I keep reading about people annoyed with random charge distances, random mission cards etc. I'm not sure I really understand the mentality. We are playing a game with a D6 system, the randomness if pretty well controlled. If you hate it, what about to hit values? To wound? To pass an armour save? Not much different. There are only so many variations of results with a D6 so adjust accordingly. If you have to charge a unit, you should know the probabilities of success and plan accordingly. Sure, you may roll snake-eyes, but how is that different from being 2" away from a huge Imperial knight and miss with your meltagun? If you pull up 10" away from a unit and expect to make the assault, well, nobody else to blame. The same can be said with the Mission cards (although I haven't seen them yet...how many are there, and are they all different?). You know what you have, what's been played and therefore what you can expect to come up during the game. No big deal.
Can someone explain to m why certain aspects of randomness bother them so much?
I usually play with FOW which has fixed movement distances etc, but I also don't mind the randomness of 40K.
Generally speaking, wargame players of all types accept a certain amount of randomness through using some combination of dice or other system to determine outcomes (cards, for example).
Therefore, things like shooting (generally, could be cleaned and simplified) are acceptable levels of random. They're predictable and you generally shoot enough of these weapons over the course of the game for the results to fall in the realm of statistical probability.
Bad randomness are things like random charts you roll on that have wildly variable effects that affect each player very differently. Warlord traits and psyker powers spring to mind. Why aren't these things just pick and play? At the very least makes them cost points and you buy them, ranging from budget options to strong ones that cost a lot. Randomly rolling 'Warlord gets Fear' for your Guard CCS while your opponent's Hive Tyrant rolls something that boosts CC ability is not anyone's idea of a good, fair time.
Further, the continued usage of 'D3 this', and 'D3 that' everywhere (seriously, rolling a random amount of VP for objective cards is just lazy) is not good randomness. Things like that should have predictable outcomes so that player actions feel like they mean something, rather than the outcome of a game decided on a select few key dice rolls.
The dice will always sway the direction of the game, but when its down to less than a dozen important rolls (how well your warlord trait is for your army, how many VP you rolled compared to your opponent, how many objectives you rolled and placed on your side) are not good for any game.
It isn't randomness, it is arbitrary randomness for no good reason.
For example.
If I have a squad of Tactical Marines, and in the movement phase, I ensure they are all within 7" of my target, I know, with utter certainty, that when the shooting phase occurs, I will be able to shoot.
Substitute those Tac Marines with an ASM squad looking to charge though...
Or,
My Warlord, who could be anything from a grizzled army veteran to a genetically engineered superhero to a supernatural being from another dimension, can, on one occasion, turn up to a fight somewhere that makes the forest moon of Endor look like a National Park, and know everything there is to know about sneaking through ruined buildings, and the next battle, in a bombed out Cityscape, forget completely everything he apparently knew.
Or
Your top wizard/psychic/mystic could potentially have everything in his locker to be instrumental to a crushing victory with minimal casualties, but decide to have a few beers with the lads the night before rather than learn his spells, and cram any old crap at the last minute.
Basically, random rolls to help determine uncertain outcomes are fine (to hit, to wound etc) and can be calculated, estimated and incorporated into your plan for the turn.
Other random rolls "just cause" take decisions out of the player's hands, therefore making their input into he game less important and the result less about skill and good play and more about luck.
Heres the thing - In a dice game, a certain amount of randomness is a given, and is a good thing in this sort of game for keeping things a little unpredictable. Rolling to hit creates a much more entertaining shooting round than just consulting a chart of average probabilities.
However, the more random elements you shove into the game, the less the game becomes about player skill and the more it just becomes about the luck of the draw. Winning becomes less about who was the better player, and more about who got better dice rolls, or who drew better cards.
I play a strategy wargame to match my skills against an opponents'. If I just wanted to play a random dice game, I could play Yahtzee instead.
There's also the fact that the randomness being injected into 40K is so poorly balanced. Warlord Traits, for example, are an awesome idea... but they all need to be around the same level of effectiveness to be fair. I should never find myself in a situation where my Wolf Lord is rolling up Counter Attack from the Trait table while my opponent gets something useful... Or (as happened to me at Adepticon this year) where I win a game because my opponent rolled badly on the Mysterious Terrain chart, while my guys got to tromp around through the peaceful garden...
Random needs to be confined to those parts of the game where it actually adds value instead of needless complication, and it needs to be implemented in a way that is fair to both players and doesn't skew the game,
You have two variants on one axis. There's no random, such as Chess, to complete random, such as chutes and ladders.
Games Workshop is billed a miniatures war game, one that relies on many levels of pregame strategy and in game tactics.
To have you pregame strategies invalidated by "random" events, meaning out of control of either player, is counter to what most war games are these days. To have your tactics suddenly invalidated by "random" events, such as the new mission cards, is counter to what most war games are these days.
We all accept a degree of variability in war games as the unknown has a flare to it. This variability in dice rolls, depending on the game, gives the opportunity to "forge narratives". I have watched many intense Infinity games that, which has a critical based dice mechanic with reaction elements, that have created more excitement and run with this level of random. The same goes with Warmachine, Malifaux, and Battletech.
Dice are generally used in games as a weighted average modifier. In other games, you have a set skill and you modify that skill with a dice roll and game circumstances that you can control. Something like charging in Warmachine is a known value of model speed + 3", halve any movement through terrain. Games Workshop enjoys making it set 2d6 for everyone with a straight -2 modifier no matter if you're going through a shrub or a forest. You can now also utterly fail a 1" charge, which was impossible in 6E.
Much of the "random" in this new edition is solely based upon random for random's sake. Things like the warp storm table can make or break a game and involves no strategy outside of taking Fateweaver. The mission cards can make a game stacked against each other as one person draws objectives they have no hope or means of achieving where as your opponent gets all the "perfect" ones and wins. Also, the bonus mission points are even random. You go out of your way to succeed the second tier on a mission card and you could still get just 1 victory point.
When these sort of variable exist that can undermine both strategy and tactics of a game, it's bad design. It's why the death stars of 6E, and the soon death stars/builds of 7E, are successful. They abuse the design flaws of the game that mitigate all random variables to a negligible percent. You can control going first. You can have nearly invulnerable units. You can do so many things to ensure that tactics are moot on your opponents part and that they are just simply going through the motions.
A good game this does not make. The random of 40k is random for "CYA" reasons versus actual balance.
Good random is things like dice and modifiers, maybe things like the mission type (I liked 2nd edition's mission cards). 40k doesn't have that, though. 40k has random for the sake of random: Random charge range (makes no sense, charges should honestly be like how they are in Warmahordes - movement + 3", you move that amount regardless of if you get into contact or not, maybe add some kind of leadership test if you're fired that can stop your movement), random charts that exist because certain designers (i.e. JJ) think that random charts spice things up, the Chaos boons that are basically the Deck of Many Things, random psyker powers and warlord traits (makes absolutely no sense) and the like. To compound this, the randomness is a poor substitute for actual balance with the rules, and clutter things up. 40ks randomness is seemingly to remove the application of strategy and tactics, which is the antithesis of how a wargame is meant to play.
I wouldn't have an issue with it if the randomness was entirely optional, with a disclaimer that said "For a more cinematic game, you can use these optional rules to add more randomness", which would be fine because sometimes the randomness can make things more cinematic. However, like most of what GW does they pick one way and just say "The game is meant to be done this way" even when that way should be a choice and not the default.
I'm honestly surprised they haven't reintroduced the random weapons/equipment charts from Rogue Trader, where instead of buying a squad with 10 bolters or whatever you rolled randomly to see what each guy had. Or random chaos warbands from Realm of Chaos. That's the kind of random the game doesn't need.
Simply put the difference is the amount of control the player has over the randomness. When rolling dice to hit/wound I've made a decision knowing the risk/rewards associated with that decision. A lot of the randomness that GW is throwing into the game now is beyond the control of the player.
The entirety of the Daemons codex is the best example of this. Wargear is no longer chosen but rolled for at the start of each game and the warp table is the worst example of this. Simply by playing a daemons army a random table is introduced that can destroy a players army through no fault of their own.
I'm also just going to copy a part of my post from ages ago about the daemons codex which covers my feelings on this issue.
A lot of people seem to be using the excuse that you shouldn't complain about randomness in a game based around dice rolling. This ofcourse ignores the fact that every other roll in a game I make is because on decisions I have made. I can increase or decrease my chance of success by the decisions I make while playing game. This warpstorm table I have no power over.
For me personally this warpstorm table and a lot of the other randomness in the daemons codex breaks a personal game design philosophy that a game should never take control of the game away from the player. If I lose/win a game I want it to be because I made the right/wrong decisions at the time not because I got lucky/unlucky on a random table that I have no control over. The CSM codex and their forced challenges is another example of taking control away from the played and I have seen many a player (and not beardy WAAC players before you say it) complain about things not going their way because they were forced to issue the challenge.
To add to that the siliness of warpstorm, I watched a game of SM Vs Daemons. After turn two the SM player was utterly demoralised and pretty much gave up because the warpstorm table killed their warlord. Through no fault of their own their warlord was killed, where was the risk Vs. reward in that scenario?
But that's all good right because a narative was forged.
Blacksails wrote:Generally speaking, wargame players of all types accept a certain amount of randomness.
I think accept is too harsh of a word. Wargammers outright embrace randomness. There are plenty of strategy games that don't have any randomness at all, which means if you're playing 40k, you have to really want a game where things could change drastically as the result of just a few die rolls, or else you'd go and play one of those games that doesn't include random elements. At least, instead of a game that involves hundreds of die rolls and randomness soaked through absolutely everything.
insaniak wrote:However, the more random elements you shove into the game, the less the game becomes about player skill and the more it just becomes about the luck of the draw. Winning becomes less about who was the better player, and more about who got better dice rolls, or who drew better cards.
I play a strategy wargame to match my skills against an opponents'. If I just wanted to play a random dice game, I could play Yahtzee instead.
Certainly, but this is 40k we're talking about here. It's nowhere near a strategy game that tests player skill.
And there's a third category between serious strategy game and completely random, and that is games where you play odds. Games like backgammon or blackjack or craps. Just because a game isn't a serious strategy game doesn't mean it instantly devolves to the level of candyland. But neither is removing a few bits of randomness from the game going to turn 40k into chess.
Anyways, the only thing that sort of annoys me about randomness is when it's randomness that's not going to make much of an impact on the game (like the old mysterious objectives. It didn't take long for us to just stop using them as they added time, but not content), or the randomness that doesn't seem to make very much sense. Random charge ranges, for example, aren't just bad because they unduly hurt a still-ultranerfed style, but because it really just doesn't make any sense. Especially in a world where you're always magically equally accurate with shooting a gun at any distance until it reaches a magic binary range. It's really the inconsistency of randomness that I find annoying here. I also agree that the warlord trait thing is annoying. You can get around that with special characters, but really it should be like the rest of everything - different warlord traits of different quality that you have to spend points on to get as an upgrade. Once again, the inconsistency paired with the seeming randomness of the randomness is what's annoying.
Thankfully there isn't TOO much of this in the game, and there are ways to get around most of it (like how you could just agree not to use mysterious objectives, or take special characters with set warlord traits, or just not run demons).
There's a difference between randomness in the form of statistics and probability, such as with shot accuracy or chance to wound, over randomness like objective cards that change the very goal of the game from turn to turn.
Things like charge distance are at least explained in the rulebook as we're only simulating war games and sometimes unexpected things occur that have your men decide charging is a bad idea. You're only playing the army commander and sometimes your troops won't listen to you. Tyranids know that feeling extremely well with all the mindless troops who literally disobey their commands according to the roll of the die. Heck, morale failure is another example of the fact that you are not in control of your units so much as giving them orders.
Those kinds of randomness are okay. There's valid reasons for their existence.
But now look at something like Psyker powers being randomly generated, Warlord powers being randomly generated, or even the very objective you are going after to win the game being randomly generated. Aren't these things your army would know ahead of time? Wouldn't your forces ensure they are sending appropriate troops and generals with suitable psyker support after a predetermined obstacle? Instead you play each game hoping that you roll or draw the very card/ability that you need for your army to function well.
Ailaros wrote: There are plenty of strategy games that don't have any randomness at all, which means if you're playing 40k, you have to really want a game where things could change drastically as the result of just a few die rolls, or else you'd go and play one of those games that doesn't include random elements. At least, instead of a game that involves hundreds of die rolls and randomness soaked through absolutely everything.
No, it means you really like the 40k universe and the decades of lore that have been developed for it.
Kyutaru wrote:Things like charge distance are at least explained in the rulebook as we're only simulating war games and sometimes unexpected things occur that have your men decide charging is a bad idea. You're only playing the army commander and sometimes your troops won't listen to you.
But why would this only apply to charging? Why not shooting? Why not have to take a leadership test for everything?
The game has a nice way of abstracting things, and then suddenly decides that for one small part realism demands randomness.
Yonan wrote:No, it means you really like the 40k universe and the decades of lore that have been developed for it.
Which you can enjoy without playing the game. If you're playing the game, though, it means you want to play the game. Why you would want to play a game that you don't like doesn't make sense.
Kyutaru wrote:Things like charge distance are at least explained in the rulebook as we're only simulating war games and sometimes unexpected things occur that have your men decide charging is a bad idea. You're only playing the army commander and sometimes your troops won't listen to you.
But why would this only apply to charging? Why not shooting? Why not have to take a leadership test for everything?
If you read the rulebook, it actually explains nicely why it applies to charging. Your troops are attempting to rush across a battlefield of live fire with enemies attempting to kill them just because you want them to close into melee and hack their opponents with swords. Sometimes there just isn't an opportunity for that in a battle as rushing out at the exact moment you want them to may result in complete slaughter or because an "event" occurred that made them think twice about charging. Heck, maybe a soldier's shoelaces were untied and he tripped and fell causing the charge to only be 2". Space Marines say never leave a man behind so they go back for the sucker. As for why that and not shooting? It's because you have to draw the line somewhere and start making decisions, regardless of how arbitrarily selected you think they might be. The game has evolved slowly over the last 7 editions, what made sense at the time might seem like random nonsense now.
We've been hearing Forge a Narrative enough times to be sick of it. What did you think it meant? Random stuff happens in war and things don't always go according to plan. The dice just simulates those events without expressly dictating what happened, leaving you to decide with your imagination. I've always thought the game does a decent job of simulating real events like buildings collapsing, tanks exploding, terrain hindering line of sight, even the "true" line of sight where we have to duck down and look through our model's eyes. Random charge ranges are just another part of that, factors that you can't always control interfering with your battle plans.
The problem with 40k's randomness is that it often falls into two categories:
1) Replacing player choices with random tables. Randomness is fine when it answers the question of "do I succeed or not", because the dice effectively act as an impartial third party to determine whether or not, say, your lascannon shot hit its target. But things like random warlord traits are completely different. You aren't resolving the outcome of an action, you'd deciding something that a better game would allow each player to choose. Whether it's based on your character concept for what your leader is good at or just your strategy for winning the game it's a decision with lots of potential options, not a pass/fail test.
2) Unpredictable randomness. Randomness is fine when you're rolling lots of dice and the outcome is fairly predictable. I know that my unit averages X bolter hits per turn, and while it can obviously roll more or less than X I can still make reasonable strategic plans based on getting around that number. But with something like the random objective cards there's no predictability. There's no average between "hold the objective your whole army is already camped on" and "destroy an enemy flyer when your opponent has no flyers in their army". Sometimes you get lucky, sometimes you get screwed, and there's no consistency to it. Random charge range also falls into this category. It's a standard 2D6 roll, but since the game often depends on a single charge roll it can easily feel like the dice are more of a factor than your strategy.
Ailaros wrote: There are plenty of strategy games that don't have any randomness at all, which means if you're playing 40k, you have to really want a game where things could change drastically as the result of just a few die rolls, or else you'd go and play one of those games that doesn't include random elements.
And, as we've pointed out before, you're deliberately ignoring the fact that people play 40k for reasons other than its rules. For example, I hate 40k's badly-designed random elements, but I still play it because I love the fluff and models.
Yonan wrote:No, it means you really like the 40k universe and the decades of lore that have been developed for it.
Which you can enjoy without playing the game. If you're playing the game, though, it means you want to play the game. Why you would want to play a game that you don't like doesn't make sense.
The only rules written for use in the setting we like are the rules we are stuck with from GW. We want to use our models in a game, ergo we have to use GWs rules. We can't play a game of 40k with Malifaux, Warmachine, Dropzone Commander etc. rules for a variety of reasons. When the options are play with bad rules in the awesome setting you love or don't play in the awesome setting you love, you'll put up with the bad rules - and bitch and moan about it on the internet and hope they get fixed.
Whilst I agree that rolling Warlord traits and Psychic powers is kinda annoying, I think those are relatively minor parts of the game. "Randomness" of 6th edition compared to previous ones is IMHO rather overblown: in the 5th edition, 80% or so of the charge distances were already rolled (because of difficult terrain). Also, 6th edition also removed some randomness, most notably Vehicle damage, which was extremely random in 5th edition and much more predictable in 6th & 7th.
my only issue with allowing people to choose their warlord traits and psyker powers is that the same ones would be used over and over again. It would be another way of gaming your army, finding every combo and trick in the book to give you the advantage. Granted, this may be what you want in a tourny style game but I actually like variety (I did a thread on random generation of units a few weeks ago). I find people will generally play the same thing over and over which gets a little stale. The game already has balance issues, adding points for warlord traits and psychic powers will only make this worse as GW will not take the time to playtest them correctly.
There is nothing stopping a TO (or a group of friends) establishing a system that allows a player to "buy" his warlord trait or psyker powers for x points.
I'm a casual gamer though so like the "forge a narrative" approach that GW currently adopts. I could see this as an issue for competitive players though but I feel the system has way too much imbalance as it stands already. No reason to add more.
I find randomness to be a very tricky subject to make my mind up on. On one hand some level of randomness is needed to actually make 40k (and most other wargames) work as a game but too much and the players have too little impact on the way the game plays. I will note at this point that my thoughts are based on 6th edition and not 7th as I don't have the new rule book yet.
The shooting phase is as previously noted for the most part an example of good randomness. It uses simple probability to determine most things. Rolling to hit using the Ballistic Skill of a unit is an incredibly easy to learn system that make a lot of sense. Wounding on the other hand is a bit clunky in my opinion. Whilst it's easy enough to learn the wounding chart and how it works it can be a confusing thing for a new player to get to grips with initially. However that's really more down to presentation than it is any inherent problem with the rules.
The current charging rules I would also agree are an example of bad randomness. To me it looks to simply be a case of lazy game design. Whoever came up with that rule must have looked at the way charging works in WHFB (Movement + 2d6") and simply ported it over by allowing a unit that wants to charge to move as usual in the movement phase and simply dropping the movement value from the charge distance in the assault phase. This is not good game design as it take a relatively predicable system and makes it considerably less so. Yes rolling 2d6 does produce a bell curve where 6-8" is the most common range of results but it's still a very random system. Personally I'm not really sure how to fix the charging rules as it's fairly obvious that GW wanted to introduce a possibility of failure to it which is no bad thing. There are countless example of failed (and massively successful) charges in history so the game allowing for that is in my mind a good thing.
Perhaps a return to the old fixed charge range but with a leadership test being required to make the charge might work. For most armies it would represent the braver units being more willing to get stuck in. Obviously some armies like Daemons and Tyranids or some individual units like Death Company and Khorne Berserkers would have no hesitation in charging into combat but all that needs is a single special rule that makes then automatically pass the leadership test. This system would definitely work but how well it would work in the context of the current 40k rules I'm not sure.
Another example of bad randomness is the mysterious objectives and terrain system (I'm assuming they're still in 7th), it doesn't make the game more cinematic or exciting it just slows things down under another layer of special rules. Still this is at least something that can be ignored easily (which is what I do). Psychic powers and warlord traits are again an example of bad randomness ideally they should be purchased from an armies points allowance but as others have noted this will simply result in a certain breed of player figuring out which choices are best and spamming them as much as possible. Plus knowing GW the points cost attached to them with have absolutely no bearing on how effective they are.
However all of this pales into insignificance next to the randomness of Daemon armies. Whilst I don't play Daemons in 40k I do play have a sizeable army of them in WHFB. Playing Daemons can be an exercise in futility when you don't get any of the gifts and spells that you want at the start of the game and then during the game itself the realm of comedy chart can continue to make things worse. Equally it's possible to have magnificent highs as a result of the various random systems. Getting a free unit of basic daemons or a boost to the standard 5+ ward save at just the right time can be a huge boost to a flagging army. I completely understand why GW took the direction they did with the current Daemon rules in both systems as they are obviously trying to show how changeable and downright odd a daemonic invasion is. However I do think they went a little bit too far with the randomness. How to fix it I have no idea whatsoever although I will say that 9 times out of 10 I've enjoyed playing with my Daemons simply because every game has been different.
Ultimately I think the problem with randomness is that there is simply too much of it at the moment. I suspect this is due to GW wanting to produce a more narrative game but the way they are going about it is somewhat ham fisted. In my opinion a better system would be to produce a good set of balanced core rules that are easy to learn and quick to play. Along side that there should be some optional extra rules for playing both individual narrative games and whole campaigns. This is where you could add varying objectives, weird terrain, basic roleplaying elements or even rules to have a games master. This would allow both tournament and narrative style games without getting the two muddied up. However that would probably require a 3rd edition style total reboot and I seriously doubt that GW would risk something like that again.
Sorry for the wall of text but those are my thoughts on the current situation.
I'll give an example of bad random in 7th. Last night I was playing against demons . He started his first turn was to summon 4 units of horrors on objectives, he played the psyker VP card, the domination and another one that gave him VP for killing 2 of my units units . This gave him 3 objectives controled +3 from the psyker and 3 for domination . I on the other hand had the psyker card , which I couldn't use for he was stoping all of my casting , the destroy through assault card and the challange card. I discarded the assault card and got the take and hold one .0 bonus VP for me , I killed a unit of horrors , a unit of flesh hounds tried to kill a ++2 kairos. On his next turn he charged my line played the challange card, played the kill in assault card and another one that gave extra points for holding objectives . We didn;t know ,what happens if I he calls challanges and If I can play my challange VP card too. We rolled it and I didn't. At the end of turn 2 the game was already at 11vps vs 0 and my infentry being locked in melee.
We played another game and while he never did get an awesome turn 1 like that, he was always better with the extra VPs , just because his army could use all the VP cards and my could only use a few and a more then a few of them are very win more . Like the domination.
If you read Jervis Jhonsons articles in White Dwarf he is constantly droning on about his passion for random charts. I expect that is due to his complete lack of imagination. Overtly random win results which has no basis in any type of skill or tactic do not make a fun game for anyone with half a brain. Jervis Jhonson doesn't have half a bran, it's why he loves his chart/card wins so much.
For example, Saturday I watched a game between an 11 year old and the store manager at the shop I was at. It was an instructional game, both players had their cards face up. The 11 year old won the game turn six by drawing cards. The manager said, "Hey looks like you won!" The 11 year old never even cracked a smile. He read the cards, tried to figure why he won, thanked the manager for the game and packed up his stuff. There is no sense of accomplishment with these types of lazy wins. You have to have the mentality of someone who enjoys winning a skillful game of shoots and ladders to enjoy these types of game mechanics. Shoots and ladders is for ages 3 and up. I'm not sure Jervis Jhonson has the mentality to qualify for the game.
Until Jervis goes away GW games will continue to devolve into games similar to Candy Land.
Maybe part of the problem of bad random is the obvious disparity between good and bad results, and no average outcome around which you can plan. It's only made worse by how significant for victory this type of bad random can be.
I like some of the random elements - others less so.
I really like random charge distance - lots of games we have had at the club have had fun moments on both sides when you have or have not made it. we all know that about 7" is normal , fleet skewing this - I much prefer it to the warmachine version (with its silly can't premeasure but you can sorta) or earlier editions.
I don't think random Warlord tables is a good idea - unless its like the Psyker and you have a default choice........
Things like mysterious objectives / terrain - well I don't know anyone who uses them without agreeing first...............
The purpose of randomness in wargames is to adjudicate variable factors, such as whether a shot hits or your charge comes short due to an unexpected obstacle or morale failure.
I would argue that random objectives that change during the game and give more advantage to one type of army or a different one, make the game more like Snakes and Ladders.
Blacksails wrote:Generally speaking, wargame players of all types accept a certain amount of randomness.
I think accept is too harsh of a word. Wargammers outright embrace randomness.
Speaking as a wargamer who doesn't, in a thread full of people complaining about excess randomness in the game, I'd say that statement is refuted empirically. Let's discard it as not an argument.
Ailaros wrote:
Yonan wrote:No, it means you really like the 40k universe and the decades of lore that have been developed for it.
Which you can enjoy without playing the game. If you're playing the game, though, it means you want to play the game. Why you would want to play a game that you don't like doesn't make sense.
Again, flawed understanding. It doesn't "make sense" to you because you do not see what people are actually arguing. Which is odd because it's pretty clear - we want the game to be different than it is. Saying "why play it if you don't like it" is (a) simplistic - there's a lot we do like about the game and (b) in no way an actual counter to what people are saying, which is that they want it to be a game they do like.
It also contains an implicit assumption that if the game is not what people like, they should leave rather than the game change. Given that the desired changes for the most part would have no negative impact on anyone else, and given that we want this community to thrive, the smart thing to do is change the game.
As shown many a time, improving the game for competitive players also improves it for those that don't care.
It seems to me sometimes, that GW designers only want the game to be a ride they are taken on, not anything they steer. And that's the generous interpretation. The less generous is to think that a message comes down from the high tower saying: "make people buy lots and lots of deamons" and the game designers jump. I like to believe in the former just for the sake of benefit of the doubt. But you do wonder...
God In Action wrote: Maybe part of the problem of bad random is the obvious disparity between good and bad results, and no average outcome around which you can plan. It's only made worse by how significant for victory this type of bad random can be.
This is part of the problem. Looking at the new mission cards for example, some of the bonuses are D3 Victory Points. Assuming both players achieve the same goal for the card, they both get to roll. One rolls a '6', the other a '1'. This is bad random along the lines that you posted. To make matters worse, this particular random facet is nestled one layer deep in another random facet that also has no average or predictable outcomes.
Its like Inception, but with none of the cool video effects.
Mr Morden wrote: I like some of the random elements - others less so.
I really like random charge distance - lots of games we have had at the club have had fun moments on both sides when you have or have not made it. we all know that about 7" is normal , fleet skewing this - I much prefer it to the warmachine version (with its silly can't premeasure but you can sorta) or earlier editions.
I don't think random Warlord tables is a good idea - unless its like the Psyker and you have a default choice........
Things like mysterious objectives / terrain - well I don't know anyone who uses them without agreeing first...............
Random charge ranges take tactical decisions away from the players and as such is one of the worst random elements of the game. Its basically the same as if every shooting unit in the game had to roll a die before shooting and on a 3- they couldn't shoot...
You are referring specifically to 40k here, right? Because you just said its a spectrum, which implies that there is a middle ground in between. Like many other games.
But why would this only apply to charging? Why not shooting? Why not have to take a leadership test for everything?
The game has a nice way of abstracting things, and then suddenly decides that for one small part realism demands randomness.
Actually, I grok random charge. They allowed premeasuring, which meant you could be absolutely sure of moving your models to juuuuust outside charge range, should it have been a set value as it had been, and maximising your shooting. By randomising, that 'juuuust outside' becomes a lot further and to get the benefit of most guns requires you it come close enough to risk a charge reaching you.
Without premeasuring, you'd be guessing at how close you got anyway, and a random charge would be unnecessary. You'd be rising a charge if you guessed wrong.
But why would this only apply to charging? Why not shooting? Why not have to take a leadership test for everything?
The game has a nice way of abstracting things, and then suddenly decides that for one small part realism demands randomness.
Actually, I grok random charge. They allowed premeasuring, which meant you could be absolutely sure of moving your models to juuuuust outside charge range, should it have been a set value as it had been, and maximising your shooting. By randomising, that 'juuuust outside' becomes a lot further and to get the benefit of most guns requires you it come close enough to risk a charge reaching you.
Without premeasuring, you'd be guessing at how close you got anyway, and a random charge would be unnecessary. You'd be rising a charge if you guessed wrong.
The way to fix that is make a rule like WM/H has where you need to be at least 3" away to get the benefits of a charge (so in 40k terms you could still assault from closer, but wouldn't get the bonus attacks or whatever special "During a charge..." ability), and have moving to assault still move you forward regardless of if it succeeds or not.
Mr Morden wrote: I like some of the random elements - others less so.
I really like random charge distance - lots of games we have had at the club have had fun moments on both sides when you have or have not made it. we all know that about 7" is normal , fleet skewing this - I much prefer it to the warmachine version (with its silly can't premeasure but you can sorta) or earlier editions.
I don't think random Warlord tables is a good idea - unless its like the Psyker and you have a default choice........
Things like mysterious objectives / terrain - well I don't know anyone who uses them without agreeing first...............
Random charge ranges take tactical decisions away from the players and as such is one of the worst random elements of the game. Its basically the same as if every shooting unit in the game had to roll a die before shooting and on a 3- they couldn't shoot...
No it doesn't - you have both a maximum potential charge distance and a likely charge distance and you then make an informed choice as to what you are going to do - simples................
Set distance was always horrible as people edge towards each other - or cheat, sorry I mean skilfully estimate the distance between them (using various methods)
Take the tactical warlord trait number 1, you can discard 2 objective cards instead of 1. That is so grossly overpowered compared to the other results on the same table. It doubles your chance each turn of getting an objective you can actually use. You have no control over this beyond rolling on that table.
Mr Morden wrote: I like some of the random elements - others less so.
I really like random charge distance - lots of games we have had at the club have had fun moments on both sides when you have or have not made it. we all know that about 7" is normal , fleet skewing this - I much prefer it to the warmachine version (with its silly can't premeasure but you can sorta) or earlier editions.
I don't think random Warlord tables is a good idea - unless its like the Psyker and you have a default choice........
Things like mysterious objectives / terrain - well I don't know anyone who uses them without agreeing first...............
Random charge ranges take tactical decisions away from the players and as such is one of the worst random elements of the game. Its basically the same as if every shooting unit in the game had to roll a die before shooting and on a 3- they couldn't shoot...
No it doesn't - you have both a maximum potential charge distance and a likely charge distance and you then make an informed choice as to what you are going to do - simples................
Set distance was always horrible as people edge towards each other - or cheat, sorry I mean skilfully estimate the distance between them (using various methods)
You can't 'make an informed choice' when what information you have is based on a random number generator, that is the actual opposite of what 'informed choice' means.
Having fixed distances is the standard in the vast majority of miniature wargames because it promotes tactical thinking and positioning. The only reason why GW abandoned it was because they wanted to make their games more friendly to younger players that don't have that tactical reasoning yet but by doing so only managed to alienate a large proportion of their player base that doesn't wan't to rely on rolling dice to win their games for them.
But I forgot, these are the best editions of both games EVAR! Its really weird how the player base keeps leaving the systems despite it though...
In many historical wargames your chance of getting a charge is based on morale factors, some of which are random. Even if the actual distance is fixed, you don't automatically charge.
40K simply reverses this situation. Any unit will always charge any enemy, but they may not move far enough to contact.
You can make an informed choice on whether to attempt a charge because you know the probability of the dice that govern your charge distance.
It's a spectrum. People hate things being too sure and being too random. They can't accept that it's pretty much one or the other.
The way it works is this. People like to be able to strategize and feel that their actions are informed. Gauging your chances of success is one of the components of that and so people like it. No randomness at all, and that element of the game is removed - it becomes chess. Pure strategy with no probabilities, only mechanical input and output.
Too much randomness, or the sort that is imposed on the player rather than resulting from their choices, also results in no probabilities, only chaos.
In short - playing the game so that the odds are in your favour as a result of your strategy and tactics = good. Simply having random things happen or your goals suddenly change drastically from turn to turn = bad.
Indeed, random and abrupt shifting of goals actually reduces unpredictability in a way. Because it determines what players will do in a much more immediate way. The card says you have to kill two enemy units now? The player suddenly needs to do that to maximise their VPs. That's not playing a game, that's just press the button when it flashes.
I played chess a lot, but not so much now. The lack of randomness eventually bored me. Things are always the same, or similar, in every game, and I like to be surprised and forced to adapt. I prefer a game with random elements.
That doesn´t mean 'the more random the better'. There should be tactics and decision making too. There should be a balance between luck and skill.
40k had a good mix for me. Then 6th pushed it too far and 7th is even worse in this regard. There are far too many rolls, far too many random elements and far too many random charts, and some of them are far too important, like picking a card and suddenly finding out you won. It reaches a point were decision making is not nedeed: you just move your units ahead and wait for the gods of fortune to decide who wins. There is no reason to care.
And then you have the 'Break the Narrative' randomness. Your Psykers do not know what are they able to do, and your warlord is particularly good at something, but this something changes from batlle to battle. It is rather silly.... and I think it is an excuse for not being willing to dedicate some effort to balance out the warlord traits, the psyker powers and other stuff.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
knas ser wrote: (...)
Indeed, random and abrupt shifting of goals actually reduces unpredictability in a way. Because it determines what players will do in a much more immediate way. The card says you have to kill two enemy units now? The player suddenly needs to do that to maximise their VPs. That's not playing a game, that's just press the button when it flashes.
^This.
I am not a fan of random sudden goals constantly shifting.
Mr Morden wrote: I like some of the random elements - others less so.
I really like random charge distance - lots of games we have had at the club have had fun moments on both sides when you have or have not made it. we all know that about 7" is normal , fleet skewing this - I much prefer it to the warmachine version (with its silly can't premeasure but you can sorta) or earlier editions.
I don't think random Warlord tables is a good idea - unless its like the Psyker and you have a default choice........
Things like mysterious objectives / terrain - well I don't know anyone who uses them without agreeing first...............
Random charge ranges take tactical decisions away from the players and as such is one of the worst random elements of the game. Its basically the same as if every shooting unit in the game had to roll a die before shooting and on a 3- they couldn't shoot...
No it doesn't - you have both a maximum potential charge distance and a likely charge distance and you then make an informed choice as to what you are going to do - simples................
Set distance was always horrible as people edge towards each other - or cheat, sorry I mean skilfully estimate the distance between them (using various methods)
You can't 'make an informed choice' when what information you have is based on a random number generator, that is the actual opposite of what 'informed choice' means.
Having fixed distances is the standard in the vast majority of miniature wargames because it promotes tactical thinking and positioning. The only reason why GW abandoned it was because they wanted to make their games more friendly to younger players that don't have that tactical reasoning yet but by doing so only managed to alienate a large proportion of their player base that doesn't wan't to rely on rolling dice to win their games for them.
But I forgot, these are the best editions of both games EVAR! Its really weird how the player base keeps leaving the systems despite it though...
I have not said "its the best system ever", indeed the opposite on a number of threads - I just don't think random charge is a bad thing and fixed charge is..
If you can't make an informed choice based on simple probability then that's a shame - indeed its more complicated and tactical than simply saying I can always charge X distance. Working out the probability of being able to complete something and making an informed choice based on that is actually something that would be educational for younger people and apparently some older gamers.
As I said the fixed distance, coupled with "no pre-measuring" promotes cheating - Oh I am sorry its a specific skill - always has done.................
Err if you not rolling dice to win games then its a bit odd - now granted your preference maybe for a more chess like and ultra predictable game and that's all good............
Mr Morden wrote: I like some of the random elements - others less so.
I really like random charge distance - lots of games we have had at the club have had fun moments on both sides when you have or have not made it. we all know that about 7" is normal , fleet skewing this - I much prefer it to the warmachine version (with its silly can't premeasure but you can sorta) or earlier editions.
I don't think random Warlord tables is a good idea - unless its like the Psyker and you have a default choice........
Things like mysterious objectives / terrain - well I don't know anyone who uses them without agreeing first...............
Random charge ranges take tactical decisions away from the players and as such is one of the worst random elements of the game. Its basically the same as if every shooting unit in the game had to roll a die before shooting and on a 3- they couldn't shoot...
No it doesn't - you have both a maximum potential charge distance and a likely charge distance and you then make an informed choice as to what you are going to do - simples................
Set distance was always horrible as people edge towards each other - or cheat, sorry I mean skilfully estimate the distance between them (using various methods)
You can't 'make an informed choice' when what information you have is based on a random number generator, that is the actual opposite of what 'informed choice' means.
Having fixed distances is the standard in the vast majority of miniature wargames because it promotes tactical thinking and positioning. The only reason why GW abandoned it was because they wanted to make their games more friendly to younger players that don't have that tactical reasoning yet but by doing so only managed to alienate a large proportion of their player base that doesn't wan't to rely on rolling dice to win their games for them.
But I forgot, these are the best editions of both games EVAR! Its really weird how the player base keeps leaving the systems despite it though...
I have not said "its the best system ever", indeed the opposite on a number of threads - I just don't think random charge is a bad thing and fixed charge is..
If you can't make an informed choice based on simple probability then that's a shame - indeed its more complicated and tactical than simply saying I can always charge X distance. Working out the probability of being able to complete something and making an informed choice based on that is actually something that would be educational for younger people and apparently some older gamers.
As I said the fixed distance, coupled with "no pre-measuring" promotes cheating - Oh I am sorry its a specific skill - always has done.................
Err if you not rolling dice to win games then its a bit odd - now granted your preference maybe for a more chess like and ultra predictable game and that's all good............
You can make whatever choice you wan't based on probability, it still can fail due to the dice rolls and that probability calculation that you've just made availed to the exact same thing as the 12 year old that just rolled the dice and got the 6's that he needed. Also I don't understand how you are patting yourself in the back so much for making simple probability calculation, you only have to make it once during your entire lifetime since the probability result of the charge dice roll will never change. You don't even need to make the calculation, you can just see the number online (I'll save you the trouble, that number is 7), after that it will all boil down to the random number generator and nothing that the player can do will change that...
And I'm again amazed at the capacity of GW players to insult their fellow GW player base, so now fixed charges and no pre-measurement promoted cheating in 40k and WHFB? Funny how other game systems have no such issues.
Are you seriously saying you never say people cheating with set movement cos I did all the time........ It was all over the debate about pre-measuring how its a "skill" to be able to "guess" the range - and then you would see people using all sorts of methods - from knowing the sizes of game boards to putting their hands down on the table etc etc...........seen it way too often in too many locations in many games.
I have also seen it in Warmachine / Hordes - indeed the whole system promotes it with the "measure your focus distance at any time but you can't premeasure" nonsense
Seen it other games..............as well.
As to you other point - right so you can easily predict the likely outcome of the dice roll but you can't make an informed choice based on that - instead you have to rely on a fixed figure? Makes no sense.
Obviously it can fail on the dice roll - that's the point!!! Its a game where you make choices, roll the dice and see what happens unless you think everything should be completely predictable - but that's Chess?
Same as shooting - oh that unit is in cover and this one is not - well you make a choice about if it will make a save and roll the dice - same thing.
Kyutaru wrote:Things like charge distance are at least explained in the rulebook as we're only simulating war games and sometimes unexpected things occur that have your men decide charging is a bad idea. You're only playing the army commander and sometimes your troops won't listen to you.
But why would this only apply to charging? Why not shooting? Why not have to take a leadership test for everything?
If you read the rulebook, it actually explains nicely why it applies to charging. Your troops are attempting to rush across a battlefield of live fire with enemies attempting to kill them just because you want them to close into melee and hack their opponents with swords. Sometimes there just isn't an opportunity for that in a battle as rushing out at the exact moment you want them to may result in complete slaughter or because an "event" occurred that made them think twice about charging. Heck, maybe a soldier's shoelaces were untied and he tripped and fell causing the charge to only be 2". Space Marines say never leave a man behind so they go back for the sucker. As for why that and not shooting? It's because you have to draw the line somewhere and start making decisions, regardless of how arbitrarily selected you think they might be. The game has evolved slowly over the last 7 editions, what made sense at the time might seem like random nonsense now.
We've been hearing Forge a Narrative enough times to be sick of it. What did you think it meant? Random stuff happens in war and things don't always go according to plan. The dice just simulates those events without expressly dictating what happened, leaving you to decide with your imagination. I've always thought the game does a decent job of simulating real events like buildings collapsing, tanks exploding, terrain hindering line of sight, even the "true" line of sight where we have to duck down and look through our model's eyes. Random charge ranges are just another part of that, factors that you can't always control interfering with your battle plans.
Then why do shots always fail past their range? Why is it I can fail a 2" charge with my bloody Daemonettes and bloodletters yet my Terminators might make a 12" jog? It's stupid and we all know it. Along with that, it should move you that far as well
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bullyboy wrote: my only issue with allowing people to choose their warlord traits and psyker powers is that the same ones would be used over and over again. It would be another way of gaming your army, finding every combo and trick in the book to give you the advantage. Granted, this may be what you want in a tourny style game but I actually like variety (I did a thread on random generation of units a few weeks ago). I find people will generally play the same thing over and over which gets a little stale. The game already has balance issues, adding points for warlord traits and psychic powers will only make this worse as GW will not take the time to playtest them correctly.
There is nothing stopping a TO (or a group of friends) establishing a system that allows a player to "buy" his warlord trait or psyker powers for x points.
I'm a casual gamer though so like the "forge a narrative" approach that GW currently adopts. I could see this as an issue for competitive players though but I feel the system has way too much imbalance as it stands already. No reason to add more.
How is this any different than picking a melta gun or anything of the sort? Besides, it'd also permit players to "FORGE A NARRATIVE" where I could pick spells that fit the army and character as well as have a warlord that has what my fluff says he is good at.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: You can make certain your charges reach by only launching them from the minimum possible distance. You can't plan what objective cards to draw.
Actually you can't. If you charge through cover it's -2. You can now fail a .5 inch charge
Overall, a bit of randomness is a good thing. There's nothing bad with it here and there! Shooting randomness is example of good randomness. Then you have the others. Random charge meaning you are relying heavily on luck on a value that doesn't occur as frequently as shooting meaning that it's far more random and even at .5 inches it is possible to fail it now. It also doesn't make sense why they always retreat back to where they originally stood and you can have super agile beasts of war rolling a 2 and terminators rolling a 12". Add to that few are willing to take those high rolls as the risks can be costly and waste a chance to run. Then there's the narrative destroying Warlord Trait and spells problem that makes no sense especially when you are "Forging a Narrative". Then there's random tactical objectives. Problem is that they are imbalanced. Some armies don't have psykers, some suck at assault, some should never try to challenge, and others still aren't as fast. Add to that, some objectives still give you random points so two people achieving the same objective might get different points and a single d3 is a very random thing with 3 objective points gained being huge. Random mysterious terrain exists as well mind you.
Now then, time for some armies.
CSM. The Helbrute suffers from randomness. When it gets hurt, it goes on a frenzy but you don't know what it might do. It might try to spam shooting standing still aiming at the nearest target despite having no guns or it might blitz charge the closest unit despite you making it more of a gun platform. It's random and takes agency away. Champions of Chaos forces you to declare challenges to then fight one another. If your character lives, they roll on a massive random table that might give them no benefits, turn them into a spawn (which can give an extra kill point and is forced out of the assault), get a random ability that is useful, get a worthless ability (nice +1 BS for my bolt pistol or better yet no gun), or become a prince. Leap for joy! Until you realize it's a 4W T5 MC with only a 5++ save that's going to possibly hand out a killpoint and spawns outside of the unit. It's random for the sake of random. Possessed have bad rolls that randomly make them good at a job they might not need to be good at combined with their sucky movement makes them worthless.
And... the most notorious of all... Chaos Daemons. There is a reason people often just default for standard items. It's because everything else is random. Want a lesser power? D6. Want a greater power? D6. Want an exalted? Well have no fears on a roll of 1 you get one free lesser and a bonus exalted power! Everything is random. Literally everything. Some abilities are even redundant where you might pay for a DP to have 3+ armour only to roll on the greater and get 3+ armour. Add to that, it makes it so you can't really kit out your chaos daemon with a theme. But wait there's more! The warpstorm table. Random d6 on the enemy so they might get hurt, d6 on opposing gods, roll a 3d6ld on an hq and take the failed as wounds, roll 2d6 for all units and that many die, spawn extra daemons, +1 invuln, -1 invuln, if they have a psyker it takes a 3d6ld and if it fails place a herald in its stead. There is so much randomness it's not even funny.
Finally, randomness for the sake of randomness is lazy. It means, above all else, the developers don't have to fix it. They can say it's balanced because it's random and s they mix in broken and worthless spells with no playtesting. But it's not. It just means that you can get god tier combos or worthless units at random.
Random charge ranges have some validity in 40k to avoid everyone hanging out at 12.1 inches. The problem is that having a spread of 2-12 inches is unacceptably variable. Trying to charge a unit 6 inches away has a 27% chance of failure, which results in assault being too weak against 100% reliable shooting. Replacing the 2d6 with a 1d3+5 provides the same average, but is now doesn't have a have chance of failure for reasonable charges while still preventing 12.1 syndrome.
Warlord Traits and psychic powers have no excuse for being random. Too many abilities only work if your list is built to effectively be able to utilize them, but nobody can afford to build there list around a trait you can't rely on getting. Re-rolling reserves is a great ability, but useless as a warlord trait and psychic power because any list with enough flyers/deepstrikers to value it can't afford to bet their list on a 1d6 and takes a 100% reliable comms relay instead.
Its even worse that the random powers are a failed attempt to hide how incredibly unbalanced they are. Invisibility is an absurd power and being random hardly fixes the problem, it simply means that Belakor, Sevrin Loth and psyker spam armies have an even bigger advantage over the guy who just takes a vanilla Librarian.
The bottom line is that if you complain that picking powers/traits would result in everyone taking the same abilities, that means you need to balance them, not futilely attempt to hide them behind RNG.
There's a line where increasing the degree of randomness only hurts the game and makes it less fun for all involved.
This line is several kilometres behind 40k as it speeds away from it.
As for random charge distance, I think If we're gonna keep it it's only fair to enforce random shooting distance as well.
Mr Morden wrote: Yes you can fail charges, fleet also changes the odds......
you can fail to hit with a BS10 model from 1" away
You can miss a WS1 figure with a WS 10 figure
its a game with dice in...................
agree that the warlord traits is not right at the moment,
It's not even that. To be frank I just wish it was a tad more consistent. Terminators get a lower assault charge, Daemonettes get a higher one, Bloodletters get a nasty charge range, orks get a decent charge range but can buff it with a waagh. For example, 4+d3 or even 4+d6 on one unit another having a 3+d3/6, and another with a higher score. It's random enough you might fail but also gives some reliability so you won't fail a 0.5" charge. Also I'd love if you had to move that distance. It helps assault armies get closer but it also gives a way to say OH MAN these guys are right in front of us everybody fire! Just toss out overwatch and you have a slightly more logical one and they won't even get a cover save probably. And fleet doesn't help all assault armies either. Look for much of Khorne to see how many don't have it. And yes a BS10 model can fail a shot but it's unlikely with a 2+/2+ roll. And missing with a WS10 isn't that surprising considering you can only hit at best on a 3+ for whatever reason. Even then you are statistically likely. Even if its a game of dice, there should be some consistency lest we also make guns have 3d6 range to show the randomness of war and more continuing to bloat a mess. A bit of variation is good but utter randomness for the sake of randomness is bad.
Yeah, I mean I like the re-roll exists now if you go battleforged but it's still more of a bandaid than anything else.
The worst part of rolling random distance on a charge is that when failed the unit doesn't move at all.
If the unit was allowed to move the distance they rolled or even half the distance they would at least have something to show for making the decision to attempt an assault instead of shooting. It is a single roll that negates all of the attack rolls that is the problem, just like the other excellent examples given so far.
Warlord would be better if it had more focused categories like shooting or assaulting categories so Tau don't get random bonuses for CC.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The worst part of rolling random distance on a charge is that when failed the unit doesn't move at all.
If the unit was allowed to move the distance they rolled or even half the distance they would at least have something to show for making the decision to attempt an assault instead of shooting. It is a single roll that negates all of the attack rolls that is the problem, just like the other excellent examples given so far.
Warlord would be better if it had more focused categories like shooting or assaulting categories so Tau don't get random bonuses for CC.
snooggums wrote: The worst part of rolling random distance on a charge is that when failed the unit doesn't move at all.
If the unit was allowed to move the distance they rolled or even half the distance they would at least have something to show for making the decision to attempt an assault instead of shooting. It is a single roll that negates all of the attack rolls that is the problem, just like the other excellent examples given so far.
Warlord would be better if it had more focused categories like shooting or assaulting categories so Tau don't get random bonuses for CC.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The worst part of rolling random distance on a charge is that when failed the unit doesn't move at all.
If the unit was allowed to move the distance they rolled or even half the distance they would at least have something to show for making the decision to attempt an assault instead of shooting. It is a single roll that negates all of the attack rolls that is the problem, just like the other excellent examples given so far.
Warlord would be better if it had more focused categories like shooting or assaulting categories so Tau don't get random bonuses for CC.
Oh I can beat that. My daemon prince rolled on CSM and got fear
Notwithstanding the random charge issue thing, I quite like a lot of the random tables as it means that no 2 games will ever be the same. You could play several times on exactly the same board with the same terrain and the same armies, but because of the random bonus powers, terrain effects and victory conditions the players are encouraged to play in different styles. To me its about the challenge and new problems to solve, rather than focussing on a single fixed army that does exactly the same thing every game.
Flinty wrote: Notwithstanding the random charge issue thing, I quite like a lot of the random tables as it means that no 2 games will ever be the same. You could play several times on exactly the same board with the same terrain and the same armies, but because of the random bonus powers, terrain effects and victory conditions the players are encouraged to play in different styles. To me its about the challenge and new problems to solve, rather than focussing on a single fixed army that does exactly the same thing every game.
I get what you are saying but I'll have to disagree particularly on a point. Before that, you brought up the entertaining prospect or rolling what the unit gets kit out with . Maybe i shall do that. I am building a chaos guard + mutants + lost and the damned army atm for fun and I'm building even grenade launchers and mortars! Anyways, I'd love victory conditions if it actually wasn't quite as random. Some secret objectives or several sounds amazing. That said, they should have been kitted out for each army and should be objectives throughout the game. My local GW (the only shop that let you play) once had a 2v2 where everybody got their own secret objective. It was one of our most memorable because everybody had something to do. The Tau defended my CSM (who was not super chaotic and more just renegade at the time) for reasons of suspicion of betrayal, my objective was to have his battle-suit killed, the Eldar's was to hold a specific structure, and the DA's was to knock out (kill) my cultist leader in CC. All of them were very possible and fit a unique narrative very well with minimal work and there was nothing more satisfying than piecing together everybody's objective, figuring it out from how everybody was acting and then manipulate the game and strategize to end up winning. If every army had objectives built for them, I wouldn't mind. Problem is you'll randomly get a card built for assault in a Tau army, a spell card in a necron/sob army, a shooting card in a list of pure khorne, kill a psyker when you haven to psykers to kill, random objective points, and, to cement it, they change every turn meaning you absolutely rely on luck.
Yonan wrote:The only rules written for use in the setting we like are the rules we are stuck with from GW.
You are not IN ANY WAY stuck with GW. There's no reason you couldn't port the minis and fluff over to warmahordes or flames of war, or whatever other game you like better. It would be trivial to reskin those games to make them fit the 40k universe.
The only reason you're playing 40k is because you want to play 40k. No one is forcing you at gunpoint to use rules that you don't want to use, or to play a game that you don't want to play. Get over it. You're playing 40k by choice.
Kyutaru wrote:If you read the rulebook, it actually explains nicely why it applies to charging.
I'm not saying it's impossible to come up with a reason to explain it. The question is why one of inconsistency?
If you need to take a 2D6 to see if you make it into charge range, why not return to 4th ed's needing to roll a 2D6 to see if you can target anything but the closest unit? Why not make a roll to see the range of your shooting weapons every turn? After all, if their leadership is breaking down, they're more likely to spray and pray, which drastically reduces effective range.
Ailaros wrote:I think accept is too harsh of a word. Wargammers outright embrace randomness.
knas ser wrote:I'd say that statement is refuted empirically.
Or...
Ailaros wrote:Which you can enjoy without playing the game. If you're playing the game, though, it means you want to play the game. Why you would want to play a game that you don't like doesn't make sense.
knas ser wrote:we want the game to be different than it is. Saying "why play it if you don't like it" is (a) simplistic - there's a lot we do like about the game and (b) in no way an actual counter to what people are saying, which is that they want it to be a game they do like.
For A, of course, it's irrelevant, as people aren't going to complain about the things they like.
And for B, if people want to play a game that they like, then they should play a game that they like. Why you would want to play a game that you don't like doesn't make sense.
If you like some parts and don't like others, if you're willing to play the game regardless, then you still like it enough to play it. Unless, of course, a person is whining because good isn't perfect, and therefore is garbage... that they still play anyways. Or they've quit and are trying to ruin it for everybody else who still plays.
I'd speculate further, but people aren't being very forthcoming with their motivations, or arguments specific enough to deduce them.
There's "good" and "bad" and 40k has fallen straight into the "bad" category for a while now. What makes it more amusing is that since people basically have to write their own versions of the rules anyways since GW is incapable, we aren't far from someone coming up with a Not-40k version of 40k that actually has competent people writing balanced rules that, surprise, would ALSO allow for noncompetitive "narrative" games, something that 40k does not do as it poorly allows narrative games and pisses on competitive gaming entirely.
Those tournament players that you and others like you (and GW themselves) ignore and pretend to not exist (if not outright deride) are the cornerstone of any rules-based game because they are the ones who will inevitably come up with the vague, obscure and/or broken rules that a sensible company would jump right on to fix, which in the end benefits everybody who plays. Pretending there is no problem doesn't make the problem go away.
Kilkrazy wrote: You can make certain your charges reach by only launching them from the minimum possible distance. You can't plan what objective cards to draw.
Actually you can't. If you charge through cover it's -2. You can now fail a .5 inch charge
Kilkrazy wrote: You can make certain your charges reach by only launching them from the minimum possible distance. You can't plan what objective cards to draw.
Actually you can't. If you charge through cover it's -2. You can now fail a .5 inch charge
...
So, IDK, don't charge through cover, maybe?
... Don't charge through cover.... Don't charge through wah? I'm really not going to argue with this. I'm just going to say the fact that it is theoretically possible to fail a .5 inch charge despite it being the only way some armies can function is idiotic. You say just "don't do it" but if I have moved my models that close why should I not make the charge? Should shooting armies too have to roll the range for guns and if it's behind cover they have to subract -2 from the range of the gun? Oh sorry we can't shoot you because you are behind cover. Plus how the heck will you charge certain units that just camp in cover or do you want to have to wait another turn before assaulting. Don't forget most assault units get to it at earliest Turn 3 more often 4. You mentioned making a minimum charge distance. Thing is there is no such thing as a minimum charge distance anymore. It's either 2 or 0. Both extremely difficult distances to reach in front of an opponent especially for fleetless individuals. Even if it's 3 inches not charging through cover there's a small statistical odd of failing and getting shot to non existence next turn. It's randomness for the sake of random.
... Don't charge through cover.... Don't charge through wah? I'm really not going to argue with this. I'm just going to say the fact that it is theoretically possible to fail a .5 inch charge despite it being the only way some armies can function is idiotic. You say just "don't do it" but if I have moved my models that close why should I not make the charge? Should shooting armies too have to roll the range for guns and if it's behind cover they have to subract -2 from the range of the gun? Oh sorry we can't shoot you because you are behind cover. Plus how the heck will you charge certain units that just camp in cover or do you want to have to wait another turn before assaulting. Don't forget most assault units get to it at earliest Turn 3 more often 4. You mentioned making a minimum charge distance. Thing is there is no such thing as a minimum charge distance anymore. It's either 2 or 0. Both extremely difficult distances to reach in front of an opponent especially for fleetless individuals. Even if it's 3 inches not charging through cover there's a small statistical odd of failing and getting shot to non existence next turn. It's randomness for the sake of random.
Random charge distance through cover existed already in 5th edition - and the distances you could charge were shorter than in 6th & 7th edition. I don't actually recall anyone ever complaining about that rule. Although in practice, most of the charging took place through terrain and was thus random. And of course, Run was random, which was signifant for units with Fleet.
I'm actually ambivalent with random charge distance (sometimes it's really annoying when it fails, sometimes it produces absurdly long charges which are equally annoying when you're receiving them), but as said, it is a byproduct of wanting to introduce premeasuring to the game, and I feel that advantages of premeasuring are far greater than downsides of random charge distance.
Random charge ranges take tactical decisions away from the players and as such is one of the worst random elements of the game. Its basically the same as if every shooting unit in the game had to roll a die before shooting and on a 3- they couldn't shoot...
There used to be that sort of rule: Targeting priority.
Another was old Night fighting rule - which I feel was much, much superior to current, boring "better cover" rule.
... Don't charge through cover.... Don't charge through wah? I'm really not going to argue with this. I'm just going to say the fact that it is theoretically possible to fail a .5 inch charge despite it being the only way some armies can function is idiotic. You say just "don't do it" but if I have moved my models that close why should I not make the charge? Should shooting armies too have to roll the range for guns and if it's behind cover they have to subract -2 from the range of the gun? Oh sorry we can't shoot you because you are behind cover. Plus how the heck will you charge certain units that just camp in cover or do you want to have to wait another turn before assaulting. Don't forget most assault units get to it at earliest Turn 3 more often 4. You mentioned making a minimum charge distance. Thing is there is no such thing as a minimum charge distance anymore. It's either 2 or 0. Both extremely difficult distances to reach in front of an opponent especially for fleetless individuals. Even if it's 3 inches not charging through cover there's a small statistical odd of failing and getting shot to non existence next turn. It's randomness for the sake of random.
Random charge distance through cover existed already in 5th edition - and the distances you could charge were shorter than in 6th & 7th edition. I don't actually recall anyone ever complaining about that rule. Although in practice, most of the charging took place through terrain and was thus random. And of course, Run was random, which was signifant for units with Fleet.
I'm actually ambivalent with random charge distance (sometimes it's really annoying when it fails, sometimes it produces absurdly long charges which are equally annoying when you're receiving them), but as said, it is a byproduct of wanting to introduce premeasuring to the game, and I feel that advantages of premeasuring are far greater than downsides of random charge distance.
Oh I know 5th had the same random charges occuring in conjunction with run for fleet. Then again, I honestly wish assault was reworked from the ground up at this point from the WS chart to sweeping advance to how it is more beneficial to stay until the enemy's turn, to everything else. That and I'd love to see the return of movement points that could be the basis for the charge, you have to move how much you charged as a drawback to the slight variation be it a d3+standard movement or +d6. Besides that I find it silly to argue that it was how we got premeasuring despite shooting always shooting the same range. Overall, I'd just like to see the ridiculous extremes removed. 12" charges happening is just as ridiculous as 2" failed charges existing.
You are referring specifically to 40k here, right? Because you just said its a spectrum, which implies that there is a middle ground in between. Like many other games.
There is! It's called "balance". Do you wanna introduce it to GW?
Ailaros wrote: You are not IN ANY WAY stuck with GW. There's no reason you couldn't port the minis and fluff over to warmahordes or flames of war, or whatever other game you like better. It would be trivial to reskin those games to make them fit the 40k universe.
We actually did that here for a few armies (to Warmachine). It's definitely *not* the same game but even with our limited playtesting it was still a better game (in my opinion). Reminded me very much of 2nd Ed and despite wholesale unit creation not a single rules issue. Some of it converts beautifully- Melta weapons with Armour Piercing? Great. Howling Banshees with Assault and Paralytic Shout? Excellent. Pink Horrors with Spawn [Blue Horror]? Perfect.
But that's the problem- it's not the same game. Not everything converts. More importantly no one should be forced- by the largest mini wargaming company on the planet- to make house rules for their game let alone convert it to another whole system just to make good use of the minis they were sold.
Trying to make another game like 40k is only a problem because you're making it like 40k. If that's the case, then just play 40k.
There's no reason you can't port over the models and fluff much more easily, though. You can use your predators and dreadnoughts in flames of war by just using the flames of war rules for vehicles. They won't be the same rules as the rules for them in 40k, but, well, isn't that the ENTIRE POINT in the first place?
Because if you didn't want them to have different rules, then you'd just play 40k.
Trying to make another game like 40k is only a problem because you're making it like 40k. If that's the case, then just play 40k.
There's no reason you can't port over the models and fluff much more easily, though. You can use your predators and dreadnoughts in flames of war by just using the flames of war rules for vehicles. They won't be the same rules as the rules for them in 40k, but, well, isn't that the ENTIRE POINT in the first place?
Because if you didn't want them to have different rules, then you'd just play 40k.
How well does Flames of War do psychic powers? Or jump infantry? Demons? Probably as well as Warmachine does transports and fliers.
The idea wasn't to make another game like 40k- you've missed the point. The idea is to provide a way to get some 40k models on the table, acting like they do in the 40k fluff and have a tactically deep and challenging game without having major imbalances or rules disputes. That has been achieved. It's only that the scope of the game- notably larger models like fliers- aren't easily translated and to be fair 40k has worn its own share of criticism over the scale of the game.
But this is wandering off topic. Randomness should only be invoked where necessary- as an arbiter. It can rob a player of victory who wins as surely as one who loses. I for one don't want to beat my opponent because of some random act of fate neither of us could cause, control or direct. Nor do I wish to lose to one. It diminishes the game for both of us.
If you look at Hordes of the Things or the earlier fantasy version of WRG Ancients, you simply map the magical elements of the new game on to the existing non-magical elements.
For example, a dragon works as an elephant with a fire syphon and ignores all terrain when moving.
From the rules perspective it doesn't matter if a unit is represented by an elephant model or a dragon model. What matters is the effect on enemy units.
Rolling to hit or save a wound? That's fine, that gives an impartial judge to what suceeds and what fails and can be counted on reliably, and you can build a list making sure your odds are good and expect largely consistent results.
Rolling for psyker powers or warlord traits? Now I can't trust my psykers and warlord to actually be good or even capable of doing what I paid for them to do. I'd be perfectly willing to pay more points to get the powers or warlord traits I want according to their utility. As it stands now, you can end up rolling witchfires for units with a BS of zero or your Tau warlord's super special skill is being slightly better at assault. It also makes "forging the narrative" much harder as it removes consistency from your characters. It'd be like having to roll on a table to decide what feats or spells you get every level in D&D. It's essentially saying I can't create an army with the flavour I want it to have and means that I can be completely screwed by bad dice rolls at the start of the game.
Objective cards? Now I can't even plan ahead for what I'm actually going to have to do every game. Rolling for gametype was already annoying enough for people who brought in an army that turns out to be totally unsuitable for the mission at hand, now it feels like I'm playing Mario Party with Power Armor with all these random events.
Night fighting? This isn't a problem of night fighting being randomly rolled. It's a problem with night fighting's length making absolutely no sense. Do we all fight on the fastest rotating planets in the universe or is there a gentleman's agreement to only fight in the last minutes of day or night?
Random charge distances? Not only is it one of many slaps in the face to a method of combat that has only grown weaker in every edition since third, it also, again; makes no sense, especially when shooting is always garaunteed. When my Carnifexes charge my wife's Wraithguard only to undershoot their charge range within four inches and thus be left standing there picking their noses (apparently they must have all slipped on banana peels left by the farseer or something) while the D-scythes fire up and fry all of them I'm left standing there wondering how is that even possible. Meanwhile said Wraithguard will always reliably get to fire their templates every time, it may not do much of anything if the distort rolls are bad or the enemy rolls really well on their invulnerable saves (and FNP), but they will at least get to fire off with 100% certainty at any valid target in range.
It feels less like I'm in command of the game and more like I'm moving things around to spectate for the results of a slot machine.
A good comparison to the cards in 40k are the mission cards in Deadzone. You each draw your mission cards before you start playing, it stays the same for the whole game. You may need to play objectives, you may need to focus on particular enemy units, get to the other side of the board, a good variety which has differences for each faction. Your mission draw is random, but it's done once and then you can base your strategy around it for the rest of the game. It's a *much* better system than randomly changing your objective every turn which doesn't let you plan things out, rather just make required knee jerk reactions.
Yonan wrote: A good comparison to the cards in 40k are the mission cards in Deadzone. You each draw your mission cards before you start playing, it stays the same for the whole game. You may need to play objectives, you may need to focus on particular enemy units, get to the other side of the board, a good variety which has differences for each faction. Your mission draw is random, but it's done once and then you can base your strategy around it for the rest of the game. It's a *much* better system than randomly changing your objective every turn which doesn't let you plan things out, rather just make required knee jerk reactions.
Unless I read it wrong, you only change your objectives after you achieve the previous ones or if you really don't like the objective. On that basis you're hardly changing everything every turn.
In the battle reports I've seen, it seems as though basically every turn due to not liking the cards and/or achieving objectives, people are changing cards that often. Limited sample ofc, and may not be that bad.
I don't see how random charge distances are realistic in any case. My IG could charge at the same speed as a Speed Freak biker, or they could trip over their shoelaces- all 50 of them.
Banzaimash wrote: I don't see how random charge distances are realistic in any case. My IG could charge at the same speed as a Speed Freak biker, or they could trip over their shoelaces- all 50 of them.
Nothing in 40k is necessarily realistic, its just a representation. GW wanted to make it harder to guarantee that assault units can get into the safety of close combat. There are lots of ways you could justify what the dice roll actually represents, but its only the final effect that is important to gameplay.
Banzaimash wrote: I don't see how random charge distances are realistic in any case. My IG could charge at the same speed as a Speed Freak biker, or they could trip over their shoelaces- all 50 of them.
Nothing in 40k is necessarily realistic, its just a representation. GW wanted to make it harder to guarantee that assault units can get into the safety of close combat. There are lots of ways you could justify what the dice roll actually represents, but its only the final effect that is important to gameplay.
It still really isn't thanks to chaos daemons and super turbo bikers and guards. It's just random for lulz because 40k loves randomness.
Banzaimash wrote: I don't see how random charge distances are realistic in any case. My IG could charge at the same speed as a Speed Freak biker, or they could trip over their shoelaces- all 50 of them.
Nothing in 40k is necessarily realistic, its just a representation. GW wanted to make it harder to guarantee that assault units can get into the safety of close combat. There are lots of ways you could justify what the dice roll actually represents, but its only the final effect that is important to gameplay.
Then they chose one of the worst possible ways to do it.
Banzaimash wrote: I don't see how random charge distances are realistic in any case. My IG could charge at the same speed as a Speed Freak biker, or they could trip over their shoelaces- all 50 of them.
Nothing in 40k is necessarily realistic, its just a representation. GW wanted to make it harder to guarantee that assault units can get into the safety of close combat. There are lots of ways you could justify what the dice roll actually represents, but its only the final effect that is important to gameplay.
But there is no way that a man can run as fast as a motorbike, which is what is happening when you roll boxcars. Even as a representation it is flawed.
Banzaimash wrote: I don't see how random charge distances are realistic in any case. My IG could charge at the same speed as a Speed Freak biker, or they could trip over their shoelaces- all 50 of them.
Nothing in 40k is necessarily realistic, its just a representation. GW wanted to make it harder to guarantee that assault units can get into the safety of close combat. There are lots of ways you could justify what the dice roll actually represents, but its only the final effect that is important to gameplay.
Exactly that.
Your 50 guardsmen charge, following their captain. He trips over and everyone else takes this as an order to hit the dirt. The key point is that your charge does not get into contact. Precisely why does not matter.
Banzaimash wrote: I don't see how random charge distances are realistic in any case. My IG could charge at the same speed as a Speed Freak biker, or they could trip over their shoelaces- all 50 of them.
Nothing in 40k is necessarily realistic, its just a representation. GW wanted to make it harder to guarantee that assault units can get into the safety of close combat. There are lots of ways you could justify what the dice roll actually represents, but its only the final effect that is important to gameplay.
Exactly that.
Your 50 guardsmen charge, following their captain. He trips over and everyone else takes this as an order to hit the dirt. The key point is that your charge does not get into contact. Precisely why does not matter.
All guns are now 4d6 to represent the randomness of the battlefield it's because of smoke and orders from the commander.
Or are we going to argue that assault is good and balanced with shooting?
And it still raises a question... how is it that some terminators can charge further or even as far as a biker? Add to that, even killkrazy's point makes no sense. They charge then say forget it and run back
Why is it we randomise to charge, but not to move, that too doesn't make sense. Should we also be rolling a D6 to check if weapons jam? It doesn't even represent what is going on in any way. Why charges fail DOES matter, otherwise why not have infantry moving 12" just because.
I propose that every time we do anything we should make a random roll to see if it actually happens.
Want to move a unit? Roll for it.
Want a unit to shoot? Roll for it.
Want to deploy a unit? Roll for it.
You might think that you're capturing that objective, but because you rolled low your unit is too busy picking daisies to capture it.
Banzaimash wrote: I don't see how random charge distances are realistic in any case. My IG could charge at the same speed as a Speed Freak biker, or they could trip over their shoelaces- all 50 of them.
Nothing in 40k is necessarily realistic, its just a representation. GW wanted to make it harder to guarantee that assault units can get into the safety of close combat. There are lots of ways you could justify what the dice roll actually represents, but its only the final effect that is important to gameplay.
Exactly that.
Your 50 guardsmen charge, following their captain. He trips over and everyone else takes this as an order to hit the dirt. The key point is that your charge does not get into contact. Precisely why does not matter.
All guns are now 4d6 to represent the randomness of the battlefield it's because of smoke and orders from the commander.
Or are we going to argue that assault is good and balanced with shooting?
And it still raises a question... how is it that some terminators can charge further or even as far as a biker? Add to that, even killkrazy's point makes no sense. They charge then say forget it and run back
My point is that the result of the die roll is what is important. You can rationalise it any number of ways. If you prefer, the captain leading the charge gets hit; he goes down and everyone following him hits the dirt. A minute later he recovers from his swoon, caused by a glancing blow to the head, but the timely opportunity to attack has been lost. How can that make no sense?
If you want to compare it with random ranges for shooting, we already have them in the form of night fighting, for example. It could be perfectly reasonable to roll 4D6 for visual range every turn of every game. I certainly wouldn't argue with it. It could be an interesting game.
I think the biggest problem is with 'fictional setting' for games it CAN allow more 'relaxed justification '.
Rather than work within a intuitive and easy to learn consistent structure of interaction the player can identify with.
The developers can simply use 'a wizard did it..' or 'its just the way of the warp.' to cram loads of cool ideas into the game without really looking at the internal consistency of the game play.
I think this is the core issue with current 40k development, they are trying to inspire purchases with cool looking and sounding product.With little to no thought given to actual game play.
Banzaimash wrote: I don't see how random charge distances are realistic in any case. My IG could charge at the same speed as a Speed Freak biker, or they could trip over their shoelaces- all 50 of them.
Nothing in 40k is necessarily realistic, its just a representation. GW wanted to make it harder to guarantee that assault units can get into the safety of close combat. There are lots of ways you could justify what the dice roll actually represents, but its only the final effect that is important to gameplay.
Exactly that.
Your 50 guardsmen charge, following their captain. He trips over and everyone else takes this as an order to hit the dirt. The key point is that your charge does not get into contact. Precisely why does not matter.
All guns are now 4d6 to represent the randomness of the battlefield it's because of smoke and orders from the commander.
Or are we going to argue that assault is good and balanced with shooting?
And it still raises a question... how is it that some terminators can charge further or even as far as a biker? Add to that, even killkrazy's point makes no sense. They charge then say forget it and run back
My point is that the result of the die roll is what is important. You can rationalise it any number of ways. If you prefer, the captain leading the charge gets hit; he goes down and everyone following him hits the dirt. A minute later he recovers from his swoon, caused by a glancing blow to the head, but the timely opportunity to attack has been lost. How can that make no sense?
If you want to compare it with random ranges for shooting, we already have them in the form of night fighting, for example. It could be perfectly reasonable to roll 4D6 for visual range every turn of every game. I certainly wouldn't argue with it. It could be an interesting game.
Rationalise terminators running as fast as a bike.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Or gretchin for that matter
Banzaimash wrote: I don't see how random charge distances are realistic in any case. My IG could charge at the same speed as a Speed Freak biker, or they could trip over their shoelaces- all 50 of them.
Nothing in 40k is necessarily realistic, its just a representation. GW wanted to make it harder to guarantee that assault units can get into the safety of close combat. There are lots of ways you could justify what the dice roll actually represents, but its only the final effect that is important to gameplay.
Exactly that.
Your 50 guardsmen charge, following their captain. He trips over and everyone else takes this as an order to hit the dirt. The key point is that your charge does not get into contact. Precisely why does not matter.
All guns are now 4d6 to represent the randomness of the battlefield it's because of smoke and orders from the commander.
Or are we going to argue that assault is good and balanced with shooting?
And it still raises a question... how is it that some terminators can charge further or even as far as a biker? Add to that, even killkrazy's point makes no sense. They charge then say forget it and run back
My point is that the result of the die roll is what is important. You can rationalise it any number of ways. If you prefer, the captain leading the charge gets hit; he goes down and everyone following him hits the dirt. A minute later he recovers from his swoon, caused by a glancing blow to the head, but the timely opportunity to attack has been lost. How can that make no sense?
If you want to compare it with random ranges for shooting, we already have them in the form of night fighting, for example. It could be perfectly reasonable to roll 4D6 for visual range every turn of every game. I certainly wouldn't argue with it. It could be an interesting game.
Rationalise terminators running as fast as a bike.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Or gretchin for that matter
To be honest at the size it is played now w40k has problems with ranges , because either normal guardsman have bionic legs and run like demons or most rifles , including those who are the size of RPG , have a smaller range then some pistols .
Banzaimash wrote: I don't see how random charge distances are realistic in any case. My IG could charge at the same speed as a Speed Freak biker, or they could trip over their shoelaces- all 50 of them.
Nothing in 40k is necessarily realistic, its just a representation. GW wanted to make it harder to guarantee that assault units can get into the safety of close combat. There are lots of ways you could justify what the dice roll actually represents, but its only the final effect that is important to gameplay.
Exactly that.
Your 50 guardsmen charge, following their captain. He trips over and everyone else takes this as an order to hit the dirt. The key point is that your charge does not get into contact. Precisely why does not matter.
All guns are now 4d6 to represent the randomness of the battlefield it's because of smoke and orders from the commander.
Or are we going to argue that assault is good and balanced with shooting?
And it still raises a question... how is it that some terminators can charge further or even as far as a biker? Add to that, even killkrazy's point makes no sense. They charge then say forget it and run back
My point is that the result of the die roll is what is important. You can rationalise it any number of ways. If you prefer, the captain leading the charge gets hit; he goes down and everyone following him hits the dirt. A minute later he recovers from his swoon, caused by a glancing blow to the head, but the timely opportunity to attack has been lost. How can that make no sense?
If you want to compare it with random ranges for shooting, we already have them in the form of night fighting, for example. It could be perfectly reasonable to roll 4D6 for visual range every turn of every game. I certainly wouldn't argue with it. It could be an interesting game.
Rationalise terminators running as fast as a bike.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Or gretchin for that matter
How long is a phase? Where does it state that all phases are the same length, or even that different units utilise the same length of time to undertake their actions? How fast is the bike going? Its all a representation.
The rules specifically state that the normal 6" movement represents a careful advance taking frequent pauses to check for the enemy, stop for orders and take firing positions. Its easy to extrapolate that to allowing infantry to move much faster with less caution, e.g. to charge into combat.
Alternatively when infantry makes really big rolls, maybe it represents the combined movement of the charging unit plus an enemy counter-charge.
Banzaimash wrote: I don't see how random charge distances are realistic in any case. My IG could charge at the same speed as a Speed Freak biker, or they could trip over their shoelaces- all 50 of them.
Nothing in 40k is necessarily realistic, its just a representation. GW wanted to make it harder to guarantee that assault units can get into the safety of close combat. There are lots of ways you could justify what the dice roll actually represents, but its only the final effect that is important to gameplay.
Exactly that.
Your 50 guardsmen charge, following their captain. He trips over and everyone else takes this as an order to hit the dirt. The key point is that your charge does not get into contact. Precisely why does not matter.
All guns are now 4d6 to represent the randomness of the battlefield it's because of smoke and orders from the commander.
Or are we going to argue that assault is good and balanced with shooting?
And it still raises a question... how is it that some terminators can charge further or even as far as a biker? Add to that, even killkrazy's point makes no sense. They charge then say forget it and run back
My point is that the result of the die roll is what is important. You can rationalise it any number of ways. If you prefer, the captain leading the charge gets hit; he goes down and everyone following him hits the dirt. A minute later he recovers from his swoon, caused by a glancing blow to the head, but the timely opportunity to attack has been lost. How can that make no sense?
If you want to compare it with random ranges for shooting, we already have them in the form of night fighting, for example. It could be perfectly reasonable to roll 4D6 for visual range every turn of every game. I certainly wouldn't argue with it. It could be an interesting game.
Rationalise terminators running as fast as a bike.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Or gretchin for that matter
How long is a phase? Where does it state that all phases are the same length, or even that different units utilise the same length of time to undertake their actions? How fast is the bike going? Its all a representation.
The rules specifically state that the normal 6" movement represents a careful advance taking frequent pauses to check for the enemy, stop for orders and take firing positions. Its easy to extrapolate that to allowing infantry to move much faster with less caution, e.g. to charge into combat.
Alternatively when infantry makes really big rolls, maybe it represents the combined movement of the charging unit plus an enemy counter-charge.
Cool story. Still doesn't explain how that charging unit is moving at the same speed as a motorbike or why your "enemy counter-charge" doesn't change its board position, but it is a cool story!
That's just silly especially since the enemies never really get to move and only really get buffs if they actually have the rule counter-charge. Overall just no.
So then overall from this I hear that we are encouraging...
Shooting 4d6 Charge 2d6 Movement 1d6
Run 1d6
I am actually encouraging that sarcastically.
I think all of them, including random charge, are completely awful ideas that make the game less tactical and engaging.
Banzaimash wrote: I don't see how random charge distances are realistic in any case. My IG could charge at the same speed as a Speed Freak biker, or they could trip over their shoelaces- all 50 of them.
but many game systems have fixed charge rates regardless of how far the unit can move in the movement phase. It's a different sequence, it's not a new "movement" phase. I'd be all for a fixed 6" assault distance, and that would be 6" for everything. Assault is all about CQB and melee, it shouldn't matter how far you can move...that's what the movement phase is for. Terrain would not slow infantry down but vehicles could bog and bikes take terrain tests etc.
Granted, it may seem odd that a dreadnought assaults twice as far as a jetbike in the current system, but I don't see why a jetbike should assault further than a dreadnought. You've already had your movement bonus in the Movement phase.
Banzaimash wrote: I don't see how random charge distances are realistic in any case. My IG could charge at the same speed as a Speed Freak biker, or they could trip over their shoelaces- all 50 of them.
but many game systems have fixed charge rates regardless of how far the unit can move in the movement phase. It's a different sequence, it's not a new "movement" phase. I'd be all for a fixed 6" assault distance, and that would be 6" for everything. Assault is all about CQB and melee, it shouldn't matter how far you can move...that's what the movement phase is for. Terrain would not slow infantry down but vehicles could bog and bikes take terrain tests etc.
Granted, it may seem odd that a dreadnought assaults twice as far as a jetbike in the current system, but I don't see why a jetbike should assault further than a dreadnought. You've already had your movement bonus in the Movement phase.
Eh I wouldn't mind if they diversified movement a bit more. At this point it's like you go 6" or you go 12" or you just skip to 18+
It's kind of wild really. I get why there would be caution. Orks would likely have a lower movement which means enemies can juke even better and so on, still, I can't help but feel variable movements would really make a difference. That or I'm insane either can work.
Wouldn't it be awesome if units actually had a movement characteristic to define how fast they move? Wouldn't that be amazingly innovative? *cough* 2nd edition
The removal of the movement characteristic was a "wtf?" moment for me and it remains confusing why after all these years we don't just have a movement characteristic instead of a bunch of special rules to describe varying movement rates. It seems like one of the most fundamental things that different models have different move rates so should just be included in their profile.
You are working with the conception that a charge means the unit immediately accelerates and moves at its fastest speed directly towards the enemy until it has used up the few second or minute or however long a turn is in 40K, and the distance travelled is therefore governed by Newton's Laws of Motion. However this is not what happens.
How is it then that Terminators can in game turns move as far as Bikes?
One reason is that Terminators are completely bullet proof and don't need to bother to take cover as they move, so they go faster than a normal move, whereas Bikes jink and swerve a lot to avoid enemy fire, and have to go more slowly than normal.
Rationalise terminators running as fast as a bike.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Or gretchin for that matter
How long is a phase? Where does it state that all phases are the same length, or even that different units utilise the same length of time to undertake their actions? How fast is the bike going? Its all a representation.
The rules specifically state that the normal 6" movement represents a careful advance taking frequent pauses to check for the enemy, stop for orders and take firing positions. Its easy to extrapolate that to allowing infantry to move much faster with less caution, e.g. to charge into combat.
Alternatively when infantry makes really big rolls, maybe it represents the combined movement of the charging unit plus an enemy counter-charge.
Cool story. Still doesn't explain how that charging unit is moving at the same speed as a motorbike or why your "enemy counter-charge" doesn't change its board position, but it is a cool story!
I frequently move faster than motorbikes. Given the rough and uncertain terrain of a battlefield (plus the additional fun of being shot at) just how fast do you think bikers are moving?
During the resolution of an assault both units move repeatedly. There are the pile in moves and then there is the final consolidation move at the end.
People seem to be making the not uncommon mistake of applying "realism" to 40K.
This is not a debate about realism, it is a debate about making two aspects of the game play more evenly with one another.
If you end your movement 20" away from your opponent, then you know for a fact that your bolters will be in range come the shooting phase.
If you finish your move ~7" away, then you have a ~50/50 chance of making the assault move, assuming you forgo any shooting that unit may have in order to avoid accidentally making the charge harder for yourself, therefore handicapping yourself further by limiting your army's potential damage output that turn.
Bikes moving faster than terminators or whatever be damned, it is about placing as much control in the players hands as possible and not having a turn, or even a game, go to gak on the roll of 2D6.
Personally, I'd advocate D6+I as assault range, limited to 12" maximum after all modifiers. This strikes a balance between the 'unpredictability of war' and retaining sufficient predictability to reward sensible play IMO.
azreal13 wrote: .
Personally, I'd advocate D6+I as assault range, limited to 12" maximum after all modifiers. This strikes a balance between the 'unpredictability of war' and retaining sufficient predictability to reward sensible play IMO.
I personally don't see a big advantage in random charge distances at all. I'd be happy enough to allow pre measuring and a non-random charge distance.
If we insist on a random distance, make it 6+d3" IMO, so it's still a well defined range with a small variation to avoid range-stand-offs. I don't like the idea of Ini+D6 as there's models with low Ini that I don't think should be hamstrung. If we want some characteristic + d6/3, just reintroduce the damned movement characteristic. Ini is how fast a model can react more than how fast it can cover ground.
Personally, I'd advocate D6+I as assault range, limited to 12" maximum after all modifiers. This strikes a balance between the 'unpredictability of war' and retaining sufficient predictability to reward sensible play IMO.
I'd advocate the get back to the 6" of 3rd, 4th and 5th edition and stop taking choices away from the player's hands, but that is just me!
I frequently move faster than motorbikes. Given the rough and uncertain terrain of a battlefield (plus the additional fun of being shot at) just how fast do you think bikers are moving?
I also frequently move faster than motorbikes, especially when they are parked!
And they apparently move fast enough that they get a special save due to their speed that your "run as fast as a motorbike" infantry doesn't get?
azreal13 wrote: People seem to be making the not uncommon mistake of applying "realism" to 40K.
This is not a debate about realism, it is a debate about making two aspects of the game play more evenly with one another.
If you end your movement 20" away from your opponent, then you know for a fact that your bolters will be in range come the shooting phase.
If you finish your move ~7" away, then you have a ~50/50 chance of making the assault move, assuming you forgo any shooting that unit may have in order to avoid accidentally making the charge harder for yourself, therefore handicapping yourself further by limiting your army's potential damage output that turn.
Bikes moving faster than terminators or whatever be damned, it is about placing as much control in the players hands as possible and not having a turn, or even a game, go to gak on the roll of 2D6.
Personally, I'd advocate D6+I as assault range, limited to 12" maximum after all modifiers. This strikes a balance between the 'unpredictability of war' and retaining sufficient predictability to reward sensible play IMO.
Fair points all. As a response I think the random charge range is a response to dedicated assault armies being very hard to kill with gunlines in previous editions because as soon as they get into combat they are "safe". You might know that your guns are in range, but the effectiveness of shooting is mediated entirely by the to-hit and to-wound rolls (yeah, ok range does come into it as well), whereas the effectiveness of close combat is also mediated by the ability to get into combat in the first place.
In my mind I think its relatively hard to kill a whole unit by shooting, but that bit easier to do so in combat. Maybe thats something to mathhammer. The likelihood of equal points worth of models split into shooting and combat specialisms to kill the same number of points worth of enemy troops.
I would, however, tend to agree that the 2D6" variability is a little too much and could do with being evened out a little.
It might be pedantic, but getting a 7 on 2D6 is not a 50-50 probability, but closer to a 60% chance
azreal13 wrote: People seem to be making the not uncommon mistake of applying "realism" to 40K.
This is not a debate about realism, it is a debate about making two aspects of the game play more evenly with one another.
If you end your movement 20" away from your opponent, then you know for a fact that your bolters will be in range come the shooting phase.
If you finish your move ~7" away, then you have a ~50/50 chance of making the assault move, assuming you forgo any shooting that unit may have in order to avoid accidentally making the charge harder for yourself, therefore handicapping yourself further by limiting your army's potential damage output that turn.
Bikes moving faster than terminators or whatever be damned, it is about placing as much control in the players hands as possible and not having a turn, or even a game, go to gak on the roll of 2D6.
Personally, I'd advocate D6+I as assault range, limited to 12" maximum after all modifiers. This strikes a balance between the 'unpredictability of war' and retaining sufficient predictability to reward sensible play IMO.
Fair points all. As a response I think the random charge range is a response to dedicated assault armies being very hard to kill with gunlines in previous editions because as soon as they get into combat they are "safe". You might know that your guns are in range, but the effectiveness of shooting is mediated entirely by the to-hit and to-wound rolls (yeah, ok range does come into it as well), whereas the effectiveness of close combat is also mediated by the ability to get into combat in the first place.
In my mind I think its relatively hard to kill a whole unit by shooting, but that bit easier to do so in combat. Maybe thats something to mathhammer. The likelihood of equal points worth of models split into shooting and combat specialisms to kill the same number of points worth of enemy troops.
I would, however, tend to agree that the 2D6" variability is a little too much and could do with being evened out a little.
It might be pedantic, but getting a 7 on 2D6 is not a 50-50 probability, but closer to a 60% chance
It is as said, a hangover of the past. 3rd edition to be exact where assault was the thing so broken it was painful for any shooting army. From then on, GW solved it as usual by hitting one nerf after another until assault can only really be done by a small few select units and even less in the current edition. I don't disagree with a bit of randomness strictly because a consistent range could very easily be exploited but more like a Move+d3. Consistent enough one can rely on it but not so much that somebody can stand a CM off and laugh at it. Then again I'd also say if you failed the charge you have to move it. Then again, I'm also one that'd like assault largely reworked to be equal and even then I honestly kind of dislike sweeping advance.
azreal13 wrote: .
Personally, I'd advocate D6+I as assault range, limited to 12" maximum after all modifiers. This strikes a balance between the 'unpredictability of war' and retaining sufficient predictability to reward sensible play IMO.
I personally don't see a big advantage in random charge distances at all. I'd be happy enough to allow pre measuring and a non-random charge distance.
If we insist on a random distance, make it 6+d3" IMO, so it's still a well defined range with a small variation to avoid range-stand-offs. I don't like the idea of Ini+D6 as there's models with low Ini that I don't think should be hamstrung. If we want some characteristic + d6/3, just reintroduce the damned movement characteristic. Ini is how fast a model can react more than how fast it can cover ground.
I'm not totally off the idea of some randomness in assault range, people who argue in favour of something representing dodging fire, clearing obstacles etc do have a point, just not with such an extreme curve of outcomes as we have now. I agree the I isn't the perfect stat to represent it, but it would be the most appropriate (unless one linked it to unit type like standard moves are already) as speed of thought or reaction, acrobatic ability etc tend to be reflected in a higher initiative stat. Also, on balance, assault units do tend to have higher I scores, the D6+I system would slightly buff the likes of Banshees and Wyches, while, with the new FMC rules, not allowing the likes of Hive Tyrants or Daemon Princes to be overly dominant.
I think it would be a nice middle ground, I do think Assault should be slightly harder to pull off than shooting, as it can potentially destroy units in much shorter order than shooting, so the increased damage potential should be reflected in slightly tougher execution, just not anything like the disparity we have now.
Assaults are already hard enough to pull off as it is. First a unit has to get within feasible range for assault, then they have to charge, potentially risking being left in the open and vulnerable to fire if the roll is not long enough. Then they have to charge, weather overwatch, hit, wound and hope the opponent fails armour saves. After combat, the assaulting unit in question will either be stuck in combat for another turn or sweep the enemy and be left in the open and vulnerable to enemy fire.
Meanwhile shooters simply have to whip out a measuring tape, check which enemy units are in range and LOS and hit, wound and hope for failed armour saves. Assault 'may' be more effective due to sweeping, but it takes more effort, and with shooting of the calibre it is nowadays, shot units are usually wiped out anyway.
I just think that 2d6 assault not only takes control away from players, but also makes assaulting unfeasible, which sucks if your whole army is pretty much assaulters. A whole assault army should be just as possible to pull off as a whole shooting army, but it isn't. It would be better if they had set assault moves like 4th and 5th edition, and no pre-measuring, putting both shooting and assaulting down to the judgement of a player rather than a random dice roll.
But before pre-measuring there was an unfair advantage to experienced people who could reliably eyeball distances compared to the n00bs or those with less well developed spacial awareness. With assaulting now it is at least totally random and equally unfair to n00b and veteran alike
Flinty wrote: But before pre-measuring there was an unfair advantage to experienced people who could reliably eyeball distances compared to the n00bs or those with less well developed spacial awareness. With assaulting now it is at least totally random and equally unfair to n00b and veteran alike
I think you just put your finger on something. The game should not be "fair" to noob and veteran alike. Veterans should be better than noobs. A game that is so random you can't get better at it, that is not a game.
I'd just like to point out that I've always hated having to roll for random spells in Fantasy and random psychic powers in 40k.
I mean, it's just a cosmic facepalm. Wizards/controlled psykers are supposed to be very disciplined, trained, and exacting. And it makes building around a specific power or set of powers much less fun. I could see chaos magic-users having some form of randomness in their abilities in exchange for greater potential, but I would never imagine an Empire Battle Wizard forgetting the powers that he prepares until right before the battle. It's quite lame. (I never like the basic powers that you can swap for, either.)
No biggie, but this is the main reason why I've never bothered to make much use of magic in either 40k or Fantasy.
PrinceRaven wrote: I'm just glad magic users in D&D and psykers in Dark Heresy don't wake up every day with a completely different set of powers from the previous one.
From what I remember in D&D magic users needed to rest to learn new spells and were then stuck with those that were chosen until they next rested. If you chose the wrong spells for a particular situation then you just had to make do and the randomness was up to the DM to provide. I don't see this as being particularly different to 40k. The Psyker doesn't know what he/she/it/them will be facing in a particular engagement and so has chosen something they think is reasonable.
PrinceRaven wrote: I'm just glad magic users in D&D and psykers in Dark Heresy don't wake up every day with a completely different set of powers from the previous one.
From what I remember in D&D magic users needed to rest to learn new spells and were then stuck with those that were chosen until they next rested. If you chose the wrong spells for a particular situation then you just had to make do and the randomness was up to the DM to provide. I don't see this as being particularly different to 40k. The Psyker doesn't know what he/she/it/them will be facing in a particular engagement and so has chosen something they think is reasonable.
I'm pretty sure my Chaos Lord would beat my Chaos Sorcerers upside the head if not outright kill them for disobeying him if they didn't choose what he wanted them to choose.
Flinty wrote: But before pre-measuring there was an unfair advantage to experienced people who could reliably eyeball distances compared to the n00bs or those with less well developed spacial awareness. With assaulting now it is at least totally random and equally unfair to n00b and veteran alike
I think you just put your finger on something. The game should not be "fair" to noob and veteran alike. Veterans should be better than noobs. A game that is so random you can't get better at it, that is not a game.
He is beng polite - lots of people flat out cheated.............
I play with games that have pre-mesuring and set charge distances and equally happy with that and 40Ks random charge distance - enjoy both
Flinty wrote: But before pre-measuring there was an unfair advantage to experienced people who could reliably eyeball distances compared to the n00bs or those with less well developed spacial awareness. With assaulting now it is at least totally random and equally unfair to n00b and veteran alike
I think you just put your finger on something. The game should not be "fair" to noob and veteran alike. Veterans should be better than noobs. A game that is so random you can't get better at it, that is not a game.
He is beng polite - lots of people flat out cheated.............
I play with games that have pre-mesuring and set charge distances and equally happy with that and 40Ks random charge distance - enjoy both
And I'm really sorry about your play experiences since you seem to be surrounded by cheaters, your fixation with them seems to point to some really deep trauma... But those cheaters of yours only cheated while judging charge distances? Because the 2 guys that we have over here that cheated while judging distances also cheat in pretty much every other stage of the game: they fake dice rolls, they accidentally move their models and terrain with their elbows, they move their models more than they are supposed to, they "forget" that a wizzard or psyker didn't roll that power that they really needed that turn (and the powers also seem to change from turn to turn along with some choice wargear), etc.
So unless your argument is that you have some kind of special cheater that only cheats when judging distances (and it appears that your entire meta is composed of these types of players), changing charge ranges from fixed to random doesn't really solve any cheating problem...
PrinceRaven wrote: I'm just glad magic users in D&D and psykers in Dark Heresy don't wake up every day with a completely different set of powers from the previous one.
From what I remember in D&D magic users needed to rest to learn new spells and were then stuck with those that were chosen until they next rested. If you chose the wrong spells for a particular situation then you just had to make do and the randomness was up to the DM to provide. I don't see this as being particularly different to 40k. The Psyker doesn't know what he/she/it/them will be facing in a particular engagement and so has chosen something they think is reasonable.
Depends, some of them get a large list of spells and every time they rest can choose which to prepare.
Others, known as spontaneous casters, get a smaller list of spells but can cast any without having to prepare them.
Also, how would you not know what you'll be facing? It's not like in the weeks of transit to the war everyone would avoid telling the psyker who they're actually fighting for the lulz.
bullyboy wrote: my only issue with allowing people to choose their warlord traits and psyker powers is that the same ones would be used over and over again. It would be another way of gaming your army, finding every combo and trick in the book to give you the advantage. Granted, this may be what you want in a tourny style game but I actually like variety (I did a thread on random generation of units a few weeks ago). I find people will generally play the same thing over and over which gets a little stale. The game already has balance issues, adding points for warlord traits and psychic powers will only make this worse as GW will not take the time to playtest them correctly.
There is nothing stopping a TO (or a group of friends) establishing a system that allows a player to "buy" his warlord trait or psyker powers for x points.
I'm a casual gamer though so like the "forge a narrative" approach that GW currently adopts. I could see this as an issue for competitive players though but I feel the system has way too much imbalance as it stands already. No reason to add more.
But I build my army to perform a specific task, not randomly shaking a box of models onto the table to choose my army.
Then simply warlord traits and psyker Powers are broken and needs fixing, randomness isnt fixing it.
And if your warlord can choose its traits does that one get the extra Points for army building?
Theres good random and then theres bad random and then theres GW random.
Excusing GW's poorly implemented rules "forging a narrative" isnt helping anyone neither casual or competive has anything positive to gain from poorly worded rules or random nun-chucks.
As of late gw's models have been of very good quality, and from what ive Heard most exellent customer support regarding replacements if broken, so why cant they put in minimum effort to make the game enjoyable for everyone to play.
As of late gw's models have been of very good quality, and from what ive Heard most exellent customer support regarding replacements if broken, so why cant they put in minimum effort to make the game enjoyable for everyone to play.
Because you can't please everyone all of the time, expecially a game as complex as 40k. So they've chosen a route designed to give a lot of variability, i assume with the aim of maximising replay value by making every game different.
They seem to have chosen a route that has pissed off a lot of their keen veteran players who had been replaying the prior version of the game for years. I am not sure that is a clever strategy.
Flinty wrote: Because you can't please everyone all of the time, expecially a game as complex as 40k.
No, but you can please a lot more people than 40k currently pleases. The only reason 40k doesn't do better is that GW's rule authors are lazy and/or incompetent. They've figured out that 12 year olds buying boxes of space marines will probably never play the game, so they just need the idea of a game to inspire them to beg their parents for more toys. And why spend money developing a high-quality game if the core market doesn't care about quality?
So they've chosen a route designed to give a lot of variability, i assume with the aim of maximising replay value by making every game different.
No, they've chosen a route of "publish that rough draft ASAP because our next financial report is going to kill our stock price if we don't get 7th edition out in time". 40k isn't the result of reasonable design decisions made by intelligent professionals, it's a shameful mess of stuff thrown together without any overall plan and published without anywhere near adequate playtesting. There's simply no justification for the current state of the rules.
Flinty wrote: Because you can't please everyone all of the time, expecially a game as complex as 40k.
No, but you can please a lot more people than 40k currently pleases. The only reason 40k doesn't do better is that GW's rule authors are lazy and/or incompetent. They've figured out that 12 year olds buying boxes of space marines will probably never play the game, so they just need the idea of a game to inspire them to beg their parents for more toys. And why spend money developing a high-quality game if the core market doesn't care about quality?
So they've chosen a route designed to give a lot of variability, i assume with the aim of maximising replay value by making every game different.
No, they've chosen a route of "publish that rough draft ASAP because our next financial report is going to kill our stock price if we don't get 7th edition out in time". 40k isn't the result of reasonable design decisions made by intelligent professionals, it's a shameful mess of stuff thrown together without any overall plan and published without anywhere near adequate playtesting. There's simply no justification for the current state of the rules.
And also GW seems to have realized far too late that advertising is good for a company.
Perhaps if the company hadn't become a modeling department echo chamber this mess could have been avoided.
As of late gw's models have been of very good quality, and from what ive Heard most exellent customer support regarding replacements if broken, so why cant they put in minimum effort to make the game enjoyable for everyone to play.
Because you can't please everyone all of the time, expecially a game as complex as 40k. So they've chosen a route designed to give a lot of variability, i assume with the aim of maximising replay value by making every game different.
you roll some Dice and move, you roll some Dice and shoot, you roll some Dice and charge your roll some Dice and cast, you roll some Dice and remove models. 40K aint that complex Deep down, even if it has 16ish factions they all follow the core rules with slight codex variations.
A pickup game should be easy and fast to get started, all this randomness just means you have to spend more time arguing with your opponent what type of game to play than actually playing the game, fracturing the playerbase isnt helping anyone involved.
Most noob pick up games , where the noobs didn't study the game before buying stuff , end on day one , when they are confronted with ++2 with re-rolls ,patch work armies , multi expansion builds or PKZ , which are country wide tournament FAQ that everyone uses here in normal games too.
I'm still laughing at the potential number of rolls the new psychic phase adds to the game.
Now, after rolling a dice to see how many you can roll, you get to pick to roll a certain number of those dice to roll, and see if you pass/fail or perils. If you perils, you get to roll on a chart. Depending on the result, you get to roll a leadership check. Depending on the specific result, you get to roll a dice to see how many hits the unit takes. Then roll for those hits.
At least you can't peril while trying to dispel. Imagine that or if someone is playing Chaos Space Marines and can re-roll some of his dice. It is as if they wanted the game to take hours to play.
I agree that GW has made some odd choices and that they could have done things better. Equally though I don't think its as bad as the internet likes to make out.
As of late gw's models have been of very good quality, and from what ive Heard most exellent customer support regarding replacements if broken, so why cant they put in minimum effort to make the game enjoyable for everyone to play.
Because you can't please everyone all of the time, expecially a game as complex as 40k. So they've chosen a route designed to give a lot of variability, i assume with the aim of maximising replay value by making every game different.
you roll some Dice and move, you roll some Dice and shoot, you roll some Dice and charge your roll some Dice and cast, you roll some Dice and remove models. 40K aint that complex Deep down, even if it has 16ish factions they all follow the core rules with slight codex variations.
A pickup game should be easy and fast to get started, all this randomness just means you have to spend more time arguing with your opponent what type of game to play than actually playing the game, fracturing the playerbase isnt helping anyone involved.
The complexity comes from balancing the factions, the units within the factions with different specialities and abilities and still try to keep in line with the established background.
The GW website lists 864 different unit entries available for purchase. Now admittedly there are probably a number of duplications in there, but that is still a lot of degrees of freedom to consider.
Flinty wrote: I agree that GW has made some odd choices and that they could have done things better. Equally though I don't think its as bad as the internet likes to make out.
Internet's a big place, and for every negative reaction, I've seen a positive one.
I'm simply commenting on the absurd number of dice rolling and time they've added when nothing needed to be changed in the first place.
I got the 7th edition rulebook and cards and after looking at it very closely and reading this thread I have come to realize the Games Workshop is doing the same thing to to 40k that Blizzard did to World of Warcraft.
They are dumbing the game down so that even little kids can win. The hardest part of the game was strategy and with all this randomness in there a little kid can win just by getting lucky. You can have a veteran player who knows all the ins and outs lose to an 11 yr old who barely understands the rules but randomness rolled in his favor. I stopped playing WoW for this very reason. I think its time to stow away the army for now and wait for GW to get their heads straight. Randomness is good but excessive randomness is lazy game design and at this point is a money grab by removing all strategy and making the game accessible.
I don't agree. Luck has a part ot play, and always has, but veterans should beat "11 year olds" as much as they always did because they have a much better understanding of army choice, odds of success for any given maneuver and target priority.
Flinty wrote: But before pre-measuring there was an unfair advantage to experienced people who could reliably eyeball distances compared to the n00bs or those with less well developed spacial awareness. With assaulting now it is at least totally random and equally unfair to n00b and veteran alike
I think you just put your finger on something. The game should not be "fair" to noob and veteran alike. Veterans should be better than noobs. A game that is so random you can't get better at it, that is not a game.
He is beng polite - lots of people flat out cheated.............
I play with games that have pre-mesuring and set charge distances and equally happy with that and 40Ks random charge distance - enjoy both
And I'm really sorry about your play experiences since you seem to be surrounded by cheaters, your fixation with them seems to point to some really deep trauma... But those cheaters of yours only cheated while judging charge distances? Because the 2 guys that we have over here that cheated while judging distances also cheat in pretty much every other stage of the game: they fake dice rolls, they accidentally move their models and terrain with their elbows, they move their models more than they are supposed to, they "forget" that a wizzard or psyker didn't roll that power that they really needed that turn (and the powers also seem to change from turn to turn along with some choice wargear), etc.
So unless your argument is that you have some kind of special cheater that only cheats when judging distances (and it appears that your entire meta is composed of these types of players), changing charge ranges from fixed to random doesn't really solve any cheating problem...
Nope my life is just fine thanks - kind of you to ask.............not just me - asked around at the club and pretty common occurance - luvckily I don't have to play those people much these days..................
People cheat - - people don't - I found that the whole pre-measuring things makes people more honest not less.
I play games with both random and set charge - enjoy both and see no major advantage - except perhaps I (and varipous others I was chatting to today) find the random more fun......but hey apparently everyone you play is a paragon of virture - must be heaven
Well I don't agree with your random = fun but I will say that, in terms of your argument, it is really true. Think about it, is it really that hard to eyeball things? You were supposed to estimate the distance before moving anyways. It just meant a more skilled player knows the general range. Heck, you don't even need to mean to cheat. After enough games, you kind of just know the general range. You might miss it sometimes here and there but you are, overall, far more likely to eyeball the range of the charge and shooting than a beginner.
Flinty wrote: I don't agree. Luck has a part ot play, and always has, but veterans should beat "11 year olds" as much as they always did because they have a much better understanding of army choice, odds of success for any given maneuver and target priority.
Both right and wrong...
Anyone who is a master of chess would RARELY (insanely small odds) be beaten by a newbie.
There is no randomness, a finite number of move combinations and various known tactics and strategies to be applied.
Army composition in 40k is a game before the game, is akin to rock-paper-scissors or finding the most cost to effectiveness models in the range but has high variability of success.
Then knowing the odds of what the rules favor (like shooting over melee) supports your argument to a small degree but there is SO MUCH randomization that keeps being added.
The degree of influence the veteran player has making meaningful choices to impact the game are having less of an effect when variables that determine a win in the game are also mainly determined by luck. More randomization = less player decision-making impacting the game.
Who gets to go first? It may get a "steal the initiative".
Reserves you roll, outflank, you roll for which side...
Movement through terrain, may get stuck and distance is variable...
"Mysterious terrain" nuff said...
Variable objectives...
Even getting off a Psy ability, rolling much dice...
Better to strip off hull points, penetrating hits are another layer of variation...
Re-rolls and templates are gold for better results.
I guess it is just tiring to see every choice in the game seems to hinge on a roll of the dice.
It seems more geared toward gambling fanatics than strategists.
I look at the fun of X-wing and really how little rolling is involved, the contrast is rather impressive.
Here it is, hello 7th. Watch the Imperium take on the forces of Chaos. This game has unbound, battled forged, summonings, fails and epicness. This game took 8 and a half hours to play through but I can assure you of two things: 1. we had a lot of fun and 2. no Overlords were harmed in the making of this film. Well, at least not much.
loki old fart wrote: Here it is, hello 7th. Watch the Imperium take on the forces of Chaos. This game has unbound, battled forged, summonings, fails and epicness. This game took 8 and a half hours to play through but I can assure you of two things: 1. we had a lot of fun and 2. no Overlords were harmed in the making of this film. Well, at least not much.
I don't suppose there is somewhere to watch the whole 8&1/2 hour game, rather than turn recaps?
loki old fart wrote: Here it is, hello 7th. Watch the Imperium take on the forces of Chaos. This game has unbound, battled forged, summonings, fails and epicness. This game took 8 and a half hours to play through but I can assure you of two things: 1. we had a lot of fun and 2. no Overlords were harmed in the making of this film. Well, at least not much.
I don't suppose there is somewhere to watch the whole 8&1/2 hour game, rather than turn recaps?
Go and ask them on you tube. That's where I found it.
