Averaging cohesion tests

Following on from the "Toughening up CP" thread I'd like to start a discussion about another house rule.

Cohesion tests become 2d6/2 round down.

Reason being we currently have an even 1/6 chance of every type of result happening from extreme stoicness to cowardly custard.

Implementing the 2d6 halved round down mechanism brings the bell curve into play and "normalises" results by tending to give an average result.

You can still get an extreme result of cowardice and collapse by rolling a double 6 (11 halved rounds down to a 5) which is a 1 in 36 instead of a 1 in 6, and the ultiamte stoic nature is displayed if you roll a double 1 or a 1+2 or 2+1 which makes that a 3 in 36 (or 1 in 12) chance.

Weeds out the regular occurrence of extreme results, including the death of a commander, whilst still keeping the result interesting and different enough from the roll to hit - roll to save - remove kills mechanism.

Thoughts appreciated

Totally changes the nature of the game in favour of higher VBU units and at a cost of flavour, interest and excitement. Also while it is true it does reduce the bell curve a little it does not really help to even out results - you would have to roll many more d6 to do that in any meaningful way

As you can see I have zero interest, however I'd be interested to see other players thoughts. Having said that if it was adopted for v2 I'd be retiring. Turning Impetus into another stale mathematical exercise akin to DB.... is a really retrograde step

Just my 2p

going from 1/6 to 1/36 is too much. games would never end.

I could see an argument that if the CT target number is a 7 or higher and you roll a 6 that you need to roll a 2nd die for 4-6 to fail, 1-3 meaning you pass.

Cyrus The Adequate wrote:Totally changes the nature of the game in favour of higher VBU units

Not really.

A VBU4 unit taking 1 measly hit from a long range skirmisher shot is smashed the the point of uselessness if they roll a single 6.  They can no longer perform a meaningful function against the enemy, they take up space in the line, they must be interpenetrated.

Is that something really useful to the game?

Do we really think it makes sense?

Is it more likely that they will take a disorder only rather than disordering and lose half their total capability and about 90% of their effectivity from that single long range hit?

That's not to say they CAN'T take 50% losses, it just means they need to roll a 6,6 instead of a single 6.

And it means leaders aren't testing on average every sixth melee round to see if they're killed...

Cyrus The Adequate wrote:
and at a cost of flavour, interest and excitement.

Not sure how you consider an equal chance of any event occurring "flavour, interest and excitement", it would appear to be more the very definition of boring equality across the board.

Cyrus The Adequate wrote:
Also while it is true it does reduce the bell curve a little it does not really help to even out results - you would have to roll many more d6 to do that in any meaningful way

Um, a single d6 has no bell curve, it's a straight line.

2d6/2 brings IN the bell curve, albeit slightly modified as a result of the need for rounding

.....d6........2d6/2............................................Difference
1...16.7%...3/36 (rolling 2 or 3 total) = 8.3%.......-8.4%
2...16.7%...7/36 (rolling 4 or 5 total) = 19.4%.....-2.7%
3...16.7%...11/36 (rolling 6 or 7 total) = 30.6%...+13.9%
4...16.7%...9/36 (rolling 8 or 9 total) = 25%........+8.3%
5...16.7%...5/36 (rolling 10 or 11 total) = 13.9%..-2.8%
6...16.7%...1/36 (rolling 12 total) = 2.8%............-13.9%

So it focuses the results around the centre, extremes happen but far less often.

Cyrus The Adequate wrote:
As you can see I have zero interest, however I'd be interested to see other players thoughts. Having said that if it was adopted for v2 I'd be retiring.

Presumably you say you have massive interest in seeing it not occur.  If you had zero interest you wouldn't stamp your foot and threaten to retire.

I quite like ultimatum givers, they stamp their feet and go red then blue in the face with a combination of rage and then suffocation from holding their breath until they get their way, so I now think this should be made official in Advanced Impetus starting immediately for no other reason than to call your bluff...

If you can't pick it, feel free to add sarcastic smiley in here.

Cyrus The Adequate wrote:
Turning Impetus into another stale mathematical exercise akin to DB.... is a really retrograde step

Not sure how it's a "stale mathematical exercise", but if you believe any gaming system isn't a set of probabilities and the reactions we make to them then you're not looking closely enough.

Not sure how to respond to that. It appears that you feel the need to make personal attacks if someone has the affront to disagree with you and your latest proposal.

As for ultimatums and stamping of feet - I'm not stamping my feet, and if my face is a little red its because I've been catching a little sun in the garden. I'm just stating a view. I think that's still allowed here?

And on the subject of ultimatums why is my disagreement such an issue to you? Its not like we are likely to play against each other, and after this current little outburst I can safely say my life is not diminished by that fact one iota.

I understand bell curves btw - and it is you that are proposing to introduce them. I just think trying to use any combination of d6 to normalise probability will always fail unless you apply a great many results.

So - back to the proposal. Yes it does mean that in some circumstances a VBU 4 unit will have a better chance of surviving, however it also means that a higher VBU unit has now a very much higher chance of not taking casualties. That's a retrograde step and would diminish the fun I get from playing knowing that the chance of my piss poor peasants surviving an impact or causing a casualty on those knights has moved from one in six to one in thirty six. Those moments are the ones I like, the ones I think my fellow players like. They are certainly the thinngs we talk about after the game and the ones which mark Impetus out from the herd. Take that away and the fun of the game diminishes (for me). And the fun is why I play

I'm pretty sanguine about your proposal because I think in reality it would have a 0% chance of being adopted. The only positive I take from your post above being to confirm my initial impression of you - so thanks for that.

Feel free to imagine any smileys you want, however I doubt there is one that expresses my opinion of you at the moment

We've struggled with the brutality of the CT for years. But every solution to mitigate the full impact of 1 die roll seems to produce more problems than it solves. If we like Impetus because of the drama and the inability to fully game the system then it seems to me we just to have to "man up" when bad, inexplicable things happen in the game (as our VBU 8 CP gets smacked down from a long shot roll.)

What we have to remember is that a VBU 4 unit isn't really a front line combat unit anyway, you rather expect them to evaporate when things go badly

What we've found is that if anything is done to mitigate/average or otherwise play with the cohesion test, all that happens is that in the melee both units participating are wrecked. Melees degenerate into mutually assured destruction from which there is no real winner
The form of mitigation we have found that works best is to use your 'roll of fate'
We've tried several versions of this, one is giving everybody three of them free, to having one roll of fate dice. It sits there near the middle of the table.The first player to use it gives it to the second player. Now the second player need never use it and force both of them to accept the strictures of chance, but we've found that however disciplined the second player intends to be, they quickly use it and pass it back to the first player, who also soon uses it and passes it back to the second player.

I like the idea of the roll of fate going back and forth between the players. Pretty clever.

I played Might of Arms for a while and I found the whole system a chore because of exactly what you describe Jim, a grind where both units slowly dissolve away. What I like about Impetus is that this slow grind can happen but also more dynamic possibilities can also develop.

As an aside, one of the concerns I have with Baroque ideas coming into Impetus II is the some of the unit attributes monkey around with the CT. I think don't think this really helps the game a lot.

Gents, I think your exchange of tiny accusations and sarcastical comments is a little bit strange due to the fact, that you really discussed the matter in a detailed and informative way – both thesis and antithesis. So I don´t see the point why you adressed character things on merly no basis having not met.

Personally I really like gaming systems which make the use of a bell curve so for me your discussion was very interesting. By the way: how impetus does the hits per VBU is a matter of the bell curfe. So one mechanism is mak. But I must admit that the change for units with a high VBU is a little bit too high.

Example: with a fresh VBU 8 heavy cavalry I would have no problem with riding in front of a crossbow planning to charge next round since the probability to get disordered or wounded is around 3 percent with the exception getting all 6 hits from a crossbow in short range vs. mounted.

So i think the thesis is interesting, but the change would be in favour of high VBU units which will change the game too much.