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.

I think i've briefly mentioned this before but i'm wondering if the time has come in the game that it needs to be reworked to D10s.

The reason i believe this is due to the limits on comparing certain stats and abilities between armies and units.

For example 3+ power armour isn't far enough away from 4+ and 2+ terminator armour isn't far enough away from 3+.

Also WS vs WS is largely pointless in CC; why does the eldar avatar only hit a guardsman on a 3+?

Obviously the stats would be altered accordingly.

So would D10 benefit the game? Thoughts?

No

a D6 is confining at times.

No thanks! d6s are fine!

2D6 are used for the times when a wider range is needed. D6 work for me.
Also, add a poll. Polls are fun

In short, yes, but now it is way too late, unfortunately.

They could have done such a tremendous shift while rebooting the game from 2nd to 3rd edition.
I would add that it's not the D10 which would be the best choice. Coming from a D6 system with multiple rolls, the best option for adding some detail while speeding up things would be D12, lowering the quantity of dice roll per game, speeding thing up !

But this is too much of a "revolutionary" idea for such a conservative company as Games Workshop...

What is a D10?! Why not just use 2D6...oh wait we do do that

I don't think it's needed, plus it is WAAAAAYYYY to late for that they would have to change like every stat and everything it wold be way to radical duuuuuude

I understand what your saying, And I can see how this could improve the game.

I just seriously doubt it would happen. (( I'm not good at math hammer so please correct me if I figure this out wrong))

So your Space marines would hit on a 5+ on a D10, instead of a 3+ on a D6 ( hitting 50% of the time), Fire warriors would hit on a 7+ on a D10 instead of a 4+ on a D6. (Hitting 33% of the time) Orks would go from hitting on a 5+ on a D6, to hitting on a 9+ on a d10 (( hitting only about 15% of the time))

So while its an interesting idea. I don't really think it would add a meaningful difference to the game. Other then to add frustration to all the people that now need to buy mountains of new dice, in a harder to get D10 as opposed to the more common D6. Don't forget the expense of having to FAQ or push out new releases of all the books to incorporate the new D10s.

Interesting Idea. But completely unrealistic.

Is it needed? Absolutely not. personally, i would be all for it. lets look at it from pros and cons. Most members here will likely be con so I will start there...

Cons-
1. They would need to do it in a new rule set realease and that might mean doing a rush job on it if they were not ready.
2. It would alter all of the codices. the FAQ download alone would be a nightmare and cause a lot of (well, a lot more) arguments.
3. As with the the possible rulebok, it would put a huge rush job on getting all of the new codices out to keep up. This would DEFINATELY mean they they would be rush jobs and likely riddled with loopholes and 'issues". And forget about anything "new" for a while while they were going through all of this.
4. while it would allow for more variation and realism as to how it 'would be in real life", it would be a huge change. many players think "D^ smaller numbers make for a faster game" they dont realize that D^ or D10, a single dice is a single dice, just as fast to play.
5. All new chartsand things to remember. yes, I know, it might be easy to learn the new stuff, but people get set in their ways and dont want to learn new stuff.
6. The rest of the rules and army building. Cheesy combos and broken builds are just as cheesy and broken under a D10 as they are under a D6.
7.loss of players. many players have become disenfranchised over the years and are barely holding on to playing the game. It could tip the scales for them while most likely, it would bring a few new players, I dont think it woul bring enough new ones to make up the numbers.
8. D10s are more expensive to buy and arder to buy in bulk due to packaging.
I'll stop there as thats plenty enough to get us started and to chew on. lol

Pros
1. Would allow for more variations within the units. Currently, a space maarine is only 1 point higher than a puny guardsman. It would allow for a greater difference in numbers on the dice for statlines and dice roll results.
2. Realism, See #1. The same goes for hits or even successes and failure in a lot of tests.
3. These could be pro IF and thats a BIG if, they were to do them correctly, release new codices. With them being done in bulk or really close together, you would find lesser power difference in the codices. At least initially.
I know there are more, but again, it is enough to get started and chew on

As a side note. I can say that a D10 system can actually work and be a lot of fun. it does indeed allow for a lot of variation and differences. My gaming group designed a D10 system very ROUGHLY based on the warhammer/40k game and added in changed a lot of stuff around and ended up with something that worked well. it even allows for water battles, land/sea battles and boarding actions. Tru measurement (measuring from modl to model rather than straight horizontal like in 40k and many other items. What we found though was that where we started finding the true differences that worked the best was not the actual "D system' but the alterations in the "core rules". The D10 only made it more realistic and added this flavor of fun.

so yes, as an individual player looking out for what I would like to see, I would say yes, go for it. Looking at it on a corporate level, in terms of the hobby as a whole, profit margins ect ect, I would say heck no, but if woulda been nice had we done it to begin with.

 louisb1304 wrote:
2D6 are used for the times when a wider range is needed. D6 work for me.
Also, add a poll. Polls are fun

Yesh, 2d6 is way more different than single dice. But now is too late for that.

http://www.thedarkfortress.co.uk/tech_reports/2_dice_rolls.htm#.UtP7Hn8aySM

You have stats going from 1-10, but only work with a D6. With most of the stats in the game clustered in the 3-4 range, there is a lot of space not being utilized, due to being bound to the D6.

Overall I think the game would be better with a larger spectrum to work with. But the overhead and cons of converting make it unfeasible. You would have to re-write and rebalance the whole rulebook and every codex for a very limited gain.

But you would be able to sell everyone new dice!

It would probably have been better, but I don't want them to change it now. I have a huge pile of d6 and not nearly enough d10.

What's so hard about buying new dice?

But it's not gonna happen, anyway.

I went and bought a load of D10 for our ruleset. The price isnt really that bad. Vampire the masc dice sell D10 in tubes for a decent price. you can always raid the dice cannister most shops have for D10 as well. If someone were to take a glue abunch together or use math to design a big D10 container that held a hundred or so of them and was shaped like a D10, you would have a nice marketing ploy to sell them as well.
The dice isnt the real issue, it would be logistics.

Every codex, rulebook, supplement and IA book would have to be re-done.

It won't happen.

Boniface wrote:

For example 3+ power armour isn't far enough away from 4+ and 2+ terminator armour isn't far enough away from 3+.

It's funny that you would use that as an example, because I would use the exact opposite argument to agree with you.

2+ is WAY too far away from 3+, we could use something in between.

3+ is 1/3rd chance of failure
2+ is 1/6th chance of failure

The difference is immense.

 louisb1304 wrote:
2D6 are used for the times when a wider range is needed.

Actually the problem with that is you can't make multiple rolls at the same time. Want to roll twenty shots with d10's? Roll 20d10. Want to roll twenty shots with 2d6? Roll the first 2d6, roll the next 2d6, etc.

There's also another difference that is a potential problem - 2d6 works on a bell curve whereas a single die does not. I.e. roll a d10 and a 1 is as likely as a 5 is as likely as a 10. But roll 2d6 and a 7 is more likely than a 6 or an 8 and those are both more likely than a 2 or a 12. The reason is simple: one of the 36 possible combinations of dice roll (treating dice as separate trials) gives a 12 (6+6). But six of the results give a 7 (1+6, 2+5, 3+4, etc.). So the results are actually VERY different. If you think that you have a 30% chance of getting 1, 2 or 3 on a 1d10, you'd be right. If you think you have around a 30% chance of getting 1,2 or 3 on a 2d6 you're waaay off.

And in answer to the OP, yes - d10 would be a bug help. I gave some thought to an alternative rule system and I'd have loved to use d10. However, I decided it wasn't viable because people have loads if d6's, but few have loads if d10's.

 kronk wrote:
Every codex, rulebook, supplement and IA book would have to be re-done.

It won't happen.

Re-done and sold to an installed user base

I do not think it'll happen, either, but that's more that I think the devs are stuck in a half-foot incremental way of thinking, meaning that rolling D6 for running and terrain comes natural to them.

No. [/discussion]

No. We don't need a die with more results, we need less random results.

As others have alluded, it needs 2d6 for results, as that drives more of a bell curve.

Of course, this is a challenge when rolling a lot of events....

Thinking about this I like the D10 idea, but actually think a D12 would work better.

You could really simplify some things
To hit roll below your BS (so BS 10 misses on a 1/2, BS 6 Misses 50%).

To wound roll under 6 + (S - T) (same with Weapon skill 6+ difference in WS).

Essentially either system D10 or D12, makes better use of the array of stats than the current system (i.e. currently BS 6 is not all that meaningful compared to BS5.)

It won't happen because it would need a rewrite from the ground up to do. Every unit would need new stats. But if you did

You could have Say Orks at BS 3, Guardsman at BS 4, Vet guardsman/scouts at BS 5, Space Marines At BS 6. Vet Marines at BS 7, then special characters and such at BS 8-10.

Heretic!


.....although I agree. D10 would allow more variation. But gw wouldn't do it

Yes, and there's no good reason not to do it whenever 7th Edition rolls around (and a FAQ could be provided that explains "If the old book said X+, the new book means Y+!" that replaces all the previous tables and charts.)

Of course, they won't, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't happen.

Ralis wrote:
I understand what your saying, And I can see how this could improve the game.

I just seriously doubt it would happen. (( I'm not good at math hammer so please correct me if I figure this out wrong))

So your Space marines would hit on a 5+ on a D10, instead of a 3+ on a D6 ( hitting 50% of the time), Fire warriors would hit on a 7+ on a D10 instead of a 4+ on a D6. (Hitting 33% of the time) Orks would go from hitting on a 5+ on a D6, to hitting on a 9+ on a d10 (( hitting only about 15% of the time)

You're right, you're not good at math hammer :p
5+ on the marines' d10 is 60%, as compared to their current 66%
7+ on the Tau is 40%, vs their old 50%.
And orks would go to 20% from 33%.

I do wish the game had a larger die size, because 17% break points on the d6 are very large.
A more precise die would lead to more unique races/units being introduced, as they wouldn't just be a c/p of another unit's statline. More variance could be had, which means merriment for one and all.

As has been pointed out, though. Won't ever be an official thing.
Now of you were to rewrite the codices statlines and some specific rules, I'd play it. :3

Yeah d12 would probably be easier for them to rework to.

 Psienesis wrote:
Yes, and there's no good reason not to do it whenever 7th Edition rolls around (and a FAQ could be provided that explains "If the old book said X+, the new book means Y+!" that replaces all the previous tables and charts.)

Of course, they won't, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't happen.

You are underestimating the confusion that would take place with a swap from d6 to d10. "An FAQ" would not be enough. You'd have to bombard people with emails, pamphlets, carrier Pigeon messages, and the like and you'd still only reach 1/4 of the players...

I won't say it's a stupid idea. I will say I don't like the idea.

 kronk wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Yes, and there's no good reason not to do it whenever 7th Edition rolls around (and a FAQ could be provided that explains "If the old book said X+, the new book means Y+!" that replaces all the previous tables and charts.)

Of course, they won't, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't happen.

You are underestimating the confusion that would take place with a swap from d6 to d10. "An FAQ" would not be enough. You'd have to bombard people with emails, pamphlets, carrier Pigeon messages, and the like and you'd still only reach 1/4 of the players...

I won't say it's a stupid idea. I will say I don't like the idea.

Other people's confusion is not my problem.

You could have the conversion chart be a bit of glossy cardstock paper included inside the back cover of the BRB, every Codex, re-printed in WD for 5 years, etc.

Some of us already do. I take all my saves on a d10 just to prove how manly I am.

Absolutely not.

D10 dice are far more round than the humble D6. A D10 die has the probability of rolling COMPLETELY OFF THE TABLE far more often than D6's currently do.

So, no, I don't want to see D10s as there are plenty of people who already have a hard time making sure D6's stay on the table.

Next, and this is even more important. Rolling 2D6 means that your average result is 7. This makes it far easier from a game designer's perspective to control the impact of random events. It means that they can increase or decrease the damage caused by picking results based on the probability of a particular roll.

For example, double 1's and double 6's are the least common result (1/36 each) so making a psyker take a perils test on those results allows for an event to occur only 1 in 18 rolls (5% of the time on average). A D10, on the other hand, doesn't have an average result. Rolling a 2 is just as common as rolling a 7 or 9. So, for them to say a psyker takes a perils test on a 1 means that a perils test will happen far more often (10%).

Now, the counter here is that you roll D10s for some things and D6s for others. To which I say "No Way". I don't want to carry any more dice than I need. One 36 chessex block plus 1 directional die is just fine thank you very much.

If you had basically a kill team sized force and had expanded rules/weaponry like in Rogue Trader/Deathwatch/Dark Heresy/Only War then it would work, but again everything would need to be reworked though probably very simply done.

For the current game though, because of the sheer number of models involved, a D6 is probably best to help generalize and speed things up as much as possible.