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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To be sure, rolling for every individual model is the real kicker.

Whenever I've proposed ways of reducing the amount of dice rolling plenty of people have said they like it.

For example, AoS could be reduced to rolling a D6 per attack, with a 6 being a hit. No To Wound, or To Save at all. If that is too extreme, it could be reduced to To Hit, To Save, dropping To Wound.

Another option which keeps the current system is to assume that 12 rolls on a 4+ to hit will generate 6 successes, and not to bother rolling the dice. This calculation can be done for different combinations of target number of number of dice, and tabulated into a simple look up table. 16 rolls for 4+ becomes 7 hits and 2 dice to roll.

I don't quite understand your second system, I don't think, but if I do - how do you compute for lucky or unlucky hits? Like the lascannon that hits the lower glacis of a Leman Russ and penetrates or plants the shot square in the center of the upper glacis, expending all of its energy harmlessly?

To Hit, To Save allows for a lucky hit to damage a vehicle or not.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Another option which keeps the current system is to assume that 12 rolls on a 4+ to hit will generate 6 successes, and not to bother rolling the dice. This calculation can be done for different combinations of target number of number of dice, and tabulated into a simple look up table. 16 rolls for 4+ becomes 7 hits and 2 dice to roll.

This takes nearly all of the randomness out, though.

How much randomness is really there in a roll of 60 dice?

Lots of people say it's an advantage of 40K that it involves lots of dice because so many rolls reduce the randomness by averaging it out.

You don't manage to save eleven 3+ saves all at once if you just take the average. It's these swing-rolls that really brings out the advantage of the randomness in the game because it becomes about risk assessment more than it is about computing direct paths to victory. It's like how Maelstrom is good because it promotes non-optimal match-ups, and generally mixes up the game's target priority.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How much randomness is really there in a roll of 60 dice?

How much "fun" is in a game that regularly requires a roll of 60 dice?

None.

Nomeny wrote:
You don't manage to save eleven 3+ saves all at once if you just take the average. It's these swing-rolls that really brings out the advantage of the randomness in the game because it becomes about risk assessment more than it is about computing direct paths to victory. It's like how Maelstrom is good because it promotes non-optimal match-ups, and generally mixes up the game's target priority.

Having 11 out of 11 50% chances go your way is luck, not clever risk assessment.

However my suggestion is only a suggestion.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How much randomness is really there in a roll of 60 dice?

How much "fun" is in a game that regularly requires a roll of 60 dice?

None.

I dunno. I have lots of fun with current 40k, and it can sometimes require that many dice.

Kilkrazy wrote:How much randomness is really there in a roll of 60 dice?

Lots of people say it's an advantage of 40K that it involves lots of dice because so many rolls reduce the randomness by averaging it out.

The amount of randomness is dependent on both the number of dice being rolled AND the average number of success.

BOTH have to be large before the randomness starts to average out.

eg.

If you have 1000 dice rolls, with a 50% success rate per roll (average being 500 successes), you'll more than likely end up within a couple of percent of that (say you get 475 successes, you're only 5% off the average).

If you have 1000 dice rolls, but only a 0.2% chance of success (average being 2 successes) then your variability is going to be much larger. You might get 4 successes, in which case you're 100% off the average.

So it's a combination. If you want to reduce your variability a lot you need to ensure the attackers have a lot of "attacks" and the defenders also have a lot of "wounds" so that you're rolling large numbers of dice with higher chances of success for each roll.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How much randomness is really there in a roll of 60 dice?

How much "fun" is in a game that regularly requires a roll of 60 dice?

None.

Subjective opinion is subjective.

But we're probably going a little bit too extreme. 60 dice is not really a comfortable number of dice to roll, takes too long to count out and doesn't fit as nicely in the hand. But I'm happy playing a game that regularly rolls 20-30 dice at a time, with 60 dice being reserved for odd occasions.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Nomeny wrote:
You don't manage to save eleven 3+ saves all at once if you just take the average. It's these swing-rolls that really brings out the advantage of the randomness in the game because it becomes about risk assessment more than it is about computing direct paths to victory. It's like how Maelstrom is good because it promotes non-optimal match-ups, and generally mixes up the game's target priority.

Having 11 out of 11 50% chances go your way is luck, not clever risk assessment.

However my suggestion is only a suggestion.

Yes, considering the risk that you'll be able (or not) to make a certain number of saving throws is risk assessment. When doing it I consider the best, worst, and average result. Then I index that by what I need to accomplish in order to win. Then I take the least risky path to that goal. But you really have to factor in the chance of these swings happening. If you just go by the average, you're exposed to natural variance.

Your approach sounds much like mine, essentially to work out a risk/benefit that probably with below average luck will be successful.

I would say that each decision like this has to be balanced with similar decisions on the whole battlefield, because it often isn't possible to allocate the perfect mix of units to each area.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Having 11 out of 11 50% chances go your way is luck, not clever risk assessment.

However my suggestion is only a suggestion.

Sure, the outcome of the dice is luck, but there’s plenty of skill involved in managing and exploiting that range of outcomes. For instance, one player might assume that rolling 60 dice to hit will mean 30 hits, which on a 5+ to wound will convert to 10 wounds, and so he’ll make his attack just expecting that to happen. But if his opponent knows that there’s actually a lot of potential variation, and so puts in place back up plans in plans things go even worse than average, and also has some potential exploits in case things go better than expected, then he could be at significant advantage.

Just to go through the spread of possible results – the average of 10 wounding hits will only happen 14% of the time. It’s the most likely result, but still not that likely. Scoring 9 or less wounds will happen 44% of the time, scoring 5 or less wounds, so half what you’d expect, happens about 5% of the time. Similarly scoring 15 wounds will happen about 6% of the time. A player doesn't have to sit there calculating binomial distributions, but an overall understanding of probability spreads, even one just learned through years of playing experience, will give a huge advantage.

To the OP.
The 6 9 issues on rolling a D 10 is not a major issues at all.Pretending it is ,to try to get justification for a project is a bit misleading.

The reason people say rolling lots of D10 is slower to roll and read than D6s .Is because they are in practice slower to roll and read when you rolling more than about a dozen.
Simply because D6 are easy to count as they are 'stackable' cubes.(As mentioned before.)And they are easy to read because of dot pattern recognition. (As mentioned before.)

As already pointed out 40k has far more problems with game mechanics and resolution methods,than with the granularity of the dice.

And these issues can often be ignored by people thinking a D10 will be a 'magic quick fix.'

If you apply the same methodology to D10 as current D6 in 40k.

You only get 3+4+5+6+7+ to hit in close combat rather than 3+4+5+.Which is still not as wider range as fully utilizing a D6.

So after sorting out all the core issues with 40k core game mechanics and resolution methods.And re focusing the rules on the intended game play and game size.
(Which ever game scale and scope you decide you want. )

Then if you find the D6 is not good enough when used to full effect.Only then would I support moving to a larger dice size.