Like or hate randomness in wargames?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**VeteranNoob**

Thanks for responses everyone. So far this has been interesting and informative. Great points all around and makes me look at wargaming differently as I like random (play Orks) but also have notoriously unholy bad dice so usually am the victim of such blunders.

**Vulcan**

MrMoustaffa wrote:
Vulcan wrote:
The reason I like random charges in Fantasy is simple: Fog Of War.

Clear terrain isn't always perfectly clear. There might be a slightly boggy area that will slow chargers down. There might be a small ditch, high grass, a patch of unfriendly vegetation (cacti and the like), or any number of things that could cause a unit not to charge the maximum possible distance.

And a different unit charging across the same general area might just have missed it.

When charging and maintaining tight ranks, all it takes is one person to trip and the whole unit comes to a screeching halt. So even something as trivial as a gopher hole can stop a huge horde in it's tracks.

Units generally charge in response to orders from the general. Sometimes messengers are delayed, meaning charges are started late. Sometimes units have to be prodded into charging by their commanders, meaning the charge is started late and done half-heartedly.

A thousand and one things can - and often do - happen to prevent a charge from being pushed to it's maximum. That's why random charges are actually MORE realistic than fixed charge distance.

Besides, from a gameplay standpoint I find it more satisfying. 7E and before, the vast majority of the games I played were six turns of dancing around the 'just barely out of charge range' line trying to get the other player to make a mistake. Boring as all get-out, in my opinion.

The flaw in this logic being that if I simply ordered them to move over that patch of ground in the movement phase they would have no problems whatsoever and would move a set distance, which is (talking about mechanics, not you) fething stupid. Then if they shoot, they have an exact range they shoot at, with no variance. I don't have to roll every turn to see how far I move unless it's difficult terrain, and I never have to roll for shooting range. So why does only assaulting have to deal with it? It just goes to hurt assaulting, especially due to the insane variance in ranges if it's like 40k's.

The biggest problem is that there's no way to mitigate this other than to get within 2" to ensure there's no way to fail. If charging was something like "D3+4 inches" far less people would complain because you can roughly predict that and prepare that. Itd also be fine to just give a standard 6" charge and change it to rolling when assaulting through terrain.

When youre trying to assault and you have a 10 INCH variable to deal with, thats ridiculous. Shooting doesn't go through that. I don't roll 2d6 to see my melta gun 's range every turn, or 4d6 for my plasma gun range. Why the heck does assault have to do it? Do you see the problem here? Randomness is there to give you a slight air of unpredictability, to enforce and reward planning ahead and having a backup plan. When you give your player such a wide range of issues to deal with that cannot really be mitigated (like having to be within 2" to ensure a charge, and overwatch could still screw you) its bad game design. You no longer feel like you ran the odds in your head and made the right call, you feel like you're in Vegas. I know I've never felt clever for stopping a charge in 6th/7th, I always feel like the dice stopped it. This isn't something like firing a plasma rifle, knowing I have a 2/3 chance to hit, 5/6 chance to wound, and a 2/3 chance the opponent fails his cover save, this is a "well I might get 7", 12", or 2", here's hoping the dice gods don't screw me, because even a half inch short and I'm stuck in the open as target practice."

Which is the hallmark of bad game design. When players can with a straight face objectively say "the dice are fighting me" you have a problem. Ask any assault minded player that in 40k and theyll say the same thing. They may not put it the same way but I've yet to see a single assault player who liked it.

Please reread the first line of my post. You're comparing apples to oranges. Or more specifically, Fantasy to 40K...

**Azreal13**

I suggest you re-read his entire post. None of his points are less relevant because he's using 40K examples.

Swap "plasma" for "bow" and it's all the same argument.

**Vulcan**

Korinov wrote:
The "fog of war" argument becomes moot when you apply it only to charges. So there's fog of war when you want to charge at your enemy ten inches away, but not when you try to pinpoint their position in order to shoot at them twenty-four inches away? Please.

In general, the stuff I mentioned doesn't affect shooting at all. Who cares if there's marshy ground between you and a shooting target? Who cares if there's a gopher hole between you and the guy you're shooting at? And since it generally takes a couple seconds to fire off a volley from the moment you receive the order - as opposed to (potentially) several minutes to drive home a charge - even delays in receiving orders mean little to shooting.

Besides, it's not like there's ammo limits on the game. Who's to say a unit that 'didn't shoot' because it's out of range didn't fire a few test shots - or even whole volleys - to determine that?

**Desubot**

Im in the both group.

I dont really like the fact that my mage/psyker for some reason cant remember how to burb thunder but instead can crap lightning. even though he did it yesterday.

same with commander amnesia who forgot his personally and stumbled across a new one 10 seconds before a battle.

BUT i dont mind having some high risk high reward shenanigans with things like ork and skaven. as it fits their theme. though they seem to have toned it the feth down in aos :/

**Vulcan**

Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
if there were no randomness, the game would be far less epic and enjoyable. But too much kills it for you basically can't know what will your army allow you to do... And as far as i've heard 7th is filled with it. I never made the jump onto it but can certifiy that charge distances for exemple shouldn't work randomly.

So you have extensive experience charging closely ranked units into battle, hmm?

Even Napoleon and Caesar blew charges on occasion. Why do you think YOU should do better than they did?

**Azreal13**

It's a game, not a simulation. Doesn't matter how realistic random is (not as much as you think) if it makes for a poor gaming experience then it's a bad thing.

**General Annoyance**

Azreal13 wrote:
It's a game, not a simulation. Doesn't matter how realistic random is (not as much as you think) if it makes for a poor gaming experience then it's a bad thing.

This. Mistakes happen on the battlefield all the time. If it happens almost every time, all the time, then it gets a little frustrating

**Chute82**

Vulcan wrote:
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
if there were no randomness, the game would be far less epic and enjoyable. But too much kills it for you basically can't know what will your army allow you to do... And as far as i've heard 7th is filled with it. I never made the jump onto it but can certifiy that charge distances for exemple shouldn't work randomly.

So you have extensive experience charging closely ranked units into battle, hmm?

Even Napoleon and Caesar blew charges on occasion. Why do you think YOU should do better than they did?

You guys just need to roll a die to see who right.

**Vulcan**

It's a game SIMULATING mass combat. Granted, it's mass combat between things that don't (in general) actually exist, but still a simulation.

If it lacks verisimilitude then it risks losing the simulation aspect of the game. Otherwise we'd just play simple boardgames.

**Azreal13**

Ok, how much can actually go wrong in 6x the soldiers body length?

At 30mm, maximum charge range is equal to 36 feet.

Don't start banging about about verisimilitude, you'll hit your own gopher hole pretty quickly.

**MrMoustaffa**

Please reread the first line of my post. You're comparing apples to oranges. Or more specifically, Fantasy to 40K...

Not really, of you read the core message of what I'm arguing.

Essentially, boils down to three things

1.I don't need to randomly determine move distance every turn, I get a set amount except for a few specific instances. I get a set range I can always count on

2. I don't need to randomly determine shooting range every turn except for a couple of very rare circumstances. I get a set range I can always count on

3. I need to randomly determine charge distance EVERY TIME. I have a massive range that I cannot count on at all, from 2"-12".

This is an instance of poorly done rules design that, to my knowledge, is present in both rulesets.

Do you see where I'm going with this? This is an example of horrible game design, where an entire phase was lazily just done as "eh, let em roll 2d6 and thatll work."

"shouldnt we, I dunno, give them a way to mitigate that? Like, no matter what they move 6" or something?"

"Nah, 2 inch charges are cinematic!"

**TheCustomLime**

Azreal13 wrote:
To see how precisely an artillery barrage lands, or how close an orbital teleport is to the mark? Fine.

To see how many bullets hit a target in a meaningful way? No problem.

As a substitute for balance, or as a method of representing the knowledge of ancient wizards or near immortal warriors? Nope.

As an alternative to any mechanism which might better serve the gameplay by including more player agency? Nope.

Quoted for truth.

I would also like to add rolling on charts to see what chart you roll on and rolling to see how much dice you roll. The sole exception for the latter being BA's old blast mechanics since it was less tedious than using templates.

**Peregrine**

MrMoustaffa wrote:
"shouldnt we, I dunno, give them a way to mitigate that? Like, no matter what they move 6" or something?"

Except then you have the problem of increasing average charge distance instead of just making it random. The tradeoff for getting the potential to threaten units as far as 18" away is the possibility of failing a shorter charge, this keeps the average threat distance around the same 12" as previous editions and avoids condensing the table even more than it already is.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Korinov wrote:
Why the risk of failing a charge move must be high when shooting poses no risk, always works and there are plenty of shooting weapons in the game that can routinely wipe out entire squads or vehicles in a single shooting phase?

I explained it in a previous post. Random charge distance exists so that shooting units can not camp exactly 12.000001" away from melee units (now that you can measure at any time and make sure you have the right distance) and be guaranteed to be safe from a charge. If you want to be 100% safe you have to stay at least 18.000001" away and that makes it significantly harder for shooting units to do their jobs. Otherwise you have to take the risk of being charged and move in closer.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
So it works the same way, you have a "completely safe" zone and a "semi-safe" zone, it's just your cumulative distributions are slightly different so that you trade a the more gradual ramp up in probability for having a narrower spread and I think a lot of people value a narrower spread more than they value the gradual ramp.

It's not just slightly different, it's a huge difference. At 10.99999" away under the 2D6" method you have an 8.3% chance of having your unit instantly killed. With a D6+6" roll you have a 33% chance. That takes the risk from "kind of dangerous, but maybe worth it" to "hell no unless you're really desperate". So all that uncertainty and risk-reward balance disappears and you almost never get inside 11", defeating the entire purpose of having random charge distances.

**CT GAMER**

MrMoustaffa wrote:
Rolling to hit = fine

Rolling charge range, when shooting has a guaranteed range that never changes, and charging can be as high as 12" or as low as 2"? = whoever came up with that should be fired.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rolling for mission = fine

Rolling to see if the mission objective randomly explodes every turn = laughably bad

I don't think anyone likes the stock mysterious objective rules.

My group has house ruled out own mysterious objectives to be more focused on random strategic value not wonky random effects:

Roll d6:

1- "Bad Intel" the objective is missing, not what was expected or changing battlefield conditions have made it worthless. Remove it from the table/game.

2-5 "Good Intel" the objective is as expected and functions as normal for the scenario

6: "Priority Upgrade" the objective is or has become more valuable than expected and is worth +1 VP

**Korinov**

Peregrine wrote:

Korinov wrote:
Why the risk of failing a charge move must be high when shooting poses no risk, always works and there are plenty of shooting weapons in the game that can routinely wipe out entire squads or vehicles in a single shooting phase?

I explained it in a previous post. Random charge distance exists so that shooting units can not camp exactly 12.000001" away from melee units (now that you can measure at any time and make sure you have the right distance) and be guaranteed to be safe from a charge. If you want to be 100% safe you have to stay at least 18.000001" away and that makes it significantly harder for shooting units to do their jobs. Otherwise you have to take the risk of being charged and move in closer.

And I agree with the notion that, if measuring ranges at any time is allowed, a certain randomness added to charge movements is a good thing.

What I'm asking is why said randomness needs to provide such a high risk of failing charge moves. It's simply not fair that a close combat specialist unit has such a high risk of becoming useless in a game while the shooting specialist unit will likely deliver 100% of the time.

**Cryptek of Awesome**

Azreal13 wrote:
To see how precisely an artillery barrage lands, or how close an orbital teleport is to the mark? Fine.

To see how many bullets hit a target in a meaningful way? No problem.

As a substitute for balance, or as a method of representing the knowledge of ancient wizards or near immortal warriors? Nope.

As an alternative to any mechanism which might better serve the gameplay by including more player agency? Nope.

Yup this is it.

To paraphrase some jaded warhammer podcasters - the game is too expensive to be this random.
One of the nails in Fantasy's coffin.

**VeteranNoob**

That's a good point. Forgot about terrain and objectives. Find opponents often forget about objectives & unless I have cult mech tech priest who can tell what a mysterious objective is with that skull thingy don't really think about it. I like mysterious terrain in AoS & encourage opponents to use it. Adds a lot of fun to the game for me.

**AllSeeingSkink**

Peregrine wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
So it works the same way, you have a "completely safe" zone and a "semi-safe" zone, it's just your cumulative distributions are slightly different so that you trade a the more gradual ramp up in probability for having a narrower spread and I think a lot of people value a narrower spread more than they value the gradual ramp.

It's not just slightly different, it's a huge difference. At 10.99999" away under the 2D6" method you have an 8.3% chance of having your unit instantly killed. With a D6+6" roll you have a 33% chance. That takes the risk from "kind of dangerous, but maybe worth it" to "hell no unless you're really desperate". So all that uncertainty and risk-reward balance disappears and you almost never get inside 11", defeating the entire purpose of having random charge distances.

It doesn't defeat the entire purpose, it just shifts the focus, 16.6% is still pretty low so you're not going to gamble on it if it risks putting you in a bad position, even 33% is still pretty low if you're going to cop a face full of overwatch and be left in a bad position to cop a face full of regular shooting in their turn.

And IMO the benefit far outweighs the cost of having a slightly different probability distribution. The benefit is you have a realistic range where you KNOW 100% you can charge so there's none of the stupidity of getting 5.1" away and still failing a charge 28% of the time.

The only reason to have random charge range at all is to stop people unrealistically sitting just outside the X" charge range, even M+D6" I feel is a bit too random for my likings. You could get rid of random ranges completely and just use other rules to force people to not float 0.1" in to their safe zone.

**Just Tony**

Peregrine wrote:
MrMoustaffa wrote:
"shouldnt we, I dunno, give them a way to mitigate that? Like, no matter what they move 6" or something?"

Except then you have the problem of increasing average charge distance instead of just making it random. The tradeoff for getting the potential to threaten units as far as 18" away is the possibility of failing a shorter charge, this keeps the average threat distance around the same 12" as previous editions and avoids condensing the table even more than it already is.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Korinov wrote:
Why the risk of failing a charge move must be high when shooting poses no risk, always works and there are plenty of shooting weapons in the game that can routinely wipe out entire squads or vehicles in a single shooting phase?

I explained it in a previous post. Random charge distance exists so that shooting units can not camp exactly 12.000001" away from melee units (now that you can measure at any time and make sure you have the right distance) and be guaranteed to be safe from a charge. If you want to be 100% safe you have to stay at least 18.000001" away and that makes it significantly harder for shooting units to do their jobs. Otherwise you have to take the risk of being charged and move in closer.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
So it works the same way, you have a "completely safe" zone and a "semi-safe" zone, it's just your cumulative distributions are slightly different so that you trade a the more gradual ramp up in probability for having a narrower spread and I think a lot of people value a narrower spread more than they value the gradual ramp.

It's not just slightly different, it's a huge difference. At 10.99999" away under the 2D6" method you have an 8.3% chance of having your unit instantly killed. With a D6+6" roll you have a 33% chance. That takes the risk from "kind of dangerous, but maybe worth it" to "hell no unless you're really desperate". So all that uncertainty and risk-reward balance disappears and you almost never get inside 11", defeating the entire purpose of having random charge distances.

Do people really measure out to a millionth of an inch? Whether in 40K or WFB, the knowledge of charge ranges in advance affected tactics, both in deployment and movement. If you already know that you might fail your charges, battle lines will simply move within 1-2" of any enemy unit, therefore guaranteeing a charge. Now you could easily back away, or charge in return, but if this is the elite HTH unit in front of you and your unit is a bog standard ballistic unit, you'd be crazy to make that charge. OR it would foster gunline, which is what I saw the most in my area.

**happygolucky**

For me you need an aspect of randomness in the game and keep it at that. You can have it as part of the game but don't have it as such as an dominating factor that 40k does it but neither cancel it out.

I suppose I feel an appreciation of randomness after leaving the Yu-Gi-Oh scene, due to how easy it is to special summon in the meta made the random aspect dead, and so you get power creep really rock up in that regard and the game ends up losing its personality due to how much a game can be dictated by a First-turn kill and a one-turn kill. Simply no fun and only few pwople are interested in that sort of thing. For a Wargaming example look at Eldar Vs. CSM. Two extremes where one plays the army by itself because the random aspect has toned down to knowing that bad rolls could be a one in a million chance Vs. a table you roll for, on a table you roll for on a table you roll for.. Power Creep also can dominate in this manner.

**hippyjr**

To an extent, I see randomness as a good thing. I still remember the look on my friends faces when one guys brand new stormtalon was shot down the second it showed its face by some chaos mook with a plasma pistol. Then I got to watch the other guys smug look get wiped away as the wreck crashed and burned into his squad and nearly killed them all

My point is that randomness allows for a lot of fun moments to occur in what could otherwise be a very stale game. But as usual, too much of a good thing can lead to frustration, etc.

**Fifty**

Yes, but why have everyone move 6"? I honestly think movement is one of the most important parts of a tactical game of this type, and even minor variations to a move stat are potentially way more important than changes to WS, BS, etc...

Eldar used to have more movement than humans, if I remember correctly. That made them more manoeuvrable without all of the nonsense about Fleet and all that kind of thing.

There is a reason beasts, bikes, etc are useful in 40k, and it is their movement.

**AllSeeingSkink**

Fifty wrote:
Yes, but why have everyone move 6"? I honestly think movement is one of the most important parts of a tactical game of this type, and even minor variations to a move stat are potentially way more important than changes to WS, BS, etc...

Eldar used to have more movement than humans, if I remember correctly. That made them more manoeuvrable without all of the nonsense about Fleet and all that kind of thing.

There is a reason beasts, bikes, etc are useful in 40k, and it is their movement.

Yeah I find it silly, in order to reduce the number of model stats by 1, removing movement as a stat, you have to invent a whole heap of extra rules to account for models with different agility.

As I said on the previous page...

When GW dropped the movement stat going from 2nd to 3rd it only made sense in so much as they were simplifying the rules, making things more homogeneous, but edition after edition they've added to the rules to the point where it'd now be simpler just to go back to a raw movement stat like we had in 2nd.

**Mario**

About pre-measuring and charge distance thing. Wouldn't it be easier to add a to-hit penalty for shooting attacks at certain ranges? Allow them the millionths of an inch (not in charge distance) but give them a penalty at higher ranges. That way the shooting unit would also have incentives to get nearer to their opponents and you wouldn't necessarily need a randomized charge range (which just pushes the minimum shooting distance further, depending on how much risk you accept). Even if they want to abuse the distance it hurts them in return. Of course it would depend on how all the other rules interact.

**MeanGreenStompa**

A degree of randomness is fun, a d6 or 2d6 chart of chaos spawn benefits is fun, but a chart than can leave that unit useless or so op they take the game is not.

The Daemon Army warpstorm was an example of that poor and annoying rule. Having a game won or lost before its begun, based on chance, is bs.

**Azreal13**

Mario wrote:
About pre-measuring and charge distance thing. Wouldn't it be easier to add a to-hit penalty for shooting attacks at certain ranges? Allow them the millionths of an inch (not in charge distance) but give them a penalty at higher ranges. That way the shooting unit would also have incentives to get nearer to their opponents and you wouldn't necessarily need a randomized charge range (which just pushes the minimum shooting distance further, depending on how much risk you accept). Even if they want to abuse the distance it hurts them in return. Of course it would depend on how all the other rules interact.

To hit modifiers at different ranges? Never happen!

**Vulcan**

Azreal13 wrote:
Ok, how much can actually go wrong in 6x the soldiers body length?

At 30mm, maximum charge range is equal to 36 feet.

Don't start banging about about verisimilitude, you'll hit your own gopher hole pretty quickly.

So for you one model = one man/elf/whatever.

IIRC WFB the ratio was more like 10/1, a model that has been continued in 9th Age.

Your comparison may be good for 40K, but for WFB it's invalid.

**Mario**

Azreal13 wrote:

To hit modifiers at different ranges? Never happen!

I always felt a mix of 2nd and 3rd edition could work nicely: picking the good stuff from both and simplifying it overall could have resulted in a nice set of mechanics that could scale from a light action-RPG boardgame size (Warhammer Quest-ish) to whatever size 3rd edition was originally planned to be. Have variations of the same foundation rules for all of them so you can slowly lure your customers from boardgames to wargames (or just sell them other boardgames if they are not interested in the work a war game entails).

Also regarding randomness: They should just make spells buyable upgrades, like equipment. You don't buy a 50 points "weapon upgrade" and then roll on a random table before the game starts. Why do spells work that way? Just allow people to buy exactly what they need. The same for mutations, or any abilities really.

And if you really need randomness for mutations/orks or flavour then make it thematically fit the narrative while still being somewhat dependable, like a "Da red wunz go fasta!" upgrade where you roll a D2 or D3 but all options are (in this case) about making your buggy go faster. One might be lower bonus that applies most of the time, the next one is a slightly bigger bonus that isn't useful all the time, and the third one could be something really volatile that gives you an even bigger bonus but where the player get to chose if (at all) and when they want to try to use it (because it might backfire). That would allow for some armies (chaos/orks/wyches/maybe even a new subfaction of harlequins) that heavily rely on randomness and you still get to wriggle out of unexpected situation but without feeling like the game is punishing your for playing that type of army.

Having the usual GW list of six possibilities where the "one" hurts you, the middle offers some bonuses of variable usefulness, and the "six" delivers some sort of extra bonus might be random but I feel it's the wrong approach for a wargame (if you want more randomness to be part of the game). If you roll to hit you kinda can guess how much damage you will cause, you usually don't need an additional fumble result in your regular attacks that hurts you even more if you have a really bad roll.

**Azreal13**

Vulcan wrote:
Azreal13 wrote:
Ok, how much can actually go wrong in 6x the soldiers body length?

At 30mm, maximum charge range is equal to 36 feet.

Don't start banging about about verisimilitude, you'll hit your own gopher hole pretty quickly.

So for you one model = one man/elf/whatever.

IIRC WFB the ratio was more like 10/1, a model that has been continued in 9th Age.

Your comparison may be good for 40K, but for WFB it's invalid.

I never played Fantasy as much as 40K, but I'm pretty sure that's an assumption on your part, unless you can cite something official that supports that idea?