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.

So I had an idea, and I thought I might throw it out there for finer and more sober minds to evaluate. Imagine a game where you resolve everything with the humble D6. Hard to imagine, right? Well, what if, as a player, instead of having D6s you had six cards numbered 1-6. Every time you were asked to roll a D6 you'd put down a card. Once all the cards were gone from your hand, you'd draw the six cards to your hand again. What this be sufficient to take the randomness of the dice out of the way?

I recall Catan had a card expansion like this, where there was a number of cards for the 2-12 chance on 2D6 and a year-end card that meant the 'year' or first 36 rolls of the dice ended early at I think it was 31. I'd have to check. The cards also had bonuses on them, I think to compensate for the way the lead tended to snowball.

Sooo you mean players have a choice of 1-6 in card form but must use those cards at the right time or you end up with a bunch of low numbers later on or something?

Well its interesting in the right kind of game. you will always know what you and your opponent has meaning you need to pay a hell of a lot of attention to what was used and what you can get away with which is very mtg like. but the game must prevent people from burning away garbage numbers to refill before a key points of the game or else you can always load up on 6s when drawing 6 again.

This isnt a problem for a game like malifaux as its a standard playing card deck.

But what kind of game would benefit from something like this?

Oh look, my bolter always rolls a 1 so that my lascannon always hits.

It does favour units with a couple of upgrades and a bunch of chumps. The drawbacks of weapons like Plasma are eliminated, while exploding 6’s become quite powerful. Taking heavy bolters on a Russ Chassis lets you burn the 1-2’s and keep those high numbers for Battle Cannons and a Hull Lascannon.

I don’t think it would work well in a game like 40k, without massively bumping the cost of powerful weaponry to offset the “guarantees” of them hitting. Even then, something like the loyal 32 become mandatory ways to dump the low numbered cards.

There are games that already have this as a mechanic. Some use it quite well. However, the question is: what is your game representing? We use dice to represent chance because chance is a real thing. Most wargames try (in some capacity) to represent chance on the battlefield. So if you're doing a wargame, it is probably less of a grand idea. If, however, you want zero chance in your game, then sure.

There are some games which use what I can only term as "mega-cards" to determine every single thing that happens in a game. A deck of cards where each card has: a dice result, a wound result, a wound location, an accuracy number, a running distance, etc. etc. You just draw a card every single time you do something, and all of the cards have all of the info on there, randomized throughout the deck. So I might draw a card which says:

SHOT: Hit
LOCATION: Arm
RUN: 6"
PENETRATE: Yes
DICE ROLL: 4

or

SHOT: Miss
LOCATION: Head
RUN: 9"
PENETRATE: No
DICE ROLL: 3

etc. And these cards have like 15-20 pieces of information on them so every single mechanic is resolved by the card. A slightly extreme but interesting idea.

Games like Arena Rex (I think) have other ways of doing this, where each card has a dice roll value, but the card also has a special maneuver. The better the maneuver the better the dice roll etc. so you have to choose between the two (or something to that effect). There are loads of ways to remove dice (if you really want that), but keep in mind you're absolutely changing the fundamental way the game is played. A mindset is 100% different if a person thinks "I have an 84% chance of succeeding here..." vs. "I have the card in my hand, I will succeed 100% without question".

Part of the draw of games with dice and any level of chance is precisely that: the risk of failure.

 Peregrine wrote:
Oh look, my bolter always rolls a 1 so that my lascannon always hits.

And your opponent can save that Lascannon hit on a 6. I'm not sure you've thought this through.

Why not run it like Malifaux does? A deck of cards you shuffle and flip to determine results, and a small hand of cards you get every turn that you can sub in on any given result you don't want.

Nurglitch wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Oh look, my bolter always rolls a 1 so that my lascannon always hits.

And your opponent can save that Lascannon hit on a 6. I'm not sure you've thought this through.

Assuming a 6 is a save (anything with a 4+ or worse can not save no matter what you roll), but replace that with a melta gun (no save for anything with a 3+ or worse) and the point stands. Or maybe I have two lascannons, so I make both of them hit and you only have one 6 available to make a save. But the general point is that you can spend your bad "rolls" on irrelevant things and save your good "rolls" for the ones that matter. Nitpicking based on the details of the 40k system is missing the point entirely.

Furthering the point, a 3 to hit, 2 to wound with a Lascannon “trades up” needing a 6 to save, so to speak.

# of Battle cannon shots: 6

To hit rolls: 4,4,4,5,6,6

Wound rolls: 2,2,2,2,33

(Burn a bunch of 1’s on Frf, Srf for a squad of Guardsmen to-hit rolls with lasguns.) edit: more abuse? Take Cadians to reroll hit rolls of 1 to double-burn 1’s or burn off 1’s then 2’s.

So using a fairly even distribution of rolls, I force my opponent to use up their high cards or lose 6d3 wounds. This situation leads to alpha strike as consistently forcing the opponent on their back foot. You burn your good rolls on saving your crucial pieces, or you lose your crucial pieces and have good rolls for your chaff units. I could see the potential for a deeper game, but 40k really isn’t that game.

Anything D6 shots would become a given number of wounds:

D6 shots = play a 6
6 rolls to hit (3+): 1,2,3,4,5,and get back the 6
4 rolls to wound (2+), 2,3,4,5

leaving a 1 and a 6.

at which point you will choose something to miss with so you're left with a 6 again.

I prefer the idea that you have 6 cards numbered 1-6, which can substitute a dice roll once per game, and once they're gone, they're gone. Can even be an enemy dice roll.

So you'd put your 1 down for random amounts of enemy attacks, or gets hot rolls, or a 2+ save. You'd put the 6 down for your own multiple damage. You'd use the 2 to guarantee that terminator dies.

6 chances to change a dice per game. use them well.

I have to say, as a general concept, this would definitely turn me off from playing a game. I understand the desire behind it, but that's not how/why I play wargames, personally. I'd say whip up some rules and play a couple games with a friend. See if you like it. I can't see how it would fit in 40K given the number of dice being used, but you may figure that out.

Tactical Assault's Combat Cards works like this. It's a really fun game system.

Its not a horrible idea, though I prefer dice.

My perception of Combat Cards could be coloured by a few things. For example, you can reduce the damage inflicted on a unit by having it move directly away from the attacking unit.

The cards also contain actions for units to do, such as attack or move or whatever, situations in which special stuff can happen, and a tidy artillery/airstrike deviation thing.

The only problem is the interaction between airstrikes and off-board artillery. If you successfully airstrike or counter-battery your opponent's off-board artillery, then they have no way of replying and they can hammer you indiscriminately. Probably pretty realistic, but not my kind of fun.

I never really thought to do the math on the distribution of results, but there was never a time that I thought "That card comes up way too much."

I’m quite interested in card based systems myself, but I’ve never seen one acted out. Could such a system work in something bigger than skirmish level?

It sounds like an awful idea for a game with as many numbers getting thrown around as 40k.Especially since it produces weird mechanics with horde armies vs elite armies (how do you account for one army needing more "numbers" than another to play itself?), and would be much slower to play out than just rolling dice (using the cards is going to be insanely slow with 200 models on the board).

It would work better on something that's smaller scale, where the inherent bidding mechanics don't become drowned out or slow the game down.

Maybe try mixing it with a Kill Team kind of game? Something where both sides only have a handful (4-5) models, and a single hand for each player to use to get things done.

Here's a link: Combat Cards

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I’m quite interested in card based systems myself, but I’ve never seen one acted out. Could such a system work in something bigger than skirmish level?

If you're not talking about the OP's cards-for-dice system, yes, easily. You might have a more abstract "this unit is firing, so resolve one card" kind of thing, but cards can essentially do anything.

There is a risk like game called Kamet. In Kamet combat is resolved using cards. Everyone gets the same 6 cards. They have 3 values on them in different amounts on different cards.

Combat - added to the number of "armies" you have in the fight to determine winner of the conflict. Ties go to the defender. The looser has to retreat from the contested space.

Damage - the number of enemy "armies" you kill.

Defense - Protects your "armies" from enemy damage.

So you might have one card with 4 defense, 1 combat and no damage. Another with 2 combat 3 damage and no defense. etc etc...

When combat happens each player picks 2 cards. One is played face down and is the card you are using. The other is placed face down into a discard pile. Then both players reveal their cards at the same time. Only when you have used/discarded all 6 cards do you recombine them into your hand to be used again.

This way nobody can use process of elimination to find out what cards you have left (because you discard half of them at best they can narrow you down to 4 choices (2 you discarded that they don't know about and 2 you haven't played yet) and still be unsure which you will play) and you get a kind of mini game in trying to counter your opponents play.


I think a card based system works best like this. More than a single element on the card with different advantages and disadvantages that don't necessarily need to be wholly balanced with each other but have perks so that you have interesting choices in when and how you use your better or worse cards.

 Elbows wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I’m quite interested in card based systems myself, but I’ve never seen one acted out. Could such a system work in something bigger than skirmish level?

If you're not talking about the OP's cards-for-dice system, yes, easily. You might have a more abstract "this unit is firing, so resolve one card" kind of thing, but cards can essentially do anything.

Interesting. Sorry to be a pain but can you give me some more detailed examples? Like examples of a game that uses this system or how might such a system would work?

I’ve come to hate dice in my games. Either through sheer bad luck or miscast dice, mine always fail me (seriously, it’s statistically mind boggling) and if it’s possible to move away from them I’d be up for that.

You can go any number of routes with a card-based system. If you look at something like, say, Wings of War. This game uses cards to maneuver, and then cards for a damage "roll". What's neat is that only the owner of the plane sees his damage cards.

Your Fokker D VII has, let's say, 8 hit points. When an enemy plane lines you up within its firing arc you take damage cards from a deck equal to the number of damage cards his plane produces (varies depending on range and guns if I remember correctly). Let's assume you draw two cards. Now I don't remember what the deck was like, but I know you could have minimal damage, maybe even no damage, and up to "you're on fire and explode - you're dead" results. You might start smoking, or you might just accrue a couple of hit points. So you draw a 0, and a 5. So your plane is now at 3/8 hit points. However you keep thiese cards secret until your plane goes down. After all the guy flying against you thinks he might have hit you, but you're moving 80-100 mph through the air and have oil on your goggles. You can't tell how bad you hit the guy until his plane catches fire or the wing snaps off!

Let's say you want to adapt it to 40K or something similar. You'd have a more abstract combat result. Perhaps you have two decks, one for infantry and one for monsters/vehicles. Maybe your Space Marine squad in the rules does Damage 2 at range 24" and Damage 3 at range 12". So an Ork squad moves up to 20" and you draw two cards from the infantry damage deck. One maybe says "lose two models", or one might say "take a morale test or retreat". So in this instance you shoot two boys and then they have to take a morale test to avoid moving away from your unit, etc.

Now let's say you combine the two ideas above and use something similar to the army-wide morale system from the excellent Battlegroup games, so we have a different system. You'll note that card mechanics in a game like 40K would be much more abstract, as it's borderline impossible to replace rolling hundreds of dice with hundreds of cards. You'd need to shift the nature of the game, for better or for worse. A tournament player is more likely to want dice and rules to affect them so they can mathematically take advantage of the game...a more thematic player might enjoy watching the game unfold, while having only 50-60% say in what's happening.

Let's say in this version, each squad has a break number. A Space Marine tactical squad has a break number of 6 for a five-man unit, and 9 for a ten-man unit. An ork boy squad of 20 has a break number of 10. This will take a little book keeping for a big game, but you'll get the idea. So, a Marine squad fires into the Ork squad and does points of damage. Maybe now the Ork player draws two cards in secret and keeps track of how close he is to his break number of 10. Maybe some cards add zero to this number, while other cards may be as strong as 4, 5 or 6. Once the squad reaches its break number it flees the board? This might introduce game mechanics to ignore cards, reduce your break number, or even reveal damage cards on an enemy unit so you can see how close to breaking a unit is?

Alternately, see my above post where I mention a game which includes a deck of "do everything" cards.

Cards are also superb at introducing varying activations or orders. A lot of games you draw a card or two (or sometimes one per officer), and these cards inform you what you can activate on your turn. Sometimes these are sprinkled with special events, etc. Maybe instead of "activate two units" you draw "confusion in the lines - activate no units!" etc. There are almost endless ways to use cards to determine outcomes in a game. Often they're more abstract than "I shoot my pistol at this dude" kind of stuff.

Thank you for the detailed response Elbows! Very much appreciated!

It inspired me to try out this simple system. It also uses a bolt action style unit by unit activation system. I’ll use an imperial guard infantry squad and a Primaris Intercessor squad as examples:

Imperial Guard Infantry Squad:

Movement: 6”
Shooting: 2
Range: 24”
Combat: 2
Wounds: 1
Leadership: 4+

Number of models: Damage:
10-7 D3
6-1 1

Primaris Intercessor Squad:

Movement: 6”
Shooting: 4
Range: 24”
Combat: 4
Wounds: 2
Leadership: 3+

Number of models: Damage:
10-7: D3
6-1: 1

So, you’ve got movement, obviously. When shooting, you’ve got range, and draw a number of cards from the deck equal to their shooting number. And when fighting in combat they also draw a number of cards from the deck equal to their combat number. Shooting cards against infantry would look something like this:

1: no result
2: place pin marker against target unit
3: inflict damage

If any models in the unit are slain, that’s also a pin marker inflicted on them. Units with pin markers on them can’t act until they’re cleared away. That’s what leadership is in this system, a save against pin markers. So for example, when you pick a unit to activate that has a pin marker on it, you make a “save roll”, and if successful you remove the marker and then perform the action. If unsuccessful, the unit can’t do anything except run or go to ground. Which you must do.

Obviously it needs work but I think I’d like a system that isn’t as random as one that depends wholly on dice.

Yep, it can be that easy to convert/change. It's just a different way of playing a game. It's more abstract, but it can often provide the same overall result. Just depends on what you like.

Interesting reading, here. I've been slowly sketching out a fantasy skirmish game for some years that uses cards.

What I liked about cards was three levels of randomisation: number, suit and colour. But, so far, I've not settled on a truly elegant way of making use of them.