each other, I cannot upgrade them more. For example, Masonry makes enemy hit you on 5+, so I changed strategy to re-roll 1-2-3 instead of re-roll a miss. Because it would be masonry would give more chances to player with strategy to re-roll. So all these kind of considerations has already been taken into account except for the fact that improved combat rolls improve intimidation too.
I even added the rule where you intimidate on a 4+ instead of intimidate on a hit. To make sure that masonry does not reduce the odds to intimidate. But that kind of rule could be very subtle and players could assume when they play that if you hit, you intimidate too.
So I was trying to see if there could be another method of triggering intimidation without generating ambiguity or conflicts.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another not so elegant idea is that if 1 of the die has an even value(2-4-6), you intimidate. The odd to intimidate will start at 75%, but there is 18% change to intimidate without hit, and I think if the philosophy rules stay the same, the odds will drop the same way.
What is is interesting about this rule is that for example, combat technology will not directly increase the odd to intimidate. With strategy, if you re-roll, a 2, you could end up with a 5, which will remove intimidation success. Masonry still makes 4 valid for intimidation, so it reduce hit potential but keep intimidation the same. Also, strategy force players to re-roll a 1-2-3, so players cannot decide to keep a roll of 2 for example.
From what I can see, it seems to make combat technology almost ineffective, it keeps the same 75% odds and I don't have to change any technology cards. It seems like the best of all worlds.
So the only question left: does looking or even numbers, after a combat roll, is an elegant thing to do?
Else, does anybody see any abuse I did not see with using even numbers?
I might make some test to see if there could be a conflict when intimidation occurs without any kills, but besides that, the even number rule seems awesome.