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.

Hi there.

I think if Warhammer will use D10 instead of D6 it will be much more cool.
It brings much less random to the game and gives opportunity to show differences more accurate. So, different patterns of power armor can give different save. It's impossible with D6, but with D10 - why not?

It is possible to cover a wider range of results with a D6 .
D6 s are the best practical choice for rolling 15+ dice at a time.

It is much better to use a full range of results the dice can give you,Eg 1+ auto pass, to 7+auto fail.
And you can extend this range with critical success , and reduces effect.

I think its better to keep the D6 and use it in more intelligent ways.

I don't want to pick out 6s and 9s when I roll 40 dice at once.

D8 is okay, but obviously the benefit is smaller.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I don't want to pick out 6s and 9s when I roll 40 dice at once.

D8 is okay, but obviously the benefit is smaller.

6s and 9s are usually underlined to make it quick and easy to tell what's what.

The constraints of the current system are one of the reasons it's so easy to break.

Not D10. D12.
Double all values and you've instantly got double the range for tweaks without balance changes.

If you're going to go for it, go for broke.

D20's are plentiful. They're easy to get a hold of. They randomize really well. They're useful for other gak. And they make for great fun when using the "A die off the table is lost" rule (because they roll like a feth).

The benefit of d20s is that you can port your Starwars d20 characters over now.

 Thairne wrote:
Not D10. D12.
Double all values and you've instantly got double the range for tweaks without balance changes.

Doubling values would be a place to start, but keep Ld the same and take Ld tests on 1 die. 12 still auto- passes, 1 auto- fails now.

And now we can can that whole d3 system and use fractions as modifiers. so d3 would be d12/4, d6 would be d12/2 etc.

in general, balance is tighter because one point is worth a 9% statistical gain versus on d6, where reducing a roll by one point represented a 17% gain.

Then real middle of the road units are useful because they aren't "good unit -1" or "bad unit +1" any more and have a niche to fill now.

And support characters/ force multipliers no longer suffer from "i got insta- gibbed from across the board because I'm not a super duper beat- stick" syndrome.

a guardsman is now 2 points weaker than a space marine across the board, an Ork Boy is equal in melee to a space marine still, but 4 points weaker at range. normal, untrained humans are only 2 points weaker than trained guardsmen, but 4 points weaker than space marines and most rank- and file in the game.

I like this a lot actually.

but then some things i would change:

move from the current AP system to a true save modifier system. with the new range of dice rolls, modifiers have chance to be really elegant; the need to keep them simple and few is lessened because having a lot of floating modifiers/ tables no longer would turn games into 6+ slap fights.

Armor saves would have to be tweaked on a case- by case basis. heavy units like terminators would need to keep their 2+, but i don't know if I want MANZ to be equal to terminators in a game with twice as much numerical range. power armor could move up to 4+ to widen the game in survivability between PA and TDA. Then 4+/5+ guys would need to move up into the 6+/ 7+ range.

Also, keep wounds the same as they are. 4 wound paladins/ 2- wound guardsmen sound stupid. Don't even mention 8- wound SM chapter masters.

how would we need to change vehicles?

wound and hit charts would need to scale differently, too if we want to double everything. I don't want to see a melee to hit chart that maxes out at 20. that's 400 combinations, potentially.

Colehkxix wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I don't want to pick out 6s and 9s when I roll 40 dice at once.

D8 is okay, but obviously the benefit is smaller.

6s and 9s are usually underlined to make it quick and easy to tell what's what.

It's really not when they're 40 of them, especially for the guy across the table. Tested.

40k (and other systems) get around the low variety of results by having lots of dice throws, and D6s are the most convenient for that. I want to throw 20+ dice at once, but I don't want to have to pick out all the numbers 4 and lower from a pool of twenty D10s.

Obviously, using dice with more faces would allow for more precise stats. But I'm not convinced that the resulting fiddlyness would make the game better.

May be D10 is not so good for original WH, but I think it's perfectly fits to Kill-Team format.

I'll definetly write some experimental rules for my NKT project with D10 using.

 DanielBeaver wrote:
40k (and other systems) get around the low variety of results by having lots of dice throws, and D6s are the most convenient for that. I want to throw 20+ dice at once, but I don't want to have to pick out all the numbers 4 and lower from a pool of twenty D10s.

Obviously, using dice with more faces would allow for more precise stats. But I'm not convinced that the resulting fiddlyness would make the game better.

I see where you come from with that. But, from a thought- experiment point of view, would a system built from the ground up with the intent to use d10/ d12 /whatever benefit from the wider range? What would need to be done to resolution mechanics to accommodate having a wider range, but wanting to throw less dice? the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of having more range.

What if we just use a D12 and ignore 6's and 9's altogether making it a D10?

Altering the size of the dice would require a rehaul of armies in general. I'd likely not play 40k anymore with my Orks if they changed to larger dice. I'm not throwing 20+ D10+ sized dice. No way. And the suggestion of D20 is laughable.

To change the dice, you need to change the scope of the game so it works for every faction. Yeah, hoard armies are a minority, but that doesn't mean you give them the shaft.

Not to mention other dice are more expensive, yet another expense to an already expensive game. Cumbersome to carry, opposed to D6 which fit in much more compact containers since its easier to mini-fy D6.

So, I oppose all change in dice, personally. Not until the game changes to accommodate them in kind.

You can keep D6 and improve the granularity of results AND simplify the rules AND add more tactical complexity.
But it means re-writng the rules for 40k .

But considering any significant change to the current 40k rules needs a complete re-write , its worth sorting out all the core issues with the rules while you do the re write.

EG improved player interaction in the game turn mechanic.And reducing the number of resolution methods from SEVEN to just two.

In fact over the last ten years or so, most people have said that rolling D6 and a three stage damage resolution is what makes 40k '40k' for them.

Lanrak wrote:
You can keep D6 and improve the granularity of results AND simplify the rules AND add more tactical complexity.
But it means re-writng the rules for 40k .

But considering any significant change to the current 40k rules needs a complete re-write , its worth sorting out all the core issues with the rules while you do the re write.

EG improved player interaction in the game turn mechanic.And reducing the number of resolution methods from SEVEN to just two.

In fact over the last ten years or so, most people have said that rolling D6 and a three stage damage resolution is what makes 40k '40k' for them.

Out of curiosity, what 7 methods are you citing? I won't be surprised to find out I've been playing with that many but I can't count them off off the top of my head. I only count to- hit, to wound, saving throws, and vehicle damage, which is four. Which ones am I missing?


@OP: converting 40k to d10 would require a lot of internal tweaking and play testing that you may or may not be willing to try. If I had to take a suggestion, d12 is my pick because I could convert everything at once and then only have to tweak outliers. But resolving the game with d6's is what makes this game 40k. anything else, and you might as well set up a kickstarter.

Personally, I like D6. They are simple and easy to acquire. And as said above, multiple rolls accomplish the same thing.
If you're going to convert statlines an alternative method would be to re-base to higher numbers. For example, Space marines become T6 and S6, Orks become T5 S6, Wraithlords become T10, etc. That way you can keep the same relative relationships where you want to, but say only push guardsmen to T4 if you want to widen the gap between them and SM (and modify points cost appropriately, of course). Part of the problem now is that pretty much all the stats are <5 across the board, if you centered them on a 5 or 6 you can create more granularity. T10 is just as immune to S6 as T8 is to S4, and S6 wounds T5 on a 3 just like S4 vs T3. For particularly epic units, the vast gulf in statlines (for instance, in WS) make no difference beyond a certain point.

@Powerfisting.
I was talking about resolution methods, eg how you resolve the actions.

Every game uses the stat line directly . eg number of dice rolled for attacks, and the max weapons range in inches,
However 40k uses lots of additional methods...

1)Shooting you subtract the BS value from 7 to find the roll needed to hit.
2)Close combat you compare the opposing WS values on a table to find the roll required to hit.
3)To save you compare the weapon AP to the models save value.
4)Or compare the strength of the hit to the AV value if a vehicle.
5)And add other save like inv and cover saves.
6) To damage is comparing strength of hit to wounds
7) Or looking up damage on a chart for vehicles damage.

All these seven resolution methods (1 to 7) could be replaced with a single chart , a universal resolution chart if you like.
To cover all combat resolution ...
BS vs Stealth.
WS vs WS
AR vs AP
Damage vs Resilience .

if you actually use all the stats from 1 to 10 to cover all units.(Include vehicles .)With extended results .

Ill go into more detail if you are interseted?