NAF World Headquarters
House Rules - Dauntless
Mestari - Dec 06, 2003 - 11:48 AM
Post subject: Dauntless
Thought I'd transfer bits from a discussion about Dauntless from TBB to here.
ianwilliams presented the problem that:
Dauntless does not take the ST of the blocker into account, only the ST of the player that is blocked.
ianwilliams suggested a solution of:
Roll D6 and add your strength (before assists are counted). If this is greater than the strength of the opponent(s) you are blocking then your strength counts as same
Critics denounced this option because it lowers the probability of ST3 player succeeding at dauntlessing a ST5 guy. Ian considers the change too small.
I suggested the following to address the problem:
Roll 2d6 and subtract the ST difference from the result. If the result is 4+, your strength counts as the same as your opponents.
Here's the data:
Current Success Rates (Opponent Strength)
Code:
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.97 0.92 0.83 0.72 0.58 0.42 0.28 0.17 0.08
Success Rate of ianwilliams suggestion (Strength Difference)
Code:
1 2 3 4 5
0.83 0.67 0.50 0.33 0.17
Success Rates of my suggestion (Strength difference)
Code:
1 2 3 4 5
0.83 0.72 0.58 0.42 0.28
As is clearly visible, my suggestion
a) Keeps the probabilities of success the same for ST3 Dauntless players.
b) Addresses the concern that the attackers ST is not taken into account
A small (although admittedly not entirely necessary) change that some people might want to use as house rules.
dwarfcoach - Dec 06, 2003 - 01:14 PM
Post subject:
Erm, why should the attackers strength be taken into consideration?
Mestari - Dec 06, 2003 - 02:04 PM
Post subject:
Well, it does make RL sense to take that into consideration, and there was the point about the Dauntless+Horns Gutter Runners.
I do not consider this an absolutely necessary change, but definitely a worthwhile house rule for anyone bothered about the fact that own ST is not taken into account or annoyed by the ease by which Dauntless+Horns turns Gutter runners into certain 2die block safeguard blitzers that have an undue amount of range at their disposal.
Zombie - Dec 06, 2003 - 02:29 PM
Post subject:
Your system keeps the probability the same for a ST3 player, but it will be different for any other player. I prefer ianwilliams' solution for its simplicity. I think it would make a good change to the official rules.
Doubleskulls - Dec 06, 2003 - 05:18 PM
Post subject:
Glad you agree with me. I like Mestari's solution - it's a better model than mine but I felt it was too complex.
Mestari - Dec 07, 2003 - 12:57 AM
Post subject:
Personally, I don't see a huge difference in complexity of those two suggestions, and I have to agree with what some people said over at TBB that even a slight decrease in the probabilities of ST3Dauntless vs ST5 is something that is not wanted.
Zombie - Dec 07, 2003 - 01:27 AM
Post subject:
Personally, i believe that this small decrease in efficiency in one case is a very small price to pay to make this skill more balanced overall (i.e. easier to use with small differences in strength). Also, remember that this change makes it *easier* to use against ST4.
Your version is something i don't like at all. Way too complicated. I'd rather use the current version than yours. Sorry.
Mestari - Dec 07, 2003 - 12:45 PM
Post subject:
I can't but wonder the basis by which a rule is labelled complicated.
ians:
-roll 1 die
-add a number
-compare to another number
mine:
roll 2 die
-subtract a number
-compare to another number
way too complicated? 
BTW. ianwilliams suggestion preserves the probability of ST3vsST4 dauntless, it does not make it more likely to succeed.
Zombie - Dec 07, 2003 - 03:18 PM
Post subject:
Here's why it's more complicated. First, your version means one more number to remember or look up in the book (was it 4+, 3+, 2+?). Second, it's 2D6 instead of 1D6 (the fewer the dice, the better the rule). Third, it means more calculation (1D6 + 1D6 + STb - STa >= 4 instead of 1D6 + STa > STb). Finally, Ian's version is easier to remember as a concept and more intuitive (your ST plus 1D6 must beat the opponent's ST, makes sense).
Apedog - Dec 07, 2003 - 03:29 PM
Post subject:
I'm too tired to run the numbers but what happens to the odds if you use Ian's version but make it ST + 1D6 must equal or beat the opponents ST?
Zombie - Dec 07, 2003 - 03:38 PM
Post subject:
Then all you do is take the table provided above but move everything one step to the right.
Doubleskulls - Dec 08, 2003 - 02:35 AM
Post subject:
Apedog wrote:
I'm too tired to run the numbers but what happens to the odds if you use Ian's version but make it ST + 1D6 must equal or beat the opponents ST?
If you include a 1 & 6 rule then -
Code:
1 0.83
2 0.83
3 0.67
4 0.50
5 0.17
So
S2 vs (%Points)
S3 -9%
S4 0%
S5 -5%
S6 -8%
S3 vs (% points)
S4 +0%
S5 +11%
S6 +9%
S4 vs (% points)
S5 +11%
S6 +9%
That's an interesting suggestion - making Dauntless better for everyone apart from the S2 players. However it does make the Dauntless/Multiple Block Combo better - which was something I was trying to weaken too.
Mestari - Dec 08, 2003 - 07:18 AM
Post subject:
Hard to say about that. Some people might argue that a 2+ chance to successful Dauntless against player that has 1-2 points of ST more might be too good. And some might not like the fact that the probability is the same for difference of 1 and a difference of 2.
@ Zombie:
About your point 3: do you need to count ST difference? No, you don't need to, you know that straight away.
About the two other points, remembering the number '4' and rolling one more dice... well, I just can't see the "way too complicated" hidden anywhere in there.
Naturally, if it was only about the ease of using the rule, ians first suggestion would prevail. But the sad fact is that it has unwanted side-effects of Dauntless becoming worse than it used to be for ST3 players.
My suggestion keeps Dauntless exactly where it is in terms of the player group that uses it the most - ST3 players, and makes it slightly worse for ST<3 players, and slightly better for the odd ST4+ player that has it.
Zombie - Dec 08, 2003 - 11:27 AM
Post subject:
Or use Ian's modified system where you just need to equal. Then it won't become worse.
Seriously, i love his idea, but i hate yours. Nothing personal, that's just the way it is!
Darkson - Dec 08, 2003 - 11:55 AM
Post subject:
@ Maestari - No, your systems not that difficult, but remmember that people moaned about having to roll an (max) extra 16 dice at the end of the game with the EXP system
Mestari - Dec 09, 2003 - 09:13 AM
Post subject:
Well, naturally I prefer less dice too - as long as the effect remains the same. And to be honest, I don't like the probabilities of either of ians suggestions (first one makes it worse for ST3 and the second equates ST difference of 1 and 2).
How about
Dauntless is succesfull on 3+ roll of d6
If ST difference is 1, add 1 to the roll.
This would equate all ST differences of 2 or more, but those are quite unlikely, so I see this less of a problem than if ST differences of 1 and 2 were equal.
Zombie - Dec 09, 2003 - 12:34 PM
Post subject:
Don't like it. First, they're not unlikely at all. Dauntless is my first choice on doubles for human catchers, wood elf catchers, or anyone else with ST2 and no access to mutations. Then once they have it, it makes sense to use them against big guys once in a while.
Also, it's still more complicated and far less intuitive than Ian's version, which is the beauty of it.
Mestari - Dec 09, 2003 - 11:12 PM
Post subject:
Still, it is far less likely than the instances where you use it against ST3 or ST4 players.
Anyhow, I suppose there's no use trying to convince you that it's better to have the statistical probabilities correct than to have a slightly less complicated rule. That's my standpoint, anyhow, and it's hard to see the advantage of ians rule over my initial suggestion, as the probabilities shown clearly indicate which one is better.
Zombie - Dec 10, 2003 - 12:04 AM
Post subject:
Mestari wrote:
as the probabilities shown clearly indicate which one is better.
How? You're assuming that the current probabilities for dauntless are the best that could ever be achieved and should be maintained at all cost. Who's to say that Ian's probabilities aren't better for the game? I can't say they are, but you can't say they aren't either.
Just because the rule is one way now, doesn't mean that's the best way it could ever be!
Doubleskulls - Dec 10, 2003 - 03:01 AM
Post subject:
Mestari wrote:
Anyhow, I suppose there's no use trying to convince you that it's better to have the statistical probabilities correct than to have a slightly less complicated rule.
I'll agree with Zombie here.
I'd rather have a simpler mechanism that produced similar results and factors in the player's strength, keeping close to the current probabilities is not the be all and end all of the system.
Tutenkharnage - Dec 11, 2003 - 03:06 PM
Post subject:
Leaving aside the probabilities, the ST of the attacker is already a factor in Dauntless. Unfortunately for the attacker, he notices this only when he fails the roll. In other words, it's one thing for the ST 2 player to Dauntless the Ogre...but if he fails, it's a 3-die block against.
Just a sidebar no one seemed to notice.
-Chet
Mestari - Dec 12, 2003 - 12:01 AM
Post subject:
But not a factor in how often the dauntless roll is succesfull. Mind you, to me dauntless can be just as it is, I'm pushing my idea simply because I consider it the best alternative of the suggested house rules. Unfortunately, it seems, I've received little support for my ideas so far 
Redfang - Dec 12, 2003 - 06:35 AM
Post subject:
Apedog wrote:
I'm too tired to run the numbers but what happens to the odds if you use Ian's version but make it ST + 1D6 must equal or beat the opponents ST?
I wanted to suggest this as well, good I read the thread before I posted...
Doubleskulls - Dec 12, 2003 - 07:49 AM
Post subject:
Tutenkharnage wrote:
Leaving aside the probabilities, the ST of the attacker is already a factor in Dauntless. Unfortunately for the attacker, he notices this only when he fails the roll. In other words, it's one thing for the ST 2 player to Dauntless the Ogre...but if he fails, it's a 3-die block against.
Just a sidebar no one seemed to notice.
-Chet
As for the 1/3 dice - probably not as ought to have an assist.
My original point was to try to curb the common S2 players with Dauntless development path (particularly Gutter Runners with horns 
) and make Dauntless more of a line man skill again.