Prev: Re: [GZG] [SG3]: What if? Next: Re: [GZG] Opposed roll randomness (Was: [SG3]: What if?)

Re: [GZG] Opposed roll randomness (Was: [SG3]: What if?)

From: Oerjan Ariander <orjan.ariander1@c...>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:31:08 +0100
Subject: Re: [GZG] Opposed roll randomness (Was: [SG3]: What if?)

Robert Bryett replied to Samuel Penn:

> > Which brings me to my peeve of the randomness of the die mechanic.
> > Good troops are less predictable in their results than poor troops.
>I don't understand this comment. The random "mechanic" in SGII is an
>*opposed* roll, so isn't the result the *difference* between the
>rolls, not the rolls themselves? In this context, I don't see how the
>performance of either set of troops involved in an opposed roll can
>be called more predictable than the other. Is the theory simply that
>more sides on the die automatically equals less predictability?

I've been wondering this for years...

I suspect that at least part of it is a refusal to accept that having
better quality (ie. bigger die) does not absolutely guarantee that
win the opposed die roll. To me, comments like Samuel's (and I've seen 
quite a few of them over the years) always give an impression of "My D10

rolled a 1 while his D6 rolled a 5, so my Veteran lost to his Greenie - 
that's not fair! My troops are better, they're not *supposed* to lose!
- ie., they seem very much based on feelings, not on analysis of the

(Now, JA will undoubtedly tell me that good quality troops *don't* lose
poor ones - but even in the situations he's been in, which I'd describe
game terms as D10+ quality troops with D8+ armour fighting D4 quality 
troops with D4 armour, the high-quality guys still take 
casualties  occasionally - IOW, in game terms they still lose the 
occasional opposed die roll.)



"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."

Gzg-l mailing list

Prev: Re: [GZG] [SG3]: What if? Next: Re: [GZG] Opposed roll randomness (Was: [SG3]: What if?)