So, maybe I missed the main thrust of the discourse, but what is the reasoning behind the push for replacing the d6 for the d10 or d20? I see it mentioned anywhere but I don't think I've actually seen the reasoning explained.
I've heard some of the arguments, primarily the granularity argument, but in that case I'd like to ask where would it be implemented? What advantages does a d10 system have compared to the d6 on something like the old pre-7th to-wound chart? Does it make it simpler to the to-wound chart, or more complicated?
If there are other arguments, I'll gladly hear them as well.
Forum tools in the top left corner and then search for D10 and D20 to find some arguments.
Using D10s to hit and to wound would mean a +1 or -1 to hit would have less impact. Right now if you want to have a -1 to hit mechanic because an army is sneaky you have to set up a bunch of conditions to avoid it being OP.
The advantage is getting rid of rules bloat. With a D6 the minimum increment in probability is 16.6%, and in most cases because 1s auto-fail there are only five real values available. Then that gets reduced even more by things like design rules that only the best elite characters can have BS/WS 2+, or that no (normal) unit ever has BS/WS 6+. So in practical terms a normal unit has two options for hit rolls: it can have BS/WS 3+ like most of the game, or it can be cannon fodder trash at BS/WS 4+. If you want to add any other increments you need to do it with special rules. A unit can have BS 4+ but re-roll 1s to be slightly more elite than cannon fodder but not as good as a normal unit, a unit can have WS 3+ and fight first to be better in melee without violating the "no WS 2+" rule, etc. The end result is a spectacularly bloated mess of rules and exceptions to rules and rules modifying the rules, all to do basic tasks like determine if a unit hits or misses.
With a different die you can cut a lot of the bloat. If you have a D20 system, with a minimum increment of 5%, you no longer need layers of special rules to go from 60% hit probability to 70% hit probability. You don't need to re-roll 1s, you don't need to add bonus AP to give an equivalent increase in damage, you don't need stratagems or aura buffs or any of that nonsense. You just add +2 to the unit's basic stat line (which now has 15+ valid values instead of just 2-3) and you're done. You get a much more elegant game while losing no strategic depth.
(The reason GW won't do it is that the rules bloat gives the illusion of depth and taking it away reveals the fact that 40k is an incredibly shallow game with few meaningful decisions outside of list optimization. That's why Apocalypse in 8th edition was such a failure, it was too honest and just told you the final target number on a D12 instead of making you add up half a dozen layers of modifiers on a D6 and letting you pretend that playing the obvious buff stratagem is somehow an act of strategic brilliance.)
All the pros of switching to other dice are pretty much expanding the design space and allowing more granularity. Which as was pointed out above would let them take some of the layers of rules off that help them differentiate units. This is a very valid point.
Advantages of not changeing are that d6 are common (everyone has some kicking around the house) so it’s one less barrier to play. Not sure how relevant that is to GW, as they would love to sell you bespoke dice. Personally I’ve decided not to pick up games because I’d have to get bizarre dice to play them (WH fantasy roleplay)
When you roll a bunch of dice it’s easier to sort and tally d6s over other dice. I’ve played games that roll handfulls of d10s, and it does take longer. I’d hate to see an ork mob do it. Counterpoint: if you had more design space with the dice range, you could set it up where you were not chucking 40 at a time for a unit’s action.
The d6 also has nostalgia and tradition going for it. Changing too a new die would burn a lot of bridges and require a ground up rework. They would loose a lot of older players. Is it worth the risk?
40K can offer more outcomes than just five when using a D6. It all depends on the kind of rules being implemented. Here an example of BS scores from 1-10:
1: Hits on 6.
2: Hits on 5+.
3: Hits on 4+.
4: Hits on 3+.
5: Hits on 2+.
6: Rerolls on a roll of 1. Hits with reroll on 6.
7: Rerolls on a roll of 1. Hits with reroll on 5+.
8: Rerolls on a roll of 1. Hits with reroll on 4+.
9: Rerolls on a roll of 1. Hits with reroll on 3+.
10: Rerolls on a roll of 1. Hits with reroll on 2+.
The problem is not the D6 but the stupid decision from GW to have never really used the whole range from BS 1-10. Most units in the game only had BS scores of 2-4.
Close combat may have also vastly different outcomes. See HH 2.0 where you only hit your opponent on 5+ when he exceeds your score by one point.
Strg Alt wrote: 40K can offer more outcomes than just five when using a D6. It all depends on the kind of rules being implemented. Here an example of BS scores from 1-10:
1: Hits on 6.
2: Hits on 5+.
3: Hits on 4+.
4: Hits on 3+.
5: Hits on 2+.
6: Rerolls on a roll of 1. Hits with reroll on 6.
7: Rerolls on a roll of 1. Hits with reroll on 5+.
8: Rerolls on a roll of 1. Hits with reroll on 4+.
9: Rerolls on a roll of 1. Hits with reroll on 3+.
10: Rerolls on a roll of 1. Hits with reroll on 2+.
The problem is not the D6 but the stupid decision from GW to have never really used the whole range from BS 1-10. Most units in the game only had BS scores of 2-4.
Close combat may have also vastly different outcomes. See HH 2.0 where you only hit your opponent on 5+ when he exceeds your score by one point.
Yeah, and D6 are nice and fast to sort and gather to roll again, so multiple rolls is quicker than it is with higher sided dice.
Also, I never really understood the dislike for the to hit - to wound - to save system, as it basically gives you some of the granularity back that is lost for using a D6.
Games like Epic 40k, where most of the time there's only 1 roll between life and death of a unit, that might benefit from D10, but even then I dunno how much I'd like rolling that many D10s.
Strg Alt wrote: 40K can offer more outcomes than just five when using a D6. It all depends on the kind of rules being implemented. Here an example of BS scores from 1-10:
1: Hits on 6.
2: Hits on 5+.
3: Hits on 4+.
4: Hits on 3+.
5: Hits on 2+.
6: Rerolls on a roll of 1. Hits with reroll on 6.
7: Rerolls on a roll of 1. Hits with reroll on 5+.
8: Rerolls on a roll of 1. Hits with reroll on 4+.
9: Rerolls on a roll of 1. Hits with reroll on 3+.
10: Rerolls on a roll of 1. Hits with reroll on 2+.
The problem is not the D6 but the stupid decision from GW to have never really used the whole range from BS 1-10. Most units in the game only had BS scores of 2-4.
Close combat may have also vastly different outcomes. See HH 2.0 where you only hit your opponent on 5+ when he exceeds your score by one point.
Yeah, and D6 are nice and fast to sort and gather to roll again, so multiple rolls is quicker than it is with higher sided dice.
Also, I never really understood the dislike for the to hit - to wound - to save system, as it basically gives you some of the granularity back that is lost for using a D6.
Games like Epic 40k, where most of the time there's only 1 roll between life and death of a unit, that might benefit from D10, but even then I dunno how much I'd like rolling that many D10s.
Yes, the size of dice are an issue too. If you really wanted to use larger dice than you have to drastically change how units do damage as assigning one attack dice (or even more) per single model isn´t feasible anymore. You would need to look at the unit loadout and determine the amount of offensive power in an abstract way. And it will get more complicated when casualties occur. Then you have to ask yourself, if you try to accomodate that fact or handle the unit as if it were at full strength like some video games do.
the original system in Warhammer was meant to simulate a single D20, but having 3 D6 rolled
to hit, to wound and armour
yet GW never came on using the full potential of the D6 as it is, like with the "to hit" roll were instead going from 2-6 we only saw 3-5
same with the old armour system were only 2-3 meant something in the game
than came the "buffs" and flat +1 means a lot when the effective results are a D3
therefore the argument for most people is that another dice would allow greater granularity and improves the system
but the problem won't go away with that
because if GW using just 3 results on a D6, this won't change with a D12, even the +1 would have the same big effect
on the other hand, having opposing stats and a D6 to roll on a table would improve the system within the possibilities of GW design
S VS T and WS/BS VS Initiative, in addition with a hard cap (something like S= T*2+1 = auto wound, T = S*2+1 no wound possible) for both
the problem is not the D6 by itself, the problem is GW design rules, hence without removing the problem, changing from a D6 to a D12 won't do anything but making the problem mor obvious
You know originally 40K wasn't a d6 game. You had to use all sizes of dice to determine damage back in RT and 2nd Ed games. I don't recall specific examples but I remember having to roll Xd20 + Yd12 + other dice to determine whether you penetrated the armor of a vehicle and then you rolled for where and how much damage you inflicted.
At the current scale and model based rules, D6s are the only viable option.
If you want larger dice, either reduce the size of the battles or change to fully abstracted unit based rules. But a game in which you can deploy hundreds of infantry models and expect each one of them to be individually represented by the rules can only be done with D6s.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: You know originally 40K wasn't a d6 game. You had to use all sizes of dice to determine damage back in RT and 2nd Ed games. I don't recall specific examples but I remember having to roll XdA + YdB + other dice to determine whether you penetrated the armor of a vehicle and then you rolled for where and how much damage you inflicted.
Yes, I remember my 2nd edition box set coming with only d6 dice while several of the games' weapons used other polyhedral dice types (d4; d10; d12) for armor penetration rolls. My assumption then and now is that at the time (and still now) 40k was primarily sold at game shops with a lot of D&D/RPG players like myself who were expanding into tabletop wargames and those players were familiar with and already had a collection of such dice types.
On the topic of d10-d20 granularity, take a look at the most recent version of the Apocalypse ruleset. It uses both d6 and d12 dice types, sometimes for the same game mechanics like during the damage phase. For example, a small damage "blast" marker on a unit will allows the unit to make an armor save roll using a d12 die. A large damage "blast" marker will require that the save be made on a d6 die. Obviously this changes how the game plays and allows for a wider array of dice rolling probabilities (ex. you are a lot more likely to make a 5+ armor save on a d12 than on a d6). Apocalypse is a great ruleset for several reasons, with this d6/d12 system being one of them.
Anyone claiming such a switch in dice will reduce rules bloat is simply deluded.
All that would happen is that GW would promptly start filling in the greater design space larger dice would allow.
You think bloat is bad now? Go ahead, give GW another 4 - 6 pips to play with on the dice. Or worse, another 14....
Let's also not forget that many pining for these larger dice ranges ALSO think GW is incompetent at writing rules.
So not only will you get more bloat, you'll get it via heaping doses of BAD rules.
ccs wrote: Anyone claiming such a switch in dice will reduce rules bloat is simply deluded.
All that would happen is that GW would promptly start filling in the greater design space larger dice would allow.
You think bloat is bad now? Go ahead, give GW another 4 - 6 pips to play with on the dice. Or worse, another 14....
Let's also not forget that many pining for these larger dice ranges ALSO think GW is incompetent at writing rules.
So not only will you get more bloat, you'll get it via heaping doses of BAD rules.
I'm also curious what values people expect on these d10/whatever to be normal. What would an ork need to hit at range/melee, or a marine for example.
From prior conversations, the whole process results in yet more values to ignore/never use.
Its clear a significant number of people have this strong "rules=fluff regardless of game impact", and so having more faces on the dice allows for more distinction between units.
So a D12 system would allow you to have say Guardsmen BS working out as 7+, Guardians as 6+, Marines at 5+, Necron Destroyers at 4+, Custodes at 3+ and say Vindicare Assasins at 2+.
The idea though that this would make the game much more fun however eludes me. It might help to have this system rather than having half the game have "rerolls 1s" - but arguably you could handle that in other ways.
Aecus Decimus wrote: You don't need to re-roll 1s, you don't need to add bonus AP to give an equivalent increase in damage, you don't need stratagems or aura buffs or any of that nonsense. You just add +2 to the unit's basic stat line (which now has 15+ valid values instead of just 2-3) and you're done. You get a much more elegant game while losing no strategic depth.
(The reason GW won't do it is that the rules bloat gives the illusion of depth and taking it away reveals the fact that 40k is an incredibly shallow game with few meaningful decisions outside of list optimization. That's why Apocalypse in 8th edition was such a failure, it was too honest and just told you the final target number on a D12 instead of making you add up half a dozen layers of modifiers on a D6 and letting you pretend that playing the obvious buff stratagem is somehow an act of strategic brilliance.)
I don't think it has much to do with any illusions of "strategic depth". Special rules, stratagems, etc. add a level of immersion and viscerality that you won't accomplish with just making an elite unit BS7 instead of BS6. A named special rule makes the unit feel "cooler".
People just enjoy being involved in the game, making more rolls etc., if it's reduced to pure statline differences I think many will feel that the game is cold and bare, regardless of the strategic depth of the gameplay.
Keel wrote: I don't think it has much to do with any illusions of "strategic depth". Special rules, stratagems, etc. add a level of immersion and viscerality that you won't accomplish with just making an elite unit BS7 instead of BS6. A named special rule makes the unit feel "cooler".
People just enjoy being involved in the game, making more rolls etc., if it's reduced to pure statline differences I think many will feel that the game is cold and bare, regardless of the strategic depth of the gameplay.
Yes, that's exactly what I mean about an illusion of strategic depth. A 46% chance to hit is a 46% chance to hit whether you get it directly by rolling a D100 with a 46 as the target number or by a convoluted stack of re-rolls and modifiers and bonus attacks and exploding 6s on a D6. But having to deal with a bunch of rules bloat lets you pretend that it all has meaning and that you're making brilliant strategic decisions. None of it is real, you're still rolling the exact same RNG, but because you touch more dice and get to name a bunch of cool-sounding rules you think you're playing something way deeper than it really is.
It's just sad that GW has convinced people like you that rules bloat is the only way to have fun, that a game is "cold and bare" if it just tells you the target number instead of going through a bunch of pointless dice modifiers first. Genuinely fun games create fun by building a compelling narrative on the table and by interesting matches of move and counter-move, not by having needless complexity in their mechanics. A game witht the straightforward D100 roll can be just as fun and engaging as a GW game, and will often be more fun and engaging because it can spend its complexity budget on things that matter instead of on awkwardly turning a D6 into a D100.
Why do Destroyers need more BS than Craftworld Guardians? Just make them WS/BS 2 if they are that much better than Guardians, otherwise, they're not so much better that it matters, re-rolling 1s for Destroyers is just a relic of past editions and a waste of time.
Making them +1 to hit against units with a missing model, would be an actually interesting rule. Make the Destroyer Lords have an aura of +1 to wound against units that are half-strength. Those would be actually interesting rules that change how the unit plays in a thematic manner.
Living Metal is not bloat, Necrons healing instead of just being bags of wounds is very thematic and enjoyable. There are offensive rules that could be changed to be like that, the rest can be removed with a small pts reduction. Like fight on death and +1 WS is not the same thing. Fight on death makes the unit more effective against melee threats, +1 WS just makes the unit killier in melee, if the unit is supposed to be the most badassest duelists around just giving them +1 WS is boring.
Auras do actually increase strategic depth because you have to weigh better positioning against losing out on the aura. Re-roll 1s is a bad way to add strategic depth because it takes time to resolve, but it's not just useless bloat.
What about the HQs? Give them master-crafted weapons. Just make it an ability all HQs get +1 Damage on weapons. Some 500 pt games tend to devolve into slap-fights, this would also go towards fixing that. Maybe reduce the damage on some weapons like thunder hammers to avoid things getting too crazy.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: You know originally 40K wasn't a d6 game. You had to use all sizes of dice to determine damage back in RT and 2nd Ed games. I don't recall specific examples but I remember having to roll XdA + YdB + other dice to determine whether you penetrated the armor of a vehicle and then you rolled for where and how much damage you inflicted.
Yes, I remember my 2nd edition box set coming with only d6 dice while several of the games' weapons used other polyhedral dice types (d4; d10; d12) for armor penetration rolls. My assumption then and now is that at the time (and still now) 40k was primarily sold at game shops with a lot of D&D/RPG players like myself who were expanding into tabletop wargames and those players were familiar with and already had a collection of such dice types.
On the topic of d10-d20 granularity, take a look at the most recent version of the Apocalypse ruleset. It uses both d6 and d12 dice types, sometimes for the same game mechanics like during the damage phase. For example, a small damage "blast" marker on a unit will allows the unit to make an armor save roll using a d12 die. A large damage "blast" marker will require that the save be made on a d6 die. Obviously this changes how the game plays and allows for a wider array of dice rolling probabilities (ex. you are a lot more likely to make a 5+ armor save on a d12 than on a d6). Apocalypse is a great ruleset for several reasons, with this d6/d12 system being one of them.
Apocalypse is a terrible ruleset especially because of this. There are no armour penetrating weapons, there's just a question of whether you want to apply an even or uneven number of wounds to a unit, it's the same sort of garbage design as the Damage stat in AoS, terrible design. Remove the D12s and add armour penetrating weapons, balance points and you'd have a game that might be interesting.
Because a bigger spread would make representing rules easier. A salamanders are artificiers, so they armour is stronger.Impossible to represent under a d6 system where a +2 sv on a regular dude would be too strong on top of AoC. But under a d10 system it is not only easier, but also possible. A khorn berzerker can be stronger then an alfa legioner. An Ironhand can be tougher, because of those cybernetics, then lets say a SW, while a DG marine could be made really tough. Such freedom would often remove the need for unit or army wide extra mechanics.
Karol wrote: Because a bigger spread would make representing rules easier. A salamanders are artificiers, so they armour is stronger.Impossible to represent under a d6 system where a +2 sv on a regular dude would be too strong on top of AoC. But under a d10 system it is not only easier, but also possible. A khorn berzerker can be stronger then an alfa legioner. An Ironhand can be tougher, because of those cybernetics, then lets say a SW, while a DG marine could be made really tough. Such freedom would often remove the need for unit or army wide extra mechanics.
A Salamanders Tactical Marine shouldn't have a 3+ while Ultramarines have a 4+ Sv on a D10, that's way too much power in Chapter Tactics and makes it extremely unlikely that the codex will be internally balanced. A lack of internal balance is the reason for most external balance issues. Treating AP-1 as AP- would work if you really need Salamanders to have better armour, although I doubt you'll find fluff to support Salamanders having vastly better armour than Ultras in any case outside fluff that was written specifically to justify Chapter Tactics after the fact.
mkVIII is said to be better armour than mkVII, and Terminator Armour is the best a humanoid can wear
so going with a D12: 5+ for mkVII, 4+ for mkVIII and 2+ for terminator
while with a D6 it is 3+, 3+ and 2+/5++
there is a point, why it is an advantage, yet is the difference a Marine armour marks really that big to justify a different save roll?
were does Master Crafted Armour fit in?
would this mean a MC mkVII is 4+, a MC mkVIII 3+ and GK/Custodes Power Armour equal to Terminator Armour and their Terminators get re-roll 1s?
or does a little less RPG would be better for a game that is played on platoon level
A Salamanders Tactical Marine shouldn't have a 3+ while Ultramarines have a 4+ Sv on a D10, that's way too much power in Chapter Tactics and makes it extremely unlikely that the codex will be internally balanced. A lack of internal balance is the reason for most external balance issues. Treating AP-1 as AP- would work if you really need Salamanders to have better armour, although I doubt you'll find fluff to support Salamanders having vastly better armour than Ultras in any case outside fluff that was written specifically to justify Chapter Tactics after the fact.
Why not? With a d10 stuff like AP modes wouldn't stay the way they are right now either. Sniper rifles could be really good at cracking infantry armour.
Salamanders are master smiths, they have a smith and armourer culture. BA are similar to a degree, but they are artists. Both chapters have been like that at least since the great crusade. Iron Hands are very in to body replacement since Istvan Massacer. So if I wanted to, I could find multiple examples of those chapters being known for stuff like that.
Goffs are, this is litteraly writen in their lore, stronger then orcs from other clans. Badmoons grow teeth faster, and are able to buy more armour and more guns. Why shouldn't a bad moon boy be more armoured, then a snake bite. Bood axs are know for their unusual and unorkish trait of aiming their guns etc. etc etc.
Space Marines don't make all their own armour, it's made by Techmarines and Techmarines are trained by the Adeptus Mechanicus. They all live up to certain specs. You won't find Salamanders armour being described as being different from Blood Angels armour the same way that Terminator armour is. I doubt you'll find lore blurbs where the quality of armour makes any difference in survival rates. I don't even think Space Sharks take more casualties because of the lesser quality and cohesiveness of their power armour suits.
There are three concerns with Chapter Tactics, balance, bloat and the question of whether the Chapter Tactic actually adheres to the fluff or needs the fluff to change around it to justify rules because the writers need to keep themselves employed with mechanics that add tonnes of bloat.
How do you represent a sub-faction that has better wargear? A WL trait that grants you a bonus relic, select units with better saves and take more wargear upgrades for your units. +1 to Sv to the entire army is not the best way to handle it.
vict0988 wrote: Apocalypse is a terrible ruleset especially because of this. There are no armour penetrating weapons, there's just a question of whether you want to apply an even or uneven number of wounds to a unit, it's the same sort of garbage design as the Damage stat in AoS, terrible design. Remove the D12s and add armour penetrating weapons, balance points and you'd have a game that might be interesting.
Why do we need "armor penetrating weapons"? Armor being a separate stat from toughness is an arbitrary mechanic done for the sole purpose of getting more granularity out of a D6 system. With smaller step sizes on a D10/D12/D20 you don't need that division anymore. Apocalypse represents powerful weapons that are good at penetrating armor by giving them a better wound roll on the D12.
This is exactly what I mean about the illusion of depth. You think that Apocalypse is terrible because it's honest and jumps straight to the conclusion of the final target number to roll, while 40k is "deep" because you have to touch multiple dice to get the same RNG outcome. It's just unfortunate that you're so tied to modern 40k that a better system is incomprehensible to you.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: You know originally 40K wasn't a d6 game. You had to use all sizes of dice to determine damage back in RT and 2nd Ed games. I don't recall specific examples but I remember having to roll Xd20 + Yd12 + other dice to determine whether you penetrated the armor of a vehicle and then you rolled for where and how much damage you inflicted.
2nd Edition examples:
Multimeltas caused 1d20 damage.
iirc Conversion Beamers at max range caused 1d12 damage.
SM/CSM Tactical Dreadnought Armor (Terminator Armor) Saves were 3+ on 2d6.
vict0988 wrote: Space Marines don't make all their own armour, it's made by Techmarines and Techmarines are trained by the Adeptus Mechanicus. They all live up to certain specs. You won't find Salamanders armour being described as being different from Blood Angels armour the same way that Terminator armour is. I doubt you'll find lore blurbs where the quality of armour makes any difference in survival rates. I don't even think Space Sharks take more casualties because of the lesser quality and cohesiveness of their power armour suits.
Salamanders and Blood Angels do. For a Salamanders smiths and forge culture is part of their culture. And BA create a ton of stuff on their own, because their interactions of the mechanicus are specific at best, considering they did not want to deliver templates of specific technology like the angelus bolter, the Baal engine used in BA vehicles, the jump packs etc. SW have the Isle of Iron one of the only stable places on the planet, and SW gear is produced there.
GK have a forge to produce their gear, but their stuff not only requires the makers being psykers, but the adeptus that were closed off with the future GK on titan are cut of from any contacts with the other mechanicus. Production of stuff like psyk-out grenades or ammo field with psyko active dust from the chamber of the emperors throne happen outside of any Mechanicus control. There are fleet based chapters, which are not like the Space Sharks, who produce their own stuff. The DA and their succesor for example are very secretive in their interactions with any branch of any adeptus, keeping the contacts to minimum, including with other space marines of the non Forgiven group. Which does make the whole primaris stuff make no sense at all, but few of the primaris lore makes sense, when the past lore is considered.
I made post quite a while back about how I think that D12's would be the optimal choice for a dice change.
TLDR: Pretty much everything existing can be ported over to a D12 system with a simple conversion metric, then tweaked +/- 1 for things that need to be changed. This will make the +/- modifiers less oppressive as well as allowing for more logical middle ground between certain factions. For example, a Tau Fire Warrior could now be better at shooting than a Guardsman, but still not as good as a Space Marine. It also prevents certain S or T characteristics from being objectively better than others on the scale as each point up or down is equally relevant.
D12 is the natural extension of the d6, but T need to be actually increased to 12(for "invulnerable" stuff, not save but like imperator titan/phalanx level of robustness).
Then modifiers and base stats can easily be adjusted to represent traits and fluff for the unit. Then they can change how they interact with other units more easily and point them "appropriately".
Karol wrote: Because a bigger spread would make representing rules easier. A salamanders are artificiers, so they armour is stronger.Impossible to represent under a d6 system where a +2 sv on a regular dude would be too strong on top of AoC. But under a d10 system it is not only easier, but also possible. A khorn berzerker can be stronger then an alfa legioner. An Ironhand can be tougher, because of those cybernetics, then lets say a SW, while a DG marine could be made really tough. Such freedom would often remove the need for unit or army wide extra mechanics.
It's insanely funny that you think the benefit of a system like this would be differentiating the imperceptible differences between multiple flavours of Space Marine. Genuinely amazing bit, that's Alpha Plus level trolling.
I think 40K players clamor for increased granularity because it's more immediately obvious and straightforward than identifying the deficiencies in the core rules that the stats drive, and because it's the sort of number crunching that us nerds like.
Like, I have seen more than one call for more granular Ballistic Skill to better statistically differentiate things in between Guardsman-level and Marine-level accuracy, but rarely do I see anyone else point out that the current to-hit system doesn't care about how far away the target is, how fast it's moving, or even how big it is. You'd think those would be more fundamental requirements- and give more levers for differentiating units- than showing that Cannon Fodder Grunt #386 is 7% more accurate than Cannon Fodder Grunt #294 in the three picoseconds before they both get atomized by a Volcano Cannon.
Not to mention things that are big in the fluff getting no representation on the tabletop. Remember those lightning raids where the Marines operate like superhuman veterans acting in perfect synchronization honed by literal decades of practice, overwhelming ill-disciplined Orks before they can even react? Yeah sorry your Marines are functionally just Orks who are tougher to kill and shoot bigger guns more accurately, so those ramshackle Orks have the exact same operational tempo as you and can react the instant you make your play. I can think of a few reasons this doesn't feel like the fluff, and 'not enough decimal points' isn't one of them.
Keel wrote:I don't think it has much to do with any illusions of "strategic depth". Special rules, stratagems, etc. add a level of immersion and viscerality that you won't accomplish with just making an elite unit BS7 instead of BS6. A named special rule makes the unit feel "cooler".
Case in point, lack of depth to the core rules is why we end up getting special rules to accommodate differentiation that should just be part of the game to begin with, and shallow mechanics mean we get tons and tons of functionally equivalent abilities (re-rolls, +1s, exploding 6s, etc- they all translate to 'you linearly do more damage' in a consistent/predictable fashion).
Special rules are fun when they're used sparingly and provide something really unique, not just bloated bonuses that could be equivalently represented through the core stats (eg more Attacks instead of all the aforementioned cruft) or provide band-aids for missing mechanics (eg invulnerable saves to represent dodging, or boring reroll-to-hit auras to represent leadership ability).
catbarf wrote: Like, I have seen more than one call for more granular Ballistic Skill to better statistically differentiate things in between Guardsman-level and Marine-level accuracy, but rarely do I see anyone else point out that the current to-hit system doesn't care about how far away the target is, how fast it's moving, or even how big it is. You'd think those would be more fundamental requirements- and give more levers for differentiating units- than showing that Cannon Fodder Grunt #386 is 7% more accurate than Cannon Fodder Grunt #294 in the three picoseconds before they both get atomized by a Volcano Cannon.
It's a matter of priorities. Before you start adding things like accuracy dropping over range you have to clear away the current rules bloat to make room for it. And the best way to do that is to move to a die with more increments, so that the existing 7% differentiation in accuracy can be done with +1 to the target number on the D20 instead of a bloated pile of special rules.
catbarf wrote: Not to mention things that are big in the fluff getting no representation on the tabletop. Remember those lightning raids where the Marines operate like superhuman veterans acting in perfect synchronization honed by literal decades of practice, overwhelming ill-disciplined Orks before they can even react? Yeah sorry your Marines are functionally just Orks who are tougher to kill and shoot bigger guns more accurately, so those ramshackle Orks have the exact same operational tempo as you and can react the instant you make your play. I can think of a few reasons this doesn't feel like the fluff, and 'not enough decimal points' isn't one of them.
Why should the ability for SM to do lightning raids before Orks can even react be in the core rules instead of in their codex? Couldn't you represent that with a move-after-fighting ability on one of their HQs instead of their inane re-roll 1s ability? The Judiciar already has a fight-last ability. If you want to represent their discipline and tactics you could have an ability that grants Overwatch to replace another one of those inane re-roll 1s abilities.
Why should the ability for SM to do lightning raids before Orks can even react be in the core rules instead of in their codex? Couldn't you represent that with a move-after-fighting ability on one of their HQs instead of their inane re-roll 1s ability? The Judiciar already has a fight-last ability. If you want to represent their discipline and tactics you could have an ability that grants Overwatch to replace another one of those inane re-roll 1s abilities.
There is a handy chart available....almost something familiar, with a way to achieve just that! Along with a forgotten stat.
Aecus Decimus wrote:It's a matter of priorities. Before you start adding things like accuracy dropping over range you have to clear away the current rules bloat to make room for it. And the best way to do that is to move to a die with more increments, so that the existing 7% differentiation in accuracy can be done with +1 to the target number on the D20 instead of a bloated pile of special rules.
Hitting on fixed values is going to be shallow and inadequate whether the baseline is 3+ on D6 or 5+ on D12. The best you can do without special rules is 100% hit rate, and that's just 1.5x better than baseline. Greater granularity in such a shallow system won't eliminate the need for piles of special rules to make elite units feel elite, or clunky invulnerable saves to represent dodging. Plus, just hitting 8.33% more really does not make a unit feel meaningfully different. Frankly, hitting 16.67% more doesn't either.
The special rules bloat isn't there solely to create minor statistical differentiations between units. It's to sub in for distinctions that the core mechanics do not model, and provide adjustment levers that overly-simple core rules can not. The old S-vs-T chart differentiated weapons and units better than the current comparison system, but either would be better than going to fixed to-wound values like AOS, regardless of what die you use to implement that mechanic.
Going further: Fleet used to be unit-specific, rather than a game-wide ability. Weapon types used to have much more impact on how mobile a unit could be while still putting out firepower. The old AP system- love it or hate it- established breakpoints that gave weapons clearly defined roles. Morale was a bigger part of the game. These are core mechanics that made units and armies feel different even within the constraints of D6 resolution, because they were functional and contextual distinctions, not bland percentage buffs to firepower or durability. You can't create those distinctions with bigger dice.
There are tons of D6-based wargames out there, some even published by GW, that distinguish factions from one another without 40K's current level of rules bloat. They do so both through deeper resolution mechanics that provide external levers for adjustment, and by focusing on functional differences rather than minutiae.
Edit: Further to that point, 40K already has a downright excessive number of compared checks and rolls just to resolve a simple attack. Roll to hit, roll to wound, roll saves, roll for damage- that's four different stat checks (one flat, three opposed comparisons) on top of weapon type, range, and shots providing differentiation, and all of those are levers that can be adjusted to produce incremental outcomes. Apocalypse uses D12s because it consolidates the entire wound/save/damage process into a single roll, but 40K seriously does not require further granularity on individual checks to create relevant distinctions, it just needs those mechanics to work as intended.
vict0988 wrote:Why should the ability for SM to do lightning raids before Orks can even react be in the core rules instead of in their codex? Couldn't you represent that with a move-after-fighting ability on one of their HQs instead of their inane re-roll 1s ability? The Judiciar already has a fight-last ability. If you want to represent their discipline and tactics you could have an ability that grants Overwatch to replace another one of those inane re-roll 1s abilities.
Yeah, you could take a fundamental concept like command and control and turn it into army-specific special rules, like how only GSC get crossfire, or boil it down to a gimmick ability for one or two characters. It's not a particularly elegant way to represent it, it limits it to just a few factions or units instead of allowing it to characterize factions as a whole, and it contributes further to codex bloat because the core rules don't provide the mechanics for the armies to interact with. But it could be done.
Or, look at how Epic:Armageddon does it. The core activation mechanic is simple, but different armies interact differently with it, and that makes them feel and play very differently from one another. Marines are rock-solid reliable and can press the initiative when they see fit, Guard are more ponderous and tend to get bogged down in contact, Orks will never let you down if you're getting them into the fight but become unruly with more coordinated maneuvers. It does this with a single D6 roll, different base values to succeed, and contextual modifiers.
Simple, elegant core mechanics that allow for functional distinctions between armies and units > dice for the dice god and special ability bloat.
Why should the ability for SM to do lightning raids before Orks can even react be in the core rules instead of in their codex? Couldn't you represent that with a move-after-fighting ability on one of their HQs instead of their inane re-roll 1s ability? The Judiciar already has a fight-last ability. If you want to represent their discipline and tactics you could have an ability that grants Overwatch to replace another one of those inane re-roll 1s abilities.
There is a handy chart available....almost something familiar, with a way to achieve just that! Along with a forgotten stat.
I believe you're answering how instead of why, am I misunderstanding?
The old AP system- love it or hate it- established breakpoints that gave weapons clearly defined roles.
LOL was this serious? The old AP system meant you had AP2 or you needed enough shots to eventually break in a wound. I know you're probably thinking "but old AP3 meant it was specialized against Marines!!!1!", except that AP3 was ACTUALLY a rarer value than old AP2 LOL
I'd have thought the problem is more "if Marines can do lightning-fast raids and tear disorganised Orks to bits" - who on earth is going to want to play the Orks?
Waaagh da Sun Elfs etc - but we had various eras of the game where Eldar were meant to be some "high skill" army that could avoid counterattacks and inflict massive damage.
And the reality was that this wasn't "high skill" - it was just "overpowered". Because it's just not that difficult to not point Fire Dragons at Ork Boyz.
Why should the ability for SM to do lightning raids before Orks can even react be in the core rules instead of in their codex? Couldn't you represent that with a move-after-fighting ability on one of their HQs instead of their inane re-roll 1s ability? The Judiciar already has a fight-last ability. If you want to represent their discipline and tactics you could have an ability that grants Overwatch to replace another one of those inane re-roll 1s abilities.
There is a handy chart available....almost something familiar, with a way to achieve just that! Along with a forgotten stat.
I believe you're answering how instead of why, am I misunderstanding?
Initiative and the WS/BS chart would be in core rules, that way the codex can adjust for specific units. But that would require USR and GW has an apparent aversion to them, instead choosing ISR and doubling down.
The old AP system- love it or hate it- established breakpoints that gave weapons clearly defined roles.
LOL was this serious? The old AP system meant you had AP2 or you needed enough shots to eventually break in a wound. I know you're probably thinking "but old AP3 meant it was specialized against Marines!!!1!", except that AP3 was ACTUALLY a rarer value than old AP2 LOL
EviscerationPlague completely misses the point of the post to nitpick specific examples, while misremembering how prior editions actually worked (ie 5th Ed passing out AP3 like candy), more at eleven.
Tyel wrote: I'd have thought the problem is more "if Marines can do lightning-fast raids and tear disorganised Orks to bits" - who on earth is going to want to play the Orks?
Waaagh da Sun Elfs etc - but we had various eras of the game where Eldar were meant to be some "high skill" army that could avoid counterattacks and inflict massive damage.
And the reality was that this wasn't "high skill" - it was just "overpowered". Because it's just not that difficult to not point Fire Dragons at Ork Boyz.
Having the sheer firepower to win a knock-down-drag-out fight has its appeal. Marines in Epic aren't the everything-you-can-do-I-can-do-better of 40K; they pay a premium for those C&C advantages and are limited in heavy firepower, so have to be played surgically. Concentrate a tremendous amount of combat power onto a small subset of the enemy (using fast transport to get there, then organic fire support, crossfire, and assault to maximize disruption), win locally, then press the advantage or disengage before the enemy can bring full firepower to bear. If they get into a slugfest with Stompas, attrition is not on their side.
Like you said, GW's tried to do something similar with Eldar in 40K over the years. Except 40K can't support hit modifiers without breaking down immediately, so concepts like 'speed as defense' or holofields are functionally represented as armor instead (anyone else remember unkillable Falcons?), it's difficult to mitigate return fire through positioning when many weapons can shoot clear across the board with full effectiveness, and it's difficult in general to avoid counterattacks when mobility is universally high, everyone can move and fire and charge, and the board looks like a parking lot. The mechanical levers needed to represent their high concept simply do not exist, so they default to the same expressions of firepower and durability as everyone else.
I'm not saying 40K should be a reimplementation of Epic. But I am saying that the explosion of special rules bloat is a result of the core mechanics failing to convey differences between units and factions. Increased granularity in the core mechanics gets you nowhere if those mechanics aren't doing what they need to do.
Why should the ability for SM to do lightning raids before Orks can even react be in the core rules instead of in their codex? Couldn't you represent that with a move-after-fighting ability on one of their HQs instead of their inane re-roll 1s ability? The Judiciar already has a fight-last ability. If you want to represent their discipline and tactics you could have an ability that grants Overwatch to replace another one of those inane re-roll 1s abilities.
There is a handy chart available....almost something familiar, with a way to achieve just that! Along with a forgotten stat.
I believe you're answering how instead of why, am I misunderstanding?
Initiative and the WS/BS chart would be in core rules, that way the codex can adjust for specific units. But that would require USR and GW has an apparent aversion to them, instead choosing ISR and doubling down.
But Initiative did not let Space Marines perform lightning raids, it just made them strike first in melee. To me that sounds like saying Necrons can reanimate because they have a 4+ FNP, that might have been what the rule was representing, but it wasn't what it did. I think you must have been forging a narrative like I do now with true LOS.
The old AP system- love it or hate it- established breakpoints that gave weapons clearly defined roles.
LOL was this serious? The old AP system meant you had AP2 or you needed enough shots to eventually break in a wound. I know you're probably thinking "but old AP3 meant it was specialized against Marines!!!1!", except that AP3 was ACTUALLY a rarer value than old AP2 LOL
EviscerationPlague completely misses the point of the post to nitpick specific examples, while misremembering how prior editions actually worked (ie 5th Ed passing out AP3 like candy), more at eleven.
5th did not pass out AP3 like candy LOL. Did you even play that edition?
Necrons had 3 AP3 weapons and 6 AP1 weapons, spamming the former would be easier but Necrons could get a lot of AP1 as well. I think krak missiles were AP3 but their heyday was 4th right? AP5, 1 and 2 seemed way overrepresented.
kodos wrote: the original system in Warhammer was meant to simulate a single D20, but having 3 D6 rolled
to hit, to wound and armour
yet GW never came on using the full potential of the D6 as it is, like with the "to hit" roll were instead going from 2-6 we only saw 3-5
same with the old armour system were only 2-3 meant something in the game
Threadwinner.
If you crunched the numbers, the range of results in GW combat systems was extremely narrow. A WS 10, S 10 monster fighting a WS 1, T 1 minion had only a 55 percent chance of wounding. (You needed a 3+ to hit and a 2+ to wound).
Some years back when I decided to build my own fantasy rules, this immediately stood out. GW had tons of stats, but none of them meant anything. That's why buckets and buckets of dice were needed for anything useful to happen.
Ironically, 2nd ed. actually achieved a high lethality because the mass of firepower dumped on the table was insane. It was also reasonably balanced for the same reason: everything can kill you, so get into some cover.
For those who crave the d10 fix, Dust uses it, and I believe the abortive competitor to 40k Void also used it. (Full disclosure: my Eldar are almost all Void figures bought on clearance.)
Anyway, GW exists to make miniatures, not create a stable, durable rules system. Been that way since 1998 or so.
Did Dust Warfare (the miniatures system) have a major overhaul to switch to D10s? When I last played, it exclusively used custom D6s with 'hit' on two of the six faces, so essentially every roll was a success on a 5+.
The game adjusted success rates entirely through number of dice rolled and the presence or lack of re-rolls.
Did Dust Warfare (the miniatures system) have a major overhaul to switch to D10s? When I last played, it exclusively used custom D6s with 'hit' on two of the six faces, so essentially every roll was a success on a 5+.
The game adjusted success rates entirely through number of dice rolled and the presence or lack of re-rolls.
Now that I think about it, I could be wrong. Void definately used d10s, which are annoying to handle.
The other thing about GW was that they used a ten-point scale with six-sided dice and then worked it down further into only three possible results. The "to hit" table may as well have been a d3.
The old AP system- love it or hate it- established breakpoints that gave weapons clearly defined roles.
LOL was this serious? The old AP system meant you had AP2 or you needed enough shots to eventually break in a wound. I know you're probably thinking "but old AP3 meant it was specialized against Marines!!!1!", except that AP3 was ACTUALLY a rarer value than old AP2 LOL
EviscerationPlague completely misses the point of the post to nitpick specific examples, while misremembering how prior editions actually worked (ie 5th Ed passing out AP3 like candy), more at eleven.
5th did not pass out AP3 like candy LOL. Did you even play that edition?
5th ed passed out all high AP values like candy, while at the same time removing much of the LOS blocking terrain :/ Although on the AP3 front, the examples that come to mind are Sternguard specialized ammunition that could spam AP3, and Leman Russes/Basilisks available to take in squadrons. Necron Destroyers became AP3 late in that edition IIrc.
The old AP system did create strong breakpoints between weapins and troops though, it created a wider gammut of differentiation while still using just a D6. Imo it was very clever. The main issue is the eventual failure of designers to use restraint with its implementation. Which as it turns out is the same problem they're having with the current system as well, who'd a thunk it?
kodos wrote: the original system in Warhammer was meant to simulate a single D20, but having 3 D6 rolled
to hit, to wound and armour
yet GW never came on using the full potential of the D6 as it is, like with the "to hit" roll were instead going from 2-6 we only saw 3-5
same with the old armour system were only 2-3 meant something in the game
Threadwinner.
If you crunched the numbers, the range of results in GW combat systems was extremely narrow. A WS 10, S 10 monster fighting a WS 1, T 1 minion had only a 55 percent chance of wounding. (You needed a 3+ to hit and a 2+ to wound).
I feel like this is on purpose in the CC phase so that not-good troops can actually have a chance against good ones, which I think is ok despite having mixed feelings about it. There were enough other ways to make troops more effective in CC baked into the rules, such as number of attacks and Power Weapons etc. Plus the old Sweeping Advance rules allowed for total butchery after a solid round of combat. The net results were reasonable.
But speaking of narrowing stat options, the post 8th to-wound chart is the worst culprit. Most cases are 3-5, and the cases that require a 6 to wound would have been impossible in earlier editions, in a way just creating an increase in the number of dice being rolled just fishing for 6s.
Imo there's a place for Strength vs. Toughness to have both auto-wound scenarios, as well as "no chance, don't even roll because you can't hurt it" ones. If that Lascannon hits a Guardsman, don't roll to wound, save your dice.
If GW does implement d10's, d12's or other dice, people will come out of the woodworks to complain about the new issues they case:
A. Lack of easy to purchase bundles of other kinds of dice (d6 and sets of DnD dice are the most common)
B. price of GW dX dice
C. difficulty to roll/math/add dX dice
D. confusion between results of 6 and results of 9
E. very high or very low rolls being ineffectual
F. increased chance of cocked dice, difficulty reading 'whole face', etc
It's all moot because it's not going to happen.
If you think you can make a d10, d12, d20 wargame work, go make one. Let us know how you do.
But speaking of narrowing stat options, the post 8th to-wound chart is the worst culprit. Most cases are 3-5, and the cases that require a 6 to wound would have been impossible in earlier editions, in a way just creating an increase in the number of dice being rolled just fishing for 6s.
Imo there's a place for Strength vs. Toughness to have both auto-wound scenarios, as well as "no chance, don't even roll because you can't hurt it" ones. If that Lascannon hits a Guardsman, don't roll to wound, save your dice.
My point is that GW didn't even bothering all six faces of a d6, so why would they use all of the ones on a d10?
If they adopted a d10, they would use only a fraction of its probabilities, because their game design is remarkably, consistently, inept.
They cover this up through incredible art, a massive catalog and spackling special rules to fill the gaps.
To be fair, they probably sell more copies of their rules in a day than I ever have.
^ I think moving to D10 is unrealistic to begin with. D6 is just too good in terms of accesibiliy (and that alone makes it the right choice), and there is plenty of ability to get granularity using D6s.
Insectum7 wrote: ^ I think moving to D10 is unrealistic to begin with. D6 is just too good in terms of accesibiliy (and that alone makes it the right choice), and there is plenty of ability to get granularity using D6s.
There is something inherently satisfying in throwing fistfuls of d6s to resolve a combat.
When I made my own fantasy/historical system, there was no question that I would follow that example. A brick of six-siders is easy to obtain, and there's no reason you can't use them for whatever application you want.
GW simply failed to use all of the sides. Other systems do.
Insectum7 wrote: ^ I think moving to D10 is unrealistic to begin with. D6 is just too good in terms of accesibiliy (and that alone makes it the right choice), and there is plenty of ability to get granularity using D6s.
We live in the age of the internet. It's NOT hard to buy D8s or D10s.
Insectum7 wrote: ^ I think moving to D10 is unrealistic to begin with. D6 is just too good in terms of accesibiliy (and that alone makes it the right choice), and there is plenty of ability to get granularity using D6s.
We live in the age of the internet. It's NOT hard to buy D8s or D10s.
If you can't buy them alongside the models and rules that you're getting, easily and in the color that you like, it's not going to take off.
Ease of access compared to d6's for other dice is simply not there, and GW isn't going to change the entire dice system that their game has been based off of for 50 years knowing full well they'd have to front-run a different set of dice.
On top of that, EVERY system they use is d6 based, except for Apocalypse that tried d12's, and it was obnoxious to swap between the two.
Y'all can crunch your numbers and slap your dice statistics all you want, but the business sense does not exist to support this sort of change.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: There is something inherently satisfying in throwing fistfuls of d6s to resolve a combat.
No, there isnt. Its also no fun to wait for your opponents to roll hundreds (!) of dice for just one (!) unit. Back in 8th orks had like 150 melee attacks and like 50 shooting attack, this added up to thousands (!) of dice being rolled. And then there were, and still are, rerolls.
GW simply failed to use all of the sides. Other systems do.
You hit on 2-5, 1 automatically fails, and 6 automatically hits. Its almost the same with wounding. What side(s) of a six sixed dice isnt used by GW ? Is there a side 7 i didnt notice ?
GW simply failed to use all of the sides. Other systems do.
You hit on 2-5, 1 automatically fails, and 6 automatically hits. Its almost the same with wounding. What side(s) of a six sixed dice isnt used by GW ? Is there a side 7 i didnt notice ?
"Congrats guys, in your 9th edition codex, everything from your neophytes, to your crisis suits, leman russ and daemon engines all now have easy ways to ensure they hit on a 3+" - 9th edition. Again, we have ork community asking for standard bs 4+ because a 5+ is too bad. People don't want to use the 5, people don't want to use the 4.
Insectum7 wrote: ^ I think moving to D10 is unrealistic to begin with. D6 is just too good in terms of accesibiliy (and that alone makes it the right choice), and there is plenty of ability to get granularity using D6s.
We live in the age of the internet. It's NOT hard to buy D8s or D10s.
If you can't buy them alongside the models and rules that you're getting, easily and in the color that you like, it's not going to take off.
Do I, like, have to go to the game store after work tomorrow and take pics of the D8s and D10s they have available?
Insectum7 wrote: ^ I think moving to D10 is unrealistic to begin with. D6 is just too good in terms of accesibiliy (and that alone makes it the right choice), and there is plenty of ability to get granularity using D6s.
We live in the age of the internet. It's NOT hard to buy D8s or D10s.
If you can't buy them alongside the models and rules that you're getting, easily and in the color that you like, it's not going to take off.
Do I, like, have to go to the game store after work tomorrow and take pics of the D8s and D10s they have available?
Yes, please waste some time, better yet head to a GW store and do that.
Insectum7 wrote: ^ I think moving to D10 is unrealistic to begin with. D6 is just too good in terms of accesibiliy (and that alone makes it the right choice), and there is plenty of ability to get granularity using D6s.
We live in the age of the internet. It's NOT hard to buy D8s or D10s.
If you can't buy them alongside the models and rules that you're getting, easily and in the color that you like, it's not going to take off.
On the flip side, if no game is generating the demand for easy access to boxes/bags of d8/d10/d12/etc, then no-one is going to fill that gap in the market.
I'm fairly sure packs of d10 are a thing already, though - maybe via Chessex? I know I've bought them in the past.
Oh, and for the person gibbering about a wargame based around a d20, how far are the goalposts going to move to claim that Infinity doesn't count?
Oh, and for the person gibbering about a wargame based around a d20, how far are the goalposts going to move to claim that Infinity doesn't count?
Or Vor the Maelstrom?
Tyran wrote: At the current scale and model based rules, D6s are the only viable option.
If you want larger dice, either reduce the size of the battles or change to fully abstracted unit based rules. But a game in which you can deploy hundreds of infantry models and expect each one of them to be individually represented by the rules can only be done with D6s.
Quite. I've said it many a time before when these types of threads come up. Either all of these people touting D10s need to have a look at Void and/or actually play a game of it to see what a game of 40k with D10s (and the much lauded AA!) would look like. Go on guys, the rules are free on Seb Games! I played Void back in the early 2000s and, unless 40k wants to go back to a roughly 2nd ed scale of army size, then D10s are just not viable.
Rolling scores of them is just not good for fast rolling, you can quite easily read the pips on D6s quickly, D10s less so. The dice type is just too clunky and the wrong shape for mass rolling that modern 40k demands.
Insectum7 wrote: 5th ed passed out all high AP values like candy, while at the same time removing much of the LOS blocking terrain :/ Although on the AP3 front, the examples that come to mind are Sternguard specialized ammunition that could spam AP3, and Leman Russes/Basilisks available to take in squadrons. Necron Destroyers became AP3 late in that edition IIrc.
The old AP system did create strong breakpoints between weapins and troops though, it created a wider gammut of differentiation while still using just a D6. Imo it was very clever. The main issue is the eventual failure of designers to use restraint with its implementation. Which as it turns out is the same problem they're having with the current system as well, who'd a thunk it?
There is the further issue that those breakpoints were not standarized across factions. The best example being AP4, which utterly massacred everything with "Warrior" in the name, but was worthless against Space Marines, even though a lot of such Warrior models were as expensive if not more than Space Marines (Necron and Tyranid Warriors being the main example). And because the system had such strong breakpoints, not being aligned to it either created crippling design weaknesses or overpowered nonsense depending on which side it fell on.
I fully admit my dislike of the old AP system is mostly born from the issue that Tyranids were pretty much denied access to high AP and good armor saves for most of it.
sad thing is while removing such break points with the new AP system
the added it back in with the new "to wound" table
we went back to what it actually once was but with a different name, which is compensated by adjusting Toughness and Wounds in 3
no improvement just a side grade
GW simply failed to use all of the sides. Other systems do.
You hit on 2-5, 1 automatically fails, and 6 automatically hits. Its almost the same with wounding. What side(s) of a six sixed dice isnt used by GW ? Is there a side 7 i didnt notice ?
You hit on a fixed 3+ most of the time, 4+ if you're a horde faction, 5+ if you're Orks. Few modifiers (that virtually always amount to -1 to hit), no conditions, just a filter that reduces your initial output by a relatively flat value.
Then for to-wound, most of the time it's going to be 3+, 4+, or 5+. The difference between wounding a tank with an anti-infantry machine gun versus a wounding it with a dedicated anti-tank weapon is generally 5+ vs 3+, and since the machine gun gets a higher fire rate they need additional stats to further differentiate the two. And then both guns wound just as well whether they're shooting at a main battle tank or a flimsy armored personnel carrier.
Then saves are 3+ for a majority of models in the game, representing both power armored infantry (a plurality of factions) and almost all vehicles. This is often modified to 4+ or 5+.
So yeah, GW does technically use every side of the die. But they gravitate towards most attacks being resolved by three dice in the 3+ to 5+ range, and of those three checks one of them is rarely modified. That's not a lot of scope for a system that wants to represent everything from infantrymen to superheavy tanks, and so there's a boatload of extra mechanics layered on top to differentiate weapons and units, plus special rules out the wazoo.
It's not the dice that are the issue, GW just isn't using the range of values they can provide. Case in point, the old wounding table made for much stronger differences between weapons on the basis of S alone, because you hit 2+ and 6+ much more quickly.
ccs wrote: Anyone claiming such a switch in dice will reduce rules bloat is simply deluded.
All that would happen is that GW would promptly start filling in the greater design space larger dice would allow.
You think bloat is bad now? Go ahead, give GW another 4 - 6 pips to play with on the dice. Or worse, another 14....
Let's also not forget that many pining for these larger dice ranges ALSO think GW is incompetent at writing rules.
So not only will you get more bloat, you'll get it via heaping doses of BAD rules.
More likely is that if GW switched to D8/D10/D12, etc. that they would replace the dice... but then leave all the stats and numbers, etc. exactly the same as they are now so nothing would change except things would hit/wound/save more often.
While the old wounding table in theory provided greater differentiation, in practice 99% of the datasheets capped at T6. Excluding super heavies, I think only wraithlords were T8. So in practice 99% of everything that had a T value could be wounded by even small arms.
The old wounding table would have been amazing with the current toughness values in which 7,8 and now even 9 can be found outside the superheavy slot, but classic Codexes rarely if ever took full advantage of it.
On the other side of the table, Strenght being capped at 10 was kinda awkward for the heavier vehicle (or monster) mounted heavy guns like railguns or rupture cannons that clearly wanted to hit harder than that. Superheavies occasionally got around that with Strenght D, but that only introduced further issues.
Insectum7 wrote: ^ I think moving to D10 is unrealistic to begin with. D6 is just too good in terms of accesibiliy (and that alone makes it the right choice), and there is plenty of ability to get granularity using D6s.
We live in the age of the internet. It's NOT hard to buy D8s or D10s.
If you can't buy them alongside the models and rules that you're getting, easily and in the color that you like, it's not going to take off.
Do I, like, have to go to the game store after work tomorrow and take pics of the D8s and D10s they have available?
Yes, please waste some time, better yet head to a GW store and do that.
Why would I head to a GW store to do it? Do other game stores not carry their products? I could pick 5 random ones in CA and find plenty of D8s and D10s to buy. You don't have an argument.
Insectum7 wrote: ^ I think moving to D10 is unrealistic to begin with. D6 is just too good in terms of accesibiliy (and that alone makes it the right choice), and there is plenty of ability to get granularity using D6s.
We live in the age of the internet. It's NOT hard to buy D8s or D10s.
If you can't buy them alongside the models and rules that you're getting, easily and in the color that you like, it's not going to take off.
On the flip side, if no game is generating the demand for easy access to boxes/bags of d8/d10/d12/etc, then no-one is going to fill that gap in the market.
I'm fairly sure packs of d10 are a thing already, though - maybe via Chessex? I know I've bought them in the past.
Oh, and for the person gibbering about a wargame based around a d20, how far are the goalposts going to move to claim that Infinity doesn't count?
There are packs of D10s readily available online and in stores. This whole argument of "you can't buy them easily" is such a dumb myth that you'd think these people only ever played a GW game and only in a GW store.
Insectum7 wrote: ^ I think moving to D10 is unrealistic to begin with. D6 is just too good in terms of accesibiliy (and that alone makes it the right choice), and there is plenty of ability to get granularity using D6s.
We live in the age of the internet. It's NOT hard to buy D8s or D10s.
If you can't buy them alongside the models and rules that you're getting, easily and in the color that you like, it's not going to take off.
Do I, like, have to go to the game store after work tomorrow and take pics of the D8s and D10s they have available?
Yes, please waste some time, better yet head to a GW store and do that.
Why would I head to a GW store to do it? Do other game stores not carry their products? I could pick 5 random ones in CA and find plenty of D8s and D10s to buy. You don't have an argument.
Insectum7 wrote: ^ I think moving to D10 is unrealistic to begin with. D6 is just too good in terms of accesibiliy (and that alone makes it the right choice), and there is plenty of ability to get granularity using D6s.
We live in the age of the internet. It's NOT hard to buy D8s or D10s.
It's not just about ease of purchase. Chances are people have D6s already lying around from other games. They're familiar. Even smaller D6s are easy to read from across the table. The "top" is clearer on a D6, especially when rolled on soft or uneven surfaces. Pips rather than numbers are quicker to see at a glance. These are little things, but they add up. Basing 40k on D6s is a smart move.
Insectum7 wrote: 5th ed passed out all high AP values like candy, while at the same time removing much of the LOS blocking terrain :/ Although on the AP3 front, the examples that come to mind are Sternguard specialized ammunition that could spam AP3, and Leman Russes/Basilisks available to take in squadrons. Necron Destroyers became AP3 late in that edition IIrc.
The old AP system did create strong breakpoints between weapins and troops though, it created a wider gammut of differentiation while still using just a D6. Imo it was very clever. The main issue is the eventual failure of designers to use restraint with its implementation. Which as it turns out is the same problem they're having with the current system as well, who'd a thunk it?
There is the further issue that those breakpoints were not standarized across factions. The best example being AP4, which utterly massacred everything with "Warrior" in the name, but was worthless against Space Marines, even though a lot of such Warrior models were as expensive if not more than Space Marines (Necron and Tyranid Warriors being the main example). And because the system had such strong breakpoints, not being aligned to it either created crippling design weaknesses or overpowered nonsense depending on which side it fell on.
I fully admit my dislike of the old AP system is mostly born from the issue that Tyranids were pretty much denied access to high AP and good armor saves for most of it.
Well I played Necrons back when they were 3+
I agree that the 4+ bracket was a sticking point. In 3rd ed Eldar Dark Reapers were 4+, making them expensive fodder for Heavy Bolters or Whirlwinds. Tyranid Warriors were in a tough spot too, although I thought the best incarnation of those were when Synapse blocked Instant Death, which didn't help vs. AP 4, but still helped their overall defense. Imo there were solutions that could be designed for them which would work ok. Dire Avengers fared well enough because they were numerous enough to take hits, imo. At least in 3rd and 4th.
The AP escalation in 5th also brought more AP 4, which unfortunately drowned a bunch of these units out with fire. Overall the AP system was solid, but as always seems to happen, a lack of discipline spoils the balance of power.
Insectum7 wrote: ^ I think moving to D10 is unrealistic to begin with. D6 is just too good in terms of accesibiliy (and that alone makes it the right choice), and there is plenty of ability to get granularity using D6s.
We live in the age of the internet. It's NOT hard to buy D8s or D10s.
It's not just about ease of purchase. Chances are people have D6s already lying around from other games. They're familiar. Even smaller D6s are easy to read from across the table. The "top" is clearer on a D6, especially when rolled on soft or uneven surfaces. Pips rather than numbers are quicker to see at a glance. These are little things, but they add up. Basing 40k on D6s is a smart move.
Yup. As I've already said ITT (and other places), if these proponents of D10s for 40k want to give it a test run, then just play a game of Void. The rules are right here for free. Then they can experience all of the clunkiness that comes with mass rolling of D10s. Don't get me wrong, I love Void as a game, but I won't deny how unwieldy the choice of dice gets the bigger the game gets.
I'm not sure I ever really got over my feeling of injustice that was the initial experience of the 3rd edition AP rules. "yeah, your dudes don't get any saves, my dudes however effectively have a 3++." Didn't seem very fair. As a result "Take everything in your codex with AP3" was ingrained for around twenty years.
I'm not really clear how you resolved that issue - even if GW didn't codex creep their own stats almost every edition.
Grimtuff wrote: Yup. As I've already said ITT (and other places), if these proponents of D10s for 40k want to give it a test run, then just play a game of Void. The rules are right here for free. Then they can experience all of the clunkiness that comes with mass rolling of D10s. Don't get me wrong, I love Void as a game, but I won't deny how unwieldy the choice of dice gets the bigger the game gets.
Hey, I remember that game! It was like 40k but with D10s (that worked exactly like D6s in 40k) and alternated activation. Its Rhino equivalent was also a giant robot or something.
There are packs of D10s readily available online and in stores. This whole argument of "you can't buy them easily" is such a dumb myth that you'd think these people only ever played a GW game and only in a GW store.
To be fair many stores don't carry D10 packs, of the 3 stores I regularly or occasionally visit, only 1 of them sells packs of d10s, the others just have mixed polyhedral rpg sets and d6 sets, as well as loose dice (and of course proprietary dice sets for FFG type games).
That being said, they do exist online and they are a product that retailers can already order from their trade partners and distributors, so if a bucket-o-game *does* want to use d10s as standard there is support for it.
Insectum7 wrote: ^ I think moving to D10 is unrealistic to begin with. D6 is just too good in terms of accesibiliy (and that alone makes it the right choice), and there is plenty of ability to get granularity using D6s.
We live in the age of the internet. It's NOT hard to buy D8s or D10s.
It's not just about ease of purchase. Chances are people have D6s already lying around from other games. They're familiar. Even smaller D6s are easy to read from across the table. The "top" is clearer on a D6, especially when rolled on soft or uneven surfaces. Pips rather than numbers are quicker to see at a glance. These are little things, but they add up. Basing 40k on D6s is a smart move.
Yup. As I've already said ITT (and other places), if these proponents of D10s for 40k want to give it a test run, then just play a game of Void. The rules are right here for free. Then they can experience all of the clunkiness that comes with mass rolling of D10s. Don't get me wrong, I love Void as a game, but I won't deny how unwieldy the choice of dice gets the bigger the game gets.
What clunkiness? Nobody should have any problems reading off a D8 or D10. This isn't a D20 we're talking about where you could argue about angles.
I'd still argue that D12 are the technical best to upgrade to as you literally just have to double the stats, which requires less of a rewrite than D8 or D10. D12 I'd let you argue is harder to read though.
Also side note, D10s aren't even to roll as a shape aren't they?
D20s? Seriously? Throw 5-10 D20s on a board of expertly painted and very valuable models and terrain pieces, and see how many people try to punch you in the face. Forget about the buckets of dice that Guard, Nids, and Orks need to throw.
D6 presents the best random variable while still being able to not destroy the board pieces or move things.
If GW really wanted to speed things up, it would have an auto-roll feature built into their VTT. Which they still haven't made. I would instantly switch to digital armies if you made me pay 50$ for troop Custodes models, and a 20/month fee.
Not to mention it would take all the stupid guess work out of it. I'm surprised GW hasn't jumped into the future of TTG. Which is virtual.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: D20s? Seriously? Throw 5-10 D20s on a board of expertly painted and very valuable models and terrain pieces, and see how many people try to punch you in the face. Forget about the buckets of dice that Guard, Nids, and Orks need to throw.
Of course, I remember the "Physically assaulting your opponents" sections of the VOR and Infinity rulebooks...
What clunkiness? Nobody should have any problems reading off a D8 or D10. This isn't a D20 we're talking about where you could argue about angles.
Tell me you've never rolled a handful of D10s without telling me you've never rolled a handful of D10s. Go on mate, put your money where your mouth is. The rules are there, you clearly know where to source plentiful D10s, so play a game with a load of them and see what we're on about.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: D20s? Seriously? Throw 5-10 D20s on a board of expertly painted and very valuable models and terrain pieces, and see how many people try to punch you in the face. Forget about the buckets of dice that Guard, Nids, and Orks need to throw.
Of course, I remember the "Physically assaulting your opponents" sections of the VOR and Infinity rulebooks...
What clunkiness? Nobody should have any problems reading off a D8 or D10. This isn't a D20 we're talking about where you could argue about angles.
Tell me you've never rolled a handful of D10s without telling me you've never rolled a handful of D10s. Go on mate, put your money where your mouth is. The rules are there, you clearly know where to source plentiful D10s, so play a game with a load of them and see what we're on about.
I mean I've rolled multiple D10s before for various RPGs and had no problem reading them. What you're asking to do, play that particular game, is a problem since nobody will do a non 40k or Sigmar wargame in my area.
Tyel wrote: I'm not sure I ever really got over my feeling of injustice that was the initial experience of the 3rd edition AP rules. "yeah, your dudes don't get any saves, my dudes however effectively have a 3++." Didn't seem very fair. As a result "Take everything in your codex with AP3" was ingrained for around twenty years.
I'm not really clear how you resolved that issue - even if GW didn't codex creep their own stats almost every edition.
Haha, sure I can see that.
The flipside on the marine experience is that cover did nothing to protect from small arms, and since there were no more modifiers to hit you just sorta ate massed small arms. And if those Battle Cannon shells landed on your expensive squad it was a bad day.
But the other major cost Marines dealt with was the Rapid Fire rules. In 3rd they could only fire once at 12" on the move, and then couldn't Assault. Orks, Tyranids and Eldar were largely armed with Assault weapons, allowing them to Move, Fire and Assault all in one turn. It was a profound difference between armies. Marines had their great save, but lacked freedom of action. Imo it was some pretty brilliant design. Not to everyone's taste though.
Tell me you've never rolled a handful of D10s without telling me you've never rolled a handful of D10s. Go on mate, put your money where your mouth is. The rules are there, you clearly know where to source plentiful D10s, so play a game with a load of them and see what we're on about.
The Storyteller system (Vampire, Werewolf, etc.) used "dice pools" of d10s and it worked great. The thing was, the dice pools had a cap. Only super-powerful critters would roll more than ten of them at once, and of course it was on a coffee table or something, not a board filled with terrain or miniatures.
Heaving the same quantity of d10s that I use for d6s would be a miserable experience.
I mean, there's a reason I own all the Void books and never use them.
But besides mechanics, there is still the core issue that GW never uses up all of its design space. It rating MS from 1 to 10 and then gave it a variability that could be been resolved using rocks/paper/scissors.
Again, if you do the math GW's probability ranges are nowhere as large as a d6 would actually permit - it's in a very narrow band and they further subdivide it by having re-rolls (or conditional ones) to further fine tune things.
Put simply, GW's games are about the middle third and how finely these can be divided. This becomes an issue when you are paying points for a model with twice the rating but only 10 percent more lethality.
Rolling D10s are not COMPLETELY out of the question, but anything above that is, in the words of Graham Chapman, TOO SILLY. I don't think it would be amiss to "only" make certain aspects shift to a D10, that way your not throwing buckets of them per game. Maybe just psychic tests, or wounding on T7+ units? That way the "company commander's las pistol" doesn't have as much of a chance of wounding the Warlord Titan as it currently does. Which is 1/6.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: That way the "company commander's las pistol" doesn't have as much of a chance of wounding the Warlord Titan as it currently does. Which is 1/6.
Yeah, I'm not "current" so you have me at a disadvantage there. Are you saying that Tom Hanks' 1911 really can blow up a Panzer IV?
Tyel wrote:I'm not sure I ever really got over my feeling of injustice that was the initial experience of the 3rd edition AP rules. "yeah, your dudes don't get any saves, my dudes however effectively have a 3++." Didn't seem very fair. As a result "Take everything in your codex with AP3" was ingrained for around twenty years.
I'm not really clear how you resolved that issue - even if GW didn't codex creep their own stats almost every edition.
Eh, I thought it was interesting how although my Guard rarely got their normal armor saves, they did often get cover, which Marines didn't benefit as much from. So yeah, you can have your armor, but I can make use of terrain to significantly reduce your firepower. It also meant that bolters had a very practical difference in effectiveness from lasguns, which is something that has been eroded over time.
But in any case, the only way to avoid incentivizing particular AP values is to avoid saturating particular save values. If you have a mix of save values across the game, then no particular AP value is all-important and weapons have varying utility depending on the matchup. But if 2/3 of the units in the game have a 3+, well, you're going to run into issues regardless of whether the system is all-or-nothing (ie 'spam AP3') or an AP modifier system (ie 'spam AP-1/-2').
I would have liked to have seen an AP system somewhere in between all-or-nothing and linear modifiers. The former means that weapons that don't quite reach the breakpoint, like autocannons vs 3+, are ineffective, while the latter means that the first point or two of AP has a dramatic effect on anti-armor performance. I think my ideal system would achieve something along the lines of AP3 ignoring power armor, AP4 reducing it to a 5+, and AP5 or worse conferring the full 3+ save. But I'm not sure how to implement that, short of an AP-vs-save table (bleh) or forcing re-rolls (also bleh).
EviscerationPlague wrote:I mean I've rolled multiple D10s before for various RPGs and had no problem reading them.
How many games have you played that expect you to roll 20-40 D10s at once several times in a row and how much have you actually played them?
But you wouldn't have to roll multiple times. A bigger scale and spread of rolls would mean that stuff like FnP, ++saves etc would not be needed. If the scale was done right, which I myself doubt GW could pull it off, even a save roll could not be needed.
Absolutely true. That is what Apocalypse does, consolidating all the damage stats into a single D12 roll, and saves consolidate from D12s into D6s to reduce the overall amount of rolling needed. It also generally has you rolling by unit, not by model, so resolving an attack is almost always under ten dice.
Except that doesn't get you what many people in this thread are asking for, which is a straight replacement of D6s with larger dice so that the game can be more granular in its already bloated and ineffective mechanics.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: That way the "company commander's las pistol" doesn't have as much of a chance of wounding the Warlord Titan as it currently does. Which is 1/6.
Yeah, I'm not "current" so you have me at a disadvantage there. Are you saying that Tom Hanks' 1911 really can blow up a Panzer IV?
I think you read my statment wrong. Or maybe I read yours wrong. Either way, I'm simple saying never should a las pistol ever be able to wound a titan. A Melta pistol, sure. But not a grot blaster, or a las-pistol, or a hand flamer.
I would have liked to have seen an AP system somewhere in between all-or-nothing and linear modifiers. The former means that weapons that don't quite reach the breakpoint, like autocannons vs 3+, are ineffective, while the latter means that the first point or two of AP has a dramatic effect on anti-armor performance. I think my ideal system would achieve something along the lines of AP3 ignoring power armor, AP4 reducing it to a 5+, and AP5 or worse conferring the full 3+ save. But I'm not sure how to implement that, short of an AP-vs-save table (bleh) or forcing re-rolls (also bleh).
Why not tables? We are already using tables for SvT and there is the old WS vs WS table.
As time goes on, I feel more and more like we probably ought to get rid of either saves or to-wound rolls and then just pump up the Wounds on most units. So you'd roll to hit and maybe to wound against a marine, and if you succeed, the marine takes damage (no save). But your lasgun is only Damage 1, and the marine has (let's say) 3 wounds.
Randomness/uncertainty is still represented by the to-hit and to-wound rolls, and the to-wound roll is where you'd put modifiers to represent some units being harder to hurt and some weapons being better at hurting things, but you'd get to skip all the weird quirks of the AP system. This would also speed up gameplay a smidge by removing a step in the attack process and make the game less swingy. Attackers would more consistently be doing at least a little damage, and defenders would be less prone to losing their superhuman to a single lucky lasgunner.
I will say that from a "easy to determine the value rolled" form factor perspective, I think the d12 wins out over the d10 and d8, and I think the d8 beats the d10.
I don't recall ever rolling a d12 and having any confusion about the result that came out on top.
I just don't think that To-Hit, To-Wound, and then To-Save is an inherently busted system. The shock to me is how good it feels when I play older systems just because
1: They don't have any ****ing rerolls, or they were extremely rare.
and
2: The dice are stripped away sooner in the process by -
2a: Missing a lot more, because of modifiers (2nd Ed)
2b: Failing to wound because of a better to-wound chart (1-7th)
2c: Being unable to even hurt the target in the first place, and so pointless to shoot. (Vehicle Armor or T chart again, 1-7th)
2d: Not even be a viable target because of reduced ranges and solid LOS mechanics. (3rd-4th)
Edit:
C: Ye Olde AP system often just meant no save was allowed. GEQ didn't get a save vs. a Bolter = no dice rolled. MEQ didn't get a save vs. a Battle Cannon = no dice rolled. Marines be rollin' saves against Multimeltas now.
Insectum7 wrote: I just don't think that To-Hit, To-Wound, and then To-Save is an inherently busted system. The shock to me is how good it feels when I play older systems just because
1: They don't have any ****ing rerolls, or they were extremely rare.
and
2: The dice are stripped away sooner in the process by -
2a: Missing a lot more, because of modifiers (2nd Ed)
2b: Failing to wound because of a better to-wound chart (1-7th)
2c: Being unable to even hurt the target in the first place, and so pointless to shoot. (Vehicle Armor or T chart again, 1-7th)
2d: Not even be a viable target because of reduced ranges and solid LOS mechanics. (3rd-4th)
Edit:
C: Ye Olde AP system often just meant no save was allowed. GEQ didn't get a save vs. a Bolter = no dice rolled. MEQ didn't get a save vs. a Battle Cannon = no dice rolled. Marines be rollin' saves against Multimeltas now.
You forgot the biggest factor:
3. Not rolling as many fething dice in the first place
In previous editions it was quite rare for even elite combat units to have more than 3-4 attacks, or guns to have more than 3, and I feel like you can see a pretty regular inflation in dice rolled as you move from 3rd edition to 9th. I agree there's nothing inherently wrong with the hit-wound-save sequence, it's just how the inflated number of dice we roll now interact with it that is the problem.
^Oh you mean the Primaris Repulsor that can roll like 50 shots a turn? And when Twin Linked went from re-rolls to double shots (and then rerolling those double shots)? Yup, yup.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest factor, but it plays a part for sure. At the same time I recall Orks throwing a ton of Attacks in 3rd ed.
catbarf wrote: I would have liked to have seen an AP system somewhere in between all-or-nothing and linear modifiers. The former means that weapons that don't quite reach the breakpoint, like autocannons vs 3+, are ineffective, while the latter means that the first point or two of AP has a dramatic effect on anti-armor performance. I think my ideal system would achieve something along the lines of AP3 ignoring power armor, AP4 reducing it to a 5+, and AP5 or worse conferring the full 3+ save. But I'm not sure how to implement that, short of an AP-vs-save table (bleh) or forcing re-rolls (also bleh).
I kind of feel any system could work reasonably well if GW could be disciplined in terms of power creep. The current system has collapsed partly because GW have given a point of S, a point of AP, and an extra attack, to almost every model in the game. They are belatedly trying to pull things back with a similar array of defensive boosts.
At its core I think you pointed out the issues earlier. Coming up with a stat system that even notionally, never mind meaningfully, distinguishes in the dice rolled between Marines, Orks, Guardsmen etc - and also Shadowswords with Volcano cannons, is hard. This is why we've ended up with the complicated mess of rules on rules that... are essentially just there to determine how many models you take off the table.
At its core though you just have tension of what is meant to counter what - with 3+ power armour often being the break point, because it's always been so common.
If a unit can't kill tacticals, its likely "bad" except as throw-away chaff.
But as more and more units get boosted in order to hit the "acceptable hurdle rate" on tacticals, tacticals become bad. So they need to be buffed.
Which just takes you back to the above.
Which can prompt "everything should do about 30% of its points worth of damage into everything" - but people then say that's boring, unfluffy, not fitting a war game, removing player choice etc.
Insectum7's point about trying to balance this by other limitations can work - but it's often been difficult. Not least because I'm fairly confident 3rd ed Marine players didn't like all the restrictions on shooting/charging those other factions got around. Hence the progressive liberation of shooting rules over the past decade.
I think you read my statment wrong. Or maybe I read yours wrong. Either way, I'm simple saying never should a las pistol ever be able to wound a titan. A Melta pistol, sure. But not a grot blaster, or a las-pistol, or a hand flamer.
No, we're on the same page, I was just asking about current mechanics. I honestly don't know if everything has a 1 in 6 chance to wound everything else. I'm at least five editions behind.
Regarding wound probability, AP was not the only factor back in the day - you also had cover. Cover modified the "to hit" roll and armor saves (and modifiers) modified the wound side the equation.
Thus, a space marine in heavy cover was very difficult to dislodge with small arms, which was correct.
The error of 3rd was to not only make AP super important, but to make terrain and armor either/or. They should have stacked, but even GW couldn't bring themselves to make two save rolls per figure per shooting phase.
So you got weird abstractions which I guess you still have. Swapping out dice won't solve this problem.
Titans are so outside the standard scope of a 40k game that IMHO trying to come up with a ruleset that properly represents them within 40k is a waste of time.
Tyran wrote: Titans are so outside the standard scope of a 40k game that IMHO trying to come up with a ruleset that properly represents them within 40k is a waste of time.
You could say the same thing with aircraft. At scale, they should be three blocks away at the top of a power pole, not sitting two feet away from their target.
Distances always have been extremely abstracted, unless you believe that a bolter has a maximum range of 120 feet/36 meters (24" multiplied by 60 as the scale is somewhere around 1:60).
Mind you I half agree with the idea that aircraft don't really fit, but regardless of that aircraft are relatively common in games while I can count in one hand how often I have played against a titan.
Tyran wrote: Distances always have been extremely abstracted, unless you believe that a bolter has a maximum range of 120 feet/36 meters (24" multiplied by 60 as the scale is somewhere around 1:60).
Mind you I half agree with the idea that aircraft don't really fit, but regardless of that aircraft are relatively common in games while I can count in one hand how often I have played against a titan.
My issue with aircraft is that air defense assets do not typically exist at the company/platoon level, and certainly not as a single standalone vehicle.
If you want to "call an airstrike," pick a spotter, roll a die and see where and if it hits. I get that it was a transparent ploy to sell models, but it was also silly.
The titans actually do exist in a 'tactical' environment. Especially in a built-up area, you could well have some sort of desperate infantry assault against one. Sort of a Godzilla against the JSDF scenario, which might actually be fun.
Godzilla is barely threatened by the best the JSDF has to offer. I mean, direct and repeated tank cannon hits don't even seem to distract Godzilla, and even direct bunker buster hits and even the occasional nuke seems to just cause minor wounds (if the energy isn't used to kick-start its regeneration).
If Godzilla is supposed to be our benchmark, forget about lasguns not being able to wound Titans, battlecannons shouldn't be able to wound Titans.
Tyran wrote: Godzilla is barely threatened by the best the JSDF has to offer. I mean, direct and repeated tank cannon hits don't even seem to distract Godzilla, and even direct bunker buster hits and even the occasional nuke seems to just cause minor wounds (if the energy isn't used to kick-start its regeneration).
If Godzilla is supposed to be our benchmark, forget about lasguns not being able to wound Titans, battlecannons shouldn't be able to wound Titans.
I was exaggerating, of course. I think OGRE was set up along the same lines - one big nasty machine vs distributed opposition.
Another example: AT-ATs vs the Rebels on Hoth. West End Games had a neat boardgame on this in the 80s: Assault on Hoth. Fun game, decent tension. Rebels are playing a delaying game rather than for outright victory.
Since we're talking about dice, they created their own six-siders to resolve combat. Two blank sides, two blue lightsabers, two Darth Vader heads. Weapons have pools of dice and need so many of "their" symbols to score a hit.
Does anyone (other than White Wolf) make novelty d10s?
ProfSrlojohn wrote: So, maybe I missed the main thrust of the discourse, but what is the reasoning behind the push for replacing the d6 for the d10 or d20? I see it mentioned anywhere but I don't think I've actually seen the reasoning explained.
I've heard some of the arguments, primarily the granularity argument, but in that case I'd like to ask where would it be implemented? What advantages does a d10 system have compared to the d6 on something like the old pre-7th to-wound chart? Does it make it simpler to the to-wound chart, or more complicated?
If there are other arguments, I'll gladly hear them as well.
Right now I am in the process of porting the gameplay engine of a videogame to 30K/40K and it´s basis for combat is a D100 system. However my version will have also use for D4, D6, D8, D10, D12, D20, Artillery and Scatter dice. Flanking & Critical hits will be also a thing in addition to the idea that units make attack roles instead of individual models. So rolling buckets of dice of any type won´t be an issue any longer.
GW´s idea to use negative to hit modifiers in a game which in other instances uses fixed values is especially braindead when Ork shooting is reduced from BS5+ ,which is garbage from the get-go, to BS6.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
catbarf wrote: I think 40K players clamor for increased granularity because it's more immediately obvious and straightforward than identifying the deficiencies in the core rules that the stats drive, and because it's the sort of number crunching that us nerds like.
Like, I have seen more than one call for more granular Ballistic Skill to better statistically differentiate things in between Guardsman-level and Marine-level accuracy, but rarely do I see anyone else point out that the current to-hit system doesn't care about how far away the target is, how fast it's moving, or even how big it is. You'd think those would be more fundamental requirements- and give more levers for differentiating units- than showing that Cannon Fodder Grunt #386 is 7% more accurate than Cannon Fodder Grunt #294 in the three picoseconds before they both get atomized by a Volcano Cannon.
Not to mention things that are big in the fluff getting no representation on the tabletop. Remember those lightning raids where the Marines operate like superhuman veterans acting in perfect synchronization honed by literal decades of practice, overwhelming ill-disciplined Orks before they can even react? Yeah sorry your Marines are functionally just Orks who are tougher to kill and shoot bigger guns more accurately, so those ramshackle Orks have the exact same operational tempo as you and can react the instant you make your play. I can think of a few reasons this doesn't feel like the fluff, and 'not enough decimal points' isn't one of them.
Keel wrote:I don't think it has much to do with any illusions of "strategic depth". Special rules, stratagems, etc. add a level of immersion and viscerality that you won't accomplish with just making an elite unit BS7 instead of BS6. A named special rule makes the unit feel "cooler".
Case in point, lack of depth to the core rules is why we end up getting special rules to accommodate differentiation that should just be part of the game to begin with, and shallow mechanics mean we get tons and tons of functionally equivalent abilities (re-rolls, +1s, exploding 6s, etc- they all translate to 'you linearly do more damage' in a consistent/predictable fashion).
Special rules are fun when they're used sparingly and provide something really unique, not just bloated bonuses that could be equivalently represented through the core stats (eg more Attacks instead of all the aforementioned cruft) or provide band-aids for missing mechanics (eg invulnerable saves to represent dodging, or boring reroll-to-hit auras to represent leadership ability).
True. You can impose such modifiers more easily when using a D100 system.
Example:
Bikes are known for going pretty fast. For each X amount of movement done in straight line the opponent suffers a negative 5% modifier to hit.
GW´s idea to use negative to hit modifiers in a game which in other instances uses fixed values is especially braindead when Ork shooting is reduced from BS5+ ,which is garbage from the get-go, to BS6.
I mean BS5+ is the first available value that is below exactly average, I'm not sure garbage is a fair word to use.
ProfSrlojohn wrote: So, maybe I missed the main thrust of the discourse, but what is the reasoning behind the push for replacing the d6 for the d10 or d20? I see it mentioned anywhere but I don't think I've actually seen the reasoning explained.
I've heard some of the arguments, primarily the granularity argument, but in that case I'd like to ask where would it be implemented? What advantages does a d10 system have compared to the d6 on something like the old pre-7th to-wound chart? Does it make it simpler to the to-wound chart, or more complicated?
If there are other arguments, I'll gladly hear them as well.
Right now I am in the process of porting the gameplay engine of a videogame to 30K/40K and it´s basis for combat is a D100 system. However my version will have also use for D4, D6, D8, D10, D12, D20, Artillery and Scatter dice. Flanking & Critical hits will be also a thing in addition to the idea that units make attack roles instead of individual models. So rolling buckets of dice of any type won´t be an issue any longer.
GW´s idea to use negative to hit modifiers in a game which in other instances uses fixed values is especially braindead when Ork shooting is reduced from BS5+ ,which is garbage from the get-go, to BS6.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
catbarf wrote: I think 40K players clamor for increased granularity because it's more immediately obvious and straightforward than identifying the deficiencies in the core rules that the stats drive, and because it's the sort of number crunching that us nerds like.
Like, I have seen more than one call for more granular Ballistic Skill to better statistically differentiate things in between Guardsman-level and Marine-level accuracy, but rarely do I see anyone else point out that the current to-hit system doesn't care about how far away the target is, how fast it's moving, or even how big it is. You'd think those would be more fundamental requirements- and give more levers for differentiating units- than showing that Cannon Fodder Grunt #386 is 7% more accurate than Cannon Fodder Grunt #294 in the three picoseconds before they both get atomized by a Volcano Cannon.
Not to mention things that are big in the fluff getting no representation on the tabletop. Remember those lightning raids where the Marines operate like superhuman veterans acting in perfect synchronization honed by literal decades of practice, overwhelming ill-disciplined Orks before they can even react? Yeah sorry your Marines are functionally just Orks who are tougher to kill and shoot bigger guns more accurately, so those ramshackle Orks have the exact same operational tempo as you and can react the instant you make your play. I can think of a few reasons this doesn't feel like the fluff, and 'not enough decimal points' isn't one of them.
Keel wrote:I don't think it has much to do with any illusions of "strategic depth". Special rules, stratagems, etc. add a level of immersion and viscerality that you won't accomplish with just making an elite unit BS7 instead of BS6. A named special rule makes the unit feel "cooler".
Case in point, lack of depth to the core rules is why we end up getting special rules to accommodate differentiation that should just be part of the game to begin with, and shallow mechanics mean we get tons and tons of functionally equivalent abilities (re-rolls, +1s, exploding 6s, etc- they all translate to 'you linearly do more damage' in a consistent/predictable fashion).
Special rules are fun when they're used sparingly and provide something really unique, not just bloated bonuses that could be equivalently represented through the core stats (eg more Attacks instead of all the aforementioned cruft) or provide band-aids for missing mechanics (eg invulnerable saves to represent dodging, or boring reroll-to-hit auras to represent leadership ability).
True. You can impose such modifiers more easily when using a D100 system.
Example:
Bikes are known for going pretty fast. For each X amount of movement done in straight line the opponent suffers a negative 5% modifier to hit.
How many d100s do you roll per action?
Because if it's more than one, you run into the issue that people asking for old Terminator saves on 2d6 run into-you have to roll each d100 individually.
Every unit has three action points (AP) and generally there are weapons which may be fired once per action point (repeating attacks) and others which need three AP to fire (e.g. sniper rifles). However movement (divided in speed bands) will determine how many AP you have left:
Green: Very few inches moved (3 AP left).
Blue: Moving a few inches (2 AP left).
Purple: Moving quite a bit (1 AP left).
Red: Moving up to your maximum movement allowance (no AP left).
There is also an action which is defined as "Defense Mode" which costs 1 AP and can be used by almost every unit making it harder to hit. Using it will however end your turn as it is also an active ability like almost everything else like the aforementioned repeating/single attacks. Although there will be also free actions which don´t cost AP and may be performed before using an active ability.
GW´s idea to use negative to hit modifiers in a game which in other instances uses fixed values is especially braindead when Ork shooting is reduced from BS5+ ,which is garbage from the get-go, to BS6.
I mean BS5+ is the first available value that is below exactly average, I'm not sure garbage is a fair word to use.
I'm not sure how the notion that orks needed to be sub-par shooters came about. The earliest reference was in the Massacre at Big Toof River, I think, and the subsequent Last Stand (which was a parody of the film Zulu).
According to the WD article, when they ran the first game, the orks just shot the garrison down, so they were made "feral" orks to force infantry assault (like the Zulus did). Apparently the notion stuck, but orks still have all the dakka stuff, so with 3rd ed. they got to roll absurd amounts of dice to get hits they could have with BS 3.
Which comes back to my point which is that the d6 works fine, it's just GW has a way of abusing it - which will carry over into whatever dice they switch to.
The worst part is that with toughness and saves, you can actually be forgiving on hitting the target, since at least 1 in 6 hits won't inflict any damage.
GW´s idea to use negative to hit modifiers in a game which in other instances uses fixed values is especially braindead when Ork shooting is reduced from BS5+ ,which is garbage from the get-go, to BS6.
I mean BS5+ is the first available value that is below exactly average, I'm not sure garbage is a fair word to use.
I'm not sure how the notion that orks needed to be sub-par shooters came about. The earliest reference was in the Massacre at Big Toof River, I think, and the subsequent Last Stand (which was a parody of the film Zulu).
According to the WD article, when they ran the first game, the orks just shot the garrison down, so they were made "feral" orks to force infantry assault (like the Zulus did). Apparently the notion stuck, but orks still have all the dakka stuff, so with 3rd ed. they got to roll absurd amounts of dice to get hits they could have with BS 3.
Which comes back to my point which is that the d6 works fine, it's just GW has a way of abusing it - which will carry over into whatever dice they switch to.
The worst part is that with toughness and saves, you can actually be forgiving on hitting the target, since at least 1 in 6 hits won't inflict any damage.
"With 3rd 40K they rolled absurd amount of dice."
No, they didn´t. Their bolter, heavy bolter & missile launcher equivalent had the same amount of shots like the SM had: 2/3/1. Couple this with BS5+ and you understand why most 2nd Ork players quit the game and the new folks ran maximum infantry blobs with slugga & choppa with the emphasis being obviously on the latter.
No, they didn´t. Their bolter, heavy bolter & missile launcher equivalent had the same amount of shots like the SM had: 2/3/1. Couple this with BS5+ and you understand why most 2nd Ork players quit the game and the new folks ran maximum infantry blobs with slugga & choppa with the emphasis being obviously on the latter.
Twin-linked bikes rolled 3 dice and got re-rolls IIRC. They also had various "blasta" items chock full of dice-rolling goodness.
Perhaps the folks around here tried harder to cling to the shootyness.
In any event, the point stands: in a system where at least 1/6 of "hits" don't effect the target, one can be freer with ballistic skill.
The larger issue is that GW requires an excessive amount of dice-rolling to obtain the desired effect. How many extra attacks are needed to bring the probability of causing a casualty to 75%?
Of course, GW's purpose is differentiate the various armies, and big stat differences do that. In practice, however, GW's result range was really quite narrow. If folks shifted to a d100 system, they'd find themselves locked between 0 and 55 percent. Yes, there are items that breach 55, but they're usually of the "one per army" variety. Lots of wasted design space.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: The larger issue is that GW requires an excessive amount of dice-rolling to obtain the desired effect.
I think it's worth pointing out that this is a big part of why players push towards weapons that have a maximum chance of success. A BS3+ shooter wounding on 3+ and forcing the target to save on 5+ (ie, 67% success rate on three separate trials) still only has a ~30% chance of successfully incapacitating the target.
You can't be freer with ballistic skill if the result of low success rates is that players need an enormous number of dice to get any effective result. If it were just a hit roll and then a save roll, maybe it'd be a different story- 5+ to hit is pretty common in OPR's Grimdark Future and 6+ isn't a total waste of time.
I do think a lot of people find rolling tons of dice satisfying, and almost all of them work at Games Workshop. It's actually my biggest fear for The Old World. I like low dice amounts, except for on hyper elite.
Tyran wrote: Rolling buckets of dice is one of the pleasures of running a horde list.
I kind of agree with this. It's obviously not for everybody, but every now and again I'll inform my opponent that I'm about to roll 90 attacks or something with my Nids, and it's pretty satisfying.
I think it's the sort of thing which is great a couple times in a game, just not all the time.
Tyran wrote: Rolling buckets of dice is one of the pleasures of running a horde list.
Indeed, and when I made my own fantasy rules, I made the d6 (rolled in quantity) it's mainstay.
But I also used all six sides of it (which GW never did) and I limit the numbers of rolls to speed things up.
The point being that switching to d10 or d20 won't solve the perceived problem. The issue isn't that d6 isn't granular enough, it's that GW refuses to use the full range of results that d6 offers and instead uses convoluted mechanics like re-rolls to slice ever-thinner margins out of a very narrow probability range.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: The point being that switching to d10 or d20 won't solve the perceived problem. The issue isn't that d6 isn't granular enough, it's that GW refuses to use the full range of results that d6 offers and instead uses convoluted mechanics like re-rolls to slice ever-thinner margins out of a very narrow probability range.
Tyran wrote: Rolling buckets of dice is one of the pleasures of running a horde list.
Indeed, and when I made my own fantasy rules, I made the d6 (rolled in quantity) it's mainstay.
But I also used all six sides of it (which GW never did) and I limit the numbers of rolls to speed things up.
The point being that switching to d10 or d20 won't solve the perceived problem. The issue isn't that d6 isn't granular enough, it's that GW refuses to use the full range of results that d6 offers and instead uses convoluted mechanics like re-rolls to slice ever-thinner margins out of a very narrow probability range.
I agree in part, but that last part I don't.
It's difficult to balance something that only works 1/6 times, you run into all or nothing issues. It's not something you can strategically rely on, unless you roll so many dice for it that it's not really a 1/6 chance of success, which defeats the purpose of it being a 1/6. On the flip side, succeeding 6/6 times is also hard to balance against its effectiveness. It's going to either be really expensive, or underpowered.
Mechanically GW have two rules already that effectively represent this - the automatically hits for flamers, and the 'once per battle' used for some things (Assuming a 6-turn game which I know isn't necessarily true).
If GW decided to change to a stat+d6, that would be different - WS+1D6 vs target's Defence. But with their current system, they've decided to effectively have a D7 by using rerolls and other shenanigans - 2+, 2.5+, 3+, 3.5+, 4+, 4.5+ 5+.
I mean not exactly, but they're splitting the % up through re-rolls to effectively create smaller differences between the higher success points. Which imo isn't necessarily a bad thing although the clunkiness isn't great.
I mean not exactly, but they're splitting the % up through re-rolls to effectively create smaller differences between the higher success points. Which imo isn't necessarily a bad thing although the clunkiness isn't great.
There are a couple of things going on. The first is that GW won't use the full percentages available to them. I don't know why, but they won't. That leaves them with a very narrow probability band, which they cut into thinner and thinner slices.
My point on that is that changing the dice won't help because they're already ignoring half the probabilities d6s give them. So instead of d10s, you're going to get d5s, and essentially the same game.
Your other point about 1/6 being really powerful touches on GW's notion that balance = randomly allocated imbalance. It doesn't.
The solution is to pull in the outer ends of your curve to keep the results under control. For whatever reason, GW seems to have a cultural bias that the highest, greatest good is where a single die roll tips the result of the game, and the more arbitrary and insane that roll, the better. I assumed that would change over time, but it doesn't seem like it has.
I mean not exactly, but they're splitting the % up through re-rolls to effectively create smaller differences between the higher success points. Which imo isn't necessarily a bad thing although the clunkiness isn't great.
There are a couple of things going on. The first is that GW won't use the full percentages available to them. I don't know why, but they won't. That leaves them with a very narrow probability band, which they cut into thinner and thinner slices.
My point on that is that changing the dice won't help because they're already ignoring half the probabilities d6s give them. So instead of d10s, you're going to get d5s, and essentially the same game.
Your other point about 1/6 being really powerful touches on GW's notion that balance = randomly allocated imbalance. It doesn't.
The solution is to pull in the outer ends of your curve to keep the results under control. For whatever reason, GW seems to have a cultural bias that the highest, greatest good is where a single die roll tips the result of the game, and the more arbitrary and insane that roll, the better. I assumed that would change over time, but it doesn't seem like it has.
Which slices of potential outcome do you think GW aren't using and why would you hypothesise this is?
What's the upside of GW "using all the potential outcomes"?
If I hit on 2s, wound on 2s, some rerolls, high AP, then there are a range of scenarios where I have a very high chance to do some damage. And equally, you can get to 4s to hit, but 6s to wound, 2+ save. How much worse should a 1/72 chance to do damage be?
GW tend towards 3+/3+/5++ - but I'd argue that's a function of balance (if the probabilities are about the same, the points can be about the same), but perhaps more importantly, player desire. Its not especially fun to spend your time fishing for unlikely outcomes. When it happens it feel flukey and stupid rather than "cool". Hence the removal of old Overwatch. (Which was a function of nothing, nothing, nothing, oh look melta gun into the face of your character, gg).
It also produces these stupid outcomes. I.E. "Orks are bad at shooting so they have BS5+ - but since they shouldn't be *BAD at the game*, we have to hand them a bazillion shots so the outcome adds up". It would require a redesign - but there's nothing really stopping "Marines are good at shooting, to represent that they get 2 shots hitting on 3s, Orks are bad at shooting - so to represent that they only get 1 shot, but that is still hitting on 3s". And then you point everything up appropriately.
honestly the only things I think should get a higher dice is the damage dice from some weapons. something like a bright lance or multimelta in melta range getting a D10, though 2D3 would be less swingy
Insectum7 wrote: ^ I think moving to D10 is unrealistic to begin with. D6 is just too good in terms of accesibiliy (and that alone makes it the right choice), and there is plenty of ability to get granularity using D6s.
We live in the age of the internet. It's NOT hard to buy D8s or D10s.
If you can't buy them alongside the models and rules that you're getting, easily and in the color that you like, it's not going to take off.
Ease of access compared to d6's for other dice is simply not there, and GW isn't going to change the entire dice system that their game has been based off of for 50 years knowing full well they'd have to front-run a different set of dice.
On top of that, EVERY system they use is d6 based, except for Apocalypse that tried d12's, and it was obnoxious to swap between the two.
Y'all can crunch your numbers and slap your dice statistics all you want, but the business sense does not exist to support this sort of change.
I bought a few weeks ago the following dice set from Fantasy World. It included:
-D4 -D6 -D8 -D10 -D12 -D20 -D100
So these are fewer dice than GW sells today in a pack. Add a faction-specific colour code to this product and you are good to go.
GW simply failed to use all of the sides. Other systems do.
You hit on 2-5, 1 automatically fails, and 6 automatically hits. Its almost the same with wounding. What side(s) of a six sixed dice isnt used by GW ? Is there a side 7 i didnt notice ?
"Congrats guys, in your 9th edition codex, everything from your neophytes, to your crisis suits, leman russ and daemon engines all now have easy ways to ensure they hit on a 3+" - 9th edition. Again, we have ork community asking for standard bs 4+ because a 5+ is too bad. People don't want to use the 5, people don't want to use the 4.
A factor to make a subpar ballistic skill a bit palatable would be bonus to-hit-modifiers for proper equipment like targeters or targets at close range. Although knowing GW such a thing will not find it´s way in one of their main product line when "Little Timmy" is barely able to count the number of fingers on his hand.
Insectum7 wrote: 5th ed passed out all high AP values like candy, while at the same time removing much of the LOS blocking terrain :/ Although on the AP3 front, the examples that come to mind are Sternguard specialized ammunition that could spam AP3, and Leman Russes/Basilisks available to take in squadrons. Necron Destroyers became AP3 late in that edition IIrc.
The old AP system did create strong breakpoints between weapins and troops though, it created a wider gammut of differentiation while still using just a D6. Imo it was very clever. The main issue is the eventual failure of designers to use restraint with its implementation. Which as it turns out is the same problem they're having with the current system as well, who'd a thunk it?
There is the further issue that those breakpoints were not standarized across factions. The best example being AP4, which utterly massacred everything with "Warrior" in the name, but was worthless against Space Marines, even though a lot of such Warrior models were as expensive if not more than Space Marines (Necron and Tyranid Warriors being the main example). And because the system had such strong breakpoints, not being aligned to it either created crippling design weaknesses or overpowered nonsense depending on which side it fell on.
I fully admit my dislike of the old AP system is mostly born from the issue that Tyranids were pretty much denied access to high AP and good armor saves for most of it.
Changing the basic necron chassis to 4+ save was as bad as their fluff retcon.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: D20s? Seriously? Throw 5-10 D20s on a board of expertly painted and very valuable models and terrain pieces, and see how many people try to punch you in the face. Forget about the buckets of dice that Guard, Nids, and Orks need to throw.
D6 presents the best random variable while still being able to not destroy the board pieces or move things.
If GW really wanted to speed things up, it would have an auto-roll feature built into their VTT. Which they still haven't made. I would instantly switch to digital armies if you made me pay 50$ for troop Custodes models, and a 20/month fee.
Not to mention it would take all the stupid guess work out of it. I'm surprised GW hasn't jumped into the future of TTG. Which is virtual.
If you want to exchange dice from D6 to anything else you will have a hard time. There would be more merit in changing the way attacks are resolved in general such as using fixed attacks per unit and NOT per model.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: ^Oh you mean the Primaris Repulsor that can roll like 50 shots a turn? And when Twin Linked went from re-rolls to double shots (and then rerolling those double shots)? Yup, yup.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest factor, but it plays a part for sure. At the same time I recall Orks throwing a ton of Attacks in 3rd ed.
The first time I noticed this silliness was in 5th. An Imperial vehicle being able to shoot twenty times with some kind of gatling gun. It got only worse from then on judging from all posts referencing later editions on this forum.
In comparison an assault cannon in 2nd 40K would put out nine shots, if you were lucky to score three 3s on your sustained fire dice (1:216 chance by the way). Not to mention facing the danger of suffering jams along the way.
Tyran wrote: Titans are so outside the standard scope of a 40k game that IMHO trying to come up with a ruleset that properly represents them within 40k is a waste of time.
You could say the same thing with aircraft. At scale, they should be three blocks away at the top of a power pole, not sitting two feet away from their target.
Aircraft were in an abstract way present in 4th represented by the scenario USR preliminary bombardment. Suffice to say they wouldn´t need a model as bombing targets from miles away in the sky is a pretty unpersonal affair.
The same applies to artillery though. In fact pretty much anything heavier than infantry is very unpersonal, with even tanks having weapon ranges in the multiple kilometers.
Outside of urban and jungle warfare, modern warfare is peak unpersonal affair.
Tyran wrote: The same applies to artillery though. In fact pretty much anything heavier than infantry is very unpersonal, with even tanks having weapon ranges in the multiple kilometers.
Outside of urban and jungle warfare, modern warfare is peak unpersonal affair.
People in 1968 being bullied by soviet tanks during the "Prague Spring" incident would beg to differ. Tanks were very close and menacing.
People in 1968 being bullied by soviet tanks during the "Prague Spring" incident would beg to differ. Tanks were very close and menacing.
You have a curious concept of modern warfare if you believe the Prague Spring qualifies.
Tanks in occupation roles are deployed very close to be very menacing, but that is because they are being used to bully civilians and the occasional insurgents, not rival militaries that have the toys to destroy tanks, specially at such close quarters.
People in 1968 being bullied by soviet tanks during the "Prague Spring" incident would beg to differ. Tanks were very close and menacing.
You have a curious concept of modern warfare if you believe the Prague Spring qualifies.
Tanks in occupation roles are deployed very close to be very menacing, but that is because they are being used to bully civilians and the occasional insurgents, not rival militaries that have the toys to destroy tanks, specially at such close quarters.
Hmm, it seems you don´t understand the morale boost which a tank will grant allied infantry in the field and the sheer terror it can inspire in the opposition. Such an effect can´t be achieved by artillery and bombers which are miles away from the zone of conflict.
Tyran wrote: The same applies to artillery though. In fact pretty much anything heavier than infantry is very unpersonal, with even tanks having weapon ranges in the multiple kilometers.
Outside of urban and jungle warfare, modern warfare is peak unpersonal affair.
40k has two major "outs" for this. One is that the distances on the table are heavily abstracted. The other is that many combatants are doctrinally very much not "modern warfare".
And it's also a salient point that even in modern times, pretty barbaric and in-your-face tactics are still deployed from time to time.
40k has two major "outs" for this. One is that the distances on the table are heavily abstracted. The other is that many combatants are doctrinally very much not "modern warfare".
And it's also a salient point that even in modern times, pretty barbaric and in-your-face tactics are still deployed from time to time.
My question then is why those same "outs" cannot be used for aircraft?
40k has two major "outs" for this. One is that the distances on the table are heavily abstracted. The other is that many combatants are doctrinally very much not "modern warfare".
And it's also a salient point that even in modern times, pretty barbaric and in-your-face tactics are still deployed from time to time.
My question then is why those same "outs" cannot be used for aircraft?
Oh sure. I think they totally can. Aircraft can be seen as functioning nonlinearly in the space they occupy on the table. What really matters is whether troops can draw a bead on it or not, and we can pretend the aircraft is farther away than it is.
Tyel wrote: What's the upside of GW "using all the potential outcomes"?
If I hit on 2s, wound on 2s, some rerolls, high AP, then there are a range of scenarios where I have a very high chance to do some damage. And equally, you can get to 4s to hit, but 6s to wound, 2+ save. How much worse should a 1/72 chance to do damage be?
If your troops are more accurate, you don't have to saturate the table with boxes of dice to obtain significant results. Rolling dice takes time away from actual decision-making.
The other issue is while throwing more dice pushes results towards the mean, the opportunity for outliers is still there. As I've said, rolling lots of dice doesn't push things to a "fair" average, it just results in randomly distributed unfairness.
Going to a d10 or d20 while keeping the same narrow range band of probability will change nothing other than make dice-rolling amidst terrain more problematic.
Racerguy180 wrote: The point of switching is to have a greater variance. Keeping same is just a dumb as it is now.
I think though that there's a bit of a difference between a technical variety and a practical one.
Sure there are 10 options on a d10, but it doesn't mean much when in a game of 5 turns, 1 d10 will roll a 10+ 0.5 times, a 9+ once, an 8+ 1.5 times, a 7+ 2 times and so on.
The greater range is fine at creating separation between stats, but it doesn't necessarily follow in a meaningful way in game play. a 9+ is close to a 6+ on a d6, a 7+ a 5+ and so on. The same issue of balancing something that never succeeds vs something that always does is still there.
You'd still end up with stats that are most commonly between 3+ and 7+ (~2+ and ~5+ on a d6) because they are easier to balance, which adds a grand total of 1 additional option (3+, 4+, 5+, 6+, 7+ vs 2+, 3+, 4+, 5+).
You'd still end up with stats that are most commonly between 3+ and 7+ (~2+ and ~5+ on a d6) because they are easier to balance, which adds a grand total of 1 additional option (3+, 4+, 5+, 6+, 7+ vs 2+, 3+, 4+, 5+).
I don't think there's a enough gain their to justify it. If you're going to use a d10, you need things that use up that full 90% probability.
And when we look at it, how much do thinks get to 83% probability today? Hardly ever. Increasing the dice size therefore doesn't accomplish much other than to create technical difficulties (a fistful of d20s will roll everywhere) and make an even larger probability "tail" that will emerge from time to ruin someone's day.
Hellebore wrote: [You'd still end up with stats that are most commonly between 3+ and 7+ (~2+ and ~5+ on a d6) because they are easier to balance, which adds a grand total of 1 additional option (3+, 4+, 5+, 6+, 7+ vs 2+, 3+, 4+, 5+).
It adds more than that. In the D6 system you can't improve a 2+ without adding special rules since a 1 always fails. You need to add re-rolls, bonus AP, etc. In a D10 system the base stats may be capped at 3-7 but a 3+ can become a 2+ without any additional rules. Same thing on the top end, having 8/9/10 available instead of only 6 means more room for doing penalties with simple modifiers instead of special rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: 40k has two major "outs" for this. One is that the distances on the table are heavily abstracted. The other is that many combatants are doctrinally very much not "modern warfare".
And it's also a salient point that even in modern times, pretty barbaric and in-your-face tactics are still deployed from time to time.
Abstraction doesn't really work as a justification when things are measured with millimeter precision.
Insectum7 wrote: 40k has two major "outs" for this. One is that the distances on the table are heavily abstracted. The other is that many combatants are doctrinally very much not "modern warfare".
And it's also a salient point that even in modern times, pretty barbaric and in-your-face tactics are still deployed from time to time.
Abstraction doesn't really work as a justification when things are measured with millimeter precision.
The precision is required for the mechanics of playing the game, otherwise a huge amount of arguments result from lack of mutual clarity. However it can be totally separate from what it represents. It's already heavily abstracted, unless we think an assault rifle can only fire 3-4x the length of a tank.
+1 to hit on a BS2+ model cancels out the first -1 to hit and that's fine. +1 to hit is always going to be more impactful on lower BS units. GW just has to take it into account when applying a price to the ability that gives +1 to hit.
It's impossible for a mm to not matter in a game, either you're within range or you're not. I think the lowest range actually in the game is 0,5". It could be less binary than in 40k, but you also cannot make a system where weapons are realistically losing efficiency at range because it's so gradual, any decision you make will be somewhat arbitrary.
At least 40k's lethality makes sense in a scenario where the armies are within 200 feet of each other.
I played Void back in the early 2000s and, unless 
