"Dice" Topic

I've been searching and can't seem to find any D20s numbered 1-10 twice.
Can someone out there tell me where I can find them?
Should I just use D10s?
Any help would be appreciated, thanks.

Why would you need them in TSATF?
Firing uses normal D20s.

TSATF alternate firing chart July 1, 1984….

Roll one 20-sided die for each figure firing. Above numbers are hit. (0-9 twice not 1-20)

My interpetation could be in error. But it would seem that in order to comply with the above would require such. I've been using the basic firing table but wanted to bring myself nearer to the current century.

Roll 1D20. If score is 11+ subtract 10. Simples.

Ok. Fine by me.
But it does make me wonder why not just use d10s?

In 1984 it was more common to find 20 sided dice numbered 0-9 twice (for e.g. percentages) than to find 10 siders. I can't see any reason for not using d10s if you chiise.

Thanks all. I guess I'll stop chasing my tail. Don't know what cats see in it.

We've got them – called D20 (0-9 x 2);
link
Scroll down the page.

Doug

If you want to be nearer to the current century, go to the 20th Anniversary Edition and use the d20.

Not to sound snarky, but the cost of the upgrade to current rules about the same as a single platoon of unpainted figures.

Shameless plug of Colonial Barracks is called for here.
I'm really looking forward to this years event.

Vince

Disregard all these nay-sayers and get the dice you so desire.

Get them from Doug at eM-4 in the UK.

Chessex carries them also in the USA.

I have always played with 20 sided and 1-20 numbered dice. I used red magic marker to highlight the possible hit numbers so easy to discard those not hits.

Have I been wrong all these years that hit on 1-7 was also miss on 8-20

I did not think that 1-7 meant that 8-10 was a miss? I could have shot many more Zulus in the past 30 years.

I have always used D20's numbered 1-20. I have played the game with Larry Brom and that's what we used.

I think the key may be:

"TSATF alternate firing chart July 1, 1984…."

I'm not all that sure what that chart was, however, I expect it is different for the 20th Anniversary Edition.

RE:

British Rifles roll 1d20 and 1-7 hits. (Not 1-7 and 11-17).

I agree the second method would leave a lot less Zulus on the board.

Vince

My copy is the 1986 edition.
It doesn't seem reasonable that a British rifleman firing at a mass of enemy spearmen charging at him will only have a 35% chance of hitting one of them. Seems more like a sure thing. I know I'd have a hard time missing such. So I figure a 70% chance is already a compromise.
How else can one explain Rorke's Drift?

I hate those "fake" d20s, by the way.
I once was using them unknowingly in a game and couldn't figure out why I never rolled a single good roll!

It doesn't seem reasonable that a British rifleman firing at a mass of enemy spearmen charging at him will only have a 35% chance of hitting one of them. Seems more like a sure thing. I know I'd have a hard time missing such.

Have you any idea how inaccurate a British rifle was?

Margard,
I am an old soldier, but not that old. I mean, if you think guys from WW2 are getting rather thin above ground…
Besides, if one couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with one, then how did the British manage to repell so many native attacks with them?
If one's enemy is to be so obliging as to arrainge themselves in mass, then charge at the firing unit, who needs to aim? Just fire to you're direct front as fast as one can load.
Again, the fight at Rorke's Drift comes to mind. Are we to believe that the British prevaled there because they were superior at melee?
How about the two other columns that moved into Zululand in 1879?
Also, the Enfield rifle used by the North during the ACW was a British design. As I understand it, they were slow to load, but not terribly inaccurate. The Lee Enfield was the replacement. While mistakes in procurment are not unknown, was this really one of them? If so, why reequip the Egyptian army with them?
And what about the Lee Metford? Sorry if I got the spelling wrong. How then the victory at Omdurman?
I'm not discussing sniping. The example noted was a best case scenario, at least for the firing unit. I should expect at least 70% hits were the shooters armed with so many breechloading smoothbores.

Umm, the 1853 Enfield Rifled Musket was replaced by the Snider Rifle, which was replaced by the Martini Henry, which was replaced by the Lee Metford, which was replaced by the Lee Enfield.

So there were a few steps between the Civil War Enfield and the Lee Enfield.

Most of the accounts I've read of UK colonial battles against primitive weapons either the enemy never closes with the troops and suffers heavily from rifle fire, or they do close and the British suffer heavily from close combat. This is between 1820 and 1900, regardless of the weapon the UK troops carry.

That's correct. My reference to the Lee Enfield was an error. I meant the Martini Henry. While the Snider was in between the two types I've mentioned. It was a relatively minor modification of the Enfield rifled musket to a breechloader. This dosen't seem to have changed the earlier weapon's ballistics.
My responce to Margard was based on volume of fire.
I still persist in my observation that the original Alternate Firing Chart explicitly calls for the use of d20s numbered 0-9 twice. It's right there on the chart to read.
While Swampster may very well be right about the type of dice available at the time. I own a very old set of polyhedral dice. A d10 is not among them, but a d20 numbered 0-9 twice is. And they're made of that old, cheap looking plastic from the 70s. I think I got them to play D&D back in the day. I have looked at pictures of games in progress on sites like the Jackson Gamer's site for the group out of Jackson, Miss. and saw d20s numbered 1-20 in use.
Thus my confusion, if you will.