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.

Martel732 wrote:

Melevolence wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
... use a rolling cup and dice-tray, ffs.

No please. Seriously. Not to even mention how annoying it is to carry anything outside of D6 dice. D6 fit nicely in small carry boxes. Easy to store and carry. D20s? Not so much. Larger, bulkier, louder and in general a large inconvenience.

IMHO, 20's work better for Pen and Paper games, or for skirmish sized games where you only have a dozen models or so. I know 40k sometimes tries to pretend it's a skirmish game, but it's not. And having larger, bulkier dice on an already crowded table, or roll in a dice tray that isn't designed for D20's is more expense and hassle.

If you had not provided this argument in this thread, I would have never believed that someone would put forth this argument. Even still D20's and D10's are far superior for the game itself and that's ultimately what I care about. Not carrying convenience.

A game will make or break by the sheer material needed to play it. I have to carry around far more models and dice as it is than the average 40k player, because Orks. So yes, carrying even MORE crap with me to the store would make or break if I continued playing the game. It's just that simple. And while D20 would make the game more 'dynamic', it would slow everything down. Yes. It would. Not just on the table top either.

Edit: And people already argue the game is expensive to get into. Now try telling people in addition to the expensive models and the time painting you'll likely need to do, you're not able to buy that cheap 30ct D6 pack for 12 bucks. Nope, you have to go online, or buy bulk D20 from the shop (IF THEY EVEN CARRY THEM) for what will likely amount to .50 to $1 per dice, and for IoM armies (Specifically Marines) You'll likely need to spend 10-20 dollars to get what could MAYBE be the appropriate amount of D20s they need to cut down on having to roll smaller quanities in bunches (Which...ALSO slows down the game)

If you want to improve the game, D20's (or even D10s) isn't going to fix it. Not for a wargame with model counts this high. Try again. Like...start with core rules. That's what the game needs to be better. Better CORE RULES and less special snowflake rules.

"Try again. Like...start with core rules"

Core rules that don't use a D6. There are too many units for which models exist for a D6 based system to accommodate and do them all justice. That's why there are so many special snowflake rules.

By increasing the granularity of the game, we can get away from the special snowflake rules. I think people can afford a few extra dollars of dice when they are paying hundreds per army. The D6 system with this many distinct models in the game is doomed. We could make it work if we threw out 80% of the models in the game, though.

Ideally, we could get rid of dice and have a phone app do all the rolling necessary.

Martel732 wrote:
Ideally, we could get rid of dice and have a phone app do all the rolling necessary.

Eww, no.

I think a D6 based system can work fine, just not 40k's D6 based system. Personally I'd rather have a D6 system which actually uses the full D6 and on off chances when you doing something that is especially especially difficult (hitting or wounding something that is above your skill/power level) resort to rerolling 6's with a 7/8/9+ system and when you are doing something exceptionally easy (a greater daemon wounding a grot) you use resort to rerolling 1's.

I just find D6's nicer to roll. You can roll a big handful and then just sweep your hand over them picking up the successes and roll them again. When you roll 20+ dice which have many more than 6 sides, it just seems to take much longer to identify successes and failures. Those higher sided dice are only really good when you are rolling a few of them at a time.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Ideally, we could get rid of dice and have a phone app do all the rolling necessary.

Eww, no.

I think a D6 based system can work fine, just not 40k's D6 based system. Personally I'd rather have a D6 system which actually uses the full D6 and on off chances when you doing something that is especially especially difficult (hitting or wounding something that is above your skill/power level) resort to rerolling 6's with a 7/8/9+ system and when you are doing something exceptionally easy (a greater daemon wounding a grot) you use resort to rerolling 1's.

I just find D6's nicer to roll. You can roll a big handful and then just sweep your hand over them picking up the successes and roll them again. When you roll 20+ dice which have many more than 6 sides, it just seems to take much longer to identify successes and failures. Those higher sided dice are only really good when you are rolling a few of them at a time.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about the higher sided dice. And the automated rolling. Maybe it's because the Eldar and Tau always get the bucket of dice and my marines get like two. I don't see the allure of rolling dozens of D6's as opposed to anything else.

Again, you'll never get the necessary granularity for a game of this size with D6's.

Martel, why do you always forget IG? They have the most shots yet you only ever mention Tau andEldar (Ad Mech should probably be included here too)

Martel732 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Ideally, we could get rid of dice and have a phone app do all the rolling necessary.

Eww, no.

I think a D6 based system can work fine, just not 40k's D6 based system. Personally I'd rather have a D6 system which actually uses the full D6 and on off chances when you doing something that is especially especially difficult (hitting or wounding something that is above your skill/power level) resort to rerolling 6's with a 7/8/9+ system and when you are doing something exceptionally easy (a greater daemon wounding a grot) you use resort to rerolling 1's.

I just find D6's nicer to roll. You can roll a big handful and then just sweep your hand over them picking up the successes and roll them again. When you roll 20+ dice which have many more than 6 sides, it just seems to take much longer to identify successes and failures. Those higher sided dice are only really good when you are rolling a few of them at a time.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about the higher sided dice. And the automated rolling. Maybe it's because the Eldar and Tau always get the bucket of dice and my marines get like two. I don't see the allure of rolling dozens of D6's as opposed to anything else.

Again, you'll never get the necessary granularity for a game of this size with D6's.

And Orks and Nids as well.

I prefer the idea of rolling bucketloads of dice because then you start to reduce the influence of luck. If you raised the base number of wounds to 2 and doubled the fire output of all units, luck would be less influential than it currently is (though I'm sure it'd create other problems that would need to be fixed as well).

But back on to the D6 thing, I guess it depends what you call "necessary granularity". When considering the difference between an Ork, a Gaunt, a Guardsman, a Howling Banshee and a Space Marine... I think a D6 is sufficient to cover all those things. It's when you start to get to things like comparing a Greater Daemon or Warlord Titan to a Grot, that's when the D6 system doesn't really work all that well, and I think for those situations simply introducing a system which includes rerolls would be sufficient. For example for a Lascannon shooting a grot, you make it so it's a 2+/4+ to wound, fail the 2+ and reroll, if the reroll is 4+ it kills. It may sound like more hassle, but I'd sooner have something like that than convert the whole damned game to a D20 system and have to roll 60 D20's when my Hormagaunts charge a unit of Guardsmen needing an 11+ to hit and an 11+ to wound (ie. the same stats as a D6 needing a 4+/4+)

"When considering the difference between an Ork, a Gaunt, a Guardsman, a Howling Banshee and a Space Marine.."

I think the D6 fails here as well. The gap between marine armor and banshee armor and then guardsmen armor is way too high, imo. Again, no granularity.

I think it could work for all armies, I would also give orks specifically a cap to 5+ to hit max ala tomb kings to represent the sheer amount of wild fire dakka they are pumping out, it fits fluff and rules quite nicely, that's pretty rare as it is.

Yes is could and will be argued "why does that ork hit a guardsman behind a wall better than my marine" it doesn't, your marine is making disciplined fire with ammo conservation in mind as well as aiming, my ork is keeping his figure on the trigger and spraying wildly, its mad, its stupid, its orky, so id allow it.

A d20 is inconvenient?

Do you even lift? "Oh noes, woe is me, it's a few milimeters larger; all is lost! DESPAIR, DESPAIR, DESPAIR!" I never thought I'd meet someone who is actually that lazy. I'm going to need a moment.

Look at that infintisemal size difference! Are we really going to go here? For what cannot be more than maybe a few joules worth of extra effort you get a dice that is flat out superior for modeling tiny differences whereas the d6 has each step upwards making a huge difference.

 Kain wrote:
A d20 is inconvenient?

For me it's not the inconvenience of "carrying" them, it's the inconvenience of D6's being cheap and plentiful and when rolling large swathes of dice, it's faster to sort successes from failures on D6's than it is other dice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
"When considering the difference between an Ork, a Gaunt, a Guardsman, a Howling Banshee and a Space Marine.."

I think the D6 fails here as well. The gap between marine armor and banshee armor and then guardsmen armor is way too high, imo. Again, no granularity.

Too high?? I would have thought if anything it's not enough, if (and I say if) we were going to go to a D20 system I'd probably make the differences between those different armours even bigger But mostly I think it's unnecessary granularity you're looking for. Going from no armour to 6+ is an 18% reduction in casualies, armour 6+ to 5+ is a 20% reduction in casualties, 5+ to 4+ is 25% reduction, 4+ to 3+ is 33% and 3+ to 2+ is 50%,

The only jump that I'd say might be too big and requires more granularity is from 3+ to 2+, but on a game of the scale of 40k (typically 40+ models a side) I think that's sufficient and if you use armour save modifiers it tends to reduce those jumps (while still leaving the possibility open for 1+ or 0+.saves to account for tremendously well armoured things).

If 40k was a small scale skirmish game with less than 20 models a side I might agree with you a bit more.

 Kain wrote:
A d20 is inconvenient?

Do you even lift? "Oh noes, woe is me, it's a few milimeters larger; all is lost! DESPAIR, DESPAIR, DESPAIR!" I never thought I'd meet someone who is actually that lazy. I'm going to need a moment.

Look at that infintisemal size difference! Are we really going to go here? For what cannot be more than maybe a few joules worth of extra effort you get a dice that is flat out superior for modeling tiny differences whereas the d6 has each step upwards making a huge difference.

To be fair its pretty fething convenient for d6s when you need to roll 36 out of a cube.

and some armies shoot easily more than that.

Edit: as above IF 40k was actually a skirmish game then d10+ would absolutely be awesome

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Kain wrote:
A d20 is inconvenient?

For me it's not the inconvenience of "carrying" them, it's the inconvenience of D6's being cheap and plentiful and when rolling large swathes of dice, it's faster to sort successes from failures on D6's than it is other dice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
"When considering the difference between an Ork, a Gaunt, a Guardsman, a Howling Banshee and a Space Marine.."

I think the D6 fails here as well. The gap between marine armor and banshee armor and then guardsmen armor is way too high, imo. Again, no granularity.

Too high?? I would have thought if anything it's not enough, if (and I say if) we were going to go to a D20 system I'd probably make the differences between those different armours even bigger But mostly I think it's unnecessary granularity you're looking for. Going from no armour to 6+ is an 18% reduction in casualies, armour 6+ to 5+ is a 20% reduction in casualties, 5+ to 4+ is 25% reduction, 4+ to 3+ is 33% and 3+ to 2+ is 50%,

The only jump that I'd say might be too big and requires more granularity is from 3+ to 2+, but on a game of the scale of 40k (typically 40+ models a side) I think that's sufficient and if you use armour save modifiers it tends to reduce those jumps (while still leaving the possibility open for 1+ or 0+.saves to account for tremendously well armoured things).

If 40k was a small scale skirmish game with less than 20 models a side I might agree with you a bit more.

The gap is too high to me because of the nature of the AP system. I think that Eldar armor in general should be between 4+ and 3+, but guess what? You can't do that with the D6.

You don't need to make it a skirmish game to have granularity necessary to truly distinguish units. I think that is a major fallacy.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Maybe it's just me, but I find rolling D6 to be faster than rolling dice with more sides, so I'm 50/50 about swapping to D12/20 as I think I'd rather roll a D6 twice than a D20 once.

Agree, I shudder to think rolling 20+ d20s and then taking each one (after rerolling half of them because of cocked dice) and squinting as I try to determine the # on the side (my eyes aren't what they used to be), then doing the math for each individual die to apply modifiers....yeah, no thanks. Even d10 and D12 this would get old quick, but at least the #s are easier to see on those.

For the game as it is currently, d6s are the way to go. Maybe d10s for a skirmish level game, but not for full blown 40K.

I personally prefer a cover save system over modifiers, but I still say the cover save should be resolved first (yes, I know it causes yet another dice roll, but it just makes more sense).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kain wrote:
A d20 is inconvenient?

Do you even lift? "Oh noes, woe is me, it's a few milimeters larger; all is lost! DESPAIR, DESPAIR, DESPAIR!" I never thought I'd meet someone who is actually that lazy. I'm going to need a moment.

Look at that infintisemal size difference! Are we really going to go here? For what cannot be more than maybe a few joules worth of extra effort you get a dice that is flat out superior for modeling tiny differences whereas the d6 has each step upwards making a huge difference.

I think you a missing some key points. Its not the physical effort that is being scrutinized, its the convenience.

Roll 20 d6s on a standard game table with terrain, they all land relatively close to each other with few or no cocked dice, and it takes all but 1-2 seconds to scan those dice and tell how many are hits vs misses.

Do the same with 20 d20s....watch in misery as half of them roll across or off the table and the other half don't lay flat because they ended up against some scenery. Now after rerolling them to the point where you have to very gently tilt them out of your hand in a box lid, spend a bit more time determining which ones are hits vs misses.

D10s work better if you are going to go with a different die type, as they roll better on uneven surfaces and the numbers are printed larger, but they are still not as fast or convenient as D6s (which come in much smaller sizes that are just as easy to read as the larger ones). I'm not really opposed to implementing D10s as the standard, but it would require a complete overhaul of the game, and I'd rather not have to buy yet ANOTHER copy of the rules.

8th ed is sure to come, so you'll have to do that anyway. Looks like the D6 people are in the majority for sure. Maybe that's how GW stays in business. Because I don't think they could based off what players like me purchase. I won't invest any more than a unit once every two years into such a poor system.

Martel732 wrote:
8th ed is sure to come, so you'll have to do that anyway. Looks like the D6 people are in the majority for sure. Maybe that's how GW stays in business. Because I don't think they could based off what players like me purchase. I won't invest any more than a unit once every two years into such a poor system.

Its GW they dont care what ANY of there players want.

 Desubot wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
8th ed is sure to come, so you'll have to do that anyway. Looks like the D6 people are in the majority for sure. Maybe that's how GW stays in business. Because I don't think they could based off what players like me purchase. I won't invest any more than a unit once every two years into such a poor system.

Its GW they dont care what ANY of there players want.

Yes they do, far more than they get credit for, which is why the vast majority of the posts on here are about their products.

That means that the players care about the product. not the other way around.

Fact of the matter is they blatantly state they dont do market research. there entire attitude is that we as fans should be grateful and buy whatever they produce because we are collectors first and foremost.

Edit: This is IIRC on legal record (the CHS thing. and the other from one of there investor statement)

That attitude is why I have one army whose cost was amortized over 20 years.

And why don't they do market research? Because they spent millions on a massive gaming arena which people from around the world use for free, and use for huge gaming events, in which you can often see most of the studio staff at some point. And why? Because they are in there talking to hobbyists and finding out what they really enjoy in a much more genuine and meaningful way than an annual survey or focus group. I worked for them for a year before becoming a teacher, and they care a huge amount about their fan base. They are a large publicly owned company now, which does mean changes have happened to the way the company runs, and everything is made inhouse in England, which also has an impact on cost, these are realities that have affected the way most businesses that have survived the last 30 yrs operate. The issue isn't that they don't care, it's peoples emotional attachment to the product and the company. I didn't like it when converse used suicides to sell their products, so I stopped buying and that was that. I haven't spent the years since moaning and complaining about everything they have done since and delighted in every mistake or stock market dip because of it.

 JamesY wrote:
And why don't they do market research? Because they spent millions on a massive gaming arena which people from around the world use for free, and use for huge gaming events, in which you can often see most of the studio staff at some point. And why? Because they are in there talking to hobbyists and finding out what they really enjoy in a much more genuine and meaningful way than an annual survey or focus group. I worked for them for a year before becoming a teacher, and they care a huge amount about their fan base. They are a large publicly owned company now, which does mean changes have happened to the way the company runs, and everything is made inhouse in England, which also has an impact on cost, these are realities that have affected the way most businesses that have survived the last 30 yrs operate. The issue isn't that they don't care, it's peoples emotional attachment to the product and the company. I didn't like it when converse used suicides to sell their products, so I stopped buying and that was that. I haven't spent the years since moaning and complaining about everything they have done since and delighted in every mistake or stock market dip because of it.

Are you talking about those MASSIVE 1 man stores with at most 2 gaming tables max? where at least in my case literally half the managers that have rotated out didn't know a damn thing about any part of the hobby, let alone cared about what we as hobbiest needed?

and now as of yesterday has closed.

No, I'm talking about warhammer world at head office. I can't say I'm a big fan of the single man model, but it has allowed stores to stay open that otherwise would have closed. I don't know anything about the circumstances of your local store, but don't forget it is first and foremost a SHOP, and a place to do your hobby second. Managers therefore have to be retailers first, and hobbyists second.

So are you trying to tell me that a single physical location and a limited population of opinions is enough representation of the entire global GW hobbiest and gamers? and that its enough to not actually do legitimate research or even have an official outlet for complaints suggestions and discussion?

I think a center that has an international customer base, that regularly holds large scale tournaments, added to other global events like games day allow for good qualitative data gathering, especially when added to the work done by those whose job it is to read sites like this to see what peoples reactions and opinions really are. If you want to complain, contact customer services. If you have a suggestion, you will probably find that a politely worded email can often have a positive effect, if you are being realistic in your suggestion. Most 'suggestions' are put forward in so rude a manner that they deserve to be ignored, regardless of the validity of the suggestion.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
D10s work better if you are going to go with a different die type, as they roll better on uneven surfaces and the numbers are printed larger, but they are still not as fast or convenient as D6s (which come in much smaller sizes that are just as easy to read as the larger ones). I'm not really opposed to implementing D10s as the standard, but it would require a complete overhaul of the game, and I'd rather not have to buy yet ANOTHER copy of the rules.

Don't worry, if you want to have up-to-date rules, you will have to buy another copy in a couple years time anyway - this could actually bring up a debate about why so many people have the insane need of keeping up with officiality when said officiality is pure insanity, but this is not the thread for it.

A complete overhaul of the game is what 40k probably needs. It's been stuck on 3rd edition for a decade and a half, piling more special rules on top of it and calling it a new edition from time to time. AP system sucks, current cover system sucks ("armor or cover, you have to choose" WTF), non-skimmer vehicles suck, etc.

 JamesY wrote:
I think a center that has an international customer base, that regularly holds large scale tournaments, added to other global events like games day allow for good qualitative data gathering, especially when added to the work done by those whose job it is to read sites like this to see what peoples reactions and opinions really are. If you want to complain, contact customer services. If you have a suggestion, you will probably find that a politely worded email can often have a positive effect, if you are being realistic in your suggestion. Most 'suggestions' are put forward in so rude a manner that they deserve to be ignored, regardless of the validity of the suggestion.

So you mean only fans with money that can afford to travel and get tickets should have there opinions heard directly by the people who are responsible for the game.
Secondly what Tournaments?

Quite frankly No suggestions will EVER get through GWs Canned response email system that doesn't involve defective products.

And that's based on what? Your indepth insider knowledge of the company operations, or just your opinion? Another question, if they annoy you so much, why still play/engage with their products? If you aren't enjoying the hobby or don't like what they do, why not simply walk away from it, or play a game that you either enjoy more, or a company that you feel values you more? No body is forcing anything on you.

Its based off multiple emails being canned and never being replied to.

Is the dont like leave comment necessary?

While no one is forcing me to do jack gak that doesn't mean i want to give up on a company that is producing some things i like. especially the models.

It was necessary to cut through the hostility to remind why we do this, we like the models, that's all it's really about and that is all the company want to make, great toy soldiers, which they do. No one will like everything, but that's ok. Silence is only the response to either rude requests, requests that breach confidentiality rules, or ones that try to tell them how to operate. For example, sisters of battle, 100s of people moan that they haven't been touched, so people say they aren't listening to fans. The reality is that when they were on the shelves, they didn't sell well. Necromunda, great game, many fans, never actually made a profit (from the mouth of Blanche himself), eventually taken off the shelves, but again, they aren't listening. They do listen, they do care. But decisions are made based on what will sell and make profit, which is how all companies that want to continue trading operate.

What hostility?

All hostility is in your head bro.

I mean the general hostility towards the company, not you personally.