Was there no +/-60 cap rule here? And where the heck does +2 come from?

Nah, those weren't difficulty modifiers. And in our armory section we have a massive selection of weapon attachments that give small bonuses (for example the adjusted iron sight gives +2 to the Aim bonus).

When would a gun jam? A WS test result of 10? When would a reliable gun jam? 10 again? Would this mean drastically reducing the special qualities of weapons, or completely reworking and rewriting them? What about opposed Tests, how would they be resolved, especially in the event of a tie? Wouldn't it be better to use multiple d10 than just one? Would this mean a complete rewrite of the whole game, or would the vaunted backward compatibility to previous lines again take precedence?

Oh my god thank you for making a coherent post. Yes, all of those things would need to be worked out, and downscaling to d10 would definitely kill compatibility. I think you could tie jamming to degrees of failure/how badly you missed the roll by, though.

If you roll a 0 (10) to hit roll a d10. If the result is above your (B|W)S bonus, the gun jams.

TI I don't really understand what you wrote in response to me, but the last bit seemed related to game design, so for my next question: How do you think the ones digit of a characteristic score could be made more relevant? What changes would you make to make that number matter more than 10% of the time?

So I'd have to roll a second die to resolve a possible jam? Like DH1's confirmation of RF, only it would be confirming a jam?

Would it not be more expedient, as it is currently, to simply roll a percentile die against a predetermined number, like 91+, or 96+ in the case of a reliable weapon?

Okay, what about focus power tests? When would phenomena/perils be generated? Right now in Only War it's on results ending in doubles. Would it go aback to being on d10 results of 9? What if the psyker has, through modifiers, a 9 in 10 chance of succeeding, is he then punished with phenomena or perils for having such a high chance of success? Or would it be better to go back to using T.S. Luikart's original psychics mechanic of thresholds and overbleed?

If everything goes to d10s and +/-1 modifiers, are insanity and corruption then going to max scores of ten instead of 100?

The Minions rules of Black Crusade would have to be completely redone, other wise you've got minions starting with three points for stats and a mandate minimum stat of 1, and that won't work. Oh, sorry, we're skipping backward compatibility.

Then is there stuff in the first beta that could be used to replace the percentile mechanics in this beta?

edit- Sorry, following the ones digit only 10% of the time argument debate, but isn't that actually supposed to be "the ones digit would only count on those rolls that happen to result in the beginning tens digit" instead of "only 10% of the time? I'l try to explain, sorry, not as smart as you guys. If I play a game for three hours, and it happens to require me rolling twenty tests during the whole session, isn't it more likely I'll repeatedly roll that beginning tens digit? Dice don't remember what they rolled the previous result, so I could possibly roll that first digit ten times out of twenty, then I'd need to know the ones digit 50% of the time and not just 10%, right?

And again, you fail to present any kind of relevant material. Put up or shut up, dude. Give me a quote from your textbook or a relevant study, anything. Plus, I already brought up the fact that that effect alone doesn't seem to be that important given that it could still occur on a d10 or d6.

How about I perhaps play this your way?

Since you made the first post to comment on the issue in this thread, why don't you first provide a peer reviewed study which states what you claimed:

" the ones digit actually barely even matters, because it only needs to be checked 10% of the time "

When you most likely fail at that, you may begin to realize that you should yourself look up the psychological effects which may apply to RPGs, and potentially try to use them to make better games.

Like the pure basics of the indicated difference in human perception between 9.9 and 10 in advertising, the emotional activation of 'close calls', and the familiarity of percentage apportionment.

I already stated the fact that the one's digit is rarely used. That's a fact. Based on that, I said that it doesn't seem worthwhile to keep it in. You brought up scientific research without presenting any proof of it. I'm not pretending that what I said has academic backing, but what you're saying is, so I'd like to see that backing. Once you've found it, you can address my other points I've made based on if what you've said is true. You don't even need to use google scholar to find those, just check the thread. Or you can continue to throw out terms with no context to explain them and expect to be called correct because fancy words.

And I'd hardly call what you're arguing for using psychology to make a better game. If you want to base your game design around close calls, I'd assume you'd want them happening more than 1/10 times in a game where each player rolls around 20 times a session.

When would a gun jam? A WS test result of 10? When would a reliable gun jam? 10 again? Would this mean drastically reducing the special qualities of weapons, or completely reworking and rewriting them? What about opposed Tests, how would they be resolved, especially in the event of a tie? Wouldn't it be better to use multiple d10 than just one? Would this mean a complete rewrite of the whole game, or would the vaunted backward compatibility to previous lines again take precedence?

Oh my god thank you for making a coherent post. Yes, all of those things would need to be worked out, and downscaling to d10 would definitely kill compatibility. I think you could tie jamming to degrees of failure/how badly you missed the roll by, though.

If you roll a 0 (10) to hit roll a d10. If the result is above your (B|W)S bonus, the gun jams.

TI I don't really understand what you wrote in response to me, but the last bit seemed related to game design, so for my next question: How do you think the ones digit of a characteristic score could be made more relevant? What changes would you make to make that number matter more than 10% of the time?

So I'd have to roll a second die to resolve a possible jam? Like DH1's confirmation of RF, only it would be confirming a jam?

Would it not be more expedient, as it is currently, to simply roll a percentile die against a predetermined number, like 91+, or 96+ in the case of a reliable weapon?

Okay, what about focus power tests? When would phenomena/perils be generated? Right now in Only War it's on results ending in doubles. Would it go aback to being on d10 results of 9? What if the psyker has, through modifiers, a 9 in 10 chance of succeeding, is he then punished with phenomena or perils for having such a high chance of success? Or would it be better to go back to using T.S. Luikart's original psychics mechanic of thresholds and overbleed?

If everything goes to d10s and +/-1 modifiers, are insanity and corruption then going to max scores of ten instead of 100?

The Minions rules of Black Crusade would have to be completely redone, other wise you've got minions starting with three points for stats and a mandate minimum stat of 1, and that won't work. Oh, sorry, we're skipping backward compatibility.

Then is there stuff in the first beta that could be used to replace the percentile mechanics in this beta?

edit- Sorry, following the ones digit only 10% of the time argument debate, but isn't that actually supposed to be "the ones digit would only count on those rolls that happen to result in the beginning tens digit" instead of "only 10% of the time? I'l try to explain, sorry, not as smart as you guys. If I play a game for three hours, and it happens to require me rolling twenty tests during the whole session, isn't it more likely I'll repeatedly roll that beginning tens digit? Dice don't remember what they rolled the previous result, so I could possibly roll that first digit ten times out of twenty, then I'd need to know the ones digit 50% of the time and not just 10%, right?

So yeah, these are legit concerns that boil down to "this would mean the whole system has to be reworked." I for one think that's exactly what should happen, with the whole thing being rebuilt with certain design goals in mind and with the mechanics evoking those goals while also working with the setting in a cohesive way. But, as you're pointing out, this is not possible for the beta. So this is more just argument for argument's sake.

I still messed that up. If I have modifiers for different situations the tens digit changes so Im more likey to roll the tend digit than to not roll it, is that right? That would mean I have to know the ones digit a lot, right.

I still messed that up. If I have modifiers for different situations the tens digit changes so Im more likey to roll the tend digit than to not roll it, is that right? That would mean I have to know the ones digit a lot, right.

Forgot to explain that. When you roll a d100, you always get 2 digits, barring a 100, the tens digit and the ones digit. When you're checking to see if you succeed, the first thing you check is the tens digit versus the tens digit of the target number. If the tens digit is lower than TN, you succeed, if it is higher, you fail, and if it is equal you them check the ones digit. There are only 10 possible results for the 10s digit, meaning you can only tie the target number one time out of ten or 10% of the time, hence 10% of the time you'll need to check the ones digit. Does that make sense now? It doesn't matter what the target number is modified to be, because it will always be a number with a 10s digit from 0-9.

Okay. Thanks!

I already stated the fact that the one's digit is rarely used. That's a fact. Based on that, I said that it doesn't seem worthwhile to keep it in.

Non sequitur conclusion. Infrequency does not equal null effect.

And I also asked previously if you think the effect it causes is worthwhile,given its infrequency, which you never answered, nor any other questions I asked. You're running out of things to nitpick I lieu of addressing my points.

Every game has used full subtraction. At some point they changed it so that DoS start at 1 instead of 0. Only in DH2 do you only look at the 10s digit only.

I find it kind of ridiculous that people think using a calculator is an acceptable solution to people having a hard time with the math and the smugness of inferring people who don't like the system where you're constantly subtracting two two digit numbers must be less intelligent.

No one responded to this the first time I asked, so I'll repeat: why on God's Green Earth are you subtracting at all? The argument that 'Subtracting one-digit numbers is objectively simpler than subtracting two-digit numbers' is a straw man, since the old system doesn't require subtraction at all; you are just choosing to do it the hard way. I suck at math, and even I find counting increments of 10 to be incredibly easy. "I need a 68 and I rolled a 14 so, let's see, 14,24,34,44,54,64- boo-yeah! Suck on my six Degrees of Success, heretic scum!"

Ah yes, the nebulous "Feels Right" game mechanic. Math backing the system be damned. It could be the most mechanically sound, balanced system in the world, but if does feel right (read: work the same way I'm familiar with it working) it is a bad system.

Well, since it's a proven fact that the old system works (proven by the fact that it's been used in every WH40KRP game up 'til now- you would think that the line would have collapsed long ago if it didn't work), of course 'feel' will be a factor in deciding if it should be replaced. I maintain that using the same dice roll to determine both success and Degrees of Success 'feels' better than using one interpretation of the dice to determine success, then shifting to a different- potentially contradictory - interpretation to determine Degrees of Success.

I'm not pretending that what I said has academic backing, but what you're saying is, so I'd like to see that backing

Let me put it this way:

Your claim that a 10% usage rate warrants removal based solely upon relative infrequency to higher percentages is defacto wrong because Dark Heresy is not a purely mathematical system trimming for usage rate.

Your contentions are incapable of being correct in any way shape or form without a treatment of all of the relevant systems, including human psychology.

So my posts directed you toward some relevant topics in that field.

Because make no mistake, willful ignorance is not proof that you are correct:

As Dark Heresy is not purely mathematical, and demonstrably includes elements of human psychology, your omission of a relevant treatment of that field likely renders your opinion inaccurate.

And after all, Righteous Fury perhaps happens at around a 10% chance.

Every game has used full subtraction. At some point they changed it so that DoS start at 1 instead of 0. Only in DH2 do you only look at the 10s digit only.

I find it kind of ridiculous that people think using a calculator is an acceptable solution to people having a hard time with the math and the smugness of inferring people who don't like the system where you're constantly subtracting two two digit numbers must be less intelligent.

No one responded to this the first time I asked, so I'll repeat: why on God's Green Earth are you subtracting at all? The argument that 'Subtracting one-digit numbers is objectively simpler than subtracting two-digit numbers' is a straw man, since the old system doesn't require subtraction at all; you are just choosing to do it the hard way. I suck at math, and even I find counting increments of 10 to be incredibly easy. "I need a 68 and I rolled a 14 so, let's see, 14,24,34,44,54,64- boo-yeah! Suck on my six Degrees of Success, heretic scum!"

"Father Horst is boasting, none too truthfully, of his success in smiting mutants. He makes a Deceive Test. Since Deceive is a Fellowship-based skill, Father Horst must roll beneath his Fellowship Characteristic to successfully convince the drill-abbots that his actions were indeed “like the Imperial heroes of old”. Horst rolls 12 against a Fellowship of 44. Not only does he succeed, he beats his target by 3 degrees of success (44–12 = 32) . The Drill Abbots completely believe his tale and decide that, as Horst is such a hero, he is best employed at the front line of a local war."

Who knows what would cause people to use subtraction...

Ah yes, the nebulous "Feels Right" game mechanic. Math backing the system be damned. It could be the most mechanically sound, balanced system in the world, but if does feel right (read: work the same way I'm familiar with it working) it is a bad system.

Well, since it's a proven fact that the old system works (proven by the fact that it's been used in every WH40KRP game up 'til now- you would think that the line would have collapsed long ago if it didn't work), of course 'feel' will be a factor in deciding if it should be replaced. I maintain that using the same dice roll to determine both success and Degrees of Success 'feels' better than using one interpretation of the dice to determine success, then shifting to a different- potentially contradictory - interpretation to determine Degrees of Success.

This is such a bad argument, I don't even... It's a proven fact that model T's get people where they need to go, but we sure as **** don't use them anymore. There's such a thing as improvement, and that improvement can often mean completely changing the way we do something. You don't go from rowboats to steamships by saying that rowing technology works and should only ever be improved.

I'm not pretending that what I said has academic backing, but what you're saying is, so I'd like to see that backing

Let me put it this way:

Your claim that a 10% usage rate warrants removal based solely upon relative infrequency to higher percentages is defacto wrong because Dark Heresy is not a purely mathematical system trimming for usage rate.

Your contentions are incapable of being correct in any way shape or form without a treatment of all of the relevant systems, including human psychology.

So my posts directed you toward some relevant topics in that field.

Because make no mistake, willful ignorance is not proof that you are correct:

As Dark Heresy is not purely mathematical, and demonstrably includes elements of human psychology, your omission of a relevant treatment of that field likely renders your opinion inaccurate.

And after all, Righteous Fury perhaps happens at around a 10% chance.

I included my thoughts on the psychology portion of the issue AND the math portion. I asked you if you felt the psychology outweighed the very rare (your words were 3%-5%) instances in which it comes up. I personally don't feel like that's worth considering at that rarity and that if you're looking to use it you should base a game around it. You also never answered me with how much would be lost by going from a d100 to a d10 other than implying there would be some loss around it.

This is just my opinion, but a righteous fury in which you are granted extra damage (reinforcement!) at 10% along with a direct effect in the game probably has a higher effect than the "close call" from almost rolling your target number. It also has the issue of requiring balance in terms of its frequency versus its potency.

You can call me willfully ignorant, but I addressed all of your points and you've ignored every criticism I have of them. Nice redirection, there.

I asked you if you felt the psychology outweighed the very rare (your words were 3%-5%) instances in which it comes up. I personally don't feel like that's worth considering at that rarity and that if you're looking to use it you should base a game around it. You also never answered me with how much would be lost by going from a d100 to a d10 other than implying there would be some loss around it.

As recorded in the previous posts, I indicated exactly most what would be 'lost' by using a pure d10 system.

It was in my first post in this thread, expanded in the second, and continued in most of the subsequent ones.

You can personally consider something 'not worth it' all you like-- that opinion is largely irrelevant to the decision of whether it should be changed for everyone or not.

So, you can restate that opinion: But without a substantive treatment to back it up, upon the details of the system, it's fairly irrelevant.

Which is why I am referring to it as "willfully ignorant". You're arguing from an incomplete position only in claims that other people are wrong, instead of looking to examine the totality.

Basically: Raw mathematical probability is demonstrably not the only effect in the system. You should perhaps research and demonstrate how it links to the other effects.

Every game has used full subtraction. At some point they changed it so that DoS start at 1 instead of 0. Only in DH2 do you only look at the 10s digit only.

I find it kind of ridiculous that people think using a calculator is an acceptable solution to people having a hard time with the math and the smugness of inferring people who don't like the system where you're constantly subtracting two two digit numbers must be less intelligent.

No one responded to this the first time I asked, so I'll repeat: why on God's Green Earth are you subtracting at all? The argument that 'Subtracting one-digit numbers is objectively simpler than subtracting two-digit numbers' is a straw man, since the old system doesn't require subtraction at all; you are just choosing to do it the hard way. I suck at math, and even I find counting increments of 10 to be incredibly easy. "I need a 68 and I rolled a 14 so, let's see, 14,24,34,44,54,64- boo-yeah! Suck on my six Degrees of Success, heretic scum!"

"Father Horst is boasting, none too truthfully, of his success in smiting mutants. He makes a Deceive Test. Since Deceive is a Fellowship-based skill, Father Horst must roll beneath his Fellowship Characteristic to successfully convince the drill-abbots that his actions were indeed “like the Imperial heroes of old”. Horst rolls 12 against a Fellowship of 44. Not only does he succeed, he beats his target by 3 degrees of success (44–12 = 32) . The Drill Abbots completely believe his tale and decide that, as Horst is such a hero, he is best employed at the front line of a local war."

Who knows what would cause people to use subtraction...

I'll be honest - your counting method never occurred to me. I'll give that a go next time we play, so thanks. The fact remains though that the end result is subtraction, and it is presented as such.

Ah yes, the nebulous "Feels Right" game mechanic. Math backing the system be damned. It could be the most mechanically sound, balanced system in the world, but if does feel right (read: work the same way I'm familiar with it working) it is a bad system.

Well, since it's a proven fact that the old system works (proven by the fact that it's been used in every WH40KRP game up 'til now- you would think that the line would have collapsed long ago if it didn't work), of course 'feel' will be a factor in deciding if it should be replaced. I maintain that using the same dice roll to determine both success and Degrees of Success 'feels' better than using one interpretation of the dice to determine success, then shifting to a different- potentially contradictory - interpretation to determine Degrees of Success.

This is such a bad argument, I don't even... It's a proven fact that model T's get people where they need to go, but we sure as **** don't use them anymore. There's such a thing as improvement, and that improvement can often mean completely changing the way we do something. You don't go from rowboats to steamships by saying that rowing technology works and should only ever be improved.

Pretty much this. You could make the same argument about 3.5 D&D being continued into Pathfinder but I'd still tell you that's a bad system.

I asked you if you felt the psychology outweighed the very rare (your words were 3%-5%) instances in which it comes up. I personally don't feel like that's worth considering at that rarity and that if you're looking to use it you should base a game around it. You also never answered me with how much would be lost by going from a d100 to a d10 other than implying there would be some loss around it.

As recorded in the previous posts, I indicated exactly most what would be 'lost' by using a pure d10 system.

It was in my first post in this thread, expanded in the second, and continued in most of the subsequent ones.

You can personally consider something 'not worth it' all you like-- that opinion is largely irrelevant to the decision of whether it should be changed for everyone or not.

So, you can restate that opinion: But without a substantive treatment to back it up, upon the details of the system, it's fairly irrelevant.

Which is why I am referring to it as "willfully ignorant". You're arguing from an incomplete position only in claims that other people are wrong, instead of looking to examine the totality.

Basically: Raw mathematical probability is demonstrably not the only effect in the system. You should perhaps research and demonstrate how it links to the other effects.

Your first post was essentially stating that you felt the d100 is more familiar to players (even though a d6 is far more familiar, and the familiarity of the d100 can be disputed based on the need to roll two dice and work out their combination). You also said that you felt there was less of a chance to have "close calls" and have essentially made it your argument that close calls completely trump any other considerations regardless of how frequently they occur and without providing any proof that they are significantly more likely in a d100 than a d10, or why you would not logically go for a d1000.

You also claimed that a significant part of the game's tension comes from the 1's digit/edge cases, which I call bull on both when comparing it to narrative importance and when comparing it the tension you get from rolling any kind of dice. You allude to edge cases without backing up why the d100 is the endall beall of them.

And again, the only willful ignorance is coming from you pretending like I haven't already addressed every claim you've made and instead tried to turn the burden of proof onto me (which I've laid out that it isn't) or by claiming I'm arguing from ignorance after I've already taken in and looked at the points you've made.

and have essentially made it your argument that close calls completely trump any other considerations regardless of how frequently they occur and without providing any proof that they are significantly more likely in a d100 than a d10

You're demonstrably wrong as recorded on the previous page of this thread in great detail, including but not limited to the mathematics of 1% variances being closer to the target in probability than 10% variances.

Your posts now are just frivolous claims that you've 'addressed everything', with still no demonstration of proof for your contention that a low probability of occurrence indicates it should be removed from the game.

Will you be railing against the chance of weapon jams and perils of the warp next?

Again, your contentions are all and entirely opinion .

Including the demonstrably incorrect opinion that I claimed a 'close calls' effect 'trumps everything', when in fact the details of my second post in this thread list it as merely one more potential thing in favor for a d100.

So yes, ignoring demonstrable effects like human psychology on RPGs is, in fact, willful ignorance .

And you seem to be doing it for the sole purpose of an egotistical defense for your claim of mathematical infrequency being entirely equivalent to gameplay irrelevance.

So again, my posts have largely been to direct you to the facets of that clearly relevant field which may be of some relevance here:

Because without a statement of why exactly the infrequent event contributes negatively to player enjoyment of the game in the completeness of the system, and why the new proposition contributes more positively, that contention shall likely forever remain an irrelevant opinion .

So I'll perhaps leave you with this:

Camyll spits blood and gets his hands to his torso, where a huge chunk of metal is buried deep in his flesh. He looks at Reginald, who is covered in dust and ashes, and smiles lightly.

"Oh, amigo . Sure you look worse than me" -Swallows-. "But I might be dying".

[Toughness roll: 28. I fail by ONE. Spend fate point to reroll: 22 [yay!]. Two fate points left. No blood loss, tho.]

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/94770-seeds-of-heresy-play-by-post-inplay/page-18#entry936755

A bit of a demonstration for the notability of close misses. You can't miss by one percent in d10. Would there be any such memorability in that sort of system?

Now of course that's not the only effect, as my posts in this thread have perhaps detailed. But it is an effect. And you'd likely require proof to accurately claim that it wasn't positive and humorous.

EDIT: Ignore this, neglected to notice the entire page between what I was replying to and this post.

As we're discussing all things DoS/DoF, an alternative method for determining degrees of success for d100 could be found in the "blackjack" method that Eclipse Phase use's, where the margin of success is simply what the player rolled on a successful test. This is really the best way I see to simplify calculating out DoS with d100, and DoF doesn't even matter (I cannot, off the top of my head, even think of a mechanic in DH2E that relies on DoF).

As for the discussion on d100 vs d10, I'm surprised to find myself agreeing with cps and Nimsim that d10 is a better system to use, both mathematically and in terms of limiting system bloat. Though the argument is largely academic (no way in hell is FFG going to change the core mechanic), I have greatly appreciated the arguments presented in this thread. They have helped to shape my views on the issues that plague the d100 system.

As we're discussing all things DoS/DoF, an alternative method for determining degrees of success for d100 could be found in the "blackjack" method that Eclipse Phase use's, where the margin of success is simply what the player rolled on a successful test. This is really the best way I see to simplify calculating out DoS with d100, and DoF doesn't even matter (I cannot, off the top of my head, even think of a mechanic in DH2E that relies on DoF).

As for the discussion on d100 vs d10, I'm surprised to find myself agreeing with cps and Nimsim that d10 is a better system to use, both mathematically and in terms of limiting system bloat. Though the argument is largely academic (no way in hell is FFG going to change the core mechanic), I have greatly appreciated the arguments presented in this thread. They have helped to shape my views on the issues that plague the d100 system.

One of us! One of us! One of us!

I've already started taking a stab at rewriting the Playing the Game and Combat chapters to use a d10, to see if I run into any glaring issues. Haven't found much to worry about yet other than hit locations, really. And I wouldn't lose too much sleep over cutting hit locations entirely, as heretical as that probably sounds.

One of us! One of us! One of us!

Indubitably. I've read the thread a couple of times, and the arguments put forth by you and cps are more persuasive than I expected, especially in terms of the simplicity. I've been thinking back to the current DH1 campaign I'm in, and more and more I am bothered by how long it takes to determine degrees of success sometimes (this is compounded even more by the fact that we're in Ascension and 3/4s of the party have Unnatural Characteristics).

Yes, I can see the points raised by some of the other posters as to how the math isn't really that complicated (it's just subtraction if you use this method or addition if you use this method!). But the point of gaming - for me and I would suspect many others - is the story/plot/narrative. For my own GMing, I have been removing more and more bloat that prevents me from telling the story I want to tell, and one aspect of that is the time it takes to use mechanics in games. d10 is an advantage in that respect while d100 is a detriment.

I've already started taking a stab at rewriting the Playing the Game and Combat chapters to use a d10, to see if I run into any glaring issues. Haven't found much to worry about yet other than hit locations, really. And I wouldn't lose too much sleep over cutting hit locations entirely, as heretical as that probably sounds

I was thinking about that, actually, and I have been toying around with the idea that the DoS would be the determining factor, thus "flipping" the traditional hit location table. But that doesn't necessarily work either, depending on how you plan to implement a d10 system (i.e, how how can DoS get under such a mechanic). So I don't really know how to do it, and I wouldn't consider you that much of a heretic if you gutted those tables out (too much referencing involved).

The main issue with a single die system and hit locations is that it's pretty **** tricky to make it so that your characteristic doesn't directly influence your chance of hitting different locations. It's one of the few benefits of the ones die in the current system.

(I cannot, off the top of my head, even think of a mechanic in DH2E that relies on DoF).

In theory, all of them can. GMs may rule negative effects of increasing severity with degrees of failure.

But of course they likely won't change the core mechanic: Because it works. D100 tends to consistently playtest very well across the board, which is perhaps why it wasn't changed at the first available opportunity.

It's not as if most of the issues in this thread are particularly new.

I've already started taking a stab at rewriting the Playing the Game and Combat chapters to use a d10, to see if I run into any glaring issues. Haven't found much to worry about yet other than hit locations, really. And I wouldn't lose too much sleep over cutting hit locations entirely, as heretical as that probably sounds.

Go ahead. You can streamline DH very easily, even beyond d20. The slippery slope to Tabletop may be very well oiled.

I would recommend playing a few games with it, and noting what happens.

Your group might like it, WS 3, BS 4, Aim +1, 5- to hit. +6 cap on bonuses.

I mean it's not as if d20 is too much different, eh?

Ahh the trials of converting 40k Tabletop to RPG format.

You could roll an extra d10 in the damage roll for hit location. The benefit of that is that the groups I've played in usually forget their to hit roll by the time the enemy has dodged and they've rolled damage, so they have to Reroll for hit location anyway.

In theory, all of them can. GMs may rule negative effects of increasing severity with degrees of failure.

By RAW, the only mechanic that appears to both quantitatively and qualitatively affect a character due to DoF is the Shock Table. In all other instances, DoF only measures the quality of a failure. Now, this is can be an important aspect to the game...if the GM actually makes use of this in his description of events as they unfold. The point I was making in suggesting a blackjack style DoS for d100 DH that includes disregarding DoF is because it reduces the math necessary to progress turns in the major area of the game where things bog down: combat.

Go ahead. You can streamline DH very easily, even beyond d20. The slippery slope to Tabletop may be very well oiled.

I would recommend playing a few games with it, and noting what happens.

Your group might like it, WS 3, BS 4, Aim +1, 5- to hit. +6 cap on bonuses.

I mean it's not as if d20 is too much different, eh?

Ahh the trials of converting 40k Tabletop to RPG format.

So what you're saying is it'll play identically to DH as it is now, but with superfluous numbers cut off? Okay, cool, that's what I want.

I don't get this obsession with statlines having to be drastically different to one another. I'm fine with most humans being in the 3-4 range for most characteristics. Characteristics are a dreadfully dull way to differentiate characters anyway.