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.

I feel like there is a not-insignificant degree of bias to the sample here. After all, we have enough interest/passion in the game to be on a 40k forum to talk about it. I would be really interested to see the results of identical polls done on different types of social media.

At any rate, I'm not playing 40k right now but intend to go back pending an increase in rules quality. But bar an unprecedented rewrite new dice forms would stop me from going back; I will already have by d6s for other wargames with me anyways and don't want to carry around another whole set of d8s/d10s/whatever just for 40k.

Maybe this is a stupid question, but are non d6 dice, for what ever reason, somehow rare in the western world? Like you can just buy them at toy store or a store that sells games?

^They're easy enough to get. They're just less common than D6s, which are the default for traditional board games.

Karol wrote:
Maybe this is a stupid question, but are non d6 dice, for what ever reason, somehow rare in the western world? Like you can just buy them at toy store or a store that sells games?

Not at all. You can order them by the pound on Amazon dirt cheap & have them show up on your doorstep in 1 -2 days.

This poll is terribly constructed for gathering data. That being said, I think 40k could use a larger sample size of rolls like a d10 or d12. Other GW games use d12s and d10s and it works well. The d6 is a limiting factor for 40k. Having a BS that wasn't either 3+ or 4+ would be refreshing.

Aelyn wrote:
Also, reading the OP... This looks more like a poll raised to push a specific position rather than a poll intended to gather meaningful data from a neutral starting point.

You caught me. I think that changing the dice for this game would be a foolish idea on GW's part and wouldn't solve the problems that some are claiming.

But hey, the people have spoken. Apparently most people would happily continue playing the game with a different type of dice, despite the flaws and challenges they present.

Of course, this is assuming a vaccuum - no other rules changes except where rolling dice is concerned.

Either way, I don't think it's going to happen in the near future. GW aren't going to be looking to change the way they do their math, their business, the dice market in general, and take a massive risk to change up 40k when what they need to be doing is making it -more- accessible, not less.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LesPaul wrote:
This poll is terribly constructed for gathering data. That being said, I think 40k could use a larger sample size of rolls like a d10 or d12. Other GW games use d12s and d10s and it works well. The d6 is a limiting factor for 40k. Having a BS that wasn't either 3+ or 4+ would be refreshing.

Just wanted to see where moods were swinging. I'm not a data scientist or statistician.

Why couldn't we fix the dice and the other issues as well. The game improves with different dice no matter what else happens.

Eh, I don't suspect that I'd quit, but I can say with 100% certainty that I would not play with anyone who uses the diamond shaped D10's. Much like I will not play with someone who uses casino dice.

I suspect there will be a noticeable amount of time wasted every game waiting for dice to settle using a D10 or D12 system.

 oni wrote:
Eh, I don't suspect that I'd quit, but I can say with 100% certainty that I would not play with anyone who uses the diamond shaped D10's. Much like I will not play with someone who uses casino dice.

Uh huh... what an utterly bizarre take. Is something in the water today? That's what a decahedron is. You'll be very hard pressed to find a D10 in any other 10-sided shape.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 oni wrote:
Eh, I don't suspect that I'd quit, but I can say with 100% certainty that I would not play with anyone who uses the diamond shaped D10's. Much like I will not play with someone who uses casino dice.

Uh huh... what an utterly bizarre take. Is something in the water today? That's what a decahedron is. You'll be very hard pressed to find a D10 in any other 10-sided shape.

There are D10's that are shaped similar to D12's.

https://miniset.net/files/set/gw-99020299031-4.jpg

 oni wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 oni wrote:
Eh, I don't suspect that I'd quit, but I can say with 100% certainty that I would not play with anyone who uses the diamond shaped D10's. Much like I will not play with someone who uses casino dice.

Uh huh... what an utterly bizarre take. Is something in the water today? That's what a decahedron is. You'll be very hard pressed to find a D10 in any other 10-sided shape.

There are D10's that are shaped similar to D12's.

https://miniset.net/files/set/gw-99020299031-4.jpg

So... the super special GW D10s that don't look anything like the ten-a-penny D10s that 99% of people will have. Yup. You'll get loads of games!

This is a tough one. I do like games with d20's. I used to love Warzone and Chrinopia back in the day. Those games were a lot of fun. For 40KI don't know exactly. If the dice rolls were for a whole unit and this streamlined things so there were just a lot less dice over all I'd be interested. If it just meant rolling hundreds of dice, just not d6's, then what would be the point. I feel different dice would work much better with far less models involved. If this game, 40K, were more like other different historical games and were just doing some kind of stat checks and had a different stat system I think it would play well enough with different dice. Heck the L5R3rd rpg. system with a number of D10 rolled and a number kept could be a blast as long as it's not hundreds of dice rolled together. Heck add a few other rules from L5R3rd and this could be a really hot idea.
Or just leave it as D6's I guess.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 oni wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 oni wrote:
Eh, I don't suspect that I'd quit, but I can say with 100% certainty that I would not play with anyone who uses the diamond shaped D10's. Much like I will not play with someone who uses casino dice.

Uh huh... what an utterly bizarre take. Is something in the water today? That's what a decahedron is. You'll be very hard pressed to find a D10 in any other 10-sided shape.

There are D10's that are shaped similar to D12's.

https://miniset.net/files/set/gw-99020299031-4.jpg

So... the super special GW D10s that don't look anything like the ten-a-penny D10s that 99% of people will have. Yup. You'll get loads of games!

Yup. So, I hope it remains D6.

I played a D10 game before. Something by Mantic, I think it was Warzone. The game was OK, but what I very much disliked was rolling multiple D10's.

How is it different then rolling the same number or more D6 dice. Is there something wrong with the roll mechanic, like lets say it is harder to fix certain rolls or something.

 oni wrote:
Eh, I don't suspect that I'd quit, but I can say with 100% certainty that I would not play with anyone who uses the diamond shaped D10's. Much like I will not play with someone who uses casino dice.

Because....?

Karol wrote:
How is it different then rolling the same number or more D6 dice. Is there something wrong with the roll mechanic, like lets say it is harder to fix certain rolls or something.

Try it for yourself. Pick up and try shaking 20x D10's in your cupped hands and then rolling them. Next, do the same with 20x D6's. It's an entirely different experience. Let's also consider for a moment that a lot of W40K gameboards have an uneven textured surface. A D10 will not settle as nicely or as quickly as a D6 on uneven surfaces. We can also discuss the merits of design. The D10 is an irregular polyhedron; meaning it's not symmetrical and can never be symmetrical. Its lack of symmetry means a D10 does not / cannot tumble like a D6. A D10 favors a rolling orbital motion that no matter how it lands immediately eliminates 5 possible results.

There's a bit more to it than just numbers. The physical shape and act of rolling dice isn't given much, if any attention, but it's a very real thing and can add to or detract from the game experience.

I do not think fixing die rolls is a concern unless you live in New Vegas.

 LesPaul wrote:
Why couldn't we fix the dice and the other issues as well. The game improves with different dice no matter what else happens.

The Djinn have established that you have failed to establish the fact that D6s cause issued that need to be fixed by D12s in the first place. Wherefore the conclusion is aetherial, even should you establish that such a thing was in fact not untrue then you would still need to conclude that the introduction of D12s to the game not create prooooblems even bigger than the ones you assume they will solve.

I don't see how larger dice are going to fix anything when 40k doesn't even utilize the full diversity of the stats they have now. What mythical version of GW is this that doesn't screw up the dynamics of larger dice even harder than they do now?

Yes.

I wouldn't ever touch modern 40K again. As it stands I play 3rd but at least check out the new rules to see if anything looks better than it has been for the last ten years or so. Changing dice would make it a non-starter.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I don't see how larger dice are going to fix anything when 40k doesn't even utilize the full diversity of the stats they have now. What mythical version of GW is this that doesn't screw up the dynamics of larger dice even harder than they do now?

It is easier to differentiate stuff from each other. Much easier to make a goff boy different from a bad moon when you have a bigger spread of potential succesful checks. Fewer moments when playing marines means you have to play this one specific legion or chapter, because everything else is inferior.
It would also remove the need multiple rolls. right now GW simulates chance of destroying a unit with a multiple layers of rolling, stacking or giving units multiple saves etc. if the dice were d10 or d12, FnP or a stormshield could just be backed in to one roll. Could have just a "to hit" and a "to wound" roll.

Weapons would be more different, and it would be easier to create specialists. A sniper could actualy hit targets better, then the same armies grunt.
Would it make the game perfect? Of course not, but at worse the game would be faster and more diverse.

Would depend entirely on what was done, if it was literally the game as now with a D10 instead of a D6 while that would help slightly after re-basing all the stats with the impact of +/-1 I think that would be a missed opportunity to stream line the game and reduce dice rolling

There isn't a flavour of no that I could pick.

I don't object to non d6 in principal... I'm just unlikely to buy into a new edition regardless of die type.

The thing about other die types is that they aren't as common or cheap. Currently, I feel like each player should have 20-30 dice. So if GW wants to put 40-60 d12 in a starter box, that could work. If not, shifting die type is problematic.

ccs wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Dice changing isn't a sort of game-quitting change, but rolling similar amounts of non D6 dice is going to be more awkward than most people think, imo. It's the wrong move for 40k.

I mean, the idea (as far as I see) is that use by a d10 or d12 would let you roll less dice.

How would it accomplish that? I've still got to roll to hit/wound with each of my models....

Changing dice sizes won't get rid of 40ks problems.
All that'll happen is NEW problems will arise.

Anyways, if the game is fun enough? I'll play whatever the dice size is.
Likewise, whatever the dice used, if it reaches a point where I'm not having enough fun I'll stop playing.

You don't need to roll to hit/wound... And your basic squads don't need to shoot 2+ shots each...
To hit -> save does the same thing as the current system and having more granularity means you can represent a unit's resilience with its save and number of wounds it has.

Karol wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I don't see how larger dice are going to fix anything when 40k doesn't even utilize the full diversity of the stats they have now. What mythical version of GW is this that doesn't screw up the dynamics of larger dice even harder than they do now?

It is easier to differentiate stuff from each other. Much easier to make a goff boy different from a bad moon when you have a bigger spread of potential succesful checks. Fewer moments when playing marines means you have to play this one specific legion or chapter, because everything else is inferior.
It would also remove the need multiple rolls. right now GW simulates chance of destroying a unit with a multiple layers of rolling, stacking or giving units multiple saves etc. if the dice were d10 or d12, FnP or a stormshield could just be backed in to one roll. Could have just a "to hit" and a "to wound" roll.

Weapons would be more different, and it would be easier to create specialists. A sniper could actualy hit targets better, then the same armies grunt.
Would it make the game perfect? Of course not, but at worse the game would be faster and more diverse.

Which is more important? That a Nihilakh Warrior is different from a Novokh Warrior or that a Necron Warrior is different from an Astra MIlitarum Guardsman? GW has been trying so hard to focus on the first but they are forgetting the second.

-1 to hit on a D6 at over 12" was a very strong Chapter Tactic in 8th, but there are tonnes of ways to nerf it other than making it -1 to hit on a D12 at over 12". -1 to hit on a D6 at over 18". -1 to hit on a D6 at over 12" but doesn't stack with other negative hit modifiers the faction has. -1 to hit on a D6 at over 12" against units that moved, or Heavy weapons. Units that remain stationary are hidden or models inside terrain are hidden and hidden units are -1 to hit on a D6 at over 12". It could also be combination of any of the above. Chapter Tactics that let you re-roll one dice per phase would become better in a system with fewer dice rolls, so maybe those ones would be the ones where you'd say you have to switch over to a game with D6s where you roll more dice so that any single re-roll is less important.

GW also might just have decided to make a Chapter Tactic with -2 to hit on a D12 at all times, I agree the design space would be bigger, at worst the game would be less balanced and slower. That's the worst case scenario. What's the worst that could happen when you introduce a new type of Detachment that can include several Formations inside? It'll lead to some rules bloat because you have 1 more Detachment rule in addition to however many Formations you have in your list? Wrong, the game is completely broken by the insane benefits offered in Decurions. That's the worst that can happen, you are being unrealistically charitable with how well GW would carry out this change. I thought GW was getting better with 8th, but SM2.0 and then the points update at the start of 9th completely fethed things up, then Drukhari and AdMech showed that GW are the same incompetent writers, designers and testers they've always been. The game might be pretty balanced at the moment, but it's not due to great game design, it's due to fixing a portion of the most obviously broken stuff every 3 months and then only introducing half as much broken stuff at the same time. Show me a version of Apocalypse where everything isn't just a bag of wounds like AoS and where the D12 is actually necessary instead of a stupid gimmick and I'll believe GW could transition 40k to D12s.

Snipers can already hit better than a grunt within the current rules if the designers want them to, just add +1 to hit on snipers or make sniper carriers +1 BS depending on whether it's Special Weapons Squads that can carry melta guns or snipers or it's Deathmarks that can only carry snipers.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

ccs wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Dice changing isn't a sort of game-quitting change, but rolling similar amounts of non D6 dice is going to be more awkward than most people think, imo. It's the wrong move for 40k.

I mean, the idea (as far as I see) is that use by a d10 or d12 would let you roll less dice.

How would it accomplish that? I've still got to roll to hit/wound with each of my models....

Changing dice sizes won't get rid of 40ks problems.
All that'll happen is NEW problems will arise.

Anyways, if the game is fun enough? I'll play whatever the dice size is.
Likewise, whatever the dice used, if it reaches a point where I'm not having enough fun I'll stop playing.

You don't need to roll to hit/wound... And your basic squads don't need to shoot 2+ shots each...
To hit -> save does the same thing as the current system and having more granularity means you can represent a unit's resilience with its save and number of wounds it has.

Yeah, it's a GW game. While you could make a game game that works how you're describing (and I assume there already is one), I'm not going to bet any $ on GW doing that.
So bigger dice won't reduce the # rolled.
And like I said, with GW all you'll get is at least more problems.

 vict0988 wrote:

Karol wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I don't see how larger dice are going to fix anything when 40k doesn't even utilize the full diversity of the stats they have now. What mythical version of GW is this that doesn't screw up the dynamics of larger dice even harder than they do now?

It is easier to differentiate stuff from each other. Much easier to make a goff boy different from a bad moon when you have a bigger spread of potential succesful checks. Fewer moments when playing marines means you have to play this one specific legion or chapter, because everything else is inferior.
It would also remove the need multiple rolls. right now GW simulates chance of destroying a unit with a multiple layers of rolling, stacking or giving units multiple saves etc. if the dice were d10 or d12, FnP or a stormshield could just be backed in to one roll. Could have just a "to hit" and a "to wound" roll.

Weapons would be more different, and it would be easier to create specialists. A sniper could actualy hit targets better, then the same armies grunt.
Would it make the game perfect? Of course not, but at worse the game would be faster and more diverse.

GW also might just have decided to make a Chapter Tactic with -2 to hit on a D12 at all times, I agree the design space would be bigger, at worst the game would be less balanced and slower.

I think this is the most important thing to tackle on this hypothetical D12 discussion.

Even if it was just a direct translation like that, the potential variation of BS stats and other modifiers would still make it less impactiful in the long run. You'd just have to be slightly creative with it is all.

Yes I'd still play 40k with different dice, preferably d10 or d12. Hopefully that would give them some more design space so we don't get so many "samey" rule mechanics amongst the factions.

I’d go D20 across the board

EviscerationPlague 807707 11457129 wrote:
I think this is the most important thing to tackle on this hypothetical D12 discussion.

Even if it was just a direct translation like that, the potential variation of BS stats and other modifiers would still make it less impactiful in the long run. You'd just have to be slightly creative with it is all.

Plus the +/- wouldn't have to be capped. Maybe a sneaky ranger if he wounds/kills a model in a unit makes the unit to something on -1. But if you get hit by some demon/tyranid monster gun, that makes you explode and spill out little griblis your unit members have to kill, you get a -2 or more. Maybe getting hit over and over by corrosive attacks steadily makes you easier to wound, even if the weapon itself isn't as inititaly deadly to someone in a full closed aka more armoured suit. Maybe tank commanders who just took damage from a melt bomb are more weary of shoting something 100m away, and more intersted in killing that thing that just blew their ablative armour, making shoting at further targets less enticing. At the same time the same commander in another situation when infantry is near by, knows he can count of his battle brothers dealing with the meltabomb bearer. Having an "apothecary" could make your troops have a higher morale, and not run as easy. Some because they would hope to be patched up, others because they were 100% sure they do not want to be anywhere near the Dok. More granular rules would also make playing smaller points more fun or at least less one sided. There would be more stuff to do, blood ax could be better in a sneaky situation, then some goffs. A d6 based system is horribly limiting, or at least I came to the conclusion after seeing a few other system. I could be wrong and they all could be just as bad.