PDA

View Full Version : Could using other dice besides 6 sided help?



Rated_lexxx
03-03-2012, 00:47
I was thinking about this the other dice. The entire game is based around 6 sided dice which can be limited. You always have a 1 in 6 chance to do something mostly. So the odds of succeeded or failure is always based those small set of odds. There is exceptions with rerolls.

But what if we started using just say 8 sided dice. It could just open a lot of design space.

Armor saves could have great use from this, game design wise. DE wyches who look like wear some armor, and more so then a orks t-shirt save should have a better save...such as a 7+

Now that we have higher armor saves now guns can have different AP to show a difference

I don't think it would balance anything that is unbalance it was just a thought I had

The other problem is dropping 8 sided dice on the floor and become caltrops to people without shoes

Glabro
03-03-2012, 00:55
I was thinking about this the other dice. The entire game is based around 6 sided dice which can be limited. You always have a 1 in 6 chance to do something mostly. So the odds of succeeded or failure is always based those small set of odds. There is exceptions with rerolls.

But what if we started using just say 8 sided dice. It could just open a lot of design space.

Armor saves could have great use from this, game design wise. DE wyches who look like wear some armor, and more so then a orks t-shirt save should have a better save...such as a 7+

Now that we have higher armor saves now guns can have different AP to show a difference

I don't think it would balance anything that is unbalance it was just a thought I had

The other problem is dropping 8 sided dice on the floor and become caltrops to people without shoes


There are massive advantages for games design purposes and a lot of granularity for different mechanics, but there are also big but important disadvantages in that some people simply don't like them, and may read the reasults fast enough on a large set of dice rolled at the same time (this last bit is a non-issue for skirmish games).

But I think yes, D10s or D12s would be best. D12s would even translate the odds directly from a D6, but with twice the granularity and room for "modifiers". I honestly wouldn't see why you'd want just D8s though in favor of either of the two.

Rated_lexxx
03-03-2012, 01:02
Well I was just throwing out a random sided dice number. I wouldn't want the game to become using different different sided dice for different parts of the game. I would want the same type of dice used for everything and I think d12 would be good because it doubles on the 6s quite well.

You don't have to change the values of thing to fit the new odd number so 12 it is :)

Glabro
03-03-2012, 01:19
Yeah, that was my thinking when I was developing my 2nd edition revision.

Of course, since the only guy who was really open to homebrew wargaming moved out to the States, I quit the project.

Rated_lexxx
03-03-2012, 01:24
Yeah, that was my thinking when I was developing my 2nd edition revision.

Of course, since the only guy who was really open to homebrew wargaming moved out to the States, I quit the project.

HAHA the united states win again mwhahaha, now if Europe could only embrace the proper American football :P

Bubble Ghost
03-03-2012, 01:31
Stupid shaped balls and stupid shaped dice, at least you're consistent.:p

There's nothing wrong with the gameplay possibilities provided by 40K's D6 system. If there's a problem, it's that Space Marines have made what should be an above average score into an average one, leaving just one notch of improvement available above them, and leaving two almost unused at the other end of the scale. In general I think it works even despite that, though - more degrees of differentiation are nice for Top Trumps style stat nerdery but the game doesn't actually need them.

ehlijen
03-03-2012, 02:01
GW is trying to target potential players who aren't into wargaming yet. As such, d6s are inherently superior due to the instant familiarity most people have with them. If you not only have to explain the concept of miniature wargaming but also the concept of non standard dice, the task of converting non gamers into gamers becomes just a little harder.

That said, D12s could help, but they won't stop the upwards creep of the average values and they won't stop 'who should be higher' arguments.

Rated_lexxx
03-03-2012, 03:45
I know gw will never use other sided dice because it's always been 6 sided. I don't think there are a lot of poplevwho haven't seen a non standard dice

AlphariusOmegon20
03-03-2012, 06:08
I know gw will never use other sided dice because it's always been 6 sided. I don't think there are a lot of poplevwho haven't seen a non standard dice

It hasn't always been D6's. D10's and D8's were used for damage for a few weapons back in second ed.

Honestly I'd prefer not to go back that system.

chromedog
03-03-2012, 09:43
It's been longer without them than it was with them.
You're pushing crap uphill and peeing into the wind to get them to change it back now.

They went with d6 because you can get THEM anywhere. Even in the US (especially in the US). Other dice are still a n(erd)iche product - sure you can get them at most games stores - but 6-siders you can pick up at a newsagent or toy store here.

Rated_lexxx
04-03-2012, 08:16
It hasn't always been D6's. D10's and D8's were used for damage for a few weapons back in second ed.

Honestly I'd prefer not to go back that system.

I don't want to use several different dice but just a new higher count dice

koran
04-03-2012, 10:20
GW is trying to target potential players who aren't into wargaming yet. As such, d6s are inherently superior due to the instant familiarity most people have with them.

Im not sure I agree with this. People will still understand that it is a dice and if anything the kids would be more interested by the interesting/different dice. Also, if you cant get them elsewhere easily then you would have to buy them through GW, sounds like another plus for GW.

blurrymadness
04-03-2012, 20:27
Armor saves could have great use from this, game design wise. DE wyches who look like wear some armor, and more so then a orks t-shirt save should have a better save...such as a 7+

If anything the wych would have the lesser save; you do realize the orks are *all* wearing like half inch steel plates on both front and back? It's not a "T-Shirt", it's just not much coverage and not very effective (in terms of 40k weapons.) The same armor becomes a 4+ save when they cover themselves in it; I think 6+ just represents the little amount they wear.


I could go either way. D6s are amassed easily; other dice don't have the similar benefit (this is probably causal from war games however.) It'd be nice to have more and different values for things; maybe Termi being 2+, Power being 4+, etc. The biggest benefit I imagine would be making termies tougher. They're just not as impressive as they could be.

xxRavenxx
04-03-2012, 21:49
D6s are almost mandatory in any game where you need to roll say... 40 in one go. You just cannot expect someone to own that many D12. Let alone store that many dice when they can't go in a cube...

Darnok
04-03-2012, 22:04
D6s are almost mandatory in any game where you need to roll say... 40 in one go. You just cannot expect someone to own that many D12. Let alone store that many dice when they can't go in a cube...

QFT.

In a mass-combat game like WHF and 40K - and they have left the skirmish territory a long time ago - you have to use something easily usable and easily available. The D6 is the only real option here.

In smaller games though, a diversion away from a D6 based system is preferable in my opinion. You can do a lot more things without the restrains of a D6 scale.

Chem-Dog
04-03-2012, 23:05
D6s are almost mandatory in any game where you need to roll say... 40 in one go. You just cannot expect someone to own that many D12. Let alone store that many dice when they can't go in a cube...

But you CAN expect them to own that many D6's why? Because they're the GW standard. I certainly wouldn't own anywhere near as many dice if it wasn't for GW and if, a decade ago, they'd switched to D10's I'd have a fudge-load of them and little else. D6 ubiquity and saturation are symptoms and I doubt anyone not exposed to a GW game (or wargames in general) owns more than a handful of them. Personally, after 22 years in the hobby, I've had just about everyone borrowing from my dice pot for monopoly, risk, trivial pursuit, ludo, liar and whatever but never once have I needed (or felt it worthwhile) to raid those game boxes for the single or pair of cubes they have in them.

Owning 40-odd D6 is a result of how the game plays but not a prerequisite to play, they package a dozen or so in the game starter-box and you should, theoretically, be able to play with just them. Rolling 40+ dice in one go is verging on the awkward anyway with many players dividing up rolls into batches
IF, however, if the game allowed for more variation in the potential swing of results Gajillions of attacks per model would be less essential because we could move away from the awful 3/4/5 "to hit" result ceiling the game currently has.
Moar dice has become the panacea cure for a terribly limited range of results and leads to some peculiarities when multiples are used to score a single result (like weapons/attacks that can't glance a vehicle's armour, only fail or penetrate).

As good for the game as it would be though, I don't see it happening.

xxRavenxx
04-03-2012, 23:40
But you CAN expect them to own that many D6's why? Because they're the GW standard. I certainly wouldn't own anywhere near as many dice if it wasn't for GW

D6 come packaged in cubes. Often in 36s. (3x3x4 in a box). They are unique dice in that they tesselate correctly in a 2d plane, and then have a 100% surface area ratio on top and bottom , for optimum packing. Sumply put: cubes pack really well into boxes, other dice types do not. Trapezohedra like D10s, stack very poorly, and regular polyhedra like D4,6,8,12 and 20 do not fit partcularly well, though a pyramid like a D4 can be stacked in a manner of: 3 on the base, one upside down in the centre, to form a tessellating shape, assuming you have a triangular prism shaped box, or a pyramidal box. The dipyramidal D8s don't stack due to not being able to sit flat on a box. A special container would be needed.

So, for an example, keeping 36 D12s would require a hefty bag, not a small box. It is a bigger dice, which uses more space when stored, due to gaps between dice, and cannot efficiently go into a rigid box.

That is why the D6 is the dice of choice for most games which need numerous dice. Because its the best dice in terms of packaging, and is thusly the most commonplace dice on the market. If its already the most common, why wouldn't companies go for using it?

The wargames I've played which go for other dice types seem to gravitate very quickly toward the D20, as once you've broken into more complex tables, theres no reason not to go the whole hog and allow high variable results and wider statspreads (essentially treading into a D&D style stat system, wherein you compare a dice + an offencive stat to a dice + a defencive stat to find out results) but importantly, those games never ever get you rolling more than 3D20 at a time, because its impractical.

So yeah. I see it as a bad thing for warhammer/40k/GW in general to move off the D6. Its a game of massed combat, which likes rolling a lot of dice, and thusly, its a game of D6s.

Darnok
04-03-2012, 23:50
But you CAN expect them to own that many D6's why?

That might be a regional thing, but in Germany a standard family would own at least half a dozen board games, each involving a few D6. You can almost guarantee to have at least 20-30 D6 already, and that is before the chunk you get in a GW game starterbox.

The Marshel
04-03-2012, 23:58
in concept it would allow a wider variety to the game. Similarly you could set stats to a scale of 20 to introduce extra notches and allow further variation and definition between units (say marine being s8, equivalent to the old s4 and beserkers being s9, equivalent to s4.5)

Realistically though, gw wants to keep the game as simple as possible on as many levels as they can in order to continuously draw new players. Even if complications such as bigger dice would improve the game, they're only ever going to be seen in the home brew rules of veterans.

ForgottenLore
05-03-2012, 00:33
But you CAN expect them to own that many D6's why?

Because virtually every board game ever created in the last 100 years, outside of a few geek specialized ones, has D6s in it. When I first started gaming when I was 14 or so I went through my family's games and canabilized a good 40-50 D6s. Every family I have ever met has enough board games that they could come up with a couple dozen dice they never use, until they met me most of them have never even conceived of the idea that a die could have something other than 6 sides.

Also, as Raven mentions, there is a space issue, but rather than packaging, I see it more as size. D6s can be made smaller and still be useable, which is far more convenient when rolling lots of them.

Then there is price. Because d6s are so ubiquitous the economics of scale come into play more and they tend to be cheaper.

TheMav80
05-03-2012, 01:14
I was playing RPGs way before I got into Wargaming. As such I would have been better off if GW used d10s. I have more of those than I do anything else.

MasterValrik
05-03-2012, 01:22
GW used d6,d8,d10 in 1st and 2nd editions, I dont remeber them being a pain, I think they cut it back to a d6 because no one has to remember to much, aka streamline it, made it easier for lil fellas.

Deadly Cornbread
05-03-2012, 01:26
I'm kind of advice a holic. I have around 300-400 D6. Regardless of GW so many games use them, it's always handy to have a handful hanging around. A d10 system it hunk would be a nice change. Scale like that gives a lot of diversity and races would be very different stat wise


________________________________
Check out my Blood Angel, Objective marker, and terrain project log
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=334077

The bearded one
05-03-2012, 01:45
D10s and D12s and such might be beneficial for the game by providing more options on a diceroll, but they certainly don't help the game look less niche and nerdy. At least regular dice provide familiarity and it becomes a case of "here, roll these dice like with any normal boardgame; cool, your marine shot my tank, lets watch it explode"

Thrax
05-03-2012, 03:15
I like the current system with the D6. I have nothing against other dice types (& yeah, I have plenty of them) but if I were to shake up the system I'd introduce more 2D6 stats where the outcome is affected by a bell curve, which has a much better way of representing probability.

ForgottenLore
05-03-2012, 04:34
The problem with that is you then have to make each roll individually. Imagine how slow things would get if you had to roll each individual attack one at a time.

Bell curves work in role playing because you usually are only making a single roll at once, in a war game they are extremely problematic.

stroller
05-03-2012, 08:17
The game mechanic allows two scales. There are a theoretical 216 permutations (6 to hit x 6 to wound x 6 armour save/armour penetration). Even if you scale that down to effective rolls ( 2 hit/miss x 2 wounds/doesnt wound x 2 saves/dies) the effective rolls still need the 216 to take account of BS/WS/Sv variations.

D6 works. It IS simple. How much longer would 30 boyz take shooting with D20?

As for caltrops, only D4 is lethal. A D6 is as good or as bad as any other....

Darnok
05-03-2012, 11:02
GW used d6,d8,d10 in 1st and 2nd editions, I dont remeber them being a pain, I think they cut it back to a d6 because no one has to remember to much, aka streamline it, made it easier for lil fellas.

As mentioned, that was a long time ago, when 40K was still a skirmish game. I do not say it is better now, or was better then: it was just different. The mass miniature games of GW these days need other mechanics than a skirmish would, and a D6 is - in my humble opinion - the best solution available.

Wether you prefer that scale or a skirmish is a completely different topic though. :D

Conscript
05-03-2012, 11:37
I've long been thinking that changing to d10 would solve a lot of the problems that plague the 40k system. Let's face it, in many ways it already IS a d10 system that has merely been made to 'work' on d6s. Having more results within the scale would make it one hell of a lot easier to differentiate between units - for example, in a d6 system the jump from a 4+ save to a 3+ save is 16% whereas in a d10 system a jump from, say, a 6+ save to a 5+ would be only 10%. As it stands, especially since the ends of the scale are in many cases unusable (1+ armor save, anyone?), we're left with a very narrow scale to work with.

Having said that, there's no way GW will ever make the change, for a variety of reasons.

Deffgob
05-03-2012, 12:53
i like the idea, but i dont see it happening

theunwantedbeing
05-03-2012, 13:04
As nice an idea as it is, D8's and larger are much harder to read in numbers as well as having to be much bigger.
This doesn't suit the game all that well.

The other issue is that we haven't used the full extent of the D6 at all.
In combats you hit on a 4+ or a 3+ and that is for the most part all that you ever need to roll, a similar issue happens with shooting.
So really, before moving to a different sided dice we really need to get the full use from all the available values on the D6.

Stats are also far too closesly grouped to really work by getting moved to a higher number dice, as all that happens is the slight change in stats results in the variation of hitting and so forth getting smaller, due to stats being a single point different when rolling to hit, wound, etc.

They'de need a tweak, but this could be done within the D6 system anyway so why would we need to change the dice?
We could just change the stats and interactions of stats a little.

So a D8 or larger is a nice idea, but ultimately unnecessary.

Bunnahabhain
05-03-2012, 13:14
Using Higher number dice for rolls where you'll only ever be making a one, or a few, at once could be useful, as they don't have the bellcurve of the 2d6, and still not bring up all the difficulties of reading, rolling, finding and storing loads of them.
Possible examples. where having more room on a results table, or flat distributions could be good.

Ld tests
Vehicle damage rolls
Reserves/first turn stuff- makes modifiers here much less over-whelming
Variable stats.


I've played games using 10-20 D10s at once, and it isn't that easy It was designed to never need too many at once though. D10s or D12s are easy to read at least...

Chapters Unwritten
05-03-2012, 13:32
A lot of people think this will help but I don't really think so. Fact is, there are really only ever a handful of possible results of anything you try to do in a game, and rarely are the scales of other dice needed. D6 accounts for 6 possible results and in most games there are only 4 despite the granularity the dice roll introduces (Epic Fail, Fail, Success, Epic Success). Warhammer doesn't even care about the Epic Success except in case of things like Rending, and the Epic Fail is represented by "a roll of 1 is always a failure."

To be frank, despite the popularity of the idea, it's not necessary. There are frankly still many other ways of using the D6 that have not been utilized in 40k.

Chem-Dog
05-03-2012, 14:15
D6 come packaged in cubes. Often in 36s. (3x3x4 in a box). They are unique dice in that they tesselate correctly in a 2d plane [snip]

I'm down with all of this thinking. D6's stack nicely, they can be a lot smaller than any dice with a larger number of sides (I have 5mm D6's a D8,D10,D12 or D20 would be impossible to use at that size*). And even not counting the difference in size per-piece from a storage and portability issue you have the very real issue of extra plastic (or whatever material you're using) to make the dice per-unit. Not a consideration that affects the individual end-user, but it would affect the producer, it's an increase in production costs. The beancounters don't like things like that.

*It should be noted that those 5mm dice are reserved almost totally for marking wounds and vehicle damage results, being too small to see easily


keeping 36 D12s would require a hefty bag, not a small box. It is a bigger dice, which uses more space when stored, due to gaps between dice, and cannot efficiently go into a rigid box.

They can, they'll just rattle a bit ;)
Given the size of armies we're playing with these days, I really don't see that a larger die, with more sides, is all that much more difficult to move about. Personally I don't transport my dice about anyway, they sit in a tub at home and the dice I use elsewhere are supplied by that elsewhere.


That is why the D6 is the dice of choice for most games which need numerous dice. Because its the best dice in terms of packaging, and is thusly the most commonplace dice on the market. If its already the most common, why wouldn't companies go for using it?

Perhaps, because it's a horribly limiting factor? Maybe a company could innovate rather than sticking to tired and overused format for the sake of fractions of a penny per unit (it's not like the cost isn't then passed on to the consumer anyway).


those games never ever get you rolling more than 3D20 at a time, because its impractical.

But, honestly, HOW impractical is it? How many D6's can you hold comfortably in your hand? How many less of a more complex dice can you hold? The difference isn't so great and, like I said before, by the time it's more than a cupped handful, you're probably splitting your rolls into usable chunks anyway.


So yeah. I see it as a bad thing for warhammer/40k/GW in general to move off the D6. Its a game of massed combat, which likes rolling a lot of dice, and thusly, its a game of D6s.

It like rolling lots of dice because of the limit that the possible score place on the likely results AND by the 3/4/5 result split that the melee system gives us.
The armour mechanism suffers from the same problem, 3+ is god because it's better than a 50/50 chance, 2+ is better but comparatively uncommon and 1+ can't be used. 4+ is essentially a coin toss and 5+/6+ are rendered largely irrelevant because only a handful of occasions make them count for anything and then they fail more times than they succeed.
More possible results on a single roll lead to a greater flexibility in the game's design.



That might be a regional thing, but in Germany a standard family would own at least half a dozen board games, each involving a few D6. You can almost guarantee to have at least 20-30 D6 already, and that is before the chunk you get in a GW game starterbox.

But you don't delve into your family games compendium to enable you to play 40K, you get the Dice in the starter set, therefore how many faces the dice of the game use doesn't need to be tied to what comes in Monopoly.


Because virtually every board game ever created in the last 100 years, outside of a few geek specialized ones, has D6s in it.

Convention Vs Innovation. ;)


D10s and D12s and such might be beneficial for the game by providing more options on a diceroll, but they certainly don't help the game look less niche and nerdy.

Accept it, own it. ;)

Bubble Ghost
05-03-2012, 14:21
I'm a pretty big whinger when it comes to 40K, and a good moan is cathartic, but I like to think I'm fair with it, and I just cannot in all honesty say that the dice are one of 40K's problems. There are a ton of compelling reasons to use D6s, and none but personal taste to use anything else. tl;dr "More differentiation between units" is a moot point if the game doesn't need it.

Thing is, even with a stat spread of 10 (which is completely arbitrary and nothing to do with the mechanics anyway) and 6 results on the dice, 40K still basically works on a scale of 1 to 3. You are either very competent (3+), competent (4+), or slightly competent (5+) at the things the model is designed for, whether this purpose is defined by enemy stats or purely by the model's own ability. This is clearest in a built-in sense from the melee system, but is also noticeable in that most units have a BS of 2, 3 or 4; and if you look at wound rolling, you can see that the 3+ to 5+ range is the one which defines a unit's purpose.

2+ and 6+ are the extremes that bookend this basic system of definiton, existing to illustrate superheroness or futility respectively. You're unlikely to throw a whole fistful of dice requiring either of those scores except out of intentional overkill (whether your intent or that of the designers) or desperation/lack of other targets. The meat of the differentiation between similar units occurs in the 3+ to 5+ range.

And this works perfectly well. The scale of the gameplay is such that more granularity is simply not required, when you multiply this up by 9 stats, plus those for weapons, all interacting with those of the enemy... All units have clear and varying competences.

So, is lack of difference between units honestly one of 40K's problems? Does it really matter that a lasgun has the same chance to damage a Carnifex as a Daemon Prince? Honestly? Or would it just push people's Nerd buttons to have in writing the exact fraction by which a Fire Warrior is a better shot than a Guardsman?

And personally, I would not ever, ever, EVER want to have to roll and then read 40 D10s. You'd need to be playing at an Occupy protest to ever get a game finished.

In all seriousness, if you have a funky dice fetish, you could do worse than search for the rules for Stargrunt, which is designed for them from the ground up. 40K is designed for D6s, and does perfectly well with them.

MajorWesJanson
05-03-2012, 17:06
D10s would be a nice easy way to add granularity but d6s are far more user/player friendly to buy, store, roll and read.

stroller
05-03-2012, 17:33
It ain't broke: don't fix it.

Rated_lexxx
06-03-2012, 00:07
But I am trying to fix something just improve you build a better mouse trap and what not :)

Don't get me wrong there are areas of the game that do need to be fixed and I know GW will never switch to other sided dice

I think using a larger sized dice would help a lot on the damage chart table. The game is having a hard time balancing glancing hits and penetrating hits. GW wants Potential of wrecking a vehicle with glancing hits but always seems to make it to hard or to easy(and in this case to hard) so a expanded damage chart will help

xxRavenxx
06-03-2012, 00:31
I think using a larger sized dice would help a lot on the damage chart table. The game is having a hard time balancing glancing hits and penetrating hits. GW wants Potential of wrecking a vehicle with glancing hits but always seems to make it to hard or to easy(and in this case to hard) so a expanded damage chart will help

But expanding a damage chart doesn't necessarily need different dice.

Heres a simple fix for vehicle pen (which I did in 20 seconds, so don't expect it to be flawless)

All vehicles have 2 armour values. Front, and Side/rear. If you are shooting from beyond a 180 degree arc on the front of the vehicle, you are in its side/rear. Otherwise it is front. The armor for say a chimera is: 12(13)/10(11) The armor for a leman russ is: 13(15)/10(11) the armor for a landraider is 14(15)/14(15).

If you beat the first number, you glance. If you beat the second one, you penetrate. This allows more differentiation between russ armor and landraider armor (Youll note in my example that the russ can be glanced easier, to show it is not as armored as the landraider.

Next, throw a penetration number on all weapons. This will be added to the dice roll on the vehicle damage charts for glance/pen.

So a melta gun may be: Str 8 (+2d6) with a pen of +1
A lascannon could be Str 9 (+1d6) with a pen of +3

This extra stat lets you make guns which are more likely to damage *something* but less likely to explode the vehicle entirely. It also lets you seperate some guns out more. Eg. A multmelta could have pen +2

From there, get a table about 9 results long:

1 nothing happens
2 Shaken
3 stunned
4 immobile
5. weapon of owners choice gone.
6. weapon of your choice gone
7. two weapons
8 Boom
9 bigger boom.

Table done completely at random, to show examples of what could happen. No ballance intended.


You can add so much to a D6, that using a D8 seems needless.


As for shooting/melee. Let a few rare units hit on 2s, more hit on 5s, and some even on 6s and you'd get so much more from the dice.

Rated_lexxx
06-03-2012, 00:55
Very true but by expending the damage chart with a matching dice( 10 sided seems pretty popular) it would make the process as pretty simple as it is now

MajorWesJanson
06-03-2012, 01:33
Or just bump the Vehicle damage chart to 11 entries and roll 2d6 for it
Modifiers:
AP- -1
Glancing hit -3
Moved over 12" during previous turn -1
Stationary previous turn +1
AP1 +1
Ordinance Weapon +1
Open Topped +1

2 or less- Nothing happens
3- Gunners Shaken: -1BS in the next shooting phase
4- Gunners Stunned: May not fire in the next shooting phase
5- Driver Shaken: May not move more than 6" in following movement phase
6- Driver Stunned: May not move in the following movement phase
7- Vehicle Shaken: -1 BS in the next shooting phase, and may not move in the next movement phase.
8- Vehicle Stunned: May not move or shoot next turn.
9- Weapon Destroyed/Passenger Compartment Breached: Player who caused result chooses- One selected weapon is destroyed, or embarked passengers take d6 wounds, saves allowed.
10- Immobilized: Vehicle may no longer move.
11- Wrecked: Vehicle destroyed. Passengers take d6 wounds (saves allowed) and then disembark from access points. Models which cannot disembark are destroyed.
12- Explosion: Vehicle removed and replaced with a crater. Passengers take 2d6 wounds (saves allowed) and then are placed where the vehicle was.
13 or more- Catastrophic Explosion: Vehicle removed and replaced with a crater. All passengers are killed in the blast.

Grinder
06-03-2012, 05:49
Lexxx, use your GW models in a system that uses different dice, then let us know how many games you get in with other players.
Face it, GW games are the most popular out there, I guess some other systems are having a go at it, but those really don't have the player base that GW games do. With a larger player base you have more maturity(mostly) as well as variety in who you can play.

My first sci-fi miniatures games, I do believe was Starguard(which in turn I think became Stargrunt) was very involved and took a very long time to play 1 turn even. Cool game, I just felt like it was a huge time sponge, and I was only 14.

The reality is that this is a very popular game that because we can finish in a reasonable amount of time. Or plunk down another 4 paychecks on some micro armour and your playgroup will consist of pensioners(no offense wisemen) and the game will last closer to 8 hours, and you can roll scads of different dice.

The 'dumbing down' of this systems has made it more popular which over the long haul has brought us prettier models. Does anyone remember when the vets used to call 40K a 'Beer and Pretzels' game?

FabricatorGeneralMike
06-03-2012, 08:41
Lexxx, use your GW models in a system that uses different dice, then let us know how many games you get in with other players.
Face it, GW games are the most popular out there, I guess some other systems are having a go at it, but those really don't have the player base that GW games do. With a larger player base you have more maturity(mostly) as well as variety in who you can play.

My first sci-fi miniatures games, I do believe was Starguard(which in turn I think became Stargrunt) was very involved and took a very long time to play 1 turn even. Cool game, I just felt like it was a huge time sponge, and I was only 14.

The reality is that this is a very popular game that because we can finish in a reasonable amount of time. Or plunk down another 4 paychecks on some micro armour and your playgroup will consist of pensioners(no offense wisemen) and the game will last closer to 8 hours, and you can roll scads of different dice.

The 'dumbing down' of this systems has made it more popular which over the long haul has brought us prettier models. Does anyone remember when the vets used to call 40K a 'Beer and Pretzels' game?

I guess it would depend on where you live really. What if you don't have a GW around you? What if you and a few friend just play for fun?

I hate to say it but GW is not the be all of Table Top War Gamming it was around long before GW ever came around and it will be around long after GW crashes and self implodes due to baffling business decisions.

I don't have a problem finding opponents for non-GW games, but I am not silly enough to go to the local GW on games night and ask people if they want to try out a new game. ;)

I personally think that different dice could help the game a lot, but there are so many other problems that need to be addressed first that what kind of dice should 40k is way down at the bottom of the list.

Force on Force uses different dice depending on what type of TQ you are so if you are TQd6(green units, insurgents etc etc) you hit on a 4+ on a d6, if you are TQ8 ( military trained) hit on a 4+ on a D8, it scales up to D12 for the uber elite SF teams seals, delta, GSG9, J2TF (chuck norris would be a D20 though ;) )

DietDolphin
06-03-2012, 08:54
Or just bump the Vehicle damage chart to 11 entries and roll 2d6 for it
Modifiers:
AP- -1
Glancing hit -3
Moved over 12" during previous turn -1
Stationary previous turn +1
AP1 +1
Ordinance Weapon +1
Open Topped +1

2 or less- Nothing happens
3- Gunners Shaken: -1BS in the next shooting phase
4- Gunners Stunned: May not fire in the next shooting phase
5- Driver Shaken: May not move more than 6" in following movement phase
6- Driver Stunned: May not move in the following movement phase
7- Vehicle Shaken: -1 BS in the next shooting phase, and may not move in the next movement phase.
8- Vehicle Stunned: May not move or shoot next turn.
9- Weapon Destroyed/Passenger Compartment Breached: Player who caused result chooses- One selected weapon is destroyed, or embarked passengers take d6 wounds, saves allowed.
10- Immobilized: Vehicle may no longer move.
11- Wrecked: Vehicle destroyed. Passengers take d6 wounds (saves allowed) and then disembark from access points. Models which cannot disembark are destroyed.
12- Explosion: Vehicle removed and replaced with a crater. Passengers take 2d6 wounds (saves allowed) and then are placed where the vehicle was.
13 or more- Catastrophic Explosion: Vehicle removed and replaced with a crater. All passengers are killed in the blast.

You realize that different numbers have different probabilities with 2d6 right? On a 1d6 each value from 1-6 has a 1/6 chance of occurring. However on a 2d6 a you have a 1/6 chance of throwing a 7 but only a 1/36 chance of throwing a 2 or 12. This is why DX exist, so that you can have X number of sides, each with the same chance of occurring.

Vet.Sister
06-03-2012, 16:23
I was thinking about this the other dice. The entire game is based around 6 sided dice which can be limited. You always have a 1 in 6 chance to do something mostly. So the odds of succeeded or failure is always based those small set of odds. There is exceptions with rerolls.

But what if we started using just say 8 sided dice. It could just open a lot of design space.

Armor saves could have great use from this, game design wise. DE wyches who look like wear some armor, and more so then a orks t-shirt save should have a better save...such as a 7+

Now that we have higher armor saves now guns can have different AP to show a difference

I don't think it would balance anything that is unbalance it was just a thought I had

The other problem is dropping 8 sided dice on the floor and become caltrops to people without shoes

The short answer to the OP above is YES, it would help!
Now allow me to qualify my answer... from the dictionary definition of 'help'
2a) to make more pleasant or bearable.
3a) to be of use to (Benefit)
3b) to further the advancement of (Promote)
4a) to change for the better

Now BubbleGhost and others do have a point that the system (with D6s) works reasonably well right now and does not NEED a different dice for play.
I just wanted to point out (in writing) that the OP didnt say anything about need, Rated_lexxx just points out one possible way to "help" the game of WH40K.
I dont think that changing to D10 or D12 would have an incredible effect upon the game as it would mainly increase the granularity between units and in some cases, armies. I would submit that GW chose the D6 solely based on the fact that for most things in 2nd edition, they used a D6! The other dice that were used could easily be replaced by a D6 and perhaps some additional rules/game mechanics. Never-the-less, a larger sided dice would be preferable if only to expand upon the perception that different units/armies "feel" more different.

Bubble Ghost
06-03-2012, 16:35
Now BubbleGhost and others do have a point that the system (with D6s) works reasonably well right now and does not NEED a different dice for play.
I just wanted to point out (in writing) that the OP didnt say anything about need, Rated_lexxx just points out one possible way to "help" the game of WH40K.

I thought it was implicit in my post that it wouldn't help. If it would "help" add things that the game doesn't need, you are introducing complication without any net benefit, which is not helping. QED.

Rated_lexxx
06-03-2012, 16:57
Lexxx, use your GW models in a system that uses different dice, then let us know how many games you get in with other players.
Face it, GW games are the most popular out there, I guess some other systems are having a go at it, but those really don't have the player base that GW games do. With a larger player base you have more maturity(mostly) as well as variety in who you can play.

My first sci-fi miniatures games, I do believe was Starguard(which in turn I think became Stargrunt) was very involved and took a very long time to play 1 turn even. Cool game, I just felt like it was a huge time sponge, and I was only 14.

The reality is that this is a very popular game that because we can finish in a reasonable amount of time. Or plunk down another 4 paychecks on some micro armour and your playgroup will consist of pensioners(no offense wisemen) and the game will last closer to 8 hours, and you can roll scads of different dice.

The 'dumbing down' of this systems has made it more popular which over the long haul has brought us prettier models. Does anyone remember when the vets used to call 40K a 'Beer and Pretzels' game?

I don't know how I came across saying that 40k was not a good game and if I came across like that I am sorry.

I was just saying would having dice with a larger number of dice help the game. I didn't say the 6 sided dice was not working.

Larger dice would not fix any "problems" but would just open up more design space. Again it's all a opinion and I was looking for.

Vet.Sister
06-03-2012, 17:13
So, is lack of difference between units honestly one of 40K's problems? Does it really matter that a lasgun has the same chance to damage a Carnifex as a Daemon Prince? Honestly?

This kinda sticks out to me...
A lasgun versus a Carnifex or a Demon Prince??? that's pretty extreme isn't it? what about a tank, or a dreadnought? or even a C'tan??? Where the granularity really makes a difference is between overly similar units. A space Marine firing his bolter at a Plague Marine, that 1 point of Toughness makes a difference. However, what if GW wanted the Plague Marine to only be a "little" tougher? Without the finer granularity, the Plague Marine would start overlapping on really tough things.... like Demon Princes.
So I have to disagree with unhelpful= un-needed. To put it another way, can you drive your car with no windshield? Sure, you don't NEED it... but it is rather helpful.



I don't know how I came across saying that 40k was not a good game and if I came across like that I am sorry.


I don't know either. I read your post and understood that you made a suggestion as a possible improvement... and not that 40K with D6s is horribly broken.

Bubble Ghost
06-03-2012, 18:05
This kinda sticks out to me...
A lasgun versus a Carnifex or a Demon Prince??? that's pretty extreme isn't it?

Nope. The fact that larger monsters are often virtually interchangeable as far as Guardsman Jones is concerned, but still have differences when they face each other, is a strength of the system, not a weakness. It functions a bit like a scale mechanic built straight into the attribute system, and is an effective way of selling the size and power of the larger monsters and weapons. If a lasgun actually notices the difference between a daemon prince and a carnifex, those monsters have been brought somehow within reach of the lasgun, which I would argue is weaker imagery than having them both as just "oh crap" until your gun is big enough to matter. Similarly, the fact that a trygon can rip a Space Marine in half exactly as easily as a Guardsman is also a great way to put over how powerful the trygon is. And this is enabled by the current range of stats and dice results that 40K uses.

So, great, with bigger stats you could make a Plague Marine only slightly tougher than a normal Space Marine. But this is not automatically a good thing. If it's not required, and it's not, then it is actively a bad thing, especially if it introduces a further ton of pains in the backside like adopting D10s would.

Vet.Sister
06-03-2012, 18:41
Nope. The fact that larger monsters are often virtually interchangeable as far as Guardsman Jones is concerned, but still have differences when they face each other, is a strength of the system, not a weakness. It functions a bit like a scale mechanic built straight into the attribute system, and is an effective way of selling the size and power of the larger monsters and weapons. If a lasgun actually notices the difference between a daemon prince and a carnifex, those monsters have been brought somehow within reach of the lasgun, which I would argue is weaker imagery than having them both as just "oh crap" until your gun is big enough to matter. Similarly, the fact that a trygon can rip a Space Marine in half exactly as easily as a Guardsman is also a great way to put over how powerful the trygon is. And this is enabled by the current range of stats and dice results that 40K uses.

So, great, with bigger stats you could make a Plague Marine only slightly tougher than a normal Space Marine. But this is not automatically a good thing. If it's not required, and it's not, then it is actively a bad thing, especially if it introduces a further ton of pains in the backside like adopting D10s would.

So, if I understand your position correctly... If you have an UltraMarine, a PlagueMarine & a Trygon, the interaction between either Marine and the Trygon is paramount and the interaction between Marines is almost unimportant? Since the current system shows the large disparity between Marine & Trygon very well, the slight discrepancies between Marines don't really matter? Therefore the current system is OK??? even if you regularly play Marine vs. Marine battles?

Grinder
06-03-2012, 20:59
Lexxx, rereading my post with some sleep I see how that came off harsh, my apologies.

Fabricator, your points are valid. How long do theses games take to play? Are the models nice? Or inexpensive, and how many players can I find in the Bay Area CA.?

Chapters Unwritten
06-03-2012, 22:20
So, if I understand your position correctly... If you have an UltraMarine, a PlagueMarine & a Trygon, the interaction between either Marine and the Trygon is paramount and the interaction between Marines is almost unimportant? Since the current system shows the large disparity between Marine & Trygon very well, the slight discrepancies between Marines don't really matter? Therefore the current system is OK??? even if you regularly play Marine vs. Marine battles?I think you were trying to be facetious here but it seems to have not worked out right; why exactly should a marine fighting another marine, of any caliber, be that wildly different? It's as different as it needs to be.

Nothing is as bad as those games that miss the mark with proper scaling. 40k's at a good spot. Every dice result matters. You start adding numbers there are going to be more and more that represent increasingly scarce possibilities and it drains all the tension out of the game.

Some other fellow was discussing how GW isn't the almighty overlord of tabletop wargaming but I think that one would have to be living under a rock to not acknowledge them as one of the most profitable companies to center around such a thing in history (not to mention having been around since 25 years and basically indirectly leading to the creation of the real time strategy digital game genre). It also utterly smashes most other games in terms of playerbase. Fact is, it's accessible, it's fun, it is satisfying...just because it does not waste our time with the nuances of the difference between a wound from a storm bolter versus a standard bolter or other such minutiae, does not mean it is a poor game or in need of overhaul.

You look at any game that has D20 and most of the time it divides into four results. Why waste time having granularity just for the sake of it?

Vet.Sister
06-03-2012, 23:30
I think you were trying to be facetious here but it seems to have not worked out right; why exactly should a marine fighting another marine, of any caliber, be that wildly different? It's as different as it needs to be.

Nothing is as bad as those games that miss the mark with proper scaling. 40k's at a good spot. Every dice result matters. You start adding numbers there are going to be more and more that represent increasingly scarce possibilities and it drains all the tension out of the game.

Some other fellow was discussing how GW isn't the almighty overlord of tabletop wargaming but I think that one would have to be living under a rock to not acknowledge them as one of the most profitable companies to center around such a thing in history (not to mention having been around since 25 years and basically indirectly leading to the creation of the real time strategy digital game genre). It also utterly smashes most other games in terms of playerbase. Fact is, it's accessible, it's fun, it is satisfying...just because it does not waste our time with the nuances of the difference between a wound from a storm bolter versus a standard bolter or other such minutiae, does not mean it is a poor game or in need of overhaul.

You look at any game that has D20 and most of the time it divides into four results. Why waste time having granularity just for the sake of it?

Facetious? No, I just want to understand where BubbleGhost is coming from and why s/he has the opinion that 40K does not need a different dice for its ruleset. Your comment about the Marines and there being enough difference within the system as it stands helps me understand why you and others may think that the D6 is perfectly fine for the 40K rules system. I am of the opinion that using a D10 (or even D12s) would add granularity and therefore add more uniqueness (differentiation) without adding un-necessary rules/complexity or draining all the tension out of the game.

Lastly, I'm not saying WH40K is a bad game... or that it is broken. Ultimately I think this is going to come down to a matter of preference, as does most wargaming.

Bubble Ghost
07-03-2012, 21:57
So, if I understand your position correctly... If you have an UltraMarine, a PlagueMarine & a Trygon, the interaction between either Marine and the Trygon is paramount and the interaction between Marines is almost unimportant? Since the current system shows the large disparity between Marine & Trygon very well, the slight discrepancies between Marines don't really matter? Therefore the current system is OK??? even if you regularly play Marine vs. Marine battles?

My position is not that interaction between marines is unimportant - I'm saying that the interaction between marines is not defined entirely by their stat lines. You seem to have then taken that point, filtered it through your own preconception that "uniqueness" must come from stat lines, and concluded that I don't think it matters if two marines are the same. My point, though, is that they are not the same, even if they have the same stat line. Stat lines in 40K are broad categorisations - they are not intended to be, and do not need to be, the last word in units' and armies' capabilities. A Grey Hunter, a Blood Angel tactical marine, and a vanilla marine may all have the same stats, but their armies all play completely differently - and do while still being identifiably Space Marines, partly in thanks to their trademark stat line. Again, I consider this a strength of the system, not a weakness.


In fact...


It's as different as it needs to be.

This.

Vet.Sister
08-03-2012, 02:35
My position is not that interaction between marines is unimportant - I'm saying that the interaction between marines is not defined entirely by their stat lines. You seem to have then taken that point, filtered it through your own preconception that "uniqueness" must come from stat lines, and concluded that I don't think it matters if two marines are the same. My point, though, is that they are not the same, even if they have the same stat line. Stat lines in 40K are broad categorisations - they are not intended to be, and do not need to be, the last word in units' and armies' capabilities. A Grey Hunter, a Blood Angel tactical marine, and a vanilla marine may all have the same stats, but their armies all play completely differently - and do while still being identifiably Space Marines, partly in thanks to their trademark stat line. Again, I consider this a strength of the system, not a weakness.


In fact...

{{It is as different as it needs to be.}}

This.

Cool, just wanted to get a better understanding. For you and the other poster "It is as different as it needs to be".... that pretty much sums up why a D6 is fine for you. Sadly, I have a different opinion. (( to be clear I'm NOT claiming you're wrong or that I'm right)) I just have some problems where there is some differentiation but not enough, for me anyways.
1) Imperial Guardsman with lasgun
2) Battle Sister with Bolter
3) Tactical Marine with Bolter

Ballistic skill 3 and 4 and 4 (in order)
Now... the Marine is better than both the others, but it should be that way right? The Marine should be superior because GW set them up that way. Now the Battle Sister is a better shot (by 16%) than the Imperial guardsman but equal to the Marine. The Marine has BS4 partly because he has Bio-Enhancements... which the Sister doesn't have. So, by default if you want the Sister to be a better shot than the Imperial Guardsman, she is automatically equal to the Marine in shooting. That bothers me because if you've played Battle sisters you understand that shooting Bolters is their main strength, so if you nerf their Ballistic Skill to make sense (they dont have Bio-enhancements!) you really damage the way the army functions/plays. Question; doesn't this kind of thing bother you? A little more granularity here could help... in my opinion anyways. :)

Bubble Ghost
08-03-2012, 12:12
Fair enough, but I suspect that you only think this because you're looking at the stat line in a vacuum. It's like I was saying, the purpose the stat system is essentially to rank troops into vague categories, easy to decipher and remember - it wouldn't be an improvement to increase it to noticing a difference between a Space Marine and a Battle Sister's BS, because that is not what it's for. The stat line's purpose is to choose what sorts of things a unit should be able to do and then rank them only broadly in a clear, at-a-glance fashion, and the range of values it uses in combination with the D6 system are crucial to its ability to do this. The granularity, meanwhile, is there - it just comes from softer variables such as movement, special rules, equipment options etc. And there is more than enough of it for 40K's scale.

So no, it doesn't bother me that a Battle Sister and a Space Marine have the same BS, because this is categorically not saying that they would tie in a marksmanship contest. All it's saying is that both units are in the elite end of the troops spectrum when it comes to the effectiveness of their fire as a unit. This is exactly as 'granular' as the game requires, and increasing this granularity would actually have a damaging effect by removing the strengths of the D6 system, of which I have mentioned several on this thread.

The thing is - weirdly enough -that 40K works best with D6s because those are the dice it's designed for. Sure you could do more with raw numbers if you were writing a system from scratch, I'm not disputing the raw fact that larger numbers are more flexible, but that's a million miles from being the only consideration here. It wouldn't work to just dump bigger dice into 40K because "granularity = good".

And this is all quite apart from the logistical and visual nightmare of having to roll 30-odd D10s or D12s at once, which is reason enough by itself to forget the whole idea.

yabbadabba
08-03-2012, 12:42
I think this could be answered slightly differently.

Computer based rules systems have been around for decades, and yet they have not swept the wargames market away from dice. Why not? There are subtle issues like randomness, portability etc, but none of these really are a game breaker and have been easily resolved. 40K can be massively helped with a programme designed to introduce a user defined level of subtelty without the need to carry around massive numbers of books or take a whole evening to prepare an army list or play a turn. Yet such products are, even with the iPhone generation, not the norm.

The answer is obviously yes from a mechanistic and resource perspective. However should it happen moves into whole new areas of consideration.

Chapters Unwritten
08-03-2012, 13:43
I think that it boils down to the fact that the rolling of the dice and moving of the pieces is what we want to do, and that when we let the machines handle those parts, honestly, there is very little game left for us to play.

Bunnahabhain
08-03-2012, 14:15
However, rolling 3-4 dice to resolve a combat, rather than 30-40, still retains the game where we want it, without the awkwardness of using handfuls of the things..

trigger
08-03-2012, 15:21
However, rolling 3-4 dice to resolve a combat, rather than 30-40, still retains the game where we want it, without the awkwardness of using handfuls of the things..

God no...
Move to D8/D10 or even D12 but I want just as many dice , 40 dice from blood claws is part I what makes the game for me. Keep the masses.
Besides to go down to the 3 or 4 you suggest would be like playing WRG we would need factors and modifiers etc. , keep that for historical gaming not my over the top extravagant madness that is 40k

Bubble Ghost
08-03-2012, 16:41
40 dice from blood claws is part I what makes the game for me. Keep the masses.
Besides to go down to the 3 or 4 you suggest would be like playing WRG we would need factors and modifiers etc. , keep that for historical gaming not my over the top extravagant madness that is 40k

Yeah, the buckets of dice are part of the 40K experience. Makes it more visceral and involving, somehow, which is a quality the game kinda needs. If you want 2 or 3 caltrop dice instead of 20 or 30 D6s, we're back to Stargrunt again.