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.

 Insectum7 wrote:
5th ed passed out all high AP values like candy, while at the same time removing much of the LOS blocking terrain :/ Although on the AP3 front, the examples that come to mind are Sternguard specialized ammunition that could spam AP3, and Leman Russes/Basilisks available to take in squadrons. Necron Destroyers became AP3 late in that edition IIrc.

The old AP system did create strong breakpoints between weapins and troops though, it created a wider gammut of differentiation while still using just a D6. Imo it was very clever. The main issue is the eventual failure of designers to use restraint with its implementation. Which as it turns out is the same problem they're having with the current system as well, who'd a thunk it?

There is the further issue that those breakpoints were not standarized across factions. The best example being AP4, which utterly massacred everything with "Warrior" in the name, but was worthless against Space Marines, even though a lot of such Warrior models were as expensive if not more than Space Marines (Necron and Tyranid Warriors being the main example). And because the system had such strong breakpoints, not being aligned to it either created crippling design weaknesses or overpowered nonsense depending on which side it fell on.

I fully admit my dislike of the old AP system is mostly born from the issue that Tyranids were pretty much denied access to high AP and good armor saves for most of it.

sad thing is while removing such break points with the new AP system
the added it back in with the new "to wound" table

we went back to what it actually once was but with a different name, which is compensated by adjusting Toughness and Wounds in 3
no improvement just a side grade

p5freak wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

GW simply failed to use all of the sides. Other systems do.

You hit on 2-5, 1 automatically fails, and 6 automatically hits. Its almost the same with wounding. What side(s) of a six sixed dice isnt used by GW ? Is there a side 7 i didnt notice ?

You hit on a fixed 3+ most of the time, 4+ if you're a horde faction, 5+ if you're Orks. Few modifiers (that virtually always amount to -1 to hit), no conditions, just a filter that reduces your initial output by a relatively flat value.

Then for to-wound, most of the time it's going to be 3+, 4+, or 5+. The difference between wounding a tank with an anti-infantry machine gun versus a wounding it with a dedicated anti-tank weapon is generally 5+ vs 3+, and since the machine gun gets a higher fire rate they need additional stats to further differentiate the two. And then both guns wound just as well whether they're shooting at a main battle tank or a flimsy armored personnel carrier.

Then saves are 3+ for a majority of models in the game, representing both power armored infantry (a plurality of factions) and almost all vehicles. This is often modified to 4+ or 5+.

So yeah, GW does technically use every side of the die. But they gravitate towards most attacks being resolved by three dice in the 3+ to 5+ range, and of those three checks one of them is rarely modified. That's not a lot of scope for a system that wants to represent everything from infantrymen to superheavy tanks, and so there's a boatload of extra mechanics layered on top to differentiate weapons and units, plus special rules out the wazoo.

It's not the dice that are the issue, GW just isn't using the range of values they can provide. Case in point, the old wounding table made for much stronger differences between weapons on the basis of S alone, because you hit 2+ and 6+ much more quickly.

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.

More likely is that if GW switched to D8/D10/D12, etc. that they would replace the dice... but then leave all the stats and numbers, etc. exactly the same as they are now so nothing would change except things would hit/wound/save more often.

While the old wounding table in theory provided greater differentiation, in practice 99% of the datasheets capped at T6. Excluding super heavies, I think only wraithlords were T8. So in practice 99% of everything that had a T value could be wounded by even small arms.

The old wounding table would have been amazing with the current toughness values in which 7,8 and now even 9 can be found outside the superheavy slot, but classic Codexes rarely if ever took full advantage of it.

On the other side of the table, Strenght being capped at 10 was kinda awkward for the heavier vehicle (or monster) mounted heavy guns like railguns or rupture cannons that clearly wanted to hit harder than that. Superheavies occasionally got around that with Strenght D, but that only introduced further issues.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

drbored wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^ I think moving to D10 is unrealistic to begin with. D6 is just too good in terms of accesibiliy (and that alone makes it the right choice), and there is plenty of ability to get granularity using D6s.

We live in the age of the internet. It's NOT hard to buy D8s or D10s.

If you can't buy them alongside the models and rules that you're getting, easily and in the color that you like, it's not going to take off.

Do I, like, have to go to the game store after work tomorrow and take pics of the D8s and D10s they have available?

Yes, please waste some time, better yet head to a GW store and do that.

Why would I head to a GW store to do it? Do other game stores not carry their products? I could pick 5 random ones in CA and find plenty of D8s and D10s to buy. You don't have an argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:

drbored wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^ I think moving to D10 is unrealistic to begin with. D6 is just too good in terms of accesibiliy (and that alone makes it the right choice), and there is plenty of ability to get granularity using D6s.

We live in the age of the internet. It's NOT hard to buy D8s or D10s.

If you can't buy them alongside the models and rules that you're getting, easily and in the color that you like, it's not going to take off.

On the flip side, if no game is generating the demand for easy access to boxes/bags of d8/d10/d12/etc, then no-one is going to fill that gap in the market.

I'm fairly sure packs of d10 are a thing already, though - maybe via Chessex? I know I've bought them in the past.

Oh, and for the person gibbering about a wargame based around a d20, how far are the goalposts going to move to claim that Infinity doesn't count?

There are packs of D10s readily available online and in stores. This whole argument of "you can't buy them easily" is such a dumb myth that you'd think these people only ever played a GW game and only in a GW store.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

drbored wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^ I think moving to D10 is unrealistic to begin with. D6 is just too good in terms of accesibiliy (and that alone makes it the right choice), and there is plenty of ability to get granularity using D6s.

We live in the age of the internet. It's NOT hard to buy D8s or D10s.

If you can't buy them alongside the models and rules that you're getting, easily and in the color that you like, it's not going to take off.

Do I, like, have to go to the game store after work tomorrow and take pics of the D8s and D10s they have available?

Yes, please waste some time, better yet head to a GW store and do that.

Why would I head to a GW store to do it? Do other game stores not carry their products? I could pick 5 random ones in CA and find plenty of D8s and D10s to buy. You don't have an argument.

I didn't make an argument.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^ I think moving to D10 is unrealistic to begin with. D6 is just too good in terms of accesibiliy (and that alone makes it the right choice), and there is plenty of ability to get granularity using D6s.

We live in the age of the internet. It's NOT hard to buy D8s or D10s.

It's not just about ease of purchase. Chances are people have D6s already lying around from other games. They're familiar. Even smaller D6s are easy to read from across the table. The "top" is clearer on a D6, especially when rolled on soft or uneven surfaces. Pips rather than numbers are quicker to see at a glance. These are little things, but they add up. Basing 40k on D6s is a smart move.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
5th ed passed out all high AP values like candy, while at the same time removing much of the LOS blocking terrain :/ Although on the AP3 front, the examples that come to mind are Sternguard specialized ammunition that could spam AP3, and Leman Russes/Basilisks available to take in squadrons. Necron Destroyers became AP3 late in that edition IIrc.

The old AP system did create strong breakpoints between weapins and troops though, it created a wider gammut of differentiation while still using just a D6. Imo it was very clever. The main issue is the eventual failure of designers to use restraint with its implementation. Which as it turns out is the same problem they're having with the current system as well, who'd a thunk it?

There is the further issue that those breakpoints were not standarized across factions. The best example being AP4, which utterly massacred everything with "Warrior" in the name, but was worthless against Space Marines, even though a lot of such Warrior models were as expensive if not more than Space Marines (Necron and Tyranid Warriors being the main example). And because the system had such strong breakpoints, not being aligned to it either created crippling design weaknesses or overpowered nonsense depending on which side it fell on.

I fully admit my dislike of the old AP system is mostly born from the issue that Tyranids were pretty much denied access to high AP and good armor saves for most of it.

Well I played Necrons back when they were 3+

I agree that the 4+ bracket was a sticking point. In 3rd ed Eldar Dark Reapers were 4+, making them expensive fodder for Heavy Bolters or Whirlwinds. Tyranid Warriors were in a tough spot too, although I thought the best incarnation of those were when Synapse blocked Instant Death, which didn't help vs. AP 4, but still helped their overall defense. Imo there were solutions that could be designed for them which would work ok. Dire Avengers fared well enough because they were numerous enough to take hits, imo. At least in 3rd and 4th.

The AP escalation in 5th also brought more AP 4, which unfortunately drowned a bunch of these units out with fire. Overall the AP system was solid, but as always seems to happen, a lack of discipline spoils the balance of power.

 Insectum7 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^ I think moving to D10 is unrealistic to begin with. D6 is just too good in terms of accesibiliy (and that alone makes it the right choice), and there is plenty of ability to get granularity using D6s.

We live in the age of the internet. It's NOT hard to buy D8s or D10s.

It's not just about ease of purchase. Chances are people have D6s already lying around from other games. They're familiar. Even smaller D6s are easy to read from across the table. The "top" is clearer on a D6, especially when rolled on soft or uneven surfaces. Pips rather than numbers are quicker to see at a glance. These are little things, but they add up. Basing 40k on D6s is a smart move.

Yup. As I've already said ITT (and other places), if these proponents of D10s for 40k want to give it a test run, then just play a game of Void. The rules are right here for free. Then they can experience all of the clunkiness that comes with mass rolling of D10s. Don't get me wrong, I love Void as a game, but I won't deny how unwieldy the choice of dice gets the bigger the game gets.

I'm not sure I ever really got over my feeling of injustice that was the initial experience of the 3rd edition AP rules. "yeah, your dudes don't get any saves, my dudes however effectively have a 3++." Didn't seem very fair. As a result "Take everything in your codex with AP3" was ingrained for around twenty years.

I'm not really clear how you resolved that issue - even if GW didn't codex creep their own stats almost every edition.

 Grimtuff wrote:
Yup. As I've already said ITT (and other places), if these proponents of D10s for 40k want to give it a test run, then just play a game of Void. The rules are right here for free. Then they can experience all of the clunkiness that comes with mass rolling of D10s. Don't get me wrong, I love Void as a game, but I won't deny how unwieldy the choice of dice gets the bigger the game gets.

Hey, I remember that game! It was like 40k but with D10s (that worked exactly like D6s in 40k) and alternated activation. Its Rhino equivalent was also a giant robot or something.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

There are packs of D10s readily available online and in stores. This whole argument of "you can't buy them easily" is such a dumb myth that you'd think these people only ever played a GW game and only in a GW store.

To be fair many stores don't carry D10 packs, of the 3 stores I regularly or occasionally visit, only 1 of them sells packs of d10s, the others just have mixed polyhedral rpg sets and d6 sets, as well as loose dice (and of course proprietary dice sets for FFG type games).

That being said, they do exist online and they are a product that retailers can already order from their trade partners and distributors, so if a bucket-o-game *does* want to use d10s as standard there is support for it.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^ I think moving to D10 is unrealistic to begin with. D6 is just too good in terms of accesibiliy (and that alone makes it the right choice), and there is plenty of ability to get granularity using D6s.

We live in the age of the internet. It's NOT hard to buy D8s or D10s.

It's not just about ease of purchase. Chances are people have D6s already lying around from other games. They're familiar. Even smaller D6s are easy to read from across the table. The "top" is clearer on a D6, especially when rolled on soft or uneven surfaces. Pips rather than numbers are quicker to see at a glance. These are little things, but they add up. Basing 40k on D6s is a smart move.

Yup. As I've already said ITT (and other places), if these proponents of D10s for 40k want to give it a test run, then just play a game of Void. The rules are right here for free. Then they can experience all of the clunkiness that comes with mass rolling of D10s. Don't get me wrong, I love Void as a game, but I won't deny how unwieldy the choice of dice gets the bigger the game gets.

What clunkiness? Nobody should have any problems reading off a D8 or D10. This isn't a D20 we're talking about where you could argue about angles.

I'd still argue that D12 are the technical best to upgrade to as you literally just have to double the stats, which requires less of a rewrite than D8 or D10. D12 I'd let you argue is harder to read though.

Also side note, D10s aren't even to roll as a shape aren't they?

D20s? Seriously? Throw 5-10 D20s on a board of expertly painted and very valuable models and terrain pieces, and see how many people try to punch you in the face. Forget about the buckets of dice that Guard, Nids, and Orks need to throw.

D6 presents the best random variable while still being able to not destroy the board pieces or move things.

If GW really wanted to speed things up, it would have an auto-roll feature built into their VTT. Which they still haven't made. I would instantly switch to digital armies if you made me pay 50$ for troop Custodes models, and a 20/month fee.

Not to mention it would take all the stupid guess work out of it. I'm surprised GW hasn't jumped into the future of TTG. Which is virtual.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
D20s? Seriously? Throw 5-10 D20s on a board of expertly painted and very valuable models and terrain pieces, and see how many people try to punch you in the face. Forget about the buckets of dice that Guard, Nids, and Orks need to throw.

Of course, I remember the "Physically assaulting your opponents" sections of the VOR and Infinity rulebooks...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:


What clunkiness? Nobody should have any problems reading off a D8 or D10. This isn't a D20 we're talking about where you could argue about angles.

Tell me you've never rolled a handful of D10s without telling me you've never rolled a handful of D10s. Go on mate, put your money where your mouth is. The rules are there, you clearly know where to source plentiful D10s, so play a game with a load of them and see what we're on about.

 Grimtuff wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
D20s? Seriously? Throw 5-10 D20s on a board of expertly painted and very valuable models and terrain pieces, and see how many people try to punch you in the face. Forget about the buckets of dice that Guard, Nids, and Orks need to throw.

Of course, I remember the "Physically assaulting your opponents" sections of the VOR and Infinity rulebooks...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:


What clunkiness? Nobody should have any problems reading off a D8 or D10. This isn't a D20 we're talking about where you could argue about angles.

Tell me you've never rolled a handful of D10s without telling me you've never rolled a handful of D10s. Go on mate, put your money where your mouth is. The rules are there, you clearly know where to source plentiful D10s, so play a game with a load of them and see what we're on about.

I mean I've rolled multiple D10s before for various RPGs and had no problem reading them. What you're asking to do, play that particular game, is a problem since nobody will do a non 40k or Sigmar wargame in my area.

Tyel wrote:
I'm not sure I ever really got over my feeling of injustice that was the initial experience of the 3rd edition AP rules. "yeah, your dudes don't get any saves, my dudes however effectively have a 3++." Didn't seem very fair. As a result "Take everything in your codex with AP3" was ingrained for around twenty years.

I'm not really clear how you resolved that issue - even if GW didn't codex creep their own stats almost every edition.

Haha, sure I can see that.

The flipside on the marine experience is that cover did nothing to protect from small arms, and since there were no more modifiers to hit you just sorta ate massed small arms. And if those Battle Cannon shells landed on your expensive squad it was a bad day.

But the other major cost Marines dealt with was the Rapid Fire rules. In 3rd they could only fire once at 12" on the move, and then couldn't Assault. Orks, Tyranids and Eldar were largely armed with Assault weapons, allowing them to Move, Fire and Assault all in one turn. It was a profound difference between armies. Marines had their great save, but lacked freedom of action. Imo it was some pretty brilliant design. Not to everyone's taste though.

 Grimtuff wrote:


Tell me you've never rolled a handful of D10s without telling me you've never rolled a handful of D10s. Go on mate, put your money where your mouth is. The rules are there, you clearly know where to source plentiful D10s, so play a game with a load of them and see what we're on about.

The Storyteller system (Vampire, Werewolf, etc.) used "dice pools" of d10s and it worked great. The thing was, the dice pools had a cap. Only super-powerful critters would roll more than ten of them at once, and of course it was on a coffee table or something, not a board filled with terrain or miniatures.

Heaving the same quantity of d10s that I use for d6s would be a miserable experience.

I mean, there's a reason I own all the Void books and never use them.

But besides mechanics, there is still the core issue that GW never uses up all of its design space. It rating MS from 1 to 10 and then gave it a variability that could be been resolved using rocks/paper/scissors.

Again, if you do the math GW's probability ranges are nowhere as large as a d6 would actually permit - it's in a very narrow band and they further subdivide it by having re-rolls (or conditional ones) to further fine tune things.

Put simply, GW's games are about the middle third and how finely these can be divided. This becomes an issue when you are paying points for a model with twice the rating but only 10 percent more lethality.

Rolling D10s are not COMPLETELY out of the question, but anything above that is, in the words of Graham Chapman, TOO SILLY. I don't think it would be amiss to "only" make certain aspects shift to a D10, that way your not throwing buckets of them per game. Maybe just psychic tests, or wounding on T7+ units? That way the "company commander's las pistol" doesn't have as much of a chance of wounding the Warlord Titan as it currently does. Which is 1/6.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
That way the "company commander's las pistol" doesn't have as much of a chance of wounding the Warlord Titan as it currently does. Which is 1/6.

Yeah, I'm not "current" so you have me at a disadvantage there. Are you saying that Tom Hanks' 1911 really can blow up a Panzer IV?

Tyel wrote:I'm not sure I ever really got over my feeling of injustice that was the initial experience of the 3rd edition AP rules. "yeah, your dudes don't get any saves, my dudes however effectively have a 3++." Didn't seem very fair. As a result "Take everything in your codex with AP3" was ingrained for around twenty years.

I'm not really clear how you resolved that issue - even if GW didn't codex creep their own stats almost every edition.

Eh, I thought it was interesting how although my Guard rarely got their normal armor saves, they did often get cover, which Marines didn't benefit as much from. So yeah, you can have your armor, but I can make use of terrain to significantly reduce your firepower. It also meant that bolters had a very practical difference in effectiveness from lasguns, which is something that has been eroded over time.

But in any case, the only way to avoid incentivizing particular AP values is to avoid saturating particular save values. If you have a mix of save values across the game, then no particular AP value is all-important and weapons have varying utility depending on the matchup. But if 2/3 of the units in the game have a 3+, well, you're going to run into issues regardless of whether the system is all-or-nothing (ie 'spam AP3') or an AP modifier system (ie 'spam AP-1/-2').

I would have liked to have seen an AP system somewhere in between all-or-nothing and linear modifiers. The former means that weapons that don't quite reach the breakpoint, like autocannons vs 3+, are ineffective, while the latter means that the first point or two of AP has a dramatic effect on anti-armor performance. I think my ideal system would achieve something along the lines of AP3 ignoring power armor, AP4 reducing it to a 5+, and AP5 or worse conferring the full 3+ save. But I'm not sure how to implement that, short of an AP-vs-save table (bleh) or forcing re-rolls (also bleh).

EviscerationPlague wrote:I mean I've rolled multiple D10s before for various RPGs and had no problem reading them.

How many games have you played that expect you to roll 20-40 D10s at once several times in a row and how much have you actually played them?

But you wouldn't have to roll multiple times. A bigger scale and spread of rolls would mean that stuff like FnP, ++saves etc would not be needed. If the scale was done right, which I myself doubt GW could pull it off, even a save roll could not be needed.

Absolutely true. That is what Apocalypse does, consolidating all the damage stats into a single D12 roll, and saves consolidate from D12s into D6s to reduce the overall amount of rolling needed. It also generally has you rolling by unit, not by model, so resolving an attack is almost always under ten dice.

Except that doesn't get you what many people in this thread are asking for, which is a straight replacement of D6s with larger dice so that the game can be more granular in its already bloated and ineffective mechanics.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
That way the "company commander's las pistol" doesn't have as much of a chance of wounding the Warlord Titan as it currently does. Which is 1/6.

Yeah, I'm not "current" so you have me at a disadvantage there. Are you saying that Tom Hanks' 1911 really can blow up a Panzer IV?

I think you read my statment wrong. Or maybe I read yours wrong. Either way, I'm simple saying never should a las pistol ever be able to wound a titan. A Melta pistol, sure. But not a grot blaster, or a las-pistol, or a hand flamer.

 catbarf wrote:

I would have liked to have seen an AP system somewhere in between all-or-nothing and linear modifiers. The former means that weapons that don't quite reach the breakpoint, like autocannons vs 3+, are ineffective, while the latter means that the first point or two of AP has a dramatic effect on anti-armor performance. I think my ideal system would achieve something along the lines of AP3 ignoring power armor, AP4 reducing it to a 5+, and AP5 or worse conferring the full 3+ save. But I'm not sure how to implement that, short of an AP-vs-save table (bleh) or forcing re-rolls (also bleh).

Why not tables? We are already using tables for SvT and there is the old WS vs WS table.

As time goes on, I feel more and more like we probably ought to get rid of either saves or to-wound rolls and then just pump up the Wounds on most units. So you'd roll to hit and maybe to wound against a marine, and if you succeed, the marine takes damage (no save). But your lasgun is only Damage 1, and the marine has (let's say) 3 wounds.

Randomness/uncertainty is still represented by the to-hit and to-wound rolls, and the to-wound roll is where you'd put modifiers to represent some units being harder to hurt and some weapons being better at hurting things, but you'd get to skip all the weird quirks of the AP system. This would also speed up gameplay a smidge by removing a step in the attack process and make the game less swingy. Attackers would more consistently be doing at least a little damage, and defenders would be less prone to losing their superhuman to a single lucky lasgunner.

I will say that from a "easy to determine the value rolled" form factor perspective, I think the d12 wins out over the d10 and d8, and I think the d8 beats the d10.

I don't recall ever rolling a d12 and having any confusion about the result that came out on top.

I just don't think that To-Hit, To-Wound, and then To-Save is an inherently busted system. The shock to me is how good it feels when I play older systems just because

1: They don't have any ****ing rerolls, or they were extremely rare.
and
2: The dice are stripped away sooner in the process by -
2a: Missing a lot more, because of modifiers (2nd Ed)
2b: Failing to wound because of a better to-wound chart (1-7th)
2c: Being unable to even hurt the target in the first place, and so pointless to shoot. (Vehicle Armor or T chart again, 1-7th)
2d: Not even be a viable target because of reduced ranges and solid LOS mechanics. (3rd-4th)

Edit:
C: Ye Olde AP system often just meant no save was allowed. GEQ didn't get a save vs. a Bolter = no dice rolled. MEQ didn't get a save vs. a Battle Cannon = no dice rolled. Marines be rollin' saves against Multimeltas now.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I just don't think that To-Hit, To-Wound, and then To-Save is an inherently busted system. The shock to me is how good it feels when I play older systems just because

1: They don't have any ****ing rerolls, or they were extremely rare.
and
2: The dice are stripped away sooner in the process by -
2a: Missing a lot more, because of modifiers (2nd Ed)
2b: Failing to wound because of a better to-wound chart (1-7th)
2c: Being unable to even hurt the target in the first place, and so pointless to shoot. (Vehicle Armor or T chart again, 1-7th)
2d: Not even be a viable target because of reduced ranges and solid LOS mechanics. (3rd-4th)

Edit:
C: Ye Olde AP system often just meant no save was allowed. GEQ didn't get a save vs. a Bolter = no dice rolled. MEQ didn't get a save vs. a Battle Cannon = no dice rolled. Marines be rollin' saves against Multimeltas now.

You forgot the biggest factor:

3. Not rolling as many fething dice in the first place

In previous editions it was quite rare for even elite combat units to have more than 3-4 attacks, or guns to have more than 3, and I feel like you can see a pretty regular inflation in dice rolled as you move from 3rd edition to 9th. I agree there's nothing inherently wrong with the hit-wound-save sequence, it's just how the inflated number of dice we roll now interact with it that is the problem.

^Oh you mean the Primaris Repulsor that can roll like 50 shots a turn? And when Twin Linked went from re-rolls to double shots (and then rerolling those double shots)? Yup, yup.

I wouldn't say it's the biggest factor, but it plays a part for sure. At the same time I recall Orks throwing a ton of Attacks in 3rd ed.