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.

One of the rules I don't like in AOS is the hold-over of the ancient and clumsy To Hit, To Wound, To Save mechanic. This requires buckets of dice to be rolled, sorted, re-rolled, sorted and rolled again. Could this process be condensed and speeded up without massively afffecting the probabilities in the game? Here is a suggestion for how to do that.

I first looked at the probabilities of successfully inflicting an unsaved wound on an enemy unit. Assuming most units hit, would or save on either a 3+ or a 4+, I calculated the percentage chance to score an unsaved wound for all the variations of To Hit, To Wound, To Save. For example:

To Hit 3+, To Wound 3+, against a target with Save of 3+, is 2/3 x 2/3 x 1/3 = 0.148 = 14.8% chance. (This isn't strictly correct probability calculation but I am taking a short cut.)

To make the story short, the average of all eight different patterns (3/3/4, 3/4/3, etc) of To Hit, To Wound, To Save, is 14.2%, which is very slightly under 1 in 7.

I analysed the Dwarf war scrolls up until the war machines, where I got bored. The majority of units have a 4+ save. Almost all the To Hits are 3+ (28) or 4+ (24). The To Wound rolls are 3+ (29), or 4+ (16) with a few 5+ (3) and a single 6+ (a mule's bite.)

The Dwarf army hits harder than this shows, though, since between them they have 41 points of rending weapons, which have the effect of reducing enemy save. In actual fact, the Rending factor has the same probability effect if combined with To Hit or To Wound or To Save.

In effect, practically all Dwarf units are rolling 3+ to hit and 3+ to wound, unless they face an enemy unit that is immune to rending.

So, let's assume half the Dwarves' enemies have a 3+ save and half have a 4+. The Dwarf army will have an average 18.5% chance to inflict an unsaved wound with attack. This is slightly over 1 in 6.

I therefore suggest that at least as far as Dwarves are concerned, the whole To Hit, to Wound, To Save sequence could be replaced with a simple To Hit on a 6+ roll, counting every hit as an unsaved wound. This probably is true of most if not all of the rest of the war scrolls, though I don't propose to go and analyse them all.

Therefore I propose that to simplify the game considerably, the characteristics of To Hit, To Wound, To Save and Rend are all dropped, and replaced with a simple rule that a roll of 6 is a successful hit causing a wound without saves.

I believe that a simple 6 to wound roll is a good enough approximation that the speeding up of combat will justify the discrepancies even though all the probabilities will not be accurately reflected. If on careful analysis of the war scrolls there are units that lose out one way or the other, then they could be given more attacks or more hit points to compensate.

Not sure its needed - I like the ability to make minor but discernable differences in units based on their to-Hit, To-Wound and Rend values Helps to give them individual character

But do you think it works mechanically?

You could just do it like a lot of games have with a To-Hit score, and then a save. That cuts out 33% of the dice rolling in any case, and eliminates a single characteristic for speed.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
But do you think it works mechanically?

You just roll a dice for each attack and a 6 causes a wound if I read it right?

Even Heroscape had a bit of player interaction with the Attack and Defence dice......

Yes, that is my idea.

The dice rolling is just a mechanism to resolve fights. There's no skill involved. It just needs to be done as quickly and simply as possible in order to get on with the interesting parts of the game.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It just needs to be done as quickly and simply as possible in order to get on with the interesting parts of the game.

I'd argue that a large section of the 'interesting' parts of the game are arranging things so that they swing the probability of causing wounds in your favour - and this does take skill.
Boiling down a system that measures effectiveness in increments of less than 0.5% to one that has increments of 16% is going to render a number of units and abilities irrelevant.

But it's your game, if that's what your group want to do.

I would argue that if you want to have different units have a different probability of causes hits to enemy units, they can be given more attacks, and for defence, units can be given more wounds. This preserves the interest of using tactics to attack a weak unit with a strong one (for example) while also reducing the amount of dice rolling.

You lose granularity and alter statistics. Bad idea.

I think at some point then why roll at all. Simply remove 1 model for every 6 attacks and call it a day.

The problem you run into with this system is that it would be incredibly swingy.

I think that if you wanted to limit rolling you would need to use a different dice than the D6, which would allow for more variability in the damage roll.

If you just did single rolls on a say d20, you could have multiple probability strata and effects and keep the rolling to a minimum.

That said the current system is pretty simple which I think is the idea.

Ha. I get it. Clever...

Vetril wrote:
You lose granularity and alter statistics. Bad idea.

Well, the point of my suggestion is that you don't lose granularity because the granularity in the current system is illusory. A To Hit Roll plus a To Wound Roll and a modifier to the To Save roll amount to the same thing in probability as just a To Hit roll, in most cases. Yes, a unit with a better To Hit and To Wound is better than another unit, but this can also be reflected by giving it more attacks. You can arrive at more or less the same probability of any particular unit scoring damage.

Breng77 wrote:
I think at some point then why roll at all. Simply remove 1 model for every 6 attacks and call it a day.

The problem you run into with this system is that it would be incredibly swingy.

I think that if you wanted to limit rolling you would need to use a different dice than the D6, which would allow for more variability in the damage roll.

If you just did single rolls on a say d20, you could have multiple probability strata and effects and keep the rolling to a minimum.

That said the current system is pretty simple which I think is the idea.

I know you weren't being serious but what if one did play with the averages instead of rolling dice? To mathy or would that just encourage giant blobs of archers? I would say keep the rolling for charges and casting spells.

Kilkrazy, please don't take this as flaming or trolling, because it's not. These are actually serious questions.

If the TH,TW,AS mechanics are such a bother to you how have you survived playing warhammer so far?
And, why math hammer the gak out of a game that isn't lent to it? The system is simple enough as it is and (imo, of course) horribly, horribly bland already.

Also I agree with RoperPG when he says that:

RoperPG wrote:I'd argue that a large section of the 'interesting' parts of the game are arranging things so that they swing the probability of causing wounds in your favour - and this does take skill.
Boiling down a system that measures effectiveness in increments of less than 0.5% to one that has increments of 16% is going to render a number of units and abilities irrelevant.

But it's your game, if that's what your group want to do.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Oberron wrote:
I know you weren't being serious but what if one did play with the averages instead of rolling dice? To mathy or would that just encourage giant blobs of archers? I would say keep the rolling for charges and casting spells.

That would be horrible. It would completely make it impossible for melee units to exist. You'd simply have massive gun lines.

I just like rolling tons of dice. More dice reduces the randomness as well.

It doesn't take long to roll all the dice IMO.

Rolling lots of dice is fun and the save rolls allow the other player to participate in the combat too.

The 3 rolls allow for minute buffs or nerfs to a single roll (E.g Mystifying Miasma or Mystic Shield etc)

It also allows for special bonuses (such as 6's to hit causing Mortal Wounds (I.e. Spirit Hosts).

You are focusing on the average result of the dices, trying to left it unaffected.
You are completely disregarding the probability distributions, that are getting altered significantly in what you are saying.

At what point do you just stop playing table top minis games if rolling dice is too much of a time investment? I love rolling the dice. It is one of my favorite parts of the game.

I feel as if AoS is already to bland, and interaction less. This would be a terrible rule for me. Your play group may be different.

Breng77 wrote:
...why roll at all. Simply remove 1 model for every 6 attacks

--this.

This is a slippery slope. The more you simplify a game, the less of a game it actually becomes.

I could argue that, since this game is really just a matter of rolling better than your opponent, why not forgo all the rules and simple roll a D6 each? The player who rolls the highest wins.
Or better yet, flip a coin and call it in the air.

You need something to do. And you keep saying things like "more or less the same". But that means it's different.
You want to get rid of the hit/wound/save rolls by adding more attacks and wounds?
...okay, but that's just not enough to keep my brain occupied. That's why I don't play Candyland anymore.

I think the dice rolling in AoS is great compared to other games...

Warpsolution wrote:
This is a slippery slope. The more you simplify a game, the less of a game it actually becomes.

And someone finally spotted the satire in this thread, even if they didn't make the connection.

Right. Quick head count, who actually LIKES rolling handfuls of dice? Cos I'm pretty sure I do.