robert piepenbrink  | 05 Feb 2026 4:45 a.m. PST |
A word on "modifying dice size." I'd say it was legitimate, but it should be done consistently. Basically three ways of denoting advantage/disadvantage: change the target number, change the number of dice rolled or change the size of the dice. I'd say any of the three "work" but if you want rules suitable for new or infrequent players you should only use one of the three mechanisms in any given set. Multiplicity of mechanisms invites trouble. |
ColCampbell  | 05 Feb 2026 6:43 a.m. PST |
"Negative effects for unpainted units/figures" Our gaming group just doesn't do this. All of our units are always painted. Jim |
John the OFM  | 05 Feb 2026 7:30 a.m. PST |
There was a rumor that at Warhammer Ancient Battles tournaments, some slimeball would place an appropriate size of cardboard on the table, and empty a bag of 30 Old Glory infantry on it. Unpainted figures have absolutely no place in a game. I have spoken. Hear me! |
Flashman14  | 05 Feb 2026 8:13 a.m. PST |
Sorry, unpainted miniatures on the table are a wargame crime. Disallow it rather than penalize it via the rules mechanisms. |
etotheipi  | 05 Feb 2026 9:05 a.m. PST |
Multiplicity of mechanisms invites trouble. So having more than one rule in a set is problemmatic? ;) Having multiple methods for changing stochastic events in the game is no different than having multiple rules for anything else. The three you list (out of dozens more) have fundamentally different effects. Changing the required roll changes the success criterion within the current distribution. Changing the number of dice rolled changes the fundamental form of the distribution family of outcomes. Changing the ordinallity of the dice rolled changes the scope of outcomes and shifts the distribution without changing the distribution family. You certainly can work hard to contrive an equivalence between specific single changes and multiples, but you have to do that in conjunction with the evaluation method as well. |
| The Last Conformist | 05 Feb 2026 10:02 a.m. PST |
I've never, that I recall, seen a set with penalties for unpainted figures, but I think I dislike it; it rather legitimizes using them. |
John the OFM  | 05 Feb 2026 3:12 p.m. PST |
It's an unwritten rule, and thus more stringent. It is faithfully followed by Gentlemen, and ignored by Knaves and Cravens. |
Shagnasty  | 05 Feb 2026 5:29 p.m. PST |
|
ScottWashburn  | 05 Feb 2026 5:51 p.m. PST |
I don't see the one game mechanic that I really hate listed here: activating units by pulling colored dice out of a bag (ala Bolt Action). I REALLY despise that one! |
Old Contemptible  | 05 Feb 2026 9:10 p.m. PST |
Hand of Cards? Negative effects for unpainted figures? You mean as in game penalties? The negative effect we have is that you don't get to partake. |
piper909  | 05 Feb 2026 9:58 p.m. PST |
Harrumph! I don't understand the meaning of "Points" here, so I blackball it. Much agreement with things said above. Never to unpainted figures! There must be standards, or where would it end? Figiures of different scales on the same table? Players dressed as furry animals? Ladies dancing the Watusi? New Coke? No no no!!! Seriously, I always dislike Activation rolls that don't allow a player to do anything in a turn. I've played in way too many games where my chaps had to just stand pat no matter what else was going on because the die rolls were bad. And eventually they paid the price for their enforced inactivity. That's a bad game for everyone. |