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.

I propose that random dice are way too random. if you have a single shot d6 dmg weapon cool or a D6 shot d1 dmg weapon ok(i.e. missile launcher). but there are some weapons that the range is so large what is the point of using them? unless that is pretty much the only option you have.

Take the necrons doomsday ark for example. A menacing vehicle from lore is rendered a roulette roll of stats for its weapon. you get either d6 shots with d3 dmg which ranges from 1dmg to a max of 18, or d6 shots with d6 dmg which again starts at 1dmg and goes till 36 dmg. will you win the lottery today or will the dice just give out?

another one for example the volcano lance for imp knights is d6 shots for 3d3 dmg which gets you between 3dmg and 27 dmg.

this makes reliable tactical plays unreliable because you cannot use the "average" to estimate in your game at that time that "average" is what you will get. you're rolling dice. its already hard enough when you have solid stat lines to help you determine i need to commit X% of my shooting to effectively be competitive in this game instead of being stomped. with random variables which is mostly unfun or meh, the random spikes of yay, make estimating this kind of play almost impossible.

so take rolling dice for example , your dice will roll differently depending on what surface you roll on, what the temperature is, what the humidity is , what dice you are using that day, what kind of wind there is either from A/Cs or breathing, the way you throw it, the way its orientated in your hand, the power you throw it at, the angle, how much dust is in the air/surface, how much you sweat, how much residue like skin oil is on your hand. there are so many things that make rolling dice already random.

I would propose that first off either the roll of shots or the roll of dmg is random not both.
Secondly random should still have a proponent of reliability like void lances form drukhari for example 1shot at d3+3 dmg for a total of 4 to 6 dmg. this would allow the randomness to still be in the game but take the punishment of rolling low out of the game. I would hate it if me or my opponent has a model that has a 4d6 shots to hit like the Wyvern quad stormshard mortor and he just rolls 1,1,2,4 or similar because that is "below" average where average would have been around 14 or so shots not 8 that still have to roll to hit then wound. in this case make the mortor not 4d6 but 4d3+8 so that your not over loading shots but rolling low doesn't punish you anymore. you either roll around average or roll a bit higher.

just for maths sake rolling average on a 4d6 is 14 and the curve is 52.1% to roll between 12 and 16 so if we change it to 4d3+8 yes the max lowers by 4 but the average now comes between 12 and 18 which is more reliable to calculate in games and wont punish you with a horrible "less than average roll. also think if you rolled less than average more than once in a game, at that point the model for how many points it takes should not even be playing in the game at all. this really feels bad.

this whole average for rolls thing is also only slightly reliable when you don't shoot with randomized weapons. the scientific practice of using "Averages" really only shows its head after a LOT of games. probably not even something like 100 or 1000 games, you would need more data and it would show you you have rolled average overall but not in every game. i would like it if my games looked like a level graph not a sine wave graph that ends up averaging out so that my tactical maneuvers and strategic planning actually matters more then just "luck of the dice".

Slight random damage is fine. They had it right with Lance's getting D3+d3

Yea and thats what i mean, slight randomness is fine but too much sway and unless there are no better options then that model might as well never see play. Which should effect sales also.

I prefer more randomness in general. I hate playing the game of averages, IMHO 40k needs to be the game in which the less skilled player can win with decent odds against a much more skilled players, assuming both lists are reasonably on the same level.

I'd hate to turn 40k into chess or poker, where the most skilled player wins everytime. So randomness is needed. Unfortunately current randomness isn't enough. But I'm not talking about the damage characteristic, the issue is the high number of shots/attacks and the tools to improve those. The massive dice rolling to put it bluntly.

What I love about necromunda for example is that everyone that rolls a single dice with no re-rolls. That way on the single game averages are not guaranteed at all. And that's what makes it fun.

 Blackie wrote:
I prefer more randomness in general. I hate playing the game of averages, IMHO 40k needs to be the game in which the less skilled player can win with decent odds against a much more skilled players, assuming both lists are reasonably on the same level.

I'd hate to turn 40k into chess or poker, where the most skilled player wins everytime. So randomness is needed. Unfortunately current randomness isn't enough. But I'm not talking about the damage characteristic, the issue is the high number of shots/attacks and the tools to improve those. The massive dice rolling to put it bluntly.

What I love about necromunda for example is that everyone that rolls a single dice with no re-rolls. That way on the single game averages are not guaranteed at all. And that's what makes it fun.

Roll off.
Whoever wins the roll off, wins the game.

Kinda already happening, with each new codex, D6 weapons are rarer and are being replaced with D3+3.

I don't think the Tyranid codex has a single random shot weapon with random damage.

Reducing the randomness will make he power creep worse. If everything is more consistent, then faction A is more likely to beat faction B because it is faction A instead of because of anything that happened during the game. Sure, the weaker army may roll like crud and the stronger army might roll very well, but the opposite could happen. Suddenly it's not a given that I'll lose because I field a non-optimized guard list. Makes it feel more worthwhile to bother setting up the models when there's a chance they'll actually do something (even if I still ultimately lose).

Obviously, there's an upper limit to randomness where it swings the other way and there's no point in setting up models because, regardless of what you do, the dice will determine everything, at which point you might as well roll to determine a winner.

Tyran wrote:Kinda already happening, with each new codex, D6 weapons are rarer and are being replaced with D3+3.

I don't think the Tyranid codex has a single random shot weapon with random damage.

Yep. This. I think most players and GW agree with you, FunkAztec, but this is a problem that seems to already be getting solved. The dark lance being a fantastic example of a too-random weapon getting adjusted to be less random in a relatively recent book.

DeadliestIdiot wrote:Reducing the randomness will make he power creep worse. If everything is more consistent, then faction A is more likely to beat faction B because it is faction A instead of because of anything that happened during the game. Sure, the weaker army may roll like crud and the stronger army might roll very well, but the opposite could happen. Suddenly it's not a given that I'll lose because I field a non-optimized guard list. Makes it feel more worthwhile to bother setting up the models when there's a chance they'll actually do something (even if I still ultimately lose).

Happy to be corrected, but I think you're drawing some false connections there. Decreasing randomness doesn't innately make an army better or worse. I mean, I guess you might have to split hairs on some numbers, make a Dd6 weapon do either 3 or 4 damage instead of the average 3.5, but you can generally set your stats such that the army's durability, killyness, etc. are all basically the same as before you removed the randomness.

It sounds like you're describing issues of external (faction A having an edge over faction B) balance and internal (optimized vs suboptimal IG lists) balance. Such issues are sort of separate from how random your stats are. If one faction has an especially high or low win rate, then that's a problem regardless of how random each faction's stats are. If one player's suboptimal army struggles to have a decent game because it's suboptimal, then that's probably a matter of the codex being designed with decision pitfalls in place. Which is either a problem or part of the game depending on who you ask. But again, that's either a problem or a feature regardless of how random your stats are.

The mathematically unlikely possibility of rolling hot isn't a good substitute for fixing balance issues. And also, no one is proposing getting rid of randomness entirely. You'll still potentially flub hit rolls or roll hot on saves from time to time.

Wyldhunt wrote:

Happy to be corrected, but I think you're drawing some false connections there. Decreasing randomness doesn't innately make an army better or worse. I mean, I guess you might have to split hairs on some numbers, make a Dd6 weapon do either 3 or 4 damage instead of the average 3.5, but you can generally set your stats such that the army's durability, killyness, etc. are all basically the same as before you removed the randomness.

It sounds like you're describing issues of external (faction A having an edge over faction B) balance and internal (optimized vs suboptimal IG lists) balance. Such issues are sort of separate from how random your stats are. If one faction has an especially high or low win rate, then that's a problem regardless of how random each faction's stats are. If one player's suboptimal army struggles to have a decent game because it's suboptimal, then that's probably a matter of the codex being designed with decision pitfalls in place. Which is either a problem or part of the game depending on who you ask. But again, that's either a problem or a feature regardless of how random your stats are.

The mathematically unlikely possibility of rolling hot isn't a good substitute for fixing balance issues. And also, no one is proposing getting rid of randomness entirely. You'll still potentially flub hit rolls or roll hot on saves from time to time.

I'm not linking randomness to power, I'm linking randomness to variability in outcome. For demonstration purposes, let's say there's zero randomness in the game (not that anyone is suggesting that is a good thing): if army A is more powerful than army B, then army A will always win (let's assume an equal skill level between players). By adding a random factor, the chance that army B wins increases. The greater the random factor, the greater the difference in power can be while still leaving army B the possibility of winning.

As for the suboptimal list thing, the argument I just made can be repeated for lists. Zero randomness (and same skill), List A will always win. Adding randomness opens the door for list B to win.

Side note: For clarity, by suboptimal, I don't necessarily mean bad, just not optimized...in my case, I run a 1250pt mechanized guard list with chimeras for fluff reasons. They do solid work, but the optimal list would not take them and would probably replace them with a second manticore or more troops.

I feel like rndom damage needs to be reserved for low volume of fire. Rolling 1d6 damage on a gun which shoots 2d6 shots will basically give you average all the time, becase you get enough hits that for most high rolls, you get a low roll.

But then single shot weapons need consistent damage to be worth it.

Perhaps we should instead make armour saves work against damage? Not sure how though.

DeadliestIdiot wrote:


As for the suboptimal list thing, the argument I just made can be repeated for lists. Zero randomness (and same skill), List A will always win. Adding randomness opens the door for list B to win.

True. It's also true that zero randomness (and same lists' level), most skilled player always wins. Adding randomness opens the door for the less skilled player to win.

That's why randomness is crucial for a game like 40k.

If I play against a professional poker or chess player, amateur me doesn't stand a single chance. If I play against a top rated 40k player I feel like there's much more room for me to win the game, thanks to randomness and that's a good thing. Although current game already works in order to favor all those combinations that severely reduce randomness, and against that top rated 40k player I still don't have the chances I'd like to have.

Y'all want MORE randomness? Yikes. GW would like you, though.

Random number of shot weapons were a mistake on low BS units.

Heavy weapons in general should deal a set amount of flat damage and some degree of random damage.

The flat damage is so that they can actually be a threat against their intended targets and be threats.

The random damage is to add a certain level of uncertainty to it's effectiveness so that vehicles and monsters don't just get dunked on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

DeadliestIdiot wrote:


As for the suboptimal list thing, the argument I just made can be repeated for lists. Zero randomness (and same skill), List A will always win. Adding randomness opens the door for list B to win.

True. It's also true that zero randomness (and same lists' level), most skilled player always wins. Adding randomness opens the door for the less skilled player to win.

That's why randomness is crucial for a game like 40k.

If I play against a professional poker or chess player, amateur me doesn't stand a single chance. If I play against a top rated 40k player I feel like there's much more room for me to win the game, thanks to randomness and that's a good thing. Although current game already works in order to favor all those combinations that severely reduce randomness, and against that top rated 40k player I still don't have the chances I'd like to have.

On the flip side, completely removing skill would make for a fairly shallow game, something that 40k is suffering from.
Might as well just remove the models and terrain entirely and generate random numbers all game.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Y'all want MORE randomness? Yikes. GW would like you, though.

I certainly never said anything about MORE randomness..although in truth, I find Tempest of War to be a far more interesting and fun way to play than the standard GT setup and I do think more of that kind of randomness would be great (now I've said more randomness). The rest of the randomness feels like it's at a fairly decent level (ain't no level of randomness going to bridge the power creep we've seen in 9th).

(Also GW would love me a lot more if I were actually to purchase any models ... I play on TTS)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:


On the flip side, completely removing skill would make for a fairly shallow game, something that 40k is suffering from.
Might as well just remove the models and terrain entirely and generate random numbers all game.

Oh, there is definitely a sweet spot to be found on the amount of randomness.

 Blackie wrote:
IMHO 40k needs to be the game in which the less skilled player can win with decent odds against a much more skilled players, assuming both lists are reasonably on the same level.

That sounds awful. The better player should win the vast majority of the time against the worst player. Otherwise you aren't playing a wargame, you're playing a coin flip game with a lot of extra steps. It's already too easy for a terrible player to beat a good player just based on faction and list. There are thousands of games out there where randomness is the sole determinant of who wins. If that's what you want, go play one. I don't think those games should have any overlap or crossover with tabletop wargames where the entire point is strategy and mitigating the randomness.

 Blackie wrote:

If I play against a professional poker or chess player, amateur me doesn't stand a single chance. If I play against a top rated 40k player I feel like there's much more room for me to win the game, thanks to randomness and that's a good thing.

If that's what you want, why are you playing a tactical wargame? Also, historically "make it more random so that noobs can beat great players" is a perfect way to kill your game. Experienced players WANT to have an advantage because that's how games of SKILL are supposed to work. 40k is not a game of chance. Again, there are literally thousands of games of chance in existence and many are free so I wonder why you even play 40k. Why not coin flip simulator 40000? Or blindfolded darts challenge? Or those free roulette games on your phone. Personally I didn't spend 25 years playing this game, learning every faction, memorizing rules and mission sets, to play freemium coin flip simulator megahappyfungame. Skill should be the primary factor in who wins, like it is in chess, backgammon, poker, any sport, or the most popular esports.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Y'all want MORE randomness? Yikes. GW would like you, though.

Where's randomness in 40k? With the massed dice rolling and all the tools to enhance or even flat out fix the results there's not much randomness currently. Something like the Hammered might be quite random (and in fact I like it) but it's an exception.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:


On the flip side, completely removing skill would make for a fairly shallow game, something that 40k is suffering from.
Might as well just remove the models and terrain entirely and generate random numbers all game.

Absolutely, nobody said that. But having chance to win for the less skilled player against a most skilled one is a good thing and prevents the game from being gatekeeping. In what percentages should luck matter? 20% 30% 40% I don't know, all numbers are good IMHO. Still better than chess where there's 0% chance that a much skilled player can lose the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Toofast wrote:


That sounds awful. The better player should win the vast majority of the time against the worst player. Otherwise you aren't playing a wargame, you're playing a coin flip game with a lot of extra steps. It's already too easy for a terrible player to beat a good player just based on faction and list. There are thousands of games out there where randomness is the sole determinant of who wins. If that's what you want, go play one. I don't think those games should have any overlap or crossover with tabletop wargames where the entire point is strategy and mitigating the randomness.

Again, hyperbole. Re-read my post .

Toofast wrote:

If that's what you want, why are you playing a tactical wargame? Also, historically "make it more random so that noobs can beat great players" is a perfect way to kill your game. Experienced players WANT to have an advantage because that's how games of SKILL are supposed to work. 40k is not a game of chance. Again, there are literally thousands of games of chance in existence and many are free so I wonder why you even play 40k. Why not coin flip simulator 40000? Or blindfolded darts challenge? Or those free roulette games on your phone. Personally I didn't spend 25 years playing this game, learning every faction, memorizing rules and mission sets, to play freemium coin flip simulator megahappyfungame. Skill should be the primary factor in who wins, like it is in chess, backgammon, poker, any sport, or the most popular esports.

Lol, this is amazing. Is is really down to either coin flip game or game with no randomness at all? I agree that skill should be primary factor in who wins, but not the ONLY factor. The best players should win more on average, but the noob should have some chance. In game with really tiny amount of randomness this can't happen. Otherwise why even bothering playing a 2-3 hour long game that is already decided before positioning the models? If randomness matters for 20% or 30% or even 40% skill would still be the primary factor in who wins. My feeling is that in the current 40k randomness matters for 5 to 10% at most.

An example, take Necromunda. In that game most models fire single shots with no chance to re-roll. Which means in the long run we still have the averages but in the single game results might be extremely swingy. That makes the game much more unpredictable and fun. It is possible to deviate from averages when your turn consists in 5-6 dudes firing single shots at BS3+ with no re-rolls, but you get the exact expected results when your turn consists in 200+ shots fired at BS3+ with plenty of tools to enhance the results. Less dice rolling and less ways to fix the results is all I'm asking to increase randomness, which is exactly what we had in older editions. Not to reduce everything to a coin flip. Who am I, Harvey "Two-Face" Dent?

And who said I want to play a tactical wargame? Do you consider 40k as such? I don't. And I definitely wouldn't want 40k to be something like chess, backgammon, poker, any sport or the most popular esports.

Toofast wrote:


If that's what you want, why are you playing a tactical wargame? Also, historically "make it more random so that noobs can beat great players" is a perfect way to kill your game. Experienced players WANT to have an advantage because that's how games of SKILL are supposed to work. 40k is not a game of chance. Again, there are literally thousands of games of chance in existence and many are free so I wonder why you even play 40k. Why not coin flip simulator 40000? Or blindfolded darts challenge? Or those free roulette games on your phone. Personally I didn't spend 25 years playing this game, learning every faction, memorizing rules and mission sets, to play freemium coin flip simulator megahappyfungame. Skill should be the primary factor in who wins, like it is in chess, backgammon, poker, any sport, or the most popular esports.

The reverse argument can be made just as easily (i.e., "why are you playing this game? Go play chess if you want to it to be all about the skill...heck you can even use 40k minis for the pieces"). It's completely beside the point and ignores a key item that draws people to the game (at least it's what draws me in): the fluff.

Back to the point at hand the desired level of randomness (for me, and I strongly suspect others) isn't to make skill worthless (just as you don't seem to want it to be slightly more skill = autowin), it's about giving a less skilled opponent a chance. And, before you ask, it's also not about letting an infant, who accidentally scatters a pile of dice, curbstomp a top ranked tournament player

Deleted

I like a little randomness as the friction that makes playing the game interesting.

There's definitely a balance.
I quite like Necromunda's randomness. But what I also like about Necromunda's dice is things feel punchy and decisive. It's a few dice and they're almost always going to have some effect.

40k rarely has that. Any dice you roll in 40k feels like an absolute slog. You're rolling, then rolling, then rolling again, and again, full handfuls of dice and at the end of it it's like "damn, two guys died, brutal". Just... wtf am I rolling dice for?
I've really been enjoying my Tau railgun because there's that crunch, that impact, back in there.

What 40k needs is for dice to feel like they matter.

You're asking to have the cake and eat it too.

While I agree there are certainly a "sweet spot" for randomness, it should be strictly limited to lower rate of fire weapons only. Even then, the effect shouldn't be over the top and look something like d3+1/2 - something that puts the weapon closer to its average expected value rather than increasing its chance to hit at max value.

In the OP's examples, any weapon that's more or less designed as "weapon of mass destruction" shouldn't be improved as to "increase the guarantee" of causing massive destruction - it's an incredibly poor mechanic for any kind of game whether it be chance based or skill based.

Once a big bad unit can guarantee big bad damage to a your big bad unit, then it causes you to take even more big bad units to counter your opponents' big bad unit that can cause even more big bad damage before your opponent has time to deal such big bad damage, and in turn the opponents will need to bring more big bad units to counter your big bad units so they can kill your big bad units before your big bad units can kill their big bad units. Then we're back to square one with knights-or-mathematically-unwipable-horde-army meta.

 skchsan wrote:
You're asking to have the cake and eat it too.

While I agree there are certainly a "sweet spot" for randomness, it should be strictly limited to lower rate of fire weapons only. Even then, the effect shouldn't be over the top and look something like d3+1/2 - something that puts the weapon closer to its average expected value rather than increasing its chance to hit at max value.

In the OP's examples, any weapon that's more or less designed as "weapon of mass destruction" shouldn't be improved as to "increase the guarantee" of causing massive destruction - it's an incredibly poor mechanic for any kind of game whether it be chance based or skill based.

Once a big bad unit can guarantee big bad damage to a your big bad unit, then it causes you to take even more big bad units to counter your opponents' big bad unit that can cause even more big bad damage before your opponent has time to deal such big bad damage, and in turn the opponents will need to bring more big bad units to counter your big bad units so they can kill your big bad units before your big bad units can kill their big bad units. Then we're back to square one with knights-or-mathematically-unwipable-horde-army meta.

I have suggested it multiple times across multiple threads on how to fix the issue

you might expand this to other armies but guard specifically it should work like this
Any weapon that has xd6 number of shots, when rolling to determine the number of shots, results of 1 and 2 are doubled
Any weapon that has xd3 number of shots, when rolling to determine the number of shots, results of 1 are doubled.

That will bring the average up a lot, because no matter what, when you lob over some massive artillery canon, or some turbo laser destroyer and you roll nothing but ones for number of shots, that never feels good, tahts never fun, for anyone involved. Controlling player it feels like crap because you paid all these points to have it wiff, being shot at feels lame because you basically did not even really need to weather anything, the big destroyer weapon was a pop gun.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I have suggested it multiple times across multiple threads on how to fix the issue

you might expand this to other armies but guard specifically it should work like this
Any weapon that has xd6 number of shots, when rolling to determine the number of shots, results of 1 and 2 are doubled
Any weapon that has xd3 number of shots, when rolling to determine the number of shots, results of 1 are doubled.

That will bring the average up a lot, because no matter what, when you lob over some massive artillery canon, or some turbo laser destroyer and you roll nothing but ones for number of shots, that never feels good, tahts never fun, for anyone involved. Controlling player it feels like crap because you paid all these points to have it wiff, being shot at feels lame because you basically did not even really need to weather anything, the big destroyer weapon was a pop gun.

Why are we talking about number of shots roll? Random number of shots represent the old scatter mechanic and it should remain as is.

The whole point of scatter mechanics is so that you risk hitting many times at the cost of accuracy.

Becasue the random number of shots replaced the scatter but also made it harder to hit.

Previously anything under a template was just hit, now you roll to get number of hits, and then roll to hit, then roll to wound, then roll to save.
Vs
Roll to scatter (With a 33% chance to directly hit, and 2d6 -bs on scatter to potentially also not miss) roll to wound, roll to save.

That random mechanic they added had horrible effects becuase it made you need to roll to hit for templates now.

Didn't they make flamer weapons autohits at least?
Blast should have also been autohit really, or you roll a single die to hit first and then roll a random number of hits instead of rolling a number of hits and rolling those hits.

At least if you miss in the former case you wouldn't have to bother going to the second step. Should streamline things a little.

Blasts being autohits would make filthy orks (and ig) great at shooting, so of course we couldn’t have that.

The game ain't random enough for me, in fact it's entirely too predictable. Too many dice are used, and the more dice you roll, the less luck plays a part. We don't want it so the dice don't matter, surely? Reckon the game should be about 30% luck, 70% skill. Right now it's 90% skill, imo.

 PaddyMick wrote:
The game ain't random enough for me, in fact it's entirely too predictable. Too many dice are used, and the more dice you roll, the less luck plays a part. We don't want it so the dice don't matter, surely? Reckon the game should be about 30% luck, 70% skill. Right now it's 90% skill, imo.

Scaling waaaaay back on the amount of rerolling that cam happen would be a nice start (and it would make the turns go faster...which seems to be important to people)

I mean, the game does take what, 3-4 hours to resolve at 2k points? That's pretty nuts.

In 4th ed that was like apocalypse level of duration.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I mean, the game does take what, 3-4 hours to resolve at 2k points? That's pretty nuts.

In 4th ed that was like apocalypse level of duration.

And that was with having to spend all that time adjusting all your models to be perfectly spaced to minimize template damage