What if we changed d6 rolls to X+d3

[Weazel]

Just now, 8bit_Jesus said:

How do you give him a flat 6 damage...? I've only just started using trolls!

Seems like my memory is not what it used to be. For some reason I remembered 'Mighty Blow' did that, but alas it's just a reroll for damage.

[8bit_Jesus]

18 minutes ago, Weazel said:

Seems like my memory is not what it used to be. For some reason I remembered 'Mighty Blow' did that, but alas it's just a reroll for damage.

haha no worries, re-roll damage is better than nothing! 

[Smooth criminal]

The rolls themselves aren't the issue. The issue is bad habit of GW to put very strong effects behind high variance like "do bazillion mws on a nat roll of 6". No one likes these, the user hates when it doesn't go off (which actually happens more often, so the user hates them more), the opponent hates when it does.

 

Meanwhile we can't completely remove rng elements or the game could be completely pre-calculated, that's boring. Generic effects like run and charge should stay random, they have built-in mitigators that cost you resources anyway, they are fine the way they are.

As for gloomspite squigs, yes, their move should totally be  X"+dY" if only to increase their competitive power level.

Edited September 17, 2019 by Smooth criminal

[InSaint]

Honestly, I think 40K might be a better gaming system for you if you like certainty.

They have more flat damage BUT damage cannot spill over to another model. I hate this because it makes the game-play unnecessarily complex. In theory it makes sense but execution on tabletop is completely cumbersome.

In AOS you deal say 12 damage in total and 12 wounds worth of models in a unit gets slain.

In 40K you deal say 4x3 damage in total, but only 4 models die because damage don't carry over. 

[Eevika]

1 hour ago, InSaint said:

Honestly, I think 40K might be a better gaming system for you if you like certainty.

They have more flat damage BUT damage cannot spill over to another model. I hate this because it makes the game-play unnecessarily complex. In theory it makes sense but execution on tabletop is completely cumbersome.

In AOS you deal say 12 damage in total and 12 wounds worth of models in a unit gets slain.

In 40K you deal say 4x3 damage in total, but only 4 models die because damage don't carry over. 

I hate 40k and dont understand why it would be better for me? Becouse I want stuff to see play and not suck?

[Dead Scribe]

I think AOS is not the game if you want everything to be competitively viable.  GW will never get to that point.  Enjoy it for what it is.  If you are playing gitz then accept that you will never really be top tier on the podium with them, or sell them and buy an army that can get you to the podium.

[Panzer]

2 hours ago, InSaint said:

They have more flat damage BUT damage cannot spill over to another model. I hate this because it makes the game-play unnecessarily complex. In theory it makes sense but execution on tabletop is completely cumbersome.

It really isn't unless you are a bloody beginner at 40k. ^^

[Eevika]

4 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

I think AOS is not the game if you want everything to be competitively viable.  GW will never get to that point.  Enjoy it for what it is.  If you are playing gitz then accept that you will never really be top tier on the podium with them, or sell them and buy an army that can get you to the podium.

This hobby for me is 80% modelling and painting and 20% playing so I choose my armies on how much I like the look. 

[Zanzou]

If I were playing with som1 who had to use a ton of D6 rolls, I would definitely let them "narrow" the roll a bit.  That would be up to them if they wanted to, though... For some people RNG is fun.

"narrowing"  example: all d6 rolls of 1 would be treated as a roll of 2, but to the same effect all d6 rolls of 6 would be treated as 5. and so on.

[KHHaunts]

On 9/16/2019 at 3:05 PM, Eevika said:

The randomness is a part of the game but it should not remove entire armies from competitive gaming. 

Its not just about a higher avarage its about keeping the highs and lows closer together and making stuff more consistent while keeping an element of randomness. Did you read my post?

I actually had a discussion with a friwnd of mine who introduced me to the Kings of War system. Now im not mentioning KOW to get into a debate bout if its any good or not but the fact is i played the game and aside from the stuff you hear about often such as it being balanced and easy to play one of the major things i found enjoyable.is the game is not so dice dependent and have mechanics that dont rely on dice rolls to function.

 

The point im trying to make is. Randomness is great. It adds flavor to our games. But lots dice rolls or relying on dice rolls for every little thing dosent alway make for a fun game. KOW and other systems have discovered this and in my oppinion retain plenty of flavor maybe GW could learn a little by toning down the impact dice have in certain areas of the game.

[Dead Scribe]

I doubt it since Kings of War is based on older warhammer ruleset that GW abandoned (the author was one of older warhammer fantasy authors as well).  I don't think they have any interest in systems such as that.  Those type of systems really aren't casual friendly or something that younger children can really get into because they have a lot more rules and the game being less reliant on dice means that many players find that style not very fun because they have no way to recoup losses or get back into the game.

Edited September 17, 2019 by Dead Scribe

[Panzer]

9 hours ago, Zanzou said:

If I were playing with som1 who had to use a ton of D6 rolls, I would definitely let them "narrow" the roll a bit.  That would be up to them if they wanted to, though... For some people RNG is fun.

"narrowing"  example: all d6 rolls of 1 would be treated as a roll of 2, but to the same effect all d6 rolls of 6 would be treated as 5. and so on.

Why though? Someone who has to use a ton of D6 rolls already gets more reliable results than someone who has to roll only a few D6. The more dice you roll the closer you get to the average result so making it even easier for someone who rolls many dice to get to the average just widens the gap to someone who doesn't get to roll as many dice.

Not to mention that there are rules that trigger on 6s and 1s always fail and so on.

[Eevika]

16 minutes ago, Panzer said:

Why though? Someone who has to use a ton of D6 rolls already gets more reliable results than someone who has to roll only a few D6. The more dice you roll the closer you get to the average result so making it even easier for someone who rolls many dice to get to the average just widens the gap to someone who doesn't get to roll as many dice.

Not to mention that there are rules that trigger on 6s and 1s always fail and so on.

I think he means a ton by something like someone running a lot of squig hoppers and such. Its still a low ammount of rolls compared to a unit of plague monks throwing 200+ attacks.

[Panzer]

I guess I have a very different understanding of "a ton" then.  

[Sandor]

I like the idea of giving more reliability by using the D3. It would be even better to also introduce the D2.

3D2  is 3-6 (high dmg with mild randomness)

2D2 is 2-4 (medium dmg with mild randomness)

1D2 is 1-2 (low dmg with mild randomness)

2D3 is 2-6 (high dmg with high randomness)

1D3 is 1-3 (low dmg with high randomness)

1D6 is 1-6 (high dmg with extreme randomness)

I believe it’s good to have some units rely on dice rolls and randomness, but the unit should never be a bad in a situation where rolls can handicap every part of that unit. If a model has a weapon with 1 attack, and this is a huge chunk of that model’s damage output, it’s just not a good mechanic to give it 1D6, unless it isn’t supposed to be a damage dealer.

[T10]

What if we just did away with dice rolls all together? Each player just works through a series of virtual dice rolls that yield, in sequence, 1 through 6 and then repeats. Your unit has 30 attacks with 4+ to hit and re-rolling 1's and wounding on 3+ with extra 1 mortal wound on 6's  to wound? Starting on 1 roll, that's 15 hits outright and 5 1's that "re-roll" into 2 more hits. For those 17 hits, starting at 6 roll, your unit score 11 wounds and 3 mortal wounds. The target unit then takes saves, starting at a 5 roll.

Would't that be great, huh? Super fair, super balanced, super predictable! If we could then do away with the uncertainty of edge-case distances, perhaps using some sort of grid, then we can make this into a real game that doesn't have to suffer the vagaries of chance and opinion!

Then people could play and never need to ever interact on a social level!

Edited September 24, 2019 by T10

[Panzer]

Thanks but no thanks. As I've already said in the beginning of the thread:

On 9/16/2019 at 1:51 PM, Panzer said:

That's the nature of the game. The smaller you make the dice the less relevant the dice roll becomes. At some point you could just leave dice away for good but then you wouldn't get to see many awesome (and unlikely) things happen on the table. Also not everyone is a competetive player. Many casual players love stuff like the Boingrot Bounderz.
Ultimately Warhammer is a dice game and the randomness is part of its charm. Not everywhere randomness is a good thing, but for the most part it's not an issue.

 EDIT: Though it's kinda funny that you suggest something like that when the 40k side is talking about how much better it would be if we'd use 1d10 to cover a bigger range of results instead ... and the 40k community is by far the more competetively minded one compared to AoS. ^^