Switch Theme:

Whole number modifiers with D6 are too powerful, what about if we changed to D12?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




You can color code them, but it's very hard.
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




AnFéasógMór wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
2D6 have a bell shaped probability curve, thus drastically changing the nature of the roll.

This^

With 2d6, you're very, very close to a normal distribution, with 7 as the median. Nearly 50% (44.42, to be exact) of your rolls are going to be 6, 7, or 8, where only a little over 5% of your rolls will be 1 or 2.



With a d12, you have 8.33% chance of rolling any given number.


Right, that’s what I acknowledged when I mentioned the distribution, albeit with exactly the opposite phrasing than I meant. (My next post makes it clear, the “it” being that I understand 2d6 vs. 1d12 odds better than I can write clearly...)

In the middle of writing the second post, I started thinking about how things would get more complicated with 2d6 because of this very factor, in that you’d have either to have “crit fail” and “crit success” ranges instead of just 1=bad and 12=good, or you’d have to accept small “crit” chances. (A 17% chance of a “critical result” is more palatable than a 33% chance, and a 6% chance seems to be too infrequent.)

12 equally-probable results is clearly better than 6 (IMHO), and I’m not sure adding in a bell curve justifies the complexity of 2d6, either in logistical terms (dice tray or bunches of differently-colored dice) or in figuring out ranges so that things like Striking Scorpions’ exploding attacks are actually worth points or Gets Hot! is actually a real drawback.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Anyone ever suggesting 2d6 has never rolled 2d6 in large numbers.


I stole the dice tray idea from Star Fleet Battles, where a solid hit on your opponent’s pristine ship with overloaded weapons and close-range phasers can easily result in 30-40 internal hits, each of which must be resolved by rolling 2d6 and looking up the results in the precise order in which they were rolled. It works, though it’s clunky, and it’s better than playing Noah with a bunch of colored dice.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/11/04 17:35:27


 
   
Made in us
Twisted Trueborn with Blaster





Eldar Shortseer wrote:

In the middle of writing the second post, I started thinking about how things would get more complicated with 2d6 because of this very factor, in that you’d have either to have “crit fail” and “crit success” ranges instead of just 1=bad and 12=good, or you’d have to accept small “crit” chances. (A 17% chance of a “critical result” is more palatable than a 33% chance, and a 6% chance seems to be too infrequent.)


Crit ranges could be valuable, as a way to differentiate units as well. A marine, for example, might have a fail range of 1 but succeed range of 11-12, while a conscript on the other hand had, say, a fail range of 1-2 and no crit success.


"But If the Earth isn't flat, then how did Jabba chakka wookiee no Solo ho ho ho hoooooooo?" 
   
Made in gb
Lieutenant Colonel




While I totally agree that whole number mosifiers make too great an impact on the range of D6 values.

Rather than change the dice size.Why not use the full stat range of 1 to 10, in a comparison chart to give the dice score needed.
One chart that covers all three combat resolution in a singular opposed resolution method.

Active players stat vs opposed players stat= dice score required.

Modifiers can then be applied to the stat values, to deliver more incremental results.
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






Lanrak wrote:
While I totally agree that whole number mosifiers make too great an impact on the range of D6 values.

Rather than change the dice size.Why not use the full stat range of 1 to 10, in a comparison chart to give the dice score needed.
One chart that covers all three combat resolution in a singular opposed resolution method.

Active players stat vs opposed players stat= dice score required.

Modifiers can then be applied to the stat values, to deliver more incremental results.
Because that's a complete overhaul of the rules, my suggestion is just a quick and dirty, plug and play solution to halve the impact of modifiers.
   
Made in gb
Lieutenant Colonel




I assumed that changing the dice size , and therefore the relative values in the game in a significant way.Was verging on re write territory.
And so a simpler solution by changing the resolution method, and keeping the easy rolling and popular D6, would be an option.

Sorry about the misunderstanding...
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




had an idea a while back for a game I was toying with, take a D12, and number ten of the sides 0-9, then have a "success" and a "fail" side.

so you can have an "always" fails and "always succeeds" result without needing to much about with modifiers.

so if you have a +1 to the dice say you now roll in effect 1-10, but still have the same always succeed and always fail chance.

the 0-9 baseline also make percentile rolls with them easy, and provides a bit more scope for a +/- 1 shift to be incremental.

Key is it avoids the whole "if a 1 is always a miss, is that before or after modifiers?" issue, ditto at the other end.


think a dice change of some sort would be good, Bolt Action uses a D6, the Antares uses a D10 with the same basic rules and is a much better game because of it - though personally I like the shape of the D12 better, it rolls a lot nicer without being awkward like a d20 can end up.


My modified D12 idea was designed around the concept of percentile rolls using them in pairs, the idea was pretty basic though, say you have ten models acting, with say a 66% chance of success...

pick up ten dice, these are the "tens", roll them, anything thats a 1-5 gets put to one side - you know these past, anything that rolls a 7+ gets discarded you know these failed, so the only time you roll the "units" dice is when the first one is a six.

In effect you roll tend dice, and re-roll the sixes (only), so you get the two dice probability curve without having to roll the pairs individually.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldar Shortseer wrote:
AnFéasógMór wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
2D6 have a bell shaped probability curve, thus drastically changing the nature of the roll.

This^

With 2d6, you're very, very close to a normal distribution, with 7 as the median. Nearly 50% (44.42, to be exact) of your rolls are going to be 6, 7, or 8, where only a little over 5% of your rolls will be 1 or 2.



With a d12, you have 8.33% chance of rolling any given number.


Right, that’s what I acknowledged when I mentioned the distribution, albeit with exactly the opposite phrasing than I meant. (My next post makes it clear, the “it” being that I understand 2d6 vs. 1d12 odds better than I can write clearly...)

In the middle of writing the second post, I started thinking about how things would get more complicated with 2d6 because of this very factor, in that you’d have either to have “crit fail” and “crit success” ranges instead of just 1=bad and 12=good, or you’d have to accept small “crit” chances. (A 17% chance of a “critical result” is more palatable than a 33% chance, and a 6% chance seems to be too infrequent.)

12 equally-probable results is clearly better than 6 (IMHO), and I’m not sure adding in a bell curve justifies the complexity of 2d6, either in logistical terms (dice tray or bunches of differently-colored dice) or in figuring out ranges so that things like Striking Scorpions’ exploding attacks are actually worth points or Gets Hot! is actually a real drawback.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Anyone ever suggesting 2d6 has never rolled 2d6 in large numbers.


I stole the dice tray idea from Star Fleet Battles, where a solid hit on your opponent’s pristine ship with overloaded weapons and close-range phasers can easily result in 30-40 internal hits, each of which must be resolved by rolling 2d6 and looking up the results in the precise order in which they were rolled. It works, though it’s clunky, and it’s better than playing Noah with a bunch of colored dice.



Remember the damage allocation from SFB, actually worked pretty well when both players were involved - the owner of the unfortunate targets job is to check off the damage but also to count the hits - the one firing does the 2d6 roll and announced the result roll by roll.

Helped that a solid broadside could well decide the game and you got used to the point it wasn't worth working them out

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/07 21:47:32


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Unless you want to make a 2d6 singular dice, I'm not gonna accept rolling that for even a 5 man Tactical Squad.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Charing Cold One Knight





Sticksville, Texas

Yeah, in a game that demands as many models and attckas as 40k... I wouldn't touch it if it was a 2d6 system. Warmachine worked with that system due to lower model count, but even than it could get tedious rolling for a large unit armed with sprays, or any large unit in general.

It also did not have a unit make anywhere near as many shots as the guns in 40k do. A unit that could fire twice was a big deal in Warmachine, and in 40k you have squads of Conscripts firing buckets of shots worth of dice. Ork close combat essentially requires you, your buddy, and your opponents hands to be full of dice if you want to roll all of your attacks at once.

I wouldn't mind D12's though, they roll well, and provide a wide enough range of numbers to allow for real variation in stats between units.
   
Made in us
Krazed Killa Kan






State of Jefferson

Because eldar would have to be renamed "Dee Twelvedar"
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: