Discipline double 1s and double 6s

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

  • Discipline double 1s and double 6s

    Hey all,

    I suppose this really belongs in the suggestions part so apologies for this.

    Back when I last played warhammer there was a rule where no matter what modifiers you had to any break or leadership tests if you rolled a double 1 the unit always passed and like wise for double 6s being a failure despite any modifiers.

    I was just wondering what people's thoughts were on these rules - do people like them and would be happy to see them again or why people disliked them, would never want to see them again?

    I admit, it would make me chuckle at times to see in those 1 out of 100 games when a unit of e.g clan rats engaged on 2 flanks, outnumbered and against all hope would just see red and go all out.
  • 1/36 chance to be unbreakable is a real no-go for me personally. But I play to win (but still fair).

    I can understand people who play for fun etc likes the rule, it makes for a great story.

    And maximum ld is 10, so double 6 will always fail ;)
    Rules Questions?

    ETC 2016 - Referee
    ETC 2017 Warm-up Herford - Head Judge
    ETC 2017 Salamanca - Head Judge
    ETC 2018 - Team Sweden - Ogre Khans (ETC HYPE - CLICK ME!)
  • It is always up to the community you play with to adopt changes like this. Nothing except the fanboyism and WAAC of your gaming group is stopping you.

    We never stopped using this rule when transitioning from WHFB and it provides us with epic moments that are long remembered and brought up as anecdotes months after they occured.
    "In the end rules are just the groundwork for 2 players to have an agreement on how the game is played. If you friends/gaming group is fine with it you can do what ever you want with the game." - Smart Guy on the T9A forum

    "By the Lady, is that Elderberries I smell?" - Duke Niemar of Snowfall's Eves
  • I'm not a fan. For 2 reasons, first:

    There's something to be said about having some variance to allow unlikely things to happen, but the double 1 doesn't do that in my opinion. What it does is give players a get out of jail free card, when they've made a bad mistake or just been outplayed (if you're losing by enough to require a double 1 within BSB & General range - you've made a pretty bad mistake).

    I play KoE and given the amount of effort I go to just to get a flank charge off when I need one it was soul destroying to see those snake eyes come up in WFB. I've done everything right and now my opponent gets a win due to a massive piece of blind luck. I love the fluff and the story but for me, the game should still reward skill over luck.

    I think that T9A has gone too far towards skill in some places but WFB was far too much towards luck.


    Secondly, as @Duke Niemar points out, if your gaming group all agree, there's nothing to stop you house ruling this.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • It is not all black and white.

    Our group plays competitively, but not at the expense of having a great time.

    WHFB was a mess, what with snakeyes, animosity, heroic killing blow and shÎt like that. But that does not mean a game without all those things is the 'perfect' game.

    This is not chess, this is an immersive board game built on relatively balanced rules. Very important to understand that in order to keep a stress free gaming group.
    "In the end rules are just the groundwork for 2 players to have an agreement on how the game is played. If you friends/gaming group is fine with it you can do what ever you want with the game." - Smart Guy on the T9A forum

    "By the Lady, is that Elderberries I smell?" - Duke Niemar of Snowfall's Eves
  • Don't like. If you crush a unit by a ton of CR and they aren't steadfast, they should just break. 1 in 36 is way too common. And they had their chance at insane glory - either inflicting a ton more CR than expected, or saving a ton more wounds than expected, would reduce the Dis test to makeable (or even make their opponent roll it instead). Giving them another chance at lucky dice to hold is unnecessary.

    Also: we have steadfast and stubborn. If you want to hold in these kind of combats, make sure you have one of these, and you can just roll on your regular Dis.
    Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.

    Legal

    Playtester

    Chariot Command HQ

  • Duke Niemar wrote:

    It is not all black and white.

    Our group plays competitively, but not at the expense of having a great time.

    WHFB was a mess, what with snakeyes, animosity, heroic killing blow and shÎt like that. But that does not mean a game without all those things is the 'perfect' game.

    This is not chess, this is an immersive board game built on relatively balanced rules. Very important to understand that in order to keep a stress free gaming group.
    True - as I said I'd like to see some of the variance come back. I don't think that the snake eyes added much to the game because it was too common. It wasn't unbelievable bravery, it was WTF!?!? AGAIN?!?! bravery. I just feel that the unit has had it's chance to get lucky earlier on, as @Squirrelloid points out.

    I used to like animosity (and so did both of the O&G players in our gaming group - before anyone starts! :P). The way it was implemented was too hard in WFB but it didn't need to be removed from the game. I'd have turned it into a discipline test and if you fail you roll a D6 on a table, which has 3 good results and 3 bad results. These wouldn't have to be as crippling as they were in WFB, e.g. a free 4" move, Cannot march this turn, etc. That would have given O&G an identity of animosity and allow O&G players to mitigate the effects, with discipline bubbles & characters in units, etc.

    I understand why it was removed, because tournament players don't like unpredictability, but I thought O&G could have been made predictably unpredictable - and it would have been cool.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • I hate Steadfast more than snake-eyes. I love snake-eyes, it is a fun aspect, which I have a higher regard for than pure power gaming (which I am unable to do). I hate when my elite unit (low amount of figures usually) smashes a unit to pieces with a combat score of +12, but these silly guys have just one more rank than me, so they don't care. For me that should be autobreak, but not if you roll snake-eyes at that moment! That makes it fun, you lose by such great odds and yet against all odds you don't break! (1/36 change more mathers)
  • Kasocles wrote:

    I hate Steadfast more than snake-eyes. I love snake-eyes, it is a fun aspect, which I have a higher regard for than pure power gaming (which I am unable to do). I hate when my elite unit (low amount of figures usually) smashes a unit to pieces with a combat score of +12, but these silly guys have just one more rank than me, so they don't care. For me that should be autobreak, but not if you roll snake-eyes at that moment! That makes it fun, you lose by such great odds and yet against all odds you don't break! (1/36 change more mathers)
    I agree that steadfast is too binary, but I don't think adding snake eyes always holds and removing steadfast would help. There are too many units that rely on numbers that would need serious rebalancing.

    I think Steadfast needs a rework for 3.0 (2.0 gold is too close for a change this large) but honestly I'm yet to see a model that I really like. There have been some good ideas, but all of them have flaws.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • Yes, I agee with you @Sir_Sully that the WHFB effects and steadfast were/are too all or nothing, to use my own words: Black and white.

    For the same reason cannons are made unbelievably strong because you have all that power hanging on a single dice and the failure of that dice causes much dislike for RNGesus, insane courage and steadfast should be less binary in its appliance. I would very much like to see a decreasingly dire result the less you lose with instead of an either-you-lose-or-win-situation.

    Like the more you lose with, the more severe the actions of your breaking warriors become. A slight loss might not have them rout at all, instead being unable to fight back instead opting to defend while a complete and utter loss will see them being destroyed on the spot without fleeing. And everything in between.

    Buuuut... Knowing the rainbowclub they will just keep cherry picking rules that fit the WAAC clientele.

    Thus, houserules, because rather than no variance at all, we'd rather have snakeye-bonanza à la Shames Workflopp.
    "In the end rules are just the groundwork for 2 players to have an agreement on how the game is played. If you friends/gaming group is fine with it you can do what ever you want with the game." - Smart Guy on the T9A forum

    "By the Lady, is that Elderberries I smell?" - Duke Niemar of Snowfall's Eves

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Duke Niemar ().

  • It's interesting to see people's thoughts. I have a slight bias towards the nostalgia of the snake eyes but I'm not that invested lol.

    I didn't lose sleep over this rule being removed and I can completely see everyone's point of view of a 1/36 chance being very strong especially with steadfast.

    What is funny is that orcs animosity was brought into this as this is something else that changed for me. I'm an o and g player and I would be 100% comfortable if this was back in the game as originally designed and slightly happier if it was a slightly, softer rule.

    I suppose this slightly reflects people's attitudes. I like competitive games and I like thematic themes in fantasy games and it's striking that balance?

    The feedback from ETC stated that they found the competition really balanced this year and I think that should really be celebrated!

    However I also think a game like this has too many variables to be perfectly balanced though and I think it will always have cycles of top tiers unless each army identity was identical.

    Is this a bad thing?
  • I REALY REALY liked the double ones rule, it added flavour. For me the removal of the rule feels like a step in the direction of a game, where when engaged in combat, you calculate the statistic outcome to find the winner.

    I remember a fight where I messed up and my saurus lord on a coldone was the last man standing of a regiment of 9, and he held his ground on double 1's and annihilated the enemy the next round. It was so epic! The game needs more moments like that. Sure it sux to have your plans ruined, but you could also fail 1 charge and ruin your plans, or just miss with all closecombat dice, there are lots of things that can go wrong, and imo passing leadershiptests on double 1's isn't a big deal considering the awesome feeling u get when it happens.

    You can always have a shitty roll, I remember a fight whfb where I played dorfs, and the only target for my canon was a single skelly, i shot him 3 times before he died, rolling 2x1 to wound, it was hillarius and I still remember it 15 years l8er
    That wich dosnt kill me better run...

    #makeVanquisherEternalGreatAgain
  • Midgaardsormen wrote:

    I REALY REALY liked the double ones rule, it added flavour. For me the removal of the rule feels like a step in the direction of a game, where when engaged in combat, you calculate the statistic outcome to find the winner.

    I remember a fight where I messed up and my saurus lord on a coldone was the last man standing of a regiment of 9, and he held his ground on double 1's and annihilated the enemy the next round. It was so epic! The game needs more moments like that. Sure it sux to have your plans ruined, but you could also fail 1 charge and ruin your plans, or just miss with all closecombat dice, there are lots of things that can go wrong, and imo passing leadershiptests on double 1's isn't a big deal considering the awesome feeling u get when it happens.
    Cold blooded is of course an excellent argument why snake eyes always holding is a bad idea. Because 3 dice drop the highest has a significantly higher chance of rolling snake eyes. (16 in 216 is not quite 3x as often, over 7% of the time, and 1 in 36 is already more common than you'd like to think. 7% means ~1 in 13 discipline tests will be insane bravery. 1 in 13! You expect to see that at least once a game, if not several times).

    Combine that with characters who are stupid hard to kill holding on insane bravery, and it makes for frankly stupid gameplay where people can avoid getting punished for their mistakes. Seriously, of course he won after holding, the enemies engaged with him probably couldn't even hurt him. That's not epic. That's your opponent getting screwed. Epic would have involved him breaking and getting run down after the epic beatdown of his unit.

    Mechanics which save people from bad play, especially in spectacular fashion that totally turns things around and puts them at an advantage just due to sheer chance, are bad mechanics.
    Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.

    Legal

    Playtester

    Chariot Command HQ

  • I think that the biggest thing that needs to be considered is the enjoyment of BOTH players.

    This was always the problem with the "hold on double 1s" thing for me. When it was my unit that made the miraculous roll and held against all odds, it was absolutely a moment of exultation for me. When it was my opponents unit that held due to this rule, it was soul crushing. After all, there is nothing quite like making the effort to execute a good strategy, lining everything up so that you will win the game through your superior game play, and having all of it crushed by dumb luck.

    I don't think that it is healthy for the game, personally, and I am glad it is gone. I like it better when you win the game because you played better, not because you got lucky on a single dice roll.

    But then again, that is just me. I see this as a game. Other people see it as a story telling mechanism. Some people just like these kind of events. Everyone is different. If you and your friends like this kind of thing, then by all means play with it. I'm certainly not going to sit here and tell you not to have fun.
  • Can't be added back because tournament players can't handle random results in this game of using dice to determine what happens.
    Takes the skill out of the game or something.

    A bit like rolling several 6s to hit when you needed 6s, completely unreasonable only that doesn't count because that's skill not luck for some reason.

    That and things like cold blooded mean it's more like a 14.2% chance to pass (assuming a re-roll) rather than the standard 2.8% chance without cold blooded (or a re-roll).
    There's no possible way to have the rule only apply to unmodified dice rolls either, because it's just not possible to put that into words that people would understand.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by theunwantedbeing ().

  • Sir_Sully wrote:

    Kasocles wrote:

    I hate Steadfast more than snake-eyes. I love snake-eyes, it is a fun aspect, which I have a higher regard for than pure power gaming (which I am unable to do). I hate when my elite unit (low amount of figures usually) smashes a unit to pieces with a combat score of +12, but these silly guys have just one more rank than me, so they don't care. For me that should be autobreak, but not if you roll snake-eyes at that moment! That makes it fun, you lose by such great odds and yet against all odds you don't break! (1/36 change more mathers)
    I agree that steadfast is too binary, but I don't think adding snake eyes always holds and removing steadfast would help. There are too many units that rely on numbers that would need serious rebalancing.
    I think Steadfast needs a rework for 3.0 (2.0 gold is too close for a change this large) but honestly I'm yet to see a model that I really like. There have been some good ideas, but all of them have flaws.
    Has anyone suggested modifying the Steadfast mechanic to, instead of allowing for a test at full Discipline, modify the Discipline value by something lesser than the combat result?

    For e.g., tie your steadfast ability to # of ranks, so if you have 3 full ranks and lost by 2 you still test on full leadership, but anything above 3 and your test starts to suffer modifiers. So to continue the example, and assuming original Discipline = 9:

    Lose by 1, 2, or 3: Test on 9
    Lose by 4: Test on 8
    Lose by 5: Test on 7
    ...

    Another alternative would be to halve the modifier when you are steadfast. Both are nerfs to the mechanic, but might help address the "binary-ness" issue
  • Occasionally it’s epic: The last members of an elite bodyguard fighting bravely against hard odds with their liege lord in tow. Most of the time it’s random: a small chaff unit losing most of its numbers and 1-2 guys are remaining and they randomly roll snakes. Normally those guys would want to flee. They are just trying to be a road block. Not heroes.

    I’m happy it’s gone.
    Evershade Gaming on YouTube youtube.com/channel/UCKjjkWnXanizMuTh5obkxpA

    theforgottenturtle.com An Awesome Painting Blog
  • MatRat wrote:

    Another alternative would be to halve the modifier when you are steadfast. Both are nerfs to the mechanic, but might help address the "binary-ness" issue
    I think that's too far in the opposite direction. I'd charge my (KoE) cavalry face first into infantry if that was the rule - I can fit 2 units of 12 in your front facing and do about 10 wounds, I have an extra standard, charged, have +4 ranks (one more than the infantry) and just got 15 CR. You need to do 10 wounds to 2+, 5++ models to have a realistic chance of staying, unless you're stubborn or unbreakable.

    MatRat wrote:

    Has anyone suggested modifying the Steadfast mechanic to, instead of allowing for a test at full Discipline, modify the Discipline value by something lesser than the combat result?
    Yes, I've seen that. That doesn't would allow 10 ranks of X losing to 12 ranks of Y by 10 CR and testing on the General's Discipline 10, rerollable - this is worse than it is now.

    I've also seen a suggestion where you do exactly this but only count the ranks more than the enemy have, but that doesn't give enough staying power to large horde type units (like KoE peasants or Goblins) who will get blended by medium elite units in one round. I'm starting to think more and more that it's the morale mechanics that need an overhaul.

    We could introduce something like a morale pool and state that a unit flees once it loses all it's morale pool is reduced to 0. Some attacks would also remove a morale token if they wound, or if they hit. Some events (like being flank charged) would lead to a loss of morale tokens, etc. Stubborn units would start the game with extra tokens (they're harder to break) and unbreakable units would just flat out ignore morale.

    That's 3.0 sort of stuff, though.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • I wouldn't say snake eyes is a way to forgive a player's "bad play". You can have excellent play and still flop all your attacks and lose a combat you statistically shouldn't. So against the same odds (not-statistically speaking) why shouldn't you be able to roll an insane courage roll?

    The biggest change to steadfast though that I'd like to see, is that it doesn't work with just 1 rank. Five models being steadfast against a 450-pts type non-gigantic model? Now that's stupid. Snake eyes would at least give them the chance to stand their ground and make for a good story instead.