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.

Exactly what it says up there, I've always been curious why the game wasn't played with say, a D12 as opposed to the D6; other than the fact that the D6 is more common, but that argument is tossed out the window by the facts that the game normally takes a large quantity of dice to play, that GW makes their own dice, and that you still need specialized dice in most games (scatter). It seems as though using a bigger die would allow the game to be more flexible; it would be easier to show the difference of ability between say a guardsman and a SM and still leave from for a veteran guards men to be better than his novice compatriot but still not as good as a SM. Heck, converting over wouldn't even be that hard, you would simply double all base units scores and then fill in the more elite/individual character units. Anyways, that's just what I think.

I like D10 myself, for various reasons, but you're going to get a lot of flak. It's a nice thought experiment, but that's all it will ever be.

it's probably because of the prevalence of the D6. It is true that GW makes and requires scatter dice, but you need like one or two of those, whereas an ork player like me has ~100 D6s. And I'm pretty sure replacing all of those with D8 or D12s would be pretty costly.

On top of that, I sometimes have trouble getting a D6 to fall flat on a table, much less D8 or D12s.

but overall, you're not wrong. A greater amount of dice sides would help differentiate the quality of things like terminator v power armor, for example.

But I doubt it'll happen.

Mass d6 are easier to roll.

Gates of Antares has used d10. If sooemome could convert 40k to use that systrm then it would be awesome

This question is asked endlessly. The answer is and will remain the same: approximately 0% of the problems with 40k would be affected in any way by swapping the d6s for something else.

I think that 40k, had it been done like a Skirmish game (Corvus Belli's Infinity for instance) a d10/d12 system would have been better, but as we stray further into "I can't believe it's not Epic 40k" I can't really see a better alternative that won't inflate game time.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
This question is asked endlessly. The answer is and will remain the same: approximately 0% of the problems with 40k would be affected in any way by swapping the d6s for something else.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Spoiler:

I think that 40k, had it been done like a Skirmish game (Corvus Belli's Infinity for instance) a d10/d12 system would have been better, but as we stray further into "I can't believe it's not Epic 40k" I can't really see a better alternative that won't inflate game time.

Both of these. While it's true that using larger dice allow for more granularity in measuring just how fast an eldar is or just how good a shot a marine is compared to a guardsman, this doesn't inherently improve the game in any way while also presenting the logistical challenges that have been mentioned above.

In a game like Infinity, the camera zooms in on a handful of guys. Think Kill Team's model count. The differences between individual models matter more, and the lower model count means games play faster and can thus spend some of that spare time on more granular rolls or abilities. 40k is not usually a game about a handful of guys per side. It's a game where one of your fifteen units can contain as many models as an entire game of infinity. Or more in the case of armies like orks. The camera zooms out. Instead of playing X-Com, you're playing Dawn of War or Star Craft or whatever. The game becomes more abstract, and the dice can, as a result, stand to have fewer sides to them.

There are plenty of perfectly good alternatives to 40k's core mechanic, but the advantages of those systems mostly lay with how the different dice are used rather than the granularity of the statline.

Say you switch to a d10 and adjust the statlines of 40k models to rest on that 1 to 10 scale. A marine's Ballistics Skill might be 7(meaning he hits roughly as often as he does now, 70% instead of 66.7%), and a striking scorpion's Ballistics Skill might only be 6 because he's more melee focused (meaning he hits 60% of the time). This means that there is now a 7% difference in shooting ability between the marine and the scorpion. For every 100 shots they each fire, the scorpion will only miss 7 more times than the marine. That's not nothing, but that 7% difference requires you rework every single statline in 40k, come up with a way to get a large number of d10s into all 40k players' hands, transport those d10s without using the "dice cube" that many people like, get those dice to not come up cocked when you roll them, etc.

To me, the effort just isn't worth such a small difference in granularity.

It allows for more distinction between units, abilities, and models. Some people like it, especially for smaller games. You could make the stat lines of Necron Immortals different from MEQ stats, make Terminator armor different from Artificer Armor, buff the lasgun without bringing it up to S4, make orks stronger than guardsmen but not as strong as SM, and hundreds of other similar tweaks. It would fix problems like making Stormbolters more powerful without making them too OP, distinguishing different MEQ from each other, fixing the lasgun, and letting some things make more sense. A lot of the problems being solved are problems caused by the game having too large of a scale between the weakest and strongest things available, and by things not having a niche to fit in.

However, the problems with this are obvious. First, you'd have to change everything. Absolutely everything would be adjusted in some way to make this work. Rules would be rewritten, stat lines would be scrapped, hundreds of pages would be edited, so on and so forth. I've seen a few "proof of concept" versions of d10 40k that completely neglected to mention this. Since GW wouldn't be supporting it, you'd have to edit everything that comes out for the game in the future too. You'd be supporting the rules of an entire game, from kill team to apocalypse.

Second, it would add more complexity to the game. You are adding more numbers after all.

Third, it doesn't fix some of the problems endemic to larger, more standard games of 40k. It doesn't fix the ridiculous amount of rules you need to play. It doesn't fix the challenge of balancing the power of melee vs assault. The tiny tweaks in statlines don't do much when a select few units are the only things that are seeing play.

Overall, if you want to write your own rules for a few units so that your 500 pt game or kill team campaign feels more immersive and distinct, then by all means do so. But applying the changes to 40k at large is a huge endeavor that is going to be fairly counterproductive.

To be honest? Until GW gets its gak together, I think it'd just lead to even more power creep.

Also it would cause endless arguments about "wah wah wah why aren't spess marnies higher strength", even more than they already are.

I never meant for GW to do it. I would be a system of my design that uses D10. A complete rebuild.

With a D10, and a revamped system for dealing multiple wounds, the system would achieve much greater granularity. Greater granularity means you achieve "different" without power creep much easier.

Actually it would allow for far more power creep, because stats gradually get increased over time to the upper levels.

Once they get there, where do you go? D20? D100?

 gnome_idea_what wrote:
It allows for more distinction between units, abilities, and models. Some people like it, especially for smaller games. You could make the stat lines of Necron Immortals different from MEQ stats, make Terminator armor different from Artificer Armor, buff the lasgun without bringing it up to S4, make orks stronger than guardsmen but not as strong as SM, and hundreds of other similar tweaks. It would fix problems like making Stormbolters more powerful without making them too OP, distinguishing different MEQ from each other, fixing the lasgun, and letting some things make more sense. A lot of the problems being solved are problems caused by the game having too large of a scale between the weakest and strongest things available, and by things not having a niche to fit in.

However, the problems with this are obvious. First, you'd have to change everything. Absolutely everything would be adjusted in some way to make this work. Rules would be rewritten, stat lines would be scrapped, hundreds of pages would be edited, so on and so forth. I've seen a few "proof of concept" versions of d10 40k that completely neglected to mention this. Since GW wouldn't be supporting it, you'd have to edit everything that comes out for the game in the future too. You'd be supporting the rules of an entire game, from kill team to apocalypse.

Second, it would add more complexity to the game. You are adding more numbers after all.

Third, it doesn't fix some of the problems endemic to larger, more standard games of 40k. It doesn't fix the ridiculous amount of rules you need to play. It doesn't fix the challenge of balancing the power of melee vs assault. The tiny tweaks in statlines don't do much when a select few units are the only things that are seeing play.

Overall, if you want to write your own rules for a few units so that your 500 pt game or kill team campaign feels more immersive and distinct, then by all means do so. But applying the changes to 40k at large is a huge endeavor that is going to be fairly counterproductive.

*Ding!* Oh hey. I think someone just gave you an exalt.

40K rules are poor at best...with any dice. If you're doing a full re-build you could easily do D6's or any dice you want. It's the basics of the rule mechanics which need addressing. The type of dice used is irrelevant.

Different dice "can" make certain mechanics easier, but you could just as easily say "D6+this stat = result" and you can get infinite variety, etc.

What about giving special characters or units the ability to use d8s, d10s, and/or d12s, whilst retaining the current system? You wouldn't need very many of these dice, it keeps everything within the current mechanics, and makes more powerful things seem more powerful without too much creep. Something similar to BrikWars, but still being 40K.

Example: A Space Marine character uses d8s to make his shooting attack. It would give him a greater chance for success (since we are still keeping the Ballistic Skill system in place).

On any BS it would:
- increase the chance of success while lowering chance of failure, so we could remove some of the abuse in stacking Re-rolls or twin-linked,
- increase the chance of being successful on Snap Fire shots,
- make special characters feel more powerful on the table.

You could also more easily determine the models' statistical abilities to make it an upgrade. Like, for example, it's 5 points to give a Space Marine Sergeant rolls on d8s, or 15 points to give Space Marine Captains rolls on d10s over d8s. It could even be a cool Warlord Trait that could be rolled up at the start of the game.

Keep the d6 + stat = results, but add in d8s, d10s, and d12s to increase power for more powerful stuff.

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:
What about giving special characters or units the ability to use d8s, d10s, and/or d12s, whilst retaining the current system? You wouldn't need very many of these dice, it keeps everything within the current mechanics, and makes more powerful things seem more powerful without too much creep. Something similar to BrikWars, but still being 40K.

Example: A Space Marine character uses d8s to make his shooting attack. It would give him a greater chance for success (since we are still keeping the Ballistic Skill system in place).

On any BS it would:
- increase the chance of success while lowering chance of failure, so we could remove some of the abuse in stacking Re-rolls or twin-linked,
- increase the chance of being successful on Snap Fire shots,
- make special characters feel more powerful on the table.

You could also more easily determine the models' statistical abilities to make it an upgrade. Like, for example, it's 5 points to give a Space Marine Sergeant rolls on d8s, or 15 points to give Space Marine Captains rolls on d10s over d8s. It could even be a cool Warlord Trait that could be rolled up at the start of the game.

Keep the d6 + stat = results, but add in d8s, d10s, and d12s to increase power for more powerful stuff.

While I like the idea of die size replacing stats as a general game mechanic (not necessarily a 40k mechanic), I'm not sure what you're describing would be terribly useful. Hitting on a 3+ means marines average about 66.7% accuracy. If they're boosted to BS5, that turns into about 84% accuracy. Letting them reroll 1s or giving them twin-linked lets you fine tune their BS further.

Introducing a d8 is basically just another way of fine-tuning your accuracy. If you hit on a 3+ with a d8, you hit about 75% of the time. With a d10, 80%. With a d12, ~83% of the time. With a d20, 90% of the time. The thing is, all of those numbers are going to be within a few percentage points of averages you could get with BS4 or 5 and either "reroll to-hit rolls of 1" or twin-linked. In exchange for this granular difference in average performance, you've introduced one or more new die sizes which means...

*You now have to figure out how rending, bladestorm, etc. work. If these abilities still only trigger on a single die facing, then they actually become worse the larger the die gets. If you say you just need a 6+ to trigger them, then they become significantly more powerful meaning you might have to do a lot of extra rebalancing.
* Players who didn't already have multiple sizes of dice have to acquire some. Not a big deal, but a new, minor barrier for entry for new players.
* The usefulness of a +X stat modifier is harder measure.

I like the idea in general, but it would probably fit better in a system designed from the ground up with such a thing in mind.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:
What about giving special characters or units the ability to use d8s, d10s, and/or d12s, whilst retaining the current system? You wouldn't need very many of these dice, it keeps everything within the current mechanics, and makes more powerful things seem more powerful without too much creep. Something similar to BrikWars, but still being 40K.

Example: A Space Marine character uses d8s to make his shooting attack. It would give him a greater chance for success (since we are still keeping the Ballistic Skill system in place).

On any BS it would:
- increase the chance of success while lowering chance of failure, so we could remove some of the abuse in stacking Re-rolls or twin-linked,
- increase the chance of being successful on Snap Fire shots,
- make special characters feel more powerful on the table.

You could also more easily determine the models' statistical abilities to make it an upgrade. Like, for example, it's 5 points to give a Space Marine Sergeant rolls on d8s, or 15 points to give Space Marine Captains rolls on d10s over d8s. It could even be a cool Warlord Trait that could be rolled up at the start of the game.

Keep the d6 + stat = results, but add in d8s, d10s, and d12s to increase power for more powerful stuff.

While I like the idea of die size replacing stats as a general game mechanic (not necessarily a 40k mechanic), I'm not sure what you're describing would be terribly useful. Hitting on a 3+ means marines average about 66.7% accuracy. If they're boosted to BS5, that turns into about 84% accuracy. Letting them reroll 1s or giving them twin-linked lets you fine tune their BS further.

Introducing a d8 is basically just another way of fine-tuning your accuracy. If you hit on a 3+ with a d8, you hit about 75% of the time. With a d10, 80%. With a d12, ~83% of the time. With a d20, 90% of the time. The thing is, all of those numbers are going to be within a few percentage points of averages you could get with BS4 or 5 and either "reroll to-hit rolls of 1" or twin-linked. In exchange for this granular difference in average performance, you've introduced one or more new die sizes which means...

*You now have to figure out how rending, bladestorm, etc. work. If these abilities still only trigger on a single die facing, then they actually become worse the larger the die gets. If you say you just need a 6+ to trigger them, then they become significantly more powerful meaning you might have to do a lot of extra rebalancing.
* Players who didn't already have multiple sizes of dice have to acquire some. Not a big deal, but a new, minor barrier for entry for new players.
* The usefulness of a +X stat modifier is harder measure.

I like the idea in general, but it would probably fit better in a system designed from the ground up with such a thing in mind.

Perhaps keep it to just To Hit rolls? Rending I know is affected on To Wound rolls, so maybe keep it strictly to a unit's attacks as a way to represent their accuracy? For example, a Space Marine Captain with a Boltgun is still firing a weapon that his troops are using, is his deadliness measured in his accuracy with the same weapon? Or does he somehow make the weapon itself stronger? In my previous example of BrikWars, it has two forms of "criticals" that weapons can get: one when the dice rolls a 6 or higher, and then one when it rolls its maximum result. Having two opportunities for chances at critical give game designers opportunities to adjust the strength and resilience of a model or unit.

There are enough models and units that do get their bonuses on To Hit rolls of 6, so those would have to be considered.

How about adding in an extra weapon stat that is the dice the weapon will use on to wound rolls? Like a Lascannon wounds with a d10, Melta and Plasma weapons use a d8, and Boltguns on d6s? It would be tricky to figure out, but I think it could be neat.

As for players not having easy access to dice, that is a fair point, but in my experience (anecdotally speaking of course) tabletop gamers love hoarding dice, and don't mind getting more dice Plus, GW has started producing/selling new dice sizes in the form of "Wound tracker" dice, and the multiple d8s, d10s, and d12s supplied in the Burning of Prospero kit. If implemented, supplying the dice in Starter Sets would be a good start.

In regards to stats checks, like Toughness or Strength checks, the current system could be kept in place without changes. In fact, there is a chance for more difficult tests to made in the form of increasing the die size without modifying their stats. This could be abused, but it could be fun.

I agree, a ground-up rewrite would be the best way to incorporate this mechanic, at the very least a total rewrite of all weapon profiles. If nothing else, it might be cool to experiment with in narrative campaigns as a bonus for characters!

Switching from d6 would increase granularity, but it wouldnt fix any problems. In fact, it would actually make some issues worse, as increasing the number of possible results on the dice would increase the statistical variance, and in the process further diminish the importance of decisions and skills (not that they matter for much as it currently stands) and raise the importance of dice rolls as a means of resolving outcomes.

What could be done, however, is switch to a "weighted d20" (for lack of a better term) with only 6 results. I.E., it would have two 1s, three 2s, five 3s, five 4s, three 5s, and two 6s. This would generate more of a normal distribution/bell curve effect, rather than the simple d6s discrete uniform distribution. It would make outcomes more predictable, allowing for better mechanical balance from the designers, anx more meaningful decisionmaking.

chaos0xomega wrote:
...What could be done, however, is switch to a "weighted d20" (for lack of a better term) with only 6 results. I.E., it would have two 1s, three 2s, five 3s, five 4s, three 5s, and two 6s. This would generate more of a normal distribution/bell curve effect, rather than the simple d6s discrete uniform distribution. It would make outcomes more predictable, allowing for better mechanical balance from the designers, anx more meaningful decisionmaking...

Ahhh...remember the days before FFG rose to prominence, when people designed games that didn't require special proprietary dice?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
...What could be done, however, is switch to a "weighted d20" (for lack of a better term) with only 6 results. I.E., it would have two 1s, three 2s, five 3s, five 4s, three 5s, and two 6s. This would generate more of a normal distribution/bell curve effect, rather than the simple d6s discrete uniform distribution. It would make outcomes more predictable, allowing for better mechanical balance from the designers, anx more meaningful decisionmaking...

Ahhh...remember the days before FFG rose to prominence, when people designed games that didn't require special proprietary dice?

You mean the days like when GW designed scatter distance/direction dice and sustained fire dice for their games?

Maybe, but IMO the issue isn't the type of dice used, and personally I prefer D6's because it's easier to transport a lot of them.
Really most of 40k's issues have nothing to do with granularity of the D6; there are plenty of ways to work around it. The main problem these days is that are currently too many of them in use at once, and some aspects of the rules are still too clunky.


I'd love to see a more radical redesign of 40k again; personally I'd like to see a change of stats to an opposed roll system, so it feels more like you're always both doing something. Basically when rolling to-Hit you'd each roll the same number of dice, with the attacker looking to beat their to-Hit roll, and defender looking to beat a dodge/cover roll, pair off the successes and any remaining hits are then inflicted. Same idea for wounding; attacker rolls to beat a to-Wound roll (representing Strength etc.) and defender looks to beat their defence roll (representing toughness), excess wound rolls are wounds inflicted. Some especially heavily armoured models might then have a final saving throw, but most would probably just roll that into defence for simplicity.

This has an interesting granularity since it's not just a single roll, but two opposed rolls, it also has the added side effect that the defender feels like they're doing more. It also models things better IMO, and is easier to modify in "realistic" ways; if a model's better at dodging then it has a better dodge roll for example, rather than that being bundled oddly into a save, especially when those saves can be added when dealing with things that hit automatically like flamers (which are notoriously hard to dodge, since that's kind of the point). It's also a cool system for situations where the defender wins the roll (their successes exceed the attacker's), for example in close combat excess defender success could represent parried attacks (giving them the chance to roll to-Wound instead).

It's also a system less vulnerable to spam, meaning you need more structured lists with the tools to take down opponents with very high defence rolls, for example, as spamming high volumes of weak fire won't often work.

 Stormonu wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
...What could be done, however, is switch to a "weighted d20" (for lack of a better term) with only 6 results. I.E., it would have two 1s, three 2s, five 3s, five 4s, three 5s, and two 6s. This would generate more of a normal distribution/bell curve effect, rather than the simple d6s discrete uniform distribution. It would make outcomes more predictable, allowing for better mechanical balance from the designers, anx more meaningful decisionmaking...

Ahhh...remember the days before FFG rose to prominence, when people designed games that didn't require special proprietary dice?

You mean the days like when GW designed scatter distance/direction dice and sustained fire dice for their games?

You don't need a scatter die to randomize direction (you've got the Gates of Antares method where you draw a line based on the facing of a d10, and the shortcut-d6 method where the line goes from the 1 to the 6 if you don't roll a 1 or a 6 since they're the 'hit' symbol, and if you edit the rules very slightly you can use the Warmachine/Infinity method where you have a blast template with numbers noted around the perimeter), and the artillery die is just the roll of 1d6 multiplied by 2 with the 6 as 'misfire'.

(Yes, I know you can play FFG's games and this 'weighted d20' mechanism without proprietary dice, but d20+lookup table is going to be more of a slowdown than using an alternate random-direction method or multiplying a d6 by 2 would be.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Haravikk wrote:
...Really most of 40k's issues have nothing to do with granularity of the D6; there are plenty of ways to work around it...

Case in point: the LotR system has Toughness and Armour combined into one Defense stat, and they edited the Strength v. Defense table so that one stat step is half a die roll step rather than a full die roll step the way it is for S v. T in Warhammer (e.g. Strength 4 wounds Defense 3 and 4 on 4+, 5 and 6 on 5+, 7 and 8 on 6+).

Still d6s, but Defense 3 can casually coexist with Defense 8 on infantry models rather than 40k's Toughness 3 or 4 except for edge cases and giant monsters.

I understand the hatred for proprietary dice, I used to loathe them with a passion, but now as a (still amateur) game designer, I absolutely see the utility of them and have come to appreciate them as an essential element of game design when implemented properly. That last part is key, as I wouldnt say Dust, for example, has properly implemented proprietary dice properly, ai could just as easily roll a d6 and get the same result if I were to simply remember that a 5 or a 6 is a hit and everything else is a miss (or whatever). At the point at which you need actual charts and tables to translate a die however, thats where you should just use proprietary dice.

Unfortunately, I think the game is too entrenched in the D6 to go a better system like a D10. But I think you could design a D6 system that would be better.


Instead of using the Rule of 7 for shooting or simple Yes/No comparative for melee system, you could have an additive system.

Give all models a Defense stat and models must roll a D6 and add their WS/BS to the roll. If it equals or exceeds the target's defense, you successfully hit. Make various levels of cover increase a target's defense instead of cover granting a save.

So say you give a Space Marine a defense of 7. a BS3 Guardsmen will need to roll a 4+ to hit. but say the marine is in soft cover, which would provide a +1 defense. Now the guardsmen needs to roll a 5+. 6s would always hit, and 1s would always miss regardless of modifiers.

We could add more modifiers in. Say if you are within 1/2 range, you gain +1 to your BS attack. So a guardsmen within 12" of a Space Marine hiding in hard cover(+2 def), would need to roll a 5+(he needs to hit defense 9 with an effective BS4). Templates would work exactly as they do now. Blast weapons would suffer the BS penalty if the target was in cover, but still be fairly effective at blanketing the area making them effective at rooting targets out of deep cover.

For melee, you would need similar values. WS vs Defense. With there being melee modifiers similar to shooting.

I think quantity of dice alone is enough to disqualify the idea, as D6 are incredibly plentiful. Consider the following scenarios, none terribly uncommon:

- Punisher cannon, 10 marines with bolters, Necron warriors, or any other shooting attack needing 20+ dice happens
- FRFSRF is issued to a 50 man Guard blob
- Green Tide shoots
- GREEN TIDE SWINGS IN CC

/thread

(Theoretically you could be rolling 400 dice with 100 slugga Boyz )

I wouldn't mind trying d12. A lot of statlines and rules would have to be tweaked. Sounds like a lot of people don't want to part with d6s though.