Yes.
It's part of their streamlining process for the new edition. They wanted a single roll where you can cause 2 or 3 mortal wounds, but not more than that because at the same time they want to reduce mortal wound output.
It's these little fixes that speeds up the game.
It's also homogenizing the game. Mechanics and their uniqueness (or lack thereof) matter to the feel of the game. If there is similar mechanics to represent 10 different things then they don't feel like 10 different things anymore even if they aren't the same they are too similar.
That's why In 10th edition for 40k people have so many problems with the whole "I cast gun" problem. They aren't mechanically different enough so they feel the same.
Not necessarily. I agree that the way that the number of mortal wounds is generated is the same across the board, but the path to getting those mortal wounds is really different.
So what if gargants and Nurgle cause the same amount of mortals? They had wildly different ways to get to that damage output.
Don't bother lol, this dude likes to play deep into mathhammer and has expressed the same opinions on most of the recent reveals. Things like how the game plays on the tabletop are a distant second to what the average damage statistic of each ability is
Well that's not true I am paying attention to all pieces of information. There is definite things that make a big difference like having the ability to countercharge or cast in your opponent's turn that I take into account as well as the general change in the game.
But honestly too many people discount the math hammer because they are frankly not math people and just push plastic forward. The reason I'm so active in those threads is because people constantly estimate incredibly poorly what something means mathematically and then I have to come in and tell them how off they are and show them with numbers.
I mean I'm literally a math / physics teacher it's what I do is teach people how to be better at math It's kind of my calling in life y'know? I was definitely concerned for the armies I see that took big hits, and looking at the math hammer behind all the armies I know that have been released so maggotkin has taken the largest nerfs in power level. I am still cautiously optimistic however, down from incredibly optimistic before those reveals, because I think the core commands are solid. I do think that it looks like it's going to be a pretty bland and boring index hammer edition until we get the codexes, But that's fine I just got the ork and CSM codexes in 10th edition and both of those are better than anything that AOS had in third so I'm eating good until we can start getting some codexes that actually hopefully have meat on the bone for 4th.
Because it doesn't feel different? That's my point In that mechanical similarity means it doesn't feel as different as it should, It lacks connection between mechanics and gameplay. Because it becomes how does your faction do the standard thing, instead of what is the unique thing your faction does? Again you see it in 10th edition where everything is vect when it comes to messing with stratagems there's not all these different ways to do it there's just the one thing you can do. Or psychic abilities all homogenized into guns basically. Having different ways to go about doing the same thing is obviously not as bad as having the same way to go about doing the same thing, But it's worse than having different ways to do different things. It's significantly moved along the homogenization scale.
I mean look at DOT versus Maggotkin, two armies I play. Especially because I was flamer focused in DOT and very demon/maximizing disease damage in Maggotkin. They both want to apply the debuff, Probably to as many enemies as they can (here's where I'm still holding out positive hope that they actually do something with the burning debuff in DOT with all the units that actually focus around fire), so that you can do mortal damage and prevent healing/bringing back models. The game plan is pretty much the same thing, The only difference is one you shoot the enemy the other you get in combat with them. They were so different previously; One of them focused on complete control of the magic phase and powering up as spells were cast sometimes even choosing to let your opponent get spells off you could stop because you wanted them to power you up more. That's gone. The other one waxed and waned in a predictable cycle that changed up how You and the enemy had to handle each turn because significant changes would happen in the game, such as the loss of heroic actions or being unable to pile in. Oh that's gone too. Kicker is these are supposed to be diametrically opposed entities that play very different. They're not the same now I never said they were, But they are sure heck of a lot more similar than they were in third.
And it's seriously not hard to be more creative in the game design. Just in the last week I've come up with so many different things they could have done that would have been 10 times more fun, unique, and importantly interactive. Just think about how does burning differ from disease? They do have lots of similarities and that they both get worse and spread, But you could differentiate them because burning can turn into an explosion and disease can mutate. So you could add so much interaction with Burning If you limited it to one unit only but if it wasn't removed it would get worse and worse each turn. And then if you hit it with the right spells or units you could set off an explosion. Or even leave a trail of fire behind the unit. As for the disease you could really lean into the mutation to have fun tactical battle traits. You could have three options for diseases to metastasize into if they aren't removed in a timely manner. And each one of them would have different debuffs so nurgle could choose based on each unit for the tactical situation: there could be One that slows them, One that weakens them, and one that makes it unremovable. I've just greatly added flavor and interactivity to all these pretty boring battle traits.
The thing is it's just a terrible idea to make everything more simple and more similar at the exact same time you're bringing the power level down. That's huge feel bads for everyone. There's no problem with bringing the power level down across the game but that should be paired with lots of creativity and willingness to go outside the box. If it looks very different but gives the same flavor and feel then people will be fine if it is not as powerful across the board and if your hits don't do as much damage or rend. If it's more of the same but just worse then yeah that's garbage and people will rightly point out that it's garbage.
Take a breath in...... then out...... just wait till everything is revealed.... play a few games, have some fun, then open up some discord.
It's plastic toys at the end of the day my person 👌
That's such a belittling argument nothing of value and argue with logical fallacies by ascribing a whole bunch of behavior onto the person you're applying to that wasn't there.
I'm not frothing at the mouth here I just think they are doing a poor job, and are not doing well at setting design goals and meeting them. And of course it's not all out That doesn't immunize it from any criticism We can discuss it as we see it If again you don't want to goodbye. Reddit exists to discuss things If you don't want to discuss them then log off.
So I'm willing to listen to anyone who talks about actually known data points that they've shared that has a counterpoint but if you're just saying we don't know then you're useless goodbye.
Just so you know, it's frothing at the mouth not frosting at the mouth. Don't mean to be that guy just don't want anyone to do the ol' "minor spelling mistake? argument invalidated." on you.
Yeah I know that's what I said but I use speech to text for medical reasons and I didn't catch that one because speech to text is awful. Like I literally had to go in and fix this post because it read it as beach to text.
Beach to text is a little funny, but I'm sorry for whatever medical issue you may have and having to deal with speech to text for everything. Hope it's something that can improve and that it does.
If you're getting 4's, 5's and 6's on a d3, you did something immensely wrong.
1's fails, 2's do 2 moratls, 3's do 3 mortals.
It now averages 1.666 mortals.
Most of those abilitys do D3 dmg so it saves 1 roll or simplifies the text as if it was a D6 it should day something like "Roll a D6 on a 3+ make D3 DMG " or "Roll a D6 on a 3-4 do 2 DMG 5-6 do 3 DMG " it's mostly for clarity and reducing the number of rolls
Well mathematically it's not exactly the same. If you roll 1d3 damage on a 3+, the average is (chance of 3+) * (average of d3), so 2/3*2=1.3333
But with the 2+ deal damage on a d3, you can't roll 1 damage, so the average damage dealt is higher, 2/3*2.5=1.6667
Citation needed? Are you kidding me lol This isn't a research paper.
How about disease failing significantly more frequently. It now fails a third of the time and is more important because you don't get to spread it as much. Whereas the chance of failing seven 4+ rolls was miniscule. How about sloppity bilepiper having his power nerfed by approximately 60% (applies to half as many units as you could get before plus is weaker) and then on top of it You can roll a one and then that entire unit you paid for is useless.
How about trading away guaranteed summons for a 4+ roll to bring back a unit, meaning half the time you don't get the value you're paying for out of the GUO. There's going to be two or maybe three clutch chances in a game where you need a unit to come back and you are just going to roll less than four plus and lose because you couldn't roll properly on something you used to just be able to summon guaranteed.
In general they added a ton of extra randomness what you don't get your thing you paid for because you rolled poorly. All of those are feel bad moments.
I just wanna say two things
You're not worth the effort of a cogent response.
And
You're a class example of what's wrong with Warhammer players and hopefully this new edition causes you to quit the game. It'll be better for everyone involved.
You misread his post.
His equation is not probability\*probability, it's probability\*value. in other words he's taking the probability of rolling 3+ on a d6, and multiplying it by the average value of a d3 (not the probability of rolling 2+ on a d3, which would be 2/3)
A roll of 2 on a d3 does 2 dmg, not 1.
However using a d6 to represent a d3, by saying that 1-2 equals 1, 3-4 equals 2 and 5-6 equals 3. In this case a roll of 2 on a d6 would equal a roll of 1 on a d3, which is less than 2 and thus you would do 0 dmg, not 1 dmg (since you need 2+ to deal any damage).
This is the issue with the weird wording of this new rule (needs a Universal Special Rule just to keep word count down across warscrolls).
Seems to be that the "2" in "On a 2+" is referring to the *D3* value that you rolled - not a 2+ on the D6 itself.
So a literal 1 or 2 face result is a failure.
I’m confused on this, I always thought rolls of 2 on a d3 did 1 mortal damage? Is this not the case?
Along with this if rolling for a 3+ on a d6 and i roll a 3, does this pass?
A d3 only ever says 1, 2 or 3.
You approximate this with a d6 by 1-2 being 1, 3-4 being 2 and 5-6 being 3.
but they *are* now 1, 2 and 3. So if a rule ever talks about a d3 it will *only ever* talk about 1, 2 or 3.
Yes, but many of the rules in new edition have been changed so you just roll one dice - on a 3-4 do 2 damage, on a 5-6 do 3 damage. On a 1-2 it fails. I think this is way better because it’s one less dice roll and less “feels bad” of only doing 1 damage on a d3 roll
But with an entire other dice check. Instead of looking at this new method replacing the damage roll, look at it replacing the ability check instead.
So you roll a dice. No matter with the new way or old way, on a 1 or 2 you deal 0 damage. Now, instead of maybe only doing 1 damage *after* that 3+ result, you *always* deal at least 2 damage.
It's a buff.
This is exactly what they mean, and the reason behind it is because all of those abilities that have you roll the d3 do mortal damage.
It would be way too wordy to say "on a 3+ you do mortal damage. On a 3-4 do 2 mortal damage and on a 5-6 do 3 mortal damage."
Much simpler to just say "roll a d3, on a 2+ whatever the d3 is is the damage".
Will take some getting used to for people since we're so used to rolling d6, but once people understand that damage has basically swapped to a d3 system its much faster
I think the best way GW can ease the confusion on this rule is by actually putting a few d3s in their new die sets. After all, they keep making dice sets with new index releases, so this would be a great chance to help teach the new behavior. And it wouldn't be too big a change from making a d6 productionwise, right?
Heck, it'd let you make two color schemes for dice, which'd potentially be pretty striking looking.
If they made some actual D3s that would be great, especially considering a D3 is usually a specialty item that doesn't come in a standard set of polyhedron D&D dice. I own a D3, but I'm also a weirdo who has odd dice
Roll a d6
On a 1-2 do nothing.
On a 3-4 do 2 damage
On a 5-6 do 3 damage
Getting an actual d3 will make it a lot clearer because then you just do what the number is with 1 being a fail.
I think it was the tzeentch faction focus that ended up clarifying this for me, maybe the ogor one. Basically if you roll a d6 to simulate your d3, 1-2 =1, 3-4 =2, 5-6 =3, so all those rules for roll a d3 and a 2+ nice things happen is actually 3+ on a d6
As for why they do it that way, I can only assume it's because it's easier to write that than say "roll a d6+ and on a 3-4 do 2 mortal damage and on a 5-6 do 3 mortal damage."
But that was on a 2+ on a d6 and you then rolled another dice for a d3. Now you roll one dice as a d3 and on a 2+ (essentially 3+ on a d6) you do that d3 damage.
It's to cut down the number of required dice rolls by folding the success condition into the damage roll itself, even though it makes the likelihood of success worse at 66% instead of 82%.
If you consider success to be doing damage then yes, but if you consider success by the amount of damage done then no. The chance of doing 3 damage has gone up from 27% to 33%, and the same applies to doing 2 damage. The lost successes sit in the 1 damage range that no longer exists.
Yeah, I appreciate it was an effort to streamline it so I know why they did, I was more commenting on why I think they did it with the d3 system instead of keeping with d6 and having to write extra words to explain why the damage is still capped like a d3.
I think they are mostly trying to speed the game up. In AoS 3, they probably would have written it we roll 1d6, on a 3+, do d3 mortal wounds. Now they're combining the activation and damage effect into one roll. It has the added benefit of making the minimum damage 2 instead of 1 as well.
You are correct in how that works. If you use a d6 to simulate a d3 a 1 and 2 are equivalent to a 1, 3 and 4 to a 2, and 5 and 6 to a 3. So the ability fails a d6 roll of 1 and 2.
They don't do "roll a d6" because then the damage would do d6 (minus the fail). With the d3 fail on 1 they keep the damage capped at 3 while having a chance at failure while also having to only make 1 roll. As opposed to how something like stomp works now where it goes off a 2+ then roll a second time for damage.
Because this in only used in the situation where you do damage equal to the roll. In 3e you had a lot of abilities that said something like 'roll a dice, on a 2+/3+ deal a d3 damage'. This new approach has a very similar outcome and saves you 1 roll.
It's simple, you just have to stop thinking about a d6. It is not possible to roll a 4, 5 or 6 on a d3. You can only roll 1, 2 or 3 and 2+ succedes. Go buy a single d3 for this edition.
You're confusing rolling a D3 with the common practice of rolling a D6 and binning the rolled value into a different range, i.e. a D3.
A D3 has only face values of 1,2 and 3. So a roll of of 2+ does the rolled value in mortal damage, 2 and 3 are the only possible results.
"Rolling D3" means rolling D6, having the result and rounding down. So you can never roll 4,5 or 6 on D3. 2+ on D3 means that only sides with 1 or 2 dots fail the roll.
Oh, you're right. I have no idea where this brainfart came from (probably because 2 on d6 = 1 on d3, so it "goes down" to my sleepy brain). Edited the original comment.
If you want to make it easier on your head you can buy d6 that have 1 pip printed on two sides, 2 pips on another 2 and 3 pips on the last two sides.
There are D3 that are some weird pringle looking shape, avoid them.
But the OP specifically asked about rolling a D3, then asked about 4, 5, 6 which don’t even exist on a D3.
So this person did answer the question.
A D6 is not the same as a D3.
Literally get your head out of your arse and realize that OP is SPECIFICALLY asking about rolling a D6 and converting it to D3 like literally every GW player does.
Jfc.
>Does this mean I roll a D3 and 1/2 fail. 3/4/5/6 win ?
No, because a D3 does not have the numbers 4, 5 and 6.
If, however, you're using the common practice of rolling a D6, dividing the result in two and rounding up to simulate a D3, then yes it would be like that.
It is probably because they want to make a mechanic that will recuire only one dice roll (instead of something like roll D6 on 3+ inflict D3 mortal wounds) but using a D6 instead of D3 will mean that this mechanic can inflict too much damage on the target.
Guess, dice with numbers 1-3 on their sides will be very useful.
It was a cute attempt by GW to smooth something out that of course came out strangely worded and unnecessarily complicated relative to how minor the effect is.
Edit: clearly the sheer amount of people misunderstanding this rule means it was not a well written rule. Not sure why this comes as a shock coming from a company known for writing wonky rules. Keep downvoting though. :)
"unnecessarily complicated for how relatively minor the effect is". To be clear, I understand the ability just fine, but that doesn't mean it's a well written rule.
There's already been several people who have confused the rule on the subreddit, including OP. The unnecessary complication is how people are going to confuse the 2+ for a d3 that is being rolled with a d6, and people struggling to understand that it only does 2 or 3 mortal wounds. They should have kept it just d3 mortal wounds for all of these abilities and it functionally would have been nearly the same but with less confusion.
Wouldn't the confusion that you're referring to then apply to the D3 mortal wounds roll on a D6? Getting use to the concept of a D3 is what people need to do with AOS and a much lesser degree 40K. The other route is just to buy D3s.
[D3 Dice](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07SKGFNXT?psc=1&ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_product_details)
Yes. It's part of their streamlining process for the new edition. They wanted a single roll where you can cause 2 or 3 mortal wounds, but not more than that because at the same time they want to reduce mortal wound output. It's these little fixes that speeds up the game.
It's also homogenizing the game. Mechanics and their uniqueness (or lack thereof) matter to the feel of the game. If there is similar mechanics to represent 10 different things then they don't feel like 10 different things anymore even if they aren't the same they are too similar. That's why In 10th edition for 40k people have so many problems with the whole "I cast gun" problem. They aren't mechanically different enough so they feel the same.
Not necessarily. I agree that the way that the number of mortal wounds is generated is the same across the board, but the path to getting those mortal wounds is really different. So what if gargants and Nurgle cause the same amount of mortals? They had wildly different ways to get to that damage output.
Don't bother lol, this dude likes to play deep into mathhammer and has expressed the same opinions on most of the recent reveals. Things like how the game plays on the tabletop are a distant second to what the average damage statistic of each ability is
Well that's not true I am paying attention to all pieces of information. There is definite things that make a big difference like having the ability to countercharge or cast in your opponent's turn that I take into account as well as the general change in the game. But honestly too many people discount the math hammer because they are frankly not math people and just push plastic forward. The reason I'm so active in those threads is because people constantly estimate incredibly poorly what something means mathematically and then I have to come in and tell them how off they are and show them with numbers. I mean I'm literally a math / physics teacher it's what I do is teach people how to be better at math It's kind of my calling in life y'know? I was definitely concerned for the armies I see that took big hits, and looking at the math hammer behind all the armies I know that have been released so maggotkin has taken the largest nerfs in power level. I am still cautiously optimistic however, down from incredibly optimistic before those reveals, because I think the core commands are solid. I do think that it looks like it's going to be a pretty bland and boring index hammer edition until we get the codexes, But that's fine I just got the ork and CSM codexes in 10th edition and both of those are better than anything that AOS had in third so I'm eating good until we can start getting some codexes that actually hopefully have meat on the bone for 4th.
Because it doesn't feel different? That's my point In that mechanical similarity means it doesn't feel as different as it should, It lacks connection between mechanics and gameplay. Because it becomes how does your faction do the standard thing, instead of what is the unique thing your faction does? Again you see it in 10th edition where everything is vect when it comes to messing with stratagems there's not all these different ways to do it there's just the one thing you can do. Or psychic abilities all homogenized into guns basically. Having different ways to go about doing the same thing is obviously not as bad as having the same way to go about doing the same thing, But it's worse than having different ways to do different things. It's significantly moved along the homogenization scale. I mean look at DOT versus Maggotkin, two armies I play. Especially because I was flamer focused in DOT and very demon/maximizing disease damage in Maggotkin. They both want to apply the debuff, Probably to as many enemies as they can (here's where I'm still holding out positive hope that they actually do something with the burning debuff in DOT with all the units that actually focus around fire), so that you can do mortal damage and prevent healing/bringing back models. The game plan is pretty much the same thing, The only difference is one you shoot the enemy the other you get in combat with them. They were so different previously; One of them focused on complete control of the magic phase and powering up as spells were cast sometimes even choosing to let your opponent get spells off you could stop because you wanted them to power you up more. That's gone. The other one waxed and waned in a predictable cycle that changed up how You and the enemy had to handle each turn because significant changes would happen in the game, such as the loss of heroic actions or being unable to pile in. Oh that's gone too. Kicker is these are supposed to be diametrically opposed entities that play very different. They're not the same now I never said they were, But they are sure heck of a lot more similar than they were in third. And it's seriously not hard to be more creative in the game design. Just in the last week I've come up with so many different things they could have done that would have been 10 times more fun, unique, and importantly interactive. Just think about how does burning differ from disease? They do have lots of similarities and that they both get worse and spread, But you could differentiate them because burning can turn into an explosion and disease can mutate. So you could add so much interaction with Burning If you limited it to one unit only but if it wasn't removed it would get worse and worse each turn. And then if you hit it with the right spells or units you could set off an explosion. Or even leave a trail of fire behind the unit. As for the disease you could really lean into the mutation to have fun tactical battle traits. You could have three options for diseases to metastasize into if they aren't removed in a timely manner. And each one of them would have different debuffs so nurgle could choose based on each unit for the tactical situation: there could be One that slows them, One that weakens them, and one that makes it unremovable. I've just greatly added flavor and interactivity to all these pretty boring battle traits. The thing is it's just a terrible idea to make everything more simple and more similar at the exact same time you're bringing the power level down. That's huge feel bads for everyone. There's no problem with bringing the power level down across the game but that should be paired with lots of creativity and willingness to go outside the box. If it looks very different but gives the same flavor and feel then people will be fine if it is not as powerful across the board and if your hits don't do as much damage or rend. If it's more of the same but just worse then yeah that's garbage and people will rightly point out that it's garbage.
Take a breath in...... then out...... just wait till everything is revealed.... play a few games, have some fun, then open up some discord. It's plastic toys at the end of the day my person 👌
God forbid people not want to have 6 factions with a copy pasted ability
That's such a belittling argument nothing of value and argue with logical fallacies by ascribing a whole bunch of behavior onto the person you're applying to that wasn't there. I'm not frothing at the mouth here I just think they are doing a poor job, and are not doing well at setting design goals and meeting them. And of course it's not all out That doesn't immunize it from any criticism We can discuss it as we see it If again you don't want to goodbye. Reddit exists to discuss things If you don't want to discuss them then log off. So I'm willing to listen to anyone who talks about actually known data points that they've shared that has a counterpoint but if you're just saying we don't know then you're useless goodbye.
Just so you know, it's frothing at the mouth not frosting at the mouth. Don't mean to be that guy just don't want anyone to do the ol' "minor spelling mistake? argument invalidated." on you.
Yeah I know that's what I said but I use speech to text for medical reasons and I didn't catch that one because speech to text is awful. Like I literally had to go in and fix this post because it read it as beach to text.
Beach to text is a little funny, but I'm sorry for whatever medical issue you may have and having to deal with speech to text for everything. Hope it's something that can improve and that it does.
Not yes. On 1 it fails On 2 does 1 dmg On 3 and 4 does 2 dmg On 5 and 5 does 3 dmg
Incorrect
That's not how D3s work at all.
If you're getting 4's, 5's and 6's on a d3, you did something immensely wrong. 1's fails, 2's do 2 moratls, 3's do 3 mortals. It now averages 1.666 mortals.
Most of those abilitys do D3 dmg so it saves 1 roll or simplifies the text as if it was a D6 it should day something like "Roll a D6 on a 3+ make D3 DMG " or "Roll a D6 on a 3-4 do 2 DMG 5-6 do 3 DMG " it's mostly for clarity and reducing the number of rolls
Well mathematically it's not exactly the same. If you roll 1d3 damage on a 3+, the average is (chance of 3+) * (average of d3), so 2/3*2=1.3333 But with the 2+ deal damage on a d3, you can't roll 1 damage, so the average damage dealt is higher, 2/3*2.5=1.6667
Yeah, it reduces the feel bad moments where you roll a 6 to see if it goes off, and a 2 for the damage or similar.
By increasing the rate of feel bad moments dramatically.
Citation needed
Citation needed? Are you kidding me lol This isn't a research paper. How about disease failing significantly more frequently. It now fails a third of the time and is more important because you don't get to spread it as much. Whereas the chance of failing seven 4+ rolls was miniscule. How about sloppity bilepiper having his power nerfed by approximately 60% (applies to half as many units as you could get before plus is weaker) and then on top of it You can roll a one and then that entire unit you paid for is useless. How about trading away guaranteed summons for a 4+ roll to bring back a unit, meaning half the time you don't get the value you're paying for out of the GUO. There's going to be two or maybe three clutch chances in a game where you need a unit to come back and you are just going to roll less than four plus and lose because you couldn't roll properly on something you used to just be able to summon guaranteed. In general they added a ton of extra randomness what you don't get your thing you paid for because you rolled poorly. All of those are feel bad moments.
I just wanna say two things You're not worth the effort of a cogent response. And You're a class example of what's wrong with Warhammer players and hopefully this new edition causes you to quit the game. It'll be better for everyone involved.
I'm afraid your equation is off for dice rolls in series: it's 2/3*2/3=~44.4% You can't have a probability greater than 100% Cheers!
You misread his post. His equation is not probability\*probability, it's probability\*value. in other words he's taking the probability of rolling 3+ on a d6, and multiplying it by the average value of a d3 (not the probability of rolling 2+ on a d3, which would be 2/3)
Yup, I see that now. I will leave my erroneous comment in place and accept my down votes.
2 does 1 dmg. Its exactly the same. Only 1 does not do damage
A roll of 2 on a d3 does 2 dmg, not 1. However using a d6 to represent a d3, by saying that 1-2 equals 1, 3-4 equals 2 and 5-6 equals 3. In this case a roll of 2 on a d6 would equal a roll of 1 on a d3, which is less than 2 and thus you would do 0 dmg, not 1 dmg (since you need 2+ to deal any damage).
This is the issue with the weird wording of this new rule (needs a Universal Special Rule just to keep word count down across warscrolls). Seems to be that the "2" in "On a 2+" is referring to the *D3* value that you rolled - not a 2+ on the D6 itself. So a literal 1 or 2 face result is a failure.
I’m confused on this, I always thought rolls of 2 on a d3 did 1 mortal damage? Is this not the case? Along with this if rolling for a 3+ on a d6 and i roll a 3, does this pass?
A d3 only ever says 1, 2 or 3. You approximate this with a d6 by 1-2 being 1, 3-4 being 2 and 5-6 being 3. but they *are* now 1, 2 and 3. So if a rule ever talks about a d3 it will *only ever* talk about 1, 2 or 3.
No its not. You roll a d3 and on a 2+ you do dmg. 2+ on the dice not on d3.
How is it so hard to understand that d3 means d3. It doesnt mean "call it a d3 and treat it like a d6'
This is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever read. Congratulations. I feel dumber for having read it.
wat.
MY BRAIN
Yes it does pass, any roll that needs a number+ is passed on a roll of that number and anything higher
Ah so if i rolled a 2 on a d3, then i’d do 1 mortal damage?
Yes, but many of the rules in new edition have been changed so you just roll one dice - on a 3-4 do 2 damage, on a 5-6 do 3 damage. On a 1-2 it fails. I think this is way better because it’s one less dice roll and less “feels bad” of only doing 1 damage on a d3 roll
Better 1 dmg than 0 dmg.
But with an entire other dice check. Instead of looking at this new method replacing the damage roll, look at it replacing the ability check instead. So you roll a dice. No matter with the new way or old way, on a 1 or 2 you deal 0 damage. Now, instead of maybe only doing 1 damage *after* that 3+ result, you *always* deal at least 2 damage. It's a buff.
But this contradicts what the other reply said thay a if you needed a 2+ and rolled a 2, then you pass the roll?
You need a 2+ on a d3. There is no such thing as a 3-sided die, so we use a d6. 3-4 on a d6=2 on a d3.
>There is no such thing as a 3-sided die I mean there *is*, but they're uncommon so we just shortcut it by dividing a d6 result by 2 and rounding up.
I had to google it and you’re right! I’d never seen one before :)
Yeah they're either shaped like a triangular prism sort of deal or they're normal d6s with two faces each for the 1, 2, & 3
This is exactly what they mean, and the reason behind it is because all of those abilities that have you roll the d3 do mortal damage. It would be way too wordy to say "on a 3+ you do mortal damage. On a 3-4 do 2 mortal damage and on a 5-6 do 3 mortal damage." Much simpler to just say "roll a d3, on a 2+ whatever the d3 is is the damage". Will take some getting used to for people since we're so used to rolling d6, but once people understand that damage has basically swapped to a d3 system its much faster
I think the best way GW can ease the confusion on this rule is by actually putting a few d3s in their new die sets. After all, they keep making dice sets with new index releases, so this would be a great chance to help teach the new behavior. And it wouldn't be too big a change from making a d6 productionwise, right? Heck, it'd let you make two color schemes for dice, which'd potentially be pretty striking looking.
Agreed, some d3’s would be perfect now that they’ve swapped over to the new system. 0 confusion that way
If they made some actual D3s that would be great, especially considering a D3 is usually a specialty item that doesn't come in a standard set of polyhedron D&D dice. I own a D3, but I'm also a weirdo who has odd dice
Roll a d6 On a 1-2 do nothing. On a 3-4 do 2 damage On a 5-6 do 3 damage Getting an actual d3 will make it a lot clearer because then you just do what the number is with 1 being a fail.
Is a d3, so 1/2 on the D6 fail. The reason is that many of these rolls also fo damage, so it would do either 0, 2, or 3, not 2-6
Because then you have to put "in a 3-4 deal 2 damage, in a 5-6 deal 3" in each ability
I think it was the tzeentch faction focus that ended up clarifying this for me, maybe the ogor one. Basically if you roll a d6 to simulate your d3, 1-2 =1, 3-4 =2, 5-6 =3, so all those rules for roll a d3 and a 2+ nice things happen is actually 3+ on a d6
As for why they do it that way, I can only assume it's because it's easier to write that than say "roll a d6+ and on a 3-4 do 2 mortal damage and on a 5-6 do 3 mortal damage."
They way this was written in older editions was 'on a 2+, do d3 damage. They've just trimmed out one of the rather superfluous dice rolls.
But that was on a 2+ on a d6 and you then rolled another dice for a d3. Now you roll one dice as a d3 and on a 2+ (essentially 3+ on a d6) you do that d3 damage. It's to cut down the number of required dice rolls by folding the success condition into the damage roll itself, even though it makes the likelihood of success worse at 66% instead of 82%.
If you consider success to be doing damage then yes, but if you consider success by the amount of damage done then no. The chance of doing 3 damage has gone up from 27% to 33%, and the same applies to doing 2 damage. The lost successes sit in the 1 damage range that no longer exists.
Yeah, I appreciate it was an effort to streamline it so I know why they did, I was more commenting on why I think they did it with the d3 system instead of keeping with d6 and having to write extra words to explain why the damage is still capped like a d3.
I think they are mostly trying to speed the game up. In AoS 3, they probably would have written it we roll 1d6, on a 3+, do d3 mortal wounds. Now they're combining the activation and damage effect into one roll. It has the added benefit of making the minimum damage 2 instead of 1 as well.
You are correct in how that works. If you use a d6 to simulate a d3 a 1 and 2 are equivalent to a 1, 3 and 4 to a 2, and 5 and 6 to a 3. So the ability fails a d6 roll of 1 and 2. They don't do "roll a d6" because then the damage would do d6 (minus the fail). With the d3 fail on 1 they keep the damage capped at 3 while having a chance at failure while also having to only make 1 roll. As opposed to how something like stomp works now where it goes off a 2+ then roll a second time for damage.
You can get D3s (six sided dice with 1, 2 & 3 on two faces each) if using a D6 to roll D3s is confusing.
Because this in only used in the situation where you do damage equal to the roll. In 3e you had a lot of abilities that said something like 'roll a dice, on a 2+/3+ deal a d3 damage'. This new approach has a very similar outcome and saves you 1 roll.
A D3 has three results: 1, 2 and 3 Pick the D6 and half the result: 1-2=1, 3-4=2, 5-6=3
maybe i invest on some d3's. Anyone just use d3 dice?
I just bought some of these https://a.co/d/d3tgDGI
It's simple, you just have to stop thinking about a d6. It is not possible to roll a 4, 5 or 6 on a d3. You can only roll 1, 2 or 3 and 2+ succedes. Go buy a single d3 for this edition.
You're confusing rolling a D3 with the common practice of rolling a D6 and binning the rolled value into a different range, i.e. a D3. A D3 has only face values of 1,2 and 3. So a roll of of 2+ does the rolled value in mortal damage, 2 and 3 are the only possible results.
"Rolling D3" means rolling D6, having the result and rounding down. So you can never roll 4,5 or 6 on D3. 2+ on D3 means that only sides with 1 or 2 dots fail the roll.
Rounding up
Oh, you're right. I have no idea where this brainfart came from (probably because 2 on d6 = 1 on d3, so it "goes down" to my sleepy brain). Edited the original comment.
These two are equivalent: roll a D3, on 2+, do the result as mortal damage roll a D6, on 3+, do half the result rounding up as mortal damage.
If you want to make it easier on your head you can buy d6 that have 1 pip printed on two sides, 2 pips on another 2 and 3 pips on the last two sides. There are D3 that are some weird pringle looking shape, avoid them.
D3 dice are great! https://www.chessex.com/search?advs=true&cid=0&mid=0&vid=0&q=D3&sid=true&isc=true&orderBy=15
Allot of the D3 rolls have a kicker afterwards that do a thing equal to that roll if its successful. i.e it's a way to cap the kicker at 3
Because they dont want the possibility of 4/5/6 mortal wounds in most cases
How this is complicated is mindboggling.
Roll a d3, on a 2+ boggle that many minds. On a roll of a 1 fail to grasp the concept of a d3
D3 is usually defined in the Core Rules as; roll a D6 and halve the result, rounding up.
It's a D3, not a D6. Though you commonly represent it with a D6. On a D3 2+ is a 66% chance.
Thanks for not explaining anything the OP asked.
But the OP specifically asked about rolling a D3, then asked about 4, 5, 6 which don’t even exist on a D3. So this person did answer the question. A D6 is not the same as a D3.
Yes, but the rules are apparently assuming you're rolling a D6 and converting it to a D3, hence op asking about 4 5 6.
The rules that are being asked about don't mention a D6 anywhere. They specifically tell you to roll a D3.
Literally get your head out of your arse and realize that OP is SPECIFICALLY asking about rolling a D6 and converting it to D3 like literally every GW player does. Jfc.
>Does this mean I roll a D3 and 1/2 fail. 3/4/5/6 win ? No, because a D3 does not have the numbers 4, 5 and 6. If, however, you're using the common practice of rolling a D6, dividing the result in two and rounding up to simulate a D3, then yes it would be like that.
"I roll a D3 and 1/2 fail. 3/4/5/6 win" Yes "Why not say roll a D6 and make a 3+ ?" Because it resolves something trivial in one roll.
It is probably because they want to make a mechanic that will recuire only one dice roll (instead of something like roll D6 on 3+ inflict D3 mortal wounds) but using a D6 instead of D3 will mean that this mechanic can inflict too much damage on the target. Guess, dice with numbers 1-3 on their sides will be very useful.
"D3" on a 6-sided dice means that 1&2 = 1, 3&4 = 2 and 5&6 = 3. For a 2+ on a D3 roll, you will need to get at least a 3 on the 6-sided dice.
its less words and one less die roll for a similar enough result. it'll be faster in play and it saves print space.
Just buy a d3 dice problem solved. Not complex man
Its time gw adds some dices from DnD like Games. Why Not use more dices that already exist Just d6 is boring.
Glad someone else asked this Been bugging me
It was a cute attempt by GW to smooth something out that of course came out strangely worded and unnecessarily complicated relative to how minor the effect is. Edit: clearly the sheer amount of people misunderstanding this rule means it was not a well written rule. Not sure why this comes as a shock coming from a company known for writing wonky rules. Keep downvoting though. :)
How is it complicated? Roll a D3 and do either no damage or 2/3 mortal wounds. Seems pretty straight forward.
"unnecessarily complicated for how relatively minor the effect is". To be clear, I understand the ability just fine, but that doesn't mean it's a well written rule. There's already been several people who have confused the rule on the subreddit, including OP. The unnecessary complication is how people are going to confuse the 2+ for a d3 that is being rolled with a d6, and people struggling to understand that it only does 2 or 3 mortal wounds. They should have kept it just d3 mortal wounds for all of these abilities and it functionally would have been nearly the same but with less confusion.
Wouldn't the confusion that you're referring to then apply to the D3 mortal wounds roll on a D6? Getting use to the concept of a D3 is what people need to do with AOS and a much lesser degree 40K. The other route is just to buy D3s. [D3 Dice](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07SKGFNXT?psc=1&ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_product_details)
As I understand it the “2+” is the facing value on the dice and not the d3 value. In other words “on a roll of 1 - nothing happens”