gameboy1234 wrote: What you do is, and this is different than DnD, is you make all your rolls for an attack at the same time. You literally pick up a handful of dice and toss them on the table. Each dice is an individual guy, and represents whether he wins or looses his little individual fight on the table top.
What they're saying is that, if you have Luckmancy, you can rearrange the die rolls so that the guys who are important win their battles, while giving lousy rolls to other guys who are presumably going to loose. (However, they wouldn't have to loose even if they have bad rolls. If they're fighting weak opponents, or have other bonuses (high ground, a big wall, etc.) they might just stalemate or something).
That's it. Or at least that's how I read it. If you have played a table top war game, this is a pretty clear and simple mechanic. It's pretty easy to imagine rearranging your rolls on a table top like that. Rob could have something totally else in mind, of course, but that's how I see it.
I'm getting a "close but not quite" feeling. You get to pick certain units to receive the highest rolls, but you don't get to pick where the low rolls go. They could go to extremely valuable units, resulting in their deaths, or they could go to units in other engagements, or they could pop up the next turn... occasionally they might be given to the other side, but not often. It's unpredictable. All you know is that you're Boosting certain units -- you don't get to know what price you pay for doing so.
Clay Dice doesn't know where the bad luck ends up. All he observes is the more he boosts units, the more bad things seem to happen elsewhere. He is having a hard time quantifying it. He's not quite sure how or why it works the way he thinks it must be working, and doesn't seem to fully understand the "imaginary" dice that erfworld uses. His d4s are just an analogy.