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.

That only applies to linear examples. 2d10 is less swingy than 1d6.

Is it? 1d6 has a swing of 5. 2d10 has a swing of 18. Swing has nothing to do with averages. Swing is the difference between the lowest possible value and the highest possible value.

For example, a Damage value of 2 has no swing. There is no difference between the lowest and highest number. You will ALWAYS deal 2 damage when this weapon wounds a target. A Damage value of D3 has a swing of 2. You could deal 1 damage. Or 2. Or 3. A Damage value of 2d10 has a swing of 18. You could roll 2 1s. You could roll 2 10s. Or you could roll anything between those values.

Yes, the average WILL be higher than 2d6. But the swing will also be larger. And, on a personal level, I'd be far more upset rolling 2 1s on 2d10 than I would be rolling 2 1s on 2d6, both because it's far less likely and also because that means a lost more damage from the average (2d6 loses 5 damage, if you snake eyes, 2d10 loses 9).

In what frame?

2d10 is more likely to vary by 5 or more than 1d6 is. 2d10 is much less likely to roll in the top 16% or bottom 16% of values than 1d6 is.

While it does normalize, the larger scale means you must apply a wider range.

You could flatten the range of 2d10 after rolling for normalization (replacing 2d6 with something like (2d10)*(6/19), I think). That would give you a less swingy implementation in both meanings.

It'd also be incredibly wonky.

I'm assuming that's in agreement to my point. Course, we haven't addressed the "chances" of getting a particular value, in which 2d10 will have a smaller chance of getting a 2 or a 20 than 2d6 will have of getting a 2 or a 12 (1 in 100 vs 1 in 36), or the former will have to get an 11 (1 in 10) and the latter to get a 7 (1 in 6). But (and I'm no mathematician) I'm relatively certain the "chances" for each option remain constant. Ie: 1 in 6 chance of rolling average versus a 1 in 10 chance of rolling average would be about the same after you account for the additional numbers on the larger dice.

In the end, you just spread out the bell curve. This solves exactly 1 problem (modifiers on rolls), and introduces at least 2 more (inexact conversions for units that aren't currently hitting, wounding, or saving on 4s, and a wider range of swing). There's a better solution than bumping up the dice. Just make the Ork rule of DDD (always hit on unmodified 6s) a universal rule. That's a whole lot simpler than changing the entire rulebook for a new dice, and it sort of has precedence in that unmodified rolls of 1 always miss.

 flandarz wrote:
Me? Of course I do. I specifically said "the average will be better". 2d6 shots has an average of 7, while 2d10 has an average of 11. All you did was stretch out the bell curve, and what I'm saying is that it'll make the disparity between the lowest values and the highest values much greater. Which makes games more swingy. Obviously this doesn't apply to everything. Save rolls, for example, (assuming GW shifts them to meet the new numbers) will likely be largely unchanged (4+ becomes a 6+). This is specifically in regards to number of shots, damage, and other things which aren't just "pass or fail".

4+ does not become 6+ if you want to maintain the same averages. It becomes 7+.

6+ is 11+
5+ is 9+
4+ is 7+
3+ is 5+
2+ is 3+

Isn't abandoning the percentages the point people are aiming for with going to 2d6? So that it's more "normalized"?

A 4+ is a 50% chance to hit on a 1d6 (1, 2, and 3 are misses; 4, 5 and 6 are hits). So, tell me, what number would allow you a 50% chance to hit on 1d10? Pretty sure it'd be 6+(1, 2 ,3, 4, and 5 are misses; 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are hits). Unless you wanna do the 0-9 style instead, which just opens up a whole new bag of worms.

Also, how exactly are you planning to roll an 11+ on a die that only goes to 10?

He's talking 2d6, not 1d10. There is no 1, and there's surely an 11 (and 12).

That said, a 7+ is not a 50/50. 2d[N] doesn't have a "4+" equivalent - it has a single middle term (7 for 2d6) instead of two equally middle terms (3 and 4 on 1d6).

 flandarz wrote:
Course, we haven't addressed the "chances" of getting a particular value

And that's what you're missing. 1D10 is very swingy because the odds of the extreme ends are equal to the odds of the middle. 2D6 is much less swingy because the extreme ends are pushed down in probability in favor of a more consistent middle. It's not about the difference between the smallest and largest values, it's about how often you see the outliers relative to average results. And the more dice you roll to get a single result the more consistent and predictable they will be.

 flandarz wrote:
A 4+ is a 50% chance to hit on a 1d6 (1, 2, and 3 are misses; 4, 5 and 6 are hits). So, tell me, what number would allow you a 50% chance to hit on 1d10? Pretty sure it'd be 6+(1, 2 ,3, 4, and 5 are misses; 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are hits). Unless you wanna do the 0-9 style instead, which just opens up a whole new bag of worms.

Also, how exactly are you planning to roll an 11+ on a die that only goes to 10?

Ah my bad. I thought we were still talking the granularity added in apoc with the d12s. Misread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also yes. 2 dice allow for a bellcurve which tightens up the middle but does still create a broader extremes which does result in more swingyness. Not more often, but to greater extremes when it does happen.

@Pere: No, I know that. The statement was "40k should move to a D10 system. My entire argument was about how a D10 is inherently more swingy than a D6. Sure, it widens the rolls out, but it makes things far more swingy. Is this not what everyone was talking about?

Advantage and disadvantage mechanic(like in rpg) on some rolls with other type of die might be cool. Eg units in cover get advantage on to hit or save rolls or somin
.

Biggest issue i see with any other dice/dice mechanic changes that might be cool is when you have to make like 50+ dice rolls for some chaff...

My biggest gripe with current edition is all of the re-rolls/ auras..
I dont like the fact that lumping an entire army tight as possible as a tactic... it really breakes imersion for me.

Youre going to tightly pack all your men in one spot? Thanks! *Fires biggest missle into the middle of all the guys..*

I mean it does makes sense if they are under a forcefield given off by a mech or somin. So its a high risk high reward situation as youd target that model so would make sense.

At the mo you you end up with silly conga lines all over the shop

 flandarz wrote:
Me? Of course I do. I specifically said "the average will be better". 2d6 shots has an average of 7, while 2d10 has an average of 11. All you did was stretch out the bell curve, and what I'm saying is that it'll make the disparity between the lowest values and the highest values much greater. Which makes games more swingy. Obviously this doesn't apply to everything. Save rolls, for example, (assuming GW shifts them to meet the new numbers) will likely be largely unchanged (4+ becomes a 6+). This is specifically in regards to number of shots, damage, and other things which aren't just "pass or fail".

Die rolls don't HAVE a bell curve. Each number only a single chance of being rolled, thus there is no averages at all beyond the naked 16.67% chance each facing has. Bell curves are achieved by rolling dice for a single value which results in a curve of the chance of numbers to land. Die are unreliable, Dice produce consistent results.

https://anydice.com/

flandarz wrote:Just remember that a larger die means more swingy rolls too. Sure, 2d10 sounds great until you roll snake eyes. The average *will* improve, obviously, but the difference between double 10s and double 1s will be a lot larger.

Running with this, why would that be so bad? I feel as though we as 40k players are too used to (maybe even spoilt towards) destroying the consistency/probability to the point where you just have to "win the die roll" so you get to shoot your unit first. Take my earlier Oblitorator example, With a few buffs I can make that unit practically unmissable with its shots. Taking away so much probability takes away the risk/reward factor and can dull the game down heavily. Sure it would suck if you rolled a double one on 2D10 however that to me is no different to rolling a 1 on a D6 or in a different game only doing one point of damage on a Warjack in WM/H. The sucky feeling is just the same, but just part of any game when rolling dice.

Bharring wrote:Isn't abandoning the percentages the point people are aiming for with going to 2d6? So that it's more "normalized"?

The issue 40k has currently is why bother having "normal" when you can have better. Like my earlier examples in my OP, why rely on the strength of a unit when you can buff it to the point where it cannot fail or failure is so rare that it's a mythical example. We as 40k players have totally forgot about risk/reward in favour of making sure that our units just work like Mary Sues as long as we win the first turn on our games.

Just because this was a larger point of discussion in the earlier pages of this thread, I wanted to mention that I made a thread for an improved Weapon Skill System in the proposed rule subsection...for dicsussing it is nice and important, but I wanted to propose an actual solution that could be used in homebrew games. Because let's be honest, GW will never go back to a more immersive system after the direction they took in 8th ed. I'd be thankful for any input

 flandarz wrote:
@Pere: No, I know that. The statement was "40k should move to a D10 system. My entire argument was about how a D10 is inherently more swingy than a D6. Sure, it widens the rolls out, but it makes things far more swingy. Is this not what everyone was talking about?

If you want to move to D10, you also have to address the following issue:

D10 are simply bigger than D6 which makes rolling a lot of them at once difficult. You´ll either need to change the rules to abolish circumstances which need the players to roll tons of dice or find a manufacturer which provides much smaller D10 dice.

D10s are also not symmetrical unless you go with the old style D20's labelled 0-9 twice.

I have a couple of those dice, actually.

 flandarz wrote:
I have a couple of those dice, actually.

Yeah but i have rolled 60ish dice for one units attacks before. Hell termagants with devourers are shooting 90. Whos got 90 d20s in a minature size?

No, I agree. I was just mentioning that I have those 0-9 D20. I think the current D6 system is fine.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
D10s are also not symmetrical unless you go with the old style D20's labelled 0-9 twice.

They're symmetrical in every way that matters.