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.

What if we straight up just mapped 1:1 the D6 values needed for things to a D12 and kept modifiers the same? Right now far too many thing can get -2 or even -3 to hit which makes them literally unhittable. Making a 6 always hit is just a cheap and lazy way and actually devalues modifiers even more.

Basically, I am calling for halving modifiers percentage effectiveness.

Basically, anywhere that needs a 2+ right now would instead need a 3+ on a D12, 3+ to 5+, 4+ to 7+, 5+ to 9+ and 6+ to 11+

This would keep the base percentages the same while reducing the impact of modifiers but not making them totally meaningless.

Plus D12 is a cool shape and is jealous of it's famous 20 sided sibling.

Like D10 much more due to even percentages of its sides.

I was worried enough about bringing back armor penalties, but I didn't think that to-hit penalties would come back. Oh well.

This is the exact statistical problem the old Shadowrun system had as well. And, of course, 2nd ed 40K.

Martel732 wrote:
Like D10 much more due to even percentages of its sides.

I was worried enough about bringing back armor penalties, but I didn't think that to-hit penalties would come back. Oh well.

This is the exact statistical problem the old Shadowrun system had as well. And, of course, 2nd ed 40K.

A D10 doesn't translate exactly from a D6 though. A D12 has the advantage of having EXACT percentage equality with a D6.

I don't care about translating it though. If I'm changing dice, I'd change everything.

I played a home-made ruleset many years ago based around a D20 with lots of modifiers. One roll per unit, just stacking/removing modifiers. It was simple and straightforward, logical in the way modifiers worked (cover, range, training, morale), and allowed for quite a bit of range in success chances. The game started out with needing something like a 18+ to succeed, and usually ended with a 4+ to succeed if you get into optimal position. I liked it a lot.

 Blacksails wrote:
I played a home-made ruleset many years ago based around a D20 with lots of modifiers. One roll per unit, just stacking/removing modifiers. It was simple and straightforward, logical in the way modifiers worked (cover, range, training, morale), and allowed for quite a bit of range in success chances. The game started out with needing something like a 18+ to succeed, and usually ended with a 4+ to succeed if you get into optimal position. I liked it a lot.

That's the way DnD does it, one roll to hit and wound and one roll for damage. I think it's a bit too much for a game like 40k.

Additional granularity and a few rules changes could have fixed 7th, too. But instead we get this, where Ork players are uncertain if they are even going to be allowed to dakka.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
I played a home-made ruleset many years ago based around a D20 with lots of modifiers. One roll per unit, just stacking/removing modifiers. It was simple and straightforward, logical in the way modifiers worked (cover, range, training, morale), and allowed for quite a bit of range in success chances. The game started out with needing something like a 18+ to succeed, and usually ended with a 4+ to succeed if you get into optimal position. I liked it a lot.

That's the way DnD does it, one roll to hit and wound and one roll for damage. I think it's a bit too much for a game like 40k.

If we're talking about changing dice mechanics, there's no reason it couldn't work for 40k. Of course, if we're talking about such a dramatic change, I'd assume we'd fix a few other areas like the scale of the game so we don't have titans facing off against grots.

Damage wouldn't be a straight remove model mechanic, instead it could be far more morale based where units that take a little bit of 'damage' under the old system would simply be pinned, reducing effectiveness. You'd then have command points to spend to rally troops and whatnot. Would make 40k more of a real wargame than yahtzee with cool models.

Martel732 wrote:
Additional granularity and a few rules changes could have fixed 7th, too. But instead we get this, where Ork players are uncertain if they are even going to be allowed to dakka.

That's a fallacious argument and you know it. 7th was broken mess built upon broken mess. It simply could not be salvaged without total destruction. The root of 7th problem was it was basically 3rd with literal decades of nonsense built on top of it.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Additional granularity and a few rules changes could have fixed 7th, too. But instead we get this, where Ork players are uncertain if they are even going to be allowed to dakka.

That's a fallacious argument and you know it. 7th was broken mess built upon broken mess. It simply could not be salvaged without total destruction. The root of 7th problem was it was basically 3rd with literal decades of nonsense built on top of it.

Disagree-the core of 7th was, by and large, good. It's everything on top of it that wasn't so good.

Anyway, you'd have to go in and adjust some modifiers, because some SHOULD stay equivalent to what they are now. (As in, a -2 on a d12, rather than a -1.) But a lot of them could be reduced.

Problem is, throwing 60 attacks on D12s is a complete nightmare and games already take 3 hours now.

I mean the biggest reason to change dice would be to allow for more variability between units. It helps with modifiers, but really it just allows for things to be differentiated and balanced more easily. You could make say marines significantly better than guardsman, who could be made better than say conscripts without one or the other being useless. One of the biggest issues GW has is that they have a small set of meaningful stat changes, and they don't even use the whole of the stat range (nothing is S 1 or T1, very little has 2s for these either.

Just imagine a wound chart based off a D12. Right now we have 6 damage levels which has always been an issue with the system. With 12 possible levels weapons can be almost always meaningful.

S >= T+5 2+ to wound 92%
S = T+4 3+ to wound 83%
S = T+3 4+ to wound 75%
S = T+2 5+ to wound 66%
S = T+1 6+ to wound 58%
S = T 7+ to wound 50%
S = T -1 8+ to wound 42%
S = T -2 9+ to wound 33%
S = T -3 10+ to wound 25%
S = T -4 11+ to wound 17%
S <= T -5 12+ to wound 8%

I've played games where I've tossed 20 D10s at once. It's fine, and they are less likely to roll off the table in my experience as well.

Beyond the Gates of 40k translates the game to d12s. It works fine.

The game would definitely be well served with something better than a D6. I'm generally of the opinion that the difference between a 6+ and 5+ alone is enough to make lone D6's questionable (Guild Ball even suffers from this).

That said, do I think it will change? Not really, so I guess its a fine thought exercise with unrealistic conclusions.

My suggestion is more of a "how would the game balance alter if we just swapped it" rather than trying to tweak the game around it.

I for one would love to see what would happen over a bunch of games, just as an experiment.

Instead of changing the dice system, what about making -hit modifiers more scarce or +hit modifiers more prevalent?

I personally like d8 with 1=auto fail and 8=auto pass

If WS and BS also concurrently changed, then we can potentially have a better gradient between different ranks from character (+2) > MEQ veteran (+3) > MEQ troops (+4) > GEQ troops (+5) > ork equiv (+6) > fodders (+7)

+1 = 1.00 +1 = 1.00
+2 = 0.88 +2 = 0.83
+3 = 0.75 +3 = 0.67
+4 = 0.63 +4 = 0.50
+5 = 0.50 +5 = 0.33
+6 = 0.38 +6 = 0.17
+7 = 0.25
+8 = 0.13

Not a direct translation but scales better without getting too granular.

The d8 system could be used to determine 'model action' and retain the d6 system for wounding and saves. As you say, there are only few 'classes' of toughness (without going to full on titans) - 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 - I for one like the simplified wounding mechanism.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
My suggestion is more of a "how would the game balance alter if we just swapped it" rather than trying to tweak the game around it.

I for one would love to see what would happen over a bunch of games, just as an experiment.

Doing that it would make modifiers less punishing and the translation would be as follows

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

Then the modifiers would essentially take you to the space in between, so a terminator with a 3+ save could benefit from +1 cover to get a 2+ save. That said cover unless you double it would also be fairly useless giving only an 8% boost to survival. The issue largely would be you would need to re-work the AP system as a 3+ save with a -4 from a melta gun would be the equivalent of getting a current 4+ save. So likely you would need to double AP as well.

At some point it is likely a better idea to do a more thorough re-write to take advantage of the dice.

I'm not buying a bunch of D12s.

I like the idea of "half-rolls" for D6s myself.

For example, hit on a 3.5+ Every roll of 4+ is a hit. Every "pair" of 3s, or every "3" that can be matched to an unmatched 4 also counts as a hit. So say you rolled two 4s and four 3s. This would be 5 hits, since two of the 3s can be matched to 4s, and this leaves a pair of 3s.

This would probably be cleaner for representing granular distributions compared to the "reroll 1" rolls present in 40k as a whole too

 MagicJuggler wrote:
I'm not buying a bunch of D12s.

I like the idea of "half-rolls" for D6s myself.

For example, hit on a 3.5+ Every roll of 4+ is a hit. Every "pair" of 3s, or every "3" that can be matched to an unmatched 4 also counts as a hit. So say you rolled two 4s and four 3s. This would be 5 hits, since two of the 3s can be matched to 4s, and this leaves a pair of 3s.

This would probably be cpleaner for representing granular distributions compared to the "reroll 1" rolls present in 40k as a whole too

That is way more complicated and slow than just using D12s

Breng77 wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
I'm not buying a bunch of D12s.

I like the idea of "half-rolls" for D6s myself.

For example, hit on a 3.5+ Every roll of 4+ is a hit. Every "pair" of 3s, or every "3" that can be matched to an unmatched 4 also counts as a hit. So say you rolled two 4s and four 3s. This would be 5 hits, since two of the 3s can be matched to 4s, and this leaves a pair of 3s.

This would probably be cleaner for representing granular distributions compared to the "reroll 1" rolls present in 40k as a whole too

That is way more complicated and slow than just using D12s

Is it really? How many D12s are you going to roll to figure things out? A unit of conscripts fires, are you going to batch out 120 D12s to figure hits and misses?

No but I don't do that with D6 either. I'd roll 20-30 at a time.



Still way easier than having those 120 dice hit on say a 5.5+ SO I need to pull all 6s and then pair off other dice. Is that 5 a hit or a miss?

Rolling 20 D12 6 times or 30 4 times is far easier not to make mistakes, and easier to pull off misses.

Just make it so a natural 6 is a hit, and -hit caps at -2.

Reinventing the entire game because they gave out too many stacking bonuses to one faction is silly.

Instead of d12s, what about 2d6 to smooth the distribution and make modifiers relevant without as gamechanging as a -1 on a d6? Of course, getting 10 pairs of d6s in different colors would be a hassle, as well as totaling results for large squads/high attack characters a nightmare. Solution: get one of those 24-compartment storage trays, put 2d6 in each compartment, number the compartments (so when you’re only rolling six attacks it’s clear which rolls are the results, and shake the tray whenever you need to roll dice?

D6s are a lot easier to find and cheaper than d12s. But either way, it’d be a barrier to entry in GW’s eyes.

Eldar Shortseer wrote:
Instead of d12s, what about 2d6 to smooth the distribution and make modifiers relevant without as gamechanging as a -1 on a d6? Of course, getting 10 pairs of d6s in different colors would be a hassle, as well as totaling results for large squads/high attack characters a nightmare. Solution: get one of those 24-compartment storage trays, put 2d6 in each compartment, number the compartments (so when you’re only rolling six attacks it’s clear which rolls are the results, and shake the tray whenever you need to roll dice?

D6s are a lot easier to find and cheaper than d12s. But either way, it’d be a barrier to entry in GW’s eyes.

2d6 removes rolls of 1's. If dice system changed, GW can potentially have more sales by offering 'Official WH40k Faction Specific d12'

 skchsan wrote:

Eldar Shortseer wrote:
Instead of d12s, what about 2d6 to smooth the distribution and make modifiers relevant without as gamechanging as a -1 on a d6? Of course, getting 10 pairs of d6s in different colors would be a hassle, as well as totaling results for large squads/high attack characters a nightmare. Solution: get one of those 24-compartment storage trays, put 2d6 in each compartment, number the compartments (so when you’re only rolling six attacks it’s clear which rolls are the results, and shake the tray whenever you need to roll dice?

D6s are a lot easier to find and cheaper than d12s. But either way, it’d be a barrier to entry in GW’s eyes.

2d6 removes rolls of 1's. If dice system changed, GW can potentially have more sales by offering 'Official WH40k Faction Specific d12'

lol @ GW specialty dice.

Obviously, there’d have to be some other changes, and not just because of the missing 1. Overcharged plasma guns would only explode 3% (assuming on 2s) of the time instead of 17%; exploding 6s (assuming 12s) would be useless, etc. So, for example, we’d say a modified roll of 2-3 is an auto fail while a modified 11-12 is an auto-success (and both give the same effects as a natural 1 or 6 in the current system; 8% chance of either as opposed to 17%). That way, you wouldn’t have the 33% chance of completely blowing it or acing it on every roll. It would help to mollify some of the modifiers that are potentially unbalancing things now. Alaitoc -2/-3 to be hit shenanigans could be mitigated but not removed.

Guardians could hit on a 7+ and Aspect Warriors on a 6+ instead of 3+ for both; same with SoB vs. SM armor saves (because SM power Armor works better with the implants), etc. But it would require at least rewriting every data sheet and some of the rules. OTOH, it wouldn’t actually be a complete rewrite of the game rules and mechanics like some other proposals I’ve seen.

But maybe just using a d12, making 1s and 12s equal the old 1s and 6s, and changing a few other items (plus of course doubling saves/BS/WS) would be simpler than a whole bunch of 2D6s.

I like the d12, both in it's spread compared to a d6 *and* the fact that it's round enough to actually roll easily (unlike d10s). I would be in favour of a d12 system.

Eldar Shortseer wrote:
Instead of d12s, what about 2d6 to smooth the distribution and make modifiers relevant without as gamechanging as a -1 on a d6? Of course, getting 10 pairs of d6s in different colors would be a hassle, as well as totaling results for large squads/high attack characters a nightmare. Solution: get one of those 24-compartment storage trays, put 2d6 in each compartment, number the compartments (so when you’re only rolling six attacks it’s clear which rolls are the results, and shake the tray whenever you need to roll dice?

D6s are a lot easier to find and cheaper than d12s. But either way, it’d be a barrier to entry in GW’s eyes.

2D6 have a bell shaped probability curve, thus drastically changing the nature of the roll.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Eldar Shortseer wrote:
Instead of d12s, what about 2d6 to smooth the distribution and make modifiers relevant without as gamechanging as a -1 on a d6? Of course, getting 10 pairs of d6s in different colors would be a hassle, as well as totaling results for large squads/high attack characters a nightmare. Solution: get one of those 24-compartment storage trays, put 2d6 in each compartment, number the compartments (so when you’re only rolling six attacks it’s clear which rolls are the results, and shake the tray whenever you need to roll dice?

D6s are a lot easier to find and cheaper than d12s. But either way, it’d be a barrier to entry in GW’s eyes.

2D6 have a bell shaped probability curve, thus drastically changing the nature of the roll.

This^

With 2d6, you're very, very close to a normal distribution, with 7 as the median. Nearly 50% (44.42, to be exact) of your rolls are going to be 6, 7, or 8, where only a little over 5% of your rolls will be 1 or 2.



With a d12, you have 8.33% chance of rolling any given number.

Eldar Shortseer wrote:
Instead of d12s, what about 2d6 to smooth the distribution and make modifiers relevant without as gamechanging as a -1 on a d6? Of course, getting 10 pairs of d6s in different colors would be a hassle, as well as totaling results for large squads/high attack characters a nightmare. Solution: get one of those 24-compartment storage trays, put 2d6 in each compartment, number the compartments (so when you’re only rolling six attacks it’s clear which rolls are the results, and shake the tray whenever you need to roll dice?

D6s are a lot easier to find and cheaper than d12s. But either way, it’d be a barrier to entry in GW’s eyes.

Anyone ever suggesting 2d6 has never rolled 2d6 in large numbers.