"Saga; Defense rolls same for every troop - why?" Topic

Saga is great fun but here's a question. Ranged and melee hits are negated by Defense rolls. 5+ and 4+ respectively. Why do these rolls use the same target number regardless of combat skill? (Armor saves represent no/light/heavy armor.)

Has anyone tried representative values? Such as Levies-can't cancel hits, Warriors cancel on 6's, Hearthguard on 4+ and Warlord on 3+.

There is already a variation in the To Hit number (e.g. you can hit Levies on a 3+, Warriors on a 3+ or 4+, etc).

Warlords also get to ignore a single hit.

If you make it easier for Hearthguard and Warlords to save you might run the risk of making them "supermen."

Because it is a *game.*

…what Burke and Crispy said. Plus, given the complexity of trying to balance the vqrious Battle Board abilities, if I wuz the designer, I'd probably try to simplify everything else just for sanity and playability.

Because it is a *game.*

Meaning it represents nothing historical.

Actually, the only folks who could actually answer your question are the designers.

You need to ask them why the game was designed the way it was.

I see it as just a game mechanic so that combat and shooting aren't too deadly, rather than simulating something specific in a real fight. since armor is factored into the initial hit. plus, since its easier to save a shot than a melee hit, it encourages you to get into the fight instead of hanging back and shooting. whatever the reason is, it seems to work, since saga is a lot of fun.

+1 Robert Burke.

Because the to-hit roll already varies based on the armor of the target.

Because troop skill/defense is factored into another die roll as the armor value the opponent must meet. The save roll serves a different function, providing a means to account for cover and to allow a lethality difference between shooting and melee.

StCrispin, Ivan, and BCantwell:

You guys are just guessing unless you know that is why the designer included the mechanic. [i.e. the Designer said so.]

Why do these rolls use the same target number regardless of combat skill? (Armor saves represent no/light/heavy armor.)

Has the designer answered that question?

McLaddie: did you read our responses above?!!? Try again.

Fine: here is what the designer said:

"I made the defense rolls the same because the to-hit roll already factors in different armor values for hearthguard, warriors, and levy. To spell that out for anyone too thick to get it the first three times: It is easiest to hit levies (3+), harder to hit warriors (4+), and hardest to hit hearthguard (5+). So, if the defense roll also increased based on armor value, hearthguard would be invincible.

Last time I read a saga, or looked at the Bayeux Tapestry, plenty of heroic, hearthguardy-dudes were getting snuffed on every panel, so I think making them invincible would be unrealistic. Don't like it? Go design your own game, which of course no one else will ever play, because SAGA is a lot more fun."

Does that answer your question?

Thanks so much for your ideas and impressions. Big thanks to Ivan DBA for the designer's response.
It seems to me that the limits of the d6 wouldn't allow only a single roll to be made 'to hit' so a second roll was added to reduce deadliness but still keep enough positive results at both stages to maintain a sense of action.
Just my 2 cents and still enjoying Saga despite my crotchety gripes. Now on with the Steppe Tribes painting!

I'm doing some Black Hoods now--I thought they would be simple to paint…sigh…

McLaddie: did you read our responses above?!!? Try again.

Fine: here is what the designer said:

"I made the defense rolls the same because the to-hit roll already factors in different armor values for hearthguard, warriors, and levy. To spell that out for anyone too thick to get it the first three times: It is easiest to hit levies (3+), harder to hit warriors (4+), and hardest to hit hearthguard (5+). So, if the defense roll also increased based on armor value, hearthguard would be invincible.

Ivan:
I did read the responses. You never said it was the designer's comments. Glad to see it. I would think that would pretty much answer the thread's question, right?