No, because it has just as many chances to fail as it does to pass. Each roll is completely independent of the last - just because the last roll was a "fail" it doesn't make a "pass" any more likely. Each roll will be a 50/50 chance of a fail/pass, and the number so faces a dice has has no bearing.
Now if you were arguing for a 4+ on both a D6 and a D10, then yes, there would be a difference as a 4+ on a D10 is more likely than a 4+ on a D6 (7 faces of 10 against 3 on 6, or 70% to 50%), but you're not, you're asking for a 50/50 roll. A 50/50 roll is 50/50 regardless of how many sides it has (even numbers only of course, as you can't get 50/50 on an odd numbered dice).
No, if you're only rolling 1 dice (assuming it's unweighted of course) then 50% is 50% it doesn't matter if you want a 4+ on a D6, 6+ on a D10, 15+ on a D28 or 51+ on a D100 - it's still 50%.
D2, D6, D10, D12, so you want at least a 2, 4+, 6+ and 7+ respectively - check the %.
Er..no, it's exactly the same - 50%.
Except that it's not....
If you set down and roll a D10 20 times & give yourself a point every time it's a 6 or better, you'll end up with more points that if you sat down with a D6 and gave yourself a point every time it was a 4 or better.
I'm sure there's someone that can explain it better, but it does happen that way most of the time.
It's because on a D6 there's only 3 sides that can result in a point for you. On a D10 there's 5. And for some strange reason that makes it easier despite there being 5 sides that won't get you a point.
I'll try and get in here before VoodooMike rips you a new one, but this is basic maths.
Take a d6, and you want a 4+.
1, 2 and 3 are fails (3 results out of 6 = 1 out of 2)
4, 5 and 6 pass (3 results out of 6 = 1 out of 2)
Take a D10 and you want a 6+
1-5 are fails (5 results out of 10 = 1 out of 2)
6-10 are passes (5 out of 10 = 1 out of 2)
They are exactly the same - 50% chance.
You could even take a coin (D2)
Tails fail (1 result out of 2)
Heads pass (1 result of out 2)
The only "strange reason" is your failure to grasp basic probability.
Of course, we would have to adjust the numbers to fit D10s, so an action that's suppose to have a 50% chance is still a 50% chance, but have you ever tried to get a 6 or higher on a D10? It's easier than trying to get a 4 or higher on a D6.
Er..no, it's exactly the same - 50%.
And the more you complain, the more I think BB isn't the game you're looking for (which isn't meant as a slight, BB isn't for everyone, just like other games [TT and video] don't appeal to everyone). This game (and all GW games to be fair) have always had their "impossible fails/impossible successes" built into them, because they are 'games', they're not meant to be real-life simulations. This game would be so boring if everyone always picked up the ball, elves always dodged, dwarfs never got hurt etc etc etc. Sure, it's a pain when it happens during a game, but then if it worked the way you want you wouldn't get stories of Tomb Guardians intercepting in 4 TZ, dodging out into 2 then into the open, making 2 GFI and handing off to the Thro-Ra who made making that Long Pass to the other Tomb Guardian, who caught it and made 2GFI for the winning score (as happened in my last TT league).
If you want a real-life simulation of a (American) football game then you should be looking at Madden - BB isn't, and never was, a fantasy-skinned Madden game.
Blood Bowl 2 is an image of an already existing game, if you want major changes you may be better off talking to NAF or whoever sets the rules for the game nowadays.
That would be Games Workshop, who have just re-released the game, and saw no reason to change from the current format.
You could be the most brilliant tactician on earth, but still end up suffering a turnover that cost you the game because you greatly thought our plan hinged entirely on the random chance dice roll involved in having your gutter runner pick up a ball in no tackle zones.
And yet these "brilliant tactician's" of the BB world, both TT and online, who are just as much at the mercy of the dice gods as you or I, still manage to win more than they lose, and still regularly top the tables in whatever format they are in.
I like the "every given Sunday" feel of the game, where if I play extremely well, and the dice are kind to me and unkind to my opponent, I can win or draw against some of the best players in the world. But I also recognise that normally, those better players will beat me. Is it luck that I get beaten by the top players more often than not? Of course it isn't.
And at the end of the day, Cyanide/Focus set out (and for all it's faults, mainly succeeded) to create a digital version of the TT game, dice and all. They tried a Real Time version of BB in the original BB1 release, and guess what, they dropped it because hardly anyone played it.
And BB does require skills. Those who whine about it being only about dice just don't have a slightest knowledge of its mechanics and tactics, most of the time (and I've talked with a quite few of them on Steam, in comments to their reviews where they rage about dices being unfair, or game being totally luck-based (usually both at the same time ) ), and that's their real problem.
+1 to this and the rest of your post.
I remember on FB, someone moaning that his elves kept falling over when he hit this opponents Orcs on 2 Red dice - when pointed out about the ST differences and Block skill, he just replied with "I don't have time for this bollox".
As soon as you see a complaint from someone mentioning the "unfair RNG" you might as well not bother, as they will never be convinced that perhaps it's their own failure at understanding the game.
Ah, so I'm a liar because you've been proven wrong - good to know.
And no, it wasn't 3rd ed with the old DT, it would have been around the time of the Vault/PBBL that became LRB5, as I was helping admin the PBeM playtesting league in the MBBL.
But I'll happily accept your life savings, thanks.