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.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
There have been several studies
“On killing the psychological cost of learning to kill in war and society” David grossman
“Men against fire” SLA Marshall
Being just a few.

I've read both. Nowhere does either say that the average infantryman hits 17% (6 on a D6) or 30% (8+ on a D10) of his shots in combat. The idea of such a number existing, a single universal hit rate as 40K treats it, is complete nonsense to begin with, given that infantry combat could be anything from close-quarters room-clearing in Berlin to shooting at muzzle flashes 300yds away in Okinawa. It's extra silly since, as I alluded to with a rhetorical question, there is no reason to think that a single 'shot' with a lasgun in 40K is meant to represent a Guardsman pulling his trigger exactly once and simulating what happens as a result.

So, you're not asking for statistical adherence to the real world. You're asking for a number that is essentially arbitrary, but feels more right to you, and a D10 would let you pick more granular numbers that feel more right in relation to one another.

This is why I find the 'bigger dice' arguments thoroughly unconvincing: It isn't about realism or better gameplay; it's fundamentally an exercise in statistical masturbation and splitting hairs at the cost of playability.

 catbarf wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
There have been several studies
“On killing the psychological cost of learning to kill in war and society” David grossman
“Men against fire” SLA Marshall
Being just a few.

I've read both. Nowhere does either say that the average infantryman hits 17% (6 on a D6) or 30% (8+ on a D10) of his shots in combat. The idea of such a number existing, a single universal hit rate as 40K treats it, is complete nonsense to begin with, given that infantry combat could be anything from close-quarters room-clearing in Berlin to shooting at muzzle flashes 300yds away in Okinawa. It's extra silly since, as I alluded to with a rhetorical question, there is no reason to think that a single 'shot' with a lasgun in 40K is meant to represent a Guardsman pulling his trigger exactly once and simulating what happens as a result.

So, you're not asking for statistical adherence to the real world. You're asking for a number that is essentially arbitrary, but feels more right to you, and a D10 would let you pick more granular numbers that feel more right in relation to one another.

This is why I find the 'bigger dice' arguments thoroughly unconvincing: It isn't about realism or better gameplay; it's fundamentally an exercise in statistical masturbation and splitting hairs at the cost of playability.

Bravo, belissimo, magnificent. 100% on the nose.

I'd add that this suggestion:

On a D10, for instance, I would argue the Custodes-like hits on a 2+. The Grots-like hit on a 9+, and the Guards-like hit on a 5+.

Is largely a power trip as well. It's observes a shield captain > a guardian, so why is a shield captain no more skilled than a guardian? Ignoring that, grots are renowned for being good shots by greenskin standards, which requires a most cursory of Google. Moreover, the GEQ profile, is the most common of the "lower end" units and immediately ignores 50% of the new dice values for no fething reason.

Since you bring it up I also want to point something out about that comparison, where a Shield Captain hits on 2+, and a Guardsman hits on 5+.

Are we to understand that if you give a Shield Captain a lasgun, averaging 0.9 hits per shot, he's less effective than two Guardsmen, averaging 1.2 hits? Like, is that what all the incredible combat prowess of a Shield Captain amounts to? 'I can outshoot anyone in the galaxy! Whoah, two Guardsmen?' And that's supposed to be a massive improvement over the current system where... the exact same thing happens?

The way to-hit is mechanically handled in 40K does not allow for a shooter with high skill to significantly outperform a shooter with moderate skill. That is why a Vindicare, master sniper who also can't out-shoot two Guardsmen, receives Devastating Wounds, Ignores Cover, Precision, and Deadshot special abilities on top of his rifle being statted like an anti-tank gun. Making his to-hit BS2+ on a D10 would in no way obviate the need for all those special rules to do what the core mechanics can't.

Putting everyone on a Dragonball Z power scale has negligible gameplay value. Reworking mechanics to produce the desired outcomes does, and may not need bigger dice at all.

The reason that soldiers have such low accuracy in real combat is because the vast, vast majority of rounds are fired not to immediately kill, but to suppress an enemy.

Meanwhile your radio operator is organising for a reaper drone to launch a missile direct onto the enemy's grid co-ordinates from several kilometres away

Tyel wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
The root cause here is the number of stacking rolls. When you have to roll to hit, to wound, and then to beat armor, that's three separate rolls that pare down your starting number of dice. And when the most common defensive profile in the game puts that third step at a 33% chance of success, you need either a boatload of dice (producing swingy results) or high rates of success on the first two rolls to actually accomplish anything.

Food for thought: The first game Andy Chambers wrote after leaving the 40K team, Starship Troopers, has no roll to hit at all. Shooter skill is factored into the weapon profile, and each attack is resolved with a single attack roll followed by a single save roll, and even then only if the attack didn't reach a no-saves-allowed auto-kill threshold. Many other modern games also use two rolls, just roll to hit -> roll for armor.

Yeah. I think Bolt Action works like that. Warmahordes used to work like that (and may still do) - although with a slightly different 2D6 based rolls.

I'm not sure I want to completely re-write 40k, but they could be a lot more imaginative.

I'm not sure I'd want 40k to be completely re-written, but I think some of your ideas on suppression, crossfire and stuff are reasonable. I just think you might need alternate activations (on whatever system) for that to feel reasonable.

Please just buff aircraft and let me use my vendetta and or vulture again =(

 Sledgehammer wrote:
Please just buff aircraft and let me use my vendetta and or vulture again =(

I like the look of the Stormtalon, and there's definitely room in my army for fast-moving AT...