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.

Do you think that basing the game on common 6 sided dice puts constraints on a game with the level of complexity that 40k has?

I was thinking about how the stats are all based on 10, and we have all these charts for conversions etc. If we just used 10 sided dice it would simplify things a lot. It would also allow for more variety in unit stats as you could re-position them in this 1-10 scale better. I get that 6 sided dice are cheap and available, but I see potential for more possibility with 10 sided dice.

Metric 40K anyone?

D10 you say?

Metric 40k you say?

2013 public survey of understanding and use[edit]
The UK Metric Association (UKMA) commissioned YouGov to carry out a survey to investigate "public understanding and use of metric and imperial units and of public support for completing the metric changeover". The UKMA executive summary of results of the September and November 2013 survey, published in 2014, presents the following points as the key results:

Half of respondents were opposed to completing metrication, with a quarter supportive and a fifth indifferent or non-committal.
Although younger generations were more supportive than the older, 36% of the 18-24 age group were opposed (with 33% supportive and 22% indifferent or non-committal).
Where there are specific practical reasons for using metric units, the majority of the population prefer to use them.
However, where parental, peer and media pressures are strongly in favour of imperial units, all age groups continue to use imperial - including for personal weighing (89% of the over 60s and 64% of the 18-24s).
Although there was a definite association between age and acceptance/use of metric units, there was still either a majority or a large minority of younger people who habitually use imperial rather than metric units for various everyday functions.
The sample size was 1978 adults in September and 1878 in November. The results were weighted and are said by YouGov to be representative of all GB adults (aged 18+).[148]

When I say "metric" I really just mean, "based on 10" like "metric time".

I'm not talking about measurements on the table for moving and shooting etc.

Nope Nope Nope. Until they use d10s at casinos there wont be a cheap way to buy 30 d10s.

GW needs to make wh40k less complicated for use with d6s.

I am all for using d10s. Also, we have random number generators now that can roll as many d10s as you need without spending money on actual dice, so price isn't really a factor in my opinion.

Eh I wouldn't mind d10 for killteam, make it work in d100s like in the ffg rpgs. Maybe also add in them for the various charts like champions of chaos and warp storm, maybe use it to include more Warlord traits on tables and maybe more psyker powers. Invisibility wouldn't be as obnoxious if you have to get lucky on a psyker roll...and remove the rules that give Loth and Belakor it for free. I love you Belakor, but it should just be Psyker level 3 plus one free roll on telepathy

 Swabby wrote:
I am all for using d10s. Also, we have random number generators now that can roll as many d10s as you need without spending money on actual dice, so price isn't really a factor in my opinion.

That's true, you could easily get an app on your phone/tablet that would generate results for the number of shots. Though there is something about rolling physical dice.

Just make the D10's smaller so the Ork players do not throw out their backs when assaulting.
Or for the lazy roller:

I admit I have wanted D10's in 40k as well because a +1 here or there has a dramatic impact (an extra 16.7%!!).

Tbh I think 40k should be made a percentile system - like the Fantasy Flight RPGs.

I think D10 40k would be interesting. I wouldn't say it was metric 40k though. Although moving to D10 might mean moving the measuring system of 40k to metric as well since there are a lot of modifiers in the game that work off of x D6 increments.

The table would have to change from 6x4 to a metric equivalent of the same ratio.

This might be a good move since the game is moving to larger armies and more powerful units that have a bigger foot print, a bigger table may even the playing field.

240CM = 7.8ft. X 160CM=5.2ft. We get the 1 by 2/3 ratio. You could go smaller 180cm=5.9ft. x 120CM=3.9ft. But bigger is probably better.

So Lets say its now a 240x160CM table.
Deployment -
Dawn of War
40CM deployment zones with 80cm down the middle

H&A
80CM depoloyment zones with 80cm down the middle

VS
I hate vanguard strike so I don't know

Distances - Would need to be re-calibrated to make sense on this table.
3" = 5cm
6" = 10cm
9" = 15cm
12" = 20cm
15" = 25cm
18" = 30cm
24" = 40cm
30" =50cm
36" = 60cm
48" = 80cm
60" = 100cm
72" = 120cm

Charge Ranges 2d10?
Tau supporting fire 10cm?
Rolls that are x + D10cm?
Dunestrider - add 5cm?

To simplify things we'd need some new rulers that would measure CM by Decimeter. It is equal to ten centimeters. So measurements could be broken down into .5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12. This way you could simplify the math when doing measurements and even say it faster. "You can charge 1.5" or
"whats the range on that?"
"12."
"Are you fething kidding me!?!?!"

I could keep going but then this becomes a project.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
More to come


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A really interesting next step would be to look at how to change the hit rolls, wound rolls, vehicle dmg, armor rating, pen rolls, Saves, stat lines, psychic powers, melee combat.

The goal would be to do it with no more than 10 d10 dice. That someone would need to roll/own. Some way to group mass shooting attacks.

I think it would allow a better fit for the spectrum from Space Marine to Terminator to Centurions for example. But it would also give more room between a basic Imperial Guardsman and a Space Marine stat-line to fit their elites.

 Filch wrote:
Nope Nope Nope. Until they use d10s at casinos there wont be a cheap way to buy 30 d10s.

GW needs to make wh40k less complicated for use with d6s.

Hey, nice one there m8.

http://www.ebay.es/itm/281544864626?_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649&var=580567445962&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

D10 > D6, as simple as that.

I'd love a d10 system in 40k... and activation-based alternating turns. Of course at that point we're talking a major overhaul to the whole system, but it would almost certainly make 40k a better game.

You should try it first. Doubt it'd make much difference in gameplay.

Given enough time it's possible to reduce every set of dice rolls for to hit, wound, and save down to a percentage. You could speed up rolling in that way and make for a speedier game. Leadership might be the only thing D10's would mess with too much.

 MeanAss_Demasoni wrote:
Do you think that basing the game on common 6 sided dice puts constraints on a game with the level of complexity that 40k has?

Yes.

I don't think it's inherently a problem, though.

D6s do the job, and are cheap and easily purchased in a size that you can hold large numbers of in your hand.

 MeanAss_Demasoni wrote:
Do you think that basing the game on common 6 sided dice puts constraints on a game with the level of complexity that 40k has?

Possibly, but the hit-wound-save mechanic inherent to 40K is a workaround: everytime you kill something you roll 2 D6, with your opponent rolling a D6 as well. As long as your target has a save it's effectively a D18 system, and bear in mind that in many D>6 game systems you simply make a single "roll to wound"...so a space marine shooting another space marine needs a 19+ on a D20 to do a wound (if we're keeping the probabilities roughly the same). And everytime you roll "2D6" you're effectively rolling a D12.

This incidentally is why I think the proliferation of high rate-of-fire weapons combined with high strength and/or low AP is bad for the game, but that is for another thread. If you add in the easy availability of cheap, portable D6s (as discussed by other users) then the current system works fine.

2d6 is not the same as a d12. they have different probability curves and its impossible to roll a 1 on 2d6.

10 is not that different from 6, both being similar scale of single digits. Might as well go whole hog with 20, which is percentile, grouped as 5.

Personally, as I think simple is better, I prefer 6, and use it in my game. But I'm not having to capture an ordinary person vs a mega Titan.

I don't think a switch to d10s really add anything mechanically. d6s can just as easily be manipulated statistically but just requires rerolls to do it, where as the immediate benefit to switching to d10s would be allowing units with BS higher than 5 to benefit from rules like twinlinked. Which isn't very common. Nor do I think it would really fix any of the major problems, such as units that are too tough or the lackluster assault rules or any number of things.

I think the reason some want to have d10s has less to do with mechanical reasons as it is fluff reasons. Almost every time someone brings this up it's under the context of "unit X should be better/worse at B than unit Y" or "unit X should not be so weak to wargear C" (great example: see the mountain of topics in proposed rules on terminators). So I doubt how much switching to d10s will help, and I in particular would rather not have to buy a huge bag of them for my orks.

Well the idea is to simplify gameplay while maintaining some of the richness of unit variety. You could eliminate some rerolls and make the game much more efficient.

You want unit stats to be on the same number scale as the dice ideally. And the more different types of units you want to fit into the game the larger the scale you want to use. D20 would also be very cool but would require much more overhaul of all the stats.

D6's are fine; it's the varying levels of balance that is the core issue.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

I think the reason some want to have d10s has less to do with mechanical reasons as it is fluff reasons. Almost every time someone brings this up it's under the context of "unit X should be better/worse at B than unit Y" or "unit X should not be so weak to wargear C" (great example: see the mountain of topics in proposed rules on terminators). So I doubt how much switching to d10s will help, and I in particular would rather not have to buy a huge bag of them for my orks.

It would allow for more variety in infantry from light, medium to heavy. Your veterans could then have higher WS and/or BS than regular units of the same type.

chaos0xomega wrote:
2d6 is not the same as a d12. they have different probability curves and its impossible to roll a 1 on 2d6.

True, but you also can't roll roll snake eyes on a D12. Sure it's not the same, but in terms of granularity it achieves similar results; which is why it's more of a workaround.

 MeanAss_Demasoni wrote:
It would allow for more variety in infantry from light, medium to heavy. Your veterans could then have higher WS and/or BS than regular units of the same type.

Or another solution is to use more of the strength/toughness/WS/BS tables. The numbers are from 1-10, but the vast majority of stuff has stats <5. The middle part of the chart is completely wasted, since S10 doesn't care if you're T2 or T5 and WS8 is still going to hit almost everything on 3s. What you could do is shift statlines up so that the more common values are 5/6/7 to open up the lower end of the spectrum for stuff that should be there (S6 to T8 is the same as S4 to T6). It allows greater dispersal of statlines. Obviously you would have to rebalance the vast majority of the game, but switching to a D10 or greater system would require a similar amount of effort; except at the end of the day you'd be using the nerd dice.

 greyknight12 wrote:
except at the end of the day you'd be using the nerd dice.

LOL

Well we're not less nerdy by much using 6 sided dice to play science fiction toy soldiers.

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:
I'd love a d10 system in 40k... and activation-based alternating turns. Of course at that point we're talking a major overhaul to the whole system, but it would almost certainly make 40k a better game.

You got it... Which armies should be ready first?

 greyknight12 wrote:
Or another solution is to use more of the strength/toughness/WS/BS tables. The numbers are from 1-10, but the vast majority of stuff has stats <5.

The notion that everything hits on a 5+, never misses on a 3+ is the real problem with how GW implements 40k. It's a major failing of the game that GW has the mechanics and tools to make meaningfully different forces at a fundamental stats way, but chooses to homogenize things on the tabletop. Orks are lousy shots, so let's let them hit 1/3 of the time, rather than 1/6 of the time, and then give them lots more cheap models and dice to negate their poor BS. What should be a crappy shooting army ends up having statistically consistent results. If BS1 actually was used, and HtH tables had cannot hit to automatic hit, that might be interesting.

It's weird that initiative or an agility based stat doesn't play into the ability to hit a target. As larger slower targets would be easier to hit, while smaller faster targets would be hard to hit. I can sort of see why they don't do this now, because it would really complicate things, but it you simplified things using a stat to dice matching D10 or D20 system you could actually implement this fairly easily.

There was a D10 40k back in 3rd that was posted online, it actually was pretty cool and you really got a better feel for the game in regards to weapons and armour.

It spiked terminators to 100pts each, but whatever.

I only ever saw the marines vs chaos marines. Nothing else was done.

I've heard this idea before and it sounds pretty good to me.

 Filch wrote:
Nope Nope Nope. Until they use d10s at casinos there wont be a cheap way to buy 30 d10s.

GW needs to make wh40k less complicated for use with d6s.

They do make Chessex D10 sets you can get for reasonably cheap, as in like 50cents a piece, with plenty of other places offering 10 for 10$.

It shouldn't really be a problem getting them.