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.

Jackmojo wrote:The way to use two dice for unit fire would be some sort of firepower chart, whereby you roll to hit and compare the result to the chart and that tells you how many hits the whole unit's fire generated.

Not that I am in favor of that per se but you can easily abstract an entire unit's total fire to a single roll.

Jack

You would be better off just rolling a single D20 or a D% and not have to mess about with Bell Curves.

-Remembers being taught bell curves by an AD&D book-

Bell curves are nice for stochastic reliability.

Same thing gets achieved with loads of dice now, but if you want one roll for a whole units small arm fire a bell curve is nice so you get a more average outcome.

Jack

What's so nice about bell curves? Is it just because you're more likely to roll values in the middle of the two extremes?

M.

Precisely, you don't really want those 50 guardsmens to have an equal change of getting 1, 5, 25, or 50 hits, too random.

The current system of rolling 50 dice for them gives you a nice big bulge in the 20-30 hits range, with either extreme being relatively unlikely.

Jack

You know what would make things even more bell curvy?

The current system with D20s! (I like D20s, you kids today with your non-regular polyhedral D10s -shakes stick-)

It would have to be 2d20, otherwise you wouldn't get a curve :/

M.

Infantryman wrote:It would have to be 2d20, otherwise you wouldn't get a curve :/

M.

With each individual roll, you wouldn't get a curve. But, with a massed roll, you would.

Although, I don't know why a multiple D20 would give a "better" curve than a multiple D6. It would just create more room for differences.

Edit: And that more room for differences is a big improvement in design space. Currently, with a D6, you can have "success" set at 0%, 16.7%, 33.3%, 50%, 66.7%, 83.3%, or 100%. With a D20, "success" can be any multiple of 5% that you want to set. There wouldn't need to be the huge jump in percentage from a 3+ roll to a 4+ roll.

That would be why I'd like a bigger die. No Quarters/No Limits used the d10 and this gave it a bit more room for design. This is especially important given the game is built around statting up your own units.

M.

Infantryman wrote:That would be why I'd like a bigger die. No Quarters/No Limits used the d10 and this gave it a bit more room for design. This is especially important given the game is built around statting up your own units.

M.

Well there is also the obvious solution we turn this yu-gi-oh and bring in technology. Random number generator could coupe with working out 4D100 on 50 guys each with a different BS (ranging from 0-255).

Or we could realise that D6 are used because they are easy to read its simple, easily produced and end of the day they that’s what’s been used since the beginning. We’ve had D3 in the game for years now and I’ve yet to see GW sell them.

I don't think they'll include any of the others ...

GW does sell D3. It's called a d6.

M.