# Not sorting dice

29 replies [Last post]
X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013

When using a bucket with dice.
Let's say, 19 dice are rolled.
What would be a proper way to NOT sort them?

A die roll yields 0, 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4.
Enemy soldiers have 5 health.
Once the 19 dice are rolled:
Players aim for having 4+1, 3+2, 3+1+1, 2+2+1, 2+1+1+1 and 1+1+1+1+1.
Such that in this example, 6 soldiers will die.

But I don't want them!!!
I want the dice to remain in random order.
And it has to be fair and trackable!!

Yet rolling the 19 dice, 1 by 1 seems like a tedious task. What are my other options here?

ThinkBuildPlay
Offline
Joined: 01/30/2012

I don't think I understand the question.

What do you mean by sorting the dice? Are players trying to collect a certain set of dice results, similar to Yahtzee?

In your example, you give some possible results that add up to 5. Are you trying to figure out how many different ways to get to a sum of 5 by rolling normal d6?

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013

And I was sleepy while working on several problems.
I edited the above post. Hope the question makes more sense now.

There are situations where one or two soldiers are targeted. I figured out that their relative health is like 22% higher than tanks.
But with group fights, player tend to sort their dice. Which will only have this relative higher health on the last target.

***

I have been thinking.

What if the attacker should simply declare how much it aims at certain targets? But then the game would be slowed down as well.

Another way is throwing them into a box. And without looking, put them in a row.

Or simply let them sort them out any way. But let them sort the dice from high to low. Forcing even more overkill.

wob
Offline
Joined: 06/09/2017
coloured dice could be a

coloured dice could be a solution. they all get rolled together but sorted by colour. either by ROYGBIV (maybe add black and white etc) or colour sets.
colour sets could be preset ie you always have x of each colour in your pool or
players choose certain dice, so if a player has 3 small targets and a big bad, they can decide to assign dice before hand ie 2 red, 2 blue and 2 yellow to attack the 3 small targets and 5 green for the big bad

if your worried about overkill (i presume you mean rolling 36 to kill a 2 att enemy) either boost the enemy or decrease the dice pool.

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
You mean that to "not" sort

You mean that to "not" sort the dice. I actually should sort the dice with colours?

The order of targets is fixed. Once a target dies, the next one is next.
I don't mind a 6 to 8 damage over 5 health kill. I intend to reach that.

Fri
Offline
Joined: 09/06/2017
Dice tower with a narrow chute

You could use a dice tower and attach a narrow chute. The chute could be like 1.5 die wide and as long as it needs to be. The goal would be for the dice to form a single line in the chute. Then you start at one end of the line and resolve whatever you need.

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Fri wrote:You could use a

Fri wrote:
You could use a dice tower and attach a narrow chute. The chute could be like 1.5 die wide and as long as it needs to be. The goal would be for the dice to form a single line in the chute. Then you start at one end of the line and resolve whatever you need.

That is an awesome idea.
And in combination with coloured dice for the type of projectiles that are aimed differently when allowed/needed, this still works.

We where already using a bag to pick dice from in a blindly manner. But some closet rolls/kitchen paper rolls might come in handy as well.

Tim Edwards
Offline
Joined: 07/30/2015
Thinking along similar lines

Thinking along similar lines to the dice tower idea, you could use something like Boggle.

Git80
Offline
Joined: 12/18/2018
Perhaps it is a Strange idea

Perhaps it is a Strange idea but instead of looking at this from the prospective of the shooter (Roll to aim and hit) you could roll for the target if it is hit. Flames of war (Tabletop) does this. So your colored dice wouldnˋt represent different types of ammo they would represent different types of targets (blue = Infantry; red = tank …). Inf. would be Hit on a 4+, tanks on 5+ etc. This would reduce the amount of dice rolling in my oppinion.

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
The problem seems to be very specific

We did some testing with allowing to choose the dice for all cases.

***

It is really the cluster of units with a vulnerability of 6. That has the disadvantage.

First players roll for accuracy.
Then for damage.
And then for vulnerability.

If it is 6, there is no roll. Thus players can sort these out.

If it is 5 or less, then the players need to roll the dice one by one. By selecting the damage die they want.

If the target group is of one kind. The vulnerability roll can be done before the damage roll.

***

Either way.
The lesser vulnerable units have an extra advantage if dice are chosen.

If dice are randomly picked. Those with vulnerability of 6 are relatively 22% stronger.

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
We switched damage with the

We switched damage with the vulnerability. This way, we know if clusters are sufficient or not. Ok, without knowing the gam, that last sentence was hard to understand.

If 5 health has to be overcome, at least 2 dice can be rolled on vulnerability. So a player rolls 2 dice. If one or both fails, we can add more on that target. Once sufficient dice are gathered. The damage rolls commences.

If 4 times 5 health has to be overcome, at least 8 dice can be rolled. Then again, the damage dice commences.

If the damage is insufficient. For the last health, tge party starts over.

4 health would only need one damage die at a time.
20 health would need at least 5 dice, not like that 8 mentioned above.

Fri
Offline
Joined: 09/06/2017
Cards?

Another thought is that you could use a deck of cards to do your resolution since they are easily revealed one by one.

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
True

Fri wrote:
Another thought is that you could use a deck of cards to do your resolution since they are easily revealed one by one.

This follows up on what Lewpuls has suggested.
It is a good idea, I will try it out.

I need 6 different cards.
Reshuffle after picking 12?
A deck of 60?

But can I apply it to the game?
I can't calculate chances in anydice.com.
I fine tune missions that way.

apeloverage
Offline
Joined: 08/01/2008
If you roll a large number of

If you roll a large number of dice, such as 19, you're almost always going to get roughly the same result. This is even more true with cards.

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I wonder how to calculate

apeloverage wrote:
If you roll a large number of dice, such as 19, you're almost always going to get roughly the same result. This is even more true with cards.

That is why the deck would end up being so big.
And there is a reshuffle at 12 cards.
The effect of using cards is reduced that way.

In my game, the death difference of 1 can be pretty big. Especially if one of those units can kill like 3 units of the opponent.

***

I am also thinking of ending the discussion.

By actually sorting the dice. From high to low.
Overkill sets would be: 44, 43, 42, 33 and 222.
Chances "look" pretty high on getting them, especially the 44 and 33.
And all dice would be rolled at once.

I don't know how big the advantage would be compared to the other 2 ways. But there would certainly still an advantage remaining.

So, how to determine the average survivability of units with 5 health when all dice are sorted from high to low?
I think that the chances shift with the number of dice.

apeloverage
Offline
Joined: 08/01/2008
If you roll 19 dice, each

If you roll 19 dice, each with a 1 in 6 chance of getting a 4, your chances of getting at least one 44 (according to anydice.com) is about 85% (roughly the same as rolling a d20 and getting a result from 1-17). The chance of getting at least one 33 is, obviously, the same.

This is an example of how rolling large numbers of dice makes the outcome more predictable than rolling small numbers.

I think you might be better off working out what you what the spread of results to be, and designing a dice mechanism that does that.

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
apeloverage wrote

apeloverage wrote:
If you roll 19 dice, each with a 1 in 6 chance of getting a 4, your chances of getting at least one 44 (according to anydice.com) is about 85% (roughly the same as rolling a d20 and getting a result from 1-17). The chance of getting at least one 33 is, obviously, the same.

Of course, having the sets themselves worked out is also a way.
Could you link me the exact program that you used?
anydice has a function for this.
Because I want to know how to sort in that program.
apeloverage wrote:

This is an example of how rolling large numbers of dice makes the outcome more predictable than rolling small numbers.
Yes, by forcing players to sort them from high to low, the killing is very predictable.
Also, by having the players sort the dice in any way they want. The killing is very predictable.
apeloverage wrote:

I think you might be better off working out what you what the spread of results to be, and designing a dice mechanism that does that.
Which is NOT sorting the dice.

***

Sorting from high to low. Theoretically, this has more negative effects for the attacker. anydice can't do the full battle. But I know someone who can help me with that.

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
6 (or 7) weeks later

I did the deck suggestion from Lewisher. 4* A to 6. But it was different in a sense to make things logical. A card was used on an entire attack. And the deck would be personal and completely depleted before reshuffling.

It led to certain changes in the game. Which is posted here:
https://www.bgdf.com/node/22051
Not bad in overall. But not at the preferred level.

***

I am going back to bucket'o'dice. Since my player base prefers these over cards. And also, dice where needed for accuracy effects as well.

I skimmed through my discussions with some of my players. And as how it stands. Only 2 options remain in a black and white manner.

***

Usage of coloured dice
A player has different types of damage in the attack. These are tracked with the colours of the dice. Example:
-Red; infantry and light structures.
-Orange; vehicles and medium structures.
-Yellow; tanks and heavy structures.
All dice are still in one pool.

A different range is a different pool.

Anti-air and anti-sub are a different battle. And have their own pool system. But concluded at the same time if they have the same range.

Either option:
-Dice are rolled for accuracy: miss is a remove from the pool.
-Dice are rolled for other effects: a probable miss becomes a separate pool.
-Both the hit and the probable miss pool are rolled separately for damage. If bonus damage is present, this could result in more pools. A total of 6 pools can emerge (but is rare).
-Attacking players are able to choose their targets if the defending player has the targets in one line (front, middle, back).

Option one (what we always played):
Attacking players sort their rolled dice for the most optimal results.
Dice are picked from the (6) pools.
Colour of the dice are also important here for damage multipliers.

-Down time increases by sorting.
-Game time decreases by higher kill count.

Option two:
Players always sort the dice from high to low. Regardless of whether the die is from the hit or the probable miss pool.
Regardless of the colour of the die. Although several colours with the same damage counter can still be sorted by the attacking player. A sub-option would be putting the higher damage type in front.
If an anti infantry and anti tank die are clustered together while hitting an infantry, this is a waste of the tank die. Same can be said when hitting a tank instead. The player selects the targets, but the dice are forced in the order.

-Down time decreases by sorting.
-(sub option) Down time increases by sorting the colours.
-Game time increases by lower kill count: Infantry and "Lucky" tanks are stronger.
-Multiples of health are weaker either way.

***

Well then. I typed it all out here. I will give it some more thought. But having both options seems like making things complicated for the players. I rather choose one and force it upon the players. No mistakes should happen.
I prefer the second option more and more.
What do you guys think? What would you prefer?

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Having 3 lines makes more trouble

One of my friends told me that having the 3 lines in a squad creates a conflict for freedom with the sorting of the dice.

A squad has a front line, middle, and a back line.

If a player puts multiple types in the front line. The other player should remain free in choosing the targets. It would be over complicated to sort them from high to low. This because other lines can be accessed if the front line gets to thin.

The players have already so much freedom in selecting targets. That optimizing the damage is something trivial.

Only "not sorting the dice" was the only solution that started this topic. And the only solution to make things a bit more realistic.

I have no other choice than to discard it all together. And simply go for option 1.

The End

pelle
Offline
Joined: 08/11/2008

I read this thread and still have no idea exactly what it is that you want to achieve and why you must use such complicated combat systems?

If you are not attempting to make a very realistic game which must in detail simulate the correct historic effects of combat, why would you use a combat system that seems to be almost on the level of Advanced Squad Leader? What are the decisions you want players to make and what tactics are you making possible by that complexity that you could not achieve in a simpler way? Some pretty complex systems get away with just drawing one or a few cards to resolve combat. If there are no decisions to be made during the combat it is just annoying to have to do more than drawing a single card or rolling a die to look up the result in a table, or something on a similar level.

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
The initial question?

I never tried to explain the rest of the combat resolution. Because I thought that it would not matter at all, regarding the initial question.

I never tried to get a realistic combat either. I don't know where you keep getting that idea from. And only my boards looked a bit like ASL, but the combat is completely different.

The initial question wrote:
When using a bucket with dice.
Let's say, 19 dice are rolled.
What would be a proper way to NOT sort them?

It is that highlighted NOT that most seem to ignore.

Fri offered a good solution with the shute. So far that worked best. I also tried other solutions. The cards come in second best, but do not fit with the game.

apeloverage showed some chances. Which encouraged me to look further. After all, having "relative" stronger infantry in a game than tanks is a must have for this war game.

Eventually, I analysed all results. And it turns out that allowing the attacker to sort the dice any way gives the simplest resolution. There are more complicated matters that are added later on.
I carefully took my time on this subject. And let my players speak. There is one option left, and that is to play the game as it was.

Sorting the dice. Which is something that has no problems. The bonus that infantry have is simply much smaller now when playing with a large vs large army.

Henceforth "the end" on the end.

***

The combat mechanic in simple terms:

Not saying that every step is needed. At least step 3 will occur.
AND, this mechanic is based on sorting the dice on optimal results.

Use normal dice.
1 die per projectile is put in the dice pool.
Different types of damage have different colours.
If dice are awarded a bonus, these can have a different colour or are put in a separate pool as if they are a different type of damage.
If possible, even different types of accuracy can have different colours: This to make step 2 easier.

1 - Attacker rolls for accuracy. (Accuracy, Penalty)

When rolling for an accuracy, for example 4. If the die rolls 4 or less, it remains in the dice pool.
If it is 5 or 6, it is removed.
Penalty rolls are always considered as an accuracy of 5.
Some dice can have both accuracy and penalty. These are rolled several times in a row.

2 - Attacker rolls for a possible Durability/Agility/Vulnerability.

Same mechanic as the Accuracy/Penalty rolls.
It only occurs if the chance exists that these units are targeted. If these units are not present, this step can be skipped.

If after rolling a potential miss occurs, these dice go into a separate pool.
The player can still choose to use the dice on an unit that does not have the durability/agility/vulnerability. But it is unsure if those units can be targeted.
It is possible that this second pool, potential miss, can be removed completely before even rolling for damage.

3 - Attacker rolls for damage.

Every pool with remaining dice are rolled for damage.
Each die has 2 subtracted.
Bonus die of the first tier have 1 subtracted.
Bonus die of the second tier have nothing subtracted.
Potential miss are only rolled for damage if the certain to hit dice are used up. And new targets loose their cover.

4 - Damage is subtracted from the unit health points.

Only those that can be targeted will have their health reduced.
Those units that are in cover, can only be targeted once they loose their cover. This is where the potential miss can still be a hit.

***

It looks complicated at first. Especially when reading it all. But once you know (by playing), it is one of the easiest things to do.

(My experienced) Players follow these steps:
1 - Attacker rolls for any accuracy.
2 - Attacker rolls for any possible vulnerability.
3 - Attacker rolls for any damage.
4 - Damage is subtracted from the unit health points.

If you need, I will be churning out the examples in the next post.

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Example 1

Player A, attacks player B.
Player B is exhausted in this situation and can only take cover.

Player A has 5 rifle infantry and 5 shotgun infantry.

Rifle infantry: 1 projectile of 1 damage.
Shotgun infantry: 2 projectiles of 1 damage, accuracy 3 (4 or more is a miss).

Player B has 5 rifle infantry and 5 shields.

Rifle infantry: 5 health.
Shield: 5 health, vulnerability 4 (5 or more is a miss).
Player A has to destroy 1 shield before 1 of the Rifle infantry behind them looses cover.

***

Player A can pick 5 (red) dice for the rifle damage. And 10 (yellow) dice for the shotgun damage.

1 - Roll for any accuracy.

The 10 yellow dice are rolled. Any dice that is 4 or more is a miss. And are removed from the pool. Let's pretend that 6 remain.

There is no penalty roll.

Since the colour of the dice was only depending on the accuracy. This is now obsolete.
We have 1 pool of 11 dice.

2 - Roll for any vulnerability.

Since the rifle infantry have taken cover behind shields. We don't know if dice will make it to them.

All dice are rolled.
Any die that has 4 or more is put in a separate pool.
Let's pretend that 7 dice are always a hit and 4 dice are a potential miss.

To keep 1 pool. We now use 7 red dice and 4 yellow dice.

3 - Roll for any damage.

There are no bonuses.

Both pools are important and are rolled. But kept separate. In this example, we have 7 red and 4 yellow dice.

Let's pretend that we roll the following damage:
Red; 0011344
Yellow; 0124

Any 0 damage is removed. Since 0 damage is 0 damage.

Red; 11344
Yellow; 124

4 - Damage is subtracted from the health. (Here we have true down time, but only because step 2 was important)

The red dice can subtract from both the shields health and the rifle infantry health.
The yellow dice can only subtract from the rifle infantry health; 0 damage on shields.

First shield dies by combining a red 1 and red 4.

Remaining pool:
Red; 134
Yellow; 124

First rifle infantry dies by combining a yellow 1 and yellow 4.

Remaining pool:
Red; 134
Yellow; 2

Second shield dies by combining a red 1 and red 4.

Remaining pool:
Red; 3
Yellow; 2

Now the player can choose. Either kill of the second rifle infantry or only damage the third shield by 3.
For multiple reasons, it is decided that the rifle infantry dies now.
And luckily, that 3 and 2 is a perfect combination.

pelle
Offline
Joined: 08/11/2008
X3M wrote: I never tried to

X3M wrote:

I never tried to get a realistic combat either. I don't know where you keep getting that idea from.

If you are making a historical simulation with hardcore grognards as the target audience there is a reason to make a combat system to create some special distribution of possible outcomes. (But even then they can often get away with having very simple systems that still produce reasonable outcomes, often from a single die-roll.)

In any other case, you have much more freedom. The distribution of outcomes can be anything you want, or whatever you happen to get, and no one can ever say you are wrong. You can 100% focus on making a simple, fast combat system that ideally has many interesting tactical decisions. There is never a reason in this case to get bogged down in making a complex system to achieve some specific probabilities of outcomes.

Only your blind playtesters will be able to tell your system is too complex. If they do, you have a lot of stuff you could simplify away, and no reason not to (unless some parts are strictly needed because they creates some interesting tactical decisions that are not obvious without looking at the entire game).

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
A lot of sides

pelle wrote:
X3M wrote:

I never tried to get a realistic combat either. I don't know where you keep getting that idea from.

If you are making a historical simulation with hardcore grognards as the target audience there is a reason to make a combat system to create some special distribution of possible outcomes. (But even then they can often get away with having very simple systems that still produce reasonable outcomes, often from a single die-roll.)

I might have had a chapter for some knights and magic. But most of my games involve RTS like games.
One hundred percent fantasy sci-fi.

pelle wrote:
In any other case, you have much more freedom. The distribution of outcomes can be anything you want, or whatever you happen to get, and no one can ever say you are wrong. You can 100% focus on making a simple, fast combat system that ideally has many interesting tactical decisions. There is never a reason in this case to get bogged down in making a complex system to achieve some specific probabilities of outcomes.

Henceforth the attempt at "not" sorting the dice. Which would mean plug and play.
The card mechanic offered such solution. But I indeed have a hardcore gaming group. That likes bucket'o'dice.

pelle wrote:
Only your blind playtesters will be able to tell your system is too complex. If they do, you have a lot of stuff you could simplify away, and no reason not to (unless some parts are strictly needed because they creates some interesting tactical decisions that are not obvious without looking at the entire game).
The only complex part would be as given in the example above. Sorting the dice. While half of the time the results are obvious. Another part will create down time by figuring out the best optimal results for the attacker. Especially as given in the example. Having dice that might or might not be used. But have to be kept till the end.

A simple rule could break (if only a part of) this down time.

I could try to fiddle with the dice rolls in such a manner, that damage rolls come sooner than vulnerability rolls. However, this requires more dice.
We tried it. We did not like it.

I could try to remove vulnerability.
We do have the health differences in other ways. But the detailed designs would certainly be reduced as well. We did not like that. This era was before we added vulnerability in the first place.

I could try to remove experience.
It is "a fun" part of the game. Where a player adds a lot of XP to an unit. But by removing experience, I can remove vulnerability. And add in different sizes of health. Instead of a vulnerability of 5 with 5 health. I could simply use 6 health.

***

This topic was about having the damage dice "not" being sorted. Meaning, there would be no (or at least less) down time at all for the players. Simply say, what the target would be and start picking the dice from the shute. And see if it was a hit or not.

Rolling the dice one by one is the same. But way more tedious. Since you need to keep count etc. So we kept the bucket'o'dice method.

Either way. If the dice where "not" to be sorted. The duration of life would increase for the smallest pieces. It doesn't have to, but it sure was a nice bonus.

As you can see. We are sort of going into circles here.

***

Blind play testers?
Since this is a hobby game by me and some friends. We did not really had blind play testers. The game is kinda shown to newcomers by simply starting to play.
And the newcomers have only been friends of friends.

None of them had issues with the latest way of rolling of the dice.

Only the first 4 players knew the old way of rolling the dice. Which was re-rolling in case of XP or bonus.
We kept add-rolling for the XP. And changed bonus into a lesser subtraction mechanic.

pelle
Offline
Joined: 08/11/2008
If it is a game that you are

If it is a game that you are playing with friends I can see how everyone can be fine with fiddling with the dice in several steps like that and if you enjoy it I have no complaints of course. Thought the goal was to get something published. Having the designer and some experienced players present makes it much easier to manage complex systems. To mention Advanced Squad Leader again I have played it with players that never tried ANY wargame before and it was no problem at all as long as an experienced player was there to instruct. A very different situation from sending a game out to blind playtesters and trying to sell it to a publisher or crowdfunders.

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Public is a different matter

pelle wrote:
If it is a game that you are playing with friends I can see how everyone can be fine with fiddling with the dice in several steps like that and if you enjoy it I have no complaints of course. Thought the goal was to get something published. Having the designer and some experienced players present makes it much easier to manage complex systems. To mention Advanced Squad Leader again I have played it with players that never tried ANY wargame before and it was no problem at all as long as an experienced player was there to instruct. A very different situation from sending a game out to blind playtesters and trying to sell it to a publisher or crowdfunders.
True.

If it conciliates you. If I where ever to get a public version. Only accuracy dice would remain at most.
We can't have over 1000 different unit designs in a public version any way. :)

gxnpt
Offline
Joined: 12/22/2015
allocating dice vs sorting dice

One way to do it would be to roll a cluster of dice for each target.

If you have 19 dice there is not much time difference between rolling them all and then sorting them out into individual groups versus saying 5 at that one and rolling 5 of them and then saying 3 at that one and rolling the next 3 and so forth until all 19 dice have been rolled.

Pick a target and number of dice to roll, roll them, then pick next target until all dice are used.

All dice must be rolled. Only 1 roll vs any single target.

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Wow, never added the closure, well, here it is

If I ever where to look back at this.
I should remind myself that I decided to allow players to sort their dice.

Despite facing 1 health units as well, mixed with higher health units.
The player that attacks, may organise the dice how they see fit.

The downtime might be a little bit longer. The game time shortens greatly. And there is tactics to be used by all players in regards to organise their forces.

(Even sorting from high to low failed ;) )

questccg
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Hmm... sometimes the most obvious solution ...

Is beyond our own "vision"!

Why not use COLOR-Coordinated dice??? That would solve a multitude of problems and offer up more "choices". Take for example that POOL of 19 dice... If there were three (3) colors: Red, Yellow and Blue (primary colors). And you have a distribution of 7, 6 and 5. And then you ADD one (1) White die to the mix. The White die is a like a Wildcard, you can match it with ANY one of the other colors.

Using colors would determine the ultimate POWER of the attack. Like 7 Infantry (Blue), 6 Hummers (Yellow) and 5 Tanks (Red). And of course 1 Wildcard (White).

Something like this... You helped me with the ODDs calculation (Thank you!) and I took a 2.78% Triple to a 16.67% Two White Dice odds for rolling double the amount of LOOT. Anyways COLORS can be used to do all kinds of things!

You should look into that to see if this HELPS you out!

Cheers.

Note #1: While you might "wonder"(?) why I chose primary colors (Red, Yellow and Blue) ... and this is because they can be used to categorize LITE (Blue), MID (Yellow) and HEAVY (Red) units no matter what they are. Having three (3) categories can allow you to manage a SHITLOAD of units just by a simple categorization.

This means that your game needs like maybe more LITE and less HEAVY. So different amounts of dice used for each category.

Note #2: Each color of die can have their own VALUES which may be different. Let's (just as an exercise) say that the LITE (Blue) dice have: 0, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4. The MID (Yellow) dice have 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and the HEAVY (Red) dice have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (Standard dice).

These are just EXAMPLES of how you can PLAY with the POWER of each GROUP.

This is just another point to examine further... Less of the HIGHER TIER dice ... but overall more POWERFUL than the lower tier dice...

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
No worries

O, don't worry about the colours.
For aeons now, I am using coloured dice to represent the damages indeed.

And there was a sorting issue with these as well. But seeing as how players want to hold fire for a nano second. In case the heavy cannons might target tanks that way. Why not allow the players to sort it all?

A heavy damage roll of just 1*D might as well blast an infantry unit to smithereens. If the enemy tank is going to survive with a hair's breath any way.

There are other parts of the game, that making "NOT" sorting the dice ridiculous. Henceforth the closure.