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.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
People are now going to resort to "I don't like the shape of those dice" argument. Often conflated with "You'll damage the models/terrain/board. And again, we do not NEED to roll 300 D12s. The game can be simplified to make a set number of attacks per weapon, or barring that, one roll to determine number of hits, one roll to determine number of wounds.

In regards to the above argument that I am being dismissive of good arguments, please, show me where I dismissed a good argument. I think you "believe" there are good arguments, and I am being dismissive of them, but I don't follow your beliefs. How do we reconcile this impasse? Maybe we fully state our side's arguments, plainly, without emotion?

I believe the game as it stands is being held to an archaic and outmoded form of number generation, the D6 system. It prevents growth, and promotes not only rule bloat, but also heavy unbalance to weaker factions who rely on quantity over quality. I would prefer we move to a higher system, even a D8 or D10. D12 would be my most preferred, but I would welcome any change at this point, to at least try.

Guys, help me out. Fez is just trolling now, right?

Willfully ignorant? Unsure tbh, but plenty of points were raised and they're just being ignored.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
@Fezzik: I struggle to understand how that works with "one roll for number of hits, one for number of wounds "

Do you mean something like: these 5 dudes roll a d12 for their hits, they rolled a six. Now they roll another d6 and that is their wounds?
Or is the wounding step another d12 and the result is capped to not exceed the number of hits?

How do different Ballistic Skills/Weapon strengths work in this system?

If you are seriously asking, then;

Obviously changes would have to be made to the game. You'd have to limit shooting of an entire squad to a D12 divisable number, 3/4/6/12. Roll 1 d12 to see how many shots hit. If RF procs or whatever, roll it twice. Then you roll those hits as wounds. It wouldn't be hard, and it would seriously cut down on fast roll cheating. Throwing twenty dice on the table, and picking up the "ones" for reroll before I've even seen them because you dumped them behind your terrain.

Unless you're an utter chad, we already do this amount of basic 4th grade math in a normal game, so it shouldn't be daunting.

The problem isn't the D6, but the model based system when 40k at its current scale should be moved to a unit based system. And yes it would be much easier to implement a D12 in a unit based system, but also you could still do it with a D6.

But a move to a unit based system would be a massive change and I don't believe most of us want such a massive change even if in theory would lead to a better game.

The current ruleset is flawed in many many ways, but to be honest I'm kinda fine with it and I don't want GW to throw everything away because resetting every 3 years has become kinda too much.

 Tyran wrote:
The problem isn't the D6, but the model based system when 40k at its current scale should be moved to a unit based system. And yes it would be much easier to implement a D12 in a unit based system, but also you could still do it with a D6.

But a move to a unit based system would be a massive change and I don't believe most of us want such a massive change even if in theory would lead to a better game.

The current ruleset is flawed in many many ways, but to be honest I'm kinda fine with it and I don't want GW to throw everything away because resetting every 3 years has become kinda too much.

I respect your argument, and this opinion wins. Would it help? Maybe. Do you want to play that? No.

In all honesty, I haven't really had much fun with this edition, ever. Not once. 9th was a blast, and 8th was ok. But this edition is just bad to me. I don't think even a D20 could fix this.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
The problem isn't the D6, but the model based system when 40k at its current scale should be moved to a unit based system. And yes it would be much easier to implement a D12 in a unit based system, but also you could still do it with a D6.

But a move to a unit based system would be a massive change and I don't believe most of us want such a massive change even if in theory would lead to a better game.

The current ruleset is flawed in many many ways, but to be honest I'm kinda fine with it and I don't want GW to throw everything away because resetting every 3 years has become kinda too much.

I respect your argument, and this opinion wins. Would it help? Maybe. Do you want to play that? No.

In all honesty, I haven't really had much fun with this edition, ever. Not once. 9th was a blast, and 8th was ok. But this edition is just bad to me. I don't think even a D20 could fix this.

More dice sides doesn't help when you don't use what you have already. I can't actually think of anything that natively hits on a 6 and anythifn that hits on a 5 generally gets cries for ways to buff it or easy modifiers. 40k effectively uses a d4.

Dudeface wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
The problem isn't the D6, but the model based system when 40k at its current scale should be moved to a unit based system. And yes it would be much easier to implement a D12 in a unit based system, but also you could still do it with a D6.

But a move to a unit based system would be a massive change and I don't believe most of us want such a massive change even if in theory would lead to a better game.

The current ruleset is flawed in many many ways, but to be honest I'm kinda fine with it and I don't want GW to throw everything away because resetting every 3 years has become kinda too much.

I respect your argument, and this opinion wins. Would it help? Maybe. Do you want to play that? No.

In all honesty, I haven't really had much fun with this edition, ever. Not once. 9th was a blast, and 8th was ok. But this edition is just bad to me. I don't think even a D20 could fix this.

More dice sides doesn't help when you don't use what you have already. I can't actually think of anything that natively hits on a 6 and anythifn that hits on a 5 generally gets cries for ways to buff it or easy modifiers. 40k effectively uses a d4.

Lootas hit on a 6 natively, in shooting.

Dont most vehicles swing in melee on a 6+?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Dont most vehicles swing in melee on a 6+?

4+ these days.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
The problem isn't the D6, but the model based system when 40k at its current scale should be moved to a unit based system. And yes it would be much easier to implement a D12 in a unit based system, but also you could still do it with a D6.

But a move to a unit based system would be a massive change and I don't believe most of us want such a massive change even if in theory would lead to a better game.

The current ruleset is flawed in many many ways, but to be honest I'm kinda fine with it and I don't want GW to throw everything away because resetting every 3 years has become kinda too much.

I respect your argument, and this opinion wins. Would it help? Maybe. Do you want to play that? No.

In all honesty, I haven't really had much fun with this edition, ever. Not once. 9th was a blast, and 8th was ok. But this edition is just bad to me. I don't think even a D20 could fix this.

More dice sides doesn't help when you don't use what you have already. I can't actually think of anything that natively hits on a 6 and anythifn that hits on a 5 generally gets cries for ways to buff it or easy modifiers. 40k effectively uses a d4.

Lootas hit on a 6 natively, in shooting.

They're also heavy, so essentially encouraged to hit on a 5+, although acknowledged that such a unit exists. That said the number of "orks should hit on a 4+" opinions you come across is a large one.

Dudeface wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
anythifn that hits on a 5 generally gets cries for ways to buff it or easy modifiers. 40k effectively uses a d4.

Lootas hit on a 6 natively, in shooting.

They're also heavy, so essentially encouraged to hit on a 5+, although acknowledged that such a unit exists. That said the number of "orks should hit on a 4+" opinions you come across is a large one.

The three main checks - 4+, 3+, and 5+ - should just be thought of as normal, reliable, and unreliable. There's no need to use 2+ and 6+ as something other than outliers. There's also nothing about bs3+ that implies a guard vet and a Terminator have the same skill just because they both hit on 3+. The guard vet has reliable bs which is scarce in guard armies, and the terminator has reliable bs which is universal in marine armies outside of servitors. It's not at all necessary to say a guard vet has accurate BS but a Terminator has more accurate BS.


Separately, orks going from guard BS to conscript BS has made people who play this game less creative, less motivated, and less perceptive than they'd be if orks had stayed at guard BS. The knock on effects from orks going to conscript BS have also meant that lots of people who would be good hobbyists and good opponents never even play 40k.

You're right, there is a lot of whining about 5+ and 4+ not being good enough, for example Tau are a shooting army so a few people have always been angry that they usually have bs4+. Would they be less angry if every army in the game shifted to a better bs? Conscripts hit on 4s, tau on 3s, Marines on 2s, so everyone is at 50% or better? Maybe every army keeps the same bs but everything is rolled on a D8. Personally that sentiment seems a bit weak.

 pelicaniforce wrote:
Separately, orks going from guard BS to conscript BS has made people who play this game less creative, less motivated, and less perceptive than they'd be if orks had stayed at guard BS. The knock on effects from orks going to conscript BS have also meant that lots of people who would be good hobbyists and good opponents never even play 40k.

This paragraph, it features a lot of BS.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Pyroalchi wrote:
@Fezzik: I struggle to understand how that works with "one roll for number of hits, one for number of wounds "

Do you mean something like: these 5 dudes roll a d12 for their hits, they rolled a six. Now they roll another d6 and that is their wounds?
Or is the wounding step another d12 and the result is capped to not exceed the number of hits?

How do different Ballistic Skills/Weapon strengths work in this system?

If you are seriously asking, then;

Obviously changes would have to be made to the game. You'd have to limit shooting of an entire squad to a D12 divisable number, 3/4/6/12. Roll 1 d12 to see how many shots hit. If RF procs or whatever, roll it twice. Then you roll those hits as wounds. It wouldn't be hard, and it would seriously cut down on fast roll cheating. Throwing twenty dice on the table, and picking up the "ones" for reroll before I've even seen them because you dumped them behind your terrain.

So because people have cheated you at some point, you want GW to respond by radically altering the game for everyone.....

There's several far simpler solutions to your problem.:
1) Walk around to the opponents side of the table so you can watch their dice rolls/removal.
And don't accept results you haven't witnessed.

2) You could also simply provide a large dice tray/box lid & insist that all rolls (theirs & yours) be rolled in it. Dice rolled outside the tray don't count.

Dudeface wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, I know this will NEVER happen, but all these issues could be resolved by throwing out the D6. A D10 or best case scenario, D12, would be perfect. The D6 is holding the game back mathematically. You can't make things stronger or weaker without a 16-18% shift. That's too much.

The othe pet peeve of mine, no it won't help. People won't take units that hit on a 8+ on a d12, despite the fact that's what an ork should have using a direct conversion. If you want more value sout of the dice people have to stop chasing 2+/3+ for everything and pretending anything else is worthless.

Otherwise you'll just have a game dominated by people stacking buffs to get to a 3+ rerol on a d12 and claiming the rest is trash.

That’s an easy fix tbh.
Make rerolls extremely rare, and limit buffs, and simply make a core rule that buffs can only stack in order to counter debuffs, and debuffs can only stack to counter buffs.

The stat line should represent a unit’s effectiveness in 75%+ of the time it gets used.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, I know this will NEVER happen, but all these issues could be resolved by throwing out the D6. A D10 or best case scenario, D12, would be perfect. The D6 is holding the game back mathematically. You can't make things stronger or weaker without a 16-18% shift. That's too much.

The othe pet peeve of mine, no it won't help. People won't take units that hit on a 8+ on a d12, despite the fact that's what an ork should have using a direct conversion. If you want more value sout of the dice people have to stop chasing 2+/3+ for everything and pretending anything else is worthless.

Otherwise you'll just have a game dominated by people stacking buffs to get to a 3+ rerol on a d12 and claiming the rest is trash.

That’s an easy fix tbh.
Make rerolls extremely rare, and limit buffs, and simply make a core rule that buffs can only stack in order to counter debuffs, and debuffs can only stack to counter buffs.

The stat line should represent a unit’s effectiveness in 75%+ of the time it gets used.

I do think 40k would benefit from having a proper concept of buffs and debuffs and only allowing one of each to apply outside of a unit's base abilities. It's currently too easy to stack a lot of buffs, in particular, onto a given unit, which makes balance a problem. It might also increase the number of meaningful decisions players need to make. At the moment it's pretty much just "apply all buffs where possible" because there often aren't a lot of conditions for applying them - they just kind of happen.

 Dysartes wrote:

 pelicaniforce wrote:
Separately, orks going from guard BS to conscript BS has made people who play this game less creative, less motivated, and less perceptive than they'd be if orks had stayed at guard BS. The knock on effects from orks going to conscript BS have also meant that lots of people who would be good hobbyists and good opponents never even play 40k.

This paragraph, it features a lot of BS.

"I was there, just shy of 26 years ago, when people who play this game (check this - Ed.) lost their creativity, motivation and perception."

Again, I don't think the "variance" of probability matters. The game isn't going to be remotely more interesting to me if Marines hit on say 3+/12, Eldar hit on 4+/12, and, idk, Sisters of Battle hit on 5+/12.
I can maybe understand the importance of this if you are "fluff first" (or indeed, "fluff-only") player. But in practice, form follows function.

Orks are good case in point.
"Make them BS5."
"Okay, but now their shooting sucks."
"Well that's fine, its fluffy."
"Okay but now no one is playing (or buying) any of the shooty options, of which there are many."
"uh... uh... okay, slash the points and/or hike the number of shots up so even though they are hitting on 5s, the buckets of dice average out to the sort of number of hits we'd want."
"Wouldn't it be easier to just make them BS3+"
"Probably, but its not fluffy. And maybe there's a type of player who likes rolling enough dice to fill a KFC bargain bucket."

Tyel wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 pelicaniforce wrote:
Separately, orks going from guard BS to conscript BS has made people who play this game less creative, less motivated, and less perceptive than they'd be if orks had stayed at guard BS. The knock on effects from orks going to conscript BS have also meant that lots of people who would be good hobbyists and good opponents never even play 40k.

This paragraph, it features a lot of BS.

"I was there, just shy of 26 years ago, when people who play this game (check this - Ed.) lost their creativity, motivation and perception."

Again, I don't think the "variance" of probability matters. The game isn't going to be remotely more interesting to me if Marines hit on say 3+/12, Eldar hit on 4+/12, and, idk, Sisters of Battle hit on 5+/12.
I can maybe understand the importance of this if you are "fluff first" (or indeed, "fluff-only") player. But in practice, form follows function.

Orks are good case in point.
"Make them BS5."
"Okay, but now their shooting sucks."
"Well that's fine, its fluffy."
"Okay but now no one is playing (or buying) any of the shooty options, of which there are many."
"uh... uh... okay, slash the points and/or hike the number of shots up so even though they are hitting on 5s, the buckets of dice average out to the sort of number of hits we'd want."
"Wouldn't it be easier to just make them BS3+"
"Probably, but it’s not fluffy. And maybe there's a type of player who likes rolling enough dice to fill a KFC bargain bucket."

a D12 system allows for buffs to make a difference but not be massively effective.
Going from a 4+ to a 3+ or a 3+ to a 2+ are massive. Just like going from a 5+ to a 6+ is also massive at something like a 16% change in effectiveness in a D6 system.

However in a D12 system obviously going from 4+ to 3+ is obviously a buff, but it’s not a 16% increase of effectiveness.

A d12, nice as it is to roll, won’t fix 40k.
If combined with other things, it could be a significant improvement, but on its own, it won’t do that much.

 JNAProductions wrote:
A d12, nice as it is to roll, won’t fix 40k.
If combined with other things, it could be a significant improvement, but on its own, it won’t do that much.

no single change can fix the problems the game has, but I personally think switching to a d10 or 12 could help fix a few issues.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
A d12, nice as it is to roll, won’t fix 40k.
If combined with other things, it could be a significant improvement, but on its own, it won’t do that much.

no single change can fix the problems the game has, but I personally think switching to a d10 or 12 could help fix a few issues.

"Replace the entire dev team with people who know what they're doing" is arguably a single change.

 waefre_1 wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
A d12, nice as it is to roll, won’t fix 40k.
If combined with other things, it could be a significant improvement, but on its own, it won’t do that much.

no single change can fix the problems the game has, but I personally think switching to a d10 or 12 could help fix a few issues.

"Replace the entire dev team with people who know what they're doing" is arguably a single change.

The team in charge of sacking the sacked dev team, has also been sacked....

I just think the difference is so marginal.

I mean if you shoot 18 BS3+ S4 AP- shots at MEQ you will on average get 2 wounds through, so one dead Marine.
If you go from BS3+ to BS2+, that increases to 2.5.

In a world of going from BS5+/12 to BS4+/12, i.e. hitting 3/4 times, you'd expect to get 2.25 wounds through.

In a game which is often about "do I wipe that squad or not", this level of marginality really doesn't matter.

What Tyel said. Greater granularity doesn't fix the problems of a lack of meaningful decisions to make in 40k at a fundamental rules level.

What needs to happen is a widening of game mechanics so that pure lethality/survivability is no longer the sole measure of effectiveness for weapons and units.

Stuff like expanding on pinning and suppression mechanics which opens up new meaningful choices in weapons between weapons which are more lethal to individual models and weapons which are more effective at suppression of units, on unit positioning beyond just physical distance so that smart play can result in units working synergistically to take out targets more effectively than they can individually (using 3 of the 4 Fs, for example where you fix an enemy in place with suppressive fire, then flank them, then finish them off). Instead of stratagems being mechanical bonuses or trap cards, have them offer new mechanics for units to enable synergistic manoeuvres so that they actually enable you to execute an actual strategy. For example maybe your tank can drive through the ruin or forest, taking some damage from an increased risk difficult terrain test, and until your next turn that terrain doesn't count as difficult terrain as your vehicle has cleared a path through, allowing you to quickly push other units through what otherwise would have been an obstacle.

Tyel wrote:
I just think the difference is so marginal.

I mean if you shoot 18 BS3+ S4 AP- shots at MEQ you will on average get 2 wounds through, so one dead Marine.
If you go from BS3+ to BS2+, that increases to 2.5.

In a world of going from BS5+/12 to BS4+/12, i.e. hitting 3/4 times, you'd expect to get 2.25 wounds through.

In a game which is often about "do I wipe that squad or not", this level of marginality really doesn't matter.

Vacuum examples are a vacuum. They ignore all the other factors. Re-rolls, command re-rolls, modifiers per unit, special rules, strats, and unit interactions. Yes, the Blood Angels hit on a 4+, but they can easily turn that into a 3+ with +x to wound....

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I just think the difference is so marginal.

I mean if you shoot 18 BS3+ S4 AP- shots at MEQ you will on average get 2 wounds through, so one dead Marine.
If you go from BS3+ to BS2+, that increases to 2.5.

In a world of going from BS5+/12 to BS4+/12, i.e. hitting 3/4 times, you'd expect to get 2.25 wounds through.

In a game which is often about "do I wipe that squad or not", this level of marginality really doesn't matter.

Vacuum examples are a vacuum. They ignore all the other factors. Re-rolls, command re-rolls, modifiers per unit, special rules, strats, and unit interactions. Yes, the Blood Angels hit on a 4+, but they can easily turn that into a 3+ with +x to wound....

To clarify then, are you taking the stance that switching to d12s fixes the game once you factor in re-rolls, modifiers, etc.? Or that the math for rerolls and modifiers is currently a problem but would somehow be fine when dealing with a d12?

Because earlier it sounded like you wanted to burn the game down and rebuild from scratch, which isn't inherently an argument for using d12s over d6s or d20s or d100s or a deck of cards, or some other mechanic entirely.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I just think the difference is so marginal.

I mean if you shoot 18 BS3+ S4 AP- shots at MEQ you will on average get 2 wounds through, so one dead Marine.
If you go from BS3+ to BS2+, that increases to 2.5.

In a world of going from BS5+/12 to BS4+/12, i.e. hitting 3/4 times, you'd expect to get 2.25 wounds through.

In a game which is often about "do I wipe that squad or not", this level of marginality really doesn't matter.

Vacuum examples are a vacuum. They ignore all the other factors. Re-rolls, command re-rolls, modifiers per unit, special rules, strats, and unit interactions. Yes, the Blood Angels hit on a 4+, but they can easily turn that into a 3+ with +x to wound....

To clarify then, are you taking the stance that switching to d12s fixes the game once you factor in re-rolls, modifiers, etc.? Or that the math for rerolls and modifiers is currently a problem but would somehow be fine when dealing with a d12?

Because earlier it sounded like you wanted to burn the game down and rebuild from scratch, which isn't inherently an argument for using d12s over d6s or d20s or d100s or a deck of cards, or some other mechanic entirely.

I am stating that a greater possible range of variables allows for greater allowances for exterior factors, where as currently, you cannot roll above a 6. No matter what modifiers you have, they are useless, as the max you can roll is a 6. Also a 1, is, no matter what else, always a 1 in many circumstances. You cannot modify out of a Plasma weapon rolling a 1. That means for many circumstances, the game is using a D4. Using a D12 allows for greater application and integration of fluff, gameplay mechanics, and as others have said, "granularity". But as it stands now, who cares if my super powerful elites have +X to hit, and Rerolls of X, because they rolled a 6.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I just think the difference is so marginal.

I mean if you shoot 18 BS3+ S4 AP- shots at MEQ you will on average get 2 wounds through, so one dead Marine.
If you go from BS3+ to BS2+, that increases to 2.5.

In a world of going from BS5+/12 to BS4+/12, i.e. hitting 3/4 times, you'd expect to get 2.25 wounds through.

In a game which is often about "do I wipe that squad or not", this level of marginality really doesn't matter.

Vacuum examples are a vacuum. They ignore all the other factors. Re-rolls, command re-rolls, modifiers per unit, special rules, strats, and unit interactions. Yes, the Blood Angels hit on a 4+, but they can easily turn that into a 3+ with +x to wound....

Switching to D12 should allow a reduction of all these things. Right now the game has all these rerolls because of the D6 limitation.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I just think the difference is so marginal.

I mean if you shoot 18 BS3+ S4 AP- shots at MEQ you will on average get 2 wounds through, so one dead Marine.
If you go from BS3+ to BS2+, that increases to 2.5.

In a world of going from BS5+/12 to BS4+/12, i.e. hitting 3/4 times, you'd expect to get 2.25 wounds through.

In a game which is often about "do I wipe that squad or not", this level of marginality really doesn't matter.

Vacuum examples are a vacuum. They ignore all the other factors. Re-rolls, command re-rolls, modifiers per unit, special rules, strats, and unit interactions. Yes, the Blood Angels hit on a 4+, but they can easily turn that into a 3+ with +x to wound....

Switching to D12 should allow a reduction of all these things. Right now the game has all these rerolls because of the D6 limitation.

Why do you assume we want to reduce the modifiers? If anything it allows for greater flexability, and inversely cuts down on the amount of dice needed.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I just think the difference is so marginal.

I mean if you shoot 18 BS3+ S4 AP- shots at MEQ you will on average get 2 wounds through, so one dead Marine.
If you go from BS3+ to BS2+, that increases to 2.5.

In a world of going from BS5+/12 to BS4+/12, i.e. hitting 3/4 times, you'd expect to get 2.25 wounds through.

In a game which is often about "do I wipe that squad or not", this level of marginality really doesn't matter.

Vacuum examples are a vacuum. They ignore all the other factors. Re-rolls, command re-rolls, modifiers per unit, special rules, strats, and unit interactions. Yes, the Blood Angels hit on a 4+, but they can easily turn that into a 3+ with +x to wound....

Switching to D12 should allow a reduction of all these things. Right now the game has all these rerolls because of the D6 limitation.

Except we all know they'd continue to exist, players would clamour for them and half the units would be "trash" unless they were a 4+. Unless the rest of the game; including the players perceptions, can shift, then it's the same situation with a different dice and the change hardly matters for the level of annoyance in people having to restock their dice.

Personally the only thing I believe that could shift the player's perceptions regarding rolls is changing Marines to 4+ in both BS/WS and also saves, because everything in the game is in one way or other compared to Marines for obvious reasons.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I just think the difference is so marginal.

I mean if you shoot 18 BS3+ S4 AP- shots at MEQ you will on average get 2 wounds through, so one dead Marine.
If you go from BS3+ to BS2+, that increases to 2.5.

In a world of going from BS5+/12 to BS4+/12, i.e. hitting 3/4 times, you'd expect to get 2.25 wounds through.

In a game which is often about "do I wipe that squad or not", this level of marginality really doesn't matter.

Vacuum examples are a vacuum. They ignore all the other factors. Re-rolls, command re-rolls, modifiers per unit, special rules, strats, and unit interactions. Yes, the Blood Angels hit on a 4+, but they can easily turn that into a 3+ with +x to wound....

To clarify then, are you taking the stance that switching to d12s fixes the game once you factor in re-rolls, modifiers, etc.? Or that the math for rerolls and modifiers is currently a problem but would somehow be fine when dealing with a d12?

Because earlier it sounded like you wanted to burn the game down and rebuild from scratch, which isn't inherently an argument for using d12s over d6s or d20s or d100s or a deck of cards, or some other mechanic entirely.

I am stating that a greater possible range of variables allows for greater allowances for exterior factors, where as currently, you cannot roll above a 6. No matter what modifiers you have, they are useless, as the max you can roll is a 6. Also a 1, is, no matter what else, always a 1 in many circumstances. You cannot modify out of a Plasma weapon rolling a 1. That means for many circumstances, the game is using a D4. Using a D12 allows for greater application and integration of fluff, gameplay mechanics, and as others have said, "granularity". But as it stands now, who cares if my super powerful elites have +X to hit, and Rerolls of X, because they rolled a 6.

I'm still not fully clear on what point you're trying to make. More granularity would mean that we could play around with stuff like stacking to-hit modifiers without breaking the game. Which would be neat, but I'm not sure it solves a lot of problems. Like, it's neat and fluffy to be able to say you're hitting an extra 8% of the time because you have slightly better stats than the next guy or because you, I don't know, set up a crossfire or whatever. But ultimately, those 8% modifiers aren't really solving any problems, right? Like, an ideal application of that change would be to have a combination of modifiers where the total modifier ends up being an odd number. So the equivalent of adding a +1.5 on a d6 roll instead of a +1 or +2. What does that fix?

Or is it literally just that you're jealous that other peoples elites can succeed on a 2+ like yours can, and you want to spread out WS/BS to make your guys feel more special?