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.

A big part for me of why MESBG feels a vastly better game is that no matter what you generally get to act before you get murdered, so by the time you come to move your first model you will not have lost a good chunk of your army

I think something alluded to by others also helps here, weapon ranges are low compared to table size - one or other side generally has to move before anything fires (and stuff that moves doesn't shoot as effectively) so no wipe outs on the first turn.

see also Team Yankee & Flame of War 4th, basically the same game system with minor changes but TY is vastly more lethal simply due to much longer weapon ranges that cross the board - and while FoW has such weapons it tends to be artillery and thats about it - tanks can reach over the no mans land but still quite easy to deploy out of range

in 40k you simply do not have that semi-rear area thats reasonably safe until the enemy moves up

when they wrote 8th, and indeed again with 10th 40k they could have done a lot worse than pick up MESBG and give it a new cover as a core system. the way it handles characters especially is vastly better, and it would not have been too hard to bring in squads/units who remain together and are targeted as a single "thing" to avoid slowing down shooting individual models

Sometimes I think that the majority of GW DT all went to soviet era military schools, and that to them w40k is some sort of a historical game, where the tables are often so big that you have pupiles going under tables or use cranes to move above tables, just to move models. And that everyone plays with 20000pts per side with sub generals, generals, refs and maybe even some RPG elements. Artilery in w40k, on w40k tables, should be use the same way artilery is used right now at point blank range, either as so-so anti tank or in city fights to level buildings. And not this LoS shoting. A basilisk or Manticore to shot at something quarter of a football field away, and outside of LoS, would have to shot at almost a 90 degree elevation

Klickor wrote:

MESBG does it a lot better in this regard. You alternate the phases so you don't have to wait the entire turn until you get to do something. Models also only get 1 move per turn in most situations and they can in most circumstances only do 1 out of shooting or fighting in each turn. Models that have been charged are locked into combat for that turn as well. This massively reduces the time each turn takes and allows the game to be played for many many turns.

Iirc aswell, with the original lotr sbg, there was a limit on how many doods could be equipped with ranged weapons - one in three if I remember right? Unless that has changed?

It helped a lot to dent the alpha strike.

Always liked sbg. Simple, elegant intuitive system. I love the dynamic roll-off in the fighting, much prefer it to 40k/wmh's taking turns to hit each other over the head. (On a complete tangent as an intellectual exercise I'd love to see wmh rebuilt using the sbg 'engine' with focus/fury being rebuilt using 'might'.)

Yeah, for most factions it is still only 1/3 can have bows. Some get to have 50% bows and there are a few limited lists that can get 100% bows but they usually have other restrictions as well so they aren't that good anyway.

On average an Isengard Uruk with a S4 crossbow (so can't move and shoot) have a 1/6 chance to kill a standard D6 model (Minas Tirith Warriors with shield, Elves with shield, Uruk Hai with shield etc) and that is considered good shooting into a preferred target. An elf who might hit better but only have S3 with their bows (but can move with hit penalty) only have a 1/9 chance to kill the most common defensive profile in the game. So even if you could take more than 1/3 bows it wouldn't necessarily be broken.

Some scenarios have up to 24" deployment (48"x48" tables). One even forces the 2 forces to be within 6" at start of the game. In 3/18 scenarios you can enter the table at the exact same place and be just 1" away turn 1. One scenario reduces LoS to 12". So even if some lists can have really good shooting it might be dangerous to go all in on them since some scenarios have some huge downsides to them if you just want to shoot.

leopard wrote:
A big part for me of why MESBG feels a vastly better game . . .

For those of us who aren't cool, what is MESBG?

 Insectum7 wrote:

leopard wrote:
A big part for me of why MESBG feels a vastly better game . . .

For those of us who aren't cool, what is MESBG?

If text is yellow on dakka hover your mouse over it and it should show you the meaning - like a tool tip

But its the Middle Earth Strategy Battle Game

 Overread wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

leopard wrote:
A big part for me of why MESBG feels a vastly better game . . .

For those of us who aren't cool, what is MESBG?

If text is yellow on dakka hover your mouse over it and it should show you the meaning - like a tool tip

But its the Middle Earth Strategy Battle Game

No mouse on my phone.

@MESBG: Ahh, thanks!

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

leopard wrote:
A big part for me of why MESBG feels a vastly better game . . .

For those of us who aren't cool, what is MESBG?

If text is yellow on dakka hover your mouse over it and it should show you the meaning - like a tool tip

But its the Middle Earth Strategy Battle Game

No mouse on my phone.

@MESBG: Ahh, thanks!

If you're an oldie like me you'll remember it qw lord or the rings: strategy battle game

^Can confirm that I'm old enough to remember

Personally I'm pretty bored of straight IGOUGO and straight alternating.

Like IGOUGO with reactions

Like alternating with push your luck mechanics for multiple units in a row

Like "initiative based" (X-wing)

Klickor wrote:
Some scenarios have up to 24" deployment (48"x48" tables). One even forces the 2 forces to be within 6" at start of the game. In 3/18 scenarios you can enter the table at the exact same place and be just 1" away turn 1. One scenario reduces LoS to 12". So even if some lists can have really good shooting it might be dangerous to go all in on them since some scenarios have some huge downsides to them if you just want to shoot.

There were scenarios in 2nd that reduced LOS across the board due to mist, smoke, thick atmosphere, etc., and of course the game was best played with lots of terrain. It's kind of funny in light of the current state of the game, but one of the gripes was that both armies could start hidden in cover, leaving nothing to shoot at.

It's a measure of the environment in which 2nd emerged that historical miniatures games actually required spotting/detection rolls to see an enemy. This gave scouts a purpose - they could spot enemy armor and then call in the heavies.

The initiative stat in 40k reflected this, and was enhanced by scanners, bionic eyes, etc. The overall effect was that while players had a "God's Eye View," the models on the tabletop did not and this forced more maneuver and when combined with an overwatch mechanic, the game had a fair degree of back-and-forth activity.

I think a lot of players (myself included) expected 3rd to clean up some of the Rogue Trader area mechanics, finicky things like scatter for individual jump packs, enduring templates that could grow each turn, rolling for models who didn't die but remained 'on fire' and so on.

There was also the issue that many codexes had been rendered obsolete by subsequent releases. If you're an Eldar player and want to go retro, the rules for your tanks aren't in your codex; either track down a Battle Bible or the appropriate issues of White Dwarf. Some folks like 3rd, but in retrospect the biggest problem with it was that GW management realized they could make sweeping changes to rules, army composition and the feel of the game and sales actually went up.

Whatever attrition they suffered from disaffected players quitting or staying with the old system was more than made up by the increased revenue derived from larger armies composed of more expensive figures.

If you told me in 1998 that 40k would hit tenth edition faster than Fantasy, I would not only have disagreed, I would have wondered why ten editions were even necessary.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Personally I'm pretty bored of straight IGOUGO and straight alternating.

Like IGOUGO with reactions

Like alternating with push your luck mechanics for multiple units in a row

Like "initiative based" (X-wing)

I've gotten tired of IGOUGO-vs-AA-for-40K discussions because they always seem to devolve into straight IGOUGO versus straight I-pick-a-unit-you-pick-a-unit AA and debating the flaws of each, as if those bare-bones implementations are the only options.

IGOUGO with reactions is good. IGOUGO with reactions interwoven into phased activation (like Dust Warfare) is good too. IGOUGO by phase like LOTR does a good job of curtailing the alpha strike issue inherent to straight IGOUGO systems.

Straight AA with a mechanism for accounting for disparate force sizes, like Battletech, is good though it does have some 'gameable' elements. AA by formation like Epic or Apocalypse is good and gives a great sense of commanding an army.

Randomized activation order by formation like World At War/Nations At War, or by unit like Armageddon War, makes for some real nailbiter moments and does a fantastic job of implementing 'friction' without resorting to rolling dice to see if you get to act.

Fireball Forward has officers activate groups of units at a time, but you assign their activation order before any of them get to act, so you have to make a plan and then try to execute while your opponent can react and throw a wrench in things.

The activation system of a wargame is pivotal to the tactics and the overall feel of the experience- and particularly for a sci-fi setting like 40K, an opportunity to differentiate factions from one another and better represent how they each handle command and control. There's no one solution that's best for all games in all genres, but so much potential is wasted by treating it like an afterthought, and still using a system that was already being considered outdated decades ago.

Very true.

 catbarf wrote:
The activation system of a wargame is pivotal to the tactics and the overall feel of the experience- and particularly for a sci-fi setting like 40K, an opportunity to differentiate factions from one another and better represent how they each handle command and control. There's no one solution that's best for all games in all genres, but so much potential is wasted by treating it like an afterthought, and still using a system that was already being considered outdated decades ago.

There's a disconnect between the simple core mechanics of 40k and the very complex way it is executed, and this is amplified by the 'churn' that causes the same units to behave differently from edition to edition.

That's why I agree that arguments about the turn sequence are a distraction. To use a historical analogy, if the Sherman went from being a reasonably mobile fire platform to a static defense, to a high-speed strike element, people would be scratching their heads.

Within the secondary world of 40k, that's what GW had done. Weapon sponsons were originally as somewhat archaic/future look but they did actually function as indicated - a standard configuration Leman Russ worked like Plan 1919 dream tank.

Then came 3rd, and only one weapon could fire on the move (and not the main gun). If the main gun fired, the vehicle was stationary and all other gunners assumed a position of respectful repose.

So people began building sponsonless vehicles, and Imperial Armor celebrated variants that worked within the game. But then the rules changed again.

At this point, I'm not sure what any of the weapons do. Are melta weapons good for killing tanks? They were. Assault cannon used to shred vehicles, and then became only effective against light infantry. Dreadnoughts appear a lot more complicated, but does it add up to anything?

That's a bigger problem than IGOUGO, because it makes the game feel arbitrary and random.

One of the reasons I like 30k is the tank rules - sponsons do what sponsons do and make the most sense of any edition.

(Including 8th, 9th, and 10th)

More on Activations, the way many of the Two Fat Lardies games do it is interesting (Chain of command does it differently)

for example, Sharpe Practice, here you have a concept of "big men" who make a difference, your commanders, NCOs etc. each of whom gets a token in a bag - draw one at a time. not only do you have a randomised activation order but also who activates is randomised.

you can't as with some games always pick what unit will act, that perfect shot you have set up may not work for example.

they then that also combines with a melee system that roles the "overwatch" fire into the combat resolution - e.g. charge an enemy who have ready weapons and it can hurt, a lot, but charge a tired unit, or from the rear and its a lot better.

this also gives more junior characters something to do (work with lone unit detachments etc)

there is then a mechanic to activate some units at the end of the turn (which itself is random, not everyone always gets to act)

I think such a system would work well in 40k as it stands, a junior officer able to do one "thing", slightly more senior two, senior three then seriously capable leaders (rare) four

actual units activate with two actions, move, fire, charge, run etc resolved in different ways. (so you can move then fire, fire then move, double move, fire & reload, for a very few weapons fire then fire again)

the idea is that you, as the force commander, are not fully in control of every last individual in the army and you need to think carefully about command and control.

leopard wrote:
)

for example, Sharpe Practice, here you have a concept of "big men" who make a difference, your commanders, NCOs etc. each of whom gets a token in a bag - draw one at a time. not only do you have a randomised activation order but also who activates is randomised.

Honestly, I think the last thing GW games need is to put even more random on top of all the random they already have.

The only random in the core rulebook is in the kill mechanism right?

Oh and battle shock I guess.

Movement, stratagems, special rules are almost never random (rip Miracle Dice).

Chain of Command is actually *more* random than 40k and does fine with an innovative activation system.

but he made a good point why 40k does not work
because instead of designing a game, it is just a combination of random ideas that other games used on top of each other

 kodos wrote:
but he made a good point why 40k does not work
because instead of designing a game, it is just a combination of random ideas that other games used on top of each other

Personally a lot of 40ks issues can be traced back to its age, stick it against Battletech, similar vintage

Battletech today is roughly the same set of rules and it works because its roughly the same game - a small number of very detailed units slugging it out

40 today is trying to be the same set of rules, or at least feel like them, same sequence more or less, same turn structures, same buckets of dice, but while that worked when your army was one or two characters, maybe two or three squads and a vehicle, in effect a single platoon, its now trying to be a much much larger scale and the mechanics flat out don't scale up

e.g. shooting across the board was fine when you had a handful or weapons that could do it in your army, that would remove a few models, that worked, where as now you can point & click (well some factions can) units across the board so turn one matters way too much.

my point on the Sharpe Practice activations was mostly about how that system limits the amount of stuff you can do, and limits how predictably you can do it to the point you are not able to win the game just by going first, indeed in that system its entirely possible for nothing to happen in a turn, neither player activates (and then some specific effects trigger), its possible every character will activate, its also possible just one player will activate - but neither player knows it in advance so you have to play the game moment by moment

unlike 40k where you can be 100% sure which combinations of actions you can do, and because of the buckets of dice rolled be reasonably able to predict the outcomes in many cases


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cyel wrote:

leopard wrote:
)

for example, Sharpe Practice, here you have a concept of "big men" who make a difference, your commanders, NCOs etc. each of whom gets a token in a bag - draw one at a time. not only do you have a randomised activation order but also who activates is randomised.

Honestly, I think the last thing GW games need is to put even more random on top of all the random they already have.

but what is actually random when you think about it?

charge ranges? well its a 2d6 roll, you have a probability curve but its still two dice, so yes reasonably random
melee results? not really, you have say 30 attacks, thats 30 dice, you know the to hit score, thats actually reasonably predicable in statistical terms, to the point you could really do it with a single dice roll providing a +/- shift on a pre-generated table.

same with weapons fire, yes one las cannon at something is random, but chucking a dozen of them at something is far less so

whats needed is not "mooor random!!!" with more dice, whats needed is more random where it makes players have to think, and where they are ways to work with the outcomes (e.g. position yourself so if you get the chance you benefit, but you are not screwed over if you don't), essentially make the things you as your forces commander shouldn't have control over random, but cut it back on the things that you should be able to rely upon a bit more

What makes 40k highly random is everything is technically pretty low odds overcome with brute force volume. Like, hitting on 3s, wounding on 3s with a 5+ save is pretty good odds for 40k, but the actual probability is quite low. Like even, 2s, 2s, no save fails a bit less than a third of the time. You can definitely work within expected outcomes, but that doesn't mean there isn't a lot of variance when it comes to the actual outcome.

 LunarSol wrote:
What makes 40k highly random is everything is technically pretty low odds overcome with brute force volume. Like, hitting on 3s, wounding on 3s with a 5+ save is pretty good odds for 40k, but the actual probability is quite low. Like even, 2s, 2s, no save fails a bit less than a third of the time. You can definitely work within expected outcomes, but that doesn't mean there isn't a lot of variance when it comes to the actual outcome.

what matters is seldom the odds on an individual action, there it can be swingy, though the usual "hit - wound - save (-mitigate)" sequence is in effect a 3d6, or 4d6 sequence which is reasonably predictable, but then you multiply that by say 10 bodies, firing 20 shots, suddenly you have that 3d6 roll happening 20 times, and thats just one unit firing, its starting to get statistically pretty predictable. heck its not hard to simulate this, take that 20 shots, and repeat it thousands of times and what you see is just how predictable the outcome actually is.

what you actually have a lot of dice rolling for very little actual in game purpose other than the illusion of randomness

example: 10x intercessors are firing at a unit of Ork boyz, using their bolt rifles, a 2 shot weapon. for the sake of the example we are not assuming re-rolls or special abilities, its just two units on the fringe of a fight.

marines hit on a 3+ (66.67%), then wound on a 5+ (33.33%), the orks getting a 6+ save due to the AP-1 (thus a 83.33% chance to fail). so the chance of each shot resulting in a wound is the product of these values: ~18.5%. this is actually pretty low, conceptually thats between one in six and one in five shots killing an ork. thus we should be seeing, on average about 1.85 dead orks. basically two, with a chance of it being one.

thats reasonably easy to understand, but what about the spread of results?

Well I have a bit of software that I chucked this through, which ran this 50,000 times

31.6% of the time the marines didn't actually kill a single ork, this will occur when the marines are under my command
37.7% of the time they will cause a single unsaved wound
21.0% of the time they will cause two unsaved wounds
7.5% of the time they will cause three
1.9% of the time they will cause four
0.3% of the time they will cause five
0.1% of the time they will cause six

they scored 7 once in the 50,000 runs, this will have been when I was commanding the orks naturally.

in probabilistic terms you may as well roll a single D6, on a 1 or a 2 you score nothing, on a 3 or a 4 kill one ork, on a 5 kill two, on a six kill two and roll again, its not too far off and its faster.

but does it feel the same? do you still feel as a player you have the same input into the results? technically you have exactly the same input, its all random so could be abstracted away, but would you want to play it that way?

your "tactics" don't impact the dice results, but your tactics can change the odds, for example this is a "heavy" weapon, so can go to a 2+ to hit by standing still

now your chance of doing nothing drops, a bit, to 24%
35% for one wound
25% for two
11.4% for three

and so on, the variation is still actually quite wide, this shows you can have a much greater influence on the outcome by standing still to increase the chance to hit, and by making that choice you have done a damned sight more to splat some orks than rolling dice does

what the 3d6 sequence does allow for is variation in the results, and notice because of how the probabilities compound it doesn't actually matter too much in what order you roll the dice, you could go hit-save-wound for the same statistical results

comes down to though a simple point, for exactly the same outcome, which is more enjoyable? rolling a bucket of dice, or rolling one and looking up a result?

Edit: maths errors in the above, PEBKAC problem, leaving it up so replies make sense and so people can point and laugh, focus on the point being made, not the maffs

leopard wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
What makes 40k highly random is everything is technically pretty low odds overcome with brute force volume. Like, hitting on 3s, wounding on 3s with a 5+ save is pretty good odds for 40k, but the actual probability is quite low. Like even, 2s, 2s, no save fails a bit less than a third of the time. You can definitely work within expected outcomes, but that doesn't mean there isn't a lot of variance when it comes to the actual outcome.

what matters is seldom the odds on an individual action, there it can be swingy, though the usual "hit - wound - save (-mitigate)" sequence is in effect a 3d6, or 4d6 sequence which is reasonably predictable, but then you multiply that by say 10 bodies, firing 20 shots, suddenly you have that 3d6 roll happening 20 times, and thats just one unit firing, its starting to get statistically pretty predictable. heck its not hard to simulate this, take that 20 shots, and repeat it thousands of times and what you see is just how predictable the outcome actually is.

what you actually have a lot of dice rolling for very little actual in game purpose other than the illusion of randomness

example: 10x intercessors are firing at a unit of Ork boyz, using their bolt rifles, a 2 shot weapon. for the sake of the example we are not assuming re-rolls or special abilities, its just two units on the fringe of a fight.

marines hit on a 3+ (66.67%), then wound on a 5+ (33.33%), the orks getting a 6+ save due to the AP-1 (thus a 83.33% chance to fail). so the chance of each shot resulting in a wound is the product of these values: ~18.5%. this is actually pretty low, conceptually thats between one in six and one in five shots killing an ork. thus we should be seeing, on average about 1.85 dead orks. basically two, with a chance of it being one.

thats reasonably easy to understand, but what about the spread of results?

Well I have a bit of software that I chucked this through, which ran this 50,000 times

31.6% of the time the marines didn't actually kill a single ork, this will occur when the marines are under my command
37.7% of the time they will cause a single unsaved wound
21.0% of the time they will cause two unsaved wounds
7.5% of the time they will cause three
1.9% of the time they will cause four
0.3% of the time they will cause five
0.1% of the time they will cause six

they scored 7 once in the 50,000 runs, this will have been when I was commanding the orks naturally.

in probabilistic terms you may as well roll a single D6, on a 1 or a 2 you score nothing, on a 3 or a 4 kill one ork, on a 5 kill two, on a six kill two and roll again, its not too far off and its faster.

but does it feel the same? do you still feel as a player you have the same input into the results? technically you have exactly the same input, its all random so could be abstracted away, but would you want to play it that way?

your "tactics" don't impact the dice results, but your tactics can change the odds, for example this is a "heavy" weapon, so can go to a 2+ to hit by standing still

now your chance of doing nothing drops, a bit, to 24%
35% for one wound
25% for two
11.4% for three

and so on, the variation is still actually quite wide, this shows you can have a much greater influence on the outcome by standing still to increase the chance to hit, and by making that choice you have done a damned sight more to splat some orks than rolling dice does

what the 3d6 sequence does allow for is variation in the results, and notice because of how the probabilities compound it doesn't actually matter too much in what order you roll the dice, you could go hit-save-wound for the same statistical results

comes down to though a simple point, for exactly the same outcome, which is more enjoyable? rolling a bucket of dice, or rolling one and looking up a result?

So, any given shot has a .1852 chance of killing an Ork Boy.
That means the odds of not killing any boys is (1-.1852)^20. Or 1.66%.

Your program is either wrong, or you put in the wrong numbers.

I agree. My check on the math gives also give a 1.66% of no wounds and sets the expected output at 3.7 Wounds.

its likely an error on my part, however thats not actually the point I was making, the point is the result is reasonably predictable within a range of outcomes - and could be replaced with a lookup table to basically the same effect - the point was is that more or less enjoyable?

having had another look at my code I suspect the "to wound" calculation is off

as noted the actual figures are not the point being made though, its the question of the actual purpose of rolling a bucket of dice for each unit firing when actually the more dice you throw, the less random and more predictable the outcome is.

It also allows the same quick resolution system for anything from a Lascannon to a Lasgun.

How would you implement a look-up table that accounts for hitting, wounding, saves, and FNP?

leopard wrote:
its likely an error on my part, however thats not actually the point I was making, the point is the result is reasonably predictable within a range of outcomes - and could be replaced with a lookup table to basically the same effect - the point was is that more or less enjoyable?

having had another look at my code I suspect the "to wound" calculation is off

as noted the actual figures are not the point being made though, its the question of the actual purpose of rolling a bucket of dice for each unit firing when actually the more dice you throw, the less random and more predictable the outcome is.

Probability is a funny thing. For example, I've just flipped a coin and heads came up ten times in a row. What are my odds that the next flip will be heads? 50/50

GW's massive amount of dice rolls don't force the results towards the mean, they randomize the imbalances of the system.

If you have a 1 in a million chance of winning the game on turn 1, it will happen and someone's going to be really pissed when it does.

It's also inelegant. Why roll 30 dice 3 times when one will suffice? GW loves to play dice games - rolls, re-rolls, select re-rolls, ignore 1s, etc. The way the dice are manipulated change the perception of the results, but not the results themselves.

That is very much part of the churn, since by making AP all or nothing, or replacing modifiers with bonus dice, you can shift the curves all over the place and it seems that the only people incapable of figuring this out are the designers.

The core of any game design is how the players' decisions affect the results. GW obscures that with layers of special rules, strategems and dice-rolling to create dramatic tension, but in the end much of it feels like the entire game comes down to a single coin toss.

 JNAProductions wrote:
How would you implement a look-up table that accounts for hitting, wounding, saves, and FNP?

The point is that you do a gakload of rolling to achieve a result that, for all the different checks you're making, is generally fairly statistically predictable, while still heavily constrained by the limitations of the model.

For comparison:

Battlefleet Gothic uses a gunnery table. Start on the row corresponding to your Firepower, and then go over to the appropriate column for your target type (escort, capital ship, or static defense) and attitude (closing, moving away, or moving abeam). Various effects like range, obscuration, sensors, and the like cause either left or right column shifts. The resulting number is how many dice you roll against the target's armor (no roll to hit), with full re-rolls if you're on Lock-On special orders. The result is a gunnery system with lots of factors that influence how effective your attack is, but it's resolved with just one roll.

Dust Warfare has target classes (eg Soldier 2, Vehicle 5, and so on) and each weapon has a different firepower rating against each class. Find your weapon profile, go over to the correct column for the target class, roll that many dice, any that show 5+ are a hit, sustained fire lets you re-roll fails. The target then takes armor saves and damage is assigned.

Starship Troopers gives each weapon a die + modifier representing its combined accuracy and damage, so maybe a rifle rolls a straight D6 while an anti-tank missile gets D12+2. You roll and if you exceed the target's Hit rating but not their Kill rating, they have to take an armor save. If you exceed their Kill rating, they get no save.

Silent Death gives weapons a die type, and a damage rating of low/moderate/high/all, plus a die type for the pilot. So maybe your laser gun gets 2D6 and the pilot operating it is a D8, and you roll a 4-2-7, and that total of 13 is enough to hit the target. The weapon is a 'moderate' damage, so you take the middle of the three dice you rolled, and inflict 4 damage. Weapon accuracy, pilot accuracy, and damage are all combined into a single roll.

Heavy Gear gives weapons accuracy modifiers at various ranges and a damage multiplier. You roll a number of dice depending on your pilot's skill, take the highest, and apply your accuracy modifiers. The target does the same and applies their defensive modifiers. If you scored higher, you multiply the difference by your damage multiplier and compare to the target's armor value, with the severity of damage based on how many multiples of their armor value your attack achieved. It creates a system where stacking modifiers in your favor can let you punch above your weight or dance around heavy firepower, but always possible to get lucky hits or flub entirely, and any attack is resolved with a single roll from either player.

And then in 40K:

You roll for shots, then roll to hit, then roll to wound, then roll for saves, then roll for damage, then roll for FNPs- and for all this rolling, the system can't even make a stationary Warlord Titan looming over you any easier to hit than a jetbike at Mach 1 two miles away. Nearly everything hits on a 3+ or 4+, so the very best sharpshooters in all the galaxy at 2+ don't even hit twice as often as a basic Guardsman, and the cap on modifiers ensures they can never be particularly meaningful. FNPs statistically amount to extra wounds but with less predictability. Units that rely on speed as defense are modeled the same as units with impenetrable energy shields. Everything gets piles of special rules because the core mechanics don't sufficiently differentiate them.

Some of these rolls are actual stat comparisons, but some are just filters that adjust the overall output by a fixed amount. It's tedious mechanical resolution, and it occurs with basically no decision-making from the players once the dice start rolling.

There are more elegant ways to achieve comparable results with more diverse balance levers and a fraction as much rolling.

^Exalted.

Incidentally I did really appreciate the 3-7th Rapid Fire reasoning. It's harder to hit at longer range, so you only roll 1 die instead of 2. The Wound chart and AV system helped as well, "You can't even hurt it, don't bother rolling."

As I look to designing a 40k replacement, knocking out a hefty chunk of rolling is a major goal.

Edit: Truncated ranges helped roll reduction in 3rd too.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:


Probability is a funny thing. For example, I've just flipped a coin and heads came up ten times in a row. What are my odds that the next flip will be heads? 50/50

I loved Rosencratnz and Guildenstern are Dead!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_TfdNAXOwE