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.

Dice Hammer. It fits.

There used to be a time in Comics when every independent artist wanted to copy the success of Marvel's wolverine. Even Wolverine copied himself. The 90's brought about 'bigger' and 'badder' versions of him. The fanboys ate it up and it continued on and on until it faded. What happened? They never caught what made him special. It was his character vs the rest of the writing. Everyone else just took a badass, cranky character and made him bigger, meaner and more dangerous teeth, muscles, claws, etc. It was all superficial. They never understood what made him a success.

NOW I look at 8th ed. I see a lot of rules/units doing a superficial fanboy bigger and badder. Instead of Lasguns doing 1 shot now they can do many many more. that super character or flyer can do 4d6 shots now, blah blah blah. I see the drooling fanboys eating it up just like those comic fans did long ago.

I remember when Marines used bolters to shoot once and had the awesomeness to rapid fire a 2nd time....it was something special. Now its trite.


40K needs to leave the fanboy omgosh appeal behind and focus on more entertaining elements like good game play (faster with less dice + saves + FNP)(faster without adding up all the auras) IF a character is super....he don't need to buff your underwear...he can just go out and do something special in the field of play.

Better sense of tactics, positioning, cover, etc.

What we have is ...Placing down our toys and dumping a bucket of dice is all superficial and does not make good game play.

Gw thinks more dice means deep tactical game

In comparison to 2nd ed:

A: more models, more dice

B: we only have D6s now. More convenient.

 admironheart wrote:
Dice Hammer. It fits.

There used to be a time in Comics when every independent artist wanted to copy the success of Marvel's wolverine. Even Wolverine copied himself. The 90's brought about 'bigger' and 'badder' versions of him. The fanboys ate it up and it continued on and on until it faded. What happened? They never caught what made him special. It was his character vs the rest of the writing. Everyone else just took a badass, cranky character and made him bigger, meaner and more dangerous teeth, muscles, claws, etc. It was all superficial. They never understood what made him a success.

NOW I look at 8th ed. I see a lot of rules/units doing a superficial fanboy bigger and badder. Instead of Lasguns doing 1 shot now they can do many many more. that super character or flyer can do 4d6 shots now, blah blah blah. I see the drooling fanboys eating it up just like those comic fans did long ago.

I remember when Marines used bolters to shoot once and had the awesomeness to rapid fire a 2nd time....it was something special. Now its trite.


40K needs to leave the fanboy omgosh appeal behind and focus on more entertaining elements like good game play (faster with less dice + saves + FNP)(faster without adding up all the auras) IF a character is super....he don't need to buff your underwear...he can just go out and do something special in the field of play.

Better sense of tactics, positioning, cover, etc.

What we have is ...Placing down our toys and dumping a bucket of dice is all superficial and does not make good game play.

This is a ton of nonsense. You don't like auras but want positioning to matter. You don't like d6 shot, but I guess you preferred templates and scatter dice? But you want faster game play? Templates were not fast. You either don't understand what your saying or don't have the words to say it clearly.

More dice means more reliable averages.
I am not condemning or condoning, just stating a fact that really should be considered.

I've tried playing Kill Team as a way to teach my boys 40K, thinking that less models and dice would be easier. I was wrong. Units, rather than models, and more dice means more reliability and faster game play.
We now play simple Patrol detachments with 4-5 units per side.

-

I think you've confused rolling more dice because it's powerful and rolling more dice, because it provides less variation.

If there weren't things with lots of dice (e.g. IG) that were very effective, but were instead moderately effective this problem you notice would be mostly moot.

I actually like rolling so many dice... maybe is because I have big hands and I roll them fast?

Roll many dice = eventually luck becomes standard deviation.

Roll too few dice = whole games decided on a single roll.

I'll always roll more dice. Sometimes I roll dice even when I'm not playing, just to roll dice. I even enjoying saying the phrase, "roll dice."

But I don't see how your initial view of power-creep and fanboy (bigger better) argument ties into dice rolling.

 Galas wrote:
I actually like rolling so many dice... maybe is because I have big hands and I roll them fast?

I gotta say, rolling a ton of attacks or whatever is pretty satisfying. I love picking up my 27 Deathspitter dice. Maybe I won't feel the same way about 90 Devourer dice... but I bet I will.

Thankfully, not every army plays like that, so if it's not for you there are plenty of other options.

The GW dice app produces odd results. It's good for throwaway rolls, but if the battle hinges on it, even if it's a large roll, don't use the app. I don't like that the dice get rolled, then one dice is cocked, so it shakes the whole board and alters a bunch of dice.

Nothing better than a blob of 20 guardians hitting the Webway and dropping 36 Catapult shots + 6 Shuriken Cannon shots all with Biel-tan craftworld trait on a Doomed target.

Very satisfying.

I'd almost be tempted to call it good game play. It is an element that makes me smile, so it isn't bad.

Perception is a thing, and it differs person to person. Maybe someone wants to fire 300 lasguns at a Landraider for the luls. He may enjoy it.

Lay off the 'member berries.

Or go play the game you remember. Still got all the books, right?

We're rolling so many dice because we put the units in our armies that rely on volume over quality.

If you don't want to roll as many dice, use units that rely on quality over quantity. Just don't expect the meta to shift at your whim.

I for one will continue to bury 3+ and 4+ invulnerable models with 2d6 flamer shots instead of trying to squeeze through enough melta hits. Besides, nothing better than glaring at a model and shouting BURN as you roll up the damage dice on 10 auto hits!

Edit: I suck at typing, and the typo was meaningful

Seems like a cranky grognard-style thread, to me. Feel free to play those superior retired editions of the game and leave us rubes to enjoy rolling our buckets of dice.

Templates slowed the game down to a crawl by forcing you to space your models out EVERY TIME they moved.

This is nothing but sour grapes.

Noones forcing you to play with models that have a high shot count.

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Roll many dice = eventually luck becomes standard deviation.

Roll too few dice = whole games decided on a single roll.

This is one of the big problems with Blood Bowl, and has been something of a meme for the entire life of the game - lots of results hinge on a single die, which means you've got a 1/6 chance of getting that ruinous 1, and even if you blow a reroll, that's still 1/36 of totally flubbing again. Given the number of rolls that occur over the course of a game those kinds of odds are going to hit a lot. Bigger dice pools make the chance of utter failure like that much more improbable, and means it's much more difficult to get such a hard streak of failure (or success).

I did like templates, but I have to say, no longer putzing around with perfect spacing is an overall improvement.

I like it that there's a lot of discepancy between a gatling gun and a rocket launcher as far as number of shots go. Makes it feel better. Still, for those times that you have to resolve 150 attacks from a 30-model Ork Boy mob I really think it's about time we started to use dice apps. I think the Warhammer communities' fear of modern technology is a bigger issue than high shot/ attack numbers in this case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
The GW dice app produces odd results. It's good for throwaway rolls, but if the battle hinges on it, even if it's a large roll, don't use the app. I don't like that the dice get rolled, then one dice is cocked, so it shakes the whole board and alters a bunch of dice.

Wat? Why didn't they just make a dice app that only displays numbers instead of going fancy-schmancy with animations that feth up rolls?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
I actually like rolling so many dice... maybe is because I have big hands and I roll them fast?

The thing that takes me the longest is actually counting the number of dice when I'm putting them in my hand... really gotta figure out some kind of system to do that quicker.

 Bookwrack wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Roll many dice = eventually luck becomes standard deviation.

Roll too few dice = whole games decided on a single roll.

This is one of the big problems with Blood Bowl, and has been something of a meme for the entire life of the game - lots of results hinge on a single die, which means you've got a 1/6 chance of getting that ruinous 1, and even if you blow a reroll, that's still 1/36 of totally flubbing again. Given the number of rolls that occur over the course of a game those kinds of odds are going to hit a lot. Bigger dice pools make the chance of utter failure like that much more improbable, and means it's much more difficult to get such a hard streak of failure (or success).

I did like templates, but I have to say, no longer putzing around with perfect spacing is an overall improvement.

That ain't a problem, it's a desired feature

It would be bad in larger games but in Blood Bowl, spesifically, that is how it should be. It is not a game of "those guys doing ball game things" as much as it is a game about "the star blitzer Wulfgand McMydude of 37 games running through the enemy line single handedly for the fourth time this season by some ungodly luck and dying on the End Line because he forgot to tie his shoelaces". The whole risk management part, aka half the game, relies on the mitigation of such an occurance and if you're good, being ready to deal with it when it inevitably does happen time and again.

Different strokes for different folks. Prioritizing your actions, so that, fer ex, you don't risk a turnover on your very first roll, is a part of the game, but doesn't counteract the fact that single die rolls are very vulnerable to streaks.

Examples like the one you gave are the high points of 'luck is fickle' mechanics, but people have been legitimately turned off from the game bad luck streaks that just made a game unfun, such as prioritizing decisions correctly, but even with rerolls, never being able to pick up the ball.

It's mainly two parts:

1) GW is in the business of selling models. So they want larger armies...but larger armies become time-prohibitive. Thus the game has become more and more comically "killy" with models dying in droves. Believe it or not there was a time in 40K where models actually missed!

2) GW's current version of the rules is more reliant on the way-too-prevalent re-roll mechanic. GW has basically two default ways of creating rules: a unit ignores X major game rule, or a unit re-rolls X dice roll. That's about it. It's the default easy-button to make a hero, a hero better, or make a unit better.

Some of this comes at the cost, sadly of the death of the WS/BS tables, charts, etc. While a previous edition such as 2nd edition has BS go from 1-10, allowing ten levels of difference, the current system is limited to five, 2+ through 6+. With the reintroduction of to-hit modifiers, there had to be a way to "increase" even something like a 2+ roll. The way to increase that? (Sadly) Re-rolls.

Whereas, in 2nd edition a great character with a BS of 9 would hit on a 2+ despite numerous penalties, the new system penalizes a 2+ Primarch's shooting just as much as anyone else. So the two new systems actually clash with eachother as far as opening up options for unit development.

Pandabeer wrote:

The thing that takes me the longest is actually counting the number of dice when I'm putting them in my hand... really gotta figure out some kind of system to do that quicker.

Put them in groups on 5 on the table. S'what I do.

 Bookwrack wrote:
Different strokes for different folks. Prioritizing your actions, so that, fer ex, you don't risk a turnover on your very first roll, is a part of the game, but doesn't counteract the fact that single die rolls are very vulnerable to streaks.

Examples like the one you gave are the high points of 'luck is fickle' mechanics, but people have been legitimately turned off from the game bad luck streaks that just made a game unfun, such as prioritizing decisions correctly, but even with rerolls, never being able to pick up the ball.

Yeah, I'm not disputing that. Said game just happens to take this fickle luck as the core of its gameplay and getting overtly salty when a bad streak happens might mean that type of a game just isn't for everyone, which I can completely understand. Personally I tend to find that isn't a problem in a game when it truly is designed in such a way, knowingly and honestly. If a game cannot unabashedly live with being a game that can turn on a dime like Blood Bowl sometimes does, then it might be better to fix that but in this example I think the options are either to learn to deal with the dice or just play something else where single rolls aren't so important. I know I play all sorts of things actively to scratch different itches and Blood Bowl certainly ranks up there in the skill intensive games of high variance and risk, which just isn't to everyones' tastes.

In general, I find getting too frustrated by bad luck is bad for enjoying any sort of a wargame. There are a lot of board games, especially euro games, where you truly can only blame yourself or other players and not the dice when things go awry, which might be better for many.

 Elbows wrote:
It's mainly two parts:

1) GW is in the business of selling models. So they want larger armies...but larger armies become time-prohibitive. Thus the game has become more and more comically "killy" with models dying in droves. Believe it or not there was a time in 40K where models actually missed!

Magnus
Mortarion
Knights
Custodes

Those all very much disagree with the premise that they prefer you to have higher model counts. Horde armies are by player choice.

2) GW's current version of the rules is more reliant on the way-too-prevalent re-roll mechanic. GW has basically two default ways of creating rules: a unit ignores X major game rule, or a unit re-rolls X dice roll. That's about it. It's the default easy-button to make a hero, a hero better, or make a unit better.

If you make a big enough bucket you can make anything fit in it and say, "see?! they only have one bucket!".

- If your army is Battle-forged, you receive an additional 2 Command Points if Marneus Calgar is your Warlord. - Roll a dice each time a friendly ULTRAMARINES model within 6" of Chaplain Cassius is slain in the Fight phase. On a 6, the unit that made that attack suffers a mortal wound after it has finished making its attacks. - All friendly CRIMSON FISTS models add 1 to their Attacks characteristic whilst they are within 6" of Pedro Kantor. - <CHAPTER> units within 6" of any friendly <CHAPTER> ANCIENTS add 1 to their Leadership. In addition, roll a D6 each time a <CHAPTER> INFANTRY model is destroyed within 6" of any friendly <CHAPTER> Ancients, before removing the model as a casualty. On a 4+ that model musters one last surge of strength before succumbing to its wounds; it can either shoot with one of its weapons as if it were the Shooting phase, or make a single attack as if it were the Fight phase.

When you're rolling dice to determine how many dice you roll, you've jumped the shark.

Fixed values across the board (only Orks should have any amount of random shots/damage, and should still mostly be fixed anyways) would speed up the game and place more agency on the players than hoping you roll a 6 to see how many dice you shoot to find out how many D6 damage shots get through.

 Sherrypie wrote:

 Bookwrack wrote:
Different strokes for different folks. Prioritizing your actions, so that, fer ex, you don't risk a turnover on your very first roll, is a part of the game, but doesn't counteract the fact that single die rolls are very vulnerable to streaks.

Examples like the one you gave are the high points of 'luck is fickle' mechanics, but people have been legitimately turned off from the game bad luck streaks that just made a game unfun, such as prioritizing decisions correctly, but even with rerolls, never being able to pick up the ball.

Yeah, I'm not disputing that. Said game just happens to take this fickle luck as the core of its gameplay and getting overtly salty when a bad streak happens might mean that type of a game just isn't for everyone, which I can completely understand. Personally I tend to find that isn't a problem in a game when it truly is designed in such a way, knowingly and honestly. If a game cannot unabashedly live with being a game that can turn on a dime like Blood Bowl sometimes does, then it might be better to fix that but in this example I think the options are either to learn to deal with the dice or just play something else where single rolls aren't so important. I know I play all sorts of things actively to scratch different itches and Blood Bowl certainly ranks up there in the skill intensive games of high variance and risk, which just isn't to everyones' tastes.

In general, I find getting too frustrated by bad luck is bad for enjoying any sort of a wargame. There are a lot of board games, especially euro games, where you truly can only blame yourself or other players and not the dice when things go awry, which might be better for many.

I think this is a great way of looking at the game, and really games in general. I think it's natural to be frustrated, but if that turns into straight up rage and perpetual whiny bitching (not directed at anyone), it's gone too far. Enjoy the game, or don't play it. Those seem like the 2 real worthwhile options. If we have a realistic chance of affecting change "for the better" with feedback to GW, that's cool, but otherwise... what a waste of limited time.

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Roll many dice = eventually luck becomes standard deviation.

Roll too few dice = whole games decided on a single roll.

It allready is. Roll a single die to see who goes first and than roll million dice to kill time.

I have had a few annoying games in my time. I watched IG Cadian vs Ultramarines and the Marine would fail so many saves because there was just too much fire. Ever guy he lost was costing him 2 shots while the IG player didn't car about how much he lost.

Yup still play 2nd ed.

I think 8th has soooo many wonderful things.
I love the easy CC and WS/BS charts.

Look at it this way. In a 2+ hour game....40 minutes is easy rolling dice (to hit, charges, saving throws, etc) The point of 8th edition is a large army that plays fast.

I don't understand why everyone needs to be able to outrun their bullets in a standard game turn.

And though templates were a nice flavor I'm all about the abstraction and glad they are gone for faster play.

I think Galas is correct with the averages...but if we don't want dice to matter we can play chess.

Nothing is better than taking down that Greater demon with a grunt or that tank surviving hit after hit.

If you have more modifiers and AP then you need less dice to accomplish the same results mathhammer wise.

Making lasguns shoot once or twice or four times is more about flare than about actual math and game results.

40k works so much better at 1500 or lower.

In some ways I wish they did go a different way. If they literally halved all offensive firepower in the game I honestly think the game would be much healthier.

Oh I was the guy at a Gamesday KING of the HILL where each player had 1 vehicle with no upgrades.

6 players on a small table.

Players took Basilisks, Land Raiders, Dreadnoughts, etc.

I took a Squat Rhino....it was armed with Storm Bolter.....no way to damage anything.

I was the only one who survived 3 turns on the hill and won some great prizes.

If you have hundreds of dice the game becomes a lot more predictable and dull.

I love challenging opponents. I love challenging situations and I love beating the odds.
A unit of Guardsmen shooting 40 times, Rerolling a dozen more, Wounding 35+ times, rerolling some of that at times, The target unit rolling 20 saves and then rolling 5 FNP.

100+ dice and then move to the next unit.

Where is moving out of cover, setting up crossing fire....sending out a bait unit to draw out the enemy or make them come out of Going to Ground/Overwatch or whatever.

There is so little tactical game play...its just point and shoot and roll a bucket of dice.

I remember a game that caught the wonder of the fluff and a satisfying sense of tactics. Now it seems line em up like Napoleon tactics roll dice....you win or lose.....dull and plays to a simple mindset. The game can be more....but the players have to demand it ....not accept the big bucket of dice to make them go Rawwrrr ...Look at my cool model with 50 attacks....bwah bwah bwah.

given the Wolverine rant, I'm assuming Squats confirmed?