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.

If the game is using the appropriate minatures scale for the size of the game.Then players are happy to roll for units, rather than individual models in larger battle games.
EG most larger battle games use 6mm to 15mm minatures and roll for units.

But even so if we have 4 hypothetical HMG teams firing on the same target, say 6 hypothetical enemy infantry teams in a infantry platoon.
And the HMG teams rolls 3 D6 each.(12 D6 total.)

This is still rolling more than 10 D6 in a war game using D6s for resolving unit interaction.

As pointed out in games like 40k, players are much more invested in every model.And as such want to roll a dice for every model.
And every attempt to roll a D10/2D6/D20 for a units attacks in 40k re-writes, has met with low uptake/interest in my experience..

I have to agree. A lot of people who play 40K and AoS like to roll a lot of dice. Paradigm gave some reasons in his post on the previous page.

It would be easy to tabulate buckets of dice rolls, but people don't bother.

If there is a reason for this, I think it's because playing the game is more important than finding the result of it. This may be a characteristic of beer and pretzels style games, not that they always use lots of dice.

It would be interesting to know if tournament players of 40K and AoS ever use tabulated dice rolls to save time. I am guessing that a tournament player is more interested to see if he wins than how many 6s he can roll in 30 dice.

However a lot of people go to tournaments purely because it guarantees them a lot of games against different opponents.

There is something physically enjoyable in rolling a pile of dice, it also has the advantage of giving an easily assessed supremacy indicator by how huge the pile is.

I disagree and hate piles of dice mechanics, my description of 40k has been "my pile of dice shoot your pile of dice so when I hit you in close combat my pile of dice will be bigger than your pile of dice" but dismissing their psychological impact in the players enjoyment is a huge mistake.

I think the problem is 40k is such an awful rule set to start with, it tends to use even reasonable game design ideas in excess.

And it may be this excess that turn some players off?

Rolling handfuls of D6 in a game is accepted and players are happy with, in most well written rule sets.

Rolling BUCKETFULS of D6 in 40k is a result of very poor game design being let run unchecked for too long.

Lanrak wrote:
Rolling handfuls of D6 in a game is accepted and players are happy with, in most well written rule sets.

Rolling BUCKETFULS of D6 in 40k is a result of very poor game design being let run unchecked for too long.

Yup. I set my over/under at a dozen.

5-6 is my upper limit too.

Not sure on the lower limit though.

If it's a single model activiation, isn't your lower limit 1?

Could be 0 but maybe the player experience would be more rich if it was 2 or 3.

If it's zero, then you're not rolling anymore.

I have a theoretical cap of 3 dice for a single model, preferring a high 1 or low-mid 2.

Yes, its a design were the action has a minimum output and dice add extra, so a 0 dice action has a definite result.

Setting some number as the most dice you’ll accept is arbitrary and fairly meaningless. If someone says five dice is their limit, then apparently they’ll dismiss a game that requires them to make single roll of 10 dice once in the game, but be happy with a game that has them roll 5 dice for every single activation in the game. Which is silly, of course.

What matters is how appropriate the mechanical complexity is to the game. And mechanical complexity isn’t just dice numbers, but the complexity of mods added to the roll, and the difficulty of assessing success and failure. If the number of dice scale fairly well with the scale and importance of actions, and in general don’t require too many dice, modifiers or interpretation then it’s good design even if once or twice in a game you roll a whole bunch of dice.

Lanrak wrote:
Rolling BUCKETFULS of D6 in 40k is a result of very poor game design being let run unchecked for too long.

Yeah, as I said a few pages back, there’s a good argument for showing a bigger, more powerful attack with loads more dice. But when ten Guardsmen roll 20 dice and expect maybe one kill, and then you do it again with a different ten guardsmen, and then again then it’s bloated design.

I believe it has meaning, I do not like systems that spiral out of control, for example in 40k each action usually is a single dice or two, but the units performing the action can be 30 models spiraling out of control.

I much prefer to have limits on what happens, should the design break such limits? maybe if there is a good excuse, but setting limits really helps.

Exactly. The designer should have an idea of what makes a good game, and how their game should play. If the concept is buckets of dice, fine, but that's not something I find desirable. I want smaller, more meaningful die rolls, where randomness actually matters.

There were lots of ways of dealing with the removal of shooting modifiers making shooting in 40k over powered compared to assault in 3rd ed onward.

Adding an opposed stat to BS (Stealth or Evasion ), and/or simple suppression system would have been better than just adding more models/ablative wounds to assault units.(Not to mention upping the basic movement rate and moving in all phases.to reduce the tactical maneuver in the game , making alpha strike issues worse!)

And maybe if the assault units did not die in droves to unrestricted shooting, maybe we would not need them to inflict so many attacks per model to try to balance their effectiveness.But just increase the WS of models to an appropriate level to represent the effects of extra attacks ?

EG max unit size 20 models, and all attacks in assault roll 1 dice per model , but the WS of assault units is better, and we use a table with more than just 3 results to hit in close combat...

I find it quite amusing that all elements of poor game development can be found in 40k.Its a sort of go to rule set to show people what not to do.

Lanrak wrote:
I find it quite amusing that all elements of poor game development can be found in 40k.Its a sort of go to rule set to show people what not to do.

And deservedly so, for prioritizing sale of total number of models over playability.

It's weird to see one of the most successful wargames be called a "go to rule set to show people what not to do." What's not to do is all the stuff that defunct, unsuccessful, and never-successful games require people to do.

Popular doesn't equal good.

McDonald's is very popular. Not particularly good, though.

Bad can be successful and influential. Entertainment media is full of this.

It's kind of like saying the Kardashians should be role models because they are "successful".

This is sort of a cross-post from my other topic but it is relevant as it deals with different ways to utilize dice.

In our play-testing with a new playgroup we encountered an issue that has not been until now. Most of the testers we've been playing with have been miniatures gamers or at least those that have had experience with miniatures games. This new group was mostly board gamers, some TCG players but have had no real experience with miniatures games. They unfortunately had trouble with one of the basic concepts when dealing with Head to Head roll-offs. When there are multiple units that are acting at the same time, there is a contested roll that is made by both players to see how the actions resolve.

For an example we'll say the following players had two characters with the following attributes:
Player A - Ranged: 6, Physical: 7
Player B - Ranged: 7, Physical: 4

The base to hit number a player wants to roll greater than or equal in order to succeed is based on their skill they are using. Then if there are any modifiers, depending on range or abilities, they would modify the target to succeed. For simplicity we'll say there are no modifiers in play.

The active Player A is shooting at Player B, so he would be rolling 4d10 trying to roll a 6 and higher to succeed based on his Ranged skill. The reactive Player B decides to respond by shooting back so would roll 2d10 trying to roll a 7 or higher to succeed. Both players roll their dice, first determining how many success were rolled.

Player A rolled 4, 2, 7, 9
Player B rolled 3, 8

The results 3 and 4 don't succeed so we ignore them. That leaves Player A with 2 successes and Player B with with 1 success. We determine if any results cancel each other. Successful rolls higher than the other players success could cancel them out. Starting with the lowest success, Player A's 7 is canceled by Player B's 8. Then Player A's 9 cancels out Player B's 8 resulting in Player A scoring one hit against Player B. Player B would roll an armor save to determine if he takes a wound or not.

Player A rolled 4, 2, 3, 8
Player B rolled 3, 8

The results 2, 3, 4, and 4 are not successes so we ignore them. Player A and Player B both have an 8, since none is higher than the other they do not cancel and are both considered a hit. Player A ends up shooting Player B with one hit and vice versa. They both now roll an armor save to determine if they take a wound or not.

Trying New Things

You should never be afraid to try out new mechanics or attempt to simplify things. The issues we had resulted in a discussion about whether we to simply try to explain it better and make the rules clearer with examples or if we should change the mechanics for those situations. Ultimately we have to decide do the rules still meet the requirements for our game.

In one aspect for miniature gamers it should be fairly initiative and easy to transition too. After doing it a few times it is easy to get the hang of it. However do we hurt ourselves by simply accepting that instead of finding a new solution. The end result was us testing a new mechanic to simplify things and streamline them a bit more.

We have been trying to stay away from custom dice but this made us revisit a design we had tabled early on. Taking a page from XWing and are utilizing 2 different sets of dice, we created Red d10 for attack dice and Blue d10 for defense dice. This does mean we have to change some of the attributes.

For an example we'll say the following players had two characters with the following attributes:
Player A - Ranged: 4, Physical: 5
Player B - Ranged: 5, Physical: 2

The active Player A is shooting at Player B, so he would be rolling 4d10 attack dice. The reactive Player B can choose to dodge with 2d10 blue defense dice (physical trait) or attack with 2d10 red attack dice (ranged / 2). He chooses to also use attack dice. Modifiers now operate a bit differently, instead of modifiers changing the 'target to hit' it could subtract or add dice to their base dice pool. So if Player A was in optimum range, he might be rolling 5d10 instead. For the example though we'll assume no modifiers are applied.

Player A rolled 1 shield, 1 energized, 2 hits
Player B rolled 1 shield, 1 energized

Immediately there is no checking to hit or having to figure out which success is higher than another. It is immediate to see 2 successful hits. This does change mechanics a bit. For example Player B has a psionic ability, "Premonition" which previously would let him reroll a failed roll. In this aspect we modified it to utilize the "energized" dice facing, which he can use to change the results of one of the hits to something else. He couldn't utilize it to change a critical hit though.

We still haven't decided if we'll be switching to that. There are pro's and con's by doing it. It however does provide other ways to apply mechanics like how to do something 'else' with Psionics without it simply being a buff/debuff or an attack power. Trying to find the right balance of dice, what is on each facing will also be a new thing for us.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I believe it has meaning, I do not like systems that spiral out of control, for example in 40k each action usually is a single dice or two, but the units performing the action can be 30 models spiraling out of control.

I much prefer to have limits on what happens, should the design break such limits? maybe if there is a good excuse, but setting limits really helps.

If you want to say 'this is the limit, except when there's a reason it isn't the limit' then you haven't got a limit, you've just got a vague rule and an acknowledgement that other factors are also important. Which is what I'm saying.

And the issue with 40K has already been addressed - the problem is that large buckets of dice are needed very often, and often for rolls that are quite meaningless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Exactly. The designer should have an idea of what makes a good game, and how their game should play. If the concept is buckets of dice, fine, but that's not something I find desirable. I want smaller, more meaningful die rolls, where randomness actually matters.

It isn't 'buckets of dice' or 'minimal dice in every roll'. It's 'increasing the dice rolled increases the time to actually resolve an action, but they can be fun and give a feeling of importance to a roll, and as such design can use increasing dice numbers to good effect, but you should be wary about needing lots of dice too often'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Popular doesn't equal good.

McDonald's is very popular. Not particularly good, though.

Sure, but when sales tell such a massive lesson, maybe people need to start realising that there is a lot more going on that whatever is trendy in 'good' game design right now. In McDonald's case the hamburger isn't good, but they still sell because branding, convenience, price, speed and loads of other things also matter.

GW and their games are the same. I've played 40k since 2nd ed and it's never been a good system, the problems change from edition to edition, but there has always been a lot of them. And yet the player base for 40K dwarfs other games. It's easy to dismiss that, but it's far more interesting and far more useful to talk about why. And from there it's even easier to dismiss it as people following the best sales techniques, and maybe even use the term 'sheeple'. But that doesn't explain it, because GW has made great games (Bloodbowl, Epic) and they never established player bases like 40K.

This shouldn't lead to a conclusion that the game system doesn't matter. But it should hopefully help people put game design in to its proper context, that it isn't the only thing, or even the most important thing in people's gaming experience.

The reasons for somethings success are many varied and complicated, any success story taken in isolation feels weird, GW and 40k is not were it is simply because people love it so much and its current falling status is not because people simply abandon it now (?).

A short brief on GWs success is that they had the only sci fi product in the market for a long time and their competitors died by themselves either because of bad luck like target/ heardbreaker or incompetence like I-kor, whoever made Vor , white wolf aberrant, DP9, red R ectr. a company that is unchallenged for more than a decade has an advantage nobody else will ever has, their relative decline now is because of the competition and their slow decline is part because their customers are heavily invested through the decades in them, people not trusting new companies after the Rackham fiasco and of course the fluff of 40k that despite the horrendous mishandling it is still exciting for many people.

Rules were never their strong point and I never heard somebody playing 40k or fantasy for the rules and balance of the game, does this prove a strong theme and models will sell a game regardless of the rules system incompetence? I don't think so GW's case was unique and when they were competing with warzone GWs design studio had an unprecedented effort to fix 2nd edition with numerous errata, FAQ game changing rules alterations, apologies and even a free codex space marines in the white dwarf to make them playable.

On the limits, I did not mean that "hey this are the design limits and these are the cases we break them" I mean these ARE the design limits and if something breaks them its a unique case that makes it even more special.

Perhaps this success =/= Sales is good for another thread, but I can't resist it!

There are five retail motivators that is the root of why people buy:

1. Save Money
2. Save Time
3. Convenience
4. Status
5. Security

The more you appeal to, the better your sales.

GW provides 3, 4, and 5 respectively and possibly 2 with their store set-up and popularity alone compared to other games. You could easily argue that these motivators have been eroded, but they were a big factor of their rise.

Indy Games really only provide 4 and possibly 2.

I would say most other games companies have the benefit of 1,2,and 3.(Most Internet stores are as good if not better than GW plc online store.)
Apologies if this is not what you meant.

With 1 being a big factor in people turning away from 40k, A.O.S.

GW also had the benefit of being one of the first big fantasy and sci-fi wargame companies. Much like D&D, an early flawed entry is better than nothing! Also, GW has always relied on setting and miniatures to push a fairly mediocre rules set. Much like McDonald's, the consistency of the product across locations is a big strength. Now faced with increased niche competition, GW seems to be struggling.

But all of this is business analysis, not game design, and the two shouldn't be conflated.

Agree. That should be a different thread in Dakka discussions.

In reading a few osprey Rulesets, I have come across something called an Average Dice? it is a d6 with the 1 and 6 removed and replaced with a 2 and a 5 I believe.

Has anyone ever used this dice before? If so, how and why was it used in the game.

"Average Die" suggests 2-3-3-4-4-5, not 2-2-3-4-5-5.

The Average Die is 2-3-3-4-4-5 as stated by JohnHwangDD.

Pairs of average dice were used in WRG Ancients to roll morale tests for regular as opposed to irregular troops. You counted one die as plus and the other as minus. This gave regulars a steadier and more predictable performance compared to the +1d6 -1d6 of irregulars.

I can't remember if they were also used for rolling combat. I can check tonight if you're particularly interested.

Some other games have used them, including WRG's Renaissance rules that are based on the Ancients rules.

I have seen them referenced now in Honours of War and A World Aflame.

Interesting as that pushes the scale to something more like rolling 2d6, but over a compressed range.

Yeah. It is almost like rolling edge dice: -,-,0,0,+,+ or =,-,0,0,+,#.