Re: FT: Damage Track Sliding Scale Suggestion

> >>  From: Alun Thomas <alun.thomas@cbis.com>
> >>  How about changing the damage track, so that it forms a triangle,
with 
each
> >>  row being 2 or 3 boxes shorter than the one above it?
[...]
> >>  This system would lead to threshold checks becomming more frequent
> >>  after a ship had taken some damage, so it might be a good idea to
drop
> >>  the rule about successive thresholds rolling against different
numbers.

jjm @ zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) wrote:

> Especially if the rows are narrow enough that you could conceivable 
> have more than one threshold check, it would be best to flatten the 
> number rolled. In fact, I think I'd rather have noticeably narrower 
> and taller damage tracks, thus making for more frequent, though less 
> severe checks. Also, if you make all checks at 6, it's easier and
faster 
> to roll 3d6 and look for 6s than it is to roll a d6, then go back
through 
> and roll for a 5-6, etc., if you have more than one check in a turn.

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of keeping all
threshold
rolls the same, and using the shape of the damage track to vary their
frequency - makes ship design take a little longer, but could speed up
play.

If you want more frequent threshold checks, you could adjust the rate
at which the rows get smaller - I picked 2 boxes per row because it
seemed to give roughly similar results to the current system. You
could choose to make the rows one box smaller than the previous row,
or even one box every two rows:

eg.
One box every row:

6 hits
XXX
XX
X

7 hits
XXXX
XX
X

8 hits
XXXX
XXX
X

9 hits
XXXX
XXX
XX

10 hits
XXXX
XXX
XX
X

11 hits
XXXXX
XXX
XX
X

12 hits
XXXXX
XXXX
XX
X

One box every other row:
(flying eggshells!)

6 hits
XX
XX
X
X

7 hits
XXX
XX
X
X

8 hits
XXX
XXX
X
X

9 hits
XXX
XXX
XX
X

10 hits
XXX
XXX
XX
XX

11 hits
XXX
XXX
XX
XX
X

12 hits
XXX
XXX
XX
XX
X
X

Alun.