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.

D10's roll and read just as fast. People are just conditioned to use D6's, even though it is one of the factors ruining the game at this point I think.

So all the other excellent war games using D6 , work well because ?

Of all the issues the 40k rules has, the use of D6 is very low on the list IMO.

Lanrak wrote:
So all the other excellent war games using D6 , work well because ?

Of all the issues the 40k rules has, the use of D6 is very low on the list IMO.

That's your view, but I think the lack of granularity leads to all kinds of weirdness in the math.

Lanrak wrote:
@Martel732
Most 40k players like rolling handfuls of D6. D6 'roll and read' faster than D10.
The scale and detail of the 40k minatures means players want to roll a dice per minature per resolution.(Hence the need to roll handfuls of dice. )

Players are ok with abstracting the resolution in games with smaller minatures where infantry is 'blob squads on a base.' .(EG 6mm to 15mm.)

But when some players spend hours carefully crafting and painting each model in a unit, you can bet they want each model in the unit to be represented with a dice roll.

Why the current 40k rules have got in to such a mess, is down to GW sales department trying to simplify the core rules to appeal to younger players.
But in doing so GW abstracted the interaction as well as abstracting the resolution.

Where as good rules simplify the resolution but keep the interaction 'true to the real world reference.'

What you're saying is solid but having tried to (and given up) "fixing" the rules in 4ok, I increasingly believe D10 is the way forward.

+Allows significantly more modifiers to be applied
+Allows for a greater range of unit, weapon and armour stats
+Works in decimal incraments which are more intuitive than incraments if 16.66%

-It is initially slower to read than D6 but nothing your average player can't adjust to after a few hours play

All said I think the main reason D6 is expected is because it's been the standard for so long. But I don't think it would be drastic or radical to break away from that.

The math is huge. Any shift away from 4+ on a D6 is huge. With a D10, average can be 40%, 50%, and 60%. This means we can get distinction between the various factions.

Ah, the ol' Imperial versus Metric debate. "It's easier!" "We've been using it forever!" vs "It's easier to do math with!" "It's more precise!".

Terminator armor could be 2+ on a D10 and AP 2 could be restricted to heavy weapons and we can dispense with the 5++ nonsense, which is the real save terminators get in 7th ed.

I would definitely say 40k needs to use a better die than the d6 and d10 would be great. Alternatively a d8 could be considered. A d8 is certainly as easy and fast to roll as a d6. It is less prone to ambiguous results from cocking or mixing up 6 & 9s as with the d10. FFG's X-wing uses a d8, and that hasn't hurt its popularity. 40k is too grand a game to be stuck with the child sized d6; we aren't playing Risk. d10 or at least d8 or go home.

Hi folks.
If you fix the issues with the 40k game mechanics, and resolution methods first.Then a D6 would be plenty good enough.

(Over double the range of results for combat resolution than currently used in the 40k game .All interaction is resolved in intuitive and easy to learn order.And no need for special rules to fix the 'fudges', because the' fudges' are no longer there"!)

But its much easier not to bother with any of that and just buy a few tubes of D10?

This would just improve the range of results, but would not fix the issues in the core rules mechanics and resolution methods would it?
For example would vehicles still use a completely separate resolution method to other unit types?

So after jumping on to the 'use a bigga dice' band wagon.Then you still have to 'fix the fudges ' in the rules anyway!

The D10 system would be a rewrite as well. But why rewrite with D6? So centurions and terminators and broadsides and Riptides all have the same armor save again?

@Martel732.
If you are going to change the game mechanics and resolution methods to arrive at a much more streamlined system.

EG More interactive game turn mechanic and just one resolution method other than 'direct representation '.(Rather than the current half a dozen resolution methods!)

Then I would assume you would use a resolution method that allows for the difference in stats not to be tied directly to the size of the dice.So that the variables at each stage of the combat interaction are represented , reducing the need for special rules fudges later.

As it is very straight forward to change dice size.I would rather sort out the core issues with the rules first.

Then at least you are not fooling yourself you have 'fixed' the game, when all you have done is mitigate some of the worst symptoms.

Lanrak wrote:



As it is very straight forward to change dice size.I would rather sort out the core issues with the rules first.

Then at least you are not fooling yourself you have 'fixed' the game, when all you have done is mitigate some of the worst symptoms.

Quite right, there are more vital things that need to be overhauled -namely excessive randomness, hit cover and armour mechanics, balance and more tactically rewarding gameplay. I'd just like to see a move from D6 to D10 among the changes. Also I'd advocate re-writing the rules from the ground up given the amount of changes. Unfortunately it seems unlikely to happen anytime soon, what with the sheer volume of expansion material that's been published (and continues to be published) in recent years. Then again it's been done before (overhaul from 2nd to 3rd ed) so not impossible.

The D10 allows for a rewrite that is far less extreme. You could keep the AP system, and afford to add in a few additional modifiers. If a guardsmen hits on a 6 or better for example, you can afford to have -1 modifiers for cover without ruining the game.

@Martel732.
If we all agree the only way to correct all the issues in the core rules is to do a complete re-write.
Why would you want to keep the multiple resolution systems that make you artificially divide units in the game to help promote sales?

If you keep the AP system would it cover vehicles?Would you still use additional 'inv saves'?Would you keep the additional special rules like FNP etc?
In short would you keep the lack of proportionality in the results and add it back in with additional systems and special rules?

I agree that using a D10 with the current resolution makes people think the existing rules could work well enough.
Which means they are less likely to address the issues in the core rules .

Which is why I would prefer to address the core issues in the rules first, and then after this swap the dice size to D10 if it is actually needed.

Cover effecting the chance to hit is sensible and intuitive .And should work with any rules written specifically for 40k game play.

Even if you change everything, you're still stuck with a humble +1 or -1 modifier wrecking the math of a D6.

It's not immediately obvious to me what all I'd change. But a very good starting point is being able to differentiate all the units better.

Martel732 wrote:
Even if you change everything, you're still stuck with a humble +1 or -1 modifier wrecking the math of a D6.

Very apt point about the modifiers. Unfortunately you'll find working of a D10 system -while it allows more flexibility- also creates a few headaches of its own.

Namely the difference in incraments. For example in my current D10 draft I have lasguns at S3, but I'm at odds as to whether bolters should be S4 (too weak compared to lasgun) or S5 which might be too powerful.

 thegreatchimp wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Even if you change everything, you're still stuck with a humble +1 or -1 modifier wrecking the math of a D6.

Very apt point about the modifiers. Unfortunately you'll find working of a D10 system -while it allows more flexibility- also creates a few headaches of its own.

Namely the difference in incraments. For example in my current D10 draft I have lasguns at S3, but I'm at odds as to whether bolters should be S4 (too weak compared to lasgun) or S5 which might be too powerful.

You have to create all basic infantry weapons at once. And you'd need to create a wound chart as well. I'd throw away GW's wound chart and make a new one that is considerably less linear. My vision for the game would be very different. There would be a lot fewer useless things in the game.

Hi folks.
And this sort of illustrates my point.
If you just charge into a re-write with a few ideas that make sense, they get horribly mangled by the 'black hole of rules patches' the current 40k rules generate.

So to sort this out you have to look at why the 40k rule set is cursed with so many rules patches in the first place.

Then at least you have a clear idea what went wrong with the 40k war game development , and this gives some clear idea on how to fix things with the core rules.