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.

You could roll virtual dice on an app and make everything based on percentages.

$10 for 10? thats $1 per d10. Didnt you say $0.50 per d10?

Should be $5 for 10.

So I will have to spend $30for 30 dice? Forget that! Even at $15 I am hesitant to buy 30 d10s.

anyways. GW sells 25 (1 scat dice) for $8.50 -$10 iirc


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tinkrr wrote:
I've heard this idea before and it sounds pretty good to me.

 Filch wrote:
Nope Nope Nope. Until they use d10s at casinos there wont be a cheap way to buy 30 d10s.

GW needs to make wh40k less complicated for use with d6s.

They do make Chessex D10 sets you can get for reasonably cheap, as in like 50cents a piece, with plenty of other places offering 10 for 10$.

It shouldn't really be a problem getting them.

 Filch wrote:
$10 for 10? thats $1 per d10. Didnt you say $0.50 per d10?

Should be $5 for 10.

So I will have to spend $30for 30 dice? Forget that! Even at $15 I am hesitant to buy 30 d10s.

anyways. GW sells 25 (1 scat dice) for $8.50 -$10 iirc


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tinkrr wrote:
I've heard this idea before and it sounds pretty good to me.

 Filch wrote:
Nope Nope Nope. Until they use d10s at casinos there wont be a cheap way to buy 30 d10s.

GW needs to make wh40k less complicated for use with d6s.

They do make Chessex D10 sets you can get for reasonably cheap, as in like 50cents a piece, with plenty of other places offering 10 for 10$.

It shouldn't really be a problem getting them.

10 for 10$ is the more expensive set, the 50cent ones are the cheaper end where you get 10 for 5$. The same is true for D6 dice.

Also, remember, those are full size D10 dice, not the smaller version like Chessex or GW make when it comes to D6. I'm also going to guess that if GW changed their game to use the D10 version they'd probably produce a dice kit that was around 10$ and included as many D10s as the current D6 set.

Warzone used to use d10s.
'course, this was back when 40k was still in 2nd ed and roughly the same battle scale, too.

40k rules don't even work properly when scaled up to the size the game is now. They didn't even work properly in 2nd ed.

I've wanted to switch to a d10 for a long time as it allows for greater differentiation between units to match the fluff bette;, no way should a marine only be slightly better than a vet guardsman with carapace armor at anything.

Obviously this would mean a major tweaking of stats and points but I'd have thought this would have suited GW as you'd have to buy everything again, and if done properly could allow a complete rebalancing of the game.

The units for measurement could stay the same, just apply a negative or positive modifier to the D10 role based on the movement value assigned to the unit type. Bikes could get +2, Terminators could get -4 for example.

So, you tell me i got to spend >100 buck on dice to throw it all in one go with my orks. It's like how much i got 1500 pts of orks for. And for what good reason? Will it balance things out?

 koooaei wrote:
So, you tell me i got to spend >100 buck on dice to throw it all in one go with my orks. It's like how much i got 1500 pts of orks for. And for what good reason? Will it balance things out?

Since dice only throw out numbers and the game is percentage based and since you can calculate a d10 roll using 2d6 there won't be any balanced out anything occurring. Only slight differences between marines and orks that may statistically improve one by 8%. Nowhere near the amount of buffing Orks need to compete and potentially a nerf for them if Space Marines are better at everything. Changing the type of dice will only create more rules referencing since everyone has slightly different everything while ultimately having no real impact on the game since they barely improve the percentages and factions need more than just better BS to compete with the top tiers. Combined with the complete revamp of stats (S20, T16, BS12, etc) it's just not worth adding. The game already runs on chance to hit, chance to wound, chance to save, so basically a 3d6 system with over 200 possibilities. Most things in the game are calculated on a 1-in-36 or 1-in-12 chance after enough synergy is applied and we really don't need better odds than that. If you really want bigger tables then you just use the d66 rule and get 1-in-66 chances with the potential for re-rolls and double rolls.

Dice just represent percentiles and you can easily calculate those using any number of methods. Rolling lots of smaller dice leads to more consistent results that are less luck based over playing a d20 system like Infinity and constantly failing by 1. Not to mention how easy it is to read a bunch of D6 results due to the pip system over the numerical d10 dice.

 Arkaine wrote:
Not to mention how easy it is to read a bunch of D6 results due to the pip system over the numerical d10 dice.

This would be my main objection. I find everyone has more fun playing if dice are rolled in an area where everyone can easily see them, and all questions are removed for what a players roll results are. D10s are harder to see from across a table.

 Arkaine wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
So, you tell me i got to spend >100 buck on dice to throw it all in one go with my orks. It's like how much i got 1500 pts of orks for. And for what good reason? Will it balance things out?

Since dice only throw out numbers and the game is percentage based and since you can calculate a d10 roll using 2d6 there won't be any balanced out anything occurring. Only slight differences between marines and orks that may statistically improve one by 8%. Nowhere near the amount of buffing Orks need to compete and potentially a nerf for them if Space Marines are better at everything. Changing the type of dice will only create more rules referencing since everyone has slightly different everything while ultimately having no real impact on the game since they barely improve the percentages and factions need more than just better BS to compete with the top tiers. Combined with the complete revamp of stats (S20, T16, BS12, etc) it's just not worth adding. The game already runs on chance to hit, chance to wound, chance to save, so basically a 3d6 system with over 200 possibilities. Most things in the game are calculated on a 1-in-36 or 1-in-12 chance after enough synergy is applied and we really don't need better odds than that. If you really want bigger tables then you just use the d66 rule and get 1-in-66 chances with the potential for re-rolls and double rolls.

Dice just represent percentiles and you can easily calculate those using any number of methods. Rolling lots of smaller dice leads to more consistent results that are less luck based over playing a d20 system like Infinity and constantly failing by 1. Not to mention how easy it is to read a bunch of D6 results due to the pip system over the numerical d10 dice.

The main problem is that GW doesn't treat it like a percentile system, everything is crammed between 3 and 5 for the majority of the stats and success/fail required roll results.

Switching to d10, if done properly, should include a better spread of stats otherwise its not fixing anything.

I agree this could be done with 2d6 roles, however the increased probability of rolling 6, 7, 8 would have to be addressed some how, far easier to do so using a d10 with a equal chance of rolling any one of the sides.

3d10 gives a far more even spread of probable results than 3d6 and more possible results as well. I'm not in favor of simplifying 40k's ruleset, I'd rather go the other way and then if needed have a simple set in the boxsets like Calith.

A game would take forever to play of you used 2d6 or 3d6s. Better a bucket of d10s then waiting for someone to roll sets of multiple dice individually.

 Looky Likey wrote:
I agree this could be done with 2d6 roles, however the increased probability of rolling 6, 7, 8 would have to be addressed some how, far easier to do so using a d10 with a equal chance of rolling any one of the sides.

I was actually saying you can do 2d6 to give the same odds as 1d10. The first die determines severity. On a 1-3 it's a "glancing" hit and on a 4-6 it's a "penetrating" hit. The second die determines impact. Results of 1-5 are even for glancing hits and doubled for penetrating hits. So you get a completely even chance of the numbers 1 through 10 coming up PLUS the impact roll has a 6 that can activate special abilities, critical hits, or weapon powers or just auto-wound. Rolling the d10 is simply easier than this process (and doesn't carry the potential for 12 results) yet we're already used to rolling a pool of dice three times per shot, what's a few more?

 Looky Likey wrote:
3d10 gives a far more even spread of probable results than 3d6 and more possible results as well.

It's unnecessary though. 3d6 already carries over 200 possible rolls, 3d10 would be 1000 rolls. This is a miniatures game that already takes hours, we don't need that many possible dice results.

Who here would be surprised if GW instead created rules for an 11 sided die that no one else made so you had to buy theirs?
If they can't get the patent then they could just latin-ize them and call them undecim senserant aleae!







...I'm not bitter at all!

Why not just go with a d100 system if you're going to do that? Hell, just play Dark Heresy. That way, you don't have to give anything to Games Workshop except the royalties FFG owes them.

I love to roll d12's

Go to d10's and then throw in a unit by unit activation system.

A d100 percentile system would actually work pretty well, ok you don't have the bell curve where a +/- 5 modifier means more or less depending where it falls (e.g. going from 50% to 55% is worth more than from 90% to 95%), but it works pretty well and allows a lot of granularity.

You can also get round the whole issue of needing to roll a bucket of dice pretty easily, and keep the bucket of dice feel.

e.g. you have ten models shooting, so need to make ten rolls, you need a 75% or better to hit.

roll 10x D10, these are the 'tens' dice, anything 0-6 is a success, anything 8 or 9 is a fail, anything that comes up a 7 gets rerolled as the 'units' dice (so statistically you are rolling eleven dice to work out the hits here).

Personal pref is to use D12, they roll better and feel better - stick with 0-9 numbering and have a 'fail' and a 'success' face as well - now you can have 'always fails' and 'always succeeds' without worrying about numeric values.

Plus can re-roll these two for 'critical' effects, e.g. a weapon could have a failure roll of F5+, thus is you roll a 'fail' you need to roll a 5+ on a re-roll to avoid it.

Percentile systems allow for a lot of simple modifiers, e.g. say -1 for each inch or range, +/- modifier for model size (on its profile), and if you wanted you could include the 'strength v toughness' effect into the single roll there is enough range to do it.

You can have a system very similar to the current one, just use D10s instead to get more granularity. No reason to go completely crazy. You can even have small armor save modifiers without getting the 2nd edition effect of making armor useless. Which it was.

 Filch wrote:
Nope Nope Nope. Until they use d10s at casinos there wont be a cheap way to buy 30 d10s.

GW needs to make wh40k less complicated for use with d6s.

They aren't expensive at all. Without even looking around I foud a bag of 10 for $5, and a bag of 15 for $13. And $.50 really isn't that expensive. Sure, they aren't as cheap, but they aren't expensive either.

No, for a game like 40k I prefer D6.

The problem with 40k isn't the fact it's D6 compared to D10, it's everything else.

D6 are superior for rolling large numbers of dice and that's what 40k has been about since 3rd edition. If 40k was a smaller scale game with less dice rolling then D10 would be good or even D20 on occasion, but it's not so D6 is good.

 oldzoggy wrote:
I love to roll d12's

d12's are where it's at.

I dunno, d8's all the way imo.

 Arkaine wrote:

 Looky Likey wrote:
I agree this could be done with 2d6 roles, however the increased probability of rolling 6, 7, 8 would have to be addressed some how, far easier to do so using a d10 with a equal chance of rolling any one of the sides.

I was actually saying you can do 2d6 to give the same odds as 1d10. The first die determines severity. On a 1-3 it's a "glancing" hit and on a 4-6 it's a "penetrating" hit. The second die determines impact. Results of 1-5 are even for glancing hits and doubled for penetrating hits. So you get a completely even chance of the numbers 1 through 10 coming up PLUS the impact roll has a 6 that can activate special abilities, critical hits, or weapon powers or just auto-wound. Rolling the d10 is simply easier than this process (and doesn't carry the potential for 12 results) yet we're already used to rolling a pool of dice three times per shot, what's a few more?

 Looky Likey wrote:
3d10 gives a far more even spread of probable results than 3d6 and more possible results as well.

It's unnecessary though. 3d6 already carries over 200 possible rolls, 3d10 would be 1000 rolls. This is a miniatures game that already takes hours, we don't need that many possible dice results.

You've missed the key bit of my post, that switching to d10 only works if GW fixes the cramming that they currently do with all of the stats and dice roll tables. I would suggest that they do this because of the higher probability that you'll roll those numbers across a sequence of d6 rolls.

I'm also completely against switching 2 or 3 d6 separate or joint rolls for less d10 rolls, I want the same number of rolls just with a d10. This means you can have a far bigger difference between a space marine and a guardsman without making the guardman completely useless.

Any changes to the stats or dice roll tables will obviously result in a slower game initially but people will learn the system, it'll not be that much slower once its in place. It always surprises me when people talk about a ~2k game taking hours, I regularly fit in a 4k game in 2 hours.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
No, for a game like 40k I prefer D6.

The problem with 40k isn't the fact it's D6 compared to D10, it's everything else.

D6 are superior for rolling large numbers of dice and that's what 40k has been about since 3rd edition. If 40k was a smaller scale game with less dice rolling then D10 would be good or even D20 on occasion, but it's not so D6 is good.

No, they're really not. I can roll 24 D10s just fine.

Martel732 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
No, for a game like 40k I prefer D6.

The problem with 40k isn't the fact it's D6 compared to D10, it's everything else.

D6 are superior for rolling large numbers of dice and that's what 40k has been about since 3rd edition. If 40k was a smaller scale game with less dice rolling then D10 would be good or even D20 on occasion, but it's not so D6 is good.

No, they're really not. I can roll 24 D10s just fine.

Sure, you *can*, but D6 is better. They're easier/faster to count out and then they're easier/faster to sweep up the successes/failures and roll them again. When it comes to rolling the 30+ dice we often end up using in 40k, I'd rather have D6's.

The difference in granularity is pointless unless GW fixes their rules first anyway.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
No, for a game like 40k I prefer D6.

The problem with 40k isn't the fact it's D6 compared to D10, it's everything else.

D6 are superior for rolling large numbers of dice and that's what 40k has been about since 3rd edition. If 40k was a smaller scale game with less dice rolling then D10 would be good or even D20 on occasion, but it's not so D6 is good.

No, they're really not. I can roll 24 D10s just fine.

Sure, you *can*, but D6 is better. They're easier/faster to count out and then they're easier/faster to sweep up the successes/failures and roll them again. When it comes to rolling the 30+ dice we often end up using in 40k, I'd rather have D6's.

The difference in granularity is pointless unless GW fixes their rules first anyway.

How?

It's just numbers on a piece of plastic, it's not complicated. There is no difference between rolling a bucket of D10s as a bucket of D6s.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
How?

It's just numbers on a piece of plastic, it's not complicated. There is no difference between rolling a bucket of D10s as a bucket of D6s.

2 reasons. I count out D6's in larger groups than I count out D10's because they are cubes. You don't "count" them out, you just arrange them in to a square in your fingers, I typically pick them up 9 at a time (3x3) or just shuffle them in to a big square that's close to what I want (eg, 5x5 = 25). So D6's are quick to count out because I'm not actually counting them, I'm doing multiplication. I know you can kind of do the same thing with D10's, but it's just better with D6's.

Then I find it easier to sweep up successes/failures because it's pattern recognition with dots rather than actually identifying numbers. I just find it more fiddle when I have to seek out all the dice that are labelled 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 rather than just looking at the dice that have 5 or 6 dots. Pattern recognition is faster than figure recognition.

I know it's not a *huge* difference, but given how frequently you're rolling 30+ dice in 40k I just prefer D6's.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Then I find it easier to sweep up successes/failures because it's pattern recognition with dots rather than actually identifying numbers. I just find it more fiddle when I have to seek out all the dice that are labelled 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 rather than just looking at the dice that have 5 or 6 dots. Pattern recognition is faster than figure recognition.

I don't get it. A number is just a symbol, how are dots different than lines? I can see your point with 6 and 9 that there could be a slight delay looking for the line under the 9 though. Other than those, numbers look unique.

As soon as you got used to rolling D10 dice and counting results on D10 dice, I don't think you would find them more difficult to work with than D6 dice.

Edit: regarding the concerns with how D10 could handle Leadership checks, easy enough: just convert Leadership into a 2-20 scale and roll 2D10 for Leadership checks. It would be actually cool to have a wider Leadership scale than the current one, where 95% of the units in the entire game end up being 8-10 Ld one way or another.

 MeanAss_Demasoni wrote:
I don't get it. A number is just a symbol, how are dots different than lines? I can see your point with 6 and 9 that there could be a slight delay looking for the line under the 9 though. Other than those, numbers look unique.

Maybe it's just me, but I find dots quicker to identify. I don't particularly like D6's with figures instead of dots as well, takes me longer to sweep up the successes or failures ready for a reroll. Not a LOT longer, a few seconds longer when we're talking about 30 or so dice, but enough for me to notice and prefer regular D6's for rolling larger numbers of dice.

Maybe I'm just quicker to identify dots than most people, I do often notice that my opponents are slower at collecting successes or failures ready for the reroll, perhaps for them it wouldn't make any difference.

"D10's are too expensive"

Buys minis for the game which cost $5+ each. lol