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.

So if you're trying to indicate how often an individual hits, when firing a gun (in a tabletop wargame), which of the following methods makes the most sense?

Say his Aim, or BS or whatever is 4. Should that mean that he hits...

1: Four out of six times (I'm assuming you're using D6s here), or on a 3+

2: Four out of six times, or on a 4-

3: Or three out of six times, hitting on a 4+?

What do you think?

I'm going to go with option 2.

A target number is a lot easier to deal with as you'll just have the number rather than needing to do a look up or manipulate it in some way. I went with 2 because when people look at a stat line they will see bigger numbers as better. The natural consequence of this is having to roll low which is sadly not as intuitive.

Now, if you really want something easy to use stat out your units as die mods rather than raw numbers. Then you have a base chance of hitting of 4+ (roll high) and a good unit has a +1 Accuracy (or whatever) which is clearly better (higher number) than a scrub unit with an accuracy of -1.

I agree with cuscus. Ideally, all possible numbers should be free of lookups (especially single-axis ones like 40k's BS) and there should be some consistency (I.E. "Higher numbers are better").

0 average can add some good stuff, too, to agree with cuscus' other point.

Hmm, that makes sense. So why do you think 40k doesn't use option 2?

Because it's counter-intuitive to want to roll lower.

captain.gordino wrote:So if you're trying to indicate how often an individual hits, when firing a gun (in a tabletop wargame), which of the following methods makes the most sense?

Remember that you are not rolling to see how often an individual hits, but rather in which turns their firing is effective. There is a level of abstraction I don't think you are considering. Even single shot weapons are not necessarily supposed to be firing 1 shot, but rather their rate of fire is less than more rapid fire weapons.

Take you BS, subtract from 7. That is what you need to hit.

Simple. This is how it is resolved in Fantasy and 40k. Except you sometimes get modifiers in Fantasy. Well. Nearly all the time really.

captain.gordino wrote:So if you're trying to indicate how often an individual hits, when firing a gun (in a tabletop wargame), which of the following methods makes the most sense?

Say his Aim, or BS or whatever is 4. Should that mean that he hits...

1: Four out of six times (I'm assuming you're using D6s here), or on a 3+

2: Four out of six times, or on a 4-

3: Or three out of six times, hitting on a 4+?

What do you think?

I don't think either options make any more sense than the other - i'm not really sure what you are getting at here?

It should mean whatever the developers of the game intended it to mean - that is to say the number only matters when we know how actual mechanics of firing a weapon in that particular game works.

I don't think any option is necessarily more intuitive than any other. I don't even think low rolls being the "good" rolls is counter-intuitive. Games are abstractions, and you have to follow their rules.

Are you asking which would be easier to remember?

Balance wrote:(I.E. "Higher numbers are better").

The problem with 4- to hit is that rolls of 5 and 6 are misses which messes with the theory that High Numbers should be better.

It's only a convention that high numbers are better, and not universally applicable.

If you ever fly first class you will understand.

Thanatos_elNyx wrote:

Balance wrote:(I.E. "Higher numbers are better").

The problem with 4- to hit is that rolls of 5 and 6 are misses which messes with the theory that High Numbers should be better.

I agree with Kilkrazy that this is not universally applicable. What about 40k armour saves?

@Lagduf; it's not which is easiest to remember, really, I just wonder which one people think makes the most sense for whatever reason.

captain.gordino wrote:I agree with Kilkrazy that this is not universally applicable. What about 40k armour saves?

Same theory applies. While the lower number is better for the actual stat, the higher the number on the roll the better.

What I want to see happen is 40k move to a D10 system or D20 system to allow for much greater variation in statistics.

captain.gordino wrote:Hmm, that makes sense. So why do you think 40k doesn't use option 2?

Because 40k is a heavily patched version of WHFB, which is something of an 'old school' wargame, at least at heart. WHFB manages to overcome most of this by just being good rules despite some oddities, but nothing is perfect.

As an example from the RPG world, the best known RPG (Dungeons and Dragons) didn't really figure out the whole concept of 'consistency' like this until 3.0, which eliminated a lot of completely unintegrated bits like percentile thief skills or psionics that oddly went 'roll low' when almost the entire system is roll-high.

It's one of many reasons I think the best way to fix the 40k system is to do a true reboot version. Keeping Codices valid isn't as big a deal as it seems when a lot of people won't touch an older Codex anyway.

Balance wrote: Keeping Codices valid isn't as big a deal as it seems when a lot of people won't touch an older Codex anyway.

It is when you've got a dozen different armies but only release a codex every 6 months.

The Warhammer BS chart makes alot more sense when you think of it as "BS+Dice roll, target number 7"

Of course it doesn't make much sense that suddenly initiative and toughness tests (and leadership!) require low rolls (initiative and toughness tests could be target number 7 like shooting, and leadership tests could be target number 14.. but I digress)

I like a system where big numbers are universally good (so higher stats are good, and higher rolls are good), which means any target number system (like D&D).

Lies! THAC0 for me Plox!

insaniak wrote:

Balance wrote: Keeping Codices valid isn't as big a deal as it seems when a lot of people won't touch an older Codex anyway.

It is when you've got a dozen different armies but only release a codex every 6 months.

Maybe that's a sign that the Codex release system is flawed?

I don't think the 40k rule books and codices do very well if rated by how 'dense' they are with information. Too dense is possible, and would mean a book that is all numbers without any fluff or unnecessary art. However,the older Codices were not dense enough in my opinion, and the newer ones seem even worse.