I'd just like to get the ball rolling for a discussion covering two main topics.

1) Since cinematic play seems to be tthe writing on the wall for 6th ed does anyone know of great ways to increase that in play? I find custom scenarios to work quite often especially with a special rule or two added.

2) Given the discussions that often occur around TFG articles maybe we could discuss how to make the game not more enjoyable for yourself but for your opponent. This can be both cometitive anf fluffy play. (I'll insert bath here before the trolls get to it) I find taking 5 minutes to define all the terrain at the start of the game is a must.

Have at it dakka.

i'm not really sure about 'more cinematic'. personally I really like the changes from 5th to 6th, but I'm not quite sure about how they give a more cinematic game, except perhaps there's less need for tough units to hug cover quite as religiously as they did in 5th.

As regards making the game more enjoyable, I completely agree that terrain needs to be gone through beforehand to avoid problems.

I aso think it's courteous to remind people of special rules your army has that may affect their choices before those choices become irrevocable. ie when an opponent declares a charge, I'd remind him if the unit had Counterattack. I wouldn't expect everyone to do this, but I do find that being as upfront as possible and not expecting the opposing player to remember evcerything about my list fosters a better atmosphere in both casual and competitive play.

I also find that letting my opponent have his way over one rules question often means he gives me the benefit on the next. I tend only to argue the toss with people I already know so we can sort it out for future games (of course not everyone reciprocates with rules queries, but quite honestly I don't think the game's worth upsetting someone I don't know who's determined to have his way. of course this isn't particular to 40K). Some of this can be done pre-emptively before the game, like asking your opponent whether he wants the prows on DE raiders to count as hull or not.

I did have an idea about how to make t seem more realistic. I thought maybe if one of the players had an Ipod they could take maybe 5-10 minutes of various noises, (orders being shouted, explosions, gunfire) and just set it to play the entire game it would make the game a lot more dynamic.As long as it isn't so loud you can't hear one another anyway. Music can also add to a game, as long as it's more of an orchestra type music (this is used in movies more often anyway.)

Here is a list of music that I would use in a game if I were to...
(by the way this is just a copyright protection so I won't get sued or anything..I do not own any songs, names, or groups mentioned here)

Reqiuem For a Dream--Performed by London Ensemble

Hand of Doom-- performed by Manowar

Dragon Age 2 Main Theme--Inon Zur
Actually anything by Inon Zur, they do a lot of sound tracks for video games and their music is very fitting

The Riders of Rohan- Howard Shore--Lord of the Rings Soundtrack

The Bridge of Khazad-Dhum--Howard Shore--LOTR soundtrack

Helms Deep--Howard Shore--LOTR soundtrack

Just some ideas, definately try music though, you'd be surprised the affect it will have ( just not too loud!

"Cinematic gaming" for me centers around your overall approach to game prep when it comes to terrain, scenario choice, and army design for said scenario: making choices that establish a theme/feel for a given game as the primary motivator.

When two or more players/teams have a shared goal of setting up a cinematic "what if" scene and then playing it out you get some great narrative/cinematic play.

Instead of "hey I have this killer tournamant list I want to try", the initial discussion starts with a desire to play a "last stand" or a "sewer sweep", or a "convoy ambush" or a "battle in a swamp", etc. Setting or an archetypical cinematic theme become the focus, not externally designed lists as is often the case. It is a totally different approach to the game in which you are working with your opponent to create a narrative as opposed to simply showing up to play chess.

For example in the narrative campaign I have been playing with my sons (see sig) we use the setting we have established as a basis for setting up our games, and build onto and expand it as we play more and more games.

In our campaign setting a city (Golov) is under siege by invading Orks. I recently made a themed table that represents a blasted apocalyptic wasteland of burning craters and blasted ruins. But how to use it in our campaign?

We decided that a whole corridor of land along the southern boarder of the city had to be orbitally bombarded to stop the massive approaching ork hordes from pouring into the city. We added this to our campaign narrative and described that the Imperial forces have set up long range artillery batteries to continue to bombard this area in response to continued ork advances through what is now a blasted wasteland. The Imperium has also established numerous forward observation bases to direct this fire. and deployed armoured battlegroups to patrol it's edge as a way to respond quickly to any ork breakthroughs.

So what does this all mean?

We used this narrative to shape games in that region of our campaign setting. We are about to play a "Purge the Alien" scenario in this region that will use this themed table/terrain. My son will be fielding an IG armoured company (IA list) to with an allied detachment of Cadians filled with mortars, griffons, basalisks, aegis line, etc. to represent one of the FOBs. The armoured company will have a number of the artillery strike choices to represent te long range artillery, Our fluff has shaped the table setup and roughly what the IG force should contain.

Likewise we determined that the orks know that trying to footslog across this no-mans-land is suicide and so have taken to trying to rush across it in trukks, on bikes, etc. Thus my force must all be a vehicle or be units in transports.

Narrative determines and guides setup. It is a challenge for my son to consider what those Imperial forces should be comprised of given the narrative, etc.

Terrain and army design sets a scene and meets a theme.

I like what i'm seeing so far. I haven't tried the music but i've heard people talk about it before. As for the narrative that works in the context of a campaign for sure, but can it work realistically for friendly and casual games? Anyway these are great ideas and since i'm working on another summer campaign at my FLGS and i'll be introducing a couple of new players to the game it might be a good idea to integrate these things.

@Blood and slaughter i have mixed feelings about the letting someone "take back" moves ect (such as reminding them they can fire overwatch or ask if they are sure they want to charge said unit). While i often do that, and allow friends to even fire twice some unit if they forgot to fire it the previous turn, occaisionally i've wondered if it just handicaps people from thinking for themselves and becoming better players. Still the goal is to have fun no matter what so that needs to be kept in mind.

to play a truely cinematic game - play infinity.

I think because the opponent can shoot back or react in your turn, it adds another level of interaction and involvment to the game.

So if you wanted to transplant that to 40k, I suggest involving the opponent (beyond handling him some dice for armour saves) in your turn.

KoganStyle wrote:to play a truely cinematic game - play infinity.

I think because the opponent can shoot back or react in your turn, it adds another level of interaction and involvment to the game.

So if you wanted to transplant that to 40k, I suggest involving the opponent (beyond handling him some dice for armour saves) in your turn.

Over watch is a reaction to being charged. Not as complex as infinities ARO system, but they made efforts with 6th in this direction.

We can't change the rules, but what we CAN change is the terrain, and our armies.

Great terrain really sets the scene. I'm talking about terrain that not only looks great, but matches well and plays well. A table full of themed terrain that is finished to a high standard will almost tell a story itself, and when laid out correctly will produce natural results to the game with some areas being hotly contested control points, other areas being open to fire and some being filled with dense terrain that blocks LOS and slows models down.

Playing on mis-matched terrain that's just been throw onto the table is no where near as much fun.

And for the love of god, paint your armies! You can't have a cinematic game with proxies or unpainted models.

i have mixed feelings about the letting someone "take back" moves ect (such as reminding them they can fire overwatch or ask if they are sure they want to charge said unit

In general (unless I'm playing someone who's not very experienced when I will almost always allow them to 'take back' something that's clearly foolhardy if they want to), that's not quite what I was meaning. i was meaning more that if I (say) have an ability that let's me overwatch at full BS, I'd remind my opponent of that when they declare a charge on the unit in question, in case they had forgotten the power was in effect, or that the unit could do that. While I think experienced players should know the core rules and theor own rules well enough not to need reminders, I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to remember things they may not encounter very frequently. I do realise there's a school of thought that says you should not do that in competitive games, but I do find it generally makes the experience friendlier.

Oh alright, i guess i misunderstood you. I guess you meant things like the iron arm psychic power, if your oppoent is used to charging MC's it's not the same as if that MC has+3str and t (especially with no visual indicator).

Speaking of which: visual indicators. Besides cotton for smokescreens does anyone use any to enhance gaming experience?

As far as a more Cinematic Game, I am not sure yet. I know that it has become more Character Driven. From the point of view of my Space Wolves this is the way it should be, my guard is unsure at the moment.
The allies can make for a more Dynamic Game, you will really have a hard time coming up with you Take On All Comers List. I know I am going to be picking up a lot of different Battle Forces to get some Allies together.

As far as being nice to new players it tend to use the advice of the Master.

I guess you meant things like the iron arm psychic power, if your oppoent is used to charging MC's it's not the same as if that MC has+3str and t (especially with no visual indicator).

Yes, absolutely. If you can't see something, it's ahrder to remember it's there, especially something that was cast in the movement phase but lasts a full turn.

Visual indicators are great. I keep meaning do make more but getting round to it seems to take ages . . .

As well as cotton wool smoke/wrecked markers, I have red tags I use for wound markers (I hang them off weapons) for my paladins and characters, and they double as hull point markers now too, which is nice.

I started making counters to show what psychic powers I had in effect but as I no longer take a Librarian, the one I'd finished (Sanctuary, Shrouding) are worthless to me now. I know the effect only lasted one phase, but I found having the counter there made everything crystal clear.

I'm just going to copy and paste one of my posts from another thread, since it's relevant to this one:

Fafnir wrote:For all this talk about "cinematics," I think that not only is GW just throwing the word around as a token buzzword, but many of the people who fall for it, and on a fundamental level, GW themselves, don't even understand the concept.

The game and its designers, by extension, aren't supposed to develop "cinematics." That's what film and other non-participatory mediums are for. A game should be bound, rather, by its ludic elements, ie the elments of play and the elements that enhance play. Increased random elements that remove control from the player (essentially, random elements acting not as rngs, but as a back-end form of control) end up taking away from this ludic context.

Cinematics are not the job of the game designer. Cinematics, the stories themselves, come from the players. "Cinematics" are a side element of games, an element that develops in the presence of strong ludic context. They're not what happens on the table, but the stories that players take with them beyond it. You can't design a game around that.

CT GAMER wrote:"Cinematic gaming" for me centers around your overall approach to game prep when it comes to terrain, scenario choice, and army design for said scenario: making choices that establish a theme/feel for a given game as the primary motivator.

When two or more players/teams have a shared goal of setting up a cinematic "what if" scene and then playing it out you get some great narrative/cinematic play.

Instead of "hey I have this killer tournamant list I want to try", the initial discussion starts with a desire to play a "last stand" or a "sewer sweep", or a "convoy ambush" or a "battle in a swamp", etc. Setting or an archetypical cinematic theme become the focus, not externally designed lists as is often the case. It is a totally different approach to the game in which you are working with your opponent to create a narrative as opposed to simply showing up to play chess.

For example in the narrative campaign I have been playing with my sons (see sig) we use the setting we have established as a basis for setting up our games, and build onto and expand it as we play more and more games.

In our campaign setting a city (Golov) is under siege by invading Orks. I recently made a themed table that represents a blasted apocalyptic wasteland of burning craters and blasted ruins. But how to use it in our campaign?

We decided that a whole corridor of land along the southern boarder of the city had to be orbitally bombarded to stop the massive approaching ork hordes from pouring into the city. We added this to our campaign narrative and described that the Imperial forces have set up long range artillery batteries to continue to bombard this area in response to continued ork advances through what is now a blasted wasteland. The Imperium has also established numerous forward observation bases to direct this fire. and deployed armoured battlegroups to patrol it's edge as a way to respond quickly to any ork breakthroughs.

So what does this all mean?

We used this narrative to shape games in that region of our campaign setting. We are about to play a "Purge the Alien" scenario in this region that will use this themed table/terrain. My son will be fielding an IG armoured company (IA list) to with an allied detachment of Cadians filled with mortars, griffons, basalisks, aegis line, etc. to represent one of the FOBs. The armoured company will have a number of the artillery strike choices to represent te long range artillery, Our fluff has shaped the table setup and roughly what the IG force should contain.

Likewise we determined that the orks know that trying to footslog across this no-mans-land is suicide and so have taken to trying to rush across it in trukks, on bikes, etc. Thus my force must all be a vehicle or be units in transports.

Narrative determines and guides setup. It is a challenge for my son to consider what those Imperial forces should be comprised of given the narrative, etc.

Terrain and army design sets a scene and meets a theme.

This post is truly phenomenal.

This is exactly what "cinematic" means. "Cinematic" does not, as some have wrongfully characterized it, mean "random" or "whacky." It is the story that answers the great question, "Why?" Why are these armies fighting each other? Why are they composed of the units that they are? Why are we fighting in an open field/desert/city/wasteland? What happens if I win? What happens if you win? Do we simply go on Dakkadakka and change our win/loss ration in our signature, or does something much more meaningful take place? I think "Forging a narrative" is a much more accurate term than "cinematic."

Need ideas? Pages 341 - 399 in the new rulebook contains loads of great example missions and characterful rules to spark narrative-based games.

Gordy2000 and his friends post some of the most well done narrative campaigns in the battle reports section. They are incredible from a story, gameplay, and visual standpoint. If you want to know the difference between a cinematic game and a non-cinematic game, read a "1850 GK v. BA ROFLSTOMP" battle report, then read a Gordy2000 Shadow of the Hive Mind report.

Fafnir wrote:For all this talk about "cinematics," I think that not only is GW just throwing the word around as a token buzzword, but many of the people who fall for it, and on a fundamental level, GW themselves, don't even understand the concept.

The game and its designers, by extension, aren't supposed to develop "cinematics." That's what film and other non-participatory mediums are for. A game should be bound, rather, by its ludic elements, ie the elments of play and the elements that enhance play. Increased random elements that remove control from the player (essentially, random elements acting not as rngs, but as a back-end form of control) end up taking away from this ludic context.

Cinematics are not the job of the game designer. Cinematics, the stories themselves, come from the players. "Cinematics" are a side element of games, an element that develops in the presence of strong ludic context. They're not what happens on the table, but the stories that players take with them beyond it. You can't design a game around that.

I think both are important.

Firstly, I disagree that taking control away from the player is bad. If a player has full control, then he wins. It's that simple. He has full control over the game, so he simply says "I win" and it is so. Obviously then, a player cannot have full control. Control must be shared between players. Further, I believe that if player control is determined to some extent by random elements, then the player has the opportunity to display his ability to react to unplanned or unlikely circumstances by maneuvering his resources and adding elements of redundancy and contingency to his planning.

But with regards to 'cinematic' gaming: To me this does not simply refer to the stories and narratives the players come up with. It also refers to the game playing in a way that matches our preconceptions: we want our heroes to be heroic, our villains to be devious, our monsters to be monstrous, and so on. If we rely on 'gamey' mechanics we don't get that 'cinematic' feel. Like, for example, in 4th edition where you would create a narrow line of sight corridor with two vehicles, so that the only model you could see in the enemy unit was the character or heavy weapon specialist, and then you would kill them.

Anpu42 wrote:
As far as being nice to new players it tend to use the advice of the Master.

That advice is perfect.

Fafnir wrote:I'm just going to copy and paste one of my posts from another thread, since it's relevant to this one:

Fafnir wrote:For all this talk about "cinematics," I think that not only is GW just throwing the word around as a token buzzword, but many of the people who fall for it, and on a fundamental level, GW themselves, don't even understand the concept.

The game and its designers, by extension, aren't supposed to develop "cinematics." That's what film and other non-participatory mediums are for. A game should be bound, rather, by its ludic elements, ie the elments of play and the elements that enhance play. Increased random elements that remove control from the player (essentially, random elements acting not as rngs, but as a back-end form of control) end up taking away from this ludic context.

Cinematics are not the job of the game designer. Cinematics, the stories themselves, come from the players. "Cinematics" are a side element of games, an element that develops in the presence of strong ludic context. They're not what happens on the table, but the stories that players take with them beyond it. You can't design a game around that.

While i see your point i believe that a game can be cinematic, not in the way of passivity but in the way of imagery and impact. I believe things such as tyranid hive tyrant standing over a smouldering dreadnought roaring it's triumph or a line of guardsmand desperately shelling the berzerkers running across a broken no-man's land can be much nicer and more compelling than things such as the 4th ed LOS sniping.

In the end i guess what i'm saying is that it is possible to tell a story, with the participation of your opponent, while both trying to win, through the medium of paintes plastic.

Edit: i read gordy2000's reports beforehand and i must admit i did have them in mind when i started this topic.

Thanks for the shout-out G. Whitenbeard - my group does love our narrative "cinematic" reports.

All our campaigns are story driven and it makes them a lot of fun. We are still getting the hang of 6th, but it does seem to mesh well with our preferred style.

Having a story/characters/terrain set-up really sets the scene and makes the game mean something. In our last game (yet to be posted) one side got an absolute pasting. The scenario really was stacked against them, but it wasn't about winning, it was about having fun and advancing the story.

CT Gamer runs a great on-going campaign with custom terrain, great models and plenty of character. Personally, I'll read those type of reports all day and just skip the tourney/killer list ones with unpainted models (or worse, no pics!). That's not a criticism, just a preference.

In summary, paint your armies and terrain, design a background story/narrative to drive the game play and have fun! The cinematic stuff will then come naturally.

KoganStyle wrote:to play a truely cinematic game - play infinity.

I think because the opponent can shoot back or react in your turn, it adds another level of interaction and involvment to the game.

So if you wanted to transplant that to 40k, I suggest involving the opponent (beyond handling him some dice for armour saves) in your turn.

Don't be "that guy".

Gordy2000 wrote:Thanks for the shout-out G. Whitenbeard - my group does love our narrative "cinematic" reports.

All our campaigns are story driven and it makes them a lot of fun. We are still getting the hang of 6th, but it does seem to mesh well with our preferred style.

Having a story/characters/terrain set-up really sets the scene and makes the game mean something. In our last game (yet to be posted) one side got an absolute pasting. The scenario really was stacked against them, but it wasn't about winning, it was about having fun and advancing the story.

CT Gamer runs a great on-going campaign with custom terrain, great models and plenty of character. Personally, I'll read those type of reports all day and just skip the tourney/killer list ones with unpainted models (or worse, no pics!). That's not a criticism, just a preference.

In summary, paint your armies and terrain, design a background story/narrative to drive the game play and have fun! The cinematic stuff will then come naturally.

Thanks.

Not to turn this into a self-admiration society, but the poster before hit it on the head: IF you want to see what a "cinematic game" looks like check out Gordy2000's batreps. When people get narrative gaming right it just looks and feels right and can elevate the game. Gordy2000 gets it right, and players looking to expand their narrative/cinematic play should use his reps as a blueprint.

Also, some want to claim that "cinematic play" and "forging the narrative" are somehow marketing gimmicks spawned for 6th edition. WRONG. Some of us have been playing with those concepts as the focus for decades and even across different game systems. Try it, you just might like it...

CT GAMER wrote:
Also, some want to claim that "cinematic play" and "forging the narrative" are somehow marketing gimmicks spawned for 6th edition. WRONG. Some of us have been playing with those concepts as the focus for decades and even across different game systems. Try it, you just might like it...

That's not what we're claiming. We're claiming that GW talking about these concepts like they were brand new things made up by them is just a marketing gimmick spawned for sixth edition.

Fafnir wrote:


That's not what we're claiming. We're claiming that GW talking about these concepts like they were brand new things made up by them is just a marketing gimmick spawned for sixth edition.

Yes they have chosen to market the game more strongly and directly as a narrative game in this addition.

What is your point exactly?

Why is this bad if this is their vision for the game?

I see a lot of nerdrage over a non-issue tbh.

Because they use 'cinematics' and 'narrative' as a thinly veiled excuse for poorly written rules that remove elements of gameplay in favour of random chance.

I could develop a stellar narrative around Snakes and Ladders, but that doesn't change the fact that Snakes and Ladders is a terrible game.

On a similar end, Infinity has an excellently written ruleset (if at times convoluted) that reflects the strong narrative of its universe far better than 40k, and yet the Infinity rulebook and design team doesn't have to constantly beat you over the head with how "cinematic" or "narrative" it is.

Fafnir wrote:Because they use 'cinematics' and 'narrative' as a thinly veiled excuse for poorly written rules that remove elements of gameplay in favour of random chance.

I dont see the two as related to be honest.

The change in focus to narrative play is a good thing regardless of the rules themselves imho.

As for the rule changes related to randomness. They have actually added gameplay layers by forcing players to consider potential thrat ranges far more and to work to mitigate them i multipe ways, etc. You cant always know an enemies threat range exactly, you have to factor in multiple things now and play acordingly. I see this as MORE tactical and challenging. Again: a good thing.

[shrug]

CT GAMER wrote:

Fafnir wrote:


That's not what we're claiming. We're claiming that GW talking about these concepts like they were brand new things made up by them is just a marketing gimmick spawned for sixth edition.

Yes they have chosen to market the game more strongly and directly as a narrative game in this addition.

What is your point exactly?

Why is this bad if this is their vision for the game?

I see a lot of nerdrage over a non-issue tbh.

It isn't bad for the 40k design team to push a more cinematic or narrative driven game, but it doesn't excuse some of the things people are viewing as bad for the game either. Give us a solid rule-set, and then release some supplement books. Blood in the Badlands is a wonderful example of how GW did this very thing for Fantasy WH. Battle Missions was another good book that offered some cool narrative scenarios. Give us scenarios in each month's WD and I bet you'd see subscriptions skyrocket.

CT GAMER wrote:
As for the rule changes related to randomness. They have actually added gameplay layers by forcing players to consider potential thrat ranges far more and to work to mitigate them i multipe ways, etc. You cant always know an enemies threat range exactly, you have to factor in multiple things now and play acordingly. I see this as MORE tactical and challenging. Again: a good thing.

There's a difference between random elements that the player must take into account when making decisive decisions, and random elements that replace decisive decisions. Most of 6th ed's random elements are a motion towards the latter.

Maybe the point of "cinematic gaming" is to do something a lot of players have forgotten how to do: have fun.

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:Maybe the point of "cinematic gaming" is to do something a lot of players have forgotten how to do: have fun.

Or maybe the point of "cinematic gaming" is that it's a copout to excuse poor game design on GW's part.

As I've said, there are many games with tighter, better written rulesets that convey a much stronger element of 'cinematics' (whatever the feth GW wants that to mean). "Cinematics" is what occurs between the players, not the game. The game is only a tool that the narrative builds itself around.

Fafnir wrote:As I've said, there are many games with tighter, better written rulesets that convey a much stronger element of 'cinematics' (whatever the feth GW wants that to mean). "Cinematics" is what occurs between the players, not the game. The game is only a tool that the narrative builds itself around.

And as I've said, that's only half true.

If your models don't behave in the way we expect them to, it's not cinematic. This is governed by the rules, and not the players.

That's irrelevant. The players (assuming an ounce of creativity) should be able to create a cinematic flair to any ruleset. That said, if the ruleset is well written and, most importantly, engaging, then the 'cinematic flair' becomes more involving, and the players are drawn further into the narrative.

I can create a narrative around snakes and ladders, but because the game is entirely random, there's no personal investment on my part.

Gordy2000 wrote:Having a story/characters/terrain set-up really sets the scene and makes the game mean something. In our last game (yet to be posted) one side got an absolute pasting. The scenario really was stacked against them, but it wasn't about winning, it was about having fun and advancing the story.

See, I can't play that way. Those are the types of games that are meaningless to me, games where I lost before a single die was even rolled because the scenario was purposely unbalanced to favor the other side. I honestly don't see how that could have been at all fun for the guy who got "pasted". I'm sure it probably did make for a good story, but personally I don't like a shutout.

Winning isn't really that important, but having a level playing field when playing a competitive game ("competitive" in the sense that it's literally one person/team against another with a clear winner/loser) is. I can handle losing, but not when it feels like I lost through no fault of my own, as that game would have been for me if I were the one playing on the losing side. And if that's your idea of "cinematic" gameplay, where one player gets purposely fethed over and all semblance of balance and fair play gets thrown out the window then count me the hell out.

Fafnir wrote:

As I've said, there are many games with tighter, better written rulesets that convey a much stronger element of 'cinematics'

If gamers are as spoiled for chices as you suggest then why the need to rage about 40K

People can simply choose one of these many games you describe and play it instead. Problem solved.

Of course some people have an axe to grind or feel the need to troll with all that time they could be spending playing one of those many tighter games...

On of the things that have to change is how you build your list. Now if you don’t know what you are getting into you need to take Fast Attack and Heavy Support because 1/3 of the games will require them to win. This should cause more balanced list, not power wise, but SPAM wise. I am running a Mini-Campaign that I am asking for at least one choice form each FOC Slot. I don’t know how this is going to work, but it should be interesting. Once the list start to get more balance and the players stop building “Tabling” armies, what is left is “Why are we fighting?” I have even started to ask for our monthly meet to have the players come up with ideas for the game. it might take some time before everyone get into the “Cinematic” concept, but I think we will have a better time in the long run.

As for the Random Element, I love it! Once more it makes me think from the time I put my first unit down on paper. I have to consider everything from my Warlord Traits, to whether we are going to Night Fighting at the start of the game or the end of the game. I also have to think about whether my Long Fangs my be a scoring unit or if I might have t chase a red ball around the battlefield. I even have to think about the objective and wonder “Is that thing going to explode or give me Skyfire” and who I should send to take it.

I think Dynamic should have been the “Buzz Word” not Cinematic, but none of this is ruining the game for my, just enhancing it from the time I put Ink to Paper to the time we have put my Little Toy Plastic Soldiers away.

you need to take Fast Attack and Heavy Support because 1/3 of the games will require them to win

That's not actually true. In Scouring, FA become scoring; in Big Guns, HS do. You can still win either without having those slots filled. And there's also a potential penalty in those games for taking FA or HS insofar as they give away VPs when destroyed.

I do agree though that most (certainly not all though) of the random elements add tactical depth (though removing a level of control that some people falsely equate to allowing tactical depth).

The other thing is pissing some people off is how GW is using the phrase. "Cinematic Gaming"

Cinematic gaming has been around for a long time. It is nothing new I can go back to 1968 watching and playing Napoleonics on a 4 x 8 sand table. Cinematic gaming is done by people NOT by a set of rules. I "like" cinematic gaming. It is a great deal of fun if done write with a STABLE set of rules though.

Micro Armor, Squad Leader, BattleTech can all be done in a Cinematic Fashion and has been done in the past. Seen it. Done it. Promoted in conventions and in companies.

The Term "Cinematic gaming" used by Games Workshop to myself and to others is a catch phrase to be used as a cop out for a set of choppy rules put together to sell models. I really do not care any more about the rule book being the selling aspect of the models, but don't tell me that their marketing arm had no input in all of this. They Did. It has been posted on this site and other sites .

All I wanted was a stable set of rules. Cinematic or not. Games Workshop could have put something good together that would have shut down a great deal of the Naysayers. A good set of easy to read, thought out set of rules would have even shut down some of the people screaming about the steep price hikes on the models. They had the time, the money and the talent to do so. IMHO they chose the bottom line instead.

What we got Instead is this glossed over crap with sprinkles of Catch phrases.

Cinematic gaming works. That is not the problem. How it was implied, is.

I have to agree with everything you said, but this.

Adam LongWalker wrote:All I wanted was a stable set of rules. Cinematic or not. Games Workshop could have put something good together that would have shut down a great deal of the Naysayers.

No mater what they did someone would be unhappy.

If you don’t like the Random Elements, don’t use them. You don’t have to use them. Come up with your own “Cinematic Scenarios” and you problem is solved. Allow your players to pick or reroll there Warlord Powers and Psychic Powers.

Yes Cinematic Gaming is just a Buzz Word, they should have used Dynamic Gaming.

G. Whitenbeard wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:"Cinematic gaming" for me centers around your overall approach to game prep when it comes to terrain, scenario choice, and army design for said scenario: making choices that establish a theme/feel for a given game as the primary motivator.

When two or more players/teams have a shared goal of setting up a cinematic "what if" scene and then playing it out you get some great narrative/cinematic play.

Instead of "hey I have this killer tournamant list I want to try", the initial discussion starts with a desire to play a "last stand" or a "sewer sweep", or a "convoy ambush" or a "battle in a swamp", etc. Setting or an archetypical cinematic theme become the focus, not externally designed lists as is often the case. It is a totally different approach to the game in which you are working with your opponent to create a narrative as opposed to simply showing up to play chess.

For example in the narrative campaign I have been playing with my sons (see sig) we use the setting we have established as a basis for setting up our games, and build onto and expand it as we play more and more games.

In our campaign setting a city (Golov) is under siege by invading Orks. I recently made a themed table that represents a blasted apocalyptic wasteland of burning craters and blasted ruins. But how to use it in our campaign?

We decided that a whole corridor of land along the southern boarder of the city had to be orbitally bombarded to stop the massive approaching ork hordes from pouring into the city. We added this to our campaign narrative and described that the Imperial forces have set up long range artillery batteries to continue to bombard this area in response to continued ork advances through what is now a blasted wasteland. The Imperium has also established numerous forward observation bases to direct this fire. and deployed armoured battlegroups to patrol it's edge as a way to respond quickly to any ork breakthroughs.

So what does this all mean?

We used this narrative to shape games in that region of our campaign setting. We are about to play a "Purge the Alien" scenario in this region that will use this themed table/terrain. My son will be fielding an IG armoured company (IA list) to with an allied detachment of Cadians filled with mortars, griffons, basalisks, aegis line, etc. to represent one of the FOBs. The armoured company will have a number of the artillery strike choices to represent te long range artillery, Our fluff has shaped the table setup and roughly what the IG force should contain.

Likewise we determined that the orks know that trying to footslog across this no-mans-land is suicide and so have taken to trying to rush across it in trukks, on bikes, etc. Thus my force must all be a vehicle or be units in transports.

Narrative determines and guides setup. It is a challenge for my son to consider what those Imperial forces should be comprised of given the narrative, etc.

Terrain and army design sets a scene and meets a theme.

This post is truly phenomenal.

This is exactly what "cinematic" means. "Cinematic" does not, as some have wrongfully characterized it, mean "random" or "whacky." It is the story that answers the great question, "Why?" Why are these armies fighting each other? Why are they composed of the units that they are? Why are we fighting in an open field/desert/city/wasteland? What happens if I win? What happens if you win? Do we simply go on Dakkadakka and change our win/loss ration in our signature, or does something much more meaningful take place? I think "Forging a narrative" is a much more accurate term than "cinematic."

So Is "Cinematic" the new GW buzzword for "Narrative". Not being facetious, I'm just reading through this thread and wondering why we're introducting a new term for something that most folks already call "narrative"

Fafnir wrote:

Cinematics are not the job of the game designer. Cinematics, the stories themselves, come from the players. "Cinematics" are a side element of games, an element that develops in the presence of strong ludic context. They're not what happens on the table, but the stories that players take with them beyond it. You can't design a game around that.

In general I agree with this. Designers can make a game tilt towards or away from cinematic/narrative elements, but in general, people who favor these type of games are going to be operating a bit outside the box in terms of army list, scenario, etc. anyway.

Kaldor wrote:
I think both are important.

Firstly, I disagree that taking control away from the player is bad.

This is a very good point, though I think it's much more dependent on the style of game that players want, as opposed to being a right or wrong issue. Some folks want a more chess-like game, where they know if they sculpt the right army list and bring the right tactics, they have a very good chance of success. Folks who play this kind of game tend to gravitate toward games with a strong list-building component like 40k or Warmachine.

Some folks want a bit more random (possibly more realistic) game where as in war, everything can go to heck in a second and troops don't always do what you want them too. These folks want to participate, but are a bit more interested in seeing the game unfold in interesting ways than in victory. They tend to play games like 5150, where an order is given, but the results can quickly spiral out of a players hands with surprising results.

Both points of view are valid, but it's an extremely different type of experience.

Sidstyler wrote:

Gordy2000 wrote:Having a story/characters/terrain set-up really sets the scene and makes the game mean something. In our last game (yet to be posted) one side got an absolute pasting. The scenario really was stacked against them, but it wasn't about winning, it was about having fun and advancing the story.

See, I can't play that way. Those are the types of games that are meaningless to me, games where I lost before a single die was even rolled because the scenario was purposely unbalanced to favor the other side. I honestly don't see how that could have been at all fun for the guy who got "pasted". I'm sure it probably did make for a good story, but personally I don't like a shutout.

Winning isn't really that important, but having a level playing field when playing a competitive game ("competitive" in the sense that it's literally one person/team against another with a clear winner/loser) is. I can handle losing, but not when it feels like I lost through no fault of my own, as that game would have been for me if I were the one playing on the losing side. And if that's your idea of "cinematic" gameplay, where one player gets purposely fethed over and all semblance of balance and fair play gets thrown out the window then count me the hell out.

I see your point, but alot of folks don't need a clear winner or even an even shot at victory to enjoy a wargame. Historically many wargames were/are affairs where the starting forces were unequal, and the end result could be predicted with some regularity, but the challenge was to see if you could do better than historical generals,

Would you be more interested in an "imbalanced" game if the victory conditions were modified?

Example: A last stand scenario where it's pretty likely you will be slaughtered, but your victory depends on how many turns you hold out for rather than survival or kill points.

High quality scenario planning and preparation with well-crafted objectives can make imbalanced games more "competitive". The problem of course is that this likely requires playtesting, and most narrative players would prefer to make a good guess at what the forces and objectives would be and fight it out even if they know that it won't be perfectly balanced.

It can almost be said that some folks emphasize the "game" which usually implies a balanced field of play and competitive equity, and some folks empahsize "war" which -in retrospect- has narrative and has little regard for fairness, equity or predictability.

CT GAMER wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

As I've said, there are many games with tighter, better written rulesets that convey a much stronger element of 'cinematics'

If gamers are as spoiled for chices as you suggest then why the need to rage about 40K

People can simply choose one of these many games you describe and play it instead. Problem solved.

Of course some people have an axe to grind or feel the need to troll with all that time they could be spending playing one of those many tighter games...

Perhaps I still play 40k because I've invested well over $3000 in my 40k collection?

Or perhaps I still play 40k because, despite all the rules issues and poor practices of the company, I still enjoy (for the most part) the universe that they've created, and the models they make.

Or perhaps I still play 40k because it's one of the rulesets that everyone and their dog plays, so I know I can get a game even in the smaller communities.

Furthermore, it's not as if I don't play better written games. And I'm certainly not trolling if I hold GW, a multi-million dollar corportation, up to its contemporaries. I want 40k to be a good game, because despite all its glaring flaws, I do enjoy it, and I'd like to enjoy it as much as I can.

No one here hates GW or 40k. They just hate the way that GW treats them as a fanbase.

Fafnir wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

As I've said, there are many games with tighter, better written rulesets that convey a much stronger element of 'cinematics'

If gamers are as spoiled for chices as you suggest then why the need to rage about 40K

People can simply choose one of these many games you describe and play it instead. Problem solved.

Of course some people have an axe to grind or feel the need to troll with all that time they could be spending playing one of those many tighter games...

Perhaps I still play 40k because I've invested well over $3000 in my 40k collection?

Or perhaps I still play 40k because, despite all the rules issues and poor practices of the company, I still enjoy (for the most part) the universe that they've created, and the models they make.

Or perhaps I still play 40k because it's one of the rulesets that everyone and their dog plays, so I know I can get a game even in the smaller communities.

Furthermore, it's not as if I don't play better written games. And I'm certainly not trolling if I hold GW, a multi-million dollar corportation, up to its contemporaries. I want 40k to be a good game, because despite all its glaring flaws, I do enjoy it, and I'd like to enjoy it as much as I can.

No one here hates GW or 40k. They just hate the way that GW treats them as a fanbase.

So there are MANY other games with TIGHTER, BETTER rules that ALSO convery cinematic/narrative gaming BETTER yet nobody plays them and choose to play 40K instead and so you must likewise suffer to play 40K?

You poor thing.

Hang in there...

IF 40K/GW is as bad as some want to believe then why on earth would you continue? Certainly there are plenty of other hobbie (gaming and othrwise) that you could get more value for your time and money and not feel so 'dirty" for supporting...

Thank you for disregarding my post entirely, while at the same time antagonizing it.

Fafnir wrote:Thank you for disregarding my post entirely, while at the same time antagonizing it.

Perhaps you could clarify why you continue to spend time doing something that you consider subpar (supposedly intentionally made so by the parent company)and that others do better?

At some point we all grow out of things we once liked. Sometimes we are just ready to move on, sometimes the product isnt good anymore, whatever.

Maybe you are at that crossroads...

Read the god damn post. I enjoy the universe that GW has created (especially the Inquisition). I do enjoy some aspects of their games (almost as many as I deride). I enjoy many of their models.

But that doesn't mean I'm going to fanwank all over them for doing a sub par job.
Despite all the franchise's problems there's a lot there of redeemable quality, even if you have to dig through the rubble of poor business decisions and sloppy product design for it.

Fafnir wrote:Read the god damn post. I enjoy the universe that GW has created (especially the Inquisition). I do enjoy some aspects of their games (almost as many as I deride). I enjoy many of their models.

But that doesn't mean I'm going to fanwank all over them for doing a sub par job.
Despite all the franchise's problems there's a lot there of redeemable quality, even if you have to dig through the rubble of poor business decisions and sloppy product design for it.

Truth be told what defines "subpar"? IS your definiton th same as mine? Can we even agree.

Look on just this forum: rarely do we have consensus on anything. Army lists, rules, scenarios, what is balanced, etc., etc. We don't agree on any of it as a collective community. We are a fickle and opinionated group by nature who demand perfection but have no way to define wha that actually is.

Now imagine you are GW: you have no possible way to answer those questions either because the peopel you are answering them for are a divided, opinionated, nerdraging, whiny, entitled rabble of know-it-alls that think that everything you have done you could do differently or better. I certainly don't envy them on this front...

40K will never have a totally balanced rules set. Nor will it ever please 100% of the fanbase. IF you are waiting for that to happen you are going to be sadly dissapointed.

Take what you like, house rule the rest and hope that down the road the next edition swing more your way. That is the way it has always been...

Fafnir wrote:Read the god damn post. I enjoy the universe that GW has created (especially the Inquisition). I do enjoy some aspects of their games (almost as many as I deride). I enjoy many of their models.

But that doesn't mean I'm going to fanwank all over them for doing a sub par job.
Despite all the franchise's problems there's a lot there of redeemable quality, even if you have to dig through the rubble of poor business decisions and sloppy product design for it.

Agree with this post as there are people within the entertainment industry who will say the same thing.

Secondly, I like the term Fanwank. Think I'll borrow it future use. A new term to piss off some people I know. Thanks!

This is why I like Dakka so much. I get to learn something new every day.

Right off let me point out that a lot of modern warfare in the real world takes place in an environment that is constantly shifting and changing. Weather, and battlefield conditions are not static. In the real world you can choose where your opponent within reason, but they are making the same choices. Where you choose to confront your foe, they may fall back and attack later at their convenience. Modern warfare is conducted under the sembalence of control but it is far from the controlled affair that some people would choose to promote. Therefor i support the move to include random battlefield effects.

I think the inclusion of challenges and other more personal aspects to the game which serve to increase the impact that champions have on the battlefield, do create a more cinematic atmosphere. afterall, in movies often there are hordes of faceless redshirts locked in battle while the heros are the ones breaking the enemy lines and advancing the story as it were. Therefor i aso support any move that serves to add character to HQ and champion units beyond just a buffed stat line.

I believe that these changes as well as others are the nods to cinematic gaming that GW is promoting. I dont really feel that it has any relationship to them using these buzz words to cover up the fact that they may or may not have written a tight rules set as some here have implied. That is totally besides the point.

With regard to the rules set. Yes GW could invest more time into the writting of the rules in an effort to increase playability and reduce ambiguity. If they were so motivated they could also likely do something to increase the level of balance in the game. But none of this has anything to do with the argument about cinema and 40k.

Any changes to the ruleset are beyond resolving ambiguity will result in upsetting some members of the player base. Even actions that create a more balanced rules set are going to aggravate some. There is no way that GW can release new rules without a few of the vocal minority preaching their displeasure, yet an unchanging rules set risks becoming stagnant.

There are conditions that change in real combat, and that does make some random elements entirely permissible. But that doesn't mean all of them are.

As much of a control freak that I am, I do agree that random elements can and do have a place in games. That said, the implementation is very important.

Things like Warlord traits and entirely random charge distance have no place. They replace the use of tactics and strategy within the game, and take away an element of play.
Warlord traits being random in general is just something that I feel is entirely broken. And although not the biggest fan of them in general, especially since some are ridiculously overpowered, I feel that if the random element were removed and more thought put into making them overall balanced, it would improve their implementation considerably.

Random charge distance is a difficult one. Some people like the gamble aspect. Some people argue that there's some tactics involved in picking whether or not to charge with the distance being random. If that's the case, why not up it a notch, a compromise, and make it so that there actually is some player choice in this. Give every unit a standard charge of 6-7", and then give them the option to replace that with a 2D6 roll. You can play it safe and guarantee a standard charge, or you can go big and hope to clean up with a good roll. Risk management becomes much more involving than just rolling a dice and moving the model.

Mysterious terrain is ridiculous in itself. I'm not a fan of the off chance that someone lands on the terrain that my entire army is crippled. Especially when, in some cases, it will be utterly impossible to prevent it from happening.

Honestly though, one thing that I would think would be a great implementation of a random element, and would perfectly outline Sennacherib's post, far better than any of the random mechanics in 6th ed so far, is a weather system.
At the beginning of the game, before deployment, roll a D6. On a 1-3, clear skies. On a 4-6, you get a certain weather condition.
For example, you could get a sandstorm that rages across the battlefield. At the beginning of the turn, you could roll a dice, and on a 4+, you get a sandstorm that makes everything move through difficult terrain and reduces shooting range.

I'm not entirely opposed to random elements, but you have to be careful when you implement them. They should be things that do not replace player interaction, most importantly. And their effects should not be something that will replace the need for a player taking action (ie, half your army is dead because I rolled this random result on a table). They should act as variables that players play with or around.

Anpu42 wrote:No mater what they did someone would be unhappy.

sennacherib wrote:Any changes to the ruleset are beyond resolving ambiguity will result in upsetting some members of the player base. Even actions that create a more balanced rules set are going to aggravate some.

CT GAMER wrote:40K will never have a totally balanced rules set. Nor will it ever please 100% of the fanbase. IF you are waiting for that to happen you are going to be sadly dissapointed.

So, just for those who weren't clear, the gist of the argument in this thread so far is: "If there's a chance it might make someone unhappy, it's not worth doing."

Good fething advice, "Never try."

Sidstyler wrote:

Anpu42 wrote:No mater what they did someone would be unhappy.

sennacherib wrote:Any changes to the ruleset are beyond resolving ambiguity will result in upsetting some members of the player base. Even actions that create a more balanced rules set are going to aggravate some.

CT GAMER wrote:40K will never have a totally balanced rules set. Nor will it ever please 100% of the fanbase. IF you are waiting for that to happen you are going to be sadly dissapointed.

So, just for those who weren't clear, the gist of the argument in this thread so far is: "If there's a chance it might make someone unhappy, it's not worth doing."

Good fething advice, "Never try."

Just to be clear. Not one of the quote you chose match what you said in any way shape of form. The only common theme being that no matter what someone is going to be upset. So sorry it had to be you Sidstyler.

Just to be clear. Not one of the quote you chose match what you said in any way shape of form.

Yeah it does.

BTW nice trolling. I don't know who's doing it better though, you or CT GAMER.

I stand my original assertion.
Not one of the posts that you chose to site makes the assertion that "If there's a chance it might make someone unhappy, it's not worth doing."
Instead they all assert that no matter what GW does, they will never be able to satisfy all of their player base, and that some of their player base will be upset no matter what. You are clearly upset validating all three quotes which you chose to site.
Just saying.

Sidstyler wrote:

Anpu42 wrote:No mater what they did someone would be unhappy.

sennacherib wrote:Any changes to the ruleset are beyond resolving ambiguity will result in upsetting some members of the player base. Even actions that create a more balanced rules set are going to aggravate some.

CT GAMER wrote:40K will never have a totally balanced rules set. Nor will it ever please 100% of the fanbase. IF you are waiting for that to happen you are going to be sadly dissapointed.

So, just for those who weren't clear, the gist of the argument in this thread so far is: "If there's a chance it might make someone unhappy, it's not worth doing."

Good fething advice, "Never try."

Instead of quoting people (badly) to be a cool guy, why not actually participate intelligently in the conversation and either refute something that has been said or offer an opinion of your own?

I know it is easy and cool to throw "troll" around these days, but maybe actually offer something a little more valid to the discussion.

I answered Fafnir's points with ones of my own. That isnt trolling, that is debate/discussion, and is the point of a "discussion forum".

I's still waiting for some names/links to the "MANY" games that are tighter and do cinematics/narratives better btw...

CT GAMER wrote:Instead of quoting people (badly) to be a cool guy, why not actually participate intelligently in the conversation and either refute something that has been said or offer an opinion of your own?

Like my opinion means anything to you anyway. All I'll get for sharing my opinion is half a dozen people chiming in about how I'm playing the game "wrong" and need to "chill out".

CT GAMER wrote:I know it is easy and cool to throw "troll" around these days, but maybe actually offer something a little more valid to the discussion.

Well, I learned from the best.

CT GAMER wrote:Of course some people have an axe to grind or feel the need to troll with all that time they could be spending playing one of those many tighter games...

CT GAMER wrote:I answered Fafnir's points with ones of my own. That isnt trolling, that is debate/discussion, and is the point of a "discussion forum".

Did you? I must not have noticed. I must have been distracted by how you blatantly ignored one of his posts where he explained why he continues to give a damn about 40k despite GW putting out gakky rules, just so you could continue to question and antagonize him about why he's still interested in the game at all and won't just give it up like you want him to. And calling him a troll.

About your points: I don't see what your point is in bringing up the fact that not every single person on the planet who plays GW games can agree 100% on every minute detail. Yeah, we're fickle and opinionated, most geeks/nerds are. No matter what you do someone will probably complain, but that's no excuse to put out a sub-par product and shrug your shoulders saying "Good enough for the plebs who play our games." I disagree that just because we can't come to a consensus on every issue that 40k can't ever be balanced. You're also wrong because GW could at least attempt to answer those questions, but instead they've chosen a complete blackout of all information and would rather just tell us what we want. One very easy step for them to take towards a more balanced ruleset and/or making more people happy would be to allow the community to playtest new rules: release free "beta" versions on the website and give people a contact e-mail to get back in touch with GW to let them know what they feel worked and what didn't. GW will get a lot of mail to go through, and a lot of it will likely be completely worthless crap, with people complaining about damn near everything in the book or offering suggestions that aren't realistic, but you can write down the most common issues and address them before the book goes off to print, which will likely prevent the need for an FAQ to be released within weeks of the book dropping and maybe fix glaring balance issues that the design team don't catch because they're too busy playing Apocalypse. If you get the community directly involved in the rules and we actually have a say in what goes to print it would probably go a long way.

In any case, here's the main reason why I'm upset...you guys didn't really gain much from 6th edition. If you ever wanted to use allies or come up with your own wacky terrain rules you were always able to do that...the "Most Important Rule" in the rulebook sure as hell isn't there for the competitive players, anyway. You also had a plethora of expansions and the Imperial Armour books for more army lists, scenarios, campaigns, whatever the hell you wanted. GW has been catering to the casual crowd this whole time, the only thing the competitive players have are the core rules and the codices, and we've pretty much been at GW's mercy as far as that goes...sometimes they're reasonably balanced, sometimes they're not. Now we don't even have that, if you want to play 40k at all, even "out-of-the-box", you're fethed. You either have to house rule all the stupid gak out or find a different game to play, because honestly, if you play with all the new 6th edition rules the game will be downright unplayable.

For a guy like me who 9 times out of 10 doesn't care about telling a "story", worrying endlessly about "how" or "why" our armies ended up fighting each other, why I use this or you use that, etc., there's nothing in 6th edition for me except more headaches. When I go play pick-up games at the store I'll never know if me and my opponent will even be playing the same game or not, each game will require a small discussion beforehand about what rules we'll be ignoring and which interpretations of the ones we'll be using that we actually agree on, etc. Also, just because I don't take the "story" as seriously as you do doesn't mean I don't like the setting of 40k, I do read the background in my codices (and probably take the fluff more seriously than you guys do, since I'm opposed to the new allies rules mainly because it allows some really stupid combinations that make literally no sense) and obviously I like the models or I wouldn't be playing, I'm just not interested in acting or role-playing when I play 40k, if I want that there are other games I can play that are better-suited for it. D&D in my eyes is a straight-up role-playing game, there is no real competition there, the whole point is to work together with a team and to tell a story, your stereotypical high fantasy heroes taking down the big bad. It's also a hell of a lot cheaper and doesn't require a ludicrously expensive army of models to play. I don't have any desire to play 40k in that way, no matter how desperately Dakka and GW both try to make me. It's comparable in my mind to trying to tell some kind of "story" when playing Magic: The Gathering, or when playing Tribes online. I'm sure there's a reason why Diamond Sword and Blood Eagle hate each other, but I don't really give a feth because I want to cap flags and pew pew people with spinny blue discs. Same with 40k, except with a disturbing lack of spinny blue discs.

Not to say I would never play a one-off "last stand" or big stupid Apocalypse game here or there, but most of the time I just want to play a normal game. I don't want Apocalypse in my normal games, I don't want scary trees that kill my guys and broken-ass warlord traits, either.

So i get that you are angry.
I get that you dont like the new rules set.
What are you going to do about it.

Sidstyler wrote:[the competitive players have are the core rules and the codices, and we've pretty much been at GW's mercy as far as that goes...sometimes they're reasonably balanced, sometimes they're not. Now we don't even have that, if you want to play 40k at all, even "out-of-the-box", you're fethed. You either have to house rule all the stupid gak out or find a different game to play, because honestly, if you play with all the new 6th edition rules the game will be downright unplayable.

I'll ignore the antagonistic elements of your previous post for the sake of the children. As to the above quote, event organizers and their ilk have been house ruling the game since the dawn of time. They tell you what is and isnt allowed in their events, design their own scenarios, make up their own scoring systems that impact standings, etc., etc.

I think they had a thread on that very practice within about 15 minutes of the new rulebook hitting the shelves. So how is 6th any different in this regard? No matter what form it took it would have been house ruled/event ruled and given the INAT treatment. Nothing wrong with that if that is your thing, but something that I think can just as easily be done to 6th if you desire. Set up a club or 40K night in which you present your house rules and great "fixes". IF your vision for the game is as clear as you and others suggest than you should have no problem finding others to pla it with you.

So whats the issue again?

For a guy like me who 9 times out of 10 doesn't care about telling a "story", worrying endlessly about "how" or "why" our armies ended up fighting each other, why I use this or you use that, etc., there's nothing in 6th edition for me except more headaches. When I go play pick-up games at the store I'll never know if me and my opponent will even be playing the same game or not, each game will require a small discussion beforehand about what rules we'll be ignoring and which interpretations of the ones we'll be using that we actually agree on, etc. Also, just because I don't take the "story" as seriously as you do doesn't mean I don't like the setting of 40k, I do read the background in my codices (and probably take the fluff more seriously than you guys do, since I'm opposed to the new allies rules mainly because it allows some really stupid combinations that make literally no sense) and obviously I like the models or I wouldn't be playing, I'm just not interested in acting or role-playing when I play 40k, if I want that there are other games I can play that are better-suited for it. D&D in my eyes is a straight-up role-playing game, there is no real competition there, the whole point is to work together with a team and to tell a story, your stereotypical high fantasy heroes taking down the big bad. It's also a hell of a lot cheaper and doesn't require a ludicrously expensive army of models to play. I don't have any desire to play 40k in that way, no matter how desperately Dakka and GW both try to make me. It's comparable in my mind to trying to tell some kind of "story" when playing Magic: The Gathering, or when playing Tribes online. I'm sure there's a reason why Diamond Sword and Blood Eagle hate each other, but I don't really give a feth because I want to cap flags and pew pew people with spinny blue discs. Same with 40k, except with a disturbing lack of spinny blue discs.

All I can do in response ot this is shrug and say your loss. But know that just because you may be set in your ways, but that doesn't mean that others don't want to discuss the matter. So in the future just because we are talking about the subject try to remember that we aren't talking only about you, nor is our goal to make Sidstyler a narative gamer. This isn't about you, so you don't need to be a self-imposed Martyr every time this is discussed.

In fact if I can take a play from the tournamant gamers when I tried to discuss this in 'THEIR" section of dakka: Why are you here then and why are you posting if it doesnt interest you and you have no intention of changing? Plenty of threads exist about tournamant play and how to "fix" sixth in that neck of the Dakka woods.

Play how you want. Find somee people that share your outlook on the game (Lord knows there are many of them) and get on with "pew pewing and capturing flags"...

Fafnir wrote:

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:Maybe the point of "cinematic gaming" is to do something a lot of players have forgotten how to do: have fun.

Or maybe the point of "cinematic gaming" is that it's a copout to excuse poor game design on GW's part.

As I've said, there are many games with tighter, better written rulesets that convey a much stronger element of 'cinematics' (whatever the feth GW wants that to mean). "Cinematics" is what occurs between the players, not the game. The game is only a tool that the narrative builds itself around.

Would these be the rulesets that have only one book, therefore negating the need to keep 15 rulebooks balanced? Some of you act like 40k is a job, and that loopholes in the rules risk your income, like defective equipment. It is a game, people! Get a grip.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sennacherib wrote:I stand my original assertion.
Not one of the posts that you chose to site makes the assertion that "If there's a chance it might make someone unhappy, it's not worth doing."
Instead they all assert that no matter what GW does, they will never be able to satisfy all of their player base, and that some of their player base will be upset no matter what. You are clearly upset validating all three quotes which you chose to site.
Just saying.

And there are too many "GW sucks" threads on here anyway. If you hate the game so much, find a new one and move on! I hear solitaire is a nice, balanced game...

i agree entirely.
The upset crowd is currently a small minority here if you take the sampling given by the poll i posted in the discussion forum.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/467703.page
Currently 70% of gamers feel that 6th ed is an improvement to 13% who feel its a step down.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

salvadorjer wrote:I'd just like to get the ball rolling for a discussion covering two main topics.

1) Since cinematic play seems to be tthe writing on the wall for 6th ed does anyone know of great ways to increase that in play? I find custom scenarios to work quite often especially with a special rule or two added.

2) Given the discussions that often occur around TFG articles maybe we could discuss how to make the game not more enjoyable for yourself but for your opponent. This can be both cometitive anf fluffy play. (I'll insert bath here before the trolls get to it) I find taking 5 minutes to define all the terrain at the start of the game is a must.

Have at it dakka.

Getting off the haters gonna hate and back on topic....
1) if you really want to have more cinema in your games the terrain is huge. I sometimes try to set up the terrain so that it isnt just a random collection of stuff strewn evenly about the battlefield. Setting up a cohesive diorama feeling set creates a much more visually appealing game than one where its evenly arranged. Also, i have tried using or allowing players to choose some of the battlefield effects that are available in the supplements like planet strike and city fight.

Some of the best games i have been in that were set up for cinema were played as part of an unfolding plot. I am part of a large Chaos only gaming group that has regular and immense apoc. games. They are all played as part of an unfolding story much like a D&D game. makes for a good time when you are battling for control of a munitorium building that is key to the invasion.

While the warlord table is apparently at the heart of a lot of whining, a way to mitigate it would be to allow players to barter with each other over fair traits that their own warlord could use in the game. That way these traits would not be at random, nor would they by useless or OP since your opponent would have to sign off on a trait pre game. If you cant agree, then roll at random.

2) as with all games i think discussion of terrain, model upgrades and psychic powers before the game is really important. As for making the game fun, it is fun when you take the super competative attitude out of the game. I played in a large, tournament down south last year. One of my foes had a dual lash list (this was before last got nerfed). He was tearing me apart until the final round when a single scout sniper who had for several rounds held off a khorn berzerker and a demon prince in melee, killed them both and one the game. Statistically improbable yes, but my foes reaction was priceless. He cheered and high five'd me. It was a tournament and instead of grimly battling with our man dollies, he and i were both really enjoying the game. Winning does not really matter, having fun does.

I for one welcome the unpredictability of 6th edition. It means that even the most beardy, cheesy list played by the most unsporting munchkin in the known universe isn't guaranteed to win. Also, I felt it brought 40K more in line with WHFB, which to me is a good thing. The latest edition of Warhammer is the best yet (something most people agree on) so taking hints from it seems a smart move.

Is 6th Edition perfect? No. But then neither is Warmahordes, Infinity, Flames of War or any other wargame. I present you with the Tyranid philosophy...

Adapt or die.

Adapt or die.

Amen.

Squigsquasher wrote:I for one welcome the unpredictability of 6th edition. It means that even the most beardy, cheesy list played by the most unsporting munchkin in the known universe isn't guaranteed to win. Also, I felt it brought 40K more in line with WHFB, which to me is a good thing. The latest edition of Warhammer is the best yet (something most people agree on) so taking hints from it seems a smart move.

Is 6th Edition perfect? No. But then neither is Warmahordes, Infinity, Flames of War or any other wargame. I present you with the Tyranid philosophy...

Adapt or die.

Finally someone with a mind not tainted by sweat stains and unshowerdness. I agree with you and once again the community shows its true face. 6th is in my mind a much welcomed change from 5th, that where a game of cookie cutter builds and vet spam

sennacherib wrote:i I played in a large, tournament down south last year. One of my foes had a dual lash list (this was before last got nerfed). He was tearing me apart until the final round when a single scout sniper who had for several rounds held off a khorn berzerker and a demon prince in melee, killed them both and one the game. Statistically improbable yes, but my foes reaction was priceless. He cheered and high five'd me. It was a tournament and instead of grimly battling with our man dollies, he and i were both really enjoying the game.

This is the kind of player that can make even a competetive (I'm a narrative guy) game fun for me. Players who can keep their celebrations to themeselves when they do well, and cheer when their opponent does well make games infinitely more enjoyable and friendly. This is the type of player I try to be. I want to be the first to congratulate my opponent when they are victorious and to always be a gracious winner.

Blood and Slaughter wrote:

Adapt or die.

Amen.

May I second this?

Squigsquasher wrote:
Adapt or die.

That's certainly not the issue. The army I play is stronger than ever before in 6th edition.

After playing many games earlier this weekend with my mate, I can say there were many jokes on the cinematic-ness of the game.
" I'm going to charge your unit of genestealers with my deathcompany, I know they can make it, I only need 3 inches."
"Okay, go for it."
"*dice roll* FOR THE LOVE OF GOD! WHAT STOPS MY DC 1 INCH SHORT FROM KILLING YOU?"
"It's cinematic."
*Head hits table*

But seriously, as stated, cinematic implies that some story telling is being done. Not just being random for the sake of being random. It's more like game designer laziness. That said, I still am actually quite enjoying 40k. The new edition really isn't terribad.

I had a great game today (seriously though, it was a great game, had great fun), but it was quite silly when the charge that my opponent and I built up to between Draigo and his Paladins and Lysander and his boys completely fell apart because neither of us could roll well enough to get a decent charge.

So I just shot Lysander to death.

Cinematic.

It's also cinematic when a broodlord tanks for the genestealers until he actually get's wounded and than he's all "Oh, nope joe here is gonna take that one." It makes genestealers a little more sturdy than I had expected. Simply cinematic.

Gifblaur wrote:It's also cinematic when a broodlord tanks for the genestealers until he actually get's wounded and than he's all "Oh, nope joe here is gonna take that one." It makes genestealers a little more sturdy than I had expected. Simply cinematic.

Be careful about that. Broodlord has a different save from Genestealers, so he ends up taking his save AFTER wounds are allocated.

Although I've had Draigo do exactly as you describe for my Paladins plenty of times. It's practically the cornerstone of my entire army.

There are two things i sort of wish that they hadnt changed. Premeasuring and to a lesser degree random charge distance.

Premeasuring lent some tension to the game when you really couldnt tell if you would be able to reach a target with shooting or a charge. Now i guess every charge has some tension assoicated with it, but this random addition seems like one they could have neglected to include.

Fafnir wrote:

Gifblaur wrote:It's also cinematic when a broodlord tanks for the genestealers until he actually get's wounded and than he's all "Oh, nope joe here is gonna take that one." It makes genestealers a little more sturdy than I had expected. Simply cinematic.

Be careful about that. Broodlord has a different save from Genestealers, so he ends up taking his save AFTER wounds are allocated.

Although I've had Draigo do exactly as you describe for my Paladins plenty of times. It's practically the cornerstone of my entire army.

Ah wait. So really Broody only tanks one wound per round of CC? I'm still abit confused about how all of that works and imo the book isn't terribly clear. In shooting my impression is that broody can tank shots until he dies( in essence giving his unit a better save.) So I just carried it over to CC.

And I really and truely hate random charge distances. I know the odds and yadda yadda but I never roll what I need to when I need to. To heck with random charge.

Gifblaur wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

Gifblaur wrote:It's also cinematic when a broodlord tanks for the genestealers until he actually get's wounded and than he's all "Oh, nope joe here is gonna take that one." It makes genestealers a little more sturdy than I had expected. Simply cinematic.

Be careful about that. Broodlord has a different save from Genestealers, so he ends up taking his save AFTER wounds are allocated.

Although I've had Draigo do exactly as you describe for my Paladins plenty of times. It's practically the cornerstone of my entire army.

Ah wait. So really Broody only tanks one wound per round of CC? I'm still abit confused about how all of that works and imo the book isn't terribly clear. In shooting my impression is that broody can tank shots until he dies( in essence giving his unit a better save.) So I just carried it over to CC.

Not quite.

If a wound would allocated to a character (ie, a model with the "Look Out Sir!" rule), they may test to see if you (the model's controlling player) can allocate it freely. Now, the key here is when you actually allocate wounds. If all the models have the same armour save, then you make the saves and then allocate the wounds. But, if the models in a unit have different saves (for example, a brood lord with a 3+ save and his unit of genestealers with a 5+ save), then you must (one at a time) choose to allocate the wounds before they are saved.

So, if the entire unit would be making the same save, then you roll to save and then roll for LOS and allocate.
If the unit contains models that would be making different saves, then you roll to LOS and allocate, and then make any appropriate saves.

So you can't pass on a model's armour save to the rest of its unit.

And I really and truely hate random charge distances. I know the odds and yadda yadda but I never roll what I need to when I need to. To heck with random charge.

Yep. It's robbed me of a few great moments, that's for sure.

Squigsquasher wrote:Is 6th Edition perfect? No. But then neither is Warmahordes, Infinity, Flames of War or any other wargame....

Infinty is perfect.

Really.
I have not played infinity but i have read that the rules are fraught with ambiguity. I also have read that some armies have choices available that can ... when taken together ... create a very tough to beat list. That coupled with the fact that the worst powergamer in our area really really loves the game.

This is not to say that i am not really interested in starting infinity. I downloaded the rules and have been mulling over the purchase of two starter armies in an effort to get my buddies into it. Beyond your statement that infinity is perfect, can you comment on the ambiguity in the rules.?

Nothing really ambiguous has popped up for me so far. The rules are really complex, which can make them somewhat difficult to understand, but most issues concerning ambiguity that I've faced so far end up being remedied by looking closely at the rules.

No ambiguity in the rules so far for me, too. You can follow the quick-start rules for easy, basic rules. And there are the actual rules that handles every ambiguity that I have encountered. And so far I haven't seen any tough to beat list too: this game is more about planning and tactics and knowing your troops abilities rather than getting a crazy list and wiping people on the floor with it.

CT GAMER wrote:So there are MANY other games with TIGHTER, BETTER rules that ALSO convery cinematic/narrative gaming BETTER yet nobody plays them and choose to play 40K instead and so you must likewise suffer to play 40K?

You poor thing.

Hang in there...

IF 40K/GW is as bad as some want to believe then why on earth would you continue? Certainly there are plenty of other hobbie (gaming and othrwise) that you could get more value for your time and money and not feel so 'dirty" for supporting...

As I have pointed out before, there isn't some binding contract between the players and GW that when we purchase a rulebook we suspend our capability to examine and criticize. So please, please will everybody give the "hurr durr, if you don't like it, go play something else" argument a rest. How do you think the INAT FAQ and other tournament rules are created, other than by playing the game and discussing its apparent flaws and limitations?

Moreover, true as "if you don't like it, house rule it" is, the same applies. When the game's rules are being critically discussed, the common ground we have is the rules as written; that's what we discuss. I'm glad you have fun playing narrative games without points values or standard victory conditions (though I doubt the implication that all of the enjoyment you take in that comes from trying to play in a "narrative-appropriate" manner, and none from trying to win a tactical contest, however imbalanced it is), and it's an example of what can be done with the game, but it's not, as you seem to present it, the only (let alone the "right") way to have fun playing the game.

To get back to the OP's question: I'll start to believe that "cinematic" isn't just a buzzword if GW, for instance, start publishing custom scenarios in White Dwarfs and codices, and start balancing codices in such a way that "fluffy" armies aren't vastly inferior to "tournament" armies. Oh, and when they make things more fun (or less annoying) for all their players by testing their rules sufficiently and writing with sufficient clarity that their game doesn't require 100+ pages of fan-written FAQs.

Fafnir wrote:I had a great game today (seriously though, it was a great game, had great fun), but it was quite silly when the charge that my opponent and I built up to between Draigo and his Paladins and Lysander and his boys completely fell apart because neither of us could roll well enough to get a decent charge.

So I just shot Lysander to death.

Cinematic.

And yet, in my games I've had nothing but fun - seriously.

In one particularly memorable one against my friends Dark Eldar, we unintentionally set up a pretty fluffy game using Infinity models as the objectives - humans. That he wanted for slaves, and I wanted to eat. The game was full of nail biting moments. His Scourges landing in my backline with a plethora of targets to kill, choosing badly, and being on the receiving end of a 17" charge (6" movement + 11" charge) from my Carnifex and being butchered. Duke Sliscus, a Wych squad and their Raider having a back and forth fight over an objective with a unit of Gargoyles, a Hive Guard and a pair of Zoanthropes, while my Hive Tyrant took flight, shredded a Hellion squad moving to take a meatsack from my Hormagaunts with its Devourers, winging to the other side of the board to get a lucky Crush against his Succubus, claiming the Warlord kill and immobilising another Raider with a vector strike along the way, then landing in his deployment zone and shredding the last Wych squad holding a captive with its Devourers.

Literally the most fun game of 40k I've had in a long, long time. There was a failed charge, miraculous Deny the Witch saving that rendered my Zoanthropes more useless than usual, ridiculous casualties on both sides (at the end, I had a Hormagaunt squad and my Hive Tyrant, he had Sliscus and a Wych squad), but still, an absolute nail biter for both players. This is what I think of when I hear GW say they emphasize cinematic gameplay. And personally, I think they've succeeded. Other games of 6th have been the same for me and my group.

Which brings up the point that sure, random can work for some people, but in most cases for me, the random elements just lead to me opening up on everything with a full wall of Paladin shooting, because Charging doesn't get me anywhere anymore.

And as much as I appreciate the raw power of Paladin shooting, it gets kind of boring when it's the only thing I use.

Fafnir wrote:Which brings up the point that sure, random can work for some people, but in most cases for me, the random elements just lead to me opening up on everything with a full wall of Paladin shooting, because Charging doesn't get me anywhere anymore.

And as much as I appreciate the raw power of Paladin shooting, it gets kind of boring when it's the only thing I use.

I used to think that to, but after some Ork Nobs pulled off a “What the Heck” 10” Charge against one of my Grey Hunter Packs. It made for a pretty exiting moment in the game. the next game I take my Dread Knight and decided if I could pull off a charge, i.e. if I was within 12”, I would go for it. I never failed a charge and by turn 4 he alone had racked up 9 VPs! The next game I went with the same attitude and had a Jump Pack Assault Squad fail a 3” Charge. It might have even cost me the game, but I decided that after a few games, failed charges is the price to pay for Pre-Measuring and it has made the game more exiting.

Indeed, there are times when you really don't have much else to do you might as well just charge. Who knows, you might get lucky! Also overwatch can sometimes be pretty hilarious depending on luck as well. Sometimes it does less than nothing and other times it kills half the enemy in one go.

Still, I like the game. Alot in fact. But I'm also not playing in tourneys all that often if even at all. Another side effect of the randomness actually tends to be the worse players have more chances against the better players, as is the case between my mate and I. She plays expecting to lose and plays accordingly but you know what? She's won more than half our 6th edition games. That's like 90% better than she did in 5th.(apparently I suck at rolling dice.)

So another good thread RUINED by whiners...

Goddammit im sick of people whining about "how bad the rules are" I really Dont care if you Dont like the rules if you all want balanced rules there's the door: go play Warmahordes, I personally love the new rules to me it seems now more of "here are your rules they are your template go create fun scenarios" I love it all the only thing I would say needs changing is get disallow the warlord traits for SC and that is it.

I was looking at the thread thinking "this seems like an awesome thread" then "oh look MORE whiners that want to butt-hurt all over a cool thread" look if you Dont like the rules Fair enough but please Dont go on threads like these and start ranting why the "rules are so (In your opinion) bad" its boring to see whiners on every thread that I see now about 40K relating to this kind of topics (instead make your own thread and that way you wont have arguments like the one I have read here).

/Rant over

Personally me and some friend down at my FLGS are playing a house rule which is "no SC" because we all liked what we read in the rule book which was "you are the warlord" then we were thinking "so im a daemon... Yes please" my friends were thinking "so we are overlords and captains...Yeah" so we disallowed SC because we were bored seeing the same guy over and over again when we knew SC are only in battles for the most dire of circumstances... and we love this rule

What I want to do next is create a campaign like the one CT GAMER was talking about for my friends in our FLGS because it would be awesome if I can get one together...

40K now is a game more for having fun battles now and that the way I like it...

happygolucky wrote:
Goddammit im sick of people whining about "how bad the rules are" I really Dont care if you Dont like the rules if you all want balanced rules there's the door: go play Warmahordes,

Will you refund the ~$3000 I've spent on this game then? And what will be done about my personal investment and appreciation of the universe created around 40k?

I was looking at the thread thinking "this seems like an awesome thread" then "oh look MORE whiners that want to butt-hurt all over a cool thread" look if you Dont like the rules Fair enough but please Dont go on threads like these and start ranting why the "rules are so (In your opinion) bad" its boring to see whiners on every thread that I see now about 40K relating to this kind of topics (instead make your own thread and that way you wont have arguments like the one I have read here).

I'm sorry, but this is not the Warhammer 40k handjob thread. This is a discussion of what cinematic gaming is, how it applies to 40k 6th edition, and whether it is something done effectively. A considerable amount of people are in disagreement with what "cinematic gaming" is, whether the concept even exists from a design standpoint, and feel that it is just a cheap marketing buzzword by GW. Such arguments are entirely relevant to the thread, its title, and its opening post.

Personally me and some friend down at my FLGS are playing a house rule which is "no SC" because we all liked what we read in the rule book which was "you are the warlord" then we were thinking "so im a daemon... Yes please" my friends were thinking "so we are overlords and captains...Yeah" so we disallowed SC because we were bored seeing the same guy over and over again when we knew SC are only in battles for the most dire of circumstances... and we love this rule

What I want to do next is create a campaign like the one CT GAMER was talking about for my friends in our FLGS because it would be awesome if I can get one together...

40K now is a game more for having fun battles now and that the way I like it...

What I don't understand is how this wasn't possible with the previous ruleset, or with other games.

Fafnir wrote:

happygolucky wrote:
Goddammit im sick of people whining about "how bad the rules are" I really Dont care if you Dont like the rules if you all want balanced rules there's the door: go play Warmahordes,

Will you refund the ~$3000 I've spent on this game then? And what will be done about my personal investment and appreciation of the universe created around 40k?

I was looking at the thread thinking "this seems like an awesome thread" then "oh look MORE whiners that want to butt-hurt all over a cool thread" look if you Dont like the rules Fair enough but please Dont go on threads like these and start ranting why the "rules are so (In your opinion) bad" its boring to see whiners on every thread that I see now about 40K relating to this kind of topics (instead make your own thread and that way you wont have arguments like the one I have read here).

I'm sorry, but this is not the Warhammer 40k handjob thread. This is a discussion of what cinematic gaming is, how it applies to 40k 6th edition, and whether it is something done effectively. A considerable amount of people are in disagreement with what "cinematic gaming" is, whether the concept even exists from a design standpoint, and feel that it is just a cheap marketing buzzword by GW. Such arguments are entirely relevant to the thread, its title, and its opening post.

Personally me and some friend down at my FLGS are playing a house rule which is "no SC" because we all liked what we read in the rule book which was "you are the warlord" then we were thinking "so im a daemon... Yes please" my friends were thinking "so we are overlords and captains...Yeah" so we disallowed SC because we were bored seeing the same guy over and over again when we knew SC are only in battles for the most dire of circumstances... and we love this rule

What I want to do next is create a campaign like the one CT GAMER was talking about for my friends in our FLGS because it would be awesome if I can get one together...

40K now is a game more for having fun battles now and that the way I like it...

What I don't understand is how this wasn't possible with the previous ruleset, or with other games.

A) yes I would to buy more of a different game if I did not like the rules set of the current game I played.

B) The thread as for the title says "cinematic gaming" so as it would seem I was thinking that it would show me more of campaigns and house rules of what people have done. Not more whining.

C) I was trying to get back to topic this was not a thread to debate more of "what do you do to make a game feel more cinematic".

happygolucky wrote:
A) yes I would to buy more of a different game if I did not like the rules set of the current game I played.

As I've said, my ~$3000? Saying to just switch to another game is lofty, when you consider the investment people make into a game like 40k to begin with. Furthermore, I dislike many elements of 6th edition, and see many of them made in poor taste, but that doesn't mean I dislike them in their entirety. If 6th edition was painful to play, I wouldn't play it at all.

B) The thread as for the title says "cinematic gaming" so as it would seem I was thinking that it would show me more of campaigns and house rules of what people have done. Not more whining.

Expressing concerns about a system that we enjoy or have once enjoyed is not whining.

C) I was trying to get back to topic this was not a thread to debate more of "what do you do to make a game feel more cinematic".

And as I've already made my stance, "cinematics" are not something that can be forcefully put into a game, but rather something made by the players.

Fafnir Wrote:

What I don't understand is how this wasn't possible with the previous ruleset, or with other games.

You see that is the Crux of the argument that can't be glaze over with the simple BS that fanbois been throwing out. I agree with you and your comments. I've been running tournaments for 14+ years. From 2nd ed and on. They are successful because of how they were ran which is the current catch phrase that people and GW are using today, "Cinematic gaming". People have been running "Cinematic gaming" for years. No I just do not buy the crap GW and the Fanbois are slinging.

As a previous poster stated they should have used another term instead of these catch phrases. Wording is a key element in how you express a line of thought from one person to another, and in this case bad execution by the designers in general.

Fafnir wrote:

happygolucky wrote:
A) yes I would to buy more of a different game if I did not like the rules set of the current game I played.

As I've said, my ~$3000? Saying to just switch to another game is lofty, when you consider the investment people make into a game like 40k to begin with. Furthermore, I dislike many elements of 6th edition, and see many of them made in poor taste, but that doesn't mean I dislike them in their entirety. If 6th edition was painful to play, I wouldn't play it at all.

B) The thread as for the title says "cinematic gaming" so as it would seem I was thinking that it would show me more of campaigns and house rules of what people have done. Not more whining.

Expressing concerns about a system that we enjoy or have once enjoyed is not whining.

C) I was trying to get back to topic this was not a thread to debate more of "what do you do to make a game feel more cinematic".

And as I've already made my stance, "cinematics" are not something that can be forcefully put into a game, but rather something made by the players.

A) You asked I ansered. I know a friend who has an army which probably costed around £600-£800 (I know thats not a lot compared to $3000 but still that is a lot of money) and now he is selling that army off to buy warmahordes also you see on Ebay people who sell armys that may have the same value or more, so yes I still would...

B) while you may be expressing your concerns it dose sound like you are whineing...

C) it needs to be both you cant have narrative battles without narrative rules look at warmahordes that game is designed to be a GT game with no space for narritivity while 40K is a game that is all narrative but with little space for GT play basicly i isnt the players who make it narrative but it needs to be a co-operation of both something of which GW has done in 6th ed, as it gives you there ruleswhich allow you to do a hell of a lot more than what it did in 5th...

Also if you do not like a rule take it out make house rules, add stuff you want in and ask your opponent if they like that rule or scenario and play it make tottaly new scenarios if you dont like the one in the book, after all the goal of the game is to have fun not to win...

happygolucky wrote:

A) You asked I ansered. I know a friend who has narmy which probably costed around £600-£800 (I know thats not a lot compared to $3000 but still that is a lot of money) and now he is selling that army off to buy warmahordes also you see on Ebay people who sell armys that may have the same value or more, so yes I still would...

While the nature of his investment may be very different. I spend a lot of time converting and scratch building specific, often times very fluff oriented elements of my armies. I couldn't sell many of them for any worthwhile profit.

B) while you may be expressing your concerns it dose sound like you are whineing...

And I could say that you're argument sounds like blind fanwankery, but I don't.

C) it needs to be both you cant have narrative battles without narrative rules look at warmahordes that game is designed to be a GT game with no space for narritivity while 40K is a game that is all narrative but with little space for GT play basicly i isnt the players who make it narrative but it needs to be a co-operation of both something of which GW has done in 6th ed, as it gives you there ruleswhich allow you to do a hell of a lot more than what it did in 5th...

See, this is where I'm going to have to call bs, straight up. Warmahordes may be a game built with a technical and competitive mindset, but it allows just as much narrative play as 40k does. Narrative and cinematics are built around a game, not within it. I can create epic stories with a game like Warmahordes just as much as I can with 40k.

What's more, with Warmahordes strong emphasis on decisive situations and actions, it's potentially more narrative, since the bulk of most Warmahordes games is spent building momentum for a single, climatic moment.

Coincidentally, my experience with 40k has been largely devoid of these epic moments so far. Most of these decisive moments tend to fall apart in my 6th edition experience, since the random elements go against most of my careful plans that would normally lead up to climactic moments. I've spent more time going "Oh, well, that charge isn't going to make it. I guess I'll just shoot you to ribbons next turn anyway." It's much more disconnected, really.l

Cinematic and narrative elements aren't built by the game, but by the stories players take away from it. There's only so many times you can talk about "well, none of us could make that 6 inch charge, so I just shot him instead" while still making it sound interesting.

Oh, and for what it's worth, I don't play Warmahordes either. I don't care for most of the models (there are some winners in the bunch, but a lot that are undesireable. Furthermore, as much as I appreciate the technical and 'tight' nature of the ruleset and it's writing, I see a lot of unnecessarily convoluted elements in it. These factors make it a game that, while I can admit that there's obviously a degree of quality to it, make it not entirely appealing to me.

Also if you do not like a rule take it out make house rules, add stuff you want in and ask your opponent if they like that rule or scenario and play it make tottaly new scenarios if you dont like the one in the book, after all the goal of the game is to have fun not to win...

I go to my club once every week or so for pick up games that I can play with a standardized ruleset with which I can start a game with a player who I may never have met before, and know that I'll have a standardized ruleset that allows the both of us to enjoy a game with minimal time spent doing the work of the people who are supposed to design a solid ruleset in the first place.

happygolucky wrote:So another good thread RUINED by whiners... [over and over again]

"Whiner" is not a helpful word. It's like "fanboy" in that regard.

If you disagree with the criticisms voiced, why don't you try engaging with them; ideally with arguments more sophisticated than "Well, I'm having fun, go play something else if you want balanced or elegant rules.". I for one don't find 6th edition's added randomness and time-consuming rules in the least "cinematic", and in my critical opinion I have yet to see anything to convince me that all this "forging a narrative" business is anything but window-dressing for a confused and cumbersome set of additions which have done nothing to address 5th edition's principal flaw: poorly-balanced codices. When GW start publishing story-driven scenarios in White Dwarf, and when they balance codices sufficiently that thematic armies are not vastly inferior to tournament armies, then I'll change my opinion.

Fafnir wrote:

happygolucky wrote:

A) You asked I ansered. I know a friend who has narmy which probably costed around £600-£800 (I know thats not a lot compared to $3000 but still that is a lot of money) and now he is selling that army off to buy warmahordes also you see on Ebay people who sell armys that may have the same value or more, so yes I still would...

While the nature of his investment may be very different. I spend a lot of time converting and scratch building specific, often times very fluff oriented elements of my armies. I couldn't sell many of them for any worthwhile profit.

B) while you may be expressing your concerns it dose sound like you are whineing...

And I could say that you're argument sounds like blind fanwankery, but I don't.

C) it needs to be both you cant have narrative battles without narrative rules look at warmahordes that game is designed to be a GT game with no space for narritivity while 40K is a game that is all narrative but with little space for GT play basicly i isnt the players who make it narrative but it needs to be a co-operation of both something of which GW has done in 6th ed, as it gives you there ruleswhich allow you to do a hell of a lot more than what it did in 5th...

See, this is where I'm going to have to call bs, straight up. Warmahordes may be a game built with a technical and competitive mindset, but it allows just as much narrative play as 40k does. Narrative and cinematics are built around a game, not within it. I can create epic stories with a game like Warmahordes just as much as I can with 40k.

What's more, with Warmahordes strong emphasis on decisive situations and actions, it's potentially more narrative, since the bulk of most Warmahordes games is spent building momentum for a single, climatic moment.

Coincidentally, my experience with 40k has been largely devoid of these epic moments so far. Most of these decisive moments tend to fall apart in my 6th edition experience, since the random elements go against most of my careful plans that would normally lead up to climactic moments. I've spent more time going "Oh, well, that charge isn't going to make it. I guess I'll just shoot you to ribbons next turn anyway." It's much more disconnected, really.l

Cinematic and narrative elements aren't built by the game, but by the stories players take away from it. There's only so many times you can talk about "well, none of us could make that 6 inch charge, so I just shot him instead" while still making it sound interesting.

Oh, and for what it's worth, I don't play Warmahordes either. I don't care for most of the models (there are some winners in the bunch, but a lot that are undesireable. Furthermore, as much as I appreciate the technical and 'tight' nature of the ruleset and it's writing, I see a lot of unnecessarily convoluted elements in it. These factors make it a game that, while I can admit that there's obviously a degree of quality to it, make it not entirely appealing to me.

Also if you do not like a rule take it out make house rules, add stuff you want in and ask your opponent if they like that rule or scenario and play it make tottaly new scenarios if you dont like the one in the book, after all the goal of the game is to have fun not to win...

I go to my club once every week or so for pick up games that I can play with a standardized ruleset with which I can start a game with a player who I may never have met before, and know that I'll have a standardized ruleset that allows the both of us to enjoy a game with minimal time spent doing the work of the people who are supposed to design a solid ruleset in the first place.

Look I get what your trying to say: you want a balanced rulebook I get that and who dosnt? What I cant abide by is when people just constantly complain about the rules wanting a better book by tomorrow now I can understand somones opion I mean I live in a democracy therefore we are all entitled to our opinions bit what really gets on my nerves is when every thread I see about the rules (whether it is on topic or not) is people complain about the rules and it gos on and on for 4 pages, I mean that is all I see every time I go on a thread is people complainig about the rules... And what slightly fustrates me is that people dont do anything about it everytime you hear a person complain you never hear what they have done to fix it so that both players are satisfied with the game and forums like these are meant to help you relax about a thing you enjoy games are made to enjoy yourself with not be fustrated with the mechanic so instead of being bitter with the rules do something to fix it if your not happy with them...

happygolucky wrote:
Look I get what your trying to say: you want a balanced rulebook I get that and who dosnt?

I don't mind some slight imbalance. It's impossible to be perfectly balanced. What I don't like is a ruleset that has a multitude of problems, with balance only being one of many. What's more, what I hate most is when they use bs buzzwords in order to try to cover the failings of their ruleset up.

What I cant abide by is when people just constantly complain about the rules wanting a better book by tomorrow

Actually, I want a better rulebook on June 23rd, 2012.

what really gets on my nerves is when every thread I see about the rules (whether it is on topic or not) is people complain about the rules and it gos on and on for 4 pages, I mean that is all I see every time I go on a thread is people complainig about the rules...

That might be indicative of something about the ruleset. As long time customers and potential customers in the future, we're stakeholders in GW and its properties. It's only natural to express concern when something looks to be awry.

And what slightly fustrates me is that people dont do anything about it everytime you hear a person complain you never hear what they have done to fix it so that both players are satisfied with the game and forums like these are meant to help you relax about a thing you enjoy games are made to enjoy yourself with not be fustrated with the mechanic so instead of being bitter with the rules do something to fix it if your not happy with them...

Contrary to popular belief, and to what GW would like to happen (evident of their old forums), forums are not just for mindless fan-pander. It's about discussion, viewpoints, and opinions, even conflicting ones. That's what a dialogue is all about.

As for fixing the game itself, that's not my job. Furthermore, it doesn't seem to even be the job of the people working at GW, as it's evident that the motion of codex creep and the constant (although at times, ineffectual, as the future continued dominance of mechanized guard armies will demonstrate) shift in balance is done more in mind of selling new and previously unwanted models.
As I've said, when I play 40k, I'm looking for a standardized system that I can play and enjoy with anyone. A major reason why I do play it is its popularity, since I know I can get a game. I am writing a ruleset for Inquisimunda to play with my friends (which itself will be very narrative focused, but, as I've established in previous posts, moreso in the narratives told around games than through any attempt to force them into the rules themselves), but such a ruleset will only work with so many people in a very small group.

40k needs to scrap its rulebook, and apply those of AT43

Blood and Slaughter wrote:

you need to take Fast Attack and Heavy Support because 1/3 of the games will require them to win

That's not actually true. In Scouring, FA become scoring; in Big Guns, HS do. You can still win either without having those slots filled. And there's also a potential penalty in those games for taking FA or HS insofar as they give away VPs when destroyed.

I do agree though that most (certainly not all though) of the random elements add tactical depth (though removing a level of control that some people falsely equate to allowing tactical depth).

Why not randomise every movement and gun range then? There has to be a line somewhere for random elements and I'm quite positive random charge is behind it.

Fafnir wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

As I've said, there are many games with tighter, better written rulesets that convey a much stronger element of 'cinematics'

If gamers are as spoiled for chices as you suggest then why the need to rage about 40K

People can simply choose one of these many games you describe and play it instead. Problem solved.

Of course some people have an axe to grind or feel the need to troll with all that time they could be spending playing one of those many tighter games...

Perhaps I still play 40k because I've invested well over $3000 in my 40k collection?

Or perhaps I still play 40k because, despite all the rules issues and poor practices of the company, I still enjoy (for the most part) the universe that they've created, and the models they make.

Or perhaps I still play 40k because it's one of the rulesets that everyone and their dog plays, so I know I can get a game even in the smaller communities.

Furthermore, it's not as if I don't play better written games. And I'm certainly not trolling if I hold GW, a multi-million dollar corportation, up to its contemporaries. I want 40k to be a good game, because despite all its glaring flaws, I do enjoy it, and I'd like to enjoy it as much as I can.

No one here hates GW or 40k. They just hate the way that GW treats them as a fanbase.

Exactly. 1000$+ equivalent spent here but that's the only difference and still a lot for me.

Fafnir wrote:Read the god damn post. I enjoy the universe that GW has created (especially the Inquisition). I do enjoy some aspects of their games (almost as many as I deride). I enjoy many of their models.But that doesn't mean I'm going to fanwank all over them for doing a sub par job.Despite all the franchise's problems there's a lot there of redeemable quality, even if you have to dig through the rubble of poor business decisions and sloppy product design for it.

Yep. That's why it is still worth to bother and post about 40k instead of not giving a crap anymore.

sennacherib wrote:Right off let me point out that a lot of modern warfare in the real world takes place in an environment that is constantly shifting and changing. Weather, and battlefield conditions are not static. In the real world you can choose where your opponent within reason, but they are making the same choices. Where you choose to confront your foe, they may fall back and attack later at their convenience. Modern warfare is conducted under the sembalence of control but it is far from the controlled affair that some people would choose to promote. Therefor i support the move to include random battlefield effects.

Does not apply at all. 40k is not modern warfare and Swarmlord is not going to trip over a rock or hesitate about charging resulting in 2" instead of his usual distance. Same time real world battlefield is in some ways more predictable than 40k ruleset, like weather forecast, terrain research including forests, general abilities etc. It's a bad excuse for GW out of the ass ideas for rules imo

sennacherib wrote:i agree entirely.
The upset crowd is currently a small minority here if you take the sampling given by the poll i posted in the discussion forum.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/467703.page
Currently 70% of gamers feel that 6th ed is an improvement to 13% who feel its a step down.

... in a poll where the only really negative option about 6th edition is "I hate it" and below 200 people voted. I did some proper poll research in my study time also a few proffesional ones and it takes 50 pages of methodology, sample characterisation, questions pre-testing and a much more people voting to even start an adequate poll research. Your poll is meaningless.

Squigsquasher wrote:Is 6th Edition perfect? No. But then neither is Warmahordes, Infinity, Flames of War or any other wargame. I present you with the Tyranid philosophy...

Adapt or die.

Yes I will. Buying used stuff instead of new models, probably staying with 5th edition so not buying new codieces, bashing the new ruleset as another mediocore one deserving it etc. Good point btw for accepting every crap the lazy company throws at you.

Let's see how much ofhis wailing and gnashing of teeth is going on in 6 months, when everyone has forgotten to keep complaining.

One of the funnest games I ever played was an armored column ambush in a ruined city, I took the role of the ambusher and my friend played a space marine armored column, I was outnumbered by 300-400 points, and was playing tau. I got slaughtered, but ended up wiping out half of his army, Including a predator which was 4 inches away from my commander battlesuit. It was supposed to be for a campaign but we never finished it.

Plumbumbarum wrote:Why not randomise every movement and gun range then? There has to be a line somewhere for random elements and I'm quite positive random charge is behind it.

Meanwhile, most people are positive that it's not.

Plumbumbarum wrote:Swarmlord is not going to trip over a rock or hesitate about charging resulting in 2" instead of his usual distance

Why not?

Kaldor wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:Swarmlord is not going to trip overOckhamock or hesitate about charging resulting in 2" instead of his usual distance

Why not?

The whole 'tripping over a rock' thing is getting annoying. The point of it is meant to represent 'something' stopping the charge. This is a 40k battlefield. Plenty can happen to make anything stop in its tracks. A stray shell could land in their path, a bodies could rain from a passing, wrecked transport, something particularly fast like a land speeder from elsewhere could zoom between the units. Forging a narrative only works if you have a good imagination.

A recent game against my friends black Templars had my Tyranids winning quite nicely, and I decided to abandon an objective in the closing turns to charge my 20 Hormagaunts into his line chaplain. He over watch fired his plasma pistol, overheated and killed himself. A more humorous outcome was seeing the tide of Hormagaunts caused him to cremate his head instead of face the horde. Not in character, but a funny footnote to the game we were chatting about afterwards.

That is, however, the problem with forcing this type of gameplay. Some people don't want that king of experience, and people who do want it can get it just easily from a more balanced system.

cin·e·ma·tic   [sin-uh-mah-tik]
adj
1. See Random

ran·dom   [ran-duhm]
adjective
1. See Fun.

Anpu42 wrote:It might have even cost me the game, but I decided that after a few games, failed charges is the price to pay for Pre-Measuring and it has made the game more exiting.

..."price to pay"? You know if it were a change that we were all asking for then maybe that comment would have made sense, but it just sounds to me like I'm being punished because of some arbitrary change GW made to the game that no one really cared about. If pre-measuring meant we needed random charges then I'd rather pre-measuring were left out of the game entirely, because random charges are stupid and make no sense, and no one needs pre-measuring because eyeballing ranges isn't that hard to do anyway.

Gifblaur wrote:Another side effect of the randomness actually tends to be the worse players have more chances against the better players, as is the case between my mate and I. She plays expecting to lose and plays accordingly but you know what? She's won more than half our 6th edition games.

That's not exactly a good thing, though. Skill should be what determines winners the majority of the time. A little bit of randomness is okay just so less-skilled players actually stand a chance, but by all rights a player who's better at the game should win more games.

When every game is basically decided by whoever rolls the dice better and everything else comes second (like actual tactics) then what's the fething point? Why even take the models out of the bag, why go through all the motions when you can get the same thing much quicker and easier by just rolling a d6 with your opponent and declaring the winner to be whoever rolls higher (if there's a tie you just re-roll until someone wins)? I want the same thing you all want, I want to play fun games with armies of models on well-made tables, I'm a fan of the "cinematic" by all means (that's the main reason why I love the idea of Dropzone Commander and can't wait to start playing), but I also want victories to mean something, I want to fething earn it. Same thing when I lose, when I lose a game I want it to be fair and square, I want it to be because I made mistakes or just plain got outplayed. A game that I only won because the opponent got screwed over by bad game design or bad rolls is a hollow fething victory at best, and a game that I feel like I lost due to the same and not because of any particular stroke of genius on my opponent's part is probably one of the worst things I've felt when playing any game. I'm not having fun when I feel cheated out of a win, or worse yet, when I feel like I cheated someone out of a win because they were using an older army or got screwed by dice.

But that's just my opinion, and apparently I'm in the minority. I don't know what it is about 40k players, but 40k players are the only ones who don't want balance or equity in gaming from what I can tell. Am I wrong? Is the fanbase for any other game like this? Because I haven't seen one like it.

happygolucky wrote:So another good thread RUINED by whiners...

Goddammit im sick of people whining about "how bad the rules are" I really Dont care if you Dont like the rules if you all want balanced rules there's the door: go play Warmahordes, I personally love the new rules to me it seems now more of "here are your rules they are your template go create fun scenarios" I love it all the only thing I would say needs changing is get disallow the warlord traits for SC and that is it.

If you don't like my "whining", there's the "Ignore" button. You might as well fething use it because I could care less if you're sick of it, I'm not stopping, and I'm not going anywhere. If you don't agree with me or like what I have to say then the ball is in your court, it's not my responsibility to censor myself or remove myself from the community for your benefit.

Also, I do have a Warmachine army. That hasn't, and won't, stop me from bitching about GW, considering I spent a couple grand on their stupid game and feel like it was all nothing but a waste in the end. PP could send me a personalized e-mail telling me to literally go feth myself, and it still wouldn't piss me off as much as GW's bs for the past 5 years, because in the end I haven't really lost that much...maybe $200 or less (not counting what I get back on eBay)? Compared to the amount of money I stand to lose if I quit 40k that's not even a drop in the bucket.

I lose either way. If I eBay all my gak I won't get back even half what I spent on it. If I focus on another game then I'm sitting on hundreds of dollars worth of useless product...clinging to a vain hope that GW will "fix" their stupid game and stop acting like morons.

happygolucky wrote:I was looking at the thread thinking "this seems like an awesome thread" then "oh look MORE whiners that want to butt-hurt all over a cool thread" look if you Dont like the rules Fair enough but please Dont go on threads like these and start ranting why the "rules are so (In your opinion) bad" its boring to see whiners on every thread that I see now about 40K relating to this kind of topics (instead make your own thread and that way you wont have arguments like the one I have read here).

We can't just have our thread where we get to complain, because even if we try to keep it mostly contained there will be "crusaders" who go to those threads in an attempt to try and convert people to the one true gaming path...like what happened with that thread in Tournament Discussions about 6th edition, where people saw an opportunity to come into the thread to tell people they were "fitting square pegs into round holes" and trying to play the game in a way it wasn't "meant" to be played (hell, at this moment the last post in that thread is a complaint about how balance in 40k is "bad" because it will take away "fun" or "characterful" elements, and how we're all wrong for wanting the game to be something other than what it is). Not to mention the idea of a dedicated "complaint" thread seems kind of unfair to begin with, since there's no designated "praise" thread where all useless praise and compliments can go.

happygolucky wrote:Personally me and some friend down at my FLGS are playing a house rule which is "no SC" because we all liked what we read in the rule book which was "you are the warlord" then we were thinking "so im a daemon... Yes please" my friends were thinking "so we are overlords and captains...Yeah" so we disallowed SC because we were bored seeing the same guy over and over again when we knew SC are only in battles for the most dire of circumstances... and we love this rule

Well that's good for you and your group if you all agree on it, but it's not good for the game as a whole. GW's trend in recent times is to use SC's to unlock options, giving players an incentive to buy the models and use the characters in games: by doing a blanket ban on SC's for a throwaway line in the book that says something about you being the "warlord" then you're restricting people from being able to build entire armies, taking options away from them and thereby making the game less fun, because you personally are "bored" of seeing them.

Also, who's to say you aren't that SC's superior? It can be hard to top Abaddon as the leader of an entire army but maybe you're a representative of one of the gods themselves and giving him the orders? This is why I don't like it when people try to introduce army composition and try to do it in the name of "fluff" in some way, in my opinion it shows a pretty obvious lack of imagination and ability to think outside the box. There's no rule in the book saying that SC even has to be Abaddon, it's entirely possible to just use his rules and create a character of your own to represent them on the field.

happygolucky wrote:40K now is a game more for having fun battles now and that the way I like it...

There's nothing wrong with wanting "fun battles", in the end that's what we all really want anyway. But I simply disagree that making competitive play possible takes the "fun" aspect away: you always were able to play campaigns with your friends if that's what you want, there was nothing at all stopping you before. 6th edition didn't open anything up for you, all it did was close doors for the rest of us.

happygolucky wrote:after all the goal of the game is to have fun not to win...

I don't have to win every game to have fun, but what's the point in playing a game where victory is impossible, as is the case with some of these "scenarios" people have dreamed up where the sides are so imbalanced the end result is decided before a single die is rolled? How is it fun knowing beforehand you're going to lose? Are you guys honestly confusing the feeling of hopelessness with "fun" or something? I also don't understand this idea that winning is a bad thing...winning is fun. I'd hazard a guess that even you like winning happygolucky, and that when you play a game you don't plan on playing like gak and losing intentionally, either. Why would you? Why waste your time playing a game just to lose?

If you do play that way then you're in a minority. Not before I played 40k have I ever met a person who played games with the sole intent of losing, I've never met anyone who derived enjoyment from getting his ass kicked over and over and over.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

-Loki- wrote:The whole 'tripping over a rock' thing is getting annoying. The point of it is meant to represent 'something' stopping the charge. This is a 40k battlefield. Plenty can happen to make anything stop in its tracks. A stray shell could land in their path, a bodies could rain from a passing, wrecked transport, something particularly fast like a land speeder from elsewhere could zoom between the units. Forging a narrative only works if you have a good imagination.

My imagination is good enough, I just think random charges are a poorly-implemented element of 6th edition.

You know what would be a cool way to stop charges? Defensive grenades. Make it so that squads with defensive grenades can cause the random roll when being charged, and it instantly works a lot better. The charge didn't just "randomly" fail for some mysterious reason, they got flash-banged or something. It still adds an element of randomness to the game that wasn't there before: if you roll low your charge fails, your troops are too disoriented and stop short to try and dive blindly behind whatever cover may be nearby. It adds a "cinematic" element because you can imagine this happening in a movie for sure. But most importantly it doesn't give the impression that the charge failed just completely at random, it happened for a clear and sensible reason. In your example a fast-moving vehicle like a speeder zooming between the units makes sense and could possibly affect that unit's movement that turn, but how do you explain them failing the charge if that didn't actually happen during the game? If the rules were slightly more detailed and did have elements like that in place it would force players to think a little more about how to move during their turn, too. You have to be careful so you don't screw yourself up and make yourself fail a charge against someone later in the turn, or your opponent could try to disrupt you by flying between assaulting units with a skimmer (a potentially risky move since you might end your move close to your enemy and get within melta range).

I'm no master of game balance so maybe they aren't all good ideas, but I honestly just don't think GW thought too hard about this stuff. More randomness is not always bad, but I don't like randomness for the sake of randomness. I wouldn't have minded if they made charges random in certain cases (like if wargear forces it) but making them all random all the time just comes off as being lazy and stupid to me.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

cin·e·ma·tic   [sin-uh-mah-tik]
adj
1. See Random

ran·dom   [ran-duhm]
adjective
1. See Fun.

lolololol

Sidstyler wrote:When every game is basically decided by whoever rolls the dice better and everything else comes second (like actual tactics) then what's the fething point? Why even take the models out of the bag, why go through all the motions when you can get the same thing much quicker and easier by just rolling a d6 with your opponent and declaring the winner to be whoever rolls higher (if there's a tie you just re-roll until someone wins)?

This is genius. Allow me to expand upon this game. Instead of re-rolling a tie to determine the winner, why not give points for comp? Only a WAAC spanker would dare show up with a d6 that had an actual six on it. Players playing in the spirit of the game would have an extra 1 in place of the 6. We can also give points for the prettiest dice, because no right thinking individual wants to be sitting across the table from some plain white dice. The dice company will move away from standard dice construction and go with lighter weight fineresin cast dice, while also introducing liquid gap filler, which just happens to do wonders for all those poorly cast resin dice they sell us.

Sidstyler wrote:random charges are stupid and make no sense,

Your argument hinges on this point, so you're going to have to do a better job of proving it.

Sidstyler wrote:every game is basically decided by whoever rolls the dice better

This is demonstrably false.

Sidstyler wrote:I could care less

I think you mean you couldn't care less.

Sidstyler wrote:I simply disagree that making competitive play possible takes the "fun" aspect away

But what makes you think the game is less competitive?

helium42 wrote:Only a WAAC spanker would dare show up with a d6 that had an actual six on it.

HA! Love it. Great stuff.

Since it's not easy to find logical arguments for some of 6th edition rules, the "whiners" thrown at people ctiticising them has to appear at some point. Beware though, cinematic brigade, there are a few special insults awaiting you if you follow that path. It may start as delicate "fanbois" through harder "GW apologist", "GW backlicker", "undercover GW marketing operative" to the worst of them all...

"You remind me of Citadel Finecast"

Kaldor wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:Why not randomise every movement and gun range then? There has to be a line somewhere for random elements and I'm quite positive random charge is behind it.

Meanwhile, most people are positive that it's not.

Not sure where you've taken the data about 40k players preference from but whatever, most people prefer Madonna over Bach which of course does not make Madonna better.

Kaldor wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:Swarmlord is not going to trip over a rock or hesitate about charging resulting in 2" instead of his usual distance

Why not?

It's against the internal logic of the game, Swarmlord is just too swift, precise, aware of the surroundings with all the information from the other nids. He is able to direct fire of a few units at once so he is for sure able to run without trouble on the plain field or some other terrain not even labeled as difficult. That also applies to Calgars etc I guess, you're not becoming a hero of the universe misjudging distance or tripping every few charges.

-Loki- wrote:The whole 'tripping over a rock' thing is getting annoying. The point of it is meant to represent 'something' stopping the charge. This is a 40k battlefield. Plenty can happen to make anything stop in its tracks. A stray shell could land in their path, a bodies could rain from a passing, wrecked transport, something particularly fast like a land speeder from elsewhere could zoom between the units. Forging a narrative only works if you have a good imagination.

For a shell in their path, make me a rule that an unit under barrage or tank fire have random charge because of that. A wrecked transport is out as they are represented on the battlefield by wrecks from actual models, you can't have a wrecked transport out of nothing. Bodies, again make me a rule that dead models between units or in the first line cause the random charge - if noone died there, there's nothing to trip/ stop/ being slowed down over. What you came up with is far too abstract and excuses for a rule not valid explanations. New wound allocation makes it less abstract with each model representing an actual character position but there are shells and transports teleporting out of the sudden on the field. This is a battle out of Terry Pratchett rather than a grimdark war story.

Btw "you lack imagination to play 6th", that's a new one. I guess I have enough imagination being a rpg game master for years but logic follows, to not make an imagined spectacle a ridiculous one.

Plumbumbarum wrote: Swarmlord is just too swift, precise, aware of the surroundings... so he is for sure able to run without trouble on the plain field or some other terrain not even labeled as difficult.

Says who?

I don't remember reading anywhere that anyone would be immune to anything that might affect their ability to conduct a lengthy, uninterrupted dash across the battlefield, represented as a charge move.

Aren't Necron wraiths (for one) able to phase through solid matter? Or has it changed?
Anyway, I don't see why random charge length had to be implemented. It's like we're going to have random shooting length next. And since that's random, it's also most likely fun!

As soon as you add more random elements to a game you reduce the competitive aspects. It'd be like if you had to roll to see which of your units go to do anything in a turn (eg. on a '1' on a D6 your unit is frozen in time - and imagine this happens to every unit every turn). This would utterly destroy anything even remotely competitive.

The same thing happens with random, sorry, 'cinematic' charges.

I mean this is what Reecius said over on Taco Bell:

Random Charge lengths stink. Point blank, and I will make no apologies about hating this rule because it flat out isn’t fun. I understand why it is in the game to an extent (by the same logic, shouldn’t weapon ranges be random, too?) but I think a straight 2D6” is just TOO random. I can’t count how many games were lost because of failed charges from 3” away in the open. When you outmaneuver your opponent, and then just through dumb luck fail a charge that costs you the game, that sucks ass. There is nothing fun about it.

And that's not all the randomness he talks about in that editorial.

Kaldor wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote: Swarmlord is just too swift, precise, aware of the surroundings... so he is for sure able to run without trouble on the plain field or some other terrain not even labeled as difficult.

Says who?

I don't remember reading anywhere that anyone would be immune to anything that might affect their ability to conduct a lengthy, uninterrupted dash across the battlefield, represented as a charge move.

It is obviously not stated as "Swarmlord never trips over a rock", it is written that:

"This creature is the very pinnacle of Hive Tyrant bioform...

This creatue is to Hive Tyrant what Hive Tyrant is to a Termagant...

It is a monster of darkest nightmare that has preyed on empires and overseen the extinction of entire civilisations...

...and it represents the greatest Tyranid threat to the galaxy"

Doesn't sound like something not able to run without falling because of something in his way unless it's a monastery. The good human athlete when focused will rarely trip, what to say about the perfect, legendary bug-like creature. Then, there are stats - WS9 and I6 which shows something of godly agility, speed and precision.

But let's assume that you're right and the Swarmlord trips over a rock on the plain not difficult field, let's rewert to your earlier quote then:

Kaldor wrote:But with regards to 'cinematic' gaming: To me this does not simply refer to the stories and narratives the players come up with. It also refers to the game playing in a way that matches our preconceptions: we want our heroes to be heroic, our villains to be devious, our monsters to be monstrous, and so on. If we rely on 'gamey' mechanics we don't get that 'cinematic' feel.

So how is the creature cinematicly monstrous, tripping over a rock so not making a charge makes it rather laughable and sad. Kind of defeats the purpose of cinematic game, the whole 2d6 charge affair and 6th edition is full of such ridiculous contradictions.

Also "gamey" mechanics, seeing the Swarmlord carve it's bloody path through whole units of marines or terminators in 5th edition, not cinematic or monstrous enough for you? It's all in the stats, what else is needed there? Calgar makes everyone pass everymorale test, killed single-handedly an entire unit of genestealers on my table few days ago (5th again), drops orbital bombardments, not heroic enough for you? I don't get it.

H.B.M.C. wrote:As soon as you add more random elements to a game you reduce the competitive aspects.

That's actually not the case.

Instead, a measured dose of random elements introduces unknown variables that players have to account for.

There is a line, somewhere. On one side of the line, you have the right amount of random elements which encourage players to manage the resources under their control. On the other side of the line, player control is reduced by the inability of the player to make his units do what he wants.

Random charge length, IMO, falls firmly on the right side of the line. It rewards the players who are best able to stack the odds and minimise risk, without removing too much control from the player.

To refer to the quote you posted: if through dumb luck you fail a charge that costs you the game, you haven't really outmaneuvered your opponent, have you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Plumbumbarum wrote:It is obviously not stated as "Swarmlord never trips over a rock"

Is it perhaps because the idea of 'tripping over rocks' is absurd?

Swarmlord is great. That's cool. But does it mean he won't shy from an impressive defensive volley? Be distracted by something else on the battlefield? Flinch away from an ineffective incoming round?

No, it doesn't mean any of that. Because anything could be happening that might cause that short charge distance. There could be deafening explosions nearby, rounds being snapped off, or maybe a new threat is revealed to the Swarmlord and he has to take a minute to decide which threat best deserves his attention. It doesn't have to be anything represented by the rules or in-game actions. Those tac marines that were out of range are maybe firing anyway, their rounds ineffectual but still forcing the enemy to keep their heads down, for example. It could be almost anything.

I knew you wouldn't understand. I bet'cha didn't even read Reecius' article.

Why do we even bother talking to you?

H.B.M.C. wrote:I knew you wouldn't understand. I bet'cha didn't even read Reecius' article.

Why do we even bother talking to you?

When your whole argument is "I don't like it" then yeah, you're going to run into trouble when you're trying to explain to people why it's bad.

Seems to me like there is only the one rule that is causing the issue here. Most of the other randomness is mostly left alone, I think that says something.(Or maybe it's just easier to pick on this one rule, I don't know.)

But I think at this point we all need to just agree to disagree. We all have our opinions and in the end the only opinion that matters is GWs.

Actually, one last little thought. What is the distance that the old 6 inch charge was supposedly representing? I've heard several people hating on how before you could always pull off spectacular distance charges but I've never seen what the scale is(never cared honestly). Just curious.

Kaldor wrote:

To refer to the quote you posted: if through dumb luck you fail a charge that costs you the game, you haven't really outmaneuvered your opponent, have you?

What. I don't even.

Your calculated moves have just been thwarted by dumb luck, not by your opponent's skill nor your incompetence. If I were your opponent I wouldn't feel good because that was a hollow victory and I won not because I was good but because the dice saved me: I would've felt like I was outmaneuvered.

Kaldor wrote:Is it perhaps because the idea of 'tripping over rocks' is absurd?

Swarmlord is great. That's cool. But does it mean he won't shy from an impressive defensive volley? Be distracted by something else on the battlefield? Flinch away from an ineffective incoming round?

No, it doesn't mean any of that. Because anything could be happening that might cause that short charge distance. There could be deafening explosions nearby, rounds being snapped off, or maybe a new threat is revealed to the Swarmlord and he has to take a minute to decide which threat best deserves his attention. It doesn't have to be anything represented by the rules or in-game actions. Those tac marines that were out of range are maybe firing anyway, their rounds ineffectual but still forcing the enemy to keep their heads down, for example. It could be almost anything.

Yes tripping over the rock is kind of a symbol as it's hard to come with sensible explanation when it's not about IG grunts or something similar.

You say it doesn't have to be represented by the rules or in-game actions, I think consistency is necessary - otherwise why would there be rules explanations, fluff and rules themselves. If it's the smoke on the battlefield, I wan't cover save from it, if that's shooting then should be something really powerful as Swarmlord or anything else multi wound and toughness over 4 is not slowed by a direct lascannon or rocket to the chest, it has no fixed influence on said guys actions apart from losing a wound. Swarmlord keeping his head down because of bolters sounds as bad cinematics too. New threat is revealed, going by the fluff it would hardly be new and even if so, would take tiny part of the second at best.

Anyway you can imagine whatever you want when you play. For me the rule forces unnecessary cheap cinematics which require breaking the internal logic of the universe created by rules and fluff, often turning out ridiculous if touched by a deeper thought.

heartserenade wrote:Your calculated moves have just been thwarted by dumb luck, not by your opponent's skill nor your incompetence. If I were your opponent I wouldn't feel good because that was a hollow victory and I won not because I was good but because the dice saved me: I would've felt like I was outmaneuvered.

If you've managed to force the enemies hand to the point where he is unable to stack the odds in his favour and loses out on a dice roll, then that's been a pretty even game in my books. If he couldn't even get to within 8" at the start of his turn, he hasn't exactly been pulling off brilliant maneuvering tactics.

That's the point of random charge distances. Very rarely will they punish a good player. Instead, they punish the player who fails to plan ahead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Plumbumbarum wrote:it's hard to come with sensible explanation when it's not about IG grunts or something similar.

For you it is, although I don't understand why.

There's a multitude of perfectly plausible in-universe reasons for anything to roll a small distance on it's charge. I don't see why you have to build something up on a pedestal and then insist there is nothing that could make this god-like monster slow down or second-guess itself. It's not even remotely plausible.

Kaldor wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:I knew you wouldn't understand. I bet'cha didn't even read Reecius' article.

Why do we even bother talking to you?

When your whole argument is "I don't like it" then yeah, you're going to run into trouble when you're trying to explain to people why it's bad.

In fairness, Kaldor, I've posed several times the question: "What's so cinematic (or indeed tactically rewarding) about manoeuvring carefully to line up an assault only to have an expensive assault unit shot to buggery because its player rolled poorly?", without getting a satisfactory answer. No amount of tactical forethought (beyond only charging from less than 2") can eliminate that (probably game-losing) possibility.

Furthermore, though the various explanations you've offered make a degree of sense in themselves, they still don't sit easily in the game we know; Warhammmer 40,000 has never had fog-of-war mechanics, and still doesn't in any other aspect. Worse yet (and quite contrary to GW's supposed intentions) in the games of 6th ed. I've played thus far, the optimal strategy which the new rules have encouraged (since I play the kinds of armies which can do so) has been to sit tight behind newly-purchased Aegis lines and blaze away, leaving my opponent to suffer the effects of random charges, mysterious terrain, etc., which wins games, but is far from cinematic (or indeed fun).

Now, I entirely agree with your observation that a balance exists in games between random and controlled elements, but I can't agree that random charge distances (much less warlord traits, mysterious terrain and random psychic powers) are desirable random elements. I asked some time ago whether anybody could even think of another game which did likewise; the closest anybody could come was De Bellis Antiquitatis, a game from the late 1980s, which in any case doesn't randomise movement but activations (much like Warpath 2.0). Moreover, I can't recall even a single voice among the player community prior to this June asserting that assaults would benefit from more randomisation, or suggesting random movement as a solution. Nor do I recall any significant number of players pining for the randomness which 2nd ed's. psychic cards and strategy cards had given the game, indeed 2nd ed. has been for a long time a byword for nigh-unplayable complexity and randomness.

I have no issue with in principle with "cinematic gaming", nor even with (much as I mock) it "forging a narrative", but - as Malifaux, Dark Age and even Space Hulk all demonstrate - it doesn't need to come at the expense of meaningfully tactical gameplay, which is what a significant section of the playerbase enjoys.

Gifblaur wrote:Seems to me like there is only the one rule that is causing the issue here. Most of the other randomness is mostly left alone, I think that says something.(Or maybe it's just easier to pick on this one rule, I don't know.)

Warlord traits and mysterious terrain/ objectives are bad as well imo but easier to rule out.

Gifblaur wrote:But I think at this point we all need to just agree to disagree. We all have our opinions and in the end the only opinion that matters is GWs.

Or let's everybody agree and bitch everywhere, quit buying until GW reprints 6th edition with improved rules, fixed charge range and random bs out /dream

Seriously though, GW will never change their lazy rules writing or shady behaviour (like with reacting to rules abuse, codieces release model, unbalancing on purpose) with the army of people ready to defend all that crap.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kaldor wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:it's hard to come with sensible explanation when it's not about IG grunts or something similar.

For you it is, although I don't understand why.

There's a multitude of perfectly plausible in-universe reasons for anything to roll a small distance on it's charge. I don't see why you have to build something up on a pedestal and then insist there is nothing that could make this god-like monster slow down or second-guess itself. It's not even remotely plausible.

I use Swarmlord as a most obvious example of the rule not making sense cinematics - wise, it's not me who created it as the pinnacle of Tyranid creation, perfect bioform, possesing unimaginable inteligence etc. Replace with Terminators, Calgar or Typhus and it's still hard to explain it sensibly.

English Assassin wrote:In fairness, Kaldor, I've posed several times the question: "What's so cinematic (or indeed tactically rewarding) about manoeuvring carefully to line up an assault only to have an expensive assault unit shot to buggery because its player rolled poorly?", without getting a satisfactory answer. No amount of tactical forethought (beyond only charging from less than 2") can eliminate that (probably game-losing) possibility.

My response is that simply getting to within 9" isn't "carefully maneuvering" and doesn't really deserve to be rewarded with a guaranteed charge.

English Assassin wrote:Furthermore, though the various explanations you've offered make a degree of sense in themselves, they still don't sit easily in the game we know; Warhammmer 40,000 has never had fog-of-war mechanics, and still doesn't in any other aspect.

Well, it depends on how you interpret the mechanics. I mean, 24" range for most firearms is ridiculously short, so surely it takes into account the other battlefield factors like the ability to reliably aim, smoke or fog, distractions and so on. Not to mention the old difficult terrain rules.

English Assassin wrote:Worse yet (and quite contrary to GW's supposed intentions) in the games of 6th ed. I've played thus far, the optimal strategy which the new rules have encouraged (since I play the kinds of armies which can do so) has been to sit tight behind newly-purchased Aegis lines and blaze away, leaving my opponent to suffer the effects of random charges, mysterious terrain, etc., which wins games, but is far from cinematic (or indeed fun).

I think this is more a case of 'new hotness' than anything else, and will fade with time. I haven't seen it at all in my local area.

Now, I entirely agree with your observation that a balance exists in games between random and controlled elements, but I can't agree that random charge distances (much less warlord traits, mysterious terrain and random psychic powers) are desirable random elements.

I think the Warlord traits are a bit gimmicky, although not as game-breaking as some people insist. I don't mind them enough to bitch about them. Our group universally ignores mysterious terrain, and has done since it's inception in WHFB. Having come from WHFB though, having randomly selected Psychic Powers just seems natural. The alternative is to cost them, but that would be an exercise in futility.

But I really like random charge distances. It forces players to be more mindful of how they use their units, especially when game-turning assaults are in question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Plumbumbarum wrote:Replace with Terminators, Calgar or Typhus and it's still hard to explain it sensibly.

Except it's not. That's my point, that you place these creatures (or monsters, or heroes, or whatever) on pedestals and then can't imagine anything on the battlefield that would cause them to roll short on their charge distance.

I can imagine plenty of plausible in-universe things that would cause them to roll short. I don't understand why you can't.

Kaldor wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:Replace with Terminators, Calgar or Typhus and it's still hard to explain it sensibly.

Except it's not. That's my point, that you place these creatures (or monsters, or heroes, or whatever) on pedestals and then can't imagine anything on the battlefield that would cause them to roll short on their charge distance.

I can imagine plenty of plausible in-universe things that would cause them to roll short. I don't understand why you can't.

Ok, plain field, unit of Terminators - veterans of hundreds of battles and thousands of charges - charging the stationary infantry unit 6" away, let's say Termagants holding an objective. Terminators roll 3, what happened?

Plumbumbarum wrote:Ok, plain field, unit of Terminators - veterans of hundreds of battles and thousands of charges - charging the stationary infantry unit 6" away, let's say Termagants holding an objective. Terminators roll 3, what happened?

...over a kilometer away, a mycetic spore the size of a titan transporter hits the ground and disgorges and massive Biotitan.

...conflicting orders come through the vox, causing the sergeant to second guess his objective.

...incoming fire ricochets harmlessly from their armour, but the warriors turn to evaluate the source of the threat

...a nearby Zoanthrope crackles threateningly with electricity, causing the warriors to take cover

... a shadow flashes over the ground and the warriors look up: Harridan!

... they trip over a rock.

Squigsquasher wrote:Is 6th Edition perfect? No. But then neither is Warmahordes, Infinity, Flames of War or any other wargame. I present you with the Tyranid philosophy...

Adapt or die.

Careful! Someone could break their leg falling down that gigantic excluded middle you have there. No game is perfect, but that doesn't mean some are better than others.

happygolucky wrote:
Look I get what your trying to say: you want a balanced rulebook I get that and who dosnt? What I cant abide by is when people just constantly complain about the rules wanting a better book by tomorrow

How about wanting a balanced ruleset over four editions? (And I'll take a moment to pre-emptively reject any claims that "fun" and "balanced" are incompatible.)

Kaldor wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:Ok, plain field, unit of Terminators - veterans of hundreds of battles and thousands of charges - charging the stationary infantry unit 6" away, let's say Termagants holding an objective. Terminators roll 3, what happened?

...over a kilometer away, a mycetic spore the size of a titan transporter hits the ground and disgorges and massive Biotitan.

"Let's hurry with Termagants or someone will kill that first"

Kaldor wrote:...conflicting orders come through the vox, causing the sergeant to second guess his objective.

"Let's kill the Termagants to not waste time before they'll make up their minds"

Kaldor wrote:...incoming fire ricochets harmlessly from their armour, but the warriors turn to evaluate the source of the threat

"pffft"

Kaldor wrote:...a nearby Zoanthrope crackles threateningly with electricity, causing the warriors to take cover

"pfft, hurry up with Termagants and let's ground that next"

Kaldor wrote:... a shadow flashes over the ground and the warriors look up: Harridan!

"Don't worry brothers, that's illegal"

Kaldor wrote:... they trip over a rock.

Together

Being serious, when moving they had enough time to evaluate the battlefield and made the decision/ were ordered to charge, there's no time to think about new orders or look around, they're already focused on the target. There's even the rule that you can't assault anything other than the unit you shot at, that's how focused the unit is on enemy and no time to scan the horizont (assuming the biotitan drops out off the board, because on board it's either because of a rule or can't interupt the charge) or examine shadows.

Let's assume they are distracted, quick look is enough then - even driving a car at 120kph you have time to look around and not crash the same time, not to mention it's not that Terminators can freeze out of fear, worry or hesitate in the face of danger. I admit you posted some good ideas but none of those should halve the charge distance or stop the Terminators (maybe the conflicting orders but on the other hand, it's me issuing them, also I'm not sure about those uncertain chapter masters or captains). It's not their first drop and every battle in 40k is hell with deadly things falling from the sky, they're used to it, veterans and all.

Maybe the matter of interpretation but those are stretched for me.

salvadorjer wrote:I'd just like to get the ball rolling for a discussion covering two main topics.

1) Since cinematic play seems to be tthe writing on the wall for 6th ed does anyone know of great ways to increase that in play? I find custom scenarios to work quite often especially with a special rule or two added.

2) Given the discussions that often occur around TFG articles maybe we could discuss how to make the game not more enjoyable for yourself but for your opponent. This can be both cometitive anf fluffy play. (I'll insert bath here before the trolls get to it) I find taking 5 minutes to define all the terrain at the start of the game is a must.

Have at it dakka.

Its a catch phrase. As a matter of fact- some of us have played this way for quite a long time.

Want to make it enjoyable? Make a campaign for a planet, or system ala Dawn Of War, and add in your own snacks along the way.

easy examples include, but are not held hard and fast to-

1. Recon-

Scouts infiltrate a board, and have to explore it. Around the board are several bases of Loot, hidden side missions, cave systems, and bonus "Lost" troops.

Oh, by the way, your playing this Recon mission along with several other armies. After first contact, you gain the ability to deploy troops, and support increases, based on if you live or not.

2. Based on the evolution and results of Recon, there are other goals still out there, but in addition, you can deploy a single armored unit. Between the battles, you have the ability of reinforcing them with either support troops, or additional armor- That is unless your tanks get taken out of the action. And add the fact in there that sometimes, your chain of command doesn't think much of your losing the tanks- Because your higher ups have decided that your inabilty to keep your armor alive have shaken thier confidence that you can make the mission happen. You start getting negative attention, and detrimental decisions... Easy to hard, use your own imagination on how bad you want to make the price of failure.

3. If your commander fails a third time, a secondary leader will take command, and of course your leadership, being shaken by failure will be tested in each turn. ( In this case, theres several offshoots, from orbital bombardment of your unit by your command, to redeployment to another table- ( Where, depending on your war efforts, you will either have access to long range artillery, or removal from the battle altogether. ( Failure is not an option, especially three times in a row.) In the case of losing that commander, your army has a lack of confidence in thier chain of command , at least through game 3 or 4. Your troops will have to start making moral tests, or end up making thier own decisions to "redeploy" themselves. and start deciding for themselves, when and where they will deploy.

( I've seen this extreme go to the point where some of the units have defected, and disappeared. It wasn't pretty.)

Etc.etc.etc.


How to make something like this happen is to get together ahead of time, develop the world/ battlefield, and all the players come up with the side orders. It takes dedication, because after awhile, some of the armies start getting wiped out, only to reappear at later intervals, and return to fight over the same campaign fields.

(If you and your pals kick in $$$, you can even play for supplys/ extra units, or even boxes of base troops.)

I won the special edition Inquisitor, ( The one with the hat and trenchcoat, and special plasma gun) in one such game. Later on We dropped it down a notch and added special things like Side mission day- One such side mission day was bring in a squad of terminators, and fight your way to an extraction point. Those that made it got the ability to get to other poker chips that were on the table that coicided to different side items, special weapons, equipment options, new blister pack units, etc. ( of course that DID give you motivation to play, and hurry up and crank out that new special weapon/ figure, so you could use it at a later date.) The guys that came up with that gave the surviving units that got off the field in the time limit a free Terminator sprue. ( I didn't make it, I ended up using my Deathwing in a holding action, while others legged it for the Drop.

Games like this can be either cutthroat, or collective, depending on the crowd.

Point here being- your not just fighting a plain brown wrapper 1500 point game, and thats it.
Your fighting over a piece of dirt for a reason, your forces of course have to get there, so maybe you play a game of BFG, then they make planetfall, so of course you need to establish a strongpoint, and DZ, where you may or may not get the chance to drop in a couple of fortifications/ buildings/ towers, etc. AND then after the fact, you either win or lose, so maybe youo keep or lose that DZ/ Supplies/ Fortifications...

map, a well thought out environment, and a long term plan for the month. "The Battle of Hell's gate", The Battle of ....... your name here....." " Wolf's Lair I and II."

Kinda like a real battle. they are for a campaign, and you fight for a reason.

We did one where we took a map, and sectioned off different areas, and that also helped dictate some of the conditions.

I learned that I didn't like night fights with 12 inch visibility in one such game.

What do YOU think of that?

I had a big post typed up, but so many other posts have been made between now and then and everything's kinda already been said so I don't see the point anymore.

Basically, Kaldor: your explanations for why the charge could fail make sense (and are more reasons than GW themselves felt the need to give us), but honestly...any of these things could happen just as easily in the Movement Phase, too. So why isn't base movement random, especially during a part of the turn sequence when your troops are supposedly moving around cautiously and surveying the battlefield as GW explain in the rules? In the Assault Phase your guys have just focused on an enemy and committed to running straight for them balls-first while waving swords above their heads, most likely after having emptied their guns at them, so why would they be distracted by the same noises and explosions that have been going on this entire time that seemingly didn't bother them before deciding to charge?

Why not randomise every movement and gun range then? There has to be a line somewhere for random elements and I'm quite positive random charge is behind it.

Actually a degree of randomness in movement and shooting ranges would suit me fine.

Quite honestly though the vast majority of charges in 5th must have been into terrain and so random anyway -- so it's not like random charge range is a new thing and in fact you can potetially charge further now and have a much better chance of charging into cover than previously so I really don't see why all charging being random now is such a big deal.

Except of course for the 'realism' thing. But if you look at 5th, no pre-measuring was imbecile because surely most guns would have rangefinders. Then you've the problem that T3 weakling troops are just as fast over the ground as T4 genetically engineered supermen in power-assisted armour, which is silly too. You have the fact it's just as easy to hit a tank that's moved less than 1kph (ie a fraction of an inch) as it is a skimmer that's moved flat-out (goodness knows what speed that would be as the ground scale is bizzare anyway. or the fact that accuracy does not decrease with range or size/speed/direction of travel of the target. The whole game is full of rules that make absolutely no sense from the point of view of 'realism' (in the sense of 'battlefield logic' not simply due to the fantastical futuristic setting). But here's the thing. If you want rules that are 'realistic' then you're going to have to accept that they will come with even more randomness built in determining when, how and where you can move your units, what targets they will select and whether or not they will charge. Yes, the particluar mechanism of a 2d6 charge range could perhaps be improved (some sort of test on leadership modified by the perceived threat offered by the target, how good the charging units' current cover is and results of supressing fire and overwatch to actually initiate the charge, followed by some sort of formula incorporating initiative, leadership and move distance and an additional random factor based on terrain to determine whether the charge hits home). But 2d6 is a pretty straightforward, if simplistic way to model that.

Kaldor wrote:

English Assassin wrote:In fairness, Kaldor, I've posed several times the question: "What's so cinematic (or indeed tactically rewarding) about manoeuvring carefully to line up an assault only to have an expensive assault unit shot to buggery because its player rolled poorly?", without getting a satisfactory answer. No amount of tactical forethought (beyond only charging from less than 2") can eliminate that (probably game-losing) possibility.

My response is that simply getting to within 9" isn't "carefully maneuvering" and doesn't really deserve to be rewarded with a guaranteed charge.

Well, "simply getting to within 9 inches" wasn't my example; it's tactically unrewarding to have, say, carefully manoeuvred an assault unit, taking advantage of cover and firelanes, to strike a high-value asset only for it to fail to charge and be left open to a counter-attack.

Kaldor wrote:

English Assassin wrote:Furthermore, though the various explanations you've offered make a degree of sense in themselves, they still don't sit easily in the game we know; Warhammmer 40,000 has never had fog-of-war mechanics, and still doesn't in any other aspect.

Well, it depends on how you interpret the mechanics. I mean, 24" range for most firearms is ridiculously short, so surely it takes into account the other battlefield factors like the ability to reliably aim, smoke or fog, distractions and so on. Not to mention the old difficult terrain rules.

Unrealistically-short weapon ranges - since assuming 1.6cm = 1m and a modern assault rifle's range to be be 500m, boltguns and such would have a tabletop range of 8m - are a necessary abstraction in a tabletop game, and were even explained as such in earlier editions; they have never been presented as a fog-of-war mechanic.

Kaldor wrote:

English Assassin wrote:Worse yet (and quite contrary to GW's supposed intentions) in the games of 6th ed. I've played thus far, the optimal strategy which the new rules have encouraged (since I play the kinds of armies which can do so) has been to sit tight behind newly-purchased Aegis lines and blaze away, leaving my opponent to suffer the effects of random charges, mysterious terrain, etc., which wins games, but is far from cinematic (or indeed fun).

I think this is more a case of 'new hotness' than anything else, and will fade with time. I haven't seen it at all in my local area.

Time will tell, but I'd lay good odds that the outcome of 6th ed's. rules changes on the metagame will result in a very static game of hiding behind barricades and blazing away at 24".

Kaldor wrote:

English Assassin wrote:Now, I entirely agree with your observation that a balance exists in games between random and controlled elements, but I can't agree that random charge distances (much less warlord traits, mysterious terrain and random psychic powers) are desirable random elements.

I think the Warlord traits are a bit gimmicky, although not as game-breaking as some people insist. I don't mind them enough to bitch about them. Our group universally ignores mysterious terrain, and has done since it's inception in WHFB. Having come from WHFB though, having randomly selected Psychic Powers just seems natural. The alternative is to cost them, but that would be an exercise in futility.

But I really like random charge distances. It forces players to be more mindful of how they use their units, especially when game-turning assaults are in question.

Well, firstly other systems manage to balance and cost weapons and abilities, so why not 40k? Secondly, how much mindfulness is there in the choice of a wholly random chance or inaction?

Elemental wrote:

Squigsquasher wrote:Is 6th Edition perfect? No. But then neither is Warmahordes, Infinity, Flames of War or any other wargame. I present you with the Tyranid philosophy...

Adapt or die.

Careful! Someone could break their leg falling down that gigantic excluded middle you have there. No game is perfect, but that doesn't mean some are better than others.

I wouldn't bother; I doubt somebody who thinks that saying "adapt or die" as though it's a clever or relevant sentiment is likely to comprehend the notion of an excluded middle.

Elemental wrote:

happygolucky wrote:Look I get what your trying to say: you want a balanced rulebook I get that and who dosnt? What I cant abide by is when people just constantly complain about the rules wanting a better book by tomorrow

How about wanting a balanced ruleset over four editions? (And I'll take a moment to pre-emptively reject any claims that "fun" and "balanced" are incompatible.)

Indeed. GW have had fourteen years in which to tinker with 3rd ed's. rules, and for every problem they address, they introduce a dozen more.

English Assassin wrote:Well, "simply getting to within 9 inches" wasn't my example; it's tactically unrewarding to have, say, carefully manoeuvred an assault unit, taking advantage of cover and firelanes, to strike a high-value asset only for it to fail to charge and be left open to a counter-attack.

You're getting no where. Maybe he'll respond better if you try phrasing your points using interpretive dance.

Blood and Slaughter wrote:

Why not randomise every movement and gun range then? There has to be a line somewhere for random elements and I'm quite positive random charge is behind it.

Actually a degree of randomness in movement and shooting ranges would suit me fine.

Quite honestly though the vast majority of charges in 5th must have been into terrain and so random anyway -- so it's not like random charge range is a new thing and in fact you can potetially charge further now and have a much better chance of charging into cover than previously so I really don't see why all charging being random now is such a big deal.

For me it was always a big deal, just as d6 run but there was 6th edition coming. What you propose with movement and gun ranges just have kind of terrorised me, hope GW won't ever read that.

Blood and Slaughter wrote:Except of course for the 'realism' thing. But if you look at 5th, no pre-measuring was imbecile because surely most guns would have rangefinders. Then you've the problem that T3 weakling troops are just as fast over the ground as T4 genetically engineered supermen in power-assisted armour, which is silly too. You have the fact it's just as easy to hit a tank that's moved less than 1kph (ie a fraction of an inch) as it is a skimmer that's moved flat-out (goodness knows what speed that would be as the ground scale is bizzare anyway. or the fact that accuracy does not decrease with range or size/speed/direction of travel of the target. The whole game is full of rules that make absolutely no sense from the point of view of 'realism' (in the sense of 'battlefield logic' not simply due to the fantastical futuristic setting). But here's the thing. If you want rules that are 'realistic' then you're going to have to accept that they will come with even more randomness built in determining when, how and where you can move your units, what targets they will select and whether or not they will charge. Yes, the particluar mechanism of a 2d6 charge range could perhaps be improved (some sort of test on leadership modified by the perceived threat offered by the target, how good the charging units' current cover is and results of supressing fire and overwatch to actually initiate the charge, followed by some sort of formula incorporating initiative, leadership and move distance and an additional random factor based on terrain to determine whether the charge hits home). But 2d6 is a pretty straightforward, if simplistic way to model that.

I disagree, fixing movement or charge distance is not less "realistic" (as in spaaace) than randomising it, it's just a different aproach. Fixed gun range is something I dislike, would prefer unrestricted range but BS dropping every 12"/24" or sth, of course random gun range is out of the question. Anyway doesn't matter as the fixed gun range works, instigates some tactical thinking and I can eat the absurdity of it no problem.

As for 5th, the wound allocation with 19 Hormagaunt dying behind a wall because one is visible, through ricochets was absurd too. I for example don't want "realism" but a good ruleset (not overly abstract though), I argue about 2d6 charge breaking internal logic of the universe with its explanations because it is defended as more cinematic and fun but it is not. I hate the rule mainly for spoiling tactical play but the same time it is not adding anything narrative to the game that would sound like a good addition to the story. Just a crap rule overall and really stinks as the guy from the article linked put it. If it was fixed or they added some really great rule adding to tactics on the board like interupts or sth, I would accept that no matter the ridiculous explanation just like I had to accept 5th wound allocation. I would like ruleset to be tactical/ balanced and contain "battlefield logic" the same time but having a choice, the former is much more important.

The problem with 6th imo is that it's bad as competitive ruleset and it's bad as a narrative ruleset, unbalanced/ random and producing cheap matwardish cinematics the same time.

Not having played them yet, I can't address 6th edition. Also, after reading a bit of this thread, I don't think anyone (especially me) can really put down a solid explaination of what the heck "Cinematic Gaming" (a vague and undefined catch-phrase if ever there was one) is.

However, the bit below caught my interest.

Sidstyler wrote:
. Skill should be what determines winners the majority of the time. A little bit of randomness is okay just so less-skilled players actually stand a chance, but by all rights a player who's better at the game should win more games.

When every game is basically decided by whoever rolls the dice better and everything else comes second (like actual tactics) then what's the fething point? Why even take the models out of the bag, why go through all the motions when you can get the same thing much quicker and easier by just rolling a d6 with your opponent and declaring the winner to be whoever rolls higher (if there's a tie you just re-roll until someone wins)? I want the same thing you all want, I want to play fun games with armies of models on well-made tables, ...
...I'm not having fun when I feel cheated out of a win, or worse yet, when I feel like I cheated someone out of a win because they were using an older army or got screwed by dice.

But that's just my opinion, and apparently I'm in the minority. I don't know what it is about 40k players, but 40k players are the only ones who don't want balance or equity in gaming from what I can tell. Am I wrong? Is the fanbase for any other game like this? Because I haven't seen one like it.

I tend to agree most of what you've said above, but in regards to your last paragraph, you are wrong. There are actually a large contingent (not compated to the number of GW gamers, but still...) of gamers who are looking for an experience that doesn't revolve as much around victory. These gamers love the idea of a game that involves them, but has so many random elements that it feels like a GM is involved. None of these games is completely random, and they are nearly all played to win, but most of them have a "reaction" system where by a squad or charachter is given an order and this will set off a chain of "reaction tests" to see if they perform that order, and what the results are (shot, shot at, retreat, dash to cover, stand fast, etc).

It might be said that these players are as intersted in seeing the game "play out" as they are in "playing" the game.

The first of these is The entire line of games by Two Hour Wargames, the science fiction game of which is 5150 Star Army, though they have titles to suit every genre.
http://www.twohourwargames.com/
They are among the most extreme version of the "reaction" system, with most of their games having the options to become so reactive that they have acquired a following among gamers who like to play solo. THW games are not my cup-of-tea, but they have an established following. http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/twohourwargames/
Anyone who wants to understand the appeal of games like this, owes it to themself to at least read through thier free Sample rules for "Chain Reaciton 3" Which uses the same rules engine as 5150 and many of their other titles.
http://www.twohourwargames.com/chainreaction3.html
IMHO, it's very hard to discuss the range of wargaming rules intelligently (no slight intended on anyone who hasn't) without at least having looked at CR3.

A less extreme example of Reaction based games is Tomorrow's War, one of the more popular recently-released hard-sci-fi wargames.
http://ambushalleygames.com/products/store/product/show/cid-66/name-tomorrows-war/category_pathway-0
It offers the player more control over their units, but it shares much of the same style in that when a unit is ordered to perform an action it can trigger a series of reactions from enemies and from the unit itself.

Players of both of the above games share some of the "see how it plays out" focus and it is notable that both games have a unit creation mechanic and both either don't have a points system or have a less-defined points system, making it even more difficult to have an exactly equal game. However that is not the focus of these type of gamers who are often more interested in seeing a scenario play out that more accurately reflects the random nature of war and -something missing from most popular wargames- the varied and unpredictable way that soldiers will react when in a warzone (i.e. the general doesn't have the ability to tell each unit exactly where to advance, shoot, etc).

It's a radical idea to those of us (like myself) raised on 40k, WHFB, etc but games like 5150 and TW rely heavily on the agreement of players to select the forces involved in a given scenario and the scenario objectives. That means that most of the time you actually sit down and agree what the scenario is, what forces would logically (a relative term in gaming...) be present and what the victory conditions would be. This means that while list-building is essentially absent, a devotee of this type of game might spend an equal amount of time crafting interesting scenarios with creative victory conditions.

Eilif: Some interesting reading there, I was passingly familiar with Tomorrow's War, but not with the others; I shall enjoy browsing through in more detail at my leisure. I'm not really sure how applicable much of it really is to 40k, or indeed to most other modern commercial wargames, since (until 23rd June at least) 40k has always presented itself as a balanced tactical game, not a realistic (whatever that really means) simulation, nor as a story-driven game based around historical (or pseudo-historical) scenarios.

Fog-of-war rules are indeed realistic, unbalanced but thematic scenarios are indeed fun, but - with the possible exception of Rogue Trader, which was a convoluted mess of a game anyway - they are not what 40k has ever primarily been about. This is why - ignoring the clumsy implementation of its tacked-on narrative rules - such a significant number of us are so disappointed with 6th edition's abrupt change in direction.

The problem I think is the Word “Cinematic”, what is the first thing that came into your mind when you heard “Cinematic”. Mine was “Exiting and Dynamic”. How do you pull this off with a movie, you make it so the Hero is in a threatening situation that you are not sure how he was going to get out of. The element of uncertainty. How do you simulate this is “Game Play”? In D&D, you roll a Saving Throw or make a skill roll. They just desided rather than thousands of “Skill Rolls” or “Saving Throws”, we will make some actions on the battlefield or , just before the game starts Randomly to add that “Cinematic Feel” to the game.

Now I bet that if I locked each of you, those who like the direction the gent and those did not together in 10 small groups and told you to “MAKE ME A CYNEMATC VERSION OF WH40k”, in 6 months we would all have a different version of the game. All of them would have Cinematic version of the game and the other 9 would not believe each others were right.

That’s what happened here, nothing more, nothing less, that all. Games Workshop went into there little isolation booth and worked on the game. They did not ask for anyone’s opinion because that’s how they work. If you look at some of the threads out there the Positive Response is sitting near 70%+-, I call that a positive re4sponce to the game.

Look at D&D 4th Edition. They took 10s of thousand of Gamers from around the county and world and had them build the game. They let the community build it. I liked it, but most of my gaming friends, some who have been playing D&D since the 70s HATED it and some even, refuse to try it. The rift it caused destroyed my group and this is what the Fan Base Wanted.

This is solely my Personal Opinion:
So I don’t think ANYONE should have the right say it’s a bad game if YOU HAVE NOT PLAYED IT. Try it a few times; if you don’t like how it plays, then it’s your right to hate it, but not before. Personally I love it, even if I have lost a game because I failed a 3” Charge, that’s just the breaks.

English Assassin wrote:Eilif: Some interesting reading there, I was passingly familiar with Tomorrow's War, but not with the others; I shall enjoy browsing through in more detail at my leisure. I'm not really sure how applicable much of it really is to 40k, or indeed to most other modern commercial wargames, since (until 23rd June at least) 40k has always presented itself as a balanced tactical game, not a realistic (whatever that really means) simulation, nor as a story-driven game based around historical (or pseudo-historical) scenarios.

Fog-of-war rules are indeed realistic, unbalanced but thematic scenarios are indeed fun, but - with the possible exception of Rogue Trader, which was a convoluted mess of a game anyway - they are not what 40k has ever primarily been about. This is why - ignoring the clumsy implementation of its tacked-on narrative rules - such a significant number of us are so disappointed with 6th edition's abrupt change in direction.

Glad you found it interesting. You're right that it's not terribly applicable to 40k except to those players who want to diverge from the RAW and craft objectives and force-lists around scenarios. I just wanted to remind folks that WM, 40k, and WHFB only scratch the surface in terms of the way rules can be played, written and arragned. Folks who have only read those rules have only seen a fraction of the ways wargames can be played.

As you say, TW and 5150 and thier attributes aren't factor for players of the big 3 (40k, WHFB and WM) but there's a longstanding tradition of this type of game among historical players (longer than 40k has been in existence) and there has always been a sub-group even of fantasy and sci-fi players seeking this kind of gameplay.

This discussion has made me more interested in seeing 6th edition. As soon as the battleboxes come out I'll be finding a way to get a copy of the mini-book.

As someone who likes to have more control over my figs (compared to TW and 5150) but also wants more fog of war and scenario play, maybe it will be the edition that wins me back!

Plumbumbarum wrote:Since it's not easy to find logical arguments for some of 6th edition rules, the "whiners" thrown at people ctiticising them has to appear at some point. Beware though, cinematic brigade, there are a few special insults awaiting you if you follow that path. It may start as delicate "fanbois" through harder "GW apologist", "GW backlicker", "undercover GW marketing operative" to the worst of them all...

"You remind me of Citadel Finecast"

You forgot the "Loyalist GW Employees" that surf the area and promote the goodness of their Lord Kirby and his awesome edicts. I think it should they should be listed between Apologist and Backlicker.

Adam LongWalker wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:Since it's not easy to find logical arguments for some of 6th edition rules, the "whiners" thrown at people ctiticising them has to appear at some point. Beware though, cinematic brigade, there are a few special insults awaiting you if you follow that path. It may start as delicate "fanbois" through harder "GW apologist", "GW backlicker", "undercover GW marketing operative" to the worst of them all...

"You remind me of Citadel Finecast"

You forgot the "Loyalist GW Employees" that surf the area and promote the goodness of their Lord Kirby and his awesome edicts. I think it should they should be listed between Apologist and Backlicker.

It's not a nice accusation to make, but one does have to wonder about the little cadre of posters who love everything new GW produces, insist their prices are thoroughly reasonable, decry any discussion of the rules that doesn't lavish uncritical praise upon them, and have astonishingly never bought a Finecast miniature that was less than perfect. I can't find it now, but I'm sure I read a post earlier in which one of them insisted it was morally wrong to write your own rules... surely a statement which could be born only of either Azathoth-esque levels of insanity or brainwashed corporate loyalty.

It's the rule book recasters that you have to watch out for.
You can usually tell though, the ink rubs off pretty easily and the books usually way over 30 lbs.

Making the game more "cinematic" or story driven makes me want to play.

I have not played for about 10 years apart from an intro game about 6 months ago

English Assassin wrote:I can't find it now, but I'm sure I read a post earlier in which one of them insisted it was morally wrong to write your own rules... surely a statement which could be born only of either Azathoth-esque levels of insanity or brainwashed corporate loyalty.

The guy would probably gak a brick if he saw my Inquisimunda ruleset.

Anyway, on the subject of random elements in games, I suggest people check out these articles:

http://www.sirlin.net/articles/yomi-layer-3-knowing-the-mind-of-the-opponent.html
http://www.sirlin.net/articles/designing-yomi.html

Random elements in games can be good, when they're used to help enhance the mindgames (yomi) going on between players. Most of the new random elements in 6th edition do none of that. When you roll to make a charge, you're not making a decision and wagering risks on the movements and tactics of your opponent, but against some invisible dice gods. Essentially, you're not playing against the other player at that point, but the dice.
The same can be said of things like mysterious terrain and warlord traits, since there's no interplay between the actions of you and your opponent taken into account with these random elements. You just roll a dice and see the result.

You want to create a truly dynamic, involving, and 'cinematic' nailbiter of a game? Make players guess against each other, not against dice.

pitboy2710 wrote:Making the game more "cinematic" or story driven makes me want to play.

There's nothing you can't do now that you couldn't do before. Random charge distances didn't suddenly make the game cinematic where before it wasn't.

I once ran a small event with my friends where everyone was told to show up with the army they wanted to use. No points limits. No FOC. The only stipulations were:

1. You had to have a list (ie. written down what everything was).
2. Everything in that list had to have a model (ie. no taking 1000 Russes in your list but only having 2 models).
3. Every army had to have 2-4 'characters' that they could make up their own special rules for and points value, but had to have a background history that fit with the army and the scenario we were playing (a bunch of differnet groups coming together to retake a long-lost pre-heresy Forge World).

Just my personal preference. I'm not very competitive and the local gaming scene at the time i was playing was more geared to the win at all cost type of play.

I always liked having a narrative in games ( table top or video )

pitboy2710 wrote:Just my personal preference. I'm not very competitive and the local gaming scene at the time i was playing was more geared to the win at all cost type of play.

I always liked having a narrative in games ( table top or video )

And random charge distances suddenly infuses 40K with a level of cinematic glory that it somehow lacked beforehand?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0dAP8B_sLM

THIS is cinematic. THIS is akin to the chain of combos warmachine is known for that results in a win.

Rolling a whole bunch of dice is like the red shirt retards in the middle of the fight; no aim, just get in the thick of it and see what happens.

40k is not 'cinematic'.

I think I'll up the ante here be showing some real 'cinematic' gameplay, not a cinematic from a game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pS5peqApgUA

Keep in mind here, you don't need to know any of the circumstances, background story, or even the rules of the game itself (although if you do know, it makes it even more badass). There's no background narrative, no abstraction of gameplay elements to fit story or narrative ques.

But this is still the kind of thing that people tell stories about. Even today, this goes down as one of the most iconic moments in fighting game history. It has nothing to do with anyone trying to build a narrative, or force one into the game. The narrative tells itself.

What's more, and most importantly, is that there's not a single random element thrown in. Every move by each player is extremely carefully calculated and controlled. What's so exciting isn't about some forced story supposedly being made to unfold within the game, but the fact that what happens is entirely in control of the players.

H.B.M.C. wrote:You're getting no where. Maybe he'll respond better if you try phrasing your points using interpretive dance.

Oh gosh, you're so funny!



Although possibly not in the way you think you are...

Guys, if you want to play chess, go play chess.

Warhammer isnt like chess. It's more like poker.




..see? I can do metaphor and similie too.


*ducks*

Micky wrote:Guys, if you want to play chess, go play chess.

Warhammer isnt like chess. It's more like poker.




..see? I can do metaphor and similie too.


*ducks*

Despite its random elements, Poker has a very strong basis in "yomi" or mind-games.

With the way 40k 6th and Poker are designed, I'd hardly compare the two. 6th edition shows a strong move away from mindgames, while poker is about nothing more than mindgames.

Fafnir wrote:
Despite its random elements, Poker has a very strong basis in "yomi" or mind-games.

With the way 40k 6th and Poker are designed, I'd hardly compare the two. 6th edition shows a strong move away from mindgames, while poker is about nothing more than mindgames.

Yeah, this is true. Levity aside, I still think its a useful comparison - chess is purely a case of strategy versus strategy, whereas poker is a well known and well understood example of strategy that includes random chance.



Me, I think throwing random dice rolls into a game as a poor excuse for 'realism' isn't the way to go about creating realism. Having said that, I kinda enjoy the new rules and personally think that it was a good move in the long run.




One rule amendment I can think of that might work for everyone:
Declare charges and resolve overwatch. Then:
-If no unsaved wounds caused by overwatch, charge 6 + d6 (or how about In + d6?)
-If unsaved wounds were caused, charge 2d6

The biggest problem people are having is the 'faceplant' aspect of rolling double 1 on 2d6 - no-one seems to have a problem with rolling 11 or 12. So a little bit of a safety net there would probably resolve this for most people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
While I'm at it, I'll also just throw out that, as a seasoned RPG player, I'm kinda used to the idea of dice rolls determining the success or failure of virtually everything. So maybe thats why I'm more comfortable with some of this stuff.


I know it sounds crazy, but sometimes there really are times when the dice favour you, and times when they don't. The scientist in me scoffs, and insists that theres fixed chances of any result, but the gamer in me loves it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ANYWAY.

This isn't (supposed) to be a rules discussion. This is about cinematic gaming (and I'm not talking about GWs favourite new buzzword, or the meme that every failed dice roll means 'thats cinematic!'


The expanded rules (or shall I call them suggestions?) for terrain and battlefield effects given in the book are, in my opinion, quite a nice little benefit for the narritive gamer, as are the sample scenarios. These are all presented as random optional extras that you can use if you want to - and I do!

I've been wanting to build a gaming table for a while, and come up with some scenarios based on it. All these great new terrain rules and battlefield conditions can be woven into our own stories and projects, and used as the basis for our own scenario special rules.

So kudos for that. =)

Kaldor wrote:Although possibly not in the way you think you are...

Right backatcha big guy!

What is a narrative gamer? is that the grown up version of someone moving his green army men around saying 'i blew up all your guys!' to his buddy?

I'm probably gunna get yelled at dir this but what the heck. In regards to the comments about making perfect tactacal moves but still losing because if dice. I'm gunna quote captain Picard I one of the star trek episodes, he's talking to data by the way. " Its possible to make no mistakes and still lose, that's called life". I know I know game versus real life and all that but it still applys. I understand you don't like the rule and that is your right but it does seem that some of you are being exceptionally stubern on some points for the sake of an argument. You really can't come up with a reason for why the charge failed? It really is ok for you to say you just don't like the rule.

I can come up with tones of reasons why one would fail. Just because you have an awesome unit doesn't mean their in full control of the situation. Maybe the unit is suspesous of mines or booby traps or ambush. It really could be anything.

In all honesty I don't think it has anything to do with the fact the you can't find a reason and more with the fact that you choose not to look for one. Specifically so you can do eactly what your doing. Your misrepresenting the rules consept to give your self a transparent reason to not like the rule rather than just saying "hey, I don't like that".

Ps appoligize for the grammar/ spelling errors. Stupid iPhone makes me sound like an idiot

So presumably people objecting to the new random charge distances objected to the random charge distance in 5th for charging into/through cover?

The new rules makes charges into cover more likely. The only thing affected is the relatively rare charge against units in the open.

I understand wanting a greater degree of control over one's units (though that's entirely a matter of taste), I just don't see that in a practical gaming sense it's made things worse overall. You can now potentially charge more than 6" away (and with a good chance of success for Fleet units). You have a better chance of charging units in cover. And still a good lilelihood of charging the odd unit that exposes itself out of cover.

Blood and Slaughter wrote:So presumably people objecting to the new random charge distances objected to the random charge distance in 5th for charging into/through cover?

What? Don't draw false comparisons. There was an obvious logical reason for that random distance. You were moving through types of terrain that slowed you down, so the charge wasn't assumed. The problem with total rando-charge is that people can fail from 3" away across open ground. And besides, having a random element isn't the worst thing. It could be 6+D6" and it'd be fine. The reason why it's bad is because it's 2d6".

Sorry? You're saying 'an obvious logical reason'? Really? So you object to whatever is in 40K that is not 'logical'?

Gameplay-wise, not 'logic'-wise, how are you worse off overall?

charges into cover (easily the most common sort of charge in the game) are easier
charges are potentially longer, and quite easily so for Fleet units
only charges in the open have been restricted. And given you couldn't premeasure before, most folk will have made sure they were well withing 6" anyway to be sure. So really now you're talking about a small number of in-game charges that have been 'nerfed' (as I believe the kids say nowadays) compared to a much larger proportion that have been made possible/easier.

Random charging has boosted assault potential overall in real game situations. I can't see why the fuss over what's basically a minor reduction in the success of a few charges (honestly now, what proportion of your charges are against units in the open? 20%?)

Blood and Slaughter wrote:So presumably people objecting to the new random charge distances objected to the random charge distance in 5th for charging into/through cover?

The new rules makes charges into cover more likely. The only thing affected is the relatively rare charge against units in the open.

I understand wanting a greater degree of control over one's units (though that's entirely a matter of taste), I just don't see that in a practical gaming sense it's made things worse overall. You can now potentially charge more than 6" away (and with a good chance of success for Fleet units). You have a better chance of charging units in cover. And still a good lilelihood of charging the odd unit that exposes itself out of cover.

Not exactly. If it honestly is from what has been discussed, the last thing in the world your going to want to do is charge in, now. More then likely, unless your in around 6 inches to target, your going to come up short, based on % and your own decision to go for it.

Sucks to be a horde army, thats for sure.

As to your first point, thats not exactly why people are getting worried. 5th, at least you still had a fairly good rule set in there about the charge, and you have armies in there that were ready for the charge. NOW?

I'll leave it at lets see the final product before I decide for myself. If I were a player, though, I'd have some cover fire on hand, and stock up on Indirect stuff to cover the move, as well as a substantial increase in heavy weapons.

Depending on what you want to do with a charge, you can either then use it to sweep through remains of forces at that point, or use the chargers for a shield, for the followup force with the firepower, or the secondary charging unit.

Just my opinion.

Negator80 wrote:What is a narrative gamer? is that the grown up version of someone moving his green army men around saying 'i blew up all your guys!' to his buddy?

I see the whole randomness/ cinematic thing as a move towards suited for 4+ years old games. It's still far from that but the direction itself is bad., catering to younger audience. Same time there are elaborate army books, hundred pages of rules and point values, wtf GW. Either the 6th edition was written by people with conflicting visions or made purely to cover all bases comercialy, to be good for everyone so good for noone.

Micky wrote:The biggest problem people are having is the 'faceplant' aspect of rolling double 1 on 2d6 - no-one seems to have a problem with rolling 11 or 12. So a little bit of a safety net there would probably resolve this for most people.

Possibilty of terminators rolling 12 is just as bad.

Blood and Slaughter wrote:So presumably people objecting to the new random charge distances objected to the random charge distance in 5th for charging into/through cover?

In my case, yes, that should have been designed differently. Distandce cut in half, Initiative penalty, no bonus attacks, whatever, not my job. Anyway that at least reflected something and came out from opponent's decision to hug cover or stay on/ behind difficult terrain. 2d6 charge in the open is only reflecting some abstract "swirling battle full of explosions" coming out of the players back if needed as an excuse for a bad, senseless rule, imo.

Fafnir wrote:I think I'll up the ante here be showing some real 'cinematic' gameplay, not a cinematic from a game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pS5peqApgUA

I've seen that before, pretty damn amazing. I'm not much into the fighting game scene but you have to admit that was an impressive finish regardless.

IIRC he uploaded a video of how he did it too, showing himself tapping the stick perfectly in time to block each kick. He made it look so easy.

Eilif wrote:*snip*

So in other words I made a huge mistake getting into wargaming then, if I like playing games that are balanced or fair. Good to know...

no, maybe you made a mistake getting into this game instead of one like Infinity(i have heard that this is a good one balance wise.) I played one game of rouge trader when it first came out. My Zoats walked around the board and killed everything. Fair, balanced. Hmmm. I hear that 2nd ed was pretty unbalanced. 4th though 6th ed seem to have had some balance issues and i played LOTs of games of 4th and 5th.

Honestly there are tons of great chit games, wargames and other board games like OGRE that have great balance. If this game is getting you down, pick up a copy of one of the other games and then spend time playing something you enjoy.

 Sidstyler wrote:

Eilif wrote:*snip*

So in other words I made a huge mistake getting into wargaming then, if I like playing games that are balanced or fair. Good to know...

As it's been snipped, I'm not sure which quote of mine you're referring too. I don't believe I said anything of the sort. I did say there are a group of folks who don't worry much about balance or equity in their forces, but they aren't in the majority. Though you are right in point that by virtue of the sheer number of variables in a wargame they will never be perfectly balanced.

Perhaps you could point out which quote you were referring to and I'll try to clarify my position.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

pitboy2710 wrote:Making the game more "cinematic" or story driven makes me want to play.

There's nothing you can't do now that you couldn't do before. Random charge distances didn't suddenly make the game cinematic where before it wasn't.

True.

The thing is though that when the game officially supports and includes more elements of cinematic gameplay the people that are normally on the fence and unwilling to move off the well worn path are more willing to play this way.

I have focused on scenario and campaign play for years and peope that before would never play a custom scenario or house rules because it wasnt "in the rulebook" are now playing 6th and willing to accept concepts that they shunned before simply because they are in the rulebook now.

Also new people coming to the game start with a base experience of this type of gaming (and no old habits/prejudices)which is good for the continued existance of such an approach imho.

In this sense it is a good change...

Well fancy that!
Me and my gaming buddies have be re enacting our favorite cinematic battles for the last 28 years without any 'wacky fun randomness'.
Have we been doing it wrong for all those years?

Or is it simply the amount of cinamatic flow , narative drive or keen competativness is set by the players not the rules?

And well defined intuitive rules let the players use them in a wider spread of playstyles....

But , at poorly defined and contrived rule set has to lower the bar , and pretend 'more randomness = more fun' perhaps?

Does GW plc new 'cinematic' rules actualy mean ' too diffuse and over complicated to support anything but narrative games with heavy player patching'?

If cinematic = fast flowing and intuitive .Then 40k is not realy that cinematic is it?(Compardd to other rule sets .)

Or do you think cinematic means players should be forced to think up excuses for disjointed game play .... like Mr Kirby does.
(In the same way customers should fill in gaps correct miscasts in the 'superior' finecast range... )

Well said Lanrak. I don't really see the 6th edition rule set as being any more 'cinematic' or 'narrative' than 5th edition. What I do see is a game that gets bogged down with the new wound allocation system, so much so that many tournaments are already reducing the points levels of their events to make up for the extra time involved in playing the game.