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.

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:


Regarding TM... can you mix different type of dice within a single roll? As an example, let's assume I have a fire team with three rifles and an RPG, could the RPG be given a higher dice to represent its greater damage potential?

Absolutely. That’s one of the best things about using TM’s Dice-Type Roll-Off system. It works the same for mixed weapons detachments as for uni-type weapons detachments. The old D6, stats and charts system requires mixed weapons to be rolled separately, or you need a bunch of special rules to make it work, ie to determine range, wound allocations, save rolls.

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
Or, say, I have a terminator captain leading a squad of power armoured guys. Could the terminator captain roll armour on d12 while the rest roll on d10?

Rolling saves en-mass is much harder. Even with Uni-armor detachments you usually have a mix of cover and some-times range in the target detachment. If you roll saves en-mass you need a bunch of rules to make compromises with cover and range modifiers. And if the target detachment also has mixed armor then you need more rules to made it work. You’re much better off to roll saves seperatly.

The way I do it is I roll all my attacks together, en-mass in one roll. Depending on the weapons mix that roll can include multiples of dice-types (D4’s, D6’s, D8’s D10’s and/or D12’s). Then I roll-off the the results against the save dice-types in the defending detachment. The highest attack-dice result against the save dice-type of closest model in the defending detachment, plus cover and/or range modifiers.

For example, say a fire-team of five Guardsmen with Las-rifles and a grenade launcher fire on a unit of three Marines in Power Armor and a captain in Terminator armor. The Las-rifles are a D6 and the grenade launcher is 3D6. The Guard player rolls 8D6 and scores 6,6,5,4,3,3,2,1. The terminator captain is the closest enemy model. The termi saves on 2D8 (pick highest result). The model is at mid range and out in the open, so no modifiers. The termi gets highest result on 2D8’s to beat a “6”. The Marine player rolls 2D8’s and scores a 7 & 3. The termi captain saves. The next closest enemy model, a marine, saves on a D8. The model is behind some bushes so gets a cover save of +1. The marine gets a D8+1 to beat a “6”. The Maine player rolls a “7” and Saves. The next closest marine model is behind some trees and gets a +2 save mod. The marine get a D8+2 to beat a “5”. The Maine player rolls a “1” and is removed as a casualty. The next closest marine model is in rubble. He get a D8+3 to beat a “4”. The Maine player doesn’t need to roll. Even if he rolls a “1” he will Save.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That is the old tension between game and simulation at work.

Beat me to it.

This whole forum leans HEAVILY toward the "game" end of the spectrum.

Since I was a child, first playing board games (which are primarily a simulation), I have leaned just as heavily in the opposite direction, toward the simulation.

From having run a LOT of simulatin based games at conventions, I have found that people tend to prefer them over "games," which tend to be variations of checkers, or rock-paper-scissors (or a cross between the two).

The problem with a simulation is that two people really cannot play a simulation, unless it is highly structured, with detailed rules, like a board game (and thus not really compatible with miniatures in a way most people like).

Pretty much every simulation uses a game master to mediate the game, and to introduce elements that cannot be included easily with just two players (the usual means of including such features is random event cards for two-player games).

Because of this preference, I RARELY get to play anything. I am always "running" the game as the GM. Because few people have the motivation to design a scenario, and then mediate the "game/simulation."

This is one of the reasons we have seen such a split in miniatures vs video games. The "simulation" crowd has largely moved to video games.

MB

I cannot think a boardgame I could attribute to it so strong simulation elements to really call it a simulator experience.

Games gravitate to been games (both boardgames and wargames) because they are games and people buy them for that, to play a game, the elements of simulation introduced are to make the game realistic, this is not synonymous to been real, just real looking, enough to make the player experience enjoyable, but not real enough to make the game enjoyable because of over-detailing to simulate reality.

Thirdeye, I am now officially confused about tomorrow's war rules: I have only played a few times, and I have never met anyone else who have read the rules, so please help me out if I am wrong!

My understanding of a round of fire in TW is the following:

The attacker determines firepower; which is equal to one die per firing troop, plus additional dice for added firepower (LMG +1, rpg +2, for example), optimal range or exposed target. for example, 5 troopers with a LMG will roll 6d.

The defender now determine his defense dice pool; which is equal to the number of men plus eventual cover (light cover +1, fortified cover +3, etc), and armor.

In both attack and defense, you add a number of dice equal to the difference in technology levels.

the type of dice you roll is ALWAYS equal to the quality value of the troop in question.

for example: 5 guardsmen (tech2, quality d8) with lmg and rpg will fire at 8d8 against unexposed distant targets.

4 marines (tech3, quality d10, armor 3) will defend with 8d10.

-----------------------------
is this right?

That is my understanding of it.

I also owned and played the rules, as well as its parent game Force-on-Force. However, it has been a bit.

However, the D8 for Troop Quality might not always be used as there are some situations that cause a Dice Shift. The specific escape me at the moment. This is assuming all Actions/Reactions have already occurred and you have moved to shooting stuff up.

@BeAfraid.
I think the 'very detailed simulation' games have moved over to computer games.

However, all good war games simulate part of the interaction found in warfare.(Command and or combat to some degree.)
Otherwise they would not be war games just 'games'.

Many players have moved away from over detailed 30 + modifiers for every interaction.(Far to slow.)
But the simpler resolutions in well written modern game can still deliver intuitive game play and tactical interaction.

@Ironbovin.
That is pretty much how I remember FoF and TM playing.It has been a while though...
It works fine for skirmish games where unit quality and equipment do not vary too much. (Eg similar to modern war equipment and generic human(oid).

But for a large diverse battle game like current 40k, is just is not robust enough to cope.IMO.

Different games simulate different aspects of warfare.

Up Front, for instance, simulates the uncertainty and fog of war surrounding a low level infantry officer in WW2, and does it remarkably effectively using cards.

I would say they are abstractly representing more than simulating.

The problem with simulation is the level of detail, most games are abstracted enough that they cannot be considered (in my opinion) a simulation, many represent well enough the parts they want to focus on, but even on them, the details are never enough to be considered a simulation.

Which is in my opinion a good thing, the more detail there is the rules get complicated and difficult to follow and usually the time the game needs to play gets extended.

I would say if the 'abstracted' resolution methods in the game play simulates the real world results , to the satisfactions of the players .
The the game is a 'good simulation' .

The level of detail required to satisfy the players will vary from player to player though.

Only when the results become abstracted ,to the point it detracts from the game play, (cough 40k cough.)
Do the rules decend in to 'nonsensical game' territory.IMO,

@Ironbovin: Well, understand I'm not saying we should simply play TM with 40K models. I'm saying we should use the concept of dice-type-roll-offs to play 40K in a new and better way. That's the project I'm working on.

Like TM, I assign each army a basic dice-type. But I don't use TM's Tech levels. The Tech level thing is an abstraction for special war gear. Well, 40K has actual models and bits for specific war gear. TM doesn't have a “rule” called WYSIWUG. Well, 40K kinda does; and I want to keep that. That's a big part of the fun of 40K. So instead of adding dice for this nebulous notion of “tech levels”, I add dice and/or change dice-types depending on what war gear the model has. This is how I capture the feel and grandeur of 40K without using a bunch of stats and charts.

I use only a three stats for combat resolution: Attack, CC, and Save. Each stat is expressed in a dice-type. Most basic troops use just one dice type for all three stats. So, for example, a Space Marine is D8 for Attack, CC, and Save. An Imperial Guardsman is D6 Attack, CC, Save. Command models get a step-up in base dice-type (each level of command increases the dice-type). War gear simply modifies one or more of the three basic stat dice-types. The modification could be to add dice or change a dice-type, or both. The only modifiers to a dice roll are for Range and Cover. Modifiers range from +1 to +4. I use a universal Range for all weapons, like X-Wing.

Dice-type roll-offs gives 40K something it needs very badly, a clean, quick, intuitive combat resolution system. By using dice-types you don't have to micromanage a bunch of stats or use charts. Both players are engaged at all times. The system is simple but, because the thousands of dice combinations that are possible, its also very deep and can easily accommodate the rich tapestry that is 40K.

@Thirdeye.
40k does need a re write to give it quick and clean combat resolution.

However, the minimal number of stats you propose, coupled with dice roll offs do not give a fine enough granularity to cover race/species differences AND skill differences, AND equipment differences.found in the 40k battle gameIMO.

But, it may give you the game you want to play.

But many people used to the 'current 40k battle game' expect far more granularity and detail.
GW artificially limit the range of interaction in the core rules , so that they can sell more models with 'inspiring' special rules . That just mess up the actual game play.

If you simply unlock the full potential of using D6 , by making each one of the three stages of damage resolution utilize a full range of results.(And even extend them a bit with simple factors.)

You can retain a familiar dice type, and ONE familiar resolution method out of the SEVEN 40k uses.
And improve the level of granularity/interaction to a meaningful level.Where special rules are JUST used for actual special abilities.

(Having tried at least a dozen different ways to resolve damage resolution for 40k over the last decade, I can say that dice roll offs break down in larger scale games and games with larger variety in combatant types , like the 40k battle game has. )

People keep mentioning that 2nd Ed (40K), although it was clunky with rules, was acceptable because you only ever played with a handful of models. Maybe platoon-levels are better served by those abstracted rules.

I'm still curious to see if mixed dice type rolls can work and make the game faster than 40K at the moment. As an example, if those 5 guardsmen hold 3 lasrifles (3d6) an anti-tank weapon à la meltagun (d12) and an anti infantry weapon, à la heavy bolter (3d8). Also, could basic race target numbers be modified to represent people being better or worse at waging war? Everything a squad does is predetermined before the game, there is a bit of granularity for those who want it.

I understand the reasoning behind rolling saves one at a time, but it feels very clunky. When we played our test game, we only had uni-armour and uni-cover. It made things much more manageable. It also abstracted the concept of special weapon operator.

The reason people though 2nd ed was acceptable despite the over complication in the rules (game play 'fat'.)
Was the level of game complexity ,(game play' muscle,') could carry it.

And also the size of the game made each model more special and unique.So the level of detailed model interaction made sense.

I am not opposed to using different dice sizes in smaller scale games.(Eg up to 2nd ed game size.)

However, if you are rolling large quantities of dice ,(20+) then using D6 make it easier from a practical P.O.V.

If IG and Orks roll D6 for 'normal attacks', D8 for HMG typ attacks and D12 for anti tank type weapons for example.
What is the difference between them?Why not just replace the models with dice?

Using dice against opposed stats , is one variation you can use to improve result granularity.

Using the stat range of 1 to 10 in an opposed chart fully utillising ALL results .(And extensions by using simple factors.)Allows the slight difference between races and skills in races and weapon effects.Simply by using a D6.(And not rely on special/additional rules for vehicles and slight differences between models.)

ONE chart to cover all 3 stages of resolution.To hit , To save, To damage. Players learn the results of one chart surprisingly quickly...

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:


People keep mentioning that 2nd Ed (40K), although it was clunky with rules, was acceptable because you only ever played with a handful of models. Maybe platoon-levels are better served by those abstracted rules. .

Skirmish games are always easier.

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:


I'm still curious to see if mixed dice type rolls can work and make the game faster than 40K at the moment. As an example, if those 5 guardsmen hold 3 lasrifles (3d6) an anti-tank weapon à la meltagun (d12) and an anti infantry weapon, à la heavy bolter (3d8).

Give dice-type roll-off a try. I’m sure you’ll find its quicker, cleaner, and better.

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
Also, could basic race target numbers be modified to represent people being better or worse at waging war?

Sure, elite forces get a “step-up” in base dice-type.

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
Everything a squad does is predetermined before the game, there is a bit of granularity for those who want it.

Dice-types spread over three stats give plenty of granularity. Also, its just three stats for combat resolution, there’s also a movement stat and a Ld stat, so more room for granularity.,

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
I understand the reasoning behind rolling saves one at a time, but it feels very clunky. When we played our test game, we only had uni-armour and uni-cover. It made things much more manageable. It also abstracted the concept of special weapon operator.

Yeah, it sounds clunky to describe it but in practice it goes pretty smooth and quick. More time you’ll rolling one dice against one result, very quick and easy. Also, when you roll en-mass you need more rules to determine wound allocation.

Lanrak wrote:


However, the minimal number of stats you propose, coupled with dice roll offs do not give a fine enough granularity to cover race/species differences AND skill differences, AND equipment differences.found in the 40k battle gameIMO.

Well, understand, its three stat but they are expressed in a dice-type. Dice-type range from D4 to D12. The dice-type itself adds a level of granularity. Also dice-types can used in multiples of each type, and/or with different types, in singles or multiples The three stats plus the five dice-types times multiples of each type give thousands of variation, and certainly all the granularity the game needs; certainly far more granularity than you can achieve with a D6, stats 1-10, and charts; and you can get a result a lot quicker and cleaner, and have more fun doing it (roll-offs are more fun then rolling against a static number).

Lanrak wrote:
If you simply unlock the full potential of using D6 , by making each one of the three stages of damage resolution utilize a full range of results.(And even extend them a bit with simple factors.)

D6 is very limited, particularly when a “1” is an auto fail and a “6” is an auto win. The limitations of the D6 require you to use a three stage damage resolution which add an extra dice roll to every combat resolution phase of the game. But that’s not the biggest problem with the old way of doing it. The biggest problem is that stats are are expressed as a static number. This means the only way they can relate to each other is with a chart. It also means that modifiers can negate rolls. For example, if you need a “5” to hit, and the targets is in trees (+2 cover) then you can’t hit with a D6. But if the target model has a Save of D8 and gets a +2 cover mod you can still hit on a roll-off with a D6.

Lanrak wrote:
(Having tried at least a dozen different ways to resolve damage resolution for 40k over the last decade, I can say that dice roll offs break down in larger scale games and games with larger variety in combatant types , like the 40k battle game has. )

In my experience it works just fine. But I’m still play-testing. I also certainly encourage anyone else to play test this and report your thoughts.

@Thirdeye.
When you have play tested and covered every faction ,unit ,(including vehicles), and equipment in the 40k game.with your system without having to use additional rules or special rules for any thing but special abilities.

And it works as well or better than any other method , in objective practical comparisons.

Then you can make the claim it is better than anything else.

Lanrak wrote:
@BeAfraid.
I think the 'very detailed simulation' games have moved over to computer games.

However, all good war games simulate part of the interaction found in warfare.(Command and or combat to some degree.)
Otherwise they would not be war games just 'games'.

Many players have moved away from over detailed 30 + modifiers for every interaction.(Far to slow.)
But the simpler resolutions in well written modern game can still deliver intuitive game play and tactical interaction.

@Ironbovin.
That is pretty much how I remember FoF and TM playing.It has been a while though...
It works fine for skirmish games where unit quality and equipment do not vary too much. (Eg similar to modern war equipment and generic human(oid).

But for a large diverse battle game like current 40k, is just is not robust enough to cope.IMO.

I already said that (that the detailed "simulation" games had moved to Computer Games).

I know that Fortress Europe, and "War in the East/West" (the old GDW monster games that included every unit in WWII down to the platoon level - some thousands of counters) were moved to PC in the 1990s, and that we have advances even on that to include "Real Time Strategy games" as well as Real-Time Tactical games (First Person Shooter to counter-moving games, where you still have the elements of a hex grid).

I played in a RTS game once, which allowed for players to be "sub-commanders" right down to the level of a Company Commander (Of course, this would take hundreds of players to get to that level, the most we ever had were two dozen players on a side, where we took turns being the National C-C, and the C-C would then assign Theatre Commanders, who would in turn assign Army Commanders, who would in turn assign Regimental Commanders, who would then assign Division Commanders, who would then assign Battalion commanders, who would then assign Company Commanders - If you had that many people). It was pretty fun, but when I lost a free, unlimited data internet connection, I had to stop playing (it was freaking expensive).

MB

@BeAfraid.
I was simply trying to discredit the view,;-
All simulation in war games is ''super detailed, takes ages, and is boring unless you are a rivet counter.''
Therefore any abstraction any way ,any where in the game stops the game being a ''simulation'',

Where the truth is, if the game simulates the effect of the warfare to the players satisfaction , it is a simulation of war, therefore a war game.

Far to many people try to defend poor rules writing with ''...it is not a simulation and that is good ,because simulations are complicated....''

Which is complete B.S.

What makes a good war game is a *good level of simulation* of the subject matter, attained by well defined straight forward rules.
(*This will vary on the expectations/experience of the players though.*)

The fact that computers can take all the information and data needed for a super detailed simulation , and present it in a more user friendly way.Means that is a more popular format for people to engage with.

It does not however mean ALL table top war games are relegated to meaningless abstract games, because they abstract some resolution methods.(Although 40k is heading in that direction at a rapid rate IMO.)

The good war game rules may abstract the resolution to facilitate fast and fun resolution,BUT they do not abstract the results.

Simulation does not have to be complicated to be complex.
EG Awarding half the VP for units below half starting strength at the end of a battle, is a simple abstraction.
But it simulates how commanders are concerned with the condition of units effectiveness after that battle.And this effects how they make tactical decisions during a battle.

Without having to simulate the super detailed logistical data of chain of supply , structuring re enforcement requests, maintaining control of supply routes, political control of resource sources, etc.

I think we are agreeing on what is happening , but use slightly different terminology .

There is no excuse for bad rules.

The difference in my perspective between simulation and game and why I support the more game than simulation, is the fact that players come to play a game, expect a balanced and fair game, this is not a simulation, this is a game, it may overall resemble what people expect (which may not be what reality is) but to deliver an enjoyable experience it bends reality, were good games are separated from bad games is how much the immersion is broken, a good game can feel as a simulator (while been nothing even close) because the rules do not break the immersion the players feel a bad game will break the immersion constantly dissociating the players from the feel it tries to convey.

@PsychoticStorm.
Yes there are excuses for bad rules, GW plc trot them out with startling regularity... .

There are no good excuses for bad rules though. (Sorry about that I could not resist.)

I think we are more or less on the same page.
The quality of the game play is most important, to every game.
However, the level of immersion in a war game is dependent on the intuitive interaction in game.
And this depends on if the interaction follows expectation.If the game play simulates the expectations of the players , it is a good game.
It may not simulate in fine detail the actual real world interaction.But then is that necessary?

Anything short of actual warfare , could be classed purely as a war game .
In fact when the military do everything to simulate warfare short of using live ammunition.They call it a war game.

So all war games from full blown military training operations , to T.E.W.T could be classed as 'game' not 'simulation'.(As no one gets killed and maimed!)

So I think it is more sensible to class the level of 'simulation' based on the player experience, rather than the level of abstraction from the real world activity.

Which is my perspective on things.

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
Generally, when someone begins a comment with something like "not to be an ass", it doesn't excuse them from polite conversation.

If a game requires scores of games and many of them a week to remain current or mastered, then it is not a game for people who have other commitments in their lives. We both have full-time jobs, family obligations, train for endurance sports and have a social life outside of gaming.

I was on the tablet earlier, I realize I was very curt. And I don't think the dice bending you over should be any kind of excuse. A good game ought to be able to help you mitigate for bad luck, if you're using sound tactics. My personal opinion of the game is that it does not reward careful behaviour. One is encouraged to be extremely rash and wasteful of human resources, which runs counter to modern doctrine.

Infinity definitely doesn't require a lifetime commitment to enjoy. All races more or less share the same weapons (i.e., a rifle is a rifle nomatter what army you play), and nearly all of the rules are universal. 40k is more complicated in every way, and most 40k players have no problem balancing it with a social life...

I used to see Infinity the same way that you do - armies of cheerleaders and one dude to do the heavy lifting. Look at it this way instead: Almost any unit in Infinity can kill almost any other unit, with a couple exceptions (for example, the toughest TAG can't be hurt by a regular scrub with a rifle). Once you realize that a 15 point dude with an antitank weapon can murder a 100 point TAG, you'll see that it's fallacious to believe that the game is really about point-heavy models murdering cheaper scrubby models. Think of it like a deathstar in 40k - if you lose that TAG you're totally screwed. TAGs also have a number of pretty serious vulnerabilities. You can hack them, you can shut them down with more exotic weapons, you can blast them with energy weapons, things like that.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
Generally, when someone begins a comment with something like "not to be an ass", it doesn't excuse them from polite conversation.

If a game requires scores of games and many of them a week to remain current or mastered, then it is not a game for people who have other commitments in their lives. We both have full-time jobs, family obligations, train for endurance sports and have a social life outside of gaming.

I was on the tablet earlier, I realize I was very curt. And I don't think the dice bending you over should be any kind of excuse. A good game ought to be able to help you mitigate for bad luck, if you're using sound tactics. My personal opinion of the game is that it does not reward careful behaviour. One is encouraged to be extremely rash and wasteful of human resources, which runs counter to modern doctrine.

Infinity definitely doesn't require a lifetime commitment to enjoy. All races more or less share the same weapons (i.e., a rifle is a rifle nomatter what army you play), and nearly all of the rules are universal. 40k is more complicated in every way, and most 40k players have no problem balancing it with a social life...

I used to see Infinity the same way that you do - armies of cheerleaders and one dude to do the heavy lifting. Look at it this way instead: Almost any unit in Infinity can kill almost any other unit, with a couple exceptions (for example, the toughest TAG can't be hurt by a regular scrub with a rifle). Once you realize that a 15 point dude with an antitank weapon can murder a 100 point TAG, you'll see that it's fallacious to believe that the game is really about point-heavy models murdering cheaper scrubby models. Think of it like a deathstar in 40k - if you lose that TAG you're totally screwed. TAGs also have a number of pretty serious vulnerabilities. You can hack them, you can shut them down with more exotic weapons, you can blast them with energy weapons, things like that.

Not so much if your only opponent favours Ariadna so heavily. No one else in my circle wants to invest in "inferior minis" (ie made of metal) and although there is a (I think) vibrant Infinity community in town, they meet whenever I work. Besides, as I said, I feel Inifinity has good core mechanics, it's the special rules of most models that turn me off. The fun goes progressively lower as the number of special rules go up.

Back to specific game mechanics, this must be the ESL thing kicking in, because you keep talking about dice type roll off, and I think I understand the meaning, but pretend I am some stupid 5 year old and break it down for me. Because mixed dice type seems like it could be part of that, but from what I've read so far, you guys seem to say a system with dice type roll off can't support that.

And on recall, the game would have ended vastly differently (living in superlatives) if I had rolled armour one at a time,. We simply rolled armour all at once and took away hits by the amount of armour dice that matched the hit successes. From what you describe, a result of 4 could still take out the first model if he just rolled badly. It seems much more equalized that way... but then what's the point of having a greater number of armour dice?

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:


Back to specific game mechanics, this must be the ESL thing kicking in, because you keep talking about dice type roll off, and I think I understand the meaning, but pretend I am some stupid 5 year old and break it down for me. Because mixed dice type seems like it could be part of that, but from what I've read so far, you guys seem to say a system with dice type roll off can't support that.

A dice roll-off is simplly when two players each roll a dice and the highest score wins. Generally that's done with both players rolling a D6. Dice-type roll-off is when the players “roll-off” with different sided dice. Players can roll D4’s D6's, D8's, D10's or D12’s, and multiples of each. So yeah, mixed dice type certainly is part of dice-type roll-offs.

What Lanrak is saying is that, when you roll a bunch of different dice-types en-mass its hard to read and process the results quickly. He says this is so because, one, you’re dealing with large numbers (with dice types 8-12), two, odd sharped dice are unstable, and, three, odd shaped dice are more difficult to “read”. He thinks dice-type roll-off is a good system as long as you’re not rolling too many strange looking dice about. So, a good system for a skirmish type game but not for the larger games that GW promotes and most 40K player want and expect to play.

I say this is mostly a gamer’s legend. I also say most armies are D6 armies; they are rolling mostly D6’s, so not every different to what 40K players are doing now. The few other types thrown in are not a problem. If you have a D8 army (Marines and all Aspect Armies) then you’re throwing mostly D8’s, but they’re not unstable or hard to “read”. Neither are D12’s for that matter. D10’s are a bit of a pain on both counts but its not so bad as to ruin the whole experience.

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:

And on recall, the game would have ended vastly differently (living in superlatives) if I had rolled armour one at a time,. We simply rolled armour all at once and took away hits by the amount of armour dice that matched the hit successes. From what you describe, a result of 4 could still take out the first model if he just rolled badly. It seems much more equalized that way... but then what's the point of having a greater number of armour dice?

If you’re rolling Saves individually then you only roll the armor dice for each model. Most models have only one armor (Save) dice. Some have two (Terminators). Characters and assault troops can buy power field that give an extra Save dice. Fields are from D6 to 12. So, for instance, a character in Terminator armor with a Grade 12 Power Field gets three Save dice, 2D8 & a D12.

Understand, the only time you roll separately is for Saves from ranged combat. The attacks are rolled en-mass, and so is Close Combat. Saves for ranged combat are rolled individually because modifiers for range and cover are applied individually.

I am using the term "game" as it is used in Game Theory.

A "Game" is simply a set of mechanisms that produce "Tests" leading to some expected results.

Rock-Paper-Scissors is a game. It has a mechanism that allows two (or more) players a choice of three different "pieces" in any test, and then a comparison of those two pieces in the test produces a "Result" (winner/loser - although "winner/loser" are not the only outcomes possible in a "Game." One might also find a "Score" as an outcome).

But a "Game" isn't really trying to simulate anything. It is simply a collection of rules that allow for tests to be made to produce a result.

40K had become more of a Game in this sense than it is a Simulation, because the results, when compared with almost ANY "simulation" (however abstracted), based upon metrics used in real-world situations do not lead to the type of "Play" (the sequence of Tests) that one finds in a Simulation.

And, yes, the Military calls their simulations "game" because one sub-set of Game-Theory happens to be "Simulations."

One of the starts I got in miniature painting was with the US Army, painting miniatures for The training of Officers in the USA of Armor at Ft Hood (and later other bases and schools).

They stopped using miniatures in the late-1980s, for the most part, and began conducting most of their more complex simulations (games) on computers.

One could simply say that GW has chosen poor abstractions for simulating Sci-Fi combat.

But this would mean that they actually started out with the intention of simulating a specific type of combat to begin with, looking at actual metrics of the troops and equipment involved, and then creating a mechanism to abstract this.

Which isn't what happened. They simply chose arbitrary values, and then forced match-ups based upon those arbitrary values.

As an example:

When I started playing 40K, there was absolutely no difference between an infantry carried Laser Canon and the Laser Canon on a Predator.

All the designers did was to take a rock-papers-scissor set of relationships, re-name them "Laser Canon," "Bolter," or "Melta-gun" and then proclaim they had created a "Recreation" of Sci-Fi combat (which strangely is not much different from their "Recreation" of Medieval Fantasy Combat).

When people design "Games" that are simulations. . . .

They begin by looking at things like:

• Ground Scale
• Time Scales
• Actors and Agents involved (human, non-human, environmental)
• Movement distances over those time scales and ground scales
• What sorts of tools and equipment are involved, used by the Agents?
• How are these tools used?

When you have your collected metrics, then you can begin to abstract the relationships between them to create a "Game" that is something other than an arbitrary collection of relationships that are tested against one another.

The point is the lack of arbitrariness. The stats, ranges, damage, penetration, effects, etc. all come from some sort of measured or estimated real-world relationship (This is why they are called "Metrics." A "Metric" is any thing used to measure a specific type of relationship).

These types of games, though (which are derived from actual or estimated relationships found in the real world - and, yes, we can estimate what a "Fusion Gun" would do in the real world, based upon the temperature of Fusing Hydrogen, Helium, or even Carbon, moving at a high speed. So that something is "Speculative" is not really an issue) tend to be hard to play for most people, because they do not reduce to simple "points" systems.

Having spent my entire life largely playing and designing "That type of game" as opposed to the "Rock-Paper-Scissors" variety (arbitrary relationships designed to give a predictable outcome), there is a world of difference between what GW (Games Workshop) has produced, and what a company Like GDW (Games Designers Workshop) produced.

The former are arbitrary matches to produce statistically predictable tests.

The Latter are abstractions from real-life metrics intended to simulate some actual real-world event (even if fictional).

The former look NOTHING AT ALL like what one would expect to see In Real Life for what they are claimed to represent.

The latter look at least a little like what one would expect to see In Real Life for what they are claimed to represent.

MB

@BeAfraid.
I totally agree with everything you posed above .

My point was the level of detail in a simulation can vary quite a lot.
Simplified to cover the basics in broad strokes, all the way through to super detailed simulations that cover huge amounts of data from historical reference in high detail.

Some players want as much detail as possible for as much 'historical accuracy' as possible .
Firefly II for example has more far more detail than Firefly which was a challenging simulation IMO.

And these players would class Flames of war as 'just a game not a simulation.' As the level of simulation was not as detailed as they prefer.

Many people seem to think all simulations have to be extreme over the top detailed re creations of true life events that result in slow and tedious to play.

Which is not true at all.In fact games with 'real world references to simulate' tend to keep the game play intuitive and fast paced.

So most simulations tend to have much better rules than complicated abstract rule sets like 40k has.In terms of clarity and brevity.

IMO Epic SM and Armageddon are MUCH better 'battle level' war game rule sets set in the 40k universe than 40k has ever been.

As a war game that simulates modern warfare (equal blend of mobility, fire power and assault .)
Fits much better with 40k units, than WHFB based rules which focus on mobility and assault , where ranged attacks are used purely in a supporting role.

I think we agree on all the basics, but I probably did not explain my opinion that clearly , sorry...

Thirdeye wrote:

Spoiler:

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:


Back to specific game mechanics, this must be the ESL thing kicking in, because you keep talking about dice type roll off, and I think I understand the meaning, but pretend I am some stupid 5 year old and break it down for me. Because mixed dice type seems like it could be part of that, but from what I've read so far, you guys seem to say a system with dice type roll off can't support that.

A dice roll-off is simplly when two players each roll a dice and the highest score wins. Generally that's done with both players rolling a D6. Dice-type roll-off is when the players “roll-off” with different sided dice. Players can roll D4’s D6's, D8's, D10's or D12’s, and multiples of each. So yeah, mixed dice type certainly is part of dice-type roll-offs.

What Lanrak is saying is that, when you roll a bunch of different dice-types en-mass its hard to read and process the results quickly. He says this is so because, one, you’re dealing with large numbers (with dice types 8-12), two, odd sharped dice are unstable, and, three, odd shaped dice are more difficult to “read”. He thinks dice-type roll-off is a good system as long as you’re not rolling too many strange looking dice about. So, a good system for a skirmish type game but not for the larger games that GW promotes and most 40K player want and expect to play.

I say this is mostly a gamer’s legend. I also say most armies are D6 armies; they are rolling mostly D6’s, so not every different to what 40K players are doing now. The few other types thrown in are not a problem. If you have a D8 army (Marines and all Aspect Armies) then you’re throwing mostly D8’s, but they’re not unstable or hard to “read”. Neither are D12’s for that matter. D10’s are a bit of a pain on both counts but its not so bad as to ruin the whole experience.

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:

And on recall, the game would have ended vastly differently (living in superlatives) if I had rolled armour one at a time,. We simply rolled armour all at once and took away hits by the amount of armour dice that matched the hit successes. From what you describe, a result of 4 could still take out the first model if he just rolled badly. It seems much more equalized that way... but then what's the point of having a greater number of armour dice?

If you’re rolling Saves individually then you only roll the armor dice for each model. Most models have only one armor (Save) dice. Some have two (Terminators). Characters and assault troops can buy power field that give an extra Save dice. Fields are from D6 to 12. So, for instance, a character in Terminator armor with a Grade 12 Power Field gets three Save dice, 2D8 & a D12.

Understand, the only time you roll separately is for Saves from ranged combat. The attacks are rolled en-mass, and so is Close Combat. Saves for ranged combat are rolled individually because modifiers for range and cover are applied individually.

Thank you for claryfying. I happen to think that different dice can be used in the same roll, since we are dealing with only a handful of dice at the same time (in skirmish games at least). To me it would accurately represent the difference in firepower different weapons represent. Also, thank you very much for the breakdown in possible dice breakdown of armour saves. Would armour dice for tech advantage (or whatever it's called) be "freebie dice" that you can assign to whomever you want to give a better chance of surviving. It might actually involve a bit of choice in *gasp* armour saves.

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:


Thank you for claryfying. I happen to think that different dice can be used in the same roll, since we are dealing with only a handful of dice at the same time (in skirmish games at least). To me it would accurately represent the difference in firepower different weapons represent.

Yeah, its really a great system for combat resolution for a game like 40k, quick, clean, intuitive, simple, but yet with so much depth.

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:

Also, thank you very much for the breakdown in possible dice breakdown of armour saves. Would armour dice for tech advantage (or whatever it's called) be "freebie dice" that you can assign to whomever you want to give a better chance of surviving. It might actually involve a bit of choice in *gasp* armour saves.

Well Armor Saves are linked to war gear of the individual model. But now certain psychic powers (Fortune), which give a unit an extra Save dice, can act like a “freebie dice”, except its not “free”. Ya gotta pay for such stuff. Which brings up another issue.

How do you cost units? Most mini-games struggles with this. I hear the new fantasy has no points/cost system. Well, I guess that’s one what of doing it, but I think true “Gamers” want a fun competition that has a conceptual neutral starting point. I think the best way is to have some simple formula for points cost. I have a simple formula for model/unit point/costs using dice-types. If you’re interested I can share it with you.

Unless you are playing a scenario, it is nice indeed to know that the force I am fielding has a chance to get the job done. I think giving fortifications points reflects the advantage that real estate historically represented in battle. In modern warfare, where objectives are rarely along the lines of holding grounds, then not so much, but having a line of barricades conveniently drawn on your position needed to be addressed.

I'm interested in anything that will work, honestly. I'm not convinced at all that GW is looking honestly at its points system right now.

Really impressed with the new Terminator Genisys game at the moment, think they have got the balance just right between making something fast paced, but also enough complexity to add tactical depth. Only played a couple of times so far but I keep on saying "wow, what a great idea!" about different parts of how the game mechanics work.

Some of my favourite parts of the game are the way that there aren't any modifers as such, but rather just a 'downgrade' or 'upgrade' on dice (which means you learn the rules really quickly, and aren't constantly flicking through the rulebook), or you can send 'time travel agents' back to get a dice re-roll (really!), or you end up with instances of resistance fighters trying to send endoskeletons 'reeling' (so not destroyed, but knocked backwards so they can run in and finish them off) but then run the risk of the terminator recovering and gunning them down!

There's a thread going on in the Misc Gaming section if you want to read more about it or watch some initial reviews.

Here's an interesting video about games that I thought might be relevant:

http://www.gamespot.com/videos/the-point-destiny-the-hardcore-gamers-slot-machine/2300-6425852/