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.

We take rolling dice for granted. But why use dice. Yes for random number generation, but what does that do? Answer, nothing!!!

Let me explain and then you can rip me a new one. A game has set values to troops i.e. defense/attack. The ratio between attacker and defender is really all you need to determine the outcome of the combat. The decision of the commanders on each side determine the how and when (the combat doctrine of mass for example),  those troop "mix it up" and that determines when and how that ratio plays out. NOT some random off the wall result that you can tie a dice roll to.

Do you agree, no, BRING IT ON!!!!!!!!

Up Front is an extremely good WW2 card game without dice. "Random" numbers are generated by turning combat cards.

Warpwar is an interesting space combat game where combat results are decided purely by range and the type of weapon selected, no dice are used.

The setup you describe would work OK in a paper/scissors/stone combat system where there are no supreme elements because any particular element is vulnerable to a different type. I don't think it would work for a Panzerblitz type of game.

Play chess....

Paper/scissors/stone is right. The system is a very simple one and relies solely on what you call the mass doctrine. I tend to think there is more going on during a combat engagement then only one principal. Too many variables, in fact, to reproduce and still have an enjoyable game. I never played 1st or 2nd edition 40k but I've heard the stories. surely simplification is a good thing for playability. For table top games the question is how do you get the dice reasonably represent a multitude of variables. There was some discussion of d10 mechanics here a while back. I tend to agree that, in general, d10 or even d20 systems are more desirable because they give the designer much finer control of the elements of chance.

I read an interesting thing on Wikipedia about a set of dice called "nontransitive" which work a bit like paper/scissors/stone but do not give 100% chance to beat each other. (It makes better sense to read it.)

Here is the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontransitive_dice

Straight away I thought this could be used as a wargame mechanism, though it needs special sets of dice to be made.

We had a fun idea for 40K played by flipping coins. So everything was 50/50.

To to hit... hit or miss. Roll to wound, wound or not wound. Roll armour save, save or not save.

Would make for very quick games.

BYE

Marines would have an armor save of Heads+.

Ork save would be what? The coin landing on edge?

There are lots of non-dice games out there that work well. The "random" element comes in trying to out guess / predict your opponent. Such games can be quite fun but require the rules be written to support them. At this juncture, I don't believe there is a way to really work that concept into 40k without throwing the rule book out the window and starting from scratch. On the other hand a system based on a larger variance (d10, d12, or d20) would be relatively easy to do and I think it would add a lot to the game.

Well, I used to win a lot of games.  I'd say about two thirds.  So when I meet someone for a game, I'll just check where they are on the list and I'll say, "Sorry, you're the second out of three.  I win.  Good game though!"

What happens if you're their third game and they win one out of three?

Wouldn't you have your win first on the list?  I sure would.  That is why I only play others after I have seen them win.  To assure that I win.  That, or I play my third game against myself.  I've got enough for a 1000 on 1000 point game, easy.

I guess we could tie, if we both happen to be on a "win" spot.  However, I will find a moral or spiritual victory without fail.  I was 99.5% successful in that back in the old times when we used dice.  the chance of the loss and my "bad time" occuring at the same time is quite small.  And I can always use that when I play with myself.

I think it depends on your army type, too.

At what point would people adjust their handicaps?

No reason to use dice? Probabilities? Statistics? These sound like the ravings of a witch!

Far be it from me to suggest we burn a witch though. That would be barbaric. The more civilized way to deal with this problem would be to throw roneldar into Lake Dakka and see if he floats. As we all know witches are made of wood, and wood floats. So, after determining...

Ah screw it! Statistically speaking he's a witch anyways. Burn the witch!

Posted By Kilkrazy on 05/25/2007 9:21 AM
I read an interesting thing on Wikipedia about a set of dice called "nontransitive" which work a bit like paper/scissors/stone but do not give 100% chance to beat each other. (It makes better sense to read it.)

Here is the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontransitive_dice

Straight away I thought this could be used as a wargame mechanism, though it needs special sets of dice to be made.

There are sets of three sided dice that are numbered one through three, but they also have the added bonus of R-P-S

www.advancinghordes.com/index.php

Last time I checked I was a Warlock..not a witch. My orginal idea for this post started out with thinking about 40k and how the dice control the game so much. In the spirit of the game (does that still exist?) it would be cool to have orks use bones for dice, SM use .22 empty shell casings with 1-6 on the side, Witch Hunters with severed fingers of witches....your ideas for dice like substitutes?

Manwitch.

There are plenty of good games that don't rely on dice, or indeed on any random element. These are games of pure skill.

Diceless Game

Well I suppose one way to go about it for 40k would be to play an average game of 40k. Heck, call it Math Hammer. Here’s how it works.

1) All situations where you roll a large volume of dice (shooting at foot troops, hand to hand, armor saves, etc.) are averaged. This means you cause the average result every time (round off). So when you fire 20 bolter shots from marines into MEQ’s, you kill 2… every time.

2) All low volume situations (vehicle damage, moral checks, psi checks, ect) that are kind of a pass/fail situation are worked out by keeping a running total of the % chance for that event to occur and having the event happen once the total hits (or exceeds) 100%.

Example 1: A squad of elder guardians takes 25% shooting casualties and has to make a break check. 2d6 vs ld of 8 = 28% chance of failing. So after 2 checks the guardians have a total of 56, after 3 they have 84, after 4 they break and have 12 towards their next break. To keep the rolling number relevant, it should be applied to all squads with the same value (so all leadership 8 units would be working off the same pool).

Example 2: A BS 4 las cannon is fired at a rhino (front arc, AV11). It has an 11% chance to glance and a 33% chance to penetrate so these numbers are both added to the rolling totals for AV11. The complicated part comes when one of these pools fills up. The easy way to go about it is to say that any hit automatically shakes the crew (since this will basically always happen) and a % is added to the chance to destroy the vehicle. So glances add 17% chance to destroy a vehicle while penetrations add 50%. Not the best answer but it should get you through.

3) Low volume rolls that are not pass / fail should be a fixed average number. So fleet of foot “rolls” will always be 3.5 inches, difficult terrain rolls will be 4.5 inches, etc.

So give it a try, see how it goes, just be prepared to do a lot of book keeping and have a calculator (or better yet a computer) handy to figure everything out.

Nothing personal, but it seems like you've created an even more boring game of 40k than currently exists.  Dice are there to simulate the fog of war and the unknown.  Maybe your guardians know that if they leave their position the entire flank will collapse, so they pass their Ld check even though they're getting wiped out.

It was said before, but just go play chess.  Of checkers if those rules are too complex.

Malfred & TPC have both made excellent points. We use dice to add an element of randomness to the game. Role-playing games took this a step further and began using dice with more (or indeed, fewer) sides, to alter the probabilities for a given roll.

Other games that require randomness add it in other ways; by drawing cards from a shuffled deck, for example, or by not knowing if your opponent is going to throw rock or scissors.

A game that relied solely on comparing attack stats to defense stats would, I think, grow predictable and boring very quickly.

>>A game that relied solely on comparing attack stats to defense stats would, I think, grow predictable and boring very quickly.

If it's like a standard tabletop boardgame with known factors that would certainly happen.

Warpwar, the space combat game I mentioned early on in this thread, works and does not become boring because the factors of range, missile "spread" and tech level are concealed while the attack decisions are made each time.

Yes, random or hidden elements create suspense and excitement. Pulling off that one in a million, improbably victory is so, so sweet.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating the removal of dice from 40k, I'm just trying to provide a framework for seeing what it would be like. I don't have any intention of actually trying out that system I wrote up, but if others want to give it a whirl, more power to them.

All in all, I would rather see 40k go to a d12 or d10 system.

Posted By Phoenix on 05/30/2007 10:23 AM

All in all, I would rather see 40k go to a d12 or d10 system.

Best thing said in this entire thread.  Except for my own nuggets of wisdom, that is.

On a related note, check out this thread on the warmachine boards. It's about converting 40k figures into the Warmachine stat system. A good project, but I don't think it will go much further.

Compromise. Go to a d11 system. On the plus side, everyone would need to go buy proprietary GW 11-sided dice.

Changing to a d12/d10 system would mean rewriting everything and might not make as much difference as people would think.

40K isn't a simplistic game because it uses d6s. It's simplistic because it pretty much ignores tactical factors such as command and control, morale and flanking fire. At the same time, it's complex because it uses all kinds of overlapping special rules (psionics, special weapons, etc.) in the different codexes.

The point behind going to larger dice is to allow for more variation of probability. Currently everything has to be balanced with 17% jumps in probability. Going to d10's would refine that to 10% jumps and d12's would go to 8% jumps. This would mean instead of having to chose weather to make a "shooty" unit BS3 (50% chance to hit) or BS4 (67% chance to hit), they could hit increments in the middle like 58, or 60. It would allow for much more diversification of equipment so that you wouldn't have to worry about "my guns are just like his guns. I want mine to be different" problems so much. Sure the system would need to be adjusted to accommodate it, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

>>The point behind going to larger dice is to allow for more variation of probability. Currently everything has to be balanced with 17% jumps in probability

GW's system achieves wider variation than 17% jumps by using three or more rolls to arrive at a result. That is, To Hit, To Wound, To Save (sometimes there are bionics or something as well.) Combined with variable characteristics of the target, this is a clumsy and slow system but it can provide a wide variation of results.

40K guns have more variability than any other wargame I've ever played. Each gun is described by up to 6 characteristics; range, S, AP, RoF, Type and Special rules.

Napoleonic wargames are fought with basically three weapons, the smoothbore musket, the smoothbore cannon, and the cavalry sabre, no armour, and only five types of troops (light infantry, line infantry, cavalry and foot and horse artillery.) Despite this, they hold an everlasting fascination for wargamers because aspects of command and control and manoeuvre are so important.