Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So, I see random charge distances. Didn't think they would find a way to dumb the game down even more.

Thoughts?

Look, dice and luck are a crucial element of the game. You can set up the greatest charge in the world, with a ten-man Paladin deathstar, complete with attached Librarian, Grandmaster with Rad Grenades and Psychotroke grenades, and theoretically you can still fluff your rolls and be wiped out by a ten man Conscript squad.

Luck is inherent in the system, all we are doing is debating how much impact it should have.

IMO, adding another layer of luck (over the top of the possibility of fluffing your dice in combat) to the mix is a good thing. It encourages players to more carefully consider the way they deploy and allocate their troops. It adds more to the question "is X in assault range of Y" than a simple yes/no answer, and requires you to act accordingly.

I don't see this as dumbing the game down at all, rather the opposite in fact.

Your are simply wrong. It doesnt force you to be more careful; why be careful when in the end, its about luck?

Your example only proves yourself wrong lol. I'll let you figure that one out.

Negator80 wrote:why be careful when in the end, its about luck?

Um, because you need to hedge your bets and stack the odds if you want to win?

Here is a very simple reason they added random charge distance.

Pre-measuring.

Kaldor wrote:

Negator80 wrote:why be careful when in the end, its about luck?

Um, because you need to hedge your bets and stack the odds if you want to win?

So youre saying 'get within 2 inches before declaring a charge'?

You're also saying 'its ok that i dont need as much skill'.

I understand your point OP.

e.g before we allow a certain margin of distance to be considered when gauging a distance, so be it.

But to do anymore, and making it MORE about luck? Might as well as roll 1-3 i win 4-6 you win.

Its almost like GW is trying to give 9 year old SM players a better chance to win.

Negator80 wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Negator80 wrote:why be careful when in the end, its about luck?

Um, because you need to hedge your bets and stack the odds if you want to win?

So youre saying 'get within 2 inches before declaring a charge'?

You're also saying 'its ok that i dont need as much skill'.

Uh, no.

Really, I don't understand your problem here. There is a potential to fail a charge due to bad luck. Good players will account for this, and win more often. Bad players will not, and they will lose more often.

Kaldor wrote:

Negator80 wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Negator80 wrote:why be careful when in the end, its about luck?

Um, because you need to hedge your bets and stack the odds if you want to win?

So youre saying 'get within 2 inches before declaring a charge'?

You're also saying 'its ok that i dont need as much skill'.

Uh, no.

Really, I don't understand your problem here. There is a potential to fail a charge due to bad luck. Good players will account for this, and win more often. Bad players will not, and they will lose more often.

Good players will be more lucky?

In the past, a good player could just 'be good'. Now its 'be good' and you still might fail.

Conversely, I never understood why being bad at guessing distances should make my army less effective in a tabletop strategy game.

doctorludo wrote:Conversely, I never understood why being bad at guessing distances should make my army less effective in a tabletop strategy game.

Then you should understand that if my squad leader told me to sprint 100 meters to cover where it was actually 200 meters while under fire, he would be a bad squad leader. And for the same reason, youd be a bad wargamer.

If they simply wanna add a tactical element to assault, then overwatch alone should be fine: "should I charge at a full size gunner unit and lose about 1-4(depends on your unit) on the charge? or should I wait?"

2D6" doesn't make things more tactical: for more durable assault units, this is fine, nothing has changed, they have gained the chance to do 5th ed fleet distance(12"), while still retaining the ability to shoot; for less durable units, this means their safe assault distance has dropped, so they'll have to get closer than in 5th ed before declaring a charge. And then things will stay this way until the next edition, that's not a fun tactical element, that's just a tactical shift from 5th to 6th.

And if "randomness is fun and tactical", why didn't shooting get the same treatment? Shooting, with pre-measuring, is now literally "is X in shooting range? Y/N". There can be millions of ways to explain why a gun would fail to hit a target at its maximum effective range, just as there can be ways to explain how my super fast wych unit has just moved 2".

It's the banana skin, it's always the god damn banana skin.

Negator80 wrote:Good players will be more lucky?

Oh yeah, that's exactly what I said.

Oh and this is a clear buff to marines.

Oh yeah, that's exactly what I said.

it is exactly what you said. You even explained it. 'stack the odds'=better chance at getting lucky. However, the options you have to stack those odds are quite limited.

doctorludo wrote:Conversely, I never understood why being bad at guessing distances should make my army less effective in a tabletop strategy game.

Because distance-judgment is a skill you could acquire should you try to(it's also an useful life skill beyond the means of tabletop wargame), random dice roll isn't a skill unless you "convert" your own dice.

For example, I had terrible judgment of distance when I 1st started playing, but I'm slowly getting better at it. However, I could train like a kung fu master, and I could still fail my 4+ dodge save.

Baronyu wrote:

doctorludo wrote:Conversely, I never understood why being bad at guessing distances should make my army less effective in a tabletop strategy game.

Because distance-judgment is a skill you could acquire should you try to(it's also an useful life skill beyond the means of tabletop wargame), random dice roll isn't a skill unless you "convert" your own dice.

For example, I had terrible judgment of distance when I 1st started playing, but I'm slowly getting better at it. However, I could train like a kung fu master, and I could still fail my 4+ dodge save.

And thats exactly why the OP is right.

Negator80 wrote:Oh and this is a clear buff to marines.

Oh yeah, that's exactly what I said.

it is exactly what you said. You even explained it. 'stack the odds'=better chance at getting lucky. However, the options you have to stack those odds are quite limited.

I don't think luck works the way you think it does.

If there's a 50% chance of failure, a good player will commit two units to the task, halving his rate of failure.

With the same luck, a good player is now twice as likely to succeed.

The way you're saying it, I should be able to charge some Grots into a Paladin Deathstar and expect to destroy it because hey, it's all just luck, right?

Ah right. There's a little bit of logic finally. from here, the argument is simply: this is too random and stupid.


And everyone runs around with 4T and a 3+ save too right? Nevermind all those xenos races that wont be able to weather the return fire.

Negator80 wrote:Ah right. There's a little bit of logic finally. from here, the argument is simply: this is too random and stupid.


And everyone runs around with 4T and a 3+ save too right? Nevermind all those xenos races that wont be able to weather the return fire.

You know what, I give up. I have no idea what you're even talking about, and I strongly suspect it's because you have no idea what you're talking about.

Kaldor wrote:

Negator80 wrote:Ah right. There's a little bit of logic finally. from here, the argument is simply: this is too random and stupid.


And everyone runs around with 4T and a 3+ save too right? Nevermind all those xenos races that wont be able to weather the return fire.

You know what, I give up. I have no idea what you're even talking about, and I strongly suspect it's because you have no idea what you're talking about.

Random charge distance is stupid for a billion reasons.

While the argument can be made (poorly) that its dumbing down the game, if you paid any attention at all to other changes (wound allocation and cover for instance) you would realize that the game requires far more skill to play effectively.

Negator80 wrote:

doctorludo wrote:Conversely, I never understood why being bad at guessing distances should make my army less effective in a tabletop strategy game.

Then you should understand that if my squad leader told me to sprint 100 meters to cover where it was actually 200 meters while under fire, he would be a bad squad leader. And for the same reason, youd be a bad wargamer.

But this isn't real life. It's a strategy game. There are plenty of other real-life skills that are translated into dice rolls in 40K. Accuracy, combat ability and strength, for instance. So rolling distance is a way of incorporating various random aspects of battle into an assault. As the leader, you have a chance to decide whether to charge a closer unit, with a higher chance of success.

In reality, I think the real reason it's been changed is that it's a common way people can cheat.

doctorludo wrote:

Negator80 wrote:

doctorludo wrote:Conversely, I never understood why being bad at guessing distances should make my army less effective in a tabletop strategy game.

Then you should understand that if my squad leader told me to sprint 100 meters to cover where it was actually 200 meters while under fire, he would be a bad squad leader. And for the same reason, youd be a bad wargamer.

But this isn't real life. It's a strategy game. There are plenty of other real-life skills that are translated into dice rolls in 40K. Accuracy, combat ability and strength, for instance. So rolling distance is a way of incorporating various random aspects of battle into an assault. As the leader, you have a chance to decide whether to charge a closer unit, with a higher chance of success.

In reality, I think the real reason it's been changed is that it's a common way people can cheat.

Sounds good on paper, but highly impractical.

Also, i pride myself in playing well. I dont pride myself in rolling dice well. Which are you?

Kaldor wrote:

Negator80 wrote:Oh and this is a clear buff to marines.

Oh yeah, that's exactly what I said.

it is exactly what you said. You even explained it. 'stack the odds'=better chance at getting lucky. However, the options you have to stack those odds are quite limited.

I don't think luck works the way you think it does.

If there's a 50% chance of failure, a good player will commit two units to the task, halving his rate of failure.

With the same luck, a good player is now twice as likely to succeed.

The way you're saying it, I should be able to charge some Grots into a Paladin Deathstar and expect to destroy it because hey, it's all just luck, right?

Eh.... hmm... First of all, luck is not a quantitive value, you cannot have the "same" luck, this isn't a video game, unless in my 20+ years of life, I still haven't found the status screen, also, can you check how many life I have left? And where my last checkpoint was?

A tactical element, is something, say... a shooting unit deciding whether or not to shoot at my wyches charging at them, while my incubi are also in range, but have yet to declare a charge, "Should I reduce the damage I'll take from his wyches? But what if the incubi charges me and I lost my overwatch?"; similarly, on my end, I'd be using the wyches to absorb the overwatch, so my incubi wouldn't have to risk being shot at, but I retain the ability to then change my incubi's action should he not overwatch, and my wyches didn't make the assault. It's a situation that may arise, or it may not, but myself and my opponent would have to adapt to should it arise.

On the other hand, random dice roll isn't tactical, as I've said just a few posts back, if your assault units are those that can stand in the open and take a few shots, there's nothing of value that's lost here, you wouldn't mind getting a few BS1 shots on a failed assault, and then standing in the open, since it already is standing in the open before that. BUT if you are playing a less durable units, I'll use the overused example you've seen in every thread by now, the wyches... they wanna be in assault, at full strength should that be possible, as soon as they leave the raider, so... in this case, instead of the 7"(minimum run + 6" assault) of our last edition, I'd deploy them closer, so I have a less chance to fail an assault and losing my wyches. This is a tactical shift from 5th to 6th, there'll be little changes from then on, once a player has found the optimal adaptation of the new rules, they will stick to it, or they will buy a whole new set of units to replace the now-useless units.

The fun tactical element should be something that you and your opponent have control over, if I know Tau can shoot 30" with their rapid fire, I'd try to stay out of the range, that's tactical. If I know my threat bubble of my guns is 36", I'd use that as an advantage to pit my opponent into the corner, that's tactical. If I'm trying to get inside my enemy's fire range with more than one unit, because I know he can only fire at one unit per turn, so I'll use distraction meatshield units to take out the hits, that's tactical. But if all of that is being random, then where is the tactical in that? It's just rolling dice for the sake of rolling dice.

It's the same with Monopoly, the most expensive street is always at the end of the lap, why didn't they make it all random to be "tactical"? Because there is no tactic in that.

And finally, I ask again, why isn't this "random is so tactical and fun" element added to shooting?

Negator80 wrote:

doctorludo wrote:

Negator80 wrote:

doctorludo wrote:Conversely, I never understood why being bad at guessing distances should make my army less effective in a tabletop strategy game.

Then you should understand that if my squad leader told me to sprint 100 meters to cover where it was actually 200 meters while under fire, he would be a bad squad leader. And for the same reason, youd be a bad wargamer.

But this isn't real life. It's a strategy game. There are plenty of other real-life skills that are translated into dice rolls in 40K. Accuracy, combat ability and strength, for instance. So rolling distance is a way of incorporating various random aspects of battle into an assault. As the leader, you have a chance to decide whether to charge a closer unit, with a higher chance of success.

In reality, I think the real reason it's been changed is that it's a common way people can cheat.

Sounds good on paper, but highly impractical.

Also, i pride myself in playing well. I dont pride myself in rolling dice well. Which are you?

I'm outta here.

Baronyu wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Negator80 wrote:Oh and this is a clear buff to marines.

Oh yeah, that's exactly what I said.

it is exactly what you said. You even explained it. 'stack the odds'=better chance at getting lucky. However, the options you have to stack those odds are quite limited.

I don't think luck works the way you think it does.

If there's a 50% chance of failure, a good player will commit two units to the task, halving his rate of failure.

With the same luck, a good player is now twice as likely to succeed.

The way you're saying it, I should be able to charge some Grots into a Paladin Deathstar and expect to destroy it because hey, it's all just luck, right?

Eh.... hmm... First of all, luck is not a quantitive value, you cannot have the "same" luck, this isn't a video game, unless in my 20+ years of life, I still haven't found the status screen, also, can you check how many life I have left? And where my last checkpoint was?

A tactical element, is something, say... a shooting unit deciding whether or not to shoot at my wyches charging at them, while my incubi are also in range, but have yet to declare a charge, "Should I reduce the damage I'll take from his wyches? But what if the incubi charges me and I lost my overwatch?"; similarly, on my end, I'd be using the wyches to absorb the overwatch, so my incubi wouldn't have to risk being shot at, but I retain the ability to then change my incubi's action should he not overwatch, and my wyches didn't make the assault. It's a situation that may arise, or it may not, but myself and my opponent would have to adapt to should it arise.

On the other hand, random dice roll isn't tactical, as I've said just a few posts back, if your assault units are those that can stand in the open and take a few shots, there's nothing of value that's lost here, you wouldn't mind getting a few BS1 shots on a failed assault, and then standing in the open, since it already is standing in the open before that. BUT if you are playing a less durable units, I'll use the overused example you've seen in every thread by now, the wyches... they wanna be in assault, at full strength should that be possible, as soon as they leave the raider, so... in this case, instead of the 7"(minimum run + 6" assault) of our last edition, I'd deploy them closer, so I have a less chance to fail an assault and losing my wyches. This is a tactical shift from 5th to 6th, there'll be little changes from then on, once a player has found the optimal adaptation of the new rules, they will stick to it, or they will buy a whole new set of units to replace the now-useless units.

The fun tactical element should be something that you and your opponent have control over, if I know Tau can shoot 30" with their rapid fire, I'd try to stay out of the range, that's tactical. If I know my threat bubble of my guns is 36", I'd use that as an advantage to pit my opponent into the corner, that's tactical. If I'm trying to get inside my enemy's fire range with more than one unit, because I know he can only fire at one unit per turn, so I'll use distraction meatshield units to take out the hits, that's tactical. But if all of that is being random, then where is the tactical in that? It's just rolling dice for the sake of rolling dice.

It's the same with Monopoly, the most expensive street is always at the end of the lap, why didn't they make it all random to be "tactical"? Because there is no tactic in that.

And finally, I ask again, why isn't this "random is so tactical and fun" element added to shooting?

They're too busy rationalizing to pay attention to logic.

Negator80 wrote:

They're too busy rationalizing to pay attention to logic.

I just watched you make a complete fool of yourself, insult 3 other people, and openly attack someone for not conforming to your idea of logic. I feel sorry for whatever group you play with.

Squishy wrote:

Negator80 wrote:

They're too busy rationalizing to pay attention to logic.

I just watched you make a complete fool of yourself, insult 3 other people, and openly attack someone for not conforming to your idea of logic. I feel sorry for whatever group you play with.

Im quite nice actually, didnt insult anybody, and only expected reasonable amounts of logic. And you really shouldnt twist words or situations because I didnt 'attack' anybody for not 'conforming'. If someone cant see why its a good idea to have an umbrella on a rainy day, thats not my fault nor should i be 'attacked' by someone for questioning their logic.

Back on track, why is random charge better then non random?

I too like to post threads just to start arguments.

Republicans are better than Democrats guys! Thoughts?