# Anyone ever play with no luck Dice rules

• Just curious as to how many on here use the no luck dice.  We seem to think that some of the battles are almost too unlucky at times and large swings occur because of them.  I mean you can have 10 infantry on Egypt and miss all your rolls at 2 and get smoked with minimal losses to the enemy…really make or break the games.

We had one game where the British player missed on all his rolls in a crucial Naval battle at the biggining of the game and he never could recover in the atlantic.  A game changer and he kept getting terrible rolls all game…I know its part of the game but wondering if no luck might be the way to go.  There is still some luck involved with the no luck but not as much random swings.

• My gaming group has been debating instituiting a style ive called “less luck”

Similar to low luck in that….you calculate your total attack power, and divide by 6. Reciving that many hits. Rolling a die for the remainder if neccisary.

However, in “less luck” you not only roll for your remainder, but also roll one set of 6 attack power that you have avalable.

(roll two 3s or three 2s or six ones or a 2 and a 4)

So you add up your power…divide by 6. That is your expected hits. Deduct 1 expected hit and roll 6 attack power worth of dice. Roll for the remainder also

This way, small battles still use regular luck. 2 INF, 1 ART, 1 TNK, 1 FGT is 1+2+2+3+3= 11
11/6= 1 5/6

so you must roll for 1 of your low luck hits worth of dice. (must roll two 3s, then roll the remainder)

Large battles are then ruled by the law of averages. so no 0 hits from 10 Infantry defending.

“Less luck” still allows small battles to be dicey, but evens out longer battles.

Also, with “less luck” there is no “garunteed hit” like in low luck, where you bring just enough attack power to get as many hits as you need on the first round. And if you do that. You know what you are expected to lose.

• Low luck is not cool….must have random chaos!

• There’s another method:  Gather together multiple decks of cards (with the same card back, of course) and remove every card that isn’t an Ace, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6.  Shuffle them together, and whenever you’d roll a die, draw one card and that’s your result.

This guarantees that throughout the game you’ll roll the same amount of one number that you’ll roll of any other.

• @Dr.:

There’s another method:  Gather together multiple decks of cards (with the same card back, of course) and remove every card that isn’t an Ace, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6.  Shuffle them together, and whenever you’d roll a die, draw one card and that’s your result.

This guarantees that throughout the game you’ll roll the same amount of one number that you’ll roll of any other.

How does it do that?

• Because Axis & Allies dice (and most dice) don’t have an equal possibility of rolling all numbers. Having a deck of cards would ensure each number has a completely equal chance of being ‘rolled’

• Seeing that Axis and Allies does not use rules such as terrain effects, experience of troops, or weather effects I consider the luck of the dice to compensate for these items.

• I do think that it would take away from some of the game’s fun and misery for that matter.  It’s a great feeling as Russia when Germany invades with an overwhelming force but your infantry stack holds. You wouldn’t get that with the absence of luck.  However aggravating it can be sometimes, strategy and luck go together in the game (and in real war).  At least this game is not as bad as Risk where one unit can hold off an entire army.

Oztea’s technique does sound like a good middle ground if you wanted eliminate some of the luck though.

• We are currently using the 12 sided dice from battle of the Bulge game.  Infantry, artilery, destroyers, subs hit on 5 or less.  This gives them a 40% chance of hitting which bumps it up from 6 sided dice.  This allows for slightly more hits so now your stack of 10 infantry will at the very least score a couple of hits.  This makes it more realistic while still adding in the random swings, just not as dramatic which we like.

Also tanks, fighters and cruisers hit at 7 so they are close to 60%. Bombers hit at 8, no % change.  But we feel that the 7 adds to the value of the more expensive tanks, more reason to buy them along with cruisers.  I like the 12 sided dice alot more because they are more consistent but still leave the luck out there so an infantry can still kill say 3 tanks…its still possible but not as much.

• @Dr.:

There’s another method:  Gather together multiple decks of cards (with the same card back, of course) and remove every card that isn’t an Ace, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6.  Shuffle them together, and whenever you’d roll a die, draw one card and that’s your result.

This guarantees that throughout the game you’ll roll the same amount of one number that you’ll roll of any other.

How does it do that?

Simple.  Let’s say that you have a single deck of cards and you’ve taken out everything valued at 7 or higher (counting aces as ones).  This leaves you with 24 cards, four of each number (an ace of diamonds, an ace of spades, an ace of hearts, and an ace of clubs.  Then a two of diamonds, etc. and on up).

Now, let’s say that you roll 2,496 dice over the space of a game (each player has his or her own deck).  That means you’ve rolled exactly 416 ones, 416 twos, 416 threes, 416 fours, 416 fives, and 416 sixes.  Every possible die roll number has been rolled an equal number of times.  You did not roll a “6,” an automatic miss for every unit either attacking or defending, any more often than you rolled a “1,” an automatic hit for every unit either attacking or defending.

Completely random (assuming a competent shuffle), but no luck.

• Just play the game the way it goes in my opinon.

Rarely does a vastly superior force take terrible losses to the point that they are defeated. If it happens, then it happens… as it has in history.

Generally I believe that everything evens out. But if you have a bad game, you have a bad game. Sometime you should have a good one too.

I would not want a subsidy for my bad rolling. I want things to go as they go: fairly. Not artificially altered by soem sense the I should win.

If I roll badly… then I roll somewhere else on some other surface AND I will switch out dice. I will change my throwing pattern… Maybe it is more superstitious than logical, but it seems to help.

• Seeing that Axis and Allies does not use rules such as terrain effects, experience of troops, or weather effects I consider the luck of the dice to compensate for these items.

Interesting point. Of course you do sometimes achieve completely counterintuitive results. E.g. an amphibious assault and the ATTACKER scoring all the hits while the defender (who should have an advantage in amphibious assaults, at least during the first round of combat) rolling very poorly. Then again, that could account for a largely or at least relatively unopposed landing (So the troops were actually stationed at Calais, for instance, rather than in Normandy, which actually happended during the real war, reinforcements not making it to the front lines in time, cut communications, orders not getting through etc. It could indeed, even in such cases account for and explain away certain die rolls.

• Seeing that Axis and Allies does not use rules such as terrain effects, experience of troops, or weather effects I consider the luck of the dice to compensate for these items.

I tend to view it the same way. Axis and Allies does not take a lot of things into account… including scouting and supplying your armies. I always viewed these things as being incorporated into the game, sort of expected and assumed.

For example, many times neither side knew where the other’s forces were. They needed scouts and intelligence organizations to figure it out. There is no “fog of war” in a boardgame. You can see everything that everyone does.
Also armies/navies needed to be supplied. Axis and Allies does not require you to maintain a merchant fleet or a force of supply trucks. It is sort of given and expected.

Now these things do not directly relate to your die rolling, but it shows that not everything needs to be accounted for by the player… including the fixing of his odds. Dropping a (fair) die and letting it bounce and roll is entirely fair and just. It is random, and that is the purpose.

Artificially compensating for losses due to bad rolling just seems like diluted cheating to me.

11

5

8

17

13

11

2

4