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.

So, yeah, consider this:

Right now, the differences between equipment and combat skills of different units can only be represented with differences on a 1-to-6 scale. Making each point difference statistically huge and therefore limiting the degree to which we can represent relative superiorities or inferiorities when making rolls.

Do you think it would help if the game adopts the D10 instead? So much could change, for example;

Right now we have the ultra rare, each-one-a-relic terminator armour providing a 2+, which gives the same protection as an Artificier Armor.
With a D10, we could keep the termie at 2+, and maybe push the artificier to 3+ and power armour to 4+?


Similar arguments can be made for the to-hit and to-wound tables and anything requiring a roll in general.

shouldn't make termie armour 2+ on a 10 sided dice, it's already hard enough to kill them. maybe a 3+ or 4+ for termies and 1 more for artificer

Interesting idea, only thought is in regards to playability. I can't imagine trying to memorize all those stats (being 1-10)...

So I guess I'll take a neutral stance on this one.

-Praise The Emperor-

Of all the things that could be done to improve the game play by using alternative resolution methods, changing dice size is the sort of last thing good game design does.
(if all the resolution methods developed over the last 30+ years since 40k/WHFB core rules were written , have been tried, and you STILL need more granularity , then by all means change the dice size.)

But I think using D6 in a less deterministic way is a better option.(Opposed rolls or as a modifier.)

It's easier to go to d12 from d6 for obvious reasons.

It is much easier to use D6 and have intelligent rules with the most suitable game mechanics and resolution methods.
Than simply try to use larger dice size to counter limiting game mechanics and resolution methods

More dice options would increase the depth at which the rules could vary - but don't kid yourself. People will still power-build toward the most powerful potential builds no matter if you use D6 - D10 - D12 or D1000.

The core is really how the models are designed themselves and how armies are both internally balanced and balanced within the game as a whole. Changing the dice base won't change those elements - that has to come from the games core design.


Look at Warhamchine and Hordes - both D6 and yet doing well for army variety on the whole (though of course you still get effective and power builds).

Lanrak wrote:
It is much easier to use D6 and have intelligent rules with the most suitable game mechanics and resolution methods.
Than simply try to use larger dice size to counter limiting game mechanics and resolution methods

How much larger? I don't want to wreck the tabletop terrain too hard having rolled 100+ dice to hit with my orkses.

To clarify,
Any dice size bigger than D6 is unnecessary in a game with the current limited game play of 40k.
Other games seem to have more game play with much fewer pages of rules and only use D6.
However, they tend to use more modern resolution methods.
(Epic Armageddon, Bolt Action, F.o.W. etc.)

All D10s do over D6s is give more leeway for "in-between" level of dice.

That would probably be a good thing though, given how odd the WS and BS of units is at times (IG vets shoot as good as terminators), but will require an entire overhull of pretty much every mechnic in the game.

Changing dice is a MASSIVE change. it has major side effects on every single aspect of the game, especially when you switch to something with no direct analogies like D6->D10 (when switching to a D12 you could just double up everything to keep same statistical probabilities and unlock the option to do things between with later additions.)

This question comes up about once a month. The short answer is "No," but I'll stick a slightly longer answer in here for the sake of explanation.

The inherent problems with the core 40k rules are the absoluteness of the rock-paper-scissors game (either you're going to utterly wreck whatever you're targeting or you're going to do nothing at all, no middle ground), the length of turns, the update schedule, and the size of ranges/movement distances compared to the size of the table. Changing the size of dice wouldn't correct any of the serious underlying issues.

Not really, people would complain then too.

Because d10 do not fit in a small box as great as d6.

I agree with the response that the game has many simpler changes that could improve the game, rather than redefining the dice and unit stats system.

Generally, a d10 system would be an improvement, so a demolisher tank shell has more than a 5/6 chance of killing a guardsman. I just think that at this point, you'd get much more mileage over simpler changes, like dropping half the random charts and movement rules.

Adding a new dice would not change very much, because the problem that the profile scale from 1-10 is not used stays.

Changing the to wound and to hit table by adding auto-hit/wound and impossiple hit/wound results and using the full scale would help a lot more

2016, 8th edition changes the game to a d10 system. First reply: GW did this to charge more money for dice!!!! IM OUT!

Joking aside, what is wrong with the d6? Its the only dice that is readily avalible and cheap.

The downside to a d6: even the most silly obvious easy things fail 17% of the time. Like a vindicaire hitting a model the size of the battlefield. Or someone shooting at the ground. 1 out of 6 guys shooting at the ground will MISS. 1 out of 6 gretchin will live against a s10 ap1 ignores cover apocalyptic mega blast.

I once had to explain this to a guy running a diablo-esque game on BYOND. Small numbers mean only a few break points. He used such low numbers that one class was strictly superior because it hit like 1 point harder per hit, which was substantial.

It would give room for more armies, because in-game stats could better represent differences. Just in ballistic skill, you could have 70% hit rate marines, 60% tau, 50% guardsmen, 30% orks, etc.

Sometimes in the current game, even though a guy might be better at something, he isn't 17% better, so they can't justify a stat increase for it. Eg a necron overlord has the same accuracy as the rank and file. Shouldn't he be a little better of a shot? But they didn't want to give him a 2+ to hit, so he's stuck there. Kinda like scoring a "B, almost an A" on a test.

It would of course require zipping through the game and restatting EVERYTHING, and then hoping the remaining player base are willing to buy yet another game-subscription book, on top of a bunch of dice...
So while it will never happen NOW, in the alternate universe where it started as a d10 system, I'd bet it works pretty well.

Hi folks.
The only time a D6 becomes limiting is if you ONLY use resolution methods where it sets the chance of pass/fail on a set value.
EG 3+

Since 1980s, loads of new ways to use a D6 to give wider range of results have been developed.(Opposed rolls, opposed values, exploding values etc.)

But as 40k is still stuck in WHFB, (1977 Napoleonic rules,) mode.
Using the most redundant and limiting resolution methods for the game of 40k, is here to stay.

Along with the 100s of additional /special rules...

if other games can get along just great using the humble D6.
Then perhaps if 40k had rules written for its game play , rather than having to use a hideous WHFB clone .
Using a D6 would not be an issue?