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.

 vict0988 wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
As a player of Custodes, I think it should be far easier for me to kill Space marines, in Melee, than it is for them to kill me. I think the Space Marine players feel the same way about imperial Guard. Extended dice ratios would help with that, by my understanding of the math.

You're hitting and wounding on 3+, they are saving on 5+. They are hitting on 3+, wounding on 5+ and you're saving on 2+. You also have an extra wound. Seems like D6s are already fulfilling your request. Armour of Contempt has nothing to do with the dice rolled, it's just a BS rule introduced because of power creep and you could have the exact same thing in 10th with D20s.

I assume Fezzik is referring to the myriad SM units that get meaningful close combat upgrades, such as VV with Thunder Hammers. Of course, in that situation the SM costs almost the same as a basic Custodian Guard, so it actually works out as a pretty fair fight.

Changing the dice doesn't necessarily change the outcome of these fights. There's plenty of scope already to adjust the parameters of that combat but GW chooses not to use them, or just power creeps certain things far too much.

 vict0988 wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
As a player of Custodes, I think it should be far easier for me to kill Space marines, in Melee, than it is for them to kill me. I think the Space Marine players feel the same way about imperial Guard. Extended dice ratios would help with that, by my understanding of the math.

You're hitting and wounding on 3+, they are saving on 5+. They are hitting on 3+, wounding on 5+ and you're saving on 2+. You also have an extra wound. Seems like D6s are already fulfilling your request. Armour of Contempt has nothing to do with the dice rolled, it's just a BS rule introduced because of power creep and you could have the exact same thing in 10th with D20s.

Not really considering that if a marine is in melee he is either SW or BA, and then the Custodes player is getting hit by thunder hammers, +1 to wound, special arment from sang guard etc.

Were Centurions, Bladeguard and Aggressors mistakes? I would agree. Where are the weapon options and adaptability? I think 3A 3W Terminators would be fine if they didn't have AoC.

A post in a recent thread made me think about whether 40k would be a better game without Space Marines and like Warhammer Fantasy the Imperium lacked Chaos Warriors. But the Empire being "the best of the Elves, Dwarves and Brettonians" was also problematic.

 vict0988 wrote:
Were Centurions, Bladeguard and Aggressors mistakes? I would agree. Where are the weapon options and adaptability? I think 3A 3W Terminators would be fine if they didn't have AoC.

A post in a recent thread made me think about whether 40k would be a better game without Space Marines and like Warhammer Fantasy the Imperium lacked Chaos Warriors. But the Empire being "the best of the Elves, Dwarves and Brettonians" was also problematic.

As a big fantasy fluff boy i dont remember them ever selling that line. Even in universe the imperials had a deep respect for the elder races.

 vict0988 wrote:
Were Centurions, Bladeguard and Aggressors mistakes? I would agree. Where are the weapon options and adaptability? I think 3A 3W Terminators would be fine if they didn't have AoC.

A post in a recent thread made me think about whether 40k would be a better game without Space Marines and like Warhammer Fantasy the Imperium lacked Chaos Warriors. But the Empire being "the best of the Elves, Dwarves and Brettonians" was also problematic.

Centurions have plenty of options, actually. People just hate on the models.

Also let's not pretend Terminators have any meaningful options vs Aggressors. You get one heavy weapon, yippy.
If GW maybe consolidated the three frickin Terminator entries into one entity, you'd have a point.

Dai wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Were Centurions, Bladeguard and Aggressors mistakes? I would agree. Where are the weapon options and adaptability? I think 3A 3W Terminators would be fine if they didn't have AoC.

A post in a recent thread made me think about whether 40k would be a better game without Space Marines and like Warhammer Fantasy the Imperium lacked Chaos Warriors. But the Empire being "the best of the Elves, Dwarves and Brettonians" was also problematic.

As a big fantasy fluff boy i dont remember them ever selling that line. Even in universe the imperials had a deep respect for the elder races.

I am not talking about fluff, I am talking about which units were available. The Steam Tank should have been a Dwarf unit, faith, Demigryph Knights and full plate should have been a Bretonnian exclusive, the Empire shouldn't have gotten the full range of magic the High Elves got (not having High magic was not enough). The Empire had a lack of holes in their roster that made them too much of everything. Dogs of War were more unique and should have replaced them as a primary faction.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Were Centurions, Bladeguard and Aggressors mistakes? I would agree. Where are the weapon options and adaptability? I think 3A 3W Terminators would be fine if they didn't have AoC.

A post in a recent thread made me think about whether 40k would be a better game without Space Marines and like Warhammer Fantasy the Imperium lacked Chaos Warriors. But the Empire being "the best of the Elves, Dwarves and Brettonians" was also problematic.

Centurions have plenty of options, actually. People just hate on the models.

Also let's not pretend Terminators have any meaningful options vs Aggressors. You get one heavy weapon, yippy.
If GW maybe consolidated the three frickin Terminator entries into one entity, you'd have a point.

I agree that Terminator entries should be consolidated. With Predators becoming two datasheets GW have gone fully off the reservation. SM fluff is pretty nonsensical anyway so I guess it doesn't matter.

Jesus, don't even get me started on the two separate Predators and three floating ones.

IDK if it would make me play the game more, but I do think it would improve the game. I'd certainly have more fun playing.

I would actually add the option that I would play the game more. I think D12's are the way to go personally. It would even out a lot of things so that there weren't specific numbers of S or T that were better than others, as well as making a lot of the buff and things only half as impactful would allow for a more deft touch with balance. It certainly wouldn't fix everything, but I think it would be a step in the right direction.

a thing i thought about a while back was to make the game not cheese quite so hard you could do armour saves and to hit rolls using a D12 and the value required and any relevant thresholds to be doubled.

2+ armour save on D6 becomes a 4+ on a D12
3+ to hit on D6 turns into 6+ on a D12
and so on..

The main odds don't change but the likelihood of triggering rending would be dramaticly reduced (12 on a D12), as would a bunch of 're-roll-ones' mechanics.
you could even justify a 1+ armour save since that would become a 2+ on a D12

 SirDonlad wrote:
a thing i thought about a while back was to make the game not cheese quite so hard you could do armour saves and to hit rolls using a D12 and the value required and any relevant thresholds to be doubled.

2+ armour save on D6 becomes a 4+ on a D12
3+ to hit on D6 turns into 6+ on a D12
and so on..

The main odds don't change but the likelihood of triggering rending would be dramaticly reduced (12 on a D12), as would a bunch of 're-roll-ones' mechanics.
you could even justify a 1+ armour save since that would become a 2+ on a D12

The odds do change.
You want 2(Target Value)-1 to have the same odds.

hmm.

Is this because i'm seeing them as a percentage threshold test?

 SirDonlad wrote:
your odds for a 3+ on a D6 aren't the same as for a 6+ on a D12?

i see both as a 50/50 threshold test

3+ on a d6 is a 4/6 or 8/12 chance of success.
6+ on a d12 is a 7/12 chance of success.

I know my probability dice math. You'd want...

2+ to 3+
3+ to 5+
4+ to 7+
5+ to 9+
6+ to 11+

To have the same odds.

Dude, i left that up for like 3 seconds before i edited it - wth? are you using a chat script or something?!?!

 SirDonlad wrote:
Dude, i left that up for like 3 seconds before i edited it - wth? are you using a chat script or something?!?!

Nah, just checking the forum more often than I probably should.
I'm just glad you realized you made a mistake and are correcting course-way too many people double down even on verifiable facts they get wrong.

part of me would prefer to leave up my errors - i just thought i could use the edit button to make sure it didn't trigger a wave of "dude, are you high or something?"



to comment further on the original topic - i don't think you can eliminate the D6 from the game (at least, not easily) because you'd have to re-think the tables etc

i miss sustained fire dice