Warrick Williams
Australia Sydney NSW

So I'm still punching out my sets.... But interested to hear if any of you now playing are still enjoying rolling the dice or have you been won over by the challenge card drawing? Is it possible to do both? Rolling for combat and drawing for labyrinths?

Shawn Baldwin
United States Daytona Florida
Come and get them if you dare!
To Do List: 1. Eat 2. Workout 3. Be Amazing

I love the challenge cards! So many dice rolls in DoA. Flipping a card is easier and there is so much info on the cards you don't need to look at tables.

Devon Harmon
United States Indianapolis Indiana

I was skepical at first, but I have been won over by the challenge deck, and I can't ever see using dice. With the challenge deck, you do all of the math up front (a simple subtraction problem), then you get your final result with the flip of a card. With dice, you have to roll the dice, then do the math (involving several computations) to interpret the results. For me and the group I play with, the cards are much quicker and less subject to error.

Jared Roswurm
United States Goodyear Arizona

Nothing duplicates the feel of rolling a die, especially a 10sided one. Using dice are the only way I play, and I've logged in 30 plays with the new and old game combined.

Rob Lyon
United States San Juan Islands Washington

I was pretty much a total dice guy also but these cards are something special. Very fluid, intuitive experience to get initiative, get edge, get hit or not, then damage.
I'm sold.

Michael Mesich
United States Minneapolis Minnesota
Horta chortles.

I am a converted skeptic as well. I think what happened was the everpopular "need x to squeak" was nicely replaced by "attacker/defender better by x" with less work to get there and still being able to say squeak with the result.

David Hassell
United States Tennessee

I didn't use the dice cards that came with the DOA1 Masters Addendum, but I went into this with an open mind. I think having 100 cards vs. 36 cards made this palatable to me, for some bizarre reason. After opening DOA2, I just tested battles between random characters and found the extremely smooth way in which the results were produced sealed the deal. The main downside, though, is that I don't have the same sense of the probability that I had with the 2d6 rolls. Yes, Defender by 5 means you have your work cut out for you, but by how much?
I was more skeptical about the Encounter Tokens, because the idea seemed like Pac Man to me. As a matter of fact, I had mentally braced myself to resist even yielding on this. Since I decided to go through the rulebook rather than simply assuming I knew how to play and jumping feetfirst into Triad, I found myself playing the Rush Mission. Surprisingly, it had a really great feel to gameplay, was fun, and I loved the fact that "gobbling" the most encounters won you the achievement. In fact, I love the new scoring ideas these different missions introduce, with the decision on when to escape being one of the most interesting.
I wasn't certain I would like the idea of bringing in characters based on the Respect rating, and I'm still teetering on going old school with the Noah's Ark structure of 2 per turn. We'll see.
I think most people will come from DOA1 with their own areas of "back in my day, we played it this way and enjoyed it." I'm convinced enough with my own two solo plays that I can pack DOA1 into storage. This version is a keeper.

Cole Wehrle
United States St. Paul Minnesota
"Work as if you live in the early days of a better nation"

I keep wanting to try out the dice but my game group has fallen in love with the cards, which are, to their credit, well done. They are quite easy to teach and speed play nicely.

Aaron Bohm
United States Appleton Wisconsin

100% Challenge deck. Coming from someone who has something that might be defined as a boarderlineunhealthy love of dice I friggin' love these decks.
I believe I heard Brett say once that mathematically it should work out the same. The thing that I like best about it though is that sort of deterministic aspect to it. No matter what, your next card is preordained. This means that a flipped card will never be seen again. This also means it's possible to either get the autoamaze or the card of doom at any time. It's more exciting and much better than rolling, checking a table, etc.
However, I will say you will want both of the decks, one for white and black. Nothing's worse than having the other team draw your good cards instead of you.

Chris Kessel
United States Beaverton Oregon

I said it another thread, but there's a actual statistical advantage to dice due to combat.
If the results were always completely independent for every card flip, that wouldn't be the case. The problem is combat requires two sequential good pulls to cause damage. Pulling a good card for your tohit decreases your odds to pull another good card for damage.
For two average rolls, it's not such a big deal, but the odds of double amazing hit/damage and getting an imprison definitely suffer with the deck compared to dice.
Now, with a 100 card deck maybe that won't be such a big deal and the added other value in the decks will make it worth using. With a 36 card deck I have had situations where I knew I couldn't succeed on a tough roll because I'd seen the 2 and both 3's pulled already. With dice, that can't happen.
In my ideal world, I would use cards with a deck that magically reshuffles after every pull . Maybe an iPad app or some such.

Aaron Bohm
United States Appleton Wisconsin

ckessel wrote: I said it another thread, but there's a actual statistical advantage to dice due to combat.
If the results were always completely independent for every card flip, that wouldn't be the case. The problem is combat requires two sequential good pulls to cause damage. Pulling a good card for your tohit decreases your odds to pull another good card for damage.
For two average rolls, it's not such a big deal, but the odds of double amazing hit/damage and getting an imprison definitely suffer with the deck compared to dice.
This would be kind of true if there was only 10 cards in a deck and if the deck was stacked essentially with "numbers" 110. If you needed to draw 10 from the deck then, there would essentially be zero chance of getting 2 "10's."
This is not the case however. To roll 2 10's in a row, it's a 1 in 100 chance.
But you lost me when it comes to cards. "Amazes" really don't matter on the cards for combat  the first one is only whether it hits, the second is only a damage modifier. That means to make an equivalent assessment you'd need to know, for a given score of melee vs. react (for example) what die roll would you need to hit and then the die roll for a particular damage and then compare them to all the cards that give you a similar result.
The cons of cards: They are countable. You will never see the exact same card twice which means, if you're counting cards, you could calcualte your chances of getting a specific result by knowing what's left in your deck.
Over 100 cards, it's possible there is a very small statistical chance of not getting the same result (note, not the same card) twice, but the odds of this is going to balance between good results and bad results of course. I'm actually willing to bet this will make next to no difference in the game though.
Randomization requires good shuffling (and in the event someone wanted to cheat, it's easier to "stack the deck" in cards).
Some will not like the "I win" or "auto lose" cards.
The pros of cards: You should get a much neater statistical curve out of cards that are preplanned to do so. IE you are less likely to lose due to bad "rolling" whereas consecutive bad "flipping" will be less likely.
It's waaaaaay more streamlined. I did the whole chart checking thing, it's much neater to know your score and flip. Saves quite a bit of time.
It contains more data and flavor. Luck draws, combat draws, rewards, hit, bonus, and even little flavor text on the side.
Some unknown psychological component. For whatever reason, it seems more exciting to flip a card than it does to roll a die. I call it the "Koolaid tastes better" effect, patent pending.

Chris Kessel
United States Beaverton Oregon

I'll see if I can make this concrete. I'll use the 36 card deck for illustrative purposes, but the same logic applies to a 100 card deck.
Let's use double amaze in combat as our example since it has the important effect of imprisoning the enemy. Let's say you're even on the melee/dodge and power/armor stats. In the old system, that meant a 7 to squeak, a 3 to amaze. The new system is the same behind the scenes, just 10sided dice for a larger bell curve.
In a 36 card deck, there is one 2 and two 3's. A cumulative 3/36 chance.
Now, to double amaze I have to:  amaze the hit roll first. Odds are 3/36 (8.33%)  I need to amaze again on damage. Odds are 2/35 (5.7%) (35 cards left in the deck, only 2 of which would be an amaze since I pulled the other on the tohit).
So, with dice, you have an 8.33% chance to amaze the damage roll, but with cards it's a 5.7% chance.
The difference may not be enough for most folks to really care about, particularly with a 100 card deck, but it does mathematically exist.
Edit: It might be obvious, but just in case...the 100 card deck has the same 100 combos you'd get with two 10sided dice. It's hidden behind the nifty results charts, but it's the same 100 permutations.

Michael Mesich
United States Minneapolis Minnesota
Horta chortles.

No one ever told my dice there were statistics for successful rolls.
An even distribution is kind of a comfort to me now.
Of course it's only even if you use all the cards in a session. I don't think I got half way through mine in a fourhour Rush Quad.

Aaron Bohm
United States Appleton Wisconsin

You're missing my point I think. Not only are you talking about one mechanic vs. another mechanic, you are also talking about different rules.
So, let's say if even vs. even required a roll of 10 to amaze. To get 2 10 rolls in a row is 1 out of 100, 1%.
There are 10 amazes in the 100 card deck for an amaze result for an even score. That means it's still 1 in 10 for the first amaze. Where you're right is that to get 2 amazes it's 9 out of 99 to get that second one which means (10 out of 100 multiplied by 9 out of 99) it's a .91% chance to get 2 amazes. But again, statistically that's only .09% different, much less than you think.
I don't have a copy of DoA I in front of me but part of the discrepencty might lie in what numbers are needed for a result but again, as far as getting an amaze = a "10" roll on a die, it's ridiculously close.

Chris Kessel
United States Beaverton Oregon

Never Knows Best wrote: You're missing my point I think. Not only are you talking about one mechanic vs. another mechanic, you are also talking about different rules. Actually, I think we're mostly understanding each other.
There aren't 10 amazes in the 100 card deck though. The number of amazes depends on your skill differential for a particular check. For example, put a attacker skill 6 vs defender skill of 9. You'll only find 1 card in the 100 card deck that has an amaze for that (it's the equivalent of the attacker rolling a 10 and the defender a 1).
As for different mechanics, it's just a 2D6 vs 2D10 bell curve. Same curve, just more possible combinations. As you correctly noted, the impact of pulling a "good" card in a 100 card deck is much less than with the 36 card deck in the old DoA.
I don't suppose you'll trust me on this, but I'm a nut for stats and probabilities
Probably worth referencing Brett's post on luck and DoAII: http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/855582/designersnotesluck...

Richard Sampson
United States Bothell Washington

Of course the probabilities are different, one is a discrete deck of 100 cards and the other is random dice roles. And since they are different, they will benefit situations differently. Why would anyone expect anything different?

Aaron Bohm
United States Appleton Wisconsin

I'm also a bit of a numbers guy.
I just counted and there are, indeed, 10 amazes where "attacker is better by 0."
I'm not saying anything other than 10 of these is the same as 1 in 10. If the old rules say that an even amaze is 3 in 10 you can't statistically compare them... this is a difference in rules rather than a difference between dice and decks. It definitely cannot be said "in the old rules, defender is better by 3 meant a 10 needed to be rolled to amaze and therefore it's statistically more likely than the deck created for the rules of Duel of Ages 2."
In DoA II, to get an amaze on dice there is an opposed dice check.
On an even melee vs. react, without going into the math (I can get into it if you want), it averages to about a 10% chance to get 1 amaze or, again, a 1 in 10 which means 1 in 100 to get 2 amazes or 1%.
To get 2 amazes with an even score in DoA II is 1% with dice, 0.91% with cards, 0.09% different.

Chris Kessel
United States Beaverton Oregon

Never Knows Best wrote: I'm also a bit of a numbers guy.
I just counted and there are, indeed, 10 amazes where "attacker is better by 0." Yep, and just 1 where the defender is better by 3.
We're saying the same things. As you noted, odds of a double amaze go down slightly with the deck. Or, more generally, the odds of two "better than average" results in a row, which is what's important for combat.
That's the only point I was making.

Aaron Bohm
United States Appleton Wisconsin

Right but I wanted to point out that the numbers you allude to do not have a difference with dice vs. cards.
ckessel wrote: So, with dice, you have an 8.33% chance to amaze the damage roll, but with cards it's a 5.7% chance.
Instead, it would be more accurate to say that as part of the rules change of Duel of Ages 2, Brett statistically made it less likely to amaze with both cards AND dice. Otherwise with a 100 card deck there is a slight, almost nonimpactful difference on the game (in a 100 card deck, it will literally mean that you will get the statistically intended result 9 times out of a 100 less).
ckessel wrote: Yep, and just 1 where the defender is better by 3.
Which would be the equivalent of requiring a roll of 1 on a D100, something that was not available in the original. We're saying the same thing other than you haven't really acknowledged that MOST of the difference you are alluding to is due to a change in the rules.

Chris Kessel
United States Beaverton Oregon

Never Knows Best wrote: Instead, it would be more accurate to say that as part of the rules change of Duel of Ages 2, Brett statistically made it less likely to amaze with both cards AND dice.
Uh, no.
In the old 2D6 system, if the skills were the same (e.g. both "green") the odds of an amaze were 3/36 ~= 8.33%.
In the new system, if the skills are the same the odds of an amaze are 10%.
The core probability bell curve hasn't changed with the move from 2D6 to 2D10, just the granualarity of possible results. With 2D10, the closest percentages for amaze for equal stats in the granularity are 6% and 10% (see Brett's link I copied earlier). 10% is closer to the old 8.33%, so I can see why that was picked.

Aaron Bohm
United States Appleton Wisconsin

I guess that depends. That example is only if you were even.
Also remember that in the old system, if you were better than the defender by 4, a target number of 11, you had a 58.33% chance to amaze or a 34% chance to double amaze. (The 16 stats further complicates comparing it to a 110 system, arg).
By the cards in DOAII you only have a 36% chance to amaze if you are better by 7 (7/10 is as close as I can get to 4/6) or a 12.7% chance to amaze twice. I forgot about the 2D6 and that there were 2 dice added in the original, creating a sharper curve that favors numbers closer to 7. This creates further problems comparing the dice of the original to the deck system (or dice system) of the current version.
Among all possible differences in stats, I'd say overall it is still harder to get 2 amazes in DOAII than DOAI provided you are even with your opponent or higher, dice or cards. It's probably the exact opposite if the defender is higher but it's too late to think about that at the moment.

Dennis Gadgaard
Denmark Copenhagen

Remember, the challenge deck is not only used for hit and damage...
Between combats you'll be drawing some for adventures, some for luck and maybe a bunch for dismissals and banishments. Maybe this serves you to thin out the deck for the bad rolls... or the good ones. I'm eager to see how fast you actually cycle through the deck over the course of a game.

Johan Haglert
Sweden Ã–rebro

ckessel wrote: As for different mechanics, it's just a 2D6 vs 2D10 bell curve. Same curve, just more possible combinations. As you correctly noted, the impact of pulling a "good" card in a 100 card deck is much less than with the 36 card deck in the old DoA. Now I haven't checked the rules but wasn't the old rolls 2D6 whereas the new one is 1D10. As far as rolls goes those won't have the same chances. But then what matter is what that's added to and what one need to beat.
Simple enough to make a possibility table of each difference combination though. And as for levels of success which I assume is differences from "reaching an even total" it would be easy enough to make a table with columns for fopp, fail, squeak, pass and amaze.ckessel wrote: Feel free to put up some charts.
Edit: Meh seem data was in Bretts post.

Chris Kessel
United States Beaverton Oregon

aliquis wrote: Now I haven't checked the rules but wasn't the old rolls 2D6 whereas the new one is 1D10. The new system is 2D10, not 1D10. The only change is the attacker rolls one die and the defender rolls the other rather than the attacker rolling both. This has a bonus effect of simplifying the steps in computing success. Doesn't change the odds, just a better way of adding up the numbers. The deck system does the same thing hidden in the distribution of cards.
This thread has some good discussion on it, including a post from Brett: http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/990117/alternatedicemethod...

Michael Mesich
United States Minneapolis Minnesota
Horta chortles.

I didn't scatter a single token drawing cards, by the way.
Same cannot be said for dice in DoA1.
I'm not sure I need deadperfect probability migrated from the old game to the new one. The cards are fast, easy and still fun!
Says a guy that was almost close to completely disregarding this version because of the cards. It was a smart move to put the dice rolling rules in there to lure me, but I'm certain I'll never use them.


