Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The same applies to artillery though. In fact pretty much anything heavier than infantry is very unpersonal, with even tanks having weapon ranges in the multiple kilometers.

Outside of urban and jungle warfare, modern warfare is peak unpersonal affair.

 Tyran wrote:
The same applies to artillery though. In fact pretty much anything heavier than infantry is very unpersonal, with even tanks having weapon ranges in the multiple kilometers.

Outside of urban and jungle warfare, modern warfare is peak unpersonal affair.

People in 1968 being bullied by soviet tanks during the "Prague Spring" incident would beg to differ. Tanks were very close and menacing.

 Strg Alt wrote:


People in 1968 being bullied by soviet tanks during the "Prague Spring" incident would beg to differ. Tanks were very close and menacing.

You have a curious concept of modern warfare if you believe the Prague Spring qualifies.

Tanks in occupation roles are deployed very close to be very menacing, but that is because they are being used to bully civilians and the occasional insurgents, not rival militaries that have the toys to destroy tanks, specially at such close quarters.

 Tyran wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:


People in 1968 being bullied by soviet tanks during the "Prague Spring" incident would beg to differ. Tanks were very close and menacing.

You have a curious concept of modern warfare if you believe the Prague Spring qualifies.

Tanks in occupation roles are deployed very close to be very menacing, but that is because they are being used to bully civilians and the occasional insurgents, not rival militaries that have the toys to destroy tanks, specially at such close quarters.

Hmm, it seems you don´t understand the morale boost which a tank will grant allied infantry in the field and the sheer terror it can inspire in the opposition. Such an effect can´t be achieved by artillery and bombers which are miles away from the zone of conflict.

 Tyran wrote:
The same applies to artillery though. In fact pretty much anything heavier than infantry is very unpersonal, with even tanks having weapon ranges in the multiple kilometers.

Outside of urban and jungle warfare, modern warfare is peak unpersonal affair.

40k has two major "outs" for this. One is that the distances on the table are heavily abstracted. The other is that many combatants are doctrinally very much not "modern warfare".

And it's also a salient point that even in modern times, pretty barbaric and in-your-face tactics are still deployed from time to time.

 Insectum7 wrote:

40k has two major "outs" for this. One is that the distances on the table are heavily abstracted. The other is that many combatants are doctrinally very much not "modern warfare".

And it's also a salient point that even in modern times, pretty barbaric and in-your-face tactics are still deployed from time to time.

My question then is why those same "outs" cannot be used for aircraft?

 Tyran wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

40k has two major "outs" for this. One is that the distances on the table are heavily abstracted. The other is that many combatants are doctrinally very much not "modern warfare".

And it's also a salient point that even in modern times, pretty barbaric and in-your-face tactics are still deployed from time to time.

My question then is why those same "outs" cannot be used for aircraft?

Oh sure. I think they totally can. Aircraft can be seen as functioning nonlinearly in the space they occupy on the table. What really matters is whether troops can draw a bead on it or not, and we can pretend the aircraft is farther away than it is.

Tyel wrote:
What's the upside of GW "using all the potential outcomes"?

If I hit on 2s, wound on 2s, some rerolls, high AP, then there are a range of scenarios where I have a very high chance to do some damage. And equally, you can get to 4s to hit, but 6s to wound, 2+ save. How much worse should a 1/72 chance to do damage be?

If your troops are more accurate, you don't have to saturate the table with boxes of dice to obtain significant results. Rolling dice takes time away from actual decision-making.

The other issue is while throwing more dice pushes results towards the mean, the opportunity for outliers is still there. As I've said, rolling lots of dice doesn't push things to a "fair" average, it just results in randomly distributed unfairness.

Going to a d10 or d20 while keeping the same narrow range band of probability will change nothing other than make dice-rolling amidst terrain more problematic.

The point of switching is to have a greater variance. Keeping same is just a dumb as it is now.

Racerguy180 wrote:
The point of switching is to have a greater variance. Keeping same is just a dumb as it is now.

I think though that there's a bit of a difference between a technical variety and a practical one.

Sure there are 10 options on a d10, but it doesn't mean much when in a game of 5 turns, 1 d10 will roll a 10+ 0.5 times, a 9+ once, an 8+ 1.5 times, a 7+ 2 times and so on.

The greater range is fine at creating separation between stats, but it doesn't necessarily follow in a meaningful way in game play. a 9+ is close to a 6+ on a d6, a 7+ a 5+ and so on. The same issue of balancing something that never succeeds vs something that always does is still there.


You'd still end up with stats that are most commonly between 3+ and 7+ (~2+ and ~5+ on a d6) because they are easier to balance, which adds a grand total of 1 additional option (3+, 4+, 5+, 6+, 7+ vs 2+, 3+, 4+, 5+).

 Hellebore wrote:

You'd still end up with stats that are most commonly between 3+ and 7+ (~2+ and ~5+ on a d6) because they are easier to balance, which adds a grand total of 1 additional option (3+, 4+, 5+, 6+, 7+ vs 2+, 3+, 4+, 5+).

I don't think there's a enough gain their to justify it. If you're going to use a d10, you need things that use up that full 90% probability.

And when we look at it, how much do thinks get to 83% probability today? Hardly ever. Increasing the dice size therefore doesn't accomplish much other than to create technical difficulties (a fistful of d20s will roll everywhere) and make an even larger probability "tail" that will emerge from time to ruin someone's day.

 Hellebore wrote:
[You'd still end up with stats that are most commonly between 3+ and 7+ (~2+ and ~5+ on a d6) because they are easier to balance, which adds a grand total of 1 additional option (3+, 4+, 5+, 6+, 7+ vs 2+, 3+, 4+, 5+).

It adds more than that. In the D6 system you can't improve a 2+ without adding special rules since a 1 always fails. You need to add re-rolls, bonus AP, etc. In a D10 system the base stats may be capped at 3-7 but a 3+ can become a 2+ without any additional rules. Same thing on the top end, having 8/9/10 available instead of only 6 means more room for doing penalties with simple modifiers instead of special rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
40k has two major "outs" for this. One is that the distances on the table are heavily abstracted. The other is that many combatants are doctrinally very much not "modern warfare".

And it's also a salient point that even in modern times, pretty barbaric and in-your-face tactics are still deployed from time to time.

Abstraction doesn't really work as a justification when things are measured with millimeter precision.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
40k has two major "outs" for this. One is that the distances on the table are heavily abstracted. The other is that many combatants are doctrinally very much not "modern warfare".

And it's also a salient point that even in modern times, pretty barbaric and in-your-face tactics are still deployed from time to time.

Abstraction doesn't really work as a justification when things are measured with millimeter precision.

The precision is required for the mechanics of playing the game, otherwise a huge amount of arguments result from lack of mutual clarity. However it can be totally separate from what it represents. It's already heavily abstracted, unless we think an assault rifle can only fire 3-4x the length of a tank.

+1 to hit on a BS2+ model cancels out the first -1 to hit and that's fine. +1 to hit is always going to be more impactful on lower BS units. GW just has to take it into account when applying a price to the ability that gives +1 to hit.

It's impossible for a mm to not matter in a game, either you're within range or you're not. I think the lowest range actually in the game is 0,5". It could be less binary than in 40k, but you also cannot make a system where weapons are realistically losing efficiency at range because it's so gradual, any decision you make will be somewhat arbitrary.

At least 40k's lethality makes sense in a scenario where the armies are within 200 feet of each other.