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.

So, maybe I missed the main thrust of the discourse, but what is the reasoning behind the push for replacing the d6 for the d10 or d20? I see it mentioned anywhere but I don't think I've actually seen the reasoning explained.


I've heard some of the arguments, primarily the granularity argument, but in that case I'd like to ask where would it be implemented? What advantages does a d10 system have compared to the d6 on something like the old pre-7th to-wound chart? Does it make it simpler to the to-wound chart, or more complicated?


If there are other arguments, I'll gladly hear them as well.

Forum tools in the top left corner and then search for D10 and D20 to find some arguments.

Using D10s to hit and to wound would mean a +1 or -1 to hit would have less impact. Right now if you want to have a -1 to hit mechanic because an army is sneaky you have to set up a bunch of conditions to avoid it being OP.

The advantage is getting rid of rules bloat. With a D6 the minimum increment in probability is 16.6%, and in most cases because 1s auto-fail there are only five real values available. Then that gets reduced even more by things like design rules that only the best elite characters can have BS/WS 2+, or that no (normal) unit ever has BS/WS 6+. So in practical terms a normal unit has two options for hit rolls: it can have BS/WS 3+ like most of the game, or it can be cannon fodder trash at BS/WS 4+. If you want to add any other increments you need to do it with special rules. A unit can have BS 4+ but re-roll 1s to be slightly more elite than cannon fodder but not as good as a normal unit, a unit can have WS 3+ and fight first to be better in melee without violating the "no WS 2+" rule, etc. The end result is a spectacularly bloated mess of rules and exceptions to rules and rules modifying the rules, all to do basic tasks like determine if a unit hits or misses.

With a different die you can cut a lot of the bloat. If you have a D20 system, with a minimum increment of 5%, you no longer need layers of special rules to go from 60% hit probability to 70% hit probability. You don't need to re-roll 1s, you don't need to add bonus AP to give an equivalent increase in damage, you don't need stratagems or aura buffs or any of that nonsense. You just add +2 to the unit's basic stat line (which now has 15+ valid values instead of just 2-3) and you're done. You get a much more elegant game while losing no strategic depth.

(The reason GW won't do it is that the rules bloat gives the illusion of depth and taking it away reveals the fact that 40k is an incredibly shallow game with few meaningful decisions outside of list optimization. That's why Apocalypse in 8th edition was such a failure, it was too honest and just told you the final target number on a D12 instead of making you add up half a dozen layers of modifiers on a D6 and letting you pretend that playing the obvious buff stratagem is somehow an act of strategic brilliance.)

All the pros of switching to other dice are pretty much expanding the design space and allowing more granularity. Which as was pointed out above would let them take some of the layers of rules off that help them differentiate units. This is a very valid point.

Advantages of not changeing are that d6 are common (everyone has some kicking around the house) so it’s one less barrier to play. Not sure how relevant that is to GW, as they would love to sell you bespoke dice. Personally I’ve decided not to pick up games because I’d have to get bizarre dice to play them (WH fantasy roleplay)

When you roll a bunch of dice it’s easier to sort and tally d6s over other dice. I’ve played games that roll handfulls of d10s, and it does take longer. I’d hate to see an ork mob do it. Counterpoint: if you had more design space with the dice range, you could set it up where you were not chucking 40 at a time for a unit’s action.

The d6 also has nostalgia and tradition going for it. Changing too a new die would burn a lot of bridges and require a ground up rework. They would loose a lot of older players. Is it worth the risk?

40K can offer more outcomes than just five when using a D6. It all depends on the kind of rules being implemented. Here an example of BS scores from 1-10:

1: Hits on 6.
2: Hits on 5+.
3: Hits on 4+.
4: Hits on 3+.
5: Hits on 2+.
6: Rerolls on a roll of 1. Hits with reroll on 6.
7: Rerolls on a roll of 1. Hits with reroll on 5+.
8: Rerolls on a roll of 1. Hits with reroll on 4+.
9: Rerolls on a roll of 1. Hits with reroll on 3+.
10: Rerolls on a roll of 1. Hits with reroll on 2+.

The problem is not the D6 but the stupid decision from GW to have never really used the whole range from BS 1-10. Most units in the game only had BS scores of 2-4.

Close combat may have also vastly different outcomes. See HH 2.0 where you only hit your opponent on 5+ when he exceeds your score by one point.

 Strg Alt wrote:
40K can offer more outcomes than just five when using a D6. It all depends on the kind of rules being implemented. Here an example of BS scores from 1-10:

1: Hits on 6.
2: Hits on 5+.
3: Hits on 4+.
4: Hits on 3+.
5: Hits on 2+.
6: Rerolls on a roll of 1. Hits with reroll on 6.
7: Rerolls on a roll of 1. Hits with reroll on 5+.
8: Rerolls on a roll of 1. Hits with reroll on 4+.
9: Rerolls on a roll of 1. Hits with reroll on 3+.
10: Rerolls on a roll of 1. Hits with reroll on 2+.

The problem is not the D6 but the stupid decision from GW to have never really used the whole range from BS 1-10. Most units in the game only had BS scores of 2-4.

Close combat may have also vastly different outcomes. See HH 2.0 where you only hit your opponent on 5+ when he exceeds your score by one point.

Yeah, and D6 are nice and fast to sort and gather to roll again, so multiple rolls is quicker than it is with higher sided dice.

Also, I never really understood the dislike for the to hit - to wound - to save system, as it basically gives you some of the granularity back that is lost for using a D6.

Games like Epic 40k, where most of the time there's only 1 roll between life and death of a unit, that might benefit from D10, but even then I dunno how much I'd like rolling that many D10s.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
40K can offer more outcomes than just five when using a D6. It all depends on the kind of rules being implemented. Here an example of BS scores from 1-10:

1: Hits on 6.
2: Hits on 5+.
3: Hits on 4+.
4: Hits on 3+.
5: Hits on 2+.
6: Rerolls on a roll of 1. Hits with reroll on 6.
7: Rerolls on a roll of 1. Hits with reroll on 5+.
8: Rerolls on a roll of 1. Hits with reroll on 4+.
9: Rerolls on a roll of 1. Hits with reroll on 3+.
10: Rerolls on a roll of 1. Hits with reroll on 2+.

The problem is not the D6 but the stupid decision from GW to have never really used the whole range from BS 1-10. Most units in the game only had BS scores of 2-4.

Close combat may have also vastly different outcomes. See HH 2.0 where you only hit your opponent on 5+ when he exceeds your score by one point.

Yeah, and D6 are nice and fast to sort and gather to roll again, so multiple rolls is quicker than it is with higher sided dice.

Also, I never really understood the dislike for the to hit - to wound - to save system, as it basically gives you some of the granularity back that is lost for using a D6.

Games like Epic 40k, where most of the time there's only 1 roll between life and death of a unit, that might benefit from D10, but even then I dunno how much I'd like rolling that many D10s.

Yes, the size of dice are an issue too. If you really wanted to use larger dice than you have to drastically change how units do damage as assigning one attack dice (or even more) per single model isn´t feasible anymore. You would need to look at the unit loadout and determine the amount of offensive power in an abstract way. And it will get more complicated when casualties occur. Then you have to ask yourself, if you try to accomodate that fact or handle the unit as if it were at full strength like some video games do.

the original system in Warhammer was meant to simulate a single D20, but having 3 D6 rolled

to hit, to wound and armour

yet GW never came on using the full potential of the D6 as it is, like with the "to hit" roll were instead going from 2-6 we only saw 3-5
same with the old armour system were only 2-3 meant something in the game

than came the "buffs" and flat +1 means a lot when the effective results are a D3

therefore the argument for most people is that another dice would allow greater granularity and improves the system
but the problem won't go away with that

because if GW using just 3 results on a D6, this won't change with a D12, even the +1 would have the same big effect


on the other hand, having opposing stats and a D6 to roll on a table would improve the system within the possibilities of GW design

S VS T and WS/BS VS Initiative, in addition with a hard cap (something like S= T*2+1 = auto wound, T = S*2+1 no wound possible) for both

the problem is not the D6 by itself, the problem is GW design rules, hence without removing the problem, changing from a D6 to a D12 won't do anything but making the problem mor obvious

You know originally 40K wasn't a d6 game. You had to use all sizes of dice to determine damage back in RT and 2nd Ed games. I don't recall specific examples but I remember having to roll Xd20 + Yd12 + other dice to determine whether you penetrated the armor of a vehicle and then you rolled for where and how much damage you inflicted.

At the current scale and model based rules, D6s are the only viable option.

If you want larger dice, either reduce the size of the battles or change to fully abstracted unit based rules. But a game in which you can deploy hundreds of infantry models and expect each one of them to be individually represented by the rules can only be done with D6s.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
You know originally 40K wasn't a d6 game. You had to use all sizes of dice to determine damage back in RT and 2nd Ed games. I don't recall specific examples but I remember having to roll XdA + YdB + other dice to determine whether you penetrated the armor of a vehicle and then you rolled for where and how much damage you inflicted.

Yes, I remember my 2nd edition box set coming with only d6 dice while several of the games' weapons used other polyhedral dice types (d4; d10; d12) for armor penetration rolls. My assumption then and now is that at the time (and still now) 40k was primarily sold at game shops with a lot of D&D/RPG players like myself who were expanding into tabletop wargames and those players were familiar with and already had a collection of such dice types.

On the topic of d10-d20 granularity, take a look at the most recent version of the Apocalypse ruleset. It uses both d6 and d12 dice types, sometimes for the same game mechanics like during the damage phase. For example, a small damage "blast" marker on a unit will allows the unit to make an armor save roll using a d12 die. A large damage "blast" marker will require that the save be made on a d6 die. Obviously this changes how the game plays and allows for a wider array of dice rolling probabilities (ex. you are a lot more likely to make a 5+ armor save on a d12 than on a d6). Apocalypse is a great ruleset for several reasons, with this d6/d12 system being one of them.

Anyone claiming such a switch in dice will reduce rules bloat is simply deluded.

All that would happen is that GW would promptly start filling in the greater design space larger dice would allow.
You think bloat is bad now? Go ahead, give GW another 4 - 6 pips to play with on the dice. Or worse, another 14....
Let's also not forget that many pining for these larger dice ranges ALSO think GW is incompetent at writing rules.
So not only will you get more bloat, you'll get it via heaping doses of BAD rules.

ccs wrote:
Anyone claiming such a switch in dice will reduce rules bloat is simply deluded.

All that would happen is that GW would promptly start filling in the greater design space larger dice would allow.
You think bloat is bad now? Go ahead, give GW another 4 - 6 pips to play with on the dice. Or worse, another 14....
Let's also not forget that many pining for these larger dice ranges ALSO think GW is incompetent at writing rules.
So not only will you get more bloat, you'll get it via heaping doses of BAD rules.

I'm also curious what values people expect on these d10/whatever to be normal. What would an ork need to hit at range/melee, or a marine for example.

From prior conversations, the whole process results in yet more values to ignore/never use.

Its clear a significant number of people have this strong "rules=fluff regardless of game impact", and so having more faces on the dice allows for more distinction between units.

So a D12 system would allow you to have say Guardsmen BS working out as 7+, Guardians as 6+, Marines at 5+, Necron Destroyers at 4+, Custodes at 3+ and say Vindicare Assasins at 2+.

The idea though that this would make the game much more fun however eludes me. It might help to have this system rather than having half the game have "rerolls 1s" - but arguably you could handle that in other ways.

Aecus Decimus wrote:
You don't need to re-roll 1s, you don't need to add bonus AP to give an equivalent increase in damage, you don't need stratagems or aura buffs or any of that nonsense. You just add +2 to the unit's basic stat line (which now has 15+ valid values instead of just 2-3) and you're done. You get a much more elegant game while losing no strategic depth.

(The reason GW won't do it is that the rules bloat gives the illusion of depth and taking it away reveals the fact that 40k is an incredibly shallow game with few meaningful decisions outside of list optimization. That's why Apocalypse in 8th edition was such a failure, it was too honest and just told you the final target number on a D12 instead of making you add up half a dozen layers of modifiers on a D6 and letting you pretend that playing the obvious buff stratagem is somehow an act of strategic brilliance.)

I don't think it has much to do with any illusions of "strategic depth". Special rules, stratagems, etc. add a level of immersion and viscerality that you won't accomplish with just making an elite unit BS7 instead of BS6. A named special rule makes the unit feel "cooler".

People just enjoy being involved in the game, making more rolls etc., if it's reduced to pure statline differences I think many will feel that the game is cold and bare, regardless of the strategic depth of the gameplay.

Keel wrote:
I don't think it has much to do with any illusions of "strategic depth". Special rules, stratagems, etc. add a level of immersion and viscerality that you won't accomplish with just making an elite unit BS7 instead of BS6. A named special rule makes the unit feel "cooler".

People just enjoy being involved in the game, making more rolls etc., if it's reduced to pure statline differences I think many will feel that the game is cold and bare, regardless of the strategic depth of the gameplay.

Yes, that's exactly what I mean about an illusion of strategic depth. A 46% chance to hit is a 46% chance to hit whether you get it directly by rolling a D100 with a 46 as the target number or by a convoluted stack of re-rolls and modifiers and bonus attacks and exploding 6s on a D6. But having to deal with a bunch of rules bloat lets you pretend that it all has meaning and that you're making brilliant strategic decisions. None of it is real, you're still rolling the exact same RNG, but because you touch more dice and get to name a bunch of cool-sounding rules you think you're playing something way deeper than it really is.

It's just sad that GW has convinced people like you that rules bloat is the only way to have fun, that a game is "cold and bare" if it just tells you the target number instead of going through a bunch of pointless dice modifiers first. Genuinely fun games create fun by building a compelling narrative on the table and by interesting matches of move and counter-move, not by having needless complexity in their mechanics. A game witht the straightforward D100 roll can be just as fun and engaging as a GW game, and will often be more fun and engaging because it can spend its complexity budget on things that matter instead of on awkwardly turning a D6 into a D100.

Why do Destroyers need more BS than Craftworld Guardians? Just make them WS/BS 2 if they are that much better than Guardians, otherwise, they're not so much better that it matters, re-rolling 1s for Destroyers is just a relic of past editions and a waste of time.

Making them +1 to hit against units with a missing model, would be an actually interesting rule. Make the Destroyer Lords have an aura of +1 to wound against units that are half-strength. Those would be actually interesting rules that change how the unit plays in a thematic manner.

Living Metal is not bloat, Necrons healing instead of just being bags of wounds is very thematic and enjoyable. There are offensive rules that could be changed to be like that, the rest can be removed with a small pts reduction. Like fight on death and +1 WS is not the same thing. Fight on death makes the unit more effective against melee threats, +1 WS just makes the unit killier in melee, if the unit is supposed to be the most badassest duelists around just giving them +1 WS is boring.

Auras do actually increase strategic depth because you have to weigh better positioning against losing out on the aura. Re-roll 1s is a bad way to add strategic depth because it takes time to resolve, but it's not just useless bloat.

What about the HQs? Give them master-crafted weapons. Just make it an ability all HQs get +1 Damage on weapons. Some 500 pt games tend to devolve into slap-fights, this would also go towards fixing that. Maybe reduce the damage on some weapons like thunder hammers to avoid things getting too crazy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gnarlly wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
You know originally 40K wasn't a d6 game. You had to use all sizes of dice to determine damage back in RT and 2nd Ed games. I don't recall specific examples but I remember having to roll XdA + YdB + other dice to determine whether you penetrated the armor of a vehicle and then you rolled for where and how much damage you inflicted.

Yes, I remember my 2nd edition box set coming with only d6 dice while several of the games' weapons used other polyhedral dice types (d4; d10; d12) for armor penetration rolls. My assumption then and now is that at the time (and still now) 40k was primarily sold at game shops with a lot of D&D/RPG players like myself who were expanding into tabletop wargames and those players were familiar with and already had a collection of such dice types.

On the topic of d10-d20 granularity, take a look at the most recent version of the Apocalypse ruleset. It uses both d6 and d12 dice types, sometimes for the same game mechanics like during the damage phase. For example, a small damage "blast" marker on a unit will allows the unit to make an armor save roll using a d12 die. A large damage "blast" marker will require that the save be made on a d6 die. Obviously this changes how the game plays and allows for a wider array of dice rolling probabilities (ex. you are a lot more likely to make a 5+ armor save on a d12 than on a d6). Apocalypse is a great ruleset for several reasons, with this d6/d12 system being one of them.

Apocalypse is a terrible ruleset especially because of this. There are no armour penetrating weapons, there's just a question of whether you want to apply an even or uneven number of wounds to a unit, it's the same sort of garbage design as the Damage stat in AoS, terrible design. Remove the D12s and add armour penetrating weapons, balance points and you'd have a game that might be interesting.

Because a bigger spread would make representing rules easier. A salamanders are artificiers, so they armour is stronger.Impossible to represent under a d6 system where a +2 sv on a regular dude would be too strong on top of AoC. But under a d10 system it is not only easier, but also possible. A khorn berzerker can be stronger then an alfa legioner. An Ironhand can be tougher, because of those cybernetics, then lets say a SW, while a DG marine could be made really tough. Such freedom would often remove the need for unit or army wide extra mechanics.

Karol wrote:
Because a bigger spread would make representing rules easier. A salamanders are artificiers, so they armour is stronger.Impossible to represent under a d6 system where a +2 sv on a regular dude would be too strong on top of AoC. But under a d10 system it is not only easier, but also possible. A khorn berzerker can be stronger then an alfa legioner. An Ironhand can be tougher, because of those cybernetics, then lets say a SW, while a DG marine could be made really tough. Such freedom would often remove the need for unit or army wide extra mechanics.

A Salamanders Tactical Marine shouldn't have a 3+ while Ultramarines have a 4+ Sv on a D10, that's way too much power in Chapter Tactics and makes it extremely unlikely that the codex will be internally balanced. A lack of internal balance is the reason for most external balance issues. Treating AP-1 as AP- would work if you really need Salamanders to have better armour, although I doubt you'll find fluff to support Salamanders having vastly better armour than Ultras in any case outside fluff that was written specifically to justify Chapter Tactics after the fact.

mkVIII is said to be better armour than mkVII, and Terminator Armour is the best a humanoid can wear

so going with a D12: 5+ for mkVII, 4+ for mkVIII and 2+ for terminator
while with a D6 it is 3+, 3+ and 2+/5++

there is a point, why it is an advantage, yet is the difference a Marine armour marks really that big to justify a different save roll?
were does Master Crafted Armour fit in?

would this mean a MC mkVII is 4+, a MC mkVIII 3+ and GK/Custodes Power Armour equal to Terminator Armour and their Terminators get re-roll 1s?

or does a little less RPG would be better for a game that is played on platoon level

 vict0988 wrote:

A Salamanders Tactical Marine shouldn't have a 3+ while Ultramarines have a 4+ Sv on a D10, that's way too much power in Chapter Tactics and makes it extremely unlikely that the codex will be internally balanced. A lack of internal balance is the reason for most external balance issues. Treating AP-1 as AP- would work if you really need Salamanders to have better armour, although I doubt you'll find fluff to support Salamanders having vastly better armour than Ultras in any case outside fluff that was written specifically to justify Chapter Tactics after the fact.

Why not? With a d10 stuff like AP modes wouldn't stay the way they are right now either. Sniper rifles could be really good at cracking infantry armour.
Salamanders are master smiths, they have a smith and armourer culture. BA are similar to a degree, but they are artists. Both chapters have been like that at least since the great crusade. Iron Hands are very in to body replacement since Istvan Massacer. So if I wanted to, I could find multiple examples of those chapters being known for stuff like that.

Goffs are, this is litteraly writen in their lore, stronger then orcs from other clans. Badmoons grow teeth faster, and are able to buy more armour and more guns. Why shouldn't a bad moon boy be more armoured, then a snake bite. Bood axs are know for their unusual and unorkish trait of aiming their guns etc. etc etc.

Space Marines don't make all their own armour, it's made by Techmarines and Techmarines are trained by the Adeptus Mechanicus. They all live up to certain specs. You won't find Salamanders armour being described as being different from Blood Angels armour the same way that Terminator armour is. I doubt you'll find lore blurbs where the quality of armour makes any difference in survival rates. I don't even think Space Sharks take more casualties because of the lesser quality and cohesiveness of their power armour suits.

There are three concerns with Chapter Tactics, balance, bloat and the question of whether the Chapter Tactic actually adheres to the fluff or needs the fluff to change around it to justify rules because the writers need to keep themselves employed with mechanics that add tonnes of bloat.

How do you represent a sub-faction that has better wargear? A WL trait that grants you a bonus relic, select units with better saves and take more wargear upgrades for your units. +1 to Sv to the entire army is not the best way to handle it.

 vict0988 wrote:
Apocalypse is a terrible ruleset especially because of this. There are no armour penetrating weapons, there's just a question of whether you want to apply an even or uneven number of wounds to a unit, it's the same sort of garbage design as the Damage stat in AoS, terrible design. Remove the D12s and add armour penetrating weapons, balance points and you'd have a game that might be interesting.

Why do we need "armor penetrating weapons"? Armor being a separate stat from toughness is an arbitrary mechanic done for the sole purpose of getting more granularity out of a D6 system. With smaller step sizes on a D10/D12/D20 you don't need that division anymore. Apocalypse represents powerful weapons that are good at penetrating armor by giving them a better wound roll on the D12.

This is exactly what I mean about the illusion of depth. You think that Apocalypse is terrible because it's honest and jumps straight to the conclusion of the final target number to roll, while 40k is "deep" because you have to touch multiple dice to get the same RNG outcome. It's just unfortunate that you're so tied to modern 40k that a better system is incomprehensible to you.

I just think that using multiple kind of dice is fun.

Nothing matches rolling a str 10 on the artillery die and a Hit on the scatter die so your template covers that whole squad of terminators.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
You know originally 40K wasn't a d6 game. You had to use all sizes of dice to determine damage back in RT and 2nd Ed games. I don't recall specific examples but I remember having to roll Xd20 + Yd12 + other dice to determine whether you penetrated the armor of a vehicle and then you rolled for where and how much damage you inflicted.

2nd Edition examples:
Multimeltas caused 1d20 damage.
iirc Conversion Beamers at max range caused 1d12 damage.
SM/CSM Tactical Dreadnought Armor (Terminator Armor) Saves were 3+ on 2d6.

 vict0988 wrote:
Space Marines don't make all their own armour, it's made by Techmarines and Techmarines are trained by the Adeptus Mechanicus. They all live up to certain specs. You won't find Salamanders armour being described as being different from Blood Angels armour the same way that Terminator armour is. I doubt you'll find lore blurbs where the quality of armour makes any difference in survival rates. I don't even think Space Sharks take more casualties because of the lesser quality and cohesiveness of their power armour suits.

Salamanders and Blood Angels do. For a Salamanders smiths and forge culture is part of their culture. And BA create a ton of stuff on their own, because their interactions of the mechanicus are specific at best, considering they did not want to deliver templates of specific technology like the angelus bolter, the Baal engine used in BA vehicles, the jump packs etc. SW have the Isle of Iron one of the only stable places on the planet, and SW gear is produced there.
GK have a forge to produce their gear, but their stuff not only requires the makers being psykers, but the adeptus that were closed off with the future GK on titan are cut of from any contacts with the other mechanicus. Production of stuff like psyk-out grenades or ammo field with psyko active dust from the chamber of the emperors throne happen outside of any Mechanicus control. There are fleet based chapters, which are not like the Space Sharks, who produce their own stuff. The DA and their succesor for example are very secretive in their interactions with any branch of any adeptus, keeping the contacts to minimum, including with other space marines of the non Forgiven group. Which does make the whole primaris stuff make no sense at all, but few of the primaris lore makes sense, when the past lore is considered.

I made post quite a while back about how I think that D12's would be the optimal choice for a dice change.

TLDR: Pretty much everything existing can be ported over to a D12 system with a simple conversion metric, then tweaked +/- 1 for things that need to be changed. This will make the +/- modifiers less oppressive as well as allowing for more logical middle ground between certain factions. For example, a Tau Fire Warrior could now be better at shooting than a Guardsman, but still not as good as a Space Marine. It also prevents certain S or T characteristics from being objectively better than others on the scale as each point up or down is equally relevant.

D12 is the natural extension of the d6, but T need to be actually increased to 12(for "invulnerable" stuff, not save but like imperator titan/phalanx level of robustness).

Then modifiers and base stats can easily be adjusted to represent traits and fluff for the unit. Then they can change how they interact with other units more easily and point them "appropriately".

Karol wrote:
Because a bigger spread would make representing rules easier. A salamanders are artificiers, so they armour is stronger.Impossible to represent under a d6 system where a +2 sv on a regular dude would be too strong on top of AoC. But under a d10 system it is not only easier, but also possible. A khorn berzerker can be stronger then an alfa legioner. An Ironhand can be tougher, because of those cybernetics, then lets say a SW, while a DG marine could be made really tough. Such freedom would often remove the need for unit or army wide extra mechanics.

It's insanely funny that you think the benefit of a system like this would be differentiating the imperceptible differences between multiple flavours of Space Marine. Genuinely amazing bit, that's Alpha Plus level trolling.