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.
2022/11/16 10:38:23
Subject: Why the push for upping the dice from d6 to d10-d20?
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).
I kind of feel any system could work reasonably well if GW could be disciplined in terms of power creep. The current system has collapsed partly because GW have given a point of S, a point of AP, and an extra attack, to almost every model in the game. They are belatedly trying to pull things back with a similar array of defensive boosts.
At its core I think you pointed out the issues earlier. Coming up with a stat system that even notionally, never mind meaningfully, distinguishes in the dice rolled between Marines, Orks, Guardsmen etc - and also Shadowswords with Volcano cannons, is hard. This is why we've ended up with the complicated mess of rules on rules that... are essentially just there to determine how many models you take off the table.
At its core though you just have tension of what is meant to counter what - with 3+ power armour often being the break point, because it's always been so common.
If a unit can't kill tacticals, its likely "bad" except as throw-away chaff.
But as more and more units get boosted in order to hit the "acceptable hurdle rate" on tacticals, tacticals become bad. So they need to be buffed.
Which just takes you back to the above.
Which can prompt "everything should do about 30% of its points worth of damage into everything" - but people then say that's boring, unfluffy, not fitting a war game, removing player choice etc.
Insectum7's point about trying to balance this by other limitations can work - but it's often been difficult. Not least because I'm fairly confident 3rd ed Marine players didn't like all the restrictions on shooting/charging those other factions got around. Hence the progressive liberation of shooting rules over the past decade.
2022/11/16 22:44:53
Subject: Why the push for upping the dice from d6 to d10-d20?
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.
No, we're on the same page, I was just asking about current mechanics. I honestly don't know if everything has a 1 in 6 chance to wound everything else. I'm at least five editions behind.
Regarding wound probability, AP was not the only factor back in the day - you also had cover. Cover modified the "to hit" roll and armor saves (and modifiers) modified the wound side the equation.
Thus, a space marine in heavy cover was very difficult to dislodge with small arms, which was correct.
The error of 3rd was to not only make AP super important, but to make terrain and armor either/or. They should have stacked, but even GW couldn't bring themselves to make two save rolls per figure per shooting phase.
So you got weird abstractions which I guess you still have. Swapping out dice won't solve this problem.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/11/16 22:45:14
Titans are so outside the standard scope of a 40k game that IMHO trying to come up with a ruleset that properly represents them within 40k is a waste of time.
2022/11/16 22:56:33
Subject: Why the push for upping the dice from d6 to d10-d20?
Tyran wrote: Titans are so outside the standard scope of a 40k game that IMHO trying to come up with a ruleset that properly represents them within 40k is a waste of time.
You could say the same thing with aircraft. At scale, they should be three blocks away at the top of a power pole, not sitting two feet away from their target.
Distances always have been extremely abstracted, unless you believe that a bolter has a maximum range of 120 feet/36 meters (24" multiplied by 60 as the scale is somewhere around 1:60).
Mind you I half agree with the idea that aircraft don't really fit, but regardless of that aircraft are relatively common in games while I can count in one hand how often I have played against a titan.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/11/16 23:05:41
2022/11/16 23:57:42
Subject: Why the push for upping the dice from d6 to d10-d20?
Tyran wrote: Distances always have been extremely abstracted, unless you believe that a bolter has a maximum range of 120 feet/36 meters (24" multiplied by 60 as the scale is somewhere around 1:60).
Mind you I half agree with the idea that aircraft don't really fit, but regardless of that aircraft are relatively common in games while I can count in one hand how often I have played against a titan.
My issue with aircraft is that air defense assets do not typically exist at the company/platoon level, and certainly not as a single standalone vehicle.
If you want to "call an airstrike," pick a spotter, roll a die and see where and if it hits. I get that it was a transparent ploy to sell models, but it was also silly.
The titans actually do exist in a 'tactical' environment. Especially in a built-up area, you could well have some sort of desperate infantry assault against one. Sort of a Godzilla against the JSDF scenario, which might actually be fun.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/11/16 23:58:16
Godzilla is barely threatened by the best the JSDF has to offer. I mean, direct and repeated tank cannon hits don't even seem to distract Godzilla, and even direct bunker buster hits and even the occasional nuke seems to just cause minor wounds (if the energy isn't used to kick-start its regeneration).
If Godzilla is supposed to be our benchmark, forget about lasguns not being able to wound Titans, battlecannons shouldn't be able to wound Titans.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/11/17 00:49:52
2022/11/17 22:38:55
Subject: Why the push for upping the dice from d6 to d10-d20?
Tyran wrote: Godzilla is barely threatened by the best the JSDF has to offer. I mean, direct and repeated tank cannon hits don't even seem to distract Godzilla, and even direct bunker buster hits and even the occasional nuke seems to just cause minor wounds (if the energy isn't used to kick-start its regeneration).
If Godzilla is supposed to be our benchmark, forget about lasguns not being able to wound Titans, battlecannons shouldn't be able to wound Titans.
I was exaggerating, of course. I think OGRE was set up along the same lines - one big nasty machine vs distributed opposition.
Another example: AT-ATs vs the Rebels on Hoth. West End Games had a neat boardgame on this in the 80s: Assault on Hoth. Fun game, decent tension. Rebels are playing a delaying game rather than for outright victory.
Since we're talking about dice, they created their own six-siders to resolve combat. Two blank sides, two blue lightsabers, two Darth Vader heads. Weapons have pools of dice and need so many of "their" symbols to score a hit.
Does anyone (other than White Wolf) make novelty d10s?
ProfSrlojohn wrote: 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.
Right now I am in the process of porting the gameplay engine of a videogame to 30K/40K and it´s basis for combat is a D100 system. However my version will have also use for D4, D6, D8, D10, D12, D20, Artillery and Scatter dice. Flanking & Critical hits will be also a thing in addition to the idea that units make attack roles instead of individual models. So rolling buckets of dice of any type won´t be an issue any longer.
GW´s idea to use negative to hit modifiers in a game which in other instances uses fixed values is especially braindead when Ork shooting is reduced from BS5+ ,which is garbage from the get-go, to BS6.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
catbarf wrote: I think 40K players clamor for increased granularity because it's more immediately obvious and straightforward than identifying the deficiencies in the core rules that the stats drive, and because it's the sort of number crunching that us nerds like.
Like, I have seen more than one call for more granular Ballistic Skill to better statistically differentiate things in between Guardsman-level and Marine-level accuracy, but rarely do I see anyone else point out that the current to-hit system doesn't care about how far away the target is, how fast it's moving, or even how big it is. You'd think those would be more fundamental requirements- and give more levers for differentiating units- than showing that Cannon Fodder Grunt #386 is 7% more accurate than Cannon Fodder Grunt #294 in the three picoseconds before they both get atomized by a Volcano Cannon.
Not to mention things that are big in the fluff getting no representation on the tabletop. Remember those lightning raids where the Marines operate like superhuman veterans acting in perfect synchronization honed by literal decades of practice, overwhelming ill-disciplined Orks before they can even react? Yeah sorry your Marines are functionally just Orks who are tougher to kill and shoot bigger guns more accurately, so those ramshackle Orks have the exact same operational tempo as you and can react the instant you make your play. I can think of a few reasons this doesn't feel like the fluff, and 'not enough decimal points' isn't one of them.
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".
Case in point, lack of depth to the core rules is why we end up getting special rules to accommodate differentiation that should just be part of the game to begin with, and shallow mechanics mean we get tons and tons of functionally equivalent abilities (re-rolls, +1s, exploding 6s, etc- they all translate to 'you linearly do more damage' in a consistent/predictable fashion).
Special rules are fun when they're used sparingly and provide something really unique, not just bloated bonuses that could be equivalently represented through the core stats (eg more Attacks instead of all the aforementioned cruft) or provide band-aids for missing mechanics (eg invulnerable saves to represent dodging, or boring reroll-to-hit auras to represent leadership ability).
True. You can impose such modifiers more easily when using a D100 system.
Example:
Bikes are known for going pretty fast. For each X amount of movement done in straight line the opponent suffers a negative 5% modifier to hit.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/11/20 14:56:31
2022/11/20 15:10:17
Subject: Why the push for upping the dice from d6 to d10-d20?
GW´s idea to use negative to hit modifiers in a game which in other instances uses fixed values is especially braindead when Ork shooting is reduced from BS5+ ,which is garbage from the get-go, to BS6.
I mean BS5+ is the first available value that is below exactly average, I'm not sure garbage is a fair word to use.
2022/11/20 15:22:15
Subject: Why the push for upping the dice from d6 to d10-d20?
ProfSrlojohn wrote: 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.
Right now I am in the process of porting the gameplay engine of a videogame to 30K/40K and it´s basis for combat is a D100 system. However my version will have also use for D4, D6, D8, D10, D12, D20, Artillery and Scatter dice. Flanking & Critical hits will be also a thing in addition to the idea that units make attack roles instead of individual models. So rolling buckets of dice of any type won´t be an issue any longer.
GW´s idea to use negative to hit modifiers in a game which in other instances uses fixed values is especially braindead when Ork shooting is reduced from BS5+ ,which is garbage from the get-go, to BS6.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
catbarf wrote: I think 40K players clamor for increased granularity because it's more immediately obvious and straightforward than identifying the deficiencies in the core rules that the stats drive, and because it's the sort of number crunching that us nerds like.
Like, I have seen more than one call for more granular Ballistic Skill to better statistically differentiate things in between Guardsman-level and Marine-level accuracy, but rarely do I see anyone else point out that the current to-hit system doesn't care about how far away the target is, how fast it's moving, or even how big it is. You'd think those would be more fundamental requirements- and give more levers for differentiating units- than showing that Cannon Fodder Grunt #386 is 7% more accurate than Cannon Fodder Grunt #294 in the three picoseconds before they both get atomized by a Volcano Cannon.
Not to mention things that are big in the fluff getting no representation on the tabletop. Remember those lightning raids where the Marines operate like superhuman veterans acting in perfect synchronization honed by literal decades of practice, overwhelming ill-disciplined Orks before they can even react? Yeah sorry your Marines are functionally just Orks who are tougher to kill and shoot bigger guns more accurately, so those ramshackle Orks have the exact same operational tempo as you and can react the instant you make your play. I can think of a few reasons this doesn't feel like the fluff, and 'not enough decimal points' isn't one of them.
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".
Case in point, lack of depth to the core rules is why we end up getting special rules to accommodate differentiation that should just be part of the game to begin with, and shallow mechanics mean we get tons and tons of functionally equivalent abilities (re-rolls, +1s, exploding 6s, etc- they all translate to 'you linearly do more damage' in a consistent/predictable fashion).
Special rules are fun when they're used sparingly and provide something really unique, not just bloated bonuses that could be equivalently represented through the core stats (eg more Attacks instead of all the aforementioned cruft) or provide band-aids for missing mechanics (eg invulnerable saves to represent dodging, or boring reroll-to-hit auras to represent leadership ability).
True. You can impose such modifiers more easily when using a D100 system.
Example:
Bikes are known for going pretty fast. For each X amount of movement done in straight line the opponent suffers a negative 5% modifier to hit.
How many d100s do you roll per action?
Because if it's more than one, you run into the issue that people asking for old Terminator saves on 2d6 run into-you have to roll each d100 individually.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2022/11/20 16:46:33
Subject: Re:Why the push for upping the dice from d6 to d10-d20?
Every unit has three action points (AP) and generally there are weapons which may be fired once per action point (repeating attacks) and others which need three AP to fire (e.g. sniper rifles). However movement (divided in speed bands) will determine how many AP you have left:
Green: Very few inches moved (3 AP left).
Blue: Moving a few inches (2 AP left).
Purple: Moving quite a bit (1 AP left).
Red: Moving up to your maximum movement allowance (no AP left).
There is also an action which is defined as "Defense Mode" which costs 1 AP and can be used by almost every unit making it harder to hit. Using it will however end your turn as it is also an active ability like almost everything else like the aforementioned repeating/single attacks. Although there will be also free actions which don´t cost AP and may be performed before using an active ability.
2022/11/20 17:49:31
Subject: Why the push for upping the dice from d6 to d10-d20?
GW´s idea to use negative to hit modifiers in a game which in other instances uses fixed values is especially braindead when Ork shooting is reduced from BS5+ ,which is garbage from the get-go, to BS6.
I mean BS5+ is the first available value that is below exactly average, I'm not sure garbage is a fair word to use.
I'm not sure how the notion that orks needed to be sub-par shooters came about. The earliest reference was in the Massacre at Big Toof River, I think, and the subsequent Last Stand (which was a parody of the film Zulu).
According to the WD article, when they ran the first game, the orks just shot the garrison down, so they were made "feral" orks to force infantry assault (like the Zulus did). Apparently the notion stuck, but orks still have all the dakka stuff, so with 3rd ed. they got to roll absurd amounts of dice to get hits they could have with BS 3.
Which comes back to my point which is that the d6 works fine, it's just GW has a way of abusing it - which will carry over into whatever dice they switch to.
The worst part is that with toughness and saves, you can actually be forgiving on hitting the target, since at least 1 in 6 hits won't inflict any damage.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/11/20 17:50:24
GW´s idea to use negative to hit modifiers in a game which in other instances uses fixed values is especially braindead when Ork shooting is reduced from BS5+ ,which is garbage from the get-go, to BS6.
I mean BS5+ is the first available value that is below exactly average, I'm not sure garbage is a fair word to use.
I'm not sure how the notion that orks needed to be sub-par shooters came about. The earliest reference was in the Massacre at Big Toof River, I think, and the subsequent Last Stand (which was a parody of the film Zulu).
According to the WD article, when they ran the first game, the orks just shot the garrison down, so they were made "feral" orks to force infantry assault (like the Zulus did). Apparently the notion stuck, but orks still have all the dakka stuff, so with 3rd ed. they got to roll absurd amounts of dice to get hits they could have with BS 3.
Which comes back to my point which is that the d6 works fine, it's just GW has a way of abusing it - which will carry over into whatever dice they switch to.
The worst part is that with toughness and saves, you can actually be forgiving on hitting the target, since at least 1 in 6 hits won't inflict any damage.
"With 3rd 40K they rolled absurd amount of dice."
No, they didn´t. Their bolter, heavy bolter & missile launcher equivalent had the same amount of shots like the SM had: 2/3/1. Couple this with BS5+ and you understand why most 2nd Ork players quit the game and the new folks ran maximum infantry blobs with slugga & choppa with the emphasis being obviously on the latter.
2022/11/20 20:13:19
Subject: Why the push for upping the dice from d6 to d10-d20?
No, they didn´t. Their bolter, heavy bolter & missile launcher equivalent had the same amount of shots like the SM had: 2/3/1. Couple this with BS5+ and you understand why most 2nd Ork players quit the game and the new folks ran maximum infantry blobs with slugga & choppa with the emphasis being obviously on the latter.
Twin-linked bikes rolled 3 dice and got re-rolls IIRC. They also had various "blasta" items chock full of dice-rolling goodness.
Perhaps the folks around here tried harder to cling to the shootyness.
In any event, the point stands: in a system where at least 1/6 of "hits" don't effect the target, one can be freer with ballistic skill.
The larger issue is that GW requires an excessive amount of dice-rolling to obtain the desired effect. How many extra attacks are needed to bring the probability of causing a casualty to 75%?
Of course, GW's purpose is differentiate the various armies, and big stat differences do that. In practice, however, GW's result range was really quite narrow. If folks shifted to a d100 system, they'd find themselves locked between 0 and 55 percent. Yes, there are items that breach 55, but they're usually of the "one per army" variety. Lots of wasted design space.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: The larger issue is that GW requires an excessive amount of dice-rolling to obtain the desired effect.
I think it's worth pointing out that this is a big part of why players push towards weapons that have a maximum chance of success. A BS3+ shooter wounding on 3+ and forcing the target to save on 5+ (ie, 67% success rate on three separate trials) still only has a ~30% chance of successfully incapacitating the target.
You can't be freer with ballistic skill if the result of low success rates is that players need an enormous number of dice to get any effective result. If it were just a hit roll and then a save roll, maybe it'd be a different story- 5+ to hit is pretty common in OPR's Grimdark Future and 6+ isn't a total waste of time.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/11/20 21:01:48
I do think a lot of people find rolling tons of dice satisfying, and almost all of them work at Games Workshop. It's actually my biggest fear for The Old World. I like low dice amounts, except for on hyper elite.
‘What Lorgar’s fanatics have not seen is that these gods are nothing compared to the power and the majesty of the Machine-God. Already, members of our growing cult are using the grace of the Omnissiah – the true Omnissiah, not Terra’s false prophet – to harness the might of the warp. Geller fields, warp missiles, void shields, all these things you are familiar with. But their underlying principles can be turned to so much more. Through novel exploitations of these technologies we will gain mastery first over the energies of the empyrean, then over the lesser entities, until finally the very gods themselves will bend the knee and recognise the supremacy of the Machine-God"
- Heretek Ardim Protos in Titandeath by Guy Haley
2022/11/20 22:03:58
Subject: Why the push for upping the dice from d6 to d10-d20?
Tyran wrote: Rolling buckets of dice is one of the pleasures of running a horde list.
I kind of agree with this. It's obviously not for everybody, but every now and again I'll inform my opponent that I'm about to roll 90 attacks or something with my Nids, and it's pretty satisfying.
I think it's the sort of thing which is great a couple times in a game, just not all the time.
Tyran wrote: Rolling buckets of dice is one of the pleasures of running a horde list.
Indeed, and when I made my own fantasy rules, I made the d6 (rolled in quantity) it's mainstay.
But I also used all six sides of it (which GW never did) and I limit the numbers of rolls to speed things up.
The point being that switching to d10 or d20 won't solve the perceived problem. The issue isn't that d6 isn't granular enough, it's that GW refuses to use the full range of results that d6 offers and instead uses convoluted mechanics like re-rolls to slice ever-thinner margins out of a very narrow probability range.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: The point being that switching to d10 or d20 won't solve the perceived problem. The issue isn't that d6 isn't granular enough, it's that GW refuses to use the full range of results that d6 offers and instead uses convoluted mechanics like re-rolls to slice ever-thinner margins out of a very narrow probability range.
Tyran wrote: Rolling buckets of dice is one of the pleasures of running a horde list.
Indeed, and when I made my own fantasy rules, I made the d6 (rolled in quantity) it's mainstay.
But I also used all six sides of it (which GW never did) and I limit the numbers of rolls to speed things up.
The point being that switching to d10 or d20 won't solve the perceived problem. The issue isn't that d6 isn't granular enough, it's that GW refuses to use the full range of results that d6 offers and instead uses convoluted mechanics like re-rolls to slice ever-thinner margins out of a very narrow probability range.
I agree in part, but that last part I don't.
It's difficult to balance something that only works 1/6 times, you run into all or nothing issues. It's not something you can strategically rely on, unless you roll so many dice for it that it's not really a 1/6 chance of success, which defeats the purpose of it being a 1/6. On the flip side, succeeding 6/6 times is also hard to balance against its effectiveness. It's going to either be really expensive, or underpowered.
Mechanically GW have two rules already that effectively represent this - the automatically hits for flamers, and the 'once per battle' used for some things (Assuming a 6-turn game which I know isn't necessarily true).
If GW decided to change to a stat+d6, that would be different - WS+1D6 vs target's Defence. But with their current system, they've decided to effectively have a D7 by using rerolls and other shenanigans - 2+, 2.5+, 3+, 3.5+, 4+, 4.5+ 5+.
I mean not exactly, but they're splitting the % up through re-rolls to effectively create smaller differences between the higher success points. Which imo isn't necessarily a bad thing although the clunkiness isn't great.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/11/21 00:18:10
I mean not exactly, but they're splitting the % up through re-rolls to effectively create smaller differences between the higher success points. Which imo isn't necessarily a bad thing although the clunkiness isn't great.
There are a couple of things going on. The first is that GW won't use the full percentages available to them. I don't know why, but they won't. That leaves them with a very narrow probability band, which they cut into thinner and thinner slices.
My point on that is that changing the dice won't help because they're already ignoring half the probabilities d6s give them. So instead of d10s, you're going to get d5s, and essentially the same game.
Your other point about 1/6 being really powerful touches on GW's notion that balance = randomly allocated imbalance. It doesn't.
The solution is to pull in the outer ends of your curve to keep the results under control. For whatever reason, GW seems to have a cultural bias that the highest, greatest good is where a single die roll tips the result of the game, and the more arbitrary and insane that roll, the better. I assumed that would change over time, but it doesn't seem like it has.
I mean not exactly, but they're splitting the % up through re-rolls to effectively create smaller differences between the higher success points. Which imo isn't necessarily a bad thing although the clunkiness isn't great.
There are a couple of things going on. The first is that GW won't use the full percentages available to them. I don't know why, but they won't. That leaves them with a very narrow probability band, which they cut into thinner and thinner slices.
My point on that is that changing the dice won't help because they're already ignoring half the probabilities d6s give them. So instead of d10s, you're going to get d5s, and essentially the same game.
Your other point about 1/6 being really powerful touches on GW's notion that balance = randomly allocated imbalance. It doesn't.
The solution is to pull in the outer ends of your curve to keep the results under control. For whatever reason, GW seems to have a cultural bias that the highest, greatest good is where a single die roll tips the result of the game, and the more arbitrary and insane that roll, the better. I assumed that would change over time, but it doesn't seem like it has.
Which slices of potential outcome do you think GW aren't using and why would you hypothesise this is?
2022/11/21 13:06:01
Subject: Why the push for upping the dice from d6 to d10-d20?
What's the upside of GW "using all the potential outcomes"?
If I hit on 2s, wound on 2s, some rerolls, high AP, then there are a range of scenarios where I have a very high chance to do some damage. And equally, you can get to 4s to hit, but 6s to wound, 2+ save. How much worse should a 1/72 chance to do damage be?
GW tend towards 3+/3+/5++ - but I'd argue that's a function of balance (if the probabilities are about the same, the points can be about the same), but perhaps more importantly, player desire. Its not especially fun to spend your time fishing for unlikely outcomes. When it happens it feel flukey and stupid rather than "cool". Hence the removal of old Overwatch. (Which was a function of nothing, nothing, nothing, oh look melta gun into the face of your character, gg).
It also produces these stupid outcomes. I.E. "Orks are bad at shooting so they have BS5+ - but since they shouldn't be *BAD at the game*, we have to hand them a bazillion shots so the outcome adds up". It would require a redesign - but there's nothing really stopping "Marines are good at shooting, to represent that they get 2 shots hitting on 3s, Orks are bad at shooting - so to represent that they only get 1 shot, but that is still hitting on 3s". And then you point everything up appropriately.
2022/11/21 14:20:07
Subject: Why the push for upping the dice from d6 to d10-d20?
honestly the only things I think should get a higher dice is the damage dice from some weapons. something like a bright lance or multimelta in melta range getting a D10, though 2D3 would be less swingy
10000 points 7000 6000 5000 5000 2000
2022/11/21 16:23:30
Subject: Why the push for upping the dice from d6 to d10-d20?
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.
Ease of access compared to d6's for other dice is simply not there, and GW isn't going to change the entire dice system that their game has been based off of for 50 years knowing full well they'd have to front-run a different set of dice.
On top of that, EVERY system they use is d6 based, except for Apocalypse that tried d12's, and it was obnoxious to swap between the two.
Y'all can crunch your numbers and slap your dice statistics all you want, but the business sense does not exist to support this sort of change.
I bought a few weeks ago the following dice set from Fantasy World. It included:
-D4 -D6 -D8 -D10 -D12 -D20 -D100
So these are fewer dice than GW sells today in a pack. Add a faction-specific colour code to this product and you are good to go.
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 ?
"Congrats guys, in your 9th edition codex, everything from your neophytes, to your crisis suits, leman russ and daemon engines all now have easy ways to ensure they hit on a 3+" - 9th edition. Again, we have ork community asking for standard bs 4+ because a 5+ is too bad. People don't want to use the 5, people don't want to use the 4.
A factor to make a subpar ballistic skill a bit palatable would be bonus to-hit-modifiers for proper equipment like targeters or targets at close range. Although knowing GW such a thing will not find it´s way in one of their main product line when "Little Timmy" is barely able to count the number of fingers on his hand.
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.
Changing the basic necron chassis to 4+ save was as bad as their fluff retcon.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
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.
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.
If you want to exchange dice from D6 to anything else you will have a hard time. There would be more merit in changing the way attacks are resolved in general such as using fixed attacks per unit and NOT per model.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: ^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.
The first time I noticed this silliness was in 5th. An Imperial vehicle being able to shoot twenty times with some kind of gatling gun. It got only worse from then on judging from all posts referencing later editions on this forum.
In comparison an assault cannon in 2nd 40K would put out nine shots, if you were lucky to score three 3s on your sustained fire dice (1:216 chance by the way). Not to mention facing the danger of suffering jams along the way.
Tyran wrote: Titans are so outside the standard scope of a 40k game that IMHO trying to come up with a ruleset that properly represents them within 40k is a waste of time.
You could say the same thing with aircraft. At scale, they should be three blocks away at the top of a power pole, not sitting two feet away from their target.
Aircraft were in an abstract way present in 4th represented by the scenario USR preliminary bombardment. Suffice to say they wouldn´t need a model as bombing targets from miles away in the sky is a pretty unpersonal affair.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2022/11/21 16:47:09
7000 
