Skip to Content

Not sorting dice

16 replies [Last post]
X3M
X3M's picture
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
Question about your question

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
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
It was already late

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
X3M's picture
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.

Good luck with your game.

X3M
X3M's picture
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.

Good luck with your game.

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
Tim Edwards's picture
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
X3M's picture
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
X3M's picture
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
X3M's picture
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
X3M's picture
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
X3M's picture
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.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut