Big FAQ - What do you want to see?

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.

**Karol**

vipoid wrote:

My suggestion would be to double the points of every unit in the game.

It would give a lot more breathing space in terms of tweaking point costs.

But won't that mean that everyone would just be playing with 4000pts armies. It doesn't really matter if my GK are 20-40pts or 2-4pts, or even 200-400pts per model, if everything is scaled up.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 773741 10411944 wrote:

This is something I can get behind. Frankly, I wish the game would move to D10's or higher. D6's don't offer enough granularity.

Martel732 wrote:Agreed.

I dont often agree with you but yes I wholeheartedly agree.

GW needs to sprinkle in some d10 & d12 to add in a little more chance & randomization.

it seems to work for Titanicus

**torblind**

Karol wrote:
vipoid wrote:

My suggestion would be to double the points of every unit in the game.

It would give a lot more breathing space in terms of tweaking point costs.

But won't that mean that everyone would just be playing with 4000pts armies. It doesn't really matter if my GK are 20-40pts or 2-4pts, or even 200-400pts per model, if everything is scaled up.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 773741 10411944 wrote:

This is something I can get behind. Frankly, I wish the game would move to D10's or higher. D6's don't offer enough granularity.

Martel732 wrote:Agreed.
I dont often agree with you but yes I wholeheartedly agree.

GW needs to sprinkle in some d10 & d12 to add in a little more chance & randomization.

it seems to work for Titanicus
how is bigger randomization is going to help anyone. All it would do is that the options that are least random would be prefared, along side of factions, rules and untis that limit the random factor, because you want a reliable flat result from your stuff, so you can plan things. And not hope that this time my d12D lasscannon is going to roll 11 and not 1.

They meant scale up and then do the tweaking. Just to have some more wiggle room.

BS3 on a D6 is the same as BS5 on a D12

**Smirrors**

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Leman Russ shooting twice should cost 2 CP like it does for everyone else.

Leman Russ can shoot twice for free if moving less than 5". If they move 10" and part of a special detachment costing 1CP, they pay 1CP to shoot twice. Seems fair and not broken. Have you been hurt by tank fire to feel this way?

**RogueApiary**

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
RogueApiary wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
RogueApiary wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I seriously can't believe some people are still arguing that Guard squads are not overpowered for their cost. And I was a die-hard fan of IG up until I played a different army and saw how easy guard have it.

The current state of guard is literally indefensible by logic, only by woo and irrationality.

Your forgetting the first rule of guard club
Never admit how powerful your units are. Like EVER !!!

I must admit I'm looking forward to seeing the data from the upcoming ITC season with best infaction requiring pure lists.
I suspect it's going to be interesting watching the results and how people try to spin those results.

What results? You're so far away from competitive play you have no idea what the changes to BiF even means. The change means absolutely nothing in terms of what takes top 8 at majors, which will still be soup. The only difference now is that soup players won't be taking BiF awards as consolation prize for not taking best in ITC. As for mono codex power, Mono-Guard are completely shut out of top tables by Eldar and I don't see that changing as long as -2/-3 is so stupidly easy to stack.

As for dealing with FRFSRF bogeymen, I would like to introduce you to the humble Deathwatch Intercessor.

10 Deathwatch Intercessors in cover vs FOUR Infantry squads and two company commanders with FRFSRF starting at 30"range. 180 points vs 220 points.
Turn One
One dead guard squad. Straight up deleted with hellfire rounds and reroll 1's to wound.
Guard squads move into 24" range, engage FRFSRF on three of the squads. 54 shots, 1.4 wounds after save, let's be generous and say we dropped an Intercessor. Without cover, it's 3 wounds, so either way, still 9 models left.

Turn Two
Second guard squad loses 9 men, probably not spending CP to save one guardsmen, he runs.
Guard squads move to 18", let's again be generous and say they're Armageddon, so now they're getting full value on FRFSRF. 72 shots. Another dead intercessor, two more dead intercessors out of cover.

Turn Three
Third guard squad takes 8 casualties, 7 if the Intercessors have not been in cover this whole time. We'll say the Guard player spent a CP to make it a 1D3 morale check and they passed though.
Guard squads move to 12", FRFSRF on the three survivors from squad three and the untouched squad. 49 shots. 1.29 wounds. feth it, let's just say they dropped another Intercessor cause the Guardsmen need the help at this point.

Turn Four
Intercessors can easily clean up with a round of shooting + charging. The company commanders might now be tying them up for the rest of the game, but the Guard player in this scenario burned 1 CP, has been wasting 4/6 possible orders the whole game, tied up or lost 220 points of their own units, and in ITC gave up at least four primary points on approach, with a probable two more from either Butcher's Bill or Reaper.

You could MMM all four of the squads turn one into RF range, but at that point, the play is to move up 6", split fire at the two furthest squads, and charge the full strength one before they can get a FRFSRF volley.

And when your Guard squads cost as much as a DW Intercessor Squad, you can complain about how weak they are. But why stop there? A guard squad can't compare to a Leviathan, NERF THE LEVIATHAN.

See, you can't compare the two. It's silly to do so. Also please point to me the lists loading out 8 squads of DW Intercessors that are winning majors. Hell, point to me the list of any DW w/ pure intercessors squads. So in effect, that is not a fair argument. DW is not in any way breaking the Meta with their overpoweredness.

Also you gave all the boneses to Intercessors, and took the guard out of RF range. This is horribly skewed. LOS exists for a reason.

I'm not complaining about how weak guardsmen are, I'm pointing out that FRFSRF guardsmen are not some OP punch above their weight squad in a realistic scenario and even used MORE points in guardsmen than Intercessors. Yes, if you magically got them all into RF range then they will punch above their weight. But unless you're a mouthbreather, the Guard player is never going to get that opportunity.

Because the guardsmen don't start in RF range. And there's no way you're maneuvering 40 models without at least one squad of them being in LOS. If anything, this was skewed in favor of the guardsmen. The guardsmen have 40 points and two extra CP in this scenario and the best possible regiment tactic for FRFSRF. Cadian can't get rerolls on the move.

I didn't give DW 'all the bonuses', I gave them their chapter tactic and standard ammo for a T3 target. That's like complaining about me simulating Raven Guard getting their -1 to hit.

I have never seen a player in game make the choice to send intercessor squads after entrenched guard squads holding objectives. I wonder why.

Because they can sit at 30" and kill a squad per turn without receiving any return fire?

**Karol**

torblind 773741 10412056 wrote:

They meant scale up and then do the tweaking. Just to have some more wiggle room.

BS3 on a D6 is the same as BS5 on a D12

that does make more sense. Although if they can't get the stats to rules to point costs with d6 based system am not sure if a larger range is going to make it possible for them to get it right. And I stay with my view on randomness, the less random and flat result options are in general better then random ones. If a plasma gun went to d4 and lascannon was d12, the plasma would stay a better anti tank weapon.

**Arachnofiend**

Bigger points really only matters for the smaller units; like, just as an example let's say the absolute ideal cost for a unit was between a grot and a guardsman, assuming for the sake of this argument that both of these models are currently priced correctly.

Under the current points cost, this model should be 3.5 points, right? But GW can't/won't do that, so the model will inevitably be either slightly under or slightly overcosted. For such a low cost model being "slightly" off in tuning can make for some massive differences in power. If points costs on everything was doubled then this model can instead cost 7 points so nobody has to worry about decimals.

**Sunny Side Up**

Smirrors wrote:
Sunny Side Up wrote:

Leman Russ shooting twice should cost 2 CP like it does for everyone else.

Leman Russ can shoot twice for free if moving less than 5". If they move 10" and part of a special detachment costing 1CP, they pay 1CP to shoot twice. Seems fair and not broken. Have you been hurt by tank fire to feel this way?

It was an ironic response to people saying Ynnari Dark Reapers should pay CP to shoot twice (instead of foregoing their chapter tactics, free relic, a useable warlord, etc... , etc..). But I guess people have been butt hurt by Ynnari too much.

Either way, different armies, different rules for double-activation. I'd actually hate to lose the diversity.

**torblind**

Karol wrote:
torblind 773741 10412056 wrote:

They meant scale up and then do the tweaking. Just to have some more wiggle room.

BS3 on a D6 is the same as BS5 on a D12

that does make more sense. Although if they can't get the stats to rules to point costs with d6 based system am not sure if a larger range is going to make it possible for them to get it right. And I stay with my view on randomness, the less random and flat result options are in general better then random ones. If a plasma gun went to d4 and lascannon was d12, the plasma would stay a better anti tank weapon.

Oh I agree, it's a tall order. But look at it this way, if they got better at balancing the game within the D6 system and current point scale, to the point were a lot of people were happier, which in many ways is the success criterion as things stand, then they likely are capable of scaling it up, eg to D12, and doubling the points (or just the points and leave the dice), and now making it even better.

A lot of this thread, and the thousand threads before it, evolve around what the right point cost is for a guardsman compared to a tactical marine. Doubling the point system certainly would reduce the risk that things go horrendously wrong if they make adjustments. One gets the impression from those people posting in those thousand threads that even a single point difference is make or break for the AM. If a marine is 30pt (weren't they at some point in 2nd?) and a guardsman is 12pt, then adjusting that to 13 or 11 would wreak less havoc in the process.

**Ice_can**

The other advantages of a D12 over a D6 System is it more than halfs the impact of -1 and +1 to roll effects.
It allows for more flavour variations like vets can hit on 1 better than troops etc.

Also a lasgub goes from wounding a baneblade 8% of the time to 4% of the time, much more reasonable.

**Tyel**

torblind wrote:
A lot of this thread, and the thousand threads before it, evolve around what the right point cost is for a guardsman compared to a tactical marine. Doubling the point system certainly would reduce the risk that things go horrendously wrong if they make adjustments. One gets the impression from those people posting in those thousand threads that even a single point difference is make or break for the AM. If a marine is 30pt (weren't they at some point in 2nd?) and a guardsman is 12pt, then adjusting that to 13 or 11 would wreak less havoc in the process.

Yeah, but a lot of it is complaining, not really reality.
You have people who think Guardsmen are "fine" now, and at 5 points would become unplayable trash.
You have people who think Guardsmen are amongst the best troops in the game, and would carry on being competitive at 5 points.

They are not going to meet in the middle if say a Guardsman should be 4.5 points.

My personal take is that doubling the points - or moving from a D6 system to a D10/D12 system - is a solution looking for a problem. I can't think of a single unit in the game where the difference between them being overpowered, and an awful trap choice, is a single point. I don't see how a game system that typically revolves around rolling say 3-5+ on a D6 would suddenly become dramatically different if you were typically fishing for 4-8+ on a D12.
I just can't credit the idea that lasguns wounding baneblades too much (1 every 36 shots?) is a real problem for the game. You can have a broader probability distribution - but I struggle to believe fishing for 12s on a D12 is going to be fun. Fishing for 6s is usually a sign of bad or desperate play.

**Karol**

Ice_can wrote:
The other advantages of a D12 over a D6 System is it more than halfs the impact of -1 and +1 to roll effects.
It allows for more flavour variations like vets can hit on 1 better than troops etc.

Also a lasgub goes from wounding a baneblade 8% of the time to 4% of the time, much more reasonable.

I have feeling, and this is no a weak argument I know, that as soon as we moved to a d10 or d12, we would be seeing -2 or maybe even -3 to rolls.

Oh I agree, it's a tall order. But look at it this way, if they got better at balancing the game within the D6 system and current point scale, to the point were a lot of people were happier, which in many ways is the success criterion as things stand, then they likely are capable of scaling it up, eg to D12, and doubling the points (or just the points and leave the dice), and now making it even better.

Could be, am hardly an expert on w40k rules design. I have my own views, but they don't have to be correct. What I think is true though, is that no matter if we roll with a d4 or d20, GW always does weird stuff with their point costing. A pred is costed as if one person wrote its point costs and decided that it should be costed as if people roll +5 on theid damage, same with stuff like termintors or stuff with +5 or +6 inv. On the other hand some other units are costed by a different dude, and he points units on avarges and under values flat damage of 2-3. A lot of problems are, IMO, coming from such unit cost design.

**torblind**

Karol wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
The other advantages of a D12 over a D6 System is it more than halfs the impact of -1 and +1 to roll effects.
It allows for more flavour variations like vets can hit on 1 better than troops etc.

Also a lasgub goes from wounding a baneblade 8% of the time to 4% of the time, much more reasonable.

I have feeling, and this is no a weak argument I know, that as soon as we moved to a d10 or d12, we would be seeing -2 or maybe even -3 to rolls.

Oh I agree, it's a tall order. But look at it this way, if they got better at balancing the game within the D6 system and current point scale, to the point were a lot of people were happier, which in many ways is the success criterion as things stand, then they likely are capable of scaling it up, eg to D12, and doubling the points (or just the points and leave the dice), and now making it even better.

Could be, am hardly an expert on w40k rules design. I have my own views, but they don't have to be correct. What I think is true though, is that no matter if we roll with a d4 or d20, GW always does weird stuff with their point costing. A pred is costed as if one person wrote its point costs and decided that it should be costed as if people roll +5 on theid damage, same with stuff like termintors or stuff with +5 or +6 inv. On the other hand some other units are costed by a different dude, and he points units on avarges and under values flat damage of 2-3. A lot of problems are, IMO, coming from such unit cost design.

Sure. If they're quakjobs at the current point scale with D6, they'll be quackjobs at double the points with D12. The premises of something like that coming together, is that they are able. Finer granularity is what it is. nothing more, nothing less.

**Ice_can**

Tyel wrote:
torblind wrote:
A lot of this thread, and the thousand threads before it, evolve around what the right point cost is for a guardsman compared to a tactical marine. Doubling the point system certainly would reduce the risk that things go horrendously wrong if they make adjustments. One gets the impression from those people posting in those thousand threads that even a single point difference is make or break for the AM. If a marine is 30pt (weren't they at some point in 2nd?) and a guardsman is 12pt, then adjusting that to 13 or 11 would wreak less havoc in the process.

Yeah, but a lot of it is complaining, not really reality.
You have people who think Guardsmen are "fine" now, and at 5 points would become unplayable trash.
You have people who think Guardsmen are amongst the best troops in the game, and would carry on being competitive at 5 points.

They are not going to meet in the middle if say a Guardsman should be 4.5 points.

My personal take is that doubling the points - or moving from a D6 system to a D10/D12 system - is a solution looking for a problem. I can't think of a single unit in the game where the difference between them being overpowered, and an awful trap choice, is a single point. I don't see how a game system that typically revolves around rolling say 3-5+ on a D6 would suddenly become dramatically different if you were typically fishing for 4-8+ on a D12.
I just can't credit the idea that lasguns wounding baneblades too much (1 every 36 shots?) is a real problem for the game. You can have a broader probability distribution - but I struggle to believe fishing for 12s on a D12 is going to be fun. Fishing for 6s is usually a sign of bad or desperate play.

The difference is a D12 would allow the to wound chart to be rewritten so middle strength weapons arn't the go too

**Not Online!!!**

Ice_can wrote:
Tyel wrote:
torblind wrote:
A lot of this thread, and the thousand threads before it, evolve around what the right point cost is for a guardsman compared to a tactical marine. Doubling the point system certainly would reduce the risk that things go horrendously wrong if they make adjustments. One gets the impression from those people posting in those thousand threads that even a single point difference is make or break for the AM. If a marine is 30pt (weren't they at some point in 2nd?) and a guardsman is 12pt, then adjusting that to 13 or 11 would wreak less havoc in the process.

Yeah, but a lot of it is complaining, not really reality.
You have people who think Guardsmen are "fine" now, and at 5 points would become unplayable trash.
You have people who think Guardsmen are amongst the best troops in the game, and would carry on being competitive at 5 points.

They are not going to meet in the middle if say a Guardsman should be 4.5 points.

My personal take is that doubling the points - or moving from a D6 system to a D10/D12 system - is a solution looking for a problem. I can't think of a single unit in the game where the difference between them being overpowered, and an awful trap choice, is a single point. I don't see how a game system that typically revolves around rolling say 3-5+ on a D6 would suddenly become dramatically different if you were typically fishing for 4-8+ on a D12.
I just can't credit the idea that lasguns wounding baneblades too much (1 every 36 shots?) is a real problem for the game. You can have a broader probability distribution - but I struggle to believe fishing for 12s on a D12 is going to be fun. Fishing for 6s is usually a sign of bad or desperate play.

The difference is a D12 would allow the to wound chart to be rewritten so middle strength weapons arn't the go too

What do you classify as middlestrength?

**vipoid**

Karol wrote:

But won't that mean that everyone would just be playing with 4000pts armies. It doesn't really matter if my GK are 20-40pts or 2-4pts, or even 200-400pts per model, if everything is scaled up.

I actually said that it should be scaled up and then tweaked from there.

You might ask what the difference is, and the answer is that it gives far more design space.

As it stands, you've got a load of cheap models all clustered together. Gretchin are 3pts (IIRC), Conscripts, Guardsmen and Gaunts are 4pts, Veterans and Cultists are 5pts, Kabalites are 6pts. Fire Warriors are 7pts. The first issue here is that even a single point makes a big difference. A 1pt increase on Guardsmen is 25% of their cost. The second issue is the knock-on effect. If guardsmen go up then Veterans have to go up. If Veterans go up then people expect Kabalites to go up, and then Fire Warriors would need to go up etc.

However, if you double the costs, then we have Gretchin at 6pts, Conscripts, Guardsmen and Gaunts at 8pts, Veterans and Cultists at 10pts, Kabalites at 12pts, Fire Warriors at 14pts etc. Now adding or removing a point is less of an increase (12.5% for guardsmen). What's more, you can increase or decrease costs without immediately treading on the toes of other units. If you add a point to guardsmen, they're still cheaper than veterans. If you remove a point from Conscripts, they're still more expensive than Gretchin.

It just gives you much more space to work in.

**ThatMG**

BUILDINGS to actually matter, with supported rules and to actually be used on the table top.
Standard Detachments should gain fortification slots so you don't have to WASTE a detach on it.
Mby destructible terrain if possible.

**FezzikDaBullgryn**

Honestly, I don't mind switching dice, because as a D&D player I have buckets of different types. My concern becomes when I am throwing them on the table. 40 d6 die can be easily contained and don't generally make a mess. 40 d12s will knock over models, terrain, and possibly damage someone's Celestine.

Unless we do something to limit the amount of die being used, this may result in slowing down the game or having a seperate rolling areas. Neither of these are major concerns, merely inconveniences.

That being said, I would much rather do D20s, and redo the way shots work.

Instead of rolling individual shots, roll a D20 to see how many shots were "effective hits" or something like that. That would seriously speed things up if you only had to roll one die.

But then, you'll get ork and guard players in here say "Muh buckets of die!!!"

**Wayniac**

A lot of the stuff mentioned aren't really FAQ material.. as much as I'd like to see them change the dice, that's a new edition. They probably should go with 2d6 like Warmahordes does, model to model instead of unit to unit, but the scale of the game would have to drastically come down (I don't think that would be a bad thing).

Honestly, I am not very hopeful for GW to fix issues. Their FAQs are always 6 months out of date based on the "meta"

**FezzikDaBullgryn**

So GW came out and publicly stated FAQ will not be making any large changes from now on.

Here's something they can FAQ out. Kellermorphs need to be removed from the game, entirely. Or at least made show they can't pop in out of nowhere, delete a character or two. Oh and you can have 3 of them. Nononononononononono.

**Not Online!!!**

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So GW came out and publicly stated FAQ will not be making any large changes from now on.

Here's something they can FAQ out. Kellermorphs need to be removed from the game, entirely. Or at least made show they can't pop in out of nowhere, delete a character or two. Oh and you can have 3 of them. Nononononononononono.

PFT, the kellermorph is probably the least evil of those charachters, the new vindicare summoning makes that one even more annoying.

**Ice_can**

Not Online!!! wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
Tyel wrote:
torblind wrote:
A lot of this thread, and the thousand threads before it, evolve around what the right point cost is for a guardsman compared to a tactical marine. Doubling the point system certainly would reduce the risk that things go horrendously wrong if they make adjustments. One gets the impression from those people posting in those thousand threads that even a single point difference is make or break for the AM. If a marine is 30pt (weren't they at some point in 2nd?) and a guardsman is 12pt, then adjusting that to 13 or 11 would wreak less havoc in the process.

Yeah, but a lot of it is complaining, not really reality.
You have people who think Guardsmen are "fine" now, and at 5 points would become unplayable trash.
You have people who think Guardsmen are amongst the best troops in the game, and would carry on being competitive at 5 points.

They are not going to meet in the middle if say a Guardsman should be 4.5 points.

My personal take is that doubling the points - or moving from a D6 system to a D10/D12 system - is a solution looking for a problem. I can't think of a single unit in the game where the difference between them being overpowered, and an awful trap choice, is a single point. I don't see how a game system that typically revolves around rolling say 3-5+ on a D6 would suddenly become dramatically different if you were typically fishing for 4-8+ on a D12.
I just can't credit the idea that lasguns wounding baneblades too much (1 every 36 shots?) is a real problem for the game. You can have a broader probability distribution - but I struggle to believe fishing for 12s on a D12 is going to be fun. Fishing for 6s is usually a sign of bad or desperate play.

The difference is a D12 would allow the to wound chart to be rewritten so middle strength weapons arn't the go too

What do you classify as middlestrength?

S5-6 mainly and some S7, things like plasma shouldn't be S7-8 it should be S6-7 it's for anti heavy infantry not tank busting, that's why melta exsist in the lore

Basically do S+6-T is what you have to roll on a D12 to wound with 1 and 12 being the auto fail/success though I'm not a huge fan of the auto success.

S & T might need doubled to make it work better maybe it's just too complicated for modern GW. But right now the system scales wierdly IMHO , it's easy to doubleout Low strength but S5-7 doesn't even against Titans

**Galef**

ThatMG wrote:
BUILDINGS to actually matter, with supported rules and to actually be used on the table top.
Standard Detachments should gain fortification slots so you don't have to WASTE a detach on it.
Mby destructible terrain if possible.

A-friggin-men to that. Although I'd doubt this being FAQ'd. GW just needs to release a 8E version of Stronghold Assault with all the datasheets for Fortifications and terrain that works, including an amended Battalion with a Fort slot.
I'd love to be able to actually put my own models on my own Landing Pad, but currently it's technically illegal, which is complete bunk

-

**Nibbler**

For the dice-discussion:
I like the D20 System - as it's used in Infinity.
Maybe do something like their critical hits / saves...

But this wouldn't be something you do in an FaQ. It's an Edition Change. Same as the Point-Doubling.
Sounds good - won't happen.

**BaconCatBug**

D20 for a game that can have upwards of 500 models or a unit that can make close to 200 dice rolls in a standard 2k game is totally unfeasable.

I too would love to see a move to a mixed D3/D6/D12 system but that won't ever happen.

**combatcotton**

D20 scatter far too wide. D12 would be the easier transformation from D6 but D10 is easier to grasp your odds of getting anything done.

**Galef**

I'd be ok with SOME D10s/12s in the game for 1-dice-needed rolls.
But I am adamantly opposed to the whole system getting uprooted and D6s removed entirely. D6s are just far too convenience and I shudder to think of rolling a handful of D12s for anything.

What I think is a missed opportunity that GW has all but abandoned is the d6+x, d3+x, 2d3, etc rolls. So, so many weapons would be so much better if their Damage or # of Shots were D3+1 or 2d3, etc
Why does everything with a random number have to be a boring d6 or d3 only?
Imagine Flamers with 2d3 hits, or Lascannons with d3+2 Damage? They would be FAR more reliable weapons

-

**combatcotton**

Would you roll 10 d10?

**Galef**

combatcotton wrote:
Would you roll 10 d10?

Sure...for 10 separate unrelated rolls one at a time. But all at once for a single roll? No thanx.
If it ain't a cube, throw it down the tube!

-

**Martel732**

I've rolled 16 colored d10s for bab5 wars. Its fine.

**Galef**

Martel732 wrote:
I've rolled 16 colored d10s for bab5 wars. Its fine.

I can get over the inconvenience of rolling big honking d10s/12s, and maybe even the annoyance of reading them once rolled (because it's easy to see the other numbers on the sides opposed to those at a 90 degree angle of a cube).
But what I could never get over, unless GW sell them cheaply (as-if), is how much more it would cost to buy 20+ non-d6s.

There's also something satisfying about storing all your d6s in a nice neat block, instead of the sheer chaos of multiple non-cubed shaped dice in a bag.
In short, d6s need to remain the bulk of the necessary dice for most rolls, but the occasional one-off d10/12 roll would be fine.
But I still think d3+2, d6+1, 2d3 rolls need to make a comeback in 40K

-