I really like the fast attack resolutions that is present in the boardgame Space Hulk, but very rare in general in miniature games and rpgs.
The idea is One Attack = One Roll of die or dice.
The result is either high enough to eliminate the target(or cause a wound) or not.
No separate roll to hit or for armor, it is already baked into the result.

I have, over the years, started on several different boardgames following this principle, including Orrica (SH- and SC-inspired), Eerie Mansions(CoC-inspired) and Strife Zones (Gang vs Corporate battles).
Sure, Eerie Mansions is bound to be notably slower in play due to rpg-elements, but the combat is still fast.

But i'm in doubt, as a lot of people (most even), seems so locked in the habit of Hit - Damage - Save to even want to test those games, and several of those even claim it is more realistic, or even faster, despite the extra rolls.

So, i'm testing the waters here and now:
Is it a good idea or not?

iirc, Mongoose's Starship Troopers system used a similar mechanic. I'm sure there are more.

I like it - you can do maths so that the odds work out however the designer wants, and it makes combat resolution faster. You lose out on the gradual building tension of the "do I hit? Do I wound? Does it stick?" sequence of rolls, but on the other hand, each roll feels more meaningful as a result.

I'm quite certain that Advanced Space Crusade used that mechanic too, or if it was Tyranid Attack, or both as they were quite similar in how they were made.

I'm not sure if each roll feels more meaningful, as the tension isn't dragged out, but it is indeed faster, as a combat should be, as I see it.

I've experimented with this in a Final Fantasy style setup where the idea of abstract hit points is taken to its logical conclusion: No roll to hit, just roll for damage and subtract that from the hit points. The rationale is that even if the attack doesn't "wound" you, you still lose energy from dodging or blocking it, which is represented by a low damage roll.

In such a system, armor is simply a percentage added to your hit points or a number subtracted from the damage roll, keeping it all simple. Only characters with a specific dodge ability get an extra roll to negate damage.

It works surprisingly well as long as the rest of the rules encourage a level of abstraction, but players aren't very comfortable with it (which is odd because they'll accept it just fine if they are playing a JRPG on a console).

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;808198I've experimented with this in a Final Fantasy style setup where the idea of abstract hit points is taken to its logical conclusion: No roll to hit, just roll for damage and subtract that from the hit points. The rationale is that even if the attack doesn't "wound" you, you still lose energy from dodging or blocking it, which is represented by a low damage roll.

In such a system, armor is simply a percentage added to your hit points or a number subtracted from the damage roll, keeping it all simple.

Interesting idea, but not quite the same as I am referring to:
You is essentially referring to a damage roll with the other rolls baked in (but one seem unable to miss in your version?), while i'm referring to a to hit roll with the other things baked in.

But you are actually wrong about Final Fantasy:
It has stats for hitting, and for evasion (a kind of save).
That may be why your players don't like your simplification much.

Quote from: Catelf;808209You is essentially referring to a damage roll with the other rolls baked in (but one seem unable to miss in your version?)

A "miss" is when you roll really low damage, like a 1 or 2. If we accept that hit points can mean a combination of endurance, luck, toughness and armor then it isn't really so strange.

Quote from: Catelf;808209But you are actually wrong about Final Fantasy:
It has stats for hitting, and for evasion (a kind of save).
That may be why your players don't like your simplification much.

While those stats do exist, you'll notice in actual play that attacks very rarely "miss" in most Final Fantasy games, so to all intents and purposes my approach (if you factor in special evasion traits for some but not all combatants) is close enough.

Bringing this closer to your Space Hulk example, the thing I notice is that in Space Hulk you more or less have one type of guy firing one type of gun at one type of enemy. Which works fine for the system you propose. Things really start to get messy when you have...

a) A less accurate guy firing the same type of gun at the same type of enemy.

b) The same type of guy firing a stronger gun at the same type of enemy.

c) The same type of guy firing the same type of gun at a more sluggish version of the enemy.

d) Any mixture of the above.

e) Any number of other factors that could come into play.

Now all of this can still work relatively well in a closed and deliberately limited board game, but there's a reason the Games Workshop has Ballistic Skill and Toughness and Armour stats in the full miniature game. As for a roleplaying game, that's an even bigger headache.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;808218A "miss" is when you roll really low damage, like a 1 or 2. If we accept that hit points can mean a combination of endurance, luck, toughness and armor then it isn't really so strange.

While those stats do exist, you'll notice in actual play that attacks very rarely "miss" in most Final Fantasy games, so to all intents and purposes my approach (if you factor in special evasion traits for some but not all combatants) is close enough.

Ah, the standard D&D-approach.

However, the reason why you rarely miss enemies in FF, is that you usually has grinded enough to have higher speed than they have evasion or something such.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;808218Bringing this closer to your Space Hulk example, the thing I notice is that in Space Hulk you more or less have one type of guy firing one type of gun at one type of enemy. Which works fine for the system you propose. Things really start to get messy when you have...

a) A less accurate guy firing the same type of gun at the same type of enemy.

b) The same type of guy firing a stronger gun at the same type of enemy.

c) The same type of guy firing the same type of gun at a more sluggish version of the enemy.

d) Any mixture of the above.

e) Any number of other factors that could come into play.

Now all of this can still work relatively well in a closed and deliberately limited board game, but there's a reason the Games Workshop has Ballistic Skill and Toughness and Armour stats in the full miniature game. As for a roleplaying game, that's an even bigger headache.

A: In the original Space Hulk supplement Genestealer, Geanestealer Hybrids (more human in form) had Bolters.
The only difference between Bolters and Storm Bolters in strength is that Storm Bolters fire twice each attack.
B: The Marine player has one with Flamer, and one with Assault Cannon.
C: The mentioned Hybrids, the reason why they are gone, is because regular 40K was streamlined and removed them.
D: See above.
E: Original Genestealer supplement also had Psycic powers.

Also, in Advanced Space Crusade or perhaps Tyranid Attack, the regular forces was Marine Scouts vs Tyranids, but the rules included Genestealers, G-hybrids, Orks as mind slaves, Marine Terminators(and their different weapons), and Marines in Power Armor, including a Chaplain!
And yes, still with the same mechanic: One Attack = One Roll.

Quote from: Catelf;808239And yes, still with the same mechanic: One Attack = One Roll.

All of whom have a difference of what, maybe one point in the mechanics of 40k? The variety is meaningless if there is no depth to it.

Take a look at something like necromunda where advancement is expected. If I give a juve an autopistol because it is more likely to hit it will make sense to replace the weapon with something that hits harder when they can actually aim a gun. If we do this with a single resolution roll we can either make it so the juve never does anything worth while because they never succeed on the roll, or we apply a modifier to the roll based on the gun and they will never want to switch to any other weapon because the bonus to that one roll makes them awesome.

That said, Antares by Warlord Games is taking a simplified approach of a hit roll and a wound roll, with armor being an integrated part of the wound roll. Still simplifies things a bit, but still leaves what I see as a critical part of skirmish gaming. It's also a reasonably simple set of figures to know what you need to roll, no charts, just a few reference tables for modifiers for the different rolls so you can represent more than point blank combat in a tube.

Don't get me wrong, I can see single roll resolution having a place in things where combat isn't the focus, or a single type of easily compacted combat was. But the idea of having any modifiers on a weapon at all simply making that weapon all around better annoys some deep part of me in skirmish or RPG type games. Don't seem to mind it so much in Arkham Horror.

Quote from: MrHurst;808250All of whom have a difference of what, maybe one point in the mechanics of 40k? The variety is meaningless if there is no depth to it.

Take a look at something like necromunda where advancement is expected. If I give a juve an autopistol because it is more likely to hit it will make sense to replace the weapon with something that hits harder when they can actually aim a gun. If we do this with a single resolution roll we can either make it so the juve never does anything worth while because they never succeed on the roll, or we apply a modifier to the roll based on the gun and they will never want to switch to any other weapon because the bonus to that one roll makes them awesome.

That said, Antares by Warlord Games is taking a simplified approach of a hit roll and a wound roll, with armor being an integrated part of the wound roll. Still simplifies things a bit, but still leaves what I see as a critical part of skirmish gaming. It's also a reasonably simple set of figures to know what you need to roll, no charts, just a few reference tables for modifiers for the different rolls so you can represent more than point blank combat in a tube.

Don't get me wrong, I can see single roll resolution having a place in things where combat isn't the focus, or a single type of easily compacted combat was. But the idea of having any modifiers on a weapon at all simply making that weapon all around better annoys some deep part of me in skirmish or RPG type games. Don't seem to mind it so much in Arkham Horror.

I do not seem to understand your criticism?

The idea One Attack = One Roll is very much for combat-oriented games as I see it, as combat should be fast, and not dragged out.

If one see variety as meaningless, then why have different weapons at all?
Why have differently skilled ones at all?
I'm probably missing something here ...
Hm.
I think you are saying that there is no point in One Attack = One Roll, since you assume that a bad aimer with a powerful gun would easily get the same dierolls as a great aimer with a weak gun.

If I am right in this assumption?
Or perhaps you mean that rolling a 5 or 6 is no different from rolling a 6 ?

Have a look at TSRs old Cardmaster system.

It distilled D&D down to just one roll. You rolled dice based on your class and had a target number based on your class. The number of dice was based on your level. There was no HP, instead monsters had just their HD which was depleted as they took hits. Even spells worked that way.

Quote from: Omega;808710Have a look at TSRs old Cardmaster system.

It distilled D&D down to just one roll. You rolled dice based on your class and had a target number based on your class. The number of dice was based on your level. There was no HP, instead monsters had just their HD which was depleted as they took hits. Even spells worked that way.

Essentially, it seems like no one's interested, yet there has been several different tries, both professional and hobbywise, to strive for it, and a few even has worked, but except for Space Hulk, a very few has been maintained.

But I know my system works ...

Quote from: Catelf;808724Essentially, it seems like no one's interested, yet there has been several different tries, both professional and hobbywise, to strive for it, and a few even has worked, but except for Space Hulk, a very few has been maintained.

But I know my system works ...

Then use it.

Not everybody is going to like it, but that's okay, they can play a different game.

Quote from: Ladybird;808731Then use it.

Not everybody is going to like it, but that's okay, they can play a different game.

Yah, I've settled for that, too.
I think my Space Hulk - inspired Orrica: Underground will be my first Project of the kind.

Quote from: Catelf;808724Essentially, it seems like no one's interested, yet there has been several different tries, both professional and hobbywise, to strive for it, and a few even has worked, but except for Space Hulk, a very few has been maintained.

But I know my system works ...

Actually, its worked often enough. It is a system used in various board games.
Most RPGs have a straightforward attack roll. AD&D and currently 5e for example. But add in the damage roll. This gives things a bit more of a dynamic feel without sacrificing speed of play.

Another game to have a look at is Guncrawl, its currently free PNP and has an interesting system. It though divides combat into an attack roll, a defense roll if an attack hits. There is also a recovery roll at the end of the round to see if any downed figured survive since if you are hit you go down.

There is also Space Hulks fantasy counterpart. Warhammer Quest.
One roll to attack and one for damage.

ORE combat is, well, one-roll, as well, because it reads target location and damage amounts from "successful" rolls.