Dice systems - d12 v d6

[HeadlessCross]

1 hour ago, Emperor Ming said:

Rreolls are less common

 

 

 

 

I'd rather just have extra types of modifiers with no limit to stacking, but this only works if GW moves to the D12, which they never will because legacy crap. 

[Mogger351]

57 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

I'd rather just have extra types of modifiers with no limit to stacking, but this only works if GW moves to the D12, which they never will because legacy crap. 

I think the reality of a d12 system would disappoint once implemented, it'd actually smush units closer together in terms of probability rather than differentiating them

[HeadlessCross]

2 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

I think the reality of a d12 system would disappoint once implemented, it'd actually smush units closer together in terms of probability rather than differentiating them

It actually doesn't. It's what stops things like Sternguard and Vanguard being better at shooting/fighting as Vets without just adding more attacks because without making things BS/WS2+ just like characters. It also allows greater use of modifiers to not be limited. 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

I've split this off of the new Boyz kit thread in the Rumours forum, as it was rather off topic.

[phandaal]

d6 can be packed into cubes for transport/shelf storage with no wasted space, and they are the most commonly used dice type all around the world, which means any game using them automatically has that efficiency, convenience, and worldwide production network built in. That is a major selling point that rules granularity and other concerns will not overcome.

[kabaakaba]

We have no issues with transporting full set of dices when played DnD. Many guys had own and fancy bags for them. So it's barely the cause. 

[phandaal]

6 minutes ago, kabaakaba said:

We have no issues with transporting full set of dices when played DnD. Many guys had own and fancy bags for them. So it's barely the cause. 

 

I don’t think that really addresses the point I was making. Obviously players can carry mixed sets of polyhedral dice. I have done the same thing with D&D, and I own a custom hardwood dice box that I’m quite fond of.

 

The point is not that d12s are prohibitively difficult to transport. It is that d6s already benefit from worldwide production, availability, familiarity, and space-efficient packaging at every level, from manufacturing and shipping to retail and personal storage. D&D players being willing to carry dice bags does not make those built-in advantages disappear.

[Mogger351]

1 hour ago, HeadlessCross said:

It actually doesn't. It's what stops things like Sternguard and Vanguard being better at shooting/fighting as Vets without just adding more attacks because without making things BS/WS2+ just like characters. It also allows greater use of modifiers to not be limited. 

No, it absolutely does. Current 40k basically avoids anything sub 4+. People hate not being on a 4+.

 

So in reality this translates to a guardsman hitting on a 7+, a marine on a 4+, a custodes on a 2+. Yes you could argue that a vet exists on a 3+ in the new system, but given that you're allowing them to succeed 75% of the time as opposed to 66% you've increased lethality.

 

You've also narrowed the gap as a captain, if they can be said to be as elite as a base custode (disallowing a higher value for shield captain), is only hitting ~7% more than his elites, compared to the ~13% of today. So you devalue captains.

 

This is of course assuming you keep comparative hit rates, as the d12 only really gives benefit if you allowed marines to hit on a 7+, giving them a 50% chance to hit. Otherwise the minute variance of 7% for 1-2 units which necessitate a whole ass new dice type, is not worth it.

 

So in short, nerf to hit values or stick to d6, come at me. I will die on this hill.

[Tawnis]

I've been very much on board with the D12 idea for years, I think it would allow for a lot more balance tweaks to various units, stacking buffs, and other rules flexibility. Having Fire Warriors be naturally in between the accuracy of Guardsmen and Space Marines for instance. It would also fix strength/toughness breakpoints as you could much more easily use a +/- system rather than and equal, greater, or double system. From a straight gameplay improvement perspective, it's nearly all upside and I am personally all for it.

 

The issues however do exist:

1. So many companies, GW included, make vast swaths of custom or specialized D6 dice, a huge game like warhammer changing that would have vast impacts across that landscape, and there would certainly be plenty of salty players that paid a premium for faction specific or otherwise specialized D6 dice that would now no longer be usable. 

2. While far from impossible, it's a lot less easy to store a large set of D12's than it is D6's, you'd need a much larger dice case, or be carrying auround a big bag for them. Not a huge deal, but a minor annoyance that would be felt. 

3. Rolling Space. Tossing 30-40 D6's for some horde army attacks is already a messy prospect, doing that with much larger D12 dice, will slow things down a little as you'd almost certainly have to split the roll in half or have a massive dice tray. (Though if the ability to have more modifiers reduces the reliance or re-rolls, it could save time in other ways and come out net neutral or even ahead.) 

Edited Thursday at 10:17 PM by Tawnis

[HeadlessCross]

1 hour ago, phandaal said:

The point is not that d12s are prohibitively difficult to transport. It is that d6s already benefit from worldwide production, availability, familiarity, and space-efficient packaging at every level, from manufacturing and shipping to retail and personal storage. D&D players being willing to carry dice bags does not make those built-in advantages disappear.

Just carry a small bag? Like, what packaging do you specifically need?  I also found 50 d12s on this website for cheap, so availability is clearly false assuming you're not from the 80's and have access to the internet. 

1 hour ago, Mogger351 said:

but given that you're allowing them to succeed 75% of the time as opposed to 66% you've increased lethality.

You also decrease lethality. The biggest complaint about Daemon engines was that they hit on 4s, even though fluff dictated this was fine. Now they all hit on 3s for reasons. You find a middle and suddenly there's a level that makes sense. 

[Mogger351]

6 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

You also decrease lethality. The biggest complaint about Daemon engines was that they hit on 4s, even though fluff dictated this was fine. Now they all hit on 3s for reasons. You find a middle and suddenly there's a level that makes sense. 

I think I'd need you to outline what values you feel would be applicable to various units to understand fully.

 

Any system that considers the midpoint a base value is never going to be good enough imo. 

 

To take your example of shifting a daemon engine by a pip on a d12, to give a real example. Forgefiend with plasma mouth and 2 autocannons is average 14 shots.

 

Assuming it shoots 5 turns at full efficacy(70 shots), the difference over the whole game is 5 hits. Which isn't really significant enough of a change to warrant changing in the first place.

[Evil Eye]

A large part of the problems that using D12s would "solve" could already be fixed by going back to a WS chart and bringing back Initiative.

[Tawnis]

5 hours ago, Evil Eye said:

A large part of the problems that using D12s would "solve" could already be fixed by going back to a WS chart and bringing back Initiative.

I don't see how that's relevant to the dice size at all, it just changes the power level of some units vs some other units and re-works the whole fight phase, which is a whole other thing irrespective of dice value. 

 

8 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

Assuming it shoots 5 turns at full efficacy(70 shots), the difference over the whole game is 5 hits. Which isn't really significant enough of a change to warrant changing in the first place.

Some issues require a deft touch, where a full value on a D6 just isn't granular enough, but allowing for smaller shifts with proper changes to points does give far more options for more accurate balance. That is a mathematical fact. It may not be flashy, but not every balance change needs to be. There are plenty of units that can go from great to garbage with the change of a single pip of WS or BS, that wouldn't be the case with a more granular system where you could find a middle ground. (Not saying that it would invalidate existing systems like modifying points, it's just another tool in the toolbox.)

[Evil Eye]

13 minutes ago, Tawnis said:

I don't see how that's relevant to the dice size at all, it just changes the power level of some units vs some other units and re-works the whole fight phase, which is a whole other thing irrespective of dice value. 

I may be misreading what HC is saying, but he seems to be arguing that they could make melee units feel more different from each other by having a D12 and thus a wider range of "to hit" rolls. The thing is, we already had ways to add variety to melee matchups; comparative WS (it's going to be easier to hit a Guardsman than a Lictor for instance) and Initiative both allowed for that without having to use a whole different dice system.

[HeadlessCross]

14 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

I may be misreading what HC is saying, but he seems to be arguing that they could make melee units feel more different from each other by having a D12 and thus a wider range of "to hit" rolls. The thing is, we already had ways to add variety to melee matchups; comparative WS (it's going to be easier to hit a Guardsman than a Lictor for instance) and Initiative both allowed for that without having to use a whole different dice system.

The WS chart was awful and I'm tired of people pretending it was great. All rolls were between 3-5. That's it.

 

The MAIN problem is GW not introducing more mechanics for melee modifiers. The fact there isn't a USR called Parry or something to be a Stealth equivalent is frankly shocking. 

Initiative is a whole other factor that I don't feel like getting into. They really messed up with the Fights First rule and now it's significantly worse than before. I have additional thoughts on the best way to fix this (because the whole taking turns to fight is blasted stupid), but that's something for a different thread. 

[Tawnis]

11 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

The WS chart was awful and I'm tired of people pretending it was great. All rolls were between 3-5. That's it.

 

The MAIN problem is GW not introducing more mechanics for melee modifiers. The fact there isn't a USR called Parry or something to be a Stealth equivalent is frankly shocking. 

Initiative is a whole other factor that I don't feel like getting into. They really messed up with the Fights First rule and now it's significantly worse than before. I have additional thoughts on the best way to fix this (because the whole taking turns to fight is blasted stupid), but that's something for a different thread. 

This is kinda what I'm talking about with granularity though. You correctly assess the issue with the old WS chart, but these days, all hit rolls are 2-4 unless you're REALLY bad at melee like Tau. That's basically the same variance that we had with the WS chart, just with more hits. 

In general I agree with the Fights first issue, it went from being very strong to being very situational. That said, at least points have changed to compensate. That being said, this is another example of an overcorrection being an issue. (Not that D12's would fix this issue, just a note on design in general.) 

[Evil Eye]

21 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

The WS chart was awful and I'm tired of people pretending it was great. All rolls were between 3-5. That's it.

 

So change it to add 2+ and 6+ hits then. That's all you need to do. You don't need to use a whole different kind of dice.

 

23 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

(because the whole taking turns to fight is blasted stupid)

>Taking turns to fight is blasted stupid

>In a turn-based game

??????

[Tawnis]

17 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

So change it to add 2+ and 6+ hits then. That's all you need to do. You don't need to use a whole different kind of dice.

 

It did have 2+/6+ before, it just came up rarely, kind of like +2 or +6 to wound now. 

This is another thing though that could benefit from a D12 system though. Rather than the old chart, you just use a +/- system, you can have more granularity with weapon skill between units without having such a large swing in the value between closer (but still different) skilled combatants. You can have a wider stat range and each value has the same incremental value without being too swingy. 

[DemonGSides]

24 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

>Taking turns to fight is blasted stupid

>In a turn-based game

??????

 

I don't want to speak for HC, but most fights are not "Let me swing, now you get a chance to swing" and are a melee where opportunity and initiative are more 'realistic' then "I roll all my dice, you lose these guys, now just the remaining guys get to swing back".  If the fight phase was more of a 'simultaneous' type thing it would be a lot closer to an actual fight.

At least that's what I took away from it.  I don't think they're advocating for the removal of turns in general, just how fight phase works vis-a-vis two units interacting with each other.  Something where you both acted simultaneously and the outcome is decided by the rolls as opposed to what it is now, where it's just a timing and "Be overwhelming" when it comes to how to win melee.  There could be a lot more nuance in the fight phase.

Edited Friday at 04:05 PM by DemonGSides

[Evil Eye]

38 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

If the fight phase was more of a 'simultaneous' type thing it would be a lot closer to an actual fight.

That did happen under the old system between equal-initiative combatants if memory serves, to be fair.

[Tawnis]

27 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

That did happen under the old system between equal-initiative combatants if memory serves, to be fair.

From my memory, it was a pretty rare thing, but it was a long time ago. I remember if your initiative was the same, you made sure you were the one charging, and if the difference was more than the +1 initiative charge, you just stayed the heck away, kind of like how Fights First units were treated this past edition. 

[ValourousHeart]

 

16 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

Just carry a small bag? Like, what packaging do you specifically need?  I also found 50 d12s on this website for cheap, so availability is clearly false assuming you're not from the 80's and have access to the internet. 

You also decrease lethality. The biggest complaint about Daemon engines was that they hit on 4s, even though fluff dictated this was fine. Now they all hit on 3s for reasons. You find a middle and suddenly there's a level that makes sense. 

 

I believe your post needs a little more contexts.

I had originally been looking on Chessex when I saw your post, but I'll switch to your site for this comparison.

I also went with sets instead of individual dice, so we could roll in a discount.

 

 

 

Link to d6 HERE

Link to d12 HERE

 

So the phrase "for cheap" is a bit misleading, and we should probably say "Well, it isn't triple, so it could have been worse."

For context, Chessex for non d6 dice are triple the cost of d6 dice.  ($0.60 for 3 vs $0.20 for 3 d6)

 

[Valkyrion]

We are talking a galaxy at war and therefore a galaxy of warriors. Everything should be hitting everything else at least 50% of the time, and 66-75% should be the aim, so D6's are fine in that respect, IMO. 

 

So keep D6 for everything except use D12 for Saves.

Make the Space Marines base save 7+ which is technically a nerf, but now Space Marines can save AP-5, which is technically a buff.  It also allows for the introduction of AP-6 to make 7+ saves unsavable, AP-7 to make 6+ saves unsavable etc.

You could then make Invulnerable Save 12/11/10+ etc as an additional save, a bit like FNP works now or as unmodified saves worked back in 2nd. 

Terminators back in second made their armour saves on 2D6, so a save roll of 12 isn't unprecedented in the game - the highest AP then (Save Modifier) was -6. 

 

Saves use the fewest dice in the attack chain so are easier on the hands and mind when rolling them compared to hit dice. 

[Mogger351]

38 minutes ago, Valkyrion said:

We are talking a galaxy at war and therefore a galaxy of warriors. Everything should be hitting everything else at least 50% of the time, and 66-75% should be the aim, so D6's are fine in that respect, IMO. 

Eh? This is exactly the problem and attitude than squanders probability. You're flat out refusing to utilise half the potential values due to some misconceived positive affirmation bias that being sub 50% is outright bad. It's all comparative.

 

Part of my reasoning for saying no to a d12 is people will aim to only use 1-6 of the 12 which is, at minimum, ironic.

[Tawnis]

38 minutes ago, Valkyrion said:

We are talking a galaxy at war and therefore a galaxy of warriors. Everything should be hitting everything else at least 50% of the time, and 66-75% should be the aim, so D6's are fine in that respect, IMO. 

I actually think that's an argument for the opposite. The galaxy is a vast place and warriors of broadly differing skills cover the vast array of factions. For example, just with BS:

 

2+ Space for buffs to strong units

3+ Custodes and special Unique characters
4+ Space Marine Heros, dedicated sniper units, Aeldari

5+ Space Marines or equivalent.

6+ Soriritas and other Elite units, Tau Fire Warriors 

7+ Guardsmen and other equivalent average units

8+ Cultists, or less trained units. 

9+ Orks

10+ Mindless or automated units. 

11+ Overwatch / snap shooting

12+ Space for debuffs to weak units. 

 

I do agree on the save aspect though, its basically the same argument as shooting, just making it more flexible, with more dials to adjust for balance. I'm not sure why you seem fine with some but not others. Honestly having some dice as D6 and some as D12 seems like a headache.