Why move from 5er to 6e? (List of improvements?)

[Ninja-Bear]

To comment on Hugh's earlier question: in 5th, to have a mind control gun that uses my ECV vs your DCV, I buy Mind Control, Then I slap a -1/4 "goes against DCV" limitation on it. Easy as pie. It's a limitation because DCVs are almost universally higher than ECVs, and people can dodge to increase their DCV. It's -1/4 because it's not as limiting as "no range".

Seems reasonable to me. I would say though that this would be based on campaign. I agree that for 95% of games you're correct but I could see that though for the same thing in a menalist campaign though, it could be an advatage.

[massey]

Seems reasonable to me. I would say though that this would be based on campaign. I agree that for 95% of games you're correct but I could see that though for the same thing in a menalist campaign though, it could be an advatage.

 

Possibly, yeah. Ultimately, the value of any Advantage you place on the power needs to account for the 2 pt combat skill level.  Most of the time, buying +5 to hit for 10 points is going to be a lot cheaper than using an Advantage to switch the combat value that the attack targets.

 

I made a mentalist once who had a "TK blast" that went versus PD and DCV.  I wanted it to use my ECV (which was like 2 points higher than my OCV) to hit.  After screwing around with various Advantages, I just bought +2 OCV for 4 points and then defined it as using ECV.

[Ninja-Bear]

Possibly, yeah. Ultimately, the value of any Advantage you place on the power needs to account for the 2 pt combat skill level. Most of the time, buying +5 to hit for 10 points is going to be a lot cheaper than using an Advantage to switch the combat value that the attack targets.

 

I made a mentalist once who had a "TK blast" that went versus PD and DCV. I wanted it to use my ECV (which was like 2 points higher than my OCV) to hit. After screwing around with various Advantages, I just bought +2 OCV for 4 points and then defined it as using ECV.

I like that too. The bigger question then as related to the thread is qhy change from 5th to 6th. I see one valid answer is that the above example is so minor in game play that switching from 5th to 6th isn't worth it. But another equal answer is I like how Hwro finallt answered this dilema in my game with me home ruming it-im going to buy it. And you can either port the new mechanic back into a previous edition or go fwet first into the latest edition. Hero supports it all!

[massey]

We use a combination of 4th and 5th in our group. We are starting to add a few bits of 6th as well.

[Ninja-Bear]

We use a combination of 4th and 5th in our group. We are starting to add a few bits of 6th as well.

My friend as he says runs 4th ed with 5th ed pricing. But is looking at some items from 6th level like damage negation.

[Surrealone]

The bigger question then as related to the thread is qhy change from 5th to 6th. I see one valid answer is that the above example is so minor in game play that switching from 5th to 6th isn't worth it. But another equal answer is I like how Hwro finallt answered this dilema in my game with me home ruming it-im going to buy it. And you can either port the new mechanic back into a previous edition or go fwet first into the latest edition. Hero supports it all!

I consider backporting 6e elements into 5er to be the same as switching to 6e (in terms of effort and materials) -- because doing so requires ownership of 6e materials, knowledge/study/analysis of 6e mechanics, and entails a change/switch/transition from 6e (at which point the game ceases to be a 5er game and becomes something else ... something closer to 6e but still not 5er).  My opinion is that unless there's something you absolutely must have from an older version, given the effort involved, it likely makes sense to switch wholesale to 6e.

 

The only changes I had trouble fathoming ... and still question ... are:

• The use of templates for Growth: Shrinking did not get a similar/equivalent change, so the two powers lost parity.  Shrinking is still reasonably easy to purchase in 6e, but 6e Growth now seems overly-complicated for anyone who needs only small amounts of it (like say, for a racial template).  I get that you can simply buy more characteristics, take a complication, and handwave the size as a special effect, but I think if that's the approach taken for Growth ... that it should also have been done for Shrinking.  Put another way, I feel that consistency should have been applied regarding the size powers: i.e. either use templates for both ... or templates for neither.  (I lean toward templates for neither.)
• The shift from hexes to meters: This seemed arbitrary and un-necessary from a gameplay standpoint. We all use hex mats, right?  And now we have to either (a) change scale on our mats such that they are half their usual size -- when we're often struggling to fit things on them, anyway; or  players and GMs have to do additional (albeit easy) math to use a hex mat every time someone wants to move, figure range a mod, etc.  Effectively halving the size of our hex mats OR effectively adding a lot of in-session (albeit easy) math work ... just for the game designers to save themselves trouble when designing ... is something I felt was a change in the wrong direction, as it hurts in-session gameplay by requiring new materials (more/larger hex mats) or effort.

 

That said neither change is significant enough to stop me from wanting to move to 6e, as I see many, many positive changes in 6e (decoupling CV's from stats; barrier deprecation of force wall and entangle-as-a-barrier; AoE (Surface) deprecation of damage shield; hardened being coupled only to the AP advantage (and a cost reduction for AP) thanks to the introduction of impenetrable to counter penetrating; damage resistance being replaced by damage negation (which can be countered with reduced damage negation on powers; etc. -- to name but a handful).

 

​One key element worth underscoring in 6e was prioritization of dramatic effect and/or dramatic appropriateness over outcomes determined by dice throws.  The two positive changes drove that home were:

​1) The removal of 8-, 11-, 14- rolls for DNPCs, Hunteds, Rivalries, and other such complications.

​2) The introduction of HAPs.

 

I thought these were excellent 6e changes -- as they help preclude dramatically inappropriate outcomes such as DNPC issues with one character at a time that makes no sense in the game, wimp-out rolls at key points that matter to plays (and could turn the die of something), etc.  GM's could, of course, handle these in 5e, but die roll compensation was entirely GM-side for compensation, whereas 6e transfers some control over this to the players to help balance out the input.

[Christopher R Taylor]

The shift to meters didn't bother me at all but the Growth thing was, in my opinion, a failed experiment.  Smaller, more incremental bits are more useful than big chunks I think.

[bigdamnhero]

• The shift from hexes to meters: This seemed arbitrary and un-necessary from a gameplay standpoint. We all use hex mats, right?  And now we have to either (a) change scale on our mats such that they are half their usual size -- when we're often struggling to fit things on them, anyway; or  players and GMs have to do additional (albeit easy) math to use a hex mat every time someone wants to move, figure range a mod, etc.  Effectively halving the size of our hex mats OR effectively adding a lot of in-session (albeit easy) math work ... just for the game designers to save themselves trouble when designing ... is something I felt was a change in the wrong direction, as it hurts in-session gameplay by requiring new materials (more/larger hex mats) or effort.

All I can say is we haven't found this to be a problem at all. We use 2m/hex as the default maybe 75% of the time, and it's really not that hard to count by twos when moving/figuring range. But for those times when we want a larger battlefield so that movement becomes a bigger factor and the sniper actually gets to use his PSLs vs RMods? You just set the scale at 8m/hex and done. [easy button]

 

Also: no, not everyone uses hex mats. I know several GMs/groups who play on a whiteboard, or draw things freehand on easel paper, or even print out pics of pretty terrain they found online, and then use rulers & tape measures to determined distance. Plus we don't map out every single battle, and without a mat it's easier for most people (especially newbies) to visualize something being 50m away than to picture 25 hexes away.

 

So to me I think it's another example of 6ed making one style of play microscopically harder in exchange for making other styles of play possible (or at least much easier).

 

​One key element worth underscoring in 6e was prioritization of dramatic effect and/or dramatic appropriateness over outcomes determined by dice throws.  The two positive changes drove that home were:

​1) The removal of 8-, 11-, 14- rolls for DNPCs, Hunteds, Rivalries, and other such complications.

​2) The introduction of HAPs.

1) Agreed. I always just used those die rolls as an approximation of how often those Disads/Comps came up, rather than actually rolling dice each session anyway. But it's nice they made that explicit.

2) Technically, HAPs were introduced in 5ed (Pulp Hero I believe?), but I agree it's nice to see them added to the core rules.

[bigdamnhero]

I realized I haven't actually played with Growth much in 6ed, so I can't comment there.

[Surrealone]

My issue with your suggested scale handling is that 2m/hex provides a problem for representing 7m (i.e. odd amounts) of movement accurately -- and 8m/hex only exacerbates it.  In addition, with 2m/hex scale (or worse, 8m/hex scale), representing shrunk characters is a massive problem, especially if the environment you must represent is large enough to fill a hex mat at 5er scale. Also consider that it's tough enough to get miniatures to fit into a single hex with 5er and earlier scale; it's downright impossible with 2m/hex, etc. scales.

These are all real-world gameplay complications that 6er introduced ... for what seems only to be reasons of ease of design.  From my perspective the list of negatives/complications  I see with the change from hexes to meters (e.g. more math, scale issues, etc.) far outweighs the positives (e.g. only one: simpler for deisgners to manage) when it comes to the end-user perspective.  This becomes especially important when accounting for the number of GMs and players everywhere ... versus a tiny number of people doing game design.

 

Can it be overcome?  Yes.  Should it ever have had to be?  No, not in my opinion...

[bigdamnhero]

My issue with your suggested scale handling is that 2m/hex provides a problem for representing 7m (i.e. odd amounts)

So how did you handle it if a 5ed character with 7" of Running made a 1/2 Move? I'm guessing you either moved him 3.5 hexes, or you rounded down to 3 hexes, right? Or I know some GMs that required Movement to be bought in even numbers to avoid that problem. All three options are still available - and trivially easy - in 6ed. But if you're running a battle in an enclosed space and want to expand the scale to, say, 1m/hex, now that extra 1m of movement actually makes a difference.

 

and 8m/hex only exacerbates it.

For some battles, sure. Hint: don't use it for those battles.

 

In addition, with 2m/hex scale (or worse, 8m/hex scale), representing shrunk characters is a massive problem, especially if the environment you must represent is large enough to fill a hex mat at 5er scale. Also consider that it's tough enough to get miniatures to fit into a single hex with 5er and earlier scale; it's downright impossible with 2m/hex, etc. scales.

Um...2m/hex is the same scale as 1"/hex. Literally the exact same size, just different terminology. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but I don't get how you think changing the naming convention makes it easier/harder to fit minis in a hex?

 

And yeah, if I had Shrinking characters in a combat I probably wouldn't use 8m/hex for that battle. Heck, if I had a lot of shrinkers I might consider going the opposite direction and using a smaller scale so I could fit multiple shrinkers in the same hex. Again, not suitable for every single battle, but that's exactly the point - not every battle has to take place over the exact same size of battlefield.

 

These are all real-world gameplay complications that 6er introduced ... for what seems only to be reasons of ease of design.

YMMV of course, but I disagree on both counts. In our experience it doesn't complicate gameplay at all at 2m/hex scale, but it massively simplifies gameplay if you want to want to have a battle that doesn't fit neatly on a hex mat at 2m/hex. Or if you don't want to use a hex mat at all. It's not about ease of design, whatever you mean by that; it's about letting you play a wider variety of games.

 

Let me put it another way. My usual battle mat is 31 hexes by 25 hexes. In 5ed or earlier, that means all my battlefields were exactly 62m by 50m, no larger. Now my battlefields are exactly as big or as small as I want them to be. I tried to run large-scale battles in 5ed (or maybe it was 4ed), but it required using awkward conversions like "four hexes equals one hex" and constant confusion over "Wait do you mean one hex, or one hex?" It was so hard, I gave up trying. 6ed makes that not only possible, but trivially easy.

 

Honestly, I'm not trying to be argumentative, and whatever works for you is what works for you. But I genuinely don't get your objections here?

[bigdamnhero]

I feel like Mopheus: "What if I told you that not all Champions battles had to take place in the same size space..."

[bigdamnhero]

I'll just leave this here...

[Surrealone]

Since you're being snarky:

What if I told you that figurines designed for hex maps don't magically change scale if someone rescales a map?

 

 

​Numbering added in your quoted text, below, to allow answers without a pile of small quotes followed by responses.

 

1) So how did you handle it if a 5ed character with 7" of Running made a 1/2 Move?

2) For some battles, sure. Hint: don't use it for those battles.

3) I don't get how you think changing the naming convention makes it easier/harder to fit minis in a hex?

1) One of two ways -- either give them 3.5" as a half move, and represent it with a mini in half a hex (assuming it could fit, which often it couldn't) ... OR round the half-move to 4" (since round 0f .5 go in favour of the player, per RAW).  The former was cleaner and more combat accurate, but the latter would suffice.

2) & 3) What I was trying to say (and apparently did a poor job of it) is that if you have a large area to map (say one that takes up all of your hex map at 2m/hex) using a hex map and minis -- it's tough enough, alone, using 2m/hex scale.  Rescaling (to say 8m/hex) tends only to exacerbate this problem -- because minis don't magically change size when you rescale your map.  And then shrunken characters exacerbate this yet again, because they're already smaller than all the others minis.

To handle scenarios like 2&3, above, we've always used multiple hex maps and simply extended the usable area -- thereby posing no problem for the placement of minis ... and minimizing ( but not mitigating) the issue with shrunken characters..  If you'll kindly point me to some 3d, paintable minis that magically change scale when a hex map's scale changes to, say, 8m/hex ... then these problems will be moot and I'll see it your way.
 

You may not play with figures in order to try to represent facing, position WITHIN a hex (if smaller than a hex), etc. in order to have highly precise combat simulation ... but others do.  And for those who do, altering map scale negatively affects combat precision ... because figures can't be easily placed in 1/4 hex, etc.  These people (of which I'm one) are stuck at 2m/hex scale due to figure size ... and the change now means they have extra work to do (converting meters to hexes) in every combat .. for every character that moves, deals with range mods, etc.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Hex maps had too small hexes to properly represent 2m anyway.  Just treating them as 1m and voila, figures fit better in them.

[Ninja-Bear]

Hex maps had too small hexes to properly represent 2m anyway. Just treating them as 1m and voila, figures fit better in them.

Especially if using heroic 28 mm scale. Fwiw though I play battletech and the minis are i think z scale however the maps use 1" hex and each hex represent 30m. And speaking of battletech and other games, i've played on maps without hexes and its doable.

[Ninja-Bear]

Bigdamnhero, i've considered to changing scale when using fifth for heroic games to having 1" = 1 hex. I haven't yet because its slightly annoying. Its more do to me than really game mechanics.

[ghost-angel]

Using hexes for facing makes sense;

 

But I don't think I've ever cared that the physical size of a mini meant anything on the scale of what distance hexes represent... I guess I never thought my minis needed to be the same scale as the as the hex;

 

And I never considered it because a real person does not take up the area of a 2m Hex in real life either, several people can fit in that kind of space. Especially if they're trying to fight close up with Grabs and such... So putting a mini inside a 2m Hex and saying "It has to stay that size because that's the scale of the mini" sounds very out of sync with reality to me.

[bigdamnhero]

Since you're being snarky:

What if I told you that figurines designed for hex maps don't magically change scale if someone rescales a map?

Ah, I get what you mean now; thanks for clarifying! Yeah, there's certainly an aesthetic benefit to having the figures in scale with their surroundings, and if that's important to you then I can see where changing the scale would result in annoyance. Personally, I've always seen minis as more placeholders than accurate representations. So to me keeping them in scale to the terrain is nice-to-have, but I'll cheerfully sacrifice it if it means I can fight a battle that takes place across the entire city without having to shuffle multiple mats or constantly re-draw. (If your gaming area has enough room to lay out multiple mats at once, then I'm insanely jealous!)

 

As for facing/position: yeah, we actually do represent that. And yeah, that's a bit harder to do at 8m/hex. Which is why sometimes if the fight is set in a proverbial (or literal) phone booth, we'll change the scale in the other direction (1m/hex or smaller) to make that easier. But you can still do it at larger scale; it just requires a little more abstraction.

 

Given that the "extra work" required at normal 2m/hex scale is basically just counting 2-4-6-8 instead of 1-2-3-4, I'll take the immensely-increased flexibility. YMMV of course, and I think I understand your objections now, so thanks again.

 

Hex maps had too small hexes to properly represent 2m anyway.  Just treating them as 1m and voila, figures fit better in them.

Yeah. I actually use a mat with 1.5" hexes, so it's easier to fit two figs in the same hex.

[Christopher R Taylor]

1.5" hexes would be perfect for 2m scale but the 1" hexes, just too small for 2m compared to the figures.

[Ninja-Bear]

Ghost Angel if you can get hex bases like Battletech, then it makes it easier to facing without maps. If facing is really important. I found online 100 wooden round bases 1" when then I pried off Heroclix off the original base and glue them on.

[Ninja-Bear]

Speaking of improvising, lasts night battle was on top of a hugh waterfall. The GM used large cardboard tubes with a piece of cardboard on top for the upper creek part of the fall. On top of that he had bubble wrap to represent the water. The bubble wrap had large bubbles that we used for counting hexes. It worked well with the Heroclix.

[Tasha]

One good reason for 1" = 1m scale is that you can use the many GURPS maps unchanged.

[Sean Waters]

Has anyone mentioned the Blue and Gold?

[Tasha]

Has anyone mentioned the Blue and Gold?

 

It's like the Cub Scout edition with those Colors LOL