Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Okay Ive talked about this in a couple other threads and it seems like there are some people that agree with me for the most part.  I know I don't have all the answers and it would take some flushing out but here it goes.

The game is based on a 1-10 scale so using a D10 would simply make more sense.  Also there are WAY to many things in the game that don't compare to each other the way they should.  Someone in another thread commented (Phryxis I think) that it does not make sense that an Ork and a guardsmen have the same Str.  I fully agree with this and it is only one example of MANY.  Why do Swooping hawks have a 4+ save when their armor is supposed to be light enough that they can fly with.  And arguing that the eldar tech is so advanced that they can make it thinner but still as tough is an out the window idea because if that was true the guys with a 3+ could still fleet. 

Truth is that the game does not reflect the stat lines of the models correctly when using a D6.  Exp. why is it that a firewarrior can hit something like the Avatar on a roll of 5 and the Avatar still needs a 3 to hit him back.  I mean COME ON! the Avatar is the top end WS in the game (10) and a Firewarrior has a 2!!! it should be nearly impossible for someone with that margin to make a successful hit. 

I could go on and on with examples that I feel support my opinion but all I really wanted to do was state it here and see what others thought.  I know that even if we had a huge outcry and people came from other boards to post how it should be changed that nothing would happen but it bugs me, so I had to post something.

I spit on your attmept to make this game METRIC!!


...actually it makes some sense.

Maybe a devoted person could make a conversion table?

Conversions would be easy.  With the current system a 4+ is the general success on most everything (50%).  So with a D10 you leave it that way and make your standard success a 6+.  Thus for two people with equal weapon skills they both need 6's to hit.  When there is a difference of 1 (i.e. WS 3 vs WS 4) the higher gets +1 and the lower gets -1 = the WS 3 needs a 7 to hit and the WS 4 needs a 5 to hit.  This (for CC) would get rid of the ridiculousness of someone with a WS of 2 being able to hit someone with a 10 on a 5, and the 10 still needing a 3 to hit them.  The same would be done with shooting.  The base to hit would be 6 with a BS of 3 (with stats staying the way they are now, changes would possibly be made).  Then getting +1 as your BS goes up.  Rolling to would would be the same chart as rolling to hit in CC. And leadership checks could be done a couple different ways.  Roll 2 D10 and take the highest if it is above or equal to your LD you fail....or....roll 1D10 and subtract your LD from the result, if it = 0 then you fail. 

Of course the conversion would not be the hard part.  The hard part would be the question of do we leave stat lines the way they are now or change them to something more reminiscent  of 2nd edition.  With most character/personality models having WS and BS of 7 or 8.....I don't really know what the best answer would be in this case, I see adds and disadds to both.

A redux of the stat lines would be a must. Not to mention armor values for vehicles, stat lines for special weapons, damage charts, etc. etc. but if this makes the game run more smoothly and makes the game more point wise realistic...I'M FOR IT!!

uhm no....and thats all ill say i think thats a dumb idea

the game works just fine as it is the rules are already twisted enough

and wether you want to admit this or not your math is more compicated by remembering do i add this to my stat or do i take away from the stat

leave it well enough alone

I would definitely support this system. It would allow for more gradual increases in survivability amongst units, rather than a 100% jump in survivability when going from 3+ to 2+ saves, and a 50% reduction in survivability when going from 5+ to 6+ saves. If they added this in for 5th Edition, they could also bring back modifiers!

CK

I think the game is fine as it is, it would probably make more sense as a d10 game, but I don't think a major overhaul is neccessary. Maybe some of the tables just need adjusting (such as the to-hit table).

I dont think changing to a D10 would constitute a "major" overhaul.  Now going from 2nd to 3rd edition was a major overhaul!

I think stats should go to 11.

Deleted

Good points Nurglitch...but it stands that I somewhat hate the narrowed statline in some cases.
Especially BS comes to mind, i mean there is basely just BS3 and BS4, and BS2 and BS5 is reserved for one race (orks) or for character-models.
I mean, come one, what is this? The whole BS line from 6 to 10 just doesn't matter.

And in 40k there are some of these "narrow-stats" that make the units a little bit too similar for my taste.

Greets
Schepp himself

While I personally think the game would benefit somewhat from utilizing a D10, the fact remains that the actual D10 die is simply not as fun to pick up and roll as a D6 IMO.

Perhaps it comes from playing craps or boardgames as a kid, but there is something pleasing and simple about a cube and something unfamiliar and icky about a 'decagon'. Most people probably wouldn't even know what a 'decagon' is if you asked them!

Plus, let's not get into the fact that dice higher than a D6 have the serious stigma of somehow being related to RPGs ( "roll your D100 to see if I get drunk!" ).


While I'm mostly kidding, I am serious that I like the D6 simply from a rolling standpoint, and you happen to roll A LOT in 40k. I can guarantee that process of rolling hundreds of dice in a game would be less enjoyable to me if it were done with a D10 instead of a D6.

That's personally enough reason for me to advocate sticking with the D6 regardless of whatever restraints it puts on the gameplay.

As with all proposed changes to 40k, I ask myself "Does the realism that the change brings merit the increase in complexity that the change brings?"

In this case, the granularity that a shift from a D6 to a D10 adds isn't worth the extra time that it will add to the time to take to play the game. Using D10s is a lot more complicated than D6s (as a prior White Wolf player, trust me in this).

ps plus, just like yakface, I like rolling D6s. It makes me feel like less of a gamer geek.

Deleted

I agree with what Nurglitch said, and also the comment about rolling D10s.
They'd ba a lot more expesive to get in large quantities I'd say.
D6 works fine in fantasy, which suggests that the problem is with 40K, not the dice.

Throwing out a lot of big words in a loquacious sentence structure does not debunk the original statements.  The game is based on 1-10 and that is why a D10 is the dice that I suggested instead of something like a D20 or D100.  Bigger is not better and that was not the intent of this post.  The point was to say more variance would be better.  It would allow for a much broader range of possibilities to happen per game, per unit and per army. 

More "realistic" maybe but thats not the point.  Realism as you said is basically going to be up to the imagination of the player.  Its going to have to be drawn from the movie you see playing in your head of the battle you are playing.

If the argument that D6's feels better in your hand than a D10 is a huge issue than I can not argue that.  Except with I have never rolled a bunch of D6's and thought man I feel really satisfied with all of these cubes in my hand.

And to the statement that D10's are more expensive than D6's......come on! seriously arguing the cost of DICE....weak man.

Deleted

I will not argue the fact that you write a strong and descriptive argument.  Your points definitely make sense; but I still feel that you are wrong when you say changing the variance would not change the game.  I don't know how far up the thread that you read but I also said that I believe a change in the current stat-lines would need to be made as well.  Thus the game would change in the effectiveness of some units against other units (as you said with squads A, B and C.)  I still do not understand how these changes would NOT help the "feel" of the game or the reality of different results. 

Basically the way I envision the change, things like rolling to would or rolling to hit with shooting would probably not see any change (I think the % chance of success would be the same).  But other things like rolling to hit in close combat and making armor saves would definitely be hugely different.  But no reason to switch part of the game to D10 for the positive change and leave the other part still using a D6.  I think you gave an example about shooting and wounding squads but then even if you were capable of getting more wounds that the outcome would be the same because the roll to save would even it out.  Well I don't feel like that is true.  If the current system of AP value was unmodified and something like a bolt gun had an AP value of say 7, then your still going to see a lot of squad types with that sort of save.  Now I am not arguing for or against the current AP system because I have not made up my mind about how well I like that or what a good change would be to it, though it seems like a small change could be for the better.  But with the possibilities of rolling from 1-10 instead of 1-6 armor saves could be much more diverse.

Well I truly do not want to make this into a post of me and Nurglitch bantering back and forth with each other.  I respect your opinion on the matter even though I do not agree with them in whole.  Thank you for taking the time to post such a detailed explanation of your thoughts, it has made me think more in depth about my D10 ideas.

Deleted

I say "No" to d10 for this reason:

I don't want to read the walls of texts you guys just made.

Making the game better if only by the way it "feels" to me would still be making the game "better."  Of course a complete rework of the game would be the absolute best (a Warhammer 40K advanced for the people who enjoy the metagame and not just winning and loosing, for example) but thats not gonna happen.  Thus my suggestion of just changing to a D10; to me feels like a step in the right direction.  Even if you have the same fundamental outcome you would still feel (imho) that the game was more fun.  In essence making the game make more sense would make the game more fun.  I think thats where we were butting heads....maybe?

Deleted

When I say that the D10 system would feel better to me I didn't mean that as a selfish statement.  Obviously if no one else out there liked it then it would be a stupid idea.  But if using the system made it more fun for a lot of people then, in essence it would make the game better.

Yes all good feelings fade with time but we all know that getting this system REALLY changed is not gonna happen in an official format.  I mean truth is the game needs such a rework that if it was done it wouldn't look like the same game.  And GW should have hired a master of stats before coming up with the points system so that the points don't look like they were pulled randomly from a hat in some examples.  I mean there are plenty of points comparisons that just don't add up at all.  But I'm not looking to make this another huge post.

By the way what die did you end up using in your rewrite?

EDIT: O yea you mentioned a new turn sequence, I have always thought that it would be interesting to try alternating phases.  I move, you move, I shoot, you shoot, I assault, you assault....so on and so forth.  I have never play tested that but it seems like it would make a huge tactical change.

Deleted

After hearing that someone has actually play tested the idea of alternating turns I am really starting to think more about the idea.  You say that when you did this you continued to roll for "first" turn each turn.....?  The more I think about it the more I like the idea of the different strategies you could get into during the game.  In ways it would make it harder on assault based armies but then again if someone didn't want to be charged they would have to move and thus give up some of their shooting to avoid this.  Did you have to rework any of the core rules set when switching to alternating turns?

I'm gonna read into the rules you wrote up a little more so that I am more familiar with what your describing.  It is obvious that you have put a lot of work into it.  Maybe someday GW will look at something like this and think that they could take a page or two to make their game better.  And hopefully they take the honorable route and give the credit to where it's due along with a little $$....but I highly doubt that.

Deleted

The thing GW needs to realize is that they are already loosing fans because they are NOT changing.  I dont know about everywhere else in the world but withing a 60 mile radius of where I live nearly all the gaming stores have lowered the level of 40K items they carry and increased the level of Warmachine!  Half of the group of guys I play with dropped their 40K armies to build Warmachine armies.....

I dont know if WM is gonna kill 40K (probably not) but it sure is building up a huge fan base and giving GW some competition.  Which should be a good thing but it seems that GW does not care *shrug*.

I must first plead ignorance at the moment because I've not read the whole thread (yet) so if any points have been covered already, I apologise in advance.

fourganger88 wrote

"I think the game is fine as it is, it would probably make more sense as a d10 game, but I don't think a major overhaul is neccessary. Maybe some of the tables just need adjusting (such as the to-hit table)."

I have to agree with this statement. I've played 40K since the Rogue Trader days (and I recently won a copy from eBay and love the nostalgia). D6 made sense back then because there were  rules for "impossible" attacks. When shooting, if a poor BS, weapon-based to hit modifiers (-1 to hit at longer ranges) and a target in hard cover (-2 to hit) meant a firer needed more than 6 to hit, the shot could still be attempted but the firer needed to roll a 6 first, then make the shot. There was a similar rule for close combat, too. As far as I can see, there is no such rule in 4th ed (please correct me if I'm wrong, however).

D100s are used in some real-world wargames. I think the Vietnam-era Bodycount game used them to determinethe effects of an entire squad's firing. The mechanics went something like this. 8 GI's firing M16's at a given ROF opening up into a 5 metre wide firezone might end up with a 125% chance to hit. This means they would definitely hit one VC guerilla and have a 25% chance of a second hit, rolled on D100. This would take away some of 40K's simplicity. You roll 10D6 needing 4 to hit, then pick up those dice scoring 4 or more and roll them to wound. Pass the dice scoring any wounding hits to your opponent who can use them to make saves (if applicable). All this without having to reference too many charts and tables.

IMHO, changing dice to D10s (or any other) would require far too much work on the rules and armies to be realistic. Anyway, how much would GW charge for a box of 20 D10s just to make your game playable? You can buy D6s anywhere!

Colin

What would the dice look like?

Digging up an old thread and all that, but i just found this while trying to find a D10 variant of WH40k because the current edition rules are so broken.
unless i am mistaken Nurglitch, you were saying that you had written up a version of WH40k using D10? if so i would very much like a copy, and whether you do or not me and a few friends
are thinking of making our own copy, if anyone is interested i'll post a link here when i'm done with it.

as for the argument for or against doing the d10, i think that it has not really anything to do with using a big die, and more of the d6 not being big enough. while haveing more numbers in a game makes the game much simpler to pick up typically, there is something to be said for versatility. for someone who doesn't really know anything about the game (I.E. someone just picking it up) me saying "wait a minute... Leman Russ's have the same armour as Land Raiders?!" won't make a bit of sense, but for anyone who does (I.E. anyone reading this and thinking to themselves 'wait a minute, Leman Russ's only have 10 rear armour, land raiders have 14 on all sides), this will make sense. i have not read through the imperial guard codex, but as i understand it, Leman Russ's have 14 14 10 armour. so their front and side armour is equal to that of a Land Raider (14 14 14), which is the single strongest tank (armour wise) pretty much ever, and add to that the new rules abilitys to make them into the super plasma tank variants and all that and it really doesn't make much sense for them to only cost from what i hear 120 a pop, plus their ability to field 9 of them because of the new tank squad rules. long winded example that just shows that the d6, while a simple medium, is just that. A simple medium. It does not allow for the versatility that their should be.
now in something like Warhammer Fantasy, your choice of armour are: cloth, leather, chain, chain plate, full plate mail more or less (never actually played it but i'm just speaking from a stereo typical fantasy type standpoint) there aren't many variations from that. but in something as diverse as WH40K, to just name a few types of armour; terminator armour, artificer armour, power armour, carapace armour, etc, and that's just for space marines. the imperial guard have a couple kinds, the eldar have their own set, as do the tau, the tyranids have their carapace's and things like that. so in a d6 version, it looks like this;
1+: not possible
2+: terminator armour, artificer armour
3+: power armour
4+: carapace
5+: guard flak
6+: cloth through tyranid carapace and everything in between
and once again, that's just a few things. and artificer armour being equal in protection (minus the invulnerable save) doesn't make sense, a unarmoured psyker haveing the same save as a tyranid gaunt, etc, just doesn't make sense. d10 would look better and allow for versatility. i think it would also improve the feel of the game. space marines would feel like space marines: they would be much harder to kill. i can put out a basic armour chart for d10, but i figure you probably have it already in your head.