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.

With all this talk of expanding to D10, I thought I'd start with Marines to show why D6 still has plenty of life left in it.

To recap, WH40k has two main statlines, GEQ and MEQ, and as such, we'll be looking at various performance criteria (discounting AP weapons initially) in terms of aligning in-game performance to provide a fluffier (and more varied) experience.  I'll start with HTH since it seems harder to balance than shooting (due to the scaling to-hit system).

Keep in mind, I'm using the following breakdown for WS.

WS2 Unskilled - Grots, Tau
WS3 Average - Guardsmen, Guardians
WS4 Skilled - Marines
WS5 Very Skilled - Aspect Warriors, Wyches, Genestealers
WS6 Weaponmasters - Exarchs, SM commanders etc.

H'ok.  Let's look at current MEQ casualties against the S3 fellows at the common WS.

WS2 - 1/2(1/3)(1/3) = 1/18 MEQ
WS3 - 1/2(1/3)(1/3) = 1/18 MEQ
WS4 - 1/2(1/3)(1/3) = 1/18 MEQ
WS5 - 2/3(1/3)(1/3) = 2/27 MEQ

Going to S4 raises all the casualties by 1/6... going to 1/12 MEQ instead for the common WS levels (2-4).

Ok.  Well, what about ignoring their saves?  Say they are being hit by a unit of howling banshees...

WS5 - powerweapons - 2/3(1/3) = 2/9 per swing.  A banshee gets three swings on the charge, so that boosts it to 6/9 or 2/3... which still doesn't seem too terrible, since banshees can't shoot worth beans, and can not fully eliminate an enemy model - even with going first, and charging.

What about Scorpions then?  They're swinging with S4 at 4 attacks (1 attack base, 2 for extra gun, 1 for charge, 1 for mandiblasters) at WS5...

Scorps net:  4x(2/3)(1/2)(1/3) or 4/9 which is worse performance - and few models will get more attacks.

Therefore, the marine statline appears plenty tough already against HTH fellows, and there's no need to increase resilience by raising toughness.  ...Still, I can't shake this nagging feeling that Marines aren't tough enough...  it must be the proliferation of high AP weapons that's doing it, since low AP small arms fire is functionally the same as a flurry of S3 and S4 hits in HTH - and we know those offer a poor ROI as any effectiveness is trumped by the 3+ save (or in the banshee's case, the T4)...

This provides another conundrum - how do we make Marines more resilient against high powered shooting but don't make them into HTH monsters that are unkillable by GEQ and sub-MEQ (eldar, DE, tyranids)?

Feel no pain is right out, since it boosts the Marine save of 3+ (0.66) to 0.89, which is better than a 2+ (0.83) against the unwashed massess of the 41st millenium...

Ok.  Well, what about an invulnerable save?  A 4+/5+ would reduce the effectiveness of high AP weapons by 50% to 33% respectively...  Most of the time, the unwashed massess will be hitting powerarmor since this is better than their I save anyhow...

A 4+ or 5+ drops banshees back down to 1/9 or 4/27  per (non charging) model.  Maybe not.  At rates like that, specialist HTH troops have zero advantage over their non-specialist brethern.

We could always give marines another wound, and drop everyone's effeciveness down by 50%.  Marines would probably cost 20 points then. - Care would need to be taken to prevent them from dying to say - Firedragons and ordinance, but against most guns in the game, they are much more resilient (since the most common S8+ gun is the lascannon, and plasmaguns only remove 1 wound).

The addition of an extra wound would also differentiate them from SOB at 11 points.  T3 and one wound would be a major difference.  18 point Necrons have a "quasi-wound" with WBB.

So where does that leave our poor aspect warriors?  Well, we could give 'em another attack to boost 'em back into competitiveness (due to their high cost)...

So a banshee would be getting 4 swings on a charge for 4(2/3)(1/3)(1/2) or 4/9 of a MEQ on the charge - not shabby. (2:1) and 4(2/3)(1/2) 4/3 GEQ (1:1.33)

A scorp would get 5(2/3)(1/2)(1/3)(1/2) or 5/18 MEQ per swing (4:1) and 4(2/3)(2/3)(2/3) or 32/27 GEQ per swing (1:1.18)

Well hot diggity... that looks reasonable, but how does a poor dog-faced guardsman do against our new uber-mensch?

1/2(1/3)(1/3)(1/2) = 1/32 MEQ per swing.  Crap.  Well, that's just terrible.  What if he was charging?  1/16 MEQ.  What if he had 3 friends?  1/4 MEQ.

Clearly, even if we lowered the basic guardsman cost to 5, and 4 on 1 vs. the marine in HTH, it looks like a lost cause, as we are unable to even approach parity.  In return, the Marines would strike first and immediatley inflict an expected (2/3)(2/3)(2/3) or 8/27 casualties each.

This is where synergy comes in though, as Guardsman squads are merely weapons caddies...  A combination of melta weapons and disposable (dying and spaced out) guardsman squads may enable them to attain more success with shooting.  As units recieving or generating a charge would probably flee. 

A commissar making a unit fearless might be more detrimental to the Marines since a 100 point unit of 10 wounds on 5 bodies is still only killing 40/27 (roughly 1 1/2) a turn with their bolter butts.

At any rate, Marines seem to work better at T4 W2 than giving them any other fiddly rules.  Whether they should have better GEQ (and better HTH prowress on basic models) killing powers is a discussion for another day.

Part III

Ok. So now we have the problem that Marines don't seem to have the killy power to tackle other MEQs, as MEQ vs MEQ battles always devolve into a gay chest-thumping sequence of 3+ armour rolls. The second wound doesn't help things much... so the answer is to make them more choppy in HTH. At least as choppy as their shooting ability since at present, a MEQ gets one swing at WS4 BS4 resulting in a:

1/2(1/2)(1/3)(1/2) or 1/24 MEQ
2/3(2/3)(2/3) or 8/27 GEQ (almost 1/3)

So let's give all Marines true grit. That would boost them to 1/12 MEQ per model, and 1/8 MEQ each on a charge turn. This would also let them get a guaranteed guardsman kill (almost) on a charge. - Generally still laughable in MEQ vs MEQ combat (powerfists would be the ultimate equalizer and mandatory equipment since they can -autokill- a 2 wound marine.), but fairly decent vs. non MEQ troop types:

Non Charging vs:

HTH Aspect Warrior: 2(1/2)(2/3)(1/2) = 1/3
Shooting Aspect Warrior: 2(2/3)(2/3)(1/2) = 4/9
Sister of Battle: 2(2/3)(2/3)(1/3) = 8/27 ~ 1/3
Guardsman: 2(2/3)(2/3)(2/3) = 16/27 ~ 2/3
Tau: 2(2/3)(2/3)(1/2) = 4/9

How about assault squads? Consider the following:

Bolt Pistol + CCW vs. Bolter w/ True Grit. 12" less max range, one less shot at short range. If all marines have true grit, than assault marines are very underpowered (albiet fast). So how do we give them more attacks while not breaking the rules?

Well, let's give Marines two attacks base and nix the true grit ability. That would put Assault Marines and regular Joe Shmoe marines on a more even footing... since we now have 3 charging attacks vs 4 jump pack charging attacks, 5 if you count the bolt pistol shooting beforehand. More attacks is always better...

These boys should probably cost 30 or so points, since that is around the points of a rhino amortized over the cost of 10 (2 wound) riders, and add a few points for being obviously better than a rhino and then 2 points for frag and krak.

Well sheeit. I've opened up a can of worms on the poor Tau and Guardsmen. They'll be on the recieving end of a zillion attacks now...

Guardsmen: 5(2/3)(2/3)(2/3) = 40/27 ~ 1 1/2 recieving a charge!
WS3 Aspect or Tau: 5(2/3)(2/3)(1/2) ~ 10/9 recieving a charge!

So 150 points of Assault Marines will gut a unit of Tau and probably wipe out on their turn...

Other food for thought:

Possible additional combat abilities: (tossing out ideas)

Countercharge - Requires Ld check at -2
Fallback and shoot - Requires a Ld check at -2 to shoot - otherwise, unit falls back normally.
Close formation - friendly models in B2B, boosts your WS by 1.

Im sorry man you have talked a lot about the mechanics of the game without doing ANYTHING to debunk the topic of using a D10 over a D6.  When you are going to post a topic in an attempt to prove why your opinion disproves someone else's you should actually put something in there that says something about the other topic.  After reading both of your posts here you wrote very much but said o so little.

Posted By Vult on 02/15/2007 6:16 AM
Im sorry man you have talked a lot about the mechanics of the game without doing ANYTHING to debunk the topic of using a D10 over a D6.  When you are going to post a topic in an attempt to prove why your opinion disproves someone else's you should actually put something in there that says something about the other topic.  After reading both of your posts here you wrote very much but said o so little.

That's a nice strawman arguement there my friend.  Thanks for posting.

D10 is the Roxxors.  It is the BESTEST system ever because it has 40% more D's than a D6.  So that makes it totally better.  It sure is a good thing that your post included details on how you'd implement that kind of thing instead of going over how extra granularity can be achieved by manipulating existing infrastructure...  I mean, D10 offers more potential outcomes...  now have 1/10^3 possible outcomes instead of 1/6^3.  That's an increase of near 500%.  I'm sure that would be easy to balance.  Is that magnitude of increase really necessary?  I'm sure that an increase of around 20-50% in granularity is needed to make 40k more interesting.  Sure, AP would scale nicely, but AP is a busted system anyways, and weakness against AP is trumped by increasing wounds.

But I digress, you put forth such a strong and persuasive arguement that my feeble suggestions are shown to be the foolish rantings of a madman.  You should run for public office.  That way, when our roads and highways are gridlocked, you can put forth your suggestion that we demolish all the old roads and infrastructue and make new ones with 500% more lanes... because that will totally fix the problem.  Never mind that the problem lies in the roadway interchange system and not in the roadway capacity.

You win d10 interwebs!  Hooray.

I think what he was getting at is that you never really stated what you were trying to accomplish with the changes.

Posted By Buoyancy on 02/15/2007 8:49 AM
I think what he was getting at is that you never really stated what you were trying to accomplish with the changes.

exactly..

And if you would like to read about how I feel about the D10 and my arguments for why it would work you should start by reading MY post on why I think it should be a D10 system.  I also go into a good debate with Nurglich on the topic with some interesting points that were not just throwing random numbers at the issue.

Posted By Vult on 02/15/2007 1:08 PM

Posted By Buoyancy on 02/15/2007 8:49 AM
I think what he was getting at is that you never really stated what you were trying to accomplish with the changes.

exactly..

And if you would like to read about how I feel about the D10 and my arguments for why it would work you should start by reading MY post on why I think it should be a D10 system.  I also go into a good debate with Nurglich on the topic with some interesting points that were not just throwing random numbers at the issue.

I've read your thread. 

While interesting, you're oversimplifying things.  Conceptualizing is one thing, implementation is another.

I fail to see how shifting to a D10 system will improve the game, as it is fundamentally incompatible with the existing ruleset.  Sure, shoehorning the base D6 probabilities into the D10 system might be a start, but stuff like the "To hit chart" are going to turn into a complete nightmare.  Where are you going to place the hit bonuses  and the hit penalty cutoffs?  How will these cutoffs affect gameplay i.e. a bunch of guardsmen having huge penalties to hit, and wound the Avatar, who gets a good save...

You are trotting the D10 around like it is some sort of gaming panacea without any indication of how it is actually supposed to be applied to the system.

In fact, from my random number bashing, I've noticed a few things that are inherently wrong with the GW system as it stands.  The WS/BS numbers are larglely inconsequential, as most models have a 3 or 4 in these categories.  What this means is that the majority of actions are taking place with a 50% frequency.  Sv trumps the "to hit and to wound" scenarios in most cases, making the Sv the most important statistic, higher than toughness/strength, and much higher than WS/BS.  This fact alone means that changing the system to D10 with increments of 10% is inherently pointless, since the D6 increments in WS/BS of 16.6% are already largely meaningless...

Just from screwing around with random d6 calculations and a few statlines in trying to increase marine toughness and HTH effectiveness within the existing framework is resulting in quite a mess.  I can hardly imagine what switching to D10 with its corresponding increase in possible outcomes by roughly 500% will do to GW's designers, let alone us armchair games designers.

I fully believe that manipulated properly, the D6 system has sufficient granularity to accomodate the diverse models represented in the game, and my random number bashing is an attempt to substantiate my gut feeling.  You're free to develop your d10 system, and I look forward to reading about how you've adapted the D10 to work with the existing infrastructure of the game.  (I personally think it impossible without rebuilding the entire game, but I welcome you to prove me wrong).

At any rate, I think this is as far OT as I want to go.