Dice-versity (is d6 holding 40k down?)

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.

**nateprati**

Would you be willing to use other dice to help ballance the games stat lines a little better? Do you think it would even make a difference? Where do you see other dice options being implimented?

Be nice

**ERJAK**

I'm not buying more dice.

**Sgt. Cortez**

ERJAK wrote:
I'm not buying more dice.

Agreed. I get the arguments of people who say the D6 system is too limited for a game that features Grots and warlord titans, though. But in the end GW aims for a game everyone can easily get in to, and choosing the most common dice is already one step, they even got rid of the scatter dice and templates...

**Nazrak**

I think D6s are the best choice for core mechanics as 1. It makes the game accessible and 2. They’re by far the most legible dice when rolling multiples of them. However, I certainly wouldn’t object to the introduction of other kinds (whether numbered or specially marked) in relation to “special” mechanics. But only in situations where you’re rolling two or theee at a time, tops.

**kodos**

are D6 holding 40k down?

No, dice are not an excuse and looking at the to wound table, there won't be a difference if you use a D6, D8 or D12.

On the other side 40k never, used chart with the full variation of a D6, so before you think of changing dice, you would need to change the rules to use the dice the game has

**p5freak**

D10 are good. Its not fair that a S13 weapon, which costs much more than a S8-12 weapon, has the same chance of wounding T7. The D6 system works fine for numbers up to 10.

**kodos**

this is a problem of the chart not the dice
a S13 weapon would still wound with the same roll as S10 if you don't change the chart

and a D6 works perfect for invite numbers with the right to wound/hit table

**Imateria**

Whilst the D6 system lacks granularity, the problem is one of scale, D10's and 12's are akward to use when you need to roll 150 of them at once.

**Dionysodorus**

This seems like overkill when as-is GW is regularly ignoring 2 of the possible ways to use a d6-based system.

Almost everything fails on a 1 and almost everything succeeds on a 6. Allow more stuff to auto-pass or auto-fail and you get two new cases to play with, and then you can spread everything else out a bit more.

**p5freak**

A change to D10 would require a rework of the chart. However, the entire system needs a major overhaul. Rolling 150 dice, no matter if its d6 or d10, is insane.

**Wayniac**

I think the way 40k works, d10 would be better. I'd like to see Warmachine-style gameplay with 2d6 and comparing stats (no saves or anything) but 40k's size issue would make that incredibly hard since Warmahordes goes on an individual model basis, so you are only ever rolling 2d6 for a model, unlike 40k's "I have 10 guys, 2 shots each, 20 attacks" model.

**Elbows**

You can do plenty with D6's...but the real struggle is game size, and game scope - not the dice.

Also buying any other dice is super simple and cheap, so I've never understood "buying dice is hard!' nonsense.

**Huron black heart**

I'd prefer d10's or d12's, the limitations of the current system mean there has to be so many more layers of rules to compensate.
As for cost, well once you've got them you've got them, if introduced they'd be in all the starter sets. But if your someone who wants the imperial Aquila in place of a number (for example) you're probably gonna be someone who pays through the nose for gaming bling anyway.

**Formosa**

I would say yes it is

**SlaveToDorkness**

Dice are probably the cheapest thing gamers use for 40k so I too don't understand the "Noooo I won't buy more dice!" mindset.

Using a D10 would be great. With the current system there's way too huge a difference between a single bump in a stat. Making it become MEQ vs GEQ . The differences between units could be so much more with a larger range in dice results.

But they'll never do it because of the torches and pitchforks crowd.

If they ever did change it, 3rd party manufacturers would definitely have loads of D10 options in quantity to fill the need.

**Leo_the_Rat**

I don't know if most people are aware but in 2nd Edition all size dice were used from d3 to d20. So it would not be a "new" thing for GW, it would be a return to its roots.

**chrispy1991**

I don't think changing the dice will fix the game, but I do think they're holding it back in a way. Granularity is good in a game that has so many different units because it helps more of those units feel unique instead of copy paste stats. It will also help reduce the ridiculousness of auto successes and auto fails. Imagine terminators only failing saves 1/10th of the time instead of 1/6th. Imagine lasguns wounding land raiders on 10's instead of 6. It would help reduce horde effectiveness.

As for having to buy more dice, get over it. Dice cost nothing compared to the rest of the game, and as others have stated, it doesn't matter whether it's 150 d6's or 150 d10's, it's still rediculous. I didn't see people complaining about having to buy templates before 8th ed because they were expensive.

I think d10's would be a good step up, especially since they can so easily be turned into percentile dice.

**Vankraken**

At first I thought this was a post about all the D6 hits or D6 damage rolls which IMO are an absolutely terrible mechanic. D6 dice are probably the easiest dice to use which has its benefits but it lacks granularity (it really shows now that GW is throwing in these + or - to hit modifers). A d10 system would be better for that but I'm not sure how rolling for a mob of shoota boyz with d10s would work out.

**dosiere**

I would be down for literally any other system that requires fewer dice being rolled, re rolled, rolled, re rolled, modifers applied to the dice rolls (seriosuly, wth) instead of the target numbers, etc...

I'd estimate somewhere between 40-60% of our games are just mind numbing dice rolling over and over again right now. I can't believe as a 20+ year veteran of tabletop games I'm saying this but... Im burnt out on it.

**ChargerIIC**

It's pretty clear the 40k is being held back by the D6 system. The game breaks down horribly if more than a single +1 or -1 buff is applied and the sheer mass of models means that overlapping bonuses are invetible.

The problem is that it would be a huge political risk for GW to use a different dice. We have a large number of grognards that have been comfortable only buying (or in some cases torrenting) the core rulebook and coasting on their already purchased models. They own a ton of dice already and will absolutely throw a fit if they have to purchase more dice. To make matters worse, many FLGS have gambled on D6 being the dice system for all time and have bought large numbers of those $8-10 chessex dice blocks that will become deadweight without 40k.

Eventually the game will stagnate as GW runs out of ways to create modifiers to prevent their overstacking, but that's far away right now. D6 is the crutch we have and we might as well get used to it.

**Shadenuat**

It's not really d6's that often make game uncomfortable, but all the unnecessary rolls, like d3 damage or rolling to regain command points. Hit, wound, save, move & manifest is enough randomness, there shouldn't be a baggage of "on 2+ get something great but 1 is failure".

**jeff white**

Why not 2d6 and 3d6 rolls instead of only 1d6?
So, 2-12 instead of 1-6, or 3-18 instead of 1-6?
Plus, using multiple dice allows for another layer of doubles and triples mechanics... Very useful!

**p5freak**

Adding 2D6 or 3D6 slows the game down, and some would need a calculator

**Groslon**

Absolutely. Bigger dice would mean a better distribution of stats, and more granularity. D10s FTW!

**AnomanderRake**

Dice aren't the problem. A badly-designed game will be badly-designed whatever dice you use.

**nateprati**

The only place i know i want more dice options is in saves, i do think it could solve a lot of issues for things like terminators or or lords of war.

I remember when shadow war came out and every one thought they would be the rules for 8th and the idea of terminater saving on a 2d6 was being thrown around and i liked the idea. I would rather use a d12 or 10 tho. Tanks using a 20 or lords of war using somthing rediculous.

I like the idea

**ChargerIIC**

jeff white wrote:
Why not 2d6 and 3d6 rolls instead of only 1d6?
So, 2-12 instead of 1-6, or 3-18 instead of 1-6?
Plus, using multiple dice allows for another layer of doubles and triples mechanics... Very useful!

The problem with 2d6 is it cripples mass rolling. If you have to roll for a 10 man squad how do you pair off the dice or do you roll for each model seperatly? I love 2d6 for the probability curve, but in this particular case (Warhammer 40,000) I don't think it'll work. Can you imagine the hell of a 30 termagaunt unit firing?

**Vector Strike**

I like d8 and/or d10.

p5freak wrote:A change to D10 would require a rework of the chart. However, the entire system needs a major overhaul. Rolling 150 dice, no matter if its d6 or d10, is insane.

This. Rolling a handful of dice is nice, rolling a bucket of them isn't. And I say this as being a Tau player for 4 years!

**CREEEEEEEEED**

I think a restructuring of the game from the ground up should use d10, but shoving d10s into 8th would be dumb.

**kodos**

ChargerIIC wrote:
or do you roll for each model seperatly?

you are supposed to do this anyway in 8th so rolling 1D6 or 2D6 for each model separately makes no difference