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.

OK, here's one for dakka. Why stick with d6 systems for GW games? Doesn't it seem that there are some stats on the stat line that have a bit much effect considering the stat has only "moved" by +1 or -1? Wouldn't it seem that you could give out a greater gradient of stats with a, say, d10 system? Why stick to d6 so much? It seems to me to work better with larger scale systems (epic, say), as opposed to smaller scale (40k). What would be the ups and downs of this?

I think sticking with d6 system is part of keeping it as simple as possible. A d10 system would allow for more variation in stats and it would probably make a lot more sense with the 10x10 charts for Wounding and Weapon skill.

Would more variation equate to longer games? If so, then a benefit of the d6 system is that games go by quicker.

Yeah, and d10s and other oddly-number dice are a pain to transport in any number other than one of each.

d6 works fine for 40k because you roll a *lot* of dice. The variation between lots of successes is equivalent to having fewer successes with smaller steps between success and failure.

Note that GW's game mechanics intentionally compress the range of variation even further to emphasize masses over uber-heroes.

Also, going to a d10 simply means you have more pointless, minimal differentiation. Better to force the designer (and player) to choose among clear differentiators. BS4/6 is clearly better than BS3/6, whereas BS 6/10 isn't noticably different from BS5/10.

Fun factor:

Rolling D6's is pleasing to me. Its a big reason why I (and probably others) like craps too.


Rolling D8's, D10's, etc. Not so pleasing.


Something about the cube and the way it rolls, bounces, etc. makes it da' best!

stonefox: huh? what's so bad about the transport aspect?

JHDD and lifeafter: good answers. very informative. thank you.

I'd rather carry a small plastic cube of 36 d6 dice than a monstrosity of a dice bag of 36 d10 dice.

I remember the old days when you had to have all different kinds of dice for stuff like armor penetration.

Yeha, nothing like rolling d20 + d3 + 8 for AP.

While GW problably wont think of this D6 is the best factor for wargaming.

Modern naval warfare theory (which is closer to statistical combat that land warfare) suggests that 'enemy contact' is achived when accuracy probabilities rise to 15% or higher, less than that and its not worth shooting.

15% is very close to 6+, and 10+ on 2d6. Therefore d6 it is the optimal base modifier for dividing up to hit damage probabilities.

I myself like polyhedral dice, so I'd like to see a few uses for them in 40k. However, I agree that carrying a cube full of d6 is pleasing. I agree with Yak that rolling a handful of cubical dice just feels better also.

Slaanesh is also the god of six, isn't it? It makes sense that it would be pleasing to 40k then.

I'm guessing it might be a leftover from back when GW TRIED to be nice to their gaming community. It seems easier to buy d6s just about anywhere (at walmart for instance) than to have to go and find a game store (which may or may not be an easy thing to do) and buy some of the other more esoteric variations of die. (d100 anyone?)

1988 was the last year I had problems getting a hold of dice that didn't have 6 sides. Since then it's been simple. Any game store has them. The only "game" stores that don't are the GW stores since they don't use them. If they switched the system, anyplace you could find miniatures, you'd find dice and I don't hear any complaining that people can't get a hold of miniatures.

I don't see anything different in rolling d6's compared to any other shape of die, but I guess that's just personal preference.

I also don't see how transport of d6 is any more or less difficult than transport of d10's, d12's, or d20's. You put them in whatever container it is you put your dice into and you go.

I would much rather see the system to towards having more statistical variation. Sure there may not be a lot of difference from BS 5/12 and BS 6/12 but there is some difference and it will come up in game. Having the wider range allows for much more variation between units and subtle differences that are just not there in the d6 system. How many people were outraged when the shooty tau army was released and found to have the same ballistic skill as normal humans? There were a lot. Now how much better would it have been if they were marginally better than normal humans but not as good as superhumans? I think distinctions like that would really help the game out.

To me there's a bit more trouble in transporting dozens of models and tanks than a bag of dice. but whatever.

There is nothing basically wrong with the D6. There are various ways it can be used cleverly to run a game with a decent amount of variation and playability. I don't think GW do it very cleverly but that's a separate argument.

I was going to say because they're cheap, but I'll second the fun + ease of carrying factor.

I have a small messenger bag and a carrying case for all my warhams. The messenger bag must maintain a typical rectangular shape, as I do not like it bulging or forcing it out of shape. It contains a small measuring tape, a cube of dice, templates, counters, some books, and printed papers.

An abnormal dice bag goes against all these things.

Or you could go down the path of D66.

2D6 used consecutively rather than added.

That gives you a bit more statistical variation?

Phoenix wrote:How many people were outraged when the shooty tau army was released and found to have the same ballistic skill as normal humans? There were a lot. Now how much better would it have been if they were marginally better than normal humans but not as good as superhumans? I think distinctions like that would really help the game out.

I would tend to disagree. A smaller number of well-defined categories is better, rather than allowing the designer to be wishy-washy. The designer's job is to make a good choice.

As for whether Tau should have been BS4, that is a design decision - there is no "right" answer. Would you have been willing to pay 30+% more per model for BS4 Tau, resulting in a smaller army?

Personally, I think that forcing more armies down to WS3 BS3 is a good thing, as it reduces stat creep. 40k should be balanced around the humble 3-stat Guardsman, not the superhuman 4-stat Marine. After all, the typical masses are only a 2-stat humans, and it would be good for GW to bring those back to emphasize the point.

akira5665 wrote:Or you could go down the path of D66.

2D6 used consecutively rather than added.

That gives you a bit more statistical variation?

Erm, the standard GW kill mechanic is d666:
- d6 to-hit
- d6 to-wound
- d6 to-save

So clearly, GW is the devil.

d6 is easy to find, stock, and carry. You also get the
benefit of "Vegas Dice"...

Tau may have BS3 but their gun being S5 adds to the kill potential. That illustrates my point the D666 mechanism.

They wouldn't have had to cost 33% more just for having BS4 though. The other stats should also be taken into account.

yakface wrote:
Fun factor:

Rolling D6's is pleasing to me. Its a big reason why I (and probably others) like craps too.


Rolling D8's, D10's, etc. Not so pleasing.


Something about the cube and the way it rolls, bounces, etc. makes it da' best!

The reason for this is simple Yak. You are a member of The D6 Generation, and therefore prefere the D6.

(I know, I know, I'm shameless)

I would like to see d10's or maybe even d8's. John Hwang's point isn't bad, but having a larger scale to work with lets one make better choices. Having to pick between 3 and 4 when the better answer is 3.5 is not good. Bad game design is bad game design, whether it is on a d6 scale or d10^67 scale. Good game design can benefit from finer control of gradients. If nothing else, it would make WS matter past "3+ or 4+ to hit?" 99% of the time. (Of course, so would changing the way WS works; bad game design rears it's ugly head again!)

That, and I think most people like thinking in base 10 only a bit better than the odd mix they have now. If stats range from 0-10, being only able to have them interact them within 5 numbers (since 1 always fails on a test) limits how much you can really use those stats.

As to carrying them, maybe it is just because I used to play D&D, but a little baggie of dice is not terribly oppresive. Yes, d10's don't fit into a tiny cube as handily, but then I use full sized, 1987 era dice, so I have a pretty big sack to begin with.

From a human design standpoint, it is clearer to have fewer steps between. People can only remember a few things easily. Knowing whether the stats are mostly 3s, mostly 4s is easy, because then you only need to track the occasional exception.

Having 1000 steps of WS or BS is bad because you force the player to look up whether it's BS 328/1000 or 327/1000. You can't do it from memory.

And it's bad because there is rarely any justification for having so many steps, nor why the magic stat is 328 vs 329.

Heck, even D&D / d20, which has a potential for 15 steps from 3 to 18 (1 to 20 after racial mods) shrinks this by going 2 for 1 and normalizing around 10/11. And d20 is a high-detail system, in which a player only tracks 1 character.

As for BS3.5, that's IG Sharpshooters. What a rules mess of exceptions upon exceptions that thing produces.

And WS / wounding / BS could be changed mechanically to be other than 3+ / 4+ (5+), at the expense of certain game balance issues that would make Heroes so much more powerful than grunts.

Unfortunately, it's also easier to find loaded or weighted D6 than other polyhedrals (although they're out there too).

I hate having to wonder about why an opponent's dice turn up 6 so often... especially if their other behavior makes me question their character.

Speaking of which, can anyone share a few of the better-known tests to spot weighted dice? I've heard something about a bucket of water being usable for testing. Advice appreciated, as I hate losing to cheaters.

The bucket of water is the only practical one unless you carry some 1/100 milimeter calipers around.

Wehrkind wrote:...
...
...
...

so I have a pretty big sack to begin with.

Fnarr, fnarr.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finbarr_Saunders

I would personally like to see a new 40k edition clear the decks and move to a d10. I agree that there is such a thing as 'too detailed' but d10 is less than twice the steps of d6, so I think it's OK.

Stores with RPG gamers often sell big packs of D10s (to the White Wolf crowd amongst others) so getting the dice isn't a realistic complaint.

Moving to a d10 would open up the design space a lot. We could have Sisters of Battle as an intermediate step between Carapace and the 'legendary' (and much thicker looking!) Adeptus Astartes Power Armor. Much the same for strength and other stats: Orks could be stronger than baseline humans,no need for the wacky "BS3.5" rules for Sharpshooter IG, etc.

I don't think this is likely, however, as GW seems scared of the bulk of work involved in doing a major revolution like this.

d10 doesn't solve anything that couldn't be done with a d6 mechanic, but it does invalidate a lot of Codices. I can't see GW ever doing another reset because the cost impact would be too high.

And from a practical standpoint, Sisters are an intermediate step:
- T3 Sv5+ Guardsman
- T3 Sv4+ Stormtrooper
- T3 Sv3+ Sister
- T4 Sv3+ Marine
- T4 Sv2+ Terminator

Similarly, A2 T4 Orks easily outfight baseilne A1 T3 humans in HtH.

If the game supports the desired effects, why should we support change for the sake of change?

JohnHwangDD wrote:If the game supports the desired effects, why should we support change for the sake of change?

Because it supports them in ugly ways?