As it says.
Would you still play 40k if the dice system changed from d6's (six sided dice) to another kind, like d8, d10, d12, or even d20's?

Let's put this to rest. There's some that believe 40k's problems would evaporate if the number of dice sides would increase.

Keep in mind the last time you were at a game store and saw packs of d8s and above on sale in the same colors as the dice that you currently use, if that matters to you.

Assuming that the game is still fun and not FUBAR, which I doubt changing dice would do, I’d play as much as always.
Then again, I play D&D as a DM, so I have lots of dice of all kinds.

I’m a roleplayer of some years. My dice collection has enough mass it could be used to bludgeon someone to death.

The only change to dice that would put me off would be a shift to bespoke ones that I would need to purchase exclusively for 40k. Keeping up with the rules churn is enough of a drain on the budget that if I needed to pick up extra dice sets on top of of would be quite irksome. Especially if they were army specific.

Assuming they don’t screw up some other way when they change the rules.

Where's the option to vote "Yes - I'd even prefer it with different sided dice"?

Where's the "Yes because I play for the setting and story not the rules" option?

Dice changing isn't a sort of game-quitting change, but rolling similar amounts of non D6 dice is going to be more awkward than most people think, imo. It's the wrong move for 40k.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Dice changing isn't a sort of game-quitting change, but rolling similar amounts of non D6 dice is going to be more awkward than most people think, imo. It's the wrong move for 40k.

I mean, the idea (as far as I see) is that use by a d10 or d12 would let you roll less dice.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Dice changing isn't a sort of game-quitting change, but rolling similar amounts of non D6 dice is going to be more awkward than most people think, imo. It's the wrong move for 40k.

I mean, the idea (as far as I see) is that use by a d10 or d12 would let you roll less dice.

How would it accomplish that? I've still got to roll to hit/wound with each of my models....

Changing dice sizes won't get rid of 40ks problems.
All that'll happen is NEW problems will arise.

Anyways, if the game is fun enough? I'll play whatever the dice size is.
Likewise, whatever the dice used, if it reaches a point where I'm not having enough fun I'll stop playing.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Dice changing isn't a sort of game-quitting change, but rolling similar amounts of non D6 dice is going to be more awkward than most people think, imo. It's the wrong move for 40k.

I mean, the idea (as far as I see) is that use by a d10 or d12 would let you roll less dice.

I'm not even sure that's what people want from it, and mathematically speaking it seems like D10s with reduced rolling would make for less granularity.

Anyways, not trusting what comes out of the poll.

Yeah, where's the option for "As long as it's fun"?

 Insectum7 wrote:
Anyways, not trusting what comes out of the poll.

This 3000.

I tend to think of the change in dice as a theoretical than actual desire.
What could be done with a change, and a desire to see anything done about the faults in 40k.

You can do a lot with the d6 if you know what you are aiming for.
And that’s where I think the desire comes from for bigger dice, GW doesn’t use what is has now well. So a easy fix would be to make dice bigger.
Change some things around to make it work kinda like now and good enough.
Won’t fix the big issues plaguing the system, but it may at least spread out some of them.

Apple fox wrote:
I tend to think of the change in dice as a theoretical than actual desire.
What could be done with a change, and a desire to see anything done about the faults in 40k.

You can do a lot with the d6 if you know what you are aiming for.
And that’s where I think the desire comes from for bigger dice, GW doesn’t use what is has now well. So a easy fix would be to make dice bigger.
Change some things around to make it work kinda like now and good enough.
Won’t fix the big issues plaguing the system, but it may at least spread out some of them.

So if GW doesn't use what it's currently got well enough, how would bigger dice be an easy fix?? What makes you think they'd use bigger dice ranges any better?

ccs wrote:

Apple fox wrote:
I tend to think of the change in dice as a theoretical than actual desire.
What could be done with a change, and a desire to see anything done about the faults in 40k.

You can do a lot with the d6 if you know what you are aiming for.
And that’s where I think the desire comes from for bigger dice, GW doesn’t use what is has now well. So a easy fix would be to make dice bigger.
Change some things around to make it work kinda like now and good enough.
Won’t fix the big issues plaguing the system, but it may at least spread out some of them.

So if GW doesn't use what it's currently got well enough, how would bigger dice be an easy fix?? What makes you think they'd use bigger dice ranges any better?

That was the point, we can discuss how it could be used. But any issue that GW won’t fix anyway, won’t be fixed by upping the dice size.
But could spread things out a bit.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Dice changing isn't a sort of game-quitting change, but rolling similar amounts of non D6 dice is going to be more awkward than most people think, imo. It's the wrong move for 40k.

Pretty much this. I already find it awkward to roll 40 dice when my guardians or swooping hawks shoot. I usually break that up into two rolls of 20. If we switched to rolling d12s, I'd probably end up breaking it up into four rolls of 10. :\

Personally, it's not that I'm opposed to changing die size so much as I just don't think it's the magic bullet some people pitch it as. It gives you room to bring back stackable to-hit modifiers, but you'd also have to consider things like:
* What formula do you use to determine to-wound rolls now that the dice have twice as many sides.
* Do you reduce the number of shots/attacks to make dice rolling more wieldy, and if so, what are the consequences of that?
* To-hit modifiers of +/- 1 are less effective than they used to be. So which modifiers (if any) do you bump up to +/- 2? You probably want to do that sort of thing sparingly or you defeat the point of increasing die size, but how comfortable are you halving the usefulness of everyone's -1 to hit rules or MWBD?

Personally, if I had to deal with all that to facilitate changing die size, I'd probably be looking at a ground-up rework. And at that point, you have a lot more to discuss than just die size.

tldr; I'd still play, but I feel defenders of the die size change tend to overestimate the upsides and skim over the downsides.

Changing the dice type would enable a fundamental change in the combat resolution. The dice rolls are used to determine if one model or unit can make another model or unit combat ineffective, and therefore the marker be removed from the board. There are ways to run that such that players don’t need to roll 40+ dice per unit shooting phase. Maybe moving down to Stargrunt or horizon wars style minimalist opposed rolls is too far, given that there is a visceral thrill from rolling quite a few dice at once, but moving to different dice types could be used to enable a happy medium.

Just using different dice doesn't really matter to me. It depends on the implementation and how it affects the fun of the game.

 Flinty wrote:
Changing the dice type would enable a fundamental change in the combat resolution. The dice rolls are used to determine if one model or unit can make another model or unit combat ineffective, and therefore the marker be removed from the board. There are ways to run that such that players don’t need to roll 40+ dice per unit shooting phase. Maybe moving down to Stargrunt or horizon wars style minimalist opposed rolls is too far, given that there is a visceral thrill from rolling quite a few dice at once, but moving to different dice types could be used to enable a happy medium.

This gets to the heart of the issue for me. Just changing dice does nothing in itself, but if GW use that change to implement fundamental changes to how attack resolution works then it may be a good thing. It could also be terrible, for many different reasons. Many games use different types of dice to represent the effectiveness of units. Stargrunt, IIRC, used a pretty straightforward "bigger dice means better unit" approach, but other games use custom dice with different frequency and type of results to represent the same thing. These approaches could work for 40k, but the key thing would be exactly how its implemented.

The poll lacks any of this context, so it's fairly useless as a data gathering exercise.

Well depends on rules but idea of buying big pile of new dices doesn't appeal but not end of the world.

Yes, but the problem with 40k is not the d6.....

Slipspace wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
Changing the dice type would enable a fundamental change in the combat resolution. The dice rolls are used to determine if one model or unit can make another model or unit combat ineffective, and therefore the marker be removed from the board. There are ways to run that such that players don’t need to roll 40+ dice per unit shooting phase. Maybe moving down to Stargrunt or horizon wars style minimalist opposed rolls is too far, given that there is a visceral thrill from rolling quite a few dice at once, but moving to different dice types could be used to enable a happy medium.

This gets to the heart of the issue for me. Just changing dice does nothing in itself, but if GW use that change to implement fundamental changes to how attack resolution works then it may be a good thing. It could also be terrible, for many different reasons. Many games use different types of dice to represent the effectiveness of units. Stargrunt, IIRC, used a pretty straightforward "bigger dice means better unit" approach, but other games use custom dice with different frequency and type of results to represent the same thing. These approaches could work for 40k, but the key thing would be exactly how its implemented.

The poll lacks any of this context, so it's fairly useless as a data gathering exercise.

Affecting probabilities does something. Makes modifiers less big deal. Now +-1 is big thing. On d10 effect is much less so.

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Anyways, not trusting what comes out of the poll.

This 3000.

Why? Are people incapable of reading the question correctly?

Played 2nd Ed a few nights back and D10s, D20s, D8s & D4s all made an appearance.. lots of things still clunky about 40k but the dice were not a big deal, plus with dice apps you can instantly access all sorts of dice for free

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Anyways, not trusting what comes out of the poll.

This 3000.

Why? Are people incapable of reading the question correctly?

The question is too vague to trust the validity poll answers. Is this literally just about taking the current system and changing from a D6 to something else? Or is it about a change in the resolution mechanics that necessitates using different dice?

This is all discussed in the responses above, so I have no idea why you're confused by the post you're replying to.

It’s not the dice. It’s how they’re used.

I’ve no particular opinion beyond that. If it’s just D10, 12 or 20 etc to be “special”, I don’t see the point.

tneva82 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
Changing the dice type would enable a fundamental change in the combat resolution. The dice rolls are used to determine if one model or unit can make another model or unit combat ineffective, and therefore the marker be removed from the board. There are ways to run that such that players don’t need to roll 40+ dice per unit shooting phase. Maybe moving down to Stargrunt or horizon wars style minimalist opposed rolls is too far, given that there is a visceral thrill from rolling quite a few dice at once, but moving to different dice types could be used to enable a happy medium.

This gets to the heart of the issue for me. Just changing dice does nothing in itself, but if GW use that change to implement fundamental changes to how attack resolution works then it may be a good thing. It could also be terrible, for many different reasons. Many games use different types of dice to represent the effectiveness of units. Stargrunt, IIRC, used a pretty straightforward "bigger dice means better unit" approach, but other games use custom dice with different frequency and type of results to represent the same thing. These approaches could work for 40k, but the key thing would be exactly how its implemented.

The poll lacks any of this context, so it's fairly useless as a data gathering exercise.

Affecting probabilities does something. Makes modifiers less big deal. Now +-1 is big thing. On d10 effect is much less so.

Right, but like I said above:

Personally, it's not that I'm opposed to changing die size so much as I just don't think it's the magic bullet some people pitch it as. It gives you room to bring back stackable to-hit modifiers, but you'd also have to consider things like:
* What formula do you use to determine to-wound rolls now that the dice have twice as many sides.
* Do you reduce the number of shots/attacks to make dice rolling more wieldy, and if so, what are the consequences of that?
* To-hit modifiers of +/- 1 are less effective than they used to be. So which modifiers (if any) do you bump up to +/- 2? You probably want to do that sort of thing sparingly or you defeat the point of increasing die size, but how comfortable are you halving the usefulness of everyone's -1 to hit rules or MWBD?

Personally, if I had to deal with all that to facilitate changing die size, I'd probably be looking at a ground-up rework. And at that point, you have a lot more to discuss than just die size.

Even reducing the impact of +-1 isn't inherently an entirely good change.

Slipspace seems to be making the case that using different dice could/should be part of an overhaul to the system. Which, fair enough. But overhauling the system implies that there are fundamental changes that make it impossible to discuss the merits of die size without knowing what those changes are.

"You should let me add a moonroof to your car. It will make it way easier to navigate your course using the stars."
"I mean, moon roofs are neat, but I don't really use stellar navigation when I'm driving. And how would that fix my flat tire?"
"Oh, I replaced the flat tires with floatation devices and a rudder. Your car is a boat now, so I really think the moon roof is a good idea."
"Wait, I have so many more questions."
"About the moon roof?"
"I mean... We can come back to the moon roof."

Yeah, I don't think I've seen anyone argue to just change the dice size - it's always been suggested as one element of broader changes.

So this poll is already missing a key piece of context.

Also, reading the OP... This looks more like a poll raised to push a specific position rather than a poll intended to gather meaningful data from a neutral starting point.

Would I play 40K if the dice changed? Yes, absolutely. I've played every edition since 2nd, and as long as the game is vaguely recognisable, I don't think a change like dice size could stop me from playing entirely.

Would I play more than now, the same, or less? That depends entirely on the framework. If GW moved to D10s and used the move to streamline the game in other ways, almost certainly more. If basically nothing changed except for the need to use more awkward dice (but with the same number of rolls and re-rolls), almost certainly less.

In the absence of further context, I have chosen to assume that the rules are tweaked to be a bit more streamlined / use the extra granularity when first updated, but that GW still fail to resist the temptation to add rules bloat and needless complexity, just like they have done since... about halfway through 5th? On that basis, voted about the same.

The dice used is secondary to the actual gameplay, which is like 10th on the list of stuff I play 40k for...

Would the game be any better if the added in differing dice? Possibly. GW has a track record of jacking stuff up, so chances are more likely that it would be just as fethed as it currently is.

If they brought in Apoc style wound/damage system(I like the game a bunch) it could help mitigate some of the stupidity. But....

Type of dice isn't the reason I play the game, it's not important to me. Would be tough rolling 20 d20's at a time though.

I don't play it currently, if they did a full rules revamp I would try it.

I feel like there is a not-insignificant degree of bias to the sample here. After all, we have enough interest/passion in the game to be on a 40k forum to talk about it. I would be really interested to see the results of identical polls done on different types of social media.

At any rate, I'm not playing 40k right now but intend to go back pending an increase in rules quality. But bar an unprecedented rewrite new dice forms would stop me from going back; I will already have by d6s for other wargames with me anyways and don't want to carry around another whole set of d8s/d10s/whatever just for 40k.

Maybe this is a stupid question, but are non d6 dice, for what ever reason, somehow rare in the western world? Like you can just buy them at toy store or a store that sells games?

^They're easy enough to get. They're just less common than D6s, which are the default for traditional board games.

Karol wrote:
Maybe this is a stupid question, but are non d6 dice, for what ever reason, somehow rare in the western world? Like you can just buy them at toy store or a store that sells games?

Not at all. You can order them by the pound on Amazon dirt cheap & have them show up on your doorstep in 1 -2 days.

This poll is terribly constructed for gathering data. That being said, I think 40k could use a larger sample size of rolls like a d10 or d12. Other GW games use d12s and d10s and it works well. The d6 is a limiting factor for 40k. Having a BS that wasn't either 3+ or 4+ would be refreshing.

Aelyn wrote:
Also, reading the OP... This looks more like a poll raised to push a specific position rather than a poll intended to gather meaningful data from a neutral starting point.

You caught me. I think that changing the dice for this game would be a foolish idea on GW's part and wouldn't solve the problems that some are claiming.

But hey, the people have spoken. Apparently most people would happily continue playing the game with a different type of dice, despite the flaws and challenges they present.

Of course, this is assuming a vaccuum - no other rules changes except where rolling dice is concerned.

Either way, I don't think it's going to happen in the near future. GW aren't going to be looking to change the way they do their math, their business, the dice market in general, and take a massive risk to change up 40k when what they need to be doing is making it -more- accessible, not less.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LesPaul wrote:
This poll is terribly constructed for gathering data. That being said, I think 40k could use a larger sample size of rolls like a d10 or d12. Other GW games use d12s and d10s and it works well. The d6 is a limiting factor for 40k. Having a BS that wasn't either 3+ or 4+ would be refreshing.

Just wanted to see where moods were swinging. I'm not a data scientist or statistician.

Why couldn't we fix the dice and the other issues as well. The game improves with different dice no matter what else happens.

Eh, I don't suspect that I'd quit, but I can say with 100% certainty that I would not play with anyone who uses the diamond shaped D10's. Much like I will not play with someone who uses casino dice.

I suspect there will be a noticeable amount of time wasted every game waiting for dice to settle using a D10 or D12 system.

 oni wrote:
Eh, I don't suspect that I'd quit, but I can say with 100% certainty that I would not play with anyone who uses the diamond shaped D10's. Much like I will not play with someone who uses casino dice.

Uh huh... what an utterly bizarre take. Is something in the water today? That's what a decahedron is. You'll be very hard pressed to find a D10 in any other 10-sided shape.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 oni wrote:
Eh, I don't suspect that I'd quit, but I can say with 100% certainty that I would not play with anyone who uses the diamond shaped D10's. Much like I will not play with someone who uses casino dice.

Uh huh... what an utterly bizarre take. Is something in the water today? That's what a decahedron is. You'll be very hard pressed to find a D10 in any other 10-sided shape.

There are D10's that are shaped similar to D12's.

https://miniset.net/files/set/gw-99020299031-4.jpg

 oni wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 oni wrote:
Eh, I don't suspect that I'd quit, but I can say with 100% certainty that I would not play with anyone who uses the diamond shaped D10's. Much like I will not play with someone who uses casino dice.

Uh huh... what an utterly bizarre take. Is something in the water today? That's what a decahedron is. You'll be very hard pressed to find a D10 in any other 10-sided shape.

There are D10's that are shaped similar to D12's.

https://miniset.net/files/set/gw-99020299031-4.jpg

So... the super special GW D10s that don't look anything like the ten-a-penny D10s that 99% of people will have. Yup. You'll get loads of games!

This is a tough one. I do like games with d20's. I used to love Warzone and Chrinopia back in the day. Those games were a lot of fun. For 40KI don't know exactly. If the dice rolls were for a whole unit and this streamlined things so there were just a lot less dice over all I'd be interested. If it just meant rolling hundreds of dice, just not d6's, then what would be the point. I feel different dice would work much better with far less models involved. If this game, 40K, were more like other different historical games and were just doing some kind of stat checks and had a different stat system I think it would play well enough with different dice. Heck the L5R3rd rpg. system with a number of D10 rolled and a number kept could be a blast as long as it's not hundreds of dice rolled together. Heck add a few other rules from L5R3rd and this could be a really hot idea.
Or just leave it as D6's I guess.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 oni wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 oni wrote:
Eh, I don't suspect that I'd quit, but I can say with 100% certainty that I would not play with anyone who uses the diamond shaped D10's. Much like I will not play with someone who uses casino dice.

Uh huh... what an utterly bizarre take. Is something in the water today? That's what a decahedron is. You'll be very hard pressed to find a D10 in any other 10-sided shape.

There are D10's that are shaped similar to D12's.

https://miniset.net/files/set/gw-99020299031-4.jpg

So... the super special GW D10s that don't look anything like the ten-a-penny D10s that 99% of people will have. Yup. You'll get loads of games!

Yup. So, I hope it remains D6.

I played a D10 game before. Something by Mantic, I think it was Warzone. The game was OK, but what I very much disliked was rolling multiple D10's.

How is it different then rolling the same number or more D6 dice. Is there something wrong with the roll mechanic, like lets say it is harder to fix certain rolls or something.

 oni wrote:
Eh, I don't suspect that I'd quit, but I can say with 100% certainty that I would not play with anyone who uses the diamond shaped D10's. Much like I will not play with someone who uses casino dice.

Because....?

Karol wrote:
How is it different then rolling the same number or more D6 dice. Is there something wrong with the roll mechanic, like lets say it is harder to fix certain rolls or something.

Try it for yourself. Pick up and try shaking 20x D10's in your cupped hands and then rolling them. Next, do the same with 20x D6's. It's an entirely different experience. Let's also consider for a moment that a lot of W40K gameboards have an uneven textured surface. A D10 will not settle as nicely or as quickly as a D6 on uneven surfaces. We can also discuss the merits of design. The D10 is an irregular polyhedron; meaning it's not symmetrical and can never be symmetrical. Its lack of symmetry means a D10 does not / cannot tumble like a D6. A D10 favors a rolling orbital motion that no matter how it lands immediately eliminates 5 possible results.

There's a bit more to it than just numbers. The physical shape and act of rolling dice isn't given much, if any attention, but it's a very real thing and can add to or detract from the game experience.

I do not think fixing die rolls is a concern unless you live in New Vegas.

 LesPaul wrote:
Why couldn't we fix the dice and the other issues as well. The game improves with different dice no matter what else happens.

The Djinn have established that you have failed to establish the fact that D6s cause issued that need to be fixed by D12s in the first place. Wherefore the conclusion is aetherial, even should you establish that such a thing was in fact not untrue then you would still need to conclude that the introduction of D12s to the game not create prooooblems even bigger than the ones you assume they will solve.

I don't see how larger dice are going to fix anything when 40k doesn't even utilize the full diversity of the stats they have now. What mythical version of GW is this that doesn't screw up the dynamics of larger dice even harder than they do now?

Yes.

I wouldn't ever touch modern 40K again. As it stands I play 3rd but at least check out the new rules to see if anything looks better than it has been for the last ten years or so. Changing dice would make it a non-starter.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I don't see how larger dice are going to fix anything when 40k doesn't even utilize the full diversity of the stats they have now. What mythical version of GW is this that doesn't screw up the dynamics of larger dice even harder than they do now?

It is easier to differentiate stuff from each other. Much easier to make a goff boy different from a bad moon when you have a bigger spread of potential succesful checks. Fewer moments when playing marines means you have to play this one specific legion or chapter, because everything else is inferior.
It would also remove the need multiple rolls. right now GW simulates chance of destroying a unit with a multiple layers of rolling, stacking or giving units multiple saves etc. if the dice were d10 or d12, FnP or a stormshield could just be backed in to one roll. Could have just a "to hit" and a "to wound" roll.

Weapons would be more different, and it would be easier to create specialists. A sniper could actualy hit targets better, then the same armies grunt.
Would it make the game perfect? Of course not, but at worse the game would be faster and more diverse.

Would depend entirely on what was done, if it was literally the game as now with a D10 instead of a D6 while that would help slightly after re-basing all the stats with the impact of +/-1 I think that would be a missed opportunity to stream line the game and reduce dice rolling

There isn't a flavour of no that I could pick.

I don't object to non d6 in principal... I'm just unlikely to buy into a new edition regardless of die type.

The thing about other die types is that they aren't as common or cheap. Currently, I feel like each player should have 20-30 dice. So if GW wants to put 40-60 d12 in a starter box, that could work. If not, shifting die type is problematic.

ccs wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Dice changing isn't a sort of game-quitting change, but rolling similar amounts of non D6 dice is going to be more awkward than most people think, imo. It's the wrong move for 40k.

I mean, the idea (as far as I see) is that use by a d10 or d12 would let you roll less dice.

How would it accomplish that? I've still got to roll to hit/wound with each of my models....

Changing dice sizes won't get rid of 40ks problems.
All that'll happen is NEW problems will arise.

Anyways, if the game is fun enough? I'll play whatever the dice size is.
Likewise, whatever the dice used, if it reaches a point where I'm not having enough fun I'll stop playing.

You don't need to roll to hit/wound... And your basic squads don't need to shoot 2+ shots each...
To hit -> save does the same thing as the current system and having more granularity means you can represent a unit's resilience with its save and number of wounds it has.

Karol wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I don't see how larger dice are going to fix anything when 40k doesn't even utilize the full diversity of the stats they have now. What mythical version of GW is this that doesn't screw up the dynamics of larger dice even harder than they do now?

It is easier to differentiate stuff from each other. Much easier to make a goff boy different from a bad moon when you have a bigger spread of potential succesful checks. Fewer moments when playing marines means you have to play this one specific legion or chapter, because everything else is inferior.
It would also remove the need multiple rolls. right now GW simulates chance of destroying a unit with a multiple layers of rolling, stacking or giving units multiple saves etc. if the dice were d10 or d12, FnP or a stormshield could just be backed in to one roll. Could have just a "to hit" and a "to wound" roll.

Weapons would be more different, and it would be easier to create specialists. A sniper could actualy hit targets better, then the same armies grunt.
Would it make the game perfect? Of course not, but at worse the game would be faster and more diverse.

Which is more important? That a Nihilakh Warrior is different from a Novokh Warrior or that a Necron Warrior is different from an Astra MIlitarum Guardsman? GW has been trying so hard to focus on the first but they are forgetting the second.

-1 to hit on a D6 at over 12" was a very strong Chapter Tactic in 8th, but there are tonnes of ways to nerf it other than making it -1 to hit on a D12 at over 12". -1 to hit on a D6 at over 18". -1 to hit on a D6 at over 12" but doesn't stack with other negative hit modifiers the faction has. -1 to hit on a D6 at over 12" against units that moved, or Heavy weapons. Units that remain stationary are hidden or models inside terrain are hidden and hidden units are -1 to hit on a D6 at over 12". It could also be combination of any of the above. Chapter Tactics that let you re-roll one dice per phase would become better in a system with fewer dice rolls, so maybe those ones would be the ones where you'd say you have to switch over to a game with D6s where you roll more dice so that any single re-roll is less important.

GW also might just have decided to make a Chapter Tactic with -2 to hit on a D12 at all times, I agree the design space would be bigger, at worst the game would be less balanced and slower. That's the worst case scenario. What's the worst that could happen when you introduce a new type of Detachment that can include several Formations inside? It'll lead to some rules bloat because you have 1 more Detachment rule in addition to however many Formations you have in your list? Wrong, the game is completely broken by the insane benefits offered in Decurions. That's the worst that can happen, you are being unrealistically charitable with how well GW would carry out this change. I thought GW was getting better with 8th, but SM2.0 and then the points update at the start of 9th completely fethed things up, then Drukhari and AdMech showed that GW are the same incompetent writers, designers and testers they've always been. The game might be pretty balanced at the moment, but it's not due to great game design, it's due to fixing a portion of the most obviously broken stuff every 3 months and then only introducing half as much broken stuff at the same time. Show me a version of Apocalypse where everything isn't just a bag of wounds like AoS and where the D12 is actually necessary instead of a stupid gimmick and I'll believe GW could transition 40k to D12s.

Snipers can already hit better than a grunt within the current rules if the designers want them to, just add +1 to hit on snipers or make sniper carriers +1 BS depending on whether it's Special Weapons Squads that can carry melta guns or snipers or it's Deathmarks that can only carry snipers.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

ccs wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Dice changing isn't a sort of game-quitting change, but rolling similar amounts of non D6 dice is going to be more awkward than most people think, imo. It's the wrong move for 40k.

I mean, the idea (as far as I see) is that use by a d10 or d12 would let you roll less dice.

How would it accomplish that? I've still got to roll to hit/wound with each of my models....

Changing dice sizes won't get rid of 40ks problems.
All that'll happen is NEW problems will arise.

Anyways, if the game is fun enough? I'll play whatever the dice size is.
Likewise, whatever the dice used, if it reaches a point where I'm not having enough fun I'll stop playing.

You don't need to roll to hit/wound... And your basic squads don't need to shoot 2+ shots each...
To hit -> save does the same thing as the current system and having more granularity means you can represent a unit's resilience with its save and number of wounds it has.

Yeah, it's a GW game. While you could make a game game that works how you're describing (and I assume there already is one), I'm not going to bet any $ on GW doing that.
So bigger dice won't reduce the # rolled.
And like I said, with GW all you'll get is at least more problems.

 vict0988 wrote:

Karol wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I don't see how larger dice are going to fix anything when 40k doesn't even utilize the full diversity of the stats they have now. What mythical version of GW is this that doesn't screw up the dynamics of larger dice even harder than they do now?

It is easier to differentiate stuff from each other. Much easier to make a goff boy different from a bad moon when you have a bigger spread of potential succesful checks. Fewer moments when playing marines means you have to play this one specific legion or chapter, because everything else is inferior.
It would also remove the need multiple rolls. right now GW simulates chance of destroying a unit with a multiple layers of rolling, stacking or giving units multiple saves etc. if the dice were d10 or d12, FnP or a stormshield could just be backed in to one roll. Could have just a "to hit" and a "to wound" roll.

Weapons would be more different, and it would be easier to create specialists. A sniper could actualy hit targets better, then the same armies grunt.
Would it make the game perfect? Of course not, but at worse the game would be faster and more diverse.

GW also might just have decided to make a Chapter Tactic with -2 to hit on a D12 at all times, I agree the design space would be bigger, at worst the game would be less balanced and slower.

I think this is the most important thing to tackle on this hypothetical D12 discussion.

Even if it was just a direct translation like that, the potential variation of BS stats and other modifiers would still make it less impactiful in the long run. You'd just have to be slightly creative with it is all.

Yes I'd still play 40k with different dice, preferably d10 or d12. Hopefully that would give them some more design space so we don't get so many "samey" rule mechanics amongst the factions.

I’d go D20 across the board

EviscerationPlague 807707 11457129 wrote:
I think this is the most important thing to tackle on this hypothetical D12 discussion.

Even if it was just a direct translation like that, the potential variation of BS stats and other modifiers would still make it less impactiful in the long run. You'd just have to be slightly creative with it is all.

Plus the +/- wouldn't have to be capped. Maybe a sneaky ranger if he wounds/kills a model in a unit makes the unit to something on -1. But if you get hit by some demon/tyranid monster gun, that makes you explode and spill out little griblis your unit members have to kill, you get a -2 or more. Maybe getting hit over and over by corrosive attacks steadily makes you easier to wound, even if the weapon itself isn't as inititaly deadly to someone in a full closed aka more armoured suit. Maybe tank commanders who just took damage from a melt bomb are more weary of shoting something 100m away, and more intersted in killing that thing that just blew their ablative armour, making shoting at further targets less enticing. At the same time the same commander in another situation when infantry is near by, knows he can count of his battle brothers dealing with the meltabomb bearer. Having an "apothecary" could make your troops have a higher morale, and not run as easy. Some because they would hope to be patched up, others because they were 100% sure they do not want to be anywhere near the Dok. More granular rules would also make playing smaller points more fun or at least less one sided. There would be more stuff to do, blood ax could be better in a sneaky situation, then some goffs. A d6 based system is horribly limiting, or at least I came to the conclusion after seeing a few other system. I could be wrong and they all could be just as bad.

Karol wrote:

EviscerationPlague 807707 11457129 wrote:
I think this is the most important thing to tackle on this hypothetical D12 discussion.

Even if it was just a direct translation like that, the potential variation of BS stats and other modifiers would still make it less impactiful in the long run. You'd just have to be slightly creative with it is all.

Plus the +/- wouldn't have to be capped. Maybe a sneaky ranger if he wounds/kills a model in a unit makes the unit to something on -1. But if you get hit by some demon/tyranid monster gun, that makes you explode and spill out little griblis your unit members have to kill, you get a -2 or more. Maybe getting hit over and over by corrosive attacks steadily makes you easier to wound, even if the weapon itself isn't as inititaly deadly to someone in a full closed aka more armoured suit. Maybe tank commanders who just took damage from a melt bomb are more weary of shoting something 100m away, and more intersted in killing that thing that just blew their ablative armour, making shoting at further targets less enticing. At the same time the same commander in another situation when infantry is near by, knows he can count of his battle brothers dealing with the meltabomb bearer. Having an "apothecary" could make your troops have a higher morale, and not run as easy. Some because they would hope to be patched up, others because they were 100% sure they do not want to be anywhere near the Dok. More granular rules would also make playing smaller points more fun or at least less one sided. There would be more stuff to do, blood ax could be better in a sneaky situation, then some goffs. A d6 based system is horribly limiting, or at least I came to the conclusion after seeing a few other system. I could be wrong and they all could be just as bad.

Bingo, and we can get rid of "Can only be hit/wounded on a 4+" that is present in the game.

Well it's pretty clear most wouldn't mind one bit. And it would give GW a chance to sell all new fancy dice sets.

ccs wrote:

Yeah, it's a GW game. While you could make a game game that works how you're describing (and I assume there already is one), I'm not going to bet any $ on GW doing that.
So bigger dice won't reduce the # rolled.
And like I said, with GW all you'll get is at least more problems.

we're already deep in hypotheticals... might as well assume a best case scenario

Boosykes wrote:
Well it's pretty clear most wouldn't mind one bit. And it would give GW a chance to sell all new fancy dice sets.

On one forum. One that isn't nearly as populous as it used to be. And that's only the ones that bothered to answer. I'd hardly call that "clear".

 Just Tony wrote:

Boosykes wrote:
Well it's pretty clear most wouldn't mind one bit. And it would give GW a chance to sell all new fancy dice sets.

On one forum. One that isn't nearly as populous as it used to be. And that's only the ones that bothered to answer. I'd hardly call that "clear".

As far as the evidence shows, even from a biased poll, people wouldn't mind the change. I agree the evidence isn't conclusive or anything, but as far as we can tell, it's not against new dice.
Feel free to gather evidence to the contrary.

Why? I've proven my point. SOME people wouldn't mind the change. Even YOUR comment isn't accurate.

 Just Tony wrote:
Why? I've proven my point. SOME people wouldn't mind the change. Even YOUR comment isn't accurate.

What point did you prove?

That the data wasn't "clear" as the one poster posited.

I'd be open to playing a 40K that used other dice. Andy Chambers' Starship Troopers system was originally meant to be an iteration on 40K, and it uses a variety of dice types to great effect.

I probably wouldn't play a 40K where the designer concluded the game's problems come from lack of granularity and that bigger dice are the solution.

I personally hope they just start using D4s. That way every time a guard player has to shoot, it hurts to pick them all up.

Karol wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I don't see how larger dice are going to fix anything when 40k doesn't even utilize the full diversity of the stats they have now. What mythical version of GW is this that doesn't screw up the dynamics of larger dice even harder than they do now?

It is easier to differentiate stuff from each other. Much easier to make a goff boy different from a bad moon when you have a bigger spread of potential succesful checks. Fewer moments when playing marines means you have to play this one specific legion or chapter, because everything else is inferior.
It would also remove the need multiple rolls. right now GW simulates chance of destroying a unit with a multiple layers of rolling, stacking or giving units multiple saves etc. if the dice were d10 or d12, FnP or a stormshield could just be backed in to one roll. Could have just a "to hit" and a "to wound" roll.

Weapons would be more different, and it would be easier to create specialists. A sniper could actualy hit targets better, then the same armies grunt.
Would it make the game perfect? Of course not, but at worse the game would be faster and more diverse.

I understand the concept and it sounds great--I just cannot imagine a picture in which GW (well, the 40k team) doesn't use the extra variables to screw up in extra ways.

 Nevelon wrote:
I’m a roleplayer of some years. My dice collection has enough mass it could be used to bludgeon someone to death.

Bah, when even light can't escape your dice, we'll talk.

Changing away from D6 would be a step in the right direction to getting me back. Actually caring about rules that actually work though, would more likely bring me back.

Another benefit to the D12, in addition to doubling the stats to do more controlled modifiers, is that you can STILL do D6 values, though at a slower rate of course.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Another benefit to the D12, in addition to doubling the stats to do more controlled modifiers, is that you can STILL do D6 values, though at a slower rate of course.

Not to mention d3 and d4, as well - my favourite d4, for a couple of reasons, has 12 sides.

 Dysartes wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Another benefit to the D12, in addition to doubling the stats to do more controlled modifiers, is that you can STILL do D6 values, though at a slower rate of course.

Not to mention d3 and d4, as well - my favourite d4, for a couple of reasons, has 12 sides.

Huh, I wasn't even thinking about that.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Dice changing isn't a sort of game-quitting change, but rolling similar amounts of non D6 dice is going to be more awkward than most people think, imo. It's the wrong move for 40k.

This is the key thing that I always think of when people keep suggesting all 40K's problems would be solved simply by moving to sillier dice. Ease of use and legibility are a thing.

if they did the switch it could be done well, but i just assume it will be used to give space marines a 3+ save on a D10 and custodes/terminators on a D10. Eldar will probably get a similar treatment while imperial guard and orks witll get a 5+/6+ save on a D4

D10 might be better overall for the game design but I don't have any faith in GW actually improving the game with more dice faces. Knowing GW marketing, they would probably make something like 11 sided dice to try and force players to buy their dice all the while claiming it's some sort of Spinal Tap reference.

 Vankraken wrote:
D10 might be better overall for the game design but I don't have any faith in GW actually improving the game with more dice faces. Knowing GW marketing, they would probably make something like 11 sided dice to try and force players to buy their dice all the while claiming it's some sort of Spinal Tap reference.

Quoted for truth. You are 150% right. It's scary.

No.

Played plenty of FFG, Infinity, etc.. and such with D10, D20, alternating activation and such..

They are all worse games for it.

Would love to have some Infinity-themed/fluffed game with 40K mechanics though.

Infinity is absolutely not a worse game for its d20, and does not have AA.

I am right now in the process of porting AoW: Planetfall to the Tabletop with a 40K skin. Four factions are planned and units (not models!) make attack rolls with a D100. This means lots of room for "granularity" such as modifiers for speed, cover (various types), size, distance of target and quality of marksmanship. The ruleset will also make use of:

- D4
- D6
- D8
-D10
-D12
-D20

So all a new player needs is a single dice set which encompasses the aforementioned dice types. Another boon is the fact that rolling buckets of dice is no longer a feature of the game.

I'd honestly be willing to switch from a D6 to a d12, or 2-12, because that would let GW sell twice the crappy dice, and it would allow us to expand the charts for attacks and wounding to a d10 in actuality.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I'd honestly be willing to switch from a D6 to a d12, or 2-12, because that would let GW sell twice the crappy dice, and it would allow us to expand the charts for attacks and wounding to a d10 in actuality.

2D6 doesn't have good randomness. D12 is the future. Double everything, and you can make tweaks along the way, and we could get super hard to wound vehicles on a 12+ instead of a 6+ to partially appease the people that won't let go of the gakky AV system/vehicle rules of prior editions.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
[2D6 doesn't have good randomness. D12 is the future.

That depends on what you mean by "good randomness". In some cases a flat probability distribution is preferred, in some cases you want a normal distribution. Neither is inherently "better" randomness.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
[2D6 doesn't have good randomness. D12 is the future.

That depends on what you mean by "good randomness". In some cases a flat probability distribution is preferred, in some cases you want a normal distribution. Neither is inherently "better" randomness.

And anyone who's played XCOM knows that a normal distribution curve can be a absolutely horrible feels-bad moment. Especially when, in 40k, the only ways to affect the success threshold is occasional -/+1 to hit and rerolls.

Only hurts, as it is the case of X-com, elite armies. When you blast your opponent with tens of shots per turn a static normal distribution of wound/kill rolls is acceptable.

It maybe works also works for people that play four times a years, and will remember forever that this one time in 4th ed, they killed a lord character with 5 bolters. Not really the case, when you play 3+ games per week. Then any deviation from the avarge is felt very much. People quit armies or even the game when they can't win at least 1/3ed of their games

I don't really care what type of dice I'm throwing as long as I'm having a good time throwing them.

As a player of Custodes, I think it should be far easier for me to kill Space marines, in Melee, than it is for them to kill me. I think the Space Marine players feel the same way about imperial Guard. Extended dice ratios would help with that, by my understanding of the math.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
As a player of Custodes, I think it should be far easier for me to kill Space marines, in Melee, than it is for them to kill me. I think the Space Marine players feel the same way about imperial Guard. Extended dice ratios would help with that, by my understanding of the math.

You're hitting and wounding on 3+, they are saving on 5+. They are hitting on 3+, wounding on 5+ and you're saving on 2+. You also have an extra wound. Seems like D6s are already fulfilling your request. Armour of Contempt has nothing to do with the dice rolled, it's just a BS rule introduced because of power creep and you could have the exact same thing in 10th with D20s.

 vict0988 wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
As a player of Custodes, I think it should be far easier for me to kill Space marines, in Melee, than it is for them to kill me. I think the Space Marine players feel the same way about imperial Guard. Extended dice ratios would help with that, by my understanding of the math.

You're hitting and wounding on 3+, they are saving on 5+. They are hitting on 3+, wounding on 5+ and you're saving on 2+. You also have an extra wound. Seems like D6s are already fulfilling your request. Armour of Contempt has nothing to do with the dice rolled, it's just a BS rule introduced because of power creep and you could have the exact same thing in 10th with D20s.

I assume Fezzik is referring to the myriad SM units that get meaningful close combat upgrades, such as VV with Thunder Hammers. Of course, in that situation the SM costs almost the same as a basic Custodian Guard, so it actually works out as a pretty fair fight.

Changing the dice doesn't necessarily change the outcome of these fights. There's plenty of scope already to adjust the parameters of that combat but GW chooses not to use them, or just power creeps certain things far too much.

 vict0988 wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
As a player of Custodes, I think it should be far easier for me to kill Space marines, in Melee, than it is for them to kill me. I think the Space Marine players feel the same way about imperial Guard. Extended dice ratios would help with that, by my understanding of the math.

You're hitting and wounding on 3+, they are saving on 5+. They are hitting on 3+, wounding on 5+ and you're saving on 2+. You also have an extra wound. Seems like D6s are already fulfilling your request. Armour of Contempt has nothing to do with the dice rolled, it's just a BS rule introduced because of power creep and you could have the exact same thing in 10th with D20s.

Not really considering that if a marine is in melee he is either SW or BA, and then the Custodes player is getting hit by thunder hammers, +1 to wound, special arment from sang guard etc.

Were Centurions, Bladeguard and Aggressors mistakes? I would agree. Where are the weapon options and adaptability? I think 3A 3W Terminators would be fine if they didn't have AoC.

A post in a recent thread made me think about whether 40k would be a better game without Space Marines and like Warhammer Fantasy the Imperium lacked Chaos Warriors. But the Empire being "the best of the Elves, Dwarves and Brettonians" was also problematic.

 vict0988 wrote:
Were Centurions, Bladeguard and Aggressors mistakes? I would agree. Where are the weapon options and adaptability? I think 3A 3W Terminators would be fine if they didn't have AoC.

A post in a recent thread made me think about whether 40k would be a better game without Space Marines and like Warhammer Fantasy the Imperium lacked Chaos Warriors. But the Empire being "the best of the Elves, Dwarves and Brettonians" was also problematic.

As a big fantasy fluff boy i dont remember them ever selling that line. Even in universe the imperials had a deep respect for the elder races.

 vict0988 wrote:
Were Centurions, Bladeguard and Aggressors mistakes? I would agree. Where are the weapon options and adaptability? I think 3A 3W Terminators would be fine if they didn't have AoC.

A post in a recent thread made me think about whether 40k would be a better game without Space Marines and like Warhammer Fantasy the Imperium lacked Chaos Warriors. But the Empire being "the best of the Elves, Dwarves and Brettonians" was also problematic.

Centurions have plenty of options, actually. People just hate on the models.

Also let's not pretend Terminators have any meaningful options vs Aggressors. You get one heavy weapon, yippy.
If GW maybe consolidated the three frickin Terminator entries into one entity, you'd have a point.

Dai wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Were Centurions, Bladeguard and Aggressors mistakes? I would agree. Where are the weapon options and adaptability? I think 3A 3W Terminators would be fine if they didn't have AoC.

A post in a recent thread made me think about whether 40k would be a better game without Space Marines and like Warhammer Fantasy the Imperium lacked Chaos Warriors. But the Empire being "the best of the Elves, Dwarves and Brettonians" was also problematic.

As a big fantasy fluff boy i dont remember them ever selling that line. Even in universe the imperials had a deep respect for the elder races.

I am not talking about fluff, I am talking about which units were available. The Steam Tank should have been a Dwarf unit, faith, Demigryph Knights and full plate should have been a Bretonnian exclusive, the Empire shouldn't have gotten the full range of magic the High Elves got (not having High magic was not enough). The Empire had a lack of holes in their roster that made them too much of everything. Dogs of War were more unique and should have replaced them as a primary faction.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Were Centurions, Bladeguard and Aggressors mistakes? I would agree. Where are the weapon options and adaptability? I think 3A 3W Terminators would be fine if they didn't have AoC.

A post in a recent thread made me think about whether 40k would be a better game without Space Marines and like Warhammer Fantasy the Imperium lacked Chaos Warriors. But the Empire being "the best of the Elves, Dwarves and Brettonians" was also problematic.

Centurions have plenty of options, actually. People just hate on the models.

Also let's not pretend Terminators have any meaningful options vs Aggressors. You get one heavy weapon, yippy.
If GW maybe consolidated the three frickin Terminator entries into one entity, you'd have a point.

I agree that Terminator entries should be consolidated. With Predators becoming two datasheets GW have gone fully off the reservation. SM fluff is pretty nonsensical anyway so I guess it doesn't matter.

Jesus, don't even get me started on the two separate Predators and three floating ones.

IDK if it would make me play the game more, but I do think it would improve the game. I'd certainly have more fun playing.

I would actually add the option that I would play the game more. I think D12's are the way to go personally. It would even out a lot of things so that there weren't specific numbers of S or T that were better than others, as well as making a lot of the buff and things only half as impactful would allow for a more deft touch with balance. It certainly wouldn't fix everything, but I think it would be a step in the right direction.

a thing i thought about a while back was to make the game not cheese quite so hard you could do armour saves and to hit rolls using a D12 and the value required and any relevant thresholds to be doubled.

2+ armour save on D6 becomes a 4+ on a D12
3+ to hit on D6 turns into 6+ on a D12
and so on..

The main odds don't change but the likelihood of triggering rending would be dramaticly reduced (12 on a D12), as would a bunch of 're-roll-ones' mechanics.
you could even justify a 1+ armour save since that would become a 2+ on a D12

 SirDonlad wrote:
a thing i thought about a while back was to make the game not cheese quite so hard you could do armour saves and to hit rolls using a D12 and the value required and any relevant thresholds to be doubled.

2+ armour save on D6 becomes a 4+ on a D12
3+ to hit on D6 turns into 6+ on a D12
and so on..

The main odds don't change but the likelihood of triggering rending would be dramaticly reduced (12 on a D12), as would a bunch of 're-roll-ones' mechanics.
you could even justify a 1+ armour save since that would become a 2+ on a D12

The odds do change.
You want 2(Target Value)-1 to have the same odds.

hmm.

Is this because i'm seeing them as a percentage threshold test?

 SirDonlad wrote:
your odds for a 3+ on a D6 aren't the same as for a 6+ on a D12?

i see both as a 50/50 threshold test

3+ on a d6 is a 4/6 or 8/12 chance of success.
6+ on a d12 is a 7/12 chance of success.

I know my probability dice math. You'd want...

2+ to 3+
3+ to 5+
4+ to 7+
5+ to 9+
6+ to 11+

To have the same odds.

Dude, i left that up for like 3 seconds before i edited it - wth? are you using a chat script or something?!?!

 SirDonlad wrote:
Dude, i left that up for like 3 seconds before i edited it - wth? are you using a chat script or something?!?!

Nah, just checking the forum more often than I probably should.
I'm just glad you realized you made a mistake and are correcting course-way too many people double down even on verifiable facts they get wrong.

part of me would prefer to leave up my errors - i just thought i could use the edit button to make sure it didn't trigger a wave of "dude, are you high or something?"



to comment further on the original topic - i don't think you can eliminate the D6 from the game (at least, not easily) because you'd have to re-think the tables etc

i miss sustained fire dice