Lately I have been perusing various skirmish rules systems for ideas. I recently picked up Galactic Heroes and have gleaned some ideas from it. Interestingly, I originally shied away from it because it uses card activation (which I dislike). However, I now see that one could easily dispense with the cards and still play the combat system. I have also been reviewing old Osprey sets that I have picked up over the years. I really have an addiction to their rules - the price is right - even if I rarely end up playing the games.
Which brings me to In Her Majesty's Name (I told you I'd get there). This is one of those Osprey rules sets I have on my e-reader. I picked it up years ago because I have an interest in Victorian science fiction (which you can probably tell from my retrospective on Space 1889).
I never bothered to play it, for a variety of reasons. I didn't have any figures and was reluctant to start up a new project. Furthermore, the rules themselves use a D10 and I am firmly in the D6 camp. Thus, it ended up in my archive - until recently.
As I mentioned, I have been perusing various skirmish sets. I took another look at IHMN and was rather surprised by what I read. Despite using a D10, there were quite a few similarities between IHMN and the skirmish rules I have been developing. Both sets give each figure a Shoot (ranged combat) and Fight (melee) values, which get added to a die roll to hit. Any figure that gets hit must then roll to determine the impact - there is a possibility that the hit will do no damage.
One difference, though, is the damage resolution. In my rules, the damage roll results in 0-2 wounds, which get marked off the figure's hit points. Most grunts only have 1-2 hp, so tracking is not too onerous. Nevertheless, I still need to track.
In contrast, IHMN features a Pluck roll. If a figure is hit, it must roll greater than the pluck roll to shake off the hit; rolling under means that the figure is out of the action. At first, this concerned me as it seems that any figure, including a hero, only has 1 hit point. But I just noticed that the Pluck values vary; heroes will have a better Pluck, allowing them to shake off more hits.
Let me illustrate. A typical goon might have a Pluck of 6+, giving the goon a 50% chance of surviving a hit. On average, it will take about 2 hits to take down a goon. A hero with a Pluck of 2+ will require an average of about 10 hits before being out of action. I realized that this system essentially provides differing hit points without having to track wounds!
There is still the problem of a lucky hit offing a hero in one shot. I think this can be addressed by giving the player a pool of hero points that can offset a failed Pluck roll. In fact, I think I read that Thud & Blunder, a fantasy rules set by the authors of IHMN, uses a similar system.
Long story short, I am very intrigued by the possibilities of a Pluck role and am thinking of experimenting with it for my skirmish rules.
Hello Kevin,
ReplyDeleteI used to shun away from skirmish games due to most of the rules having hits points (one of the many reasons I could not get into role playing with DnD was due to hit points). 10 years ago I came across NUTS! and that led to the Two Hour Wargames RPG-like rules (e.g. 5150). There are no hit points. All characters have a Reputation number which (amongst other uses) a characters rolls against when hit (on 2d6). Results are either OK, run away or out of the fight. So no hit points to track. Got me into skirmish gaming! The way reputation works for damage sounds similar to Pluck. I do like no-hit point mechanisms.
I never minded tracking hit points in D&D but then I used to play a PC so only had one character to track. But I share your aversion to hp when I play solo wargames - too much to track!
ReplyDelete