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.

Any bell curve for a unit-wide result would work fine. The problem with that is embedding plasma guns inside a tac squad for example would just up the attack factors a few points. Maybe that's good for the game, though, I don't know.

And that is where it sort of looses the 40k players.
They spent time/money to get a good looking model they like and want on the games table, and they want it to have a direct effect in game.(Usually rolling a dice separatley for its effect.)

Reducing the effect of a 28mm scale model with specialized weapon(s) to a 'slight unit modifier' generally will not be accepted by 40k players/(In my experience.)

So that's why I wouldn't do that. I'd stick to the model by model stuff on a D10 scale.

Lanrak wrote:
And that is where it sort of looses the 40k players.
They spent time/money to get a good looking model they like and want on the games table, and they want it to have a direct effect in game.(Usually rolling a dice separatley for its effect.)

Reducing the effect of a 28mm scale model with specialized weapon(s) to a 'slight unit modifier' generally will not be accepted by 40k players/(In my experience.)

I've put a little thought into this in the past. For me personally, a lot of 40k's charm lies with the aesthetic and backstory of non-vehicular models. I mean, a landraider is cool and all, but I'm much more interested in this almost alien space marine guy riding inside of it and the weird warrior fraternity culture he possesses. What I'm getting at is that I really like the idea of a smaller-scale form of 40k where the emphasis is on characters, and the squads they're attached to are more of a delivery system/force multiplier for them.

So with that in mind, I feel there might be a way to address the issues you mention in your post by grouping different models into different "tiers, giving each model a different base roll depending on its tier, and then modifying that roll appropriately. So off the top of my head, you might do something like this:

Mooks: roll 1d10 for "attack rolls" and add bonuses depending on how many bodies are in the squad.

Mini-Bosses/special dudes: roll 2d10 for attack rolls, generally have fewer bodies, but add bigger bonuses to their rolls and are more likely to be equipped with special guns.

Heroes: roll 3d10 for attack rolls and often have bonuses from special wargear, but aren't adding bonuses from squads.

So plasmagun guys might add a bigger bonus to their squad's attack rolls than bolter marines or they might fire as special dudes. That way, their damage output isn't massively hinderred by a core mechanic that has to scale well with a large number of bodies as well. Obviously you can adjust how the differences between mook/special dudes/heroes work.

Then have things like options for characters that let them increase the attack roll bonus each body in their squad grants with a succesfull leadership save or give them a special weapon that lets them reroll their own attack roll against vehicles or what have you.


Bit of a rant there... Anyway, those are just a few thoughts on the "how to make special guns matter if you're rolling for the whole squad" thing. Again, I don't necessarily endorse my own ideas for 40k purposes because it would be a lot of wheel reinventing. ^_^;

See I said a D10 cause I reality the excuses for the D10 being hard to read and easy to tilting is jus laziness and excuses to me. I said a D10 because those extra 4 numbers can make weapons and stats special for the units/ weapons that are in limbo by either piggybacking on a special rule, or have no proper representation in the game. The D100 system you may a well play deathwatch, that a sign I'm not looking to change to mechanics, just adding some stats change instead of more rules to make the game better represented for the diversity of armies now.

@Wyldhunt.
Well that is getting quite complicated quite quickly, and heading in to the realms of established large skirmish games using different size dice/(No Limits, Tomorrows War etc.)

@btgrimaldus.
So you think adding just 4 extra results to the current resolution methods will solve the issues?

So now a Space marine with a las cannon can hit a small target 48" away just as easily as a large target 2" away.
Just now the fixed result is 70% chance of success instead of 66.6667% chance of success.

The core rules of 40k still only cover standard infantry in the open, even if you use a D10 instead of a D6.

Unless you fix the underlying problems with the 40k rules , changing dice size is just a distraction/exercise in futility.

The core rules do not cover enough of the current 40k game play,and the resolution methods do not give proportional results.
Fix these 2 core issues first and then we can see what size dice we need.

(Lots of other tactical war games only use D6 to great effect.Just because 40k rules are so poor, does not mean its the fault of the dice.Or the players , or anything BUT poor game development by GW plc.)

Lanrak wrote:
@Wyldhunt.
Well that is getting quite complicated quite quickly, and heading in to the realms of established large skirmish games using different size dice/(No Limits, Tomorrows War etc.)

@btgrimaldus.
So you think adding just 4 extra results to the current resolution methods will solve the issues?

So now a Space marine with a las cannon can hit a small target 48" away just as easily as a large target 2" away.
Just now the fixed result is 70% chance of success instead of 66.6667% chance of success.

The core rules of 40k still only cover standard infantry in the open, even if you use a D10 instead of a D6.

Unless you fix the underlying problems with the 40k rules , changing dice size is just a distraction/exercise in futility.

The core rules do not cover enough of the current 40k game play,and the resolution methods do not give proportional results.
Fix these 2 core issues first and then we can see what size dice we need.

(Lots of other tactical war games only use D6 to great effect.Just because 40k rules are so poor, does not mean its the fault of the dice.Or the players , or anything BUT poor game development by GW plc.)

You seem to forget this is still a MEDIUM-LARGE skirmish game and not a RPG, D&D, or Deathwatch style game. Yes the 4 extra values will help with more diversity of the items and units in the game.

You seem to want to add many factors that micro manage the game its-self. Things like range and cover need to clarified in another way. even cover would be better with 4 extra factors added to the dice roll. As for range I can see agree with one of these following:

Either ifyour firing over have the weapons total range cut the stats in have. (A Las Cannon is 48" so make it (using the D10 system) 3+ normal and then 6+ at anything over 24")

Or just look at what units would be better a shooting and which wouldn't, so like long fangs shoot at 3+ they are trained for it, and blood claws shoot at 5+. (again using the D10 system.

If you think a game that is larger in scale in every respect than GWs best selling battle game in the 40k universe,(Epic Armageddon.)

Is still a skirmish game because it uses 28mm minatures.I have no chance of explaining why this is so wrong on so many levels

Well then thank you for belittling me and wasting my time.

Either way you opinion is heard and welcomed, thank you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It also has nothing to do with the base size, it is what the game was meant to be, a skirmish game.

How would people feel on D8?

The shape itself is better for transportation, and allows further differentiation from stats. It suffers not being a 10 though haha!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
How would people feel on D8?

The shape itself is better for transportation, and allows further differentiation from stats. It suffers not being a 10 though haha!

I can see that also I think the ten would give more options, but still even a D8 would be better.

 btgrimaldus wrote:
Well then thank you for belittling me and wasting my time.

Either way you opinion is heard and welcomed, thank you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It also has nothing to do with the base size, it is what the game was meant to be, a skirmish game.

I can't see any evidence of Lanrak belittling you, he's just making a statement. No need to get defensive.

 the_kraken wrote:

 btgrimaldus wrote:
Well then thank you for belittling me and wasting my time.

Either way you opinion is heard and welcomed, thank you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It also has nothing to do with the base size, it is what the game was meant to be, a skirmish game.

I can't see any evidence of Lanrak belittling you, he's just making a statement. No need to get defensive.

Sure so anyway back to the topic at hand.
Do have any thoughts on the D10 or D8 in 40K

 btgrimaldus wrote:

 the_kraken wrote:

 btgrimaldus wrote:
Well then thank you for belittling me and wasting my time.

Either way you opinion is heard and welcomed, thank you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It also has nothing to do with the base size, it is what the game was meant to be, a skirmish game.

I can't see any evidence of Lanrak belittling you, he's just making a statement. No need to get defensive.

Sure so anyway back to the topic at hand.
Do have any thoughts on the D10 or D8 in 40K

I personally prefer d10 to d6 in most cases, but Lanrak has a point. 40K has deeper problems than what die it uses. I am in the camp of "d10 would add more variety", but there are issues that could using fixing more.

HERE are some test statlines

I don't think there's any need for rejigging the S and T stats of any unit for a switch between D6 and D10, it's still an opposed statline where you compare one value against the other to find the required roll. If you're still working on the basis that a roll of a 1 is always a failure then the only real change is that it moves the mid roll required for equal S and T stats from a 4+ to 6+ and allowes for a slightly increased level of granularity in the stats. None of this would require making Space Marines Tougher and Stronger because when you start doing that you move away from changing the core system into rebalancing the units. Changes to BS would definitely be needed though, going to a D10 would remove the fact that a BS of 6+ effectively gives you re rolls to hit vut would make units of BS3 and 4 vertually worthless as it would be so much harder to hit.

I also happen to be working on a rules rewrite at the moment as well. I personally think that working with D12s are better than D10's, especially when I'm keeping the current system of stats measured from 1 to 10. In the case of BS I'm using a 12-BS to find the to hit roll so that a 1 is always a failure (and before Lanrak jumps in, I'm incorporating range and cover modifiers so that it's much harder to hit a unit further away in cover than it is a model right in front of your guys face.), and armour saves would work in the same way (with AP changed to a modifier rather than an all or nothing system).

The thing I'm finding most in moving to a more granular system is that if your opposed stats increase and decrease by 1 in each direction then you find weak units able to hurt much tougher units (S1 would be able to wound T6 on 12 in this case for my system), so I've had to make a few tweeks that seem a bit arbitrary at the moment, and that a single type of dice isn't a catch all. I'm finding that keeping Characteristic Tests to the current D6 system is actually pretty decent because on a D12 your standard infantry units that need 3's and 4's to pass are going to find it extremely difficult to do so.

You have to reassign all the stats. That's the whole point of a granulated system.

Martel732 wrote:
You have to reassign all the stats. That's the whole point of a granulated system.

Why, it's an opposed stat line where the granularity is built in from the increase in possible outcomes from the dice, not the stats.

For instance the current stats for S against T at S4 looks like this:

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10
2+ 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 6+ - - -

On a D10 it would look like this

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10
3+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 7+ 8+ 9+ 10+ 10+ -

The only reason you'd change a Space Marine from S4 to 5 is if you want him to be able to wound everything in the game in close combat.

You're keeping GW's stupid progression. We don't have to use that progression. We can say S5 can't wound T7 at all. We can say anything we like.

We can, but since no one has made any kind of mention in here about changing that progression system, why the feth should I assume it's been changed at all?

 Imateria wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
You have to reassign all the stats. That's the whole point of a granulated system.

Why, it's an opposed stat line where the granularity is built in from the increase in possible outcomes from the dice, not the stats.

For instance the current stats for S against T at S4 looks like this:

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10
2+ 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 6+ - - -

On a D10 it would look like this

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10
3+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 7+ 8+ 9+ 10+ 10+ -

The only reason you'd change a Space Marine from S4 to 5 is if you want him to be able to wound everything in the game in close combat.

The problem with not updated T and S could be seen in abilities such as Hellfrost. In the D6 system, S5 would represent a 83.3% chance of succeeding on the S test from Hellfrost. In a D10 system, that same T5 is only a 50% success chance.

Martel732 wrote:
You're keeping GW's stupid progression. We don't have to use that progression. We can say S5 can't wound T7 at all. We can say anything we like.

The benefit of porting 40k to d10s or 12s would be more granularity. The limits of the d6 is the part that would need fixed. I hardly think GWs progression is stupid.

 EnTyme wrote:

 Imateria wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
You have to reassign all the stats. That's the whole point of a granulated system.

Why, it's an opposed stat line where the granularity is built in from the increase in possible outcomes from the dice, not the stats.

For instance the current stats for S against T at S4 looks like this:

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10
2+ 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 6+ - - -

On a D10 it would look like this

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10
3+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 7+ 8+ 9+ 10+ 10+ -

The only reason you'd change a Space Marine from S4 to 5 is if you want him to be able to wound everything in the game in close combat.

The problem with not updated T and S could be seen in abilities such as Hellfrost. In the D6 system, S5 would represent a 83.3% chance of succeeding on the S test from Hellfrost. In a D10 system, that same T5 is only a 50% success chance.

I'm not familier with the Hellfrost rule myself, but Hit and Run would have the same problem. In my own rewrite I'm leaving the characteristic tests on a D6 simply for ease of use, I don't think it's perfect but it's a heck of a lot easier to use than comming up with an all new system for a 1-10 stat base where the majority of models are going to be around a 4 for most stats.

The stats would in deed range from 1-10. That's the whole point of going to D10. Armor would range from 2+ to 10+.

What point are you trying to make, other than the obvious that saves would have to change given the fact they show you the roll needed to start with?