I have been reconsidering my games during BOTT and how the dice I was rolling affected each game. One case was where some enemy Jet-bikes assaulted my Rangers who were on OW. In the game the OW failed to hit, but I threw two “5”s during the assault to fell two bikes and lost two Rangers in reply. This meant I went into the assault resolution +1 ahead and rolled +3 over the opponent, wiping out the remaining four Jet-bikes.

The dice I rolled were actually quite “average”– over 14 dice I threw three “5”s and two “6”s (33% of the dice thrown) the rest were all lower. What was important was the timing; I threw the correct dice at the right time (to hit two Jet-bikes, save two Rangers from four hits and most importantly to throw a “6” in the roll-off). Had these dice occurred in a different order the result would have been very different. So I wondered whether it was possible to do without dice altogether and do something completely different. Can we choose the numbers in a semi-random order instead of throwing dice?

Here is a possible alternative to throwing dice altogether:-

1. Draw up a chart with the numbers 1-6 repeated many times.
2. Each time you would throw a dice, select a number and cross it off. You may select any unused number in the next two rows.
3. When you have completely filled all the numbers in one row you may start another. You may not start a new row until one of the existing rows has been completely used.

This way, you will always have ‘average’ dice, though you can make your own luck by selecting when you throw particular numbers.

Well the point is that both players have to work out when to use "bad" numbers as well as "good" ones. To some extent each player can anticipate certain activities by keeping preferred numbers back, and even to decide when a "re-throw" can be used to best advantage. However larger numbers of "dice" will cause average results

so it drastically alters the metagame, and favours certain builds, and infact army lists, where the most importance swings on a small number of rolls.

for instance, war engines will pretty immediately become a no-show when "oh look, my two deathstrikes both hit on 2's and roll 6's for damage" (or even "my shadowsword always rolls max damage")
every assault resolution roll will make use of a 1 and as high a number as you can spare. every unit activates on the minimum successful roll needed, to preserve the higher rolls for important things
supreme commanders become almost worthless
strategy rolloffs become irrelevant (at first glance, you'd think "oh it becomes a high stakes bluffing game" but no, whomever has the higher rating will either always pick a 1 (if they dont care) or whatever score is 1 higher than their opponent can pick

at best, you've just wildly unbalanced every list in the game

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~

We would lose the random element of the game and a lot of the unexpected events, for me that would spoil the game a little.

More importantly it would nullify years of sacrifices made to my goddess Tyche.

I'm afraid I'm with Jaggedtoothgrin on this one, but if you try it out and it works I'd be happy to hear about it.

Interesting idea Ginger. Whilst I can see the merits to it, you will not be able to have the hot games where your dice roll perfectly and the dire games where nothing goes right, which as other have said would make the game more stale. Not that I don't think that the game would have a different feel and style to it which I'm sure some would enjoy more.

_________________
_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk - home of the UK Epic tournament scene
NetEA NetERC Xenos Lists Chair
NetEA Ork + Feral Ork + Speed Freak Champion

There's lots of evidence from psychological research that we derive much more pleasure from randomly-occurring rewards than from predictable ones (article here). Taking the random element out of a wargame is likely to completely ruin the fun of playing the game.

_________________
NetEpic Necron Army Book

[ jodrell.org | @j_plays_games | @jodrellplaysgames ]

I thought Vassal already used this system...?

Add to that, war itself is random. You have to depend on your subordinates, and stupid lady luck.

There is a middle ground if you're really upset by certain rolls. Get a bunch of cards and label them 1-6. Then shuffle and draw from the top. It removes long tail events without completely removing the element of chance.

Hmm .. Malifaux uses a card system that gives the player some of the control you desire, while keeping some randomness. And it's simple as hell.

Adapted for d6:
Make a deck of a good numer of cards numbered 1-6 - 48 or 54 would be traditional - for each player. Before each turn shuffle the deck, and draw a reasonably sized hand, say, 6 cards.
At each dice roll, instead flip the top card. If you're not satisfied with the result, replace it with one from your hand.

Of course, this would upset the game balance, as players would hoard the best cards for the most powerful shots. But it does make for a really fun game.

_________________
Let there be code.

Thanks guys - I have just removed a really long reply extolling the virtues of 'number selection' - using this card approach seems much better all-round, and indeed would be something to consider when testing a list to check whether it is balanced or not.

As for using the card replacement mechanic, I think that could be incorporated, but only for certain points in a game where the 'Random factor' has a very detrimental impact.

Randomness gives a better simulation. You can't predict everything. But less randomness gives a better strategy game. For me, games are about interesting choices, and while risk managment can be interesting, there are better mechanics. (Random rewards "feeling" better is an argument against randomness for me. I don't play EA to interact with a Skinner box.)

As JTG said assault resolution dice offs and strategy rolls can be problematic. My solution would be to toss out resolution roll off entirely (which, if you remember the discussion we had about that a few months ago shouldn't surprise you ). I see a couple of solutions to the strategy roll. First one would be to let higher SR choose who wins strategy in the first turn, and then alternate (not alternate who goes first, but who chooses who goes first). It makes teleporting safer, which is mostly a concern between armies with equal or close SR (other situations, like Marines losing their terminators because they rolled a 1 and the Nids rolled a 5, are effects I'm happy to get rid of). It would also make very low SR better (because you only care about if you're lower, not by how much), while making high SR slightly worse (but that's offset by letting you guarantee the first move in the important third turn).

Just leaving it in is a better option than for assault resolution, but it gives a higher benefit to having a high SR than plain rolling does.

On reflection, if you wanted to use my suggestion of 'choosing your luck', I think we would need to 'seed the system' to avoid the initial excesses described by Jaggedtoothgrin. Equally we need to describe simultaneous rolls. So the steps would now be

1. Draw up a chart with the numbers 1-6 repeated many times.
2. To 'seed' the system, each player throws a D6 six times crossing off the number indicated in the first two rows. Where a number is repeated a third time, the player chooses and crosses off a different number.
3. Each time you would throw a dice,
   • select a number and cross it off. You may select any unused number in the next two rows.
   • where both players need to do so simultaneously, this is done in secret and then revealed together.
4. When you have completely filled all the numbers in one row you may start another. You may not start a new row until one of the existing rows has been completely used.

However the other concerns raised are potentially less valid because to some extent they are offset by the other player's dice choices and by the balancing effect of the number choices through the game. That said, this would definitely produce a very different game more akin to chess, which may in itself be an interesting experiment anyway.

I think Ulrik is suggesting reducing randomness at certain key points (through amending game choices or adopting a slightly different game mechanic) - so in E:A, where would you want to reduce or even replace the element of luck in some way, and how would this be done?

And finally, I read Jodrell's comments with interest - indeed it probably ought to be the subject of a different thread. I accept that people may like some form of randomness, but suspect that it is an entirely personal thing as to the degree of randomness that is acceptable. For example, while people may play the odd 'friendly' game of poker for money (I don't), I suspect there are few who would risk very substantial sums in such a game, and even fewer who would go as far as the character Luke Rhinehart in the novel "the Dice man". . . .

OT
Please tell me the book gets better, I've started it twice and lost interest in it both times.