Dice systems - d12 v d6

[Mazer Rackham]

10 hours ago, jaxom said:

Would one want 1/12 to be the “knob” to turn or 1/20?

 

I'll have you know mine goes up to 1/100, you cubist idolator. 

 

Although, I've met some 'knobs' who go over 9,000...

 

Edited July 21 by Mazer Rackham

[Brother Casman]

I like d12s as they give more options for randomization - you can easily simulate a d2, a d3, a d4, and a d6 with a d12. Would that be strictly necessary in modern 40k? Probably not, but more varied tables of effects could be fun, imagine a d46 table, in the same vein as the existing d33, d36, and d66 tables of yore.

 

A first draft of a revised game could start with "translating" the existing mechanics from d6s to d12s (e.g. Marine BS goes from 3+ on a d6 to a 5+ on a d12 which yields the same chance of hitting). A second pass could widen the options available, e.g. regular Guardsman hits on a 7+, an elite Guardsman hits on a 6+, regular Marine hits on a 5+, elite Marine hits on a 4+, etc.

 

That said, I do recognise that the increased granularity is probably more suited to a somewhat smaller scale game than 40k - you'd probably be using a few squads vs a whole army.

[Evil Eye]

On 7/21/2026 at 12:55 PM, Brother Casman said:

That said, I do recognise that the increased granularity is probably more suited to a somewhat smaller scale game than 40k - you'd probably be using a few squads vs a whole army.

That's kinda the rub, really. For a skirmish level game ala Kill Team, Necromunda etc I can see D12/D20 being useful for far more granular statlines. For something like 40K- even older, smaller-scope 40K- it gets a little unnecessary and even unwieldy, especially when there are plenty of ways to add (reasonable) granularity and variety to the game without using a completely different dice system. As mentioned prior, having a comparative WS chart defining to-hit rolls makes far more sense and allows more depth than having a flat to-hit roll. An Ork being able to hit a Wych in melee with the same likelihood of success as against a Fire Warrior just doesn't really make any logical sense , and also makes the game far more predictable and boring. Likewise, Initiative values, cover, grenades, positioning etc provided more variables to make fights more interesting beyond "Mine's choppier than yours!".

[HeadlessCross]

7 hours ago, Evil Eye said:

That's kinda the rub, really. For a skirmish level game ala Kill Team, Necromunda etc I can see D12/D20 being useful for far more granular statlines. For something like 40K- even older, smaller-scope 40K- it gets a little unnecessary and even unwieldy, especially when there are plenty of ways to add (reasonable) granularity and variety to the game without using a completely different dice system. As mentioned prior, having a comparative WS chart defining to-hit rolls makes far more sense and allows more depth than having a flat to-hit roll. An Ork being able to hit a Wych in melee with the same likelihood of success as against a Fire Warrior just doesn't really make any logical sense , and also makes the game far more predictable and boring. Likewise, Initiative values, cover, grenades, positioning etc provided more variables to make fights more interesting beyond "Mine's choppier than yours!".

The WS chart has NEVER been good for representing what it's supposed to. Amy modifiers to a combatants' hit roll should be handled with either bespoke rules or USRs.

[Evil Eye]

15 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

The WS chart has NEVER been good for representing what it's supposed to. Amy modifiers to a combatants' hit roll should be handled with either bespoke rules or USRs.

Citation needed there.

[HeadlessCross]

2 hours ago, Evil Eye said:

Citation needed there.

Okay, here's a citation:

Why did BS never look at another unit's stats to determine if they hit it harder or not?

[kabaakaba]

11 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

Okay, here's a citation:

Why did BS never look at another unit's stats to determine if they hit it harder or not?

Because no matter how good your enemy in shooting. Bullet hits the same. 

In cc if your opponent is better swordsman you have problem .

[HeadlessCross]

11 hours ago, kabaakaba said:

Because no matter how good your enemy in shooting. Bullet hits the same. 

In cc if your opponent is better swordsman you have problem .

Your aim is absolutely not the same shooting at a titan vs shooting at Necron scarabs.

[kabaakaba]

1 minute ago, HeadlessCross said:

Your aim is absolutely not the same shooting at a titan vs shooting at Necron scarabs.

Yeah, but I never shooting in a single scarab I shooting in a swarm.

It doesn't matter if it's a squirrel, a wolf or an elk, my wife will shoot it right in the eye. Same for titan and scarab. 

[jaxom]

1 hour ago, HeadlessCross said:

Your aim is absolutely not the same shooting at a titan vs shooting at Necron scarabs.

Agreed, and size modifiers are a thing in some games. In 40k, as far as I'm aware, that paradigm is part of the Wounding system. Roll to hit, to roll see if the hit actually hit something it can hurt, roll to see if armor stops it.

[Evil Eye]

3 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

Your aim is absolutely not the same shooting at a titan vs shooting at Necron scarabs.

We did have rules for fast-moving models (notably skimmers) being harder to hit once upon a time, back when GW remembered vehicles should have rules different from infantry and lasguns should not be able to scratch a Monolith.

[Tawnis]

Back in the day, some especially fast moving units (like bikes) had the Jink rule which gave them a 4+ cover save to represent how fast they were moving. 

 

Personally, I wouldn't be apposed to a simple ballistic skill modifier. +2 to hit Titanic units, +1 to hit monsters and vehicles, -1 to hit cavalry, fly, beasts, and swarms. However, I'd only be okay with this kind of modifier on a D12 system, there's not enough space for this kind of sliding on a D6. 

[The Lost Son]

I think a D12 or as mentioned earlier D20 would be great with adding more lore representation into the tabletop but I feel it would have been better on 3rd edition scaled games or something smaller scaled like the original (4th edition?) combat patrol. The main reasons being to make it worthwhile the granularity would be better raised to a point where different marks of power armour had different stats. But if rewriting everything to that level id prefer for the guard to be the base line instead of marines, although I honestly think that should be the case under any system regardless of how abstract or focused it is as it would be a lot easier to show that something is elite or veteran than having to justify it being better or worse than a baseline space marine.