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.

Mannahnin wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Part of how we mitigated risk of assaults in 5th was using terrain to make them random/less reliable.

If I can get my assaulting unit within 5" of the enemy, I have ~ an 83% change of making my assault. If I got within 5" of the enemy in 5th, but there was difficult terrain involved, my odds were ~54%.

that was part of the small set of "gamey" tactics that helped to differentiate good players from lucky ones before.

IMO using terrain to slow an enemy assault is representational, which is the opposite of how I meant "gamey". I meant that word to mean a rule which leaps out and breaks the sense of verisimilitude by its artificiality and lack of connection to simulation or narrative.

Than I misunderstood your intention with the term. My bad.

No worries.

It's tricky; ideally a wargame will have rules which both offer tactical depth and which make for a certain degree of simulation, so we can picture the action and make decisions in game which make a reasonably amount of sense / give us some verisimilitude.

40k has always had a varying amount of both. I'm on my 4th edition, and have always played competitively but with some enjoyment of the narrative and imagery of the game. I think 5th was probably the best-designed of those editions for competition, but 6th may still be as good as 3rd or 4th, and I enjoyed playing those competitively.

Mannahnin wrote:No worries.

It's tricky; ideally a wargame will have rules which both offer tactical depth and which make for a certain degree of simulation, so we can picture the action and make decisions in game which make a reasonably amount of sense / give us some verisimilitude.

40k has always had a varying amount of both. I'm on my 4th edition, and have always played competitively but with some enjoyment of the narrative and imagery of the game. I think 5th was probably the best-designed of those editions for competition, but 6th may still be as good as 3rd or 4th, and I enjoyed playing those competitively.

I began in third ed. I've always wanted the game to be a quality compromise between imagination and skill based gaming. Every edition has moved it in that direction until now. They've gone too far into the realm play and too far out of the realm of competition for me to really be enthused anymore. The first assault I ever made in the edition was a blood angels special character assaulting a unit of pink horrors. I rolled doubles ones, failed to engage, and then got murdered by a passing flying monstrous creature that I couldn't engage or damage.

I pretty much gave up after that one. The game became too stressful for me to play and the local area had been turning to privateer presses offerings lately anyway.

Cruentus wrote:40k not always being 'narrative' might be true, but it has always been 'beer and pretzels'. And if you ever read the commentary from the game designers (excepting Alessio), we're all playing the game wrong by playing tournaments, spamming units, and trying to find rules loopholes for advantage. GW has just never been able to build a game that is tight enough for tournament play, and it has never been their intention either. Ever.

And 40k hasn't randomized movement, it has randomized charge distances. And it did so because it also moved to 'always measure' distances. In my opinion, it'd be worse to have set charge distances, with the ability of my opponent to dance out of my charge range all the time via pre-measure. That's less likely in the current rule format.

I've also read commentary from the game designers telling players to play the game their way. Unless you call your event a tournament, then you're playing wrong apparently.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:It's tricky; ideally a wargame will have rules which both offer tactical depth and which make for a certain degree of simulation, so we can picture the action and make decisions in game which make a reasonably amount of sense / give us some verisimilitude.

40k has always had a varying amount of both. I'm on my 4th edition, and have always played competitively but with some enjoyment of the narrative and imagery of the game. I think 5th was probably the best-designed of those editions for competition, but 6th may still be as good as 3rd or 4th, and I enjoyed playing those competitively.

I began in third ed. I've always wanted the game to be a quality compromise between imagination and skill based gaming. Every edition has moved it in that direction until now.

I'm on the same page up to here.

ShumaGorath wrote:[They've gone too far into the realm play and too far out of the realm of competition for me to really be enthused anymore. The first assault I ever made in the edition was a blood angels special character assaulting a unit of pink horrors. I rolled doubles ones, failed to engage, and then got murdered by a passing flying monstrous creature that I couldn't engage or damage.

I pretty much gave up after that one. The game became too stressful for me to play and the local area had been turning to privateer presses offerings lately anyway.

I found the change from 3rd to 4th rougher than this one's been, at least so far. I've only gotten a half-dozen games in so far, but I think it's still going to be worth my time to travel around the country to big events, as well as playing locally.

ShumaGorath wrote:[The first assault I ever made in the edition was a blood angels special character assaulting a unit of pink horrors. I rolled doubles ones, failed to engage, and then got murdered by a passing flying monstrous creature that I couldn't engage or damage.

Karma perhaps?

I found the change from 3rd to 4th rougher than this one's been, at least so far. I've only gotten a half-dozen games in so far, but I think it's still going to be worth my time to travel around the country to big events, as well as playing locally.

I dunno, the mechanics seemed like a logical progression for the most part. They identified problems, tried to fix them, tried to streamline and make things more dynamic and interactive for the players. For the most part they succeeded, they just didn't think about codex balance or the hollowing of troop options. Sixth edition seems to be the most immediately broken of any edition change I've experienced. The addition of flying MCs makes quite a few army builds virtually unplayable while things like "no assaulting even if your transport didn't move" are just headscratching and unbalancing. If a chimera can move, have its contents fire, and then move again why can't a unit get out of a still transport and assault? It seems like they just made the good better and the worse worse (with the exception of demons which got handed 1-7 supermans per list).

CT GAMER wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:[The first assault I ever made in the edition was a blood angels special character assaulting a unit of pink horrors. I rolled doubles ones, failed to engage, and then got murdered by a passing flying monstrous creature that I couldn't engage or damage.

Karma perhaps?

Whatever I did to deserve the army I purchased and built being made useless via the addition of a type of unit that I can't fight in close combat and yet can fight me in close combat I am truly sorry. At least I could roll attacks against draigowing. About my only defense against flying circuis is to start spamming stormravens.

English Assassin wrote:
Firstly, it's more than a little rude to call somebody else a liar, secondly, I give up, obviously the nebulous idea of Warhammer 40,000 in your head supercedes its designers' stated intentions.

While you seem to be fixated upon a reality that has never existed. There is no way in hell that 2nd ed was designed as a competative game.

Palindrome wrote:

English Assassin wrote:
Firstly, it's more than a little rude to call somebody else a liar, secondly, I give up, obviously the nebulous idea of Warhammer 40,000 in your head supercedes its designers' stated intentions.

While you seem to be fixated upon a reality that has never existed. There is no way in hell that 2nd ed was designed as a competative game.

Lets be fair here, second ed wasn't designed as a competitive game but third fourth and fifth were. Therefore he is more right than you since you repetitiously stated that the game was always meant as a narrative game.

But that is an exception, not a generality. If I run 30 feet across an empty grassy field I will trip maybe once in 50 times due to judging the terrain wrongly and not being able to catch myself. I am not a genetically engineered space elf, demon based on the concept of agility, or 800 pound man who can run through small cars without slowing down. I should be the worst case scenario, no the best.

Random charge ranges are purely random without explanation because no explanation or narrative example for the slowdown exists. It's pure inconsistency.

Running 30 feet across an empty grasy field is not really assault is it?

How many times have you run across a grassy field towards a line of angry aliens in power armor shooting rapid fire bolters at you, whilst also trying to ignore the 30' robot with tank crushing claws and gatling guns just a few feet to your right that is trying to kill you, whilst the ground under your feet is heaving from explosions and visibilty is obscured by various means, also you are trying to work out whether that garbled order to charge you half received across the deafening din of battle was to attack the unit in front of you or the unit to left of you? When everyone else in your team hesitates are you the one getting up and heading out alone or are you waiting for that moment that everyone decides together that they are meant to get up and attack?

puree wrote:I keep seeing those who dislike the random charge range querying whether those who like it would want random this or random that. Do those who like things fixed charge distance want to get rid of hit rolls and wound rolls and saves and just have a fixed kill rate (so 10 marines always inflict 5 wounds and marines always ignore 2 out of 3 wounds, no rolls necessary). There are plenty of games with non (or very little) randomness in them, would 40k be better with like that?

What you describe is on the opposite end of the spectrum than the game with everything random expect basic movement and part of deployment, something in the middle would be great. Not to mention a fixed system with some variables like always a fixed number of wounds plus a throw for 25% additional or sth with maybe a tiny possibility for Black Swan event (significantly smaller than now) could be better. I speculate though.

puree wrote:I suspect that the majority want some degree of randomness in 40k, but that it is subjective as to when it crosses the line. It may be because it involves just 1 dice like running (lack of some bell curve), or because it is something you would do constantly do (e.g. if we had random moving).

Some may dislike the idea that anything beyond killing the other guy is random.

I do, very much. The sysytem written like that would fit this btw:

English Assassin wrote:

"The aim of Warhammer 40,000 is to fight battles against other players. Win or lose battles are entertaining challenges in which you try to out-think and out-play your opponent, taking advantage of what good luck comes your way, but ultimately relying upon sound tactics to win the day." Warhammmer 40,000 Rulebook 2nd Edition, page 4

"Whatever you chose within this total [points values], the battle will be a fair match, decided by good tactics and a little bit of luck." Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook 5th Edition, page ix

DarthDiggler wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Cruentus wrote: it has always been 'beer and pretzels'. And if you ever read the commentary from the game designers (excepting Alessio), we're all playing the game wrong by playing tournaments, spamming units, and trying to find rules loopholes for advantage. GW has just never been able to build a game that is tight enough for tournament play, and it has never been their intention either. Ever.

Jervis said something to this effect when he started his Standard Bearer series in WD. I don't have the issue in question, but there was a bunch of talking about it at the time.

See above.

Palindrome wrote:
Did it? The rules and scope have changed but 40K is still designed as narrative driven game.

Again, the bolded quote.

puree wrote:

English Assassin wrote: I can't however think of even one other mainstream wargame which randomises movement.

DBA is a pretty mainstream ancients wargame which has a huge random factor in movement. The move rates for units themselves are set, but the number of units you can move is a D6 roll. You can often win or lose a game based on that roll.

The rule is complete crap then.

Puree wrote:It is even more laughably easy to compute the odds of rolling 2D6 and getting any given result, far easier than the odds of 20D6 needing 3+ and scoring 14+ hits (for example).

2d6 is very unreliable and shouldn't be used for something crucial like charge range. Computing is easy but 2d6 rolls doesn't work the same as 20d6 rolls

We had Chaos in the Old World boardgame beer and pretzels game yesterday but it was not fun for anyone as there were lot of 2d6 crucial rolls all around breaking the best plans, event cards getting people out of the game etc. The winner can't say whether he won because of his skills or luck, the losers were not able to say why they lost, quite of a wasted time.

We had the other boargame match before (not sure the title, played it for the first time, some FFG space thing) but both the losers and winners were satisfied a lot, it was a great game thanks to a proper ruleset. We could easily have pointed the mistakes, possibilities etc after the game and there was like half an hour of talking about it.

Cruentus wrote:40k not always being 'narrative' might be true, but it has always been 'beer and pretzels'. And if you ever read the commentary from the game designers (excepting Alessio), we're all playing the game wrong by playing tournaments, spamming units, and trying to find rules loopholes for advantage. GW has just never been able to build a game that is tight enough for tournament play, and it has never been their intention either. Ever.

What does it mean beer and pretzels? If mindless throwing dice going "wow" at events at the board then no, it's a game for kids 4+ so no beer for sure. If laid back party with friends with some thinking required then yes, 40k is beer and pretzels game. That does not mean that the game has to be unbalanced luckfest.

Cruentus wrote:And 40k hasn't randomized movement, it has randomized charge distances. And it did so because it also moved to 'always measure' distances. In my opinion, it'd be worse to have set charge distances, with the ability of my opponent to dance out of my charge range all the time via pre-measure. That's less likely in the current rule format.

What about your opponent's ability to dance out of gun range all time via pre-measure?

What I am getting from this is hobbyists shouldn't play the game, TO's shouldn't change the game... except INAT, everything should be allowed as is... except Forgeworld, GW IS a competitive game... but isn't.

What I am getting is the same circle argument we get every month. How are OP's not shutting these threads down 3 posts in?

2d6 is very unreliable and shouldn't be used for something crucial like charge range. Computing is easy but 2d6 rolls doesn't work the same as 20d6 rolls

Only because you are not using the 20d6 as a single roll, but as 20 separate checks. The one or two high strength or low AP shots we take are often far more crucial than the 20D6 basic weapon rolls, and they are based on a single D6.

The 2D6 roll is not a roll to see how far you move, it is effectively a roll to see if you can move X. I can change this to a roll of D100 (as you don't like 2D6) and have the same effect;

distance: success
2 = 1+
3 = 3+
...
11 = 92+
12 = 98+

You could do the same thing with 20D6, just work out your odds and what that translates to given your choice of dice..

Presumably you don't like leadership tests because they are to variable and are often crucial?

puree wrote:

2d6 is very unreliable and shouldn't be used for something crucial like charge range. Computing is easy but 2d6 rolls doesn't work the same as 20d6 rolls

Only because you are not using the 20d6 as a single roll, but as 20 separate checks. The one or two high strength or low AP shots we take are often far more crucial than the 20D6 basic weapon rolls, and they are based on a single D6.

The 2D6 roll is not a roll to see how far you move, it is effectively a roll to see if you can move X. I can change this to a roll of D100 (as you don't like 2D6) and have the same effect;

distance: success
2 = 1+
3 = 3+
...
11 = 92+
12 = 98+

You could do the same thing with 20D6, just work out your odds and what that translates to given your choice of dice..

Presumably you don't like leadership tests because they are to variable and are often crucial?

That is a bit different. Most often, if I am taking a leadership test, it is because of something my opponent did to my army, and I am reacting to it. (Seeing how well my troops stand up to being blown out of their transport, seeing half their friends die around them, etc...). Non opponent forced checks are meant to be a balance factor (The game designers didn't want psychic abilities to pass automatically, nor IG orders, etc...).

IF I am trying to charge you, that is simply my models attempting to do what I want them to do. Having a percentile test for reactions seems reasonable and fair, having a percentile test for my models to get to any/all other units is quite different. At least in Fantasy you get to add your base movement value.

puree wrote:

2d6 is very unreliable and shouldn't be used for something crucial like charge range. Computing is easy but 2d6 rolls doesn't work the same as 20d6 rolls

Only because you are not using the 20d6 as a single roll, but as 20 separate checks. The one or two high strength or low AP shots we take are often far more crucial than the 20D6 basic weapon rolls, and they are based on a single D6.

The 2D6 roll is not a roll to see how far you move, it is effectively a roll to see if you can move X. I can change this to a roll of D100 (as you don't like 2D6) and have the same effect;

distance: success
2 = 1+
3 = 3+
...
11 = 92+
12 = 98+

You could do the same thing with 20D6, just work out your odds and what that translates to given your choice of dice..

Presumably you don't like leadership tests because they are to variable and are often crucial?

d100 (2d100?) would change nothing but throwing 20d6 at once and taking the average to resolve charge would be much more reliable.

To throw for leadership you ussualy have to eat enough wounds that come from a lot of more reliable throws first. 2d6 charge is just that, one unreliable throw.

Anyway leadership could be designed better too probably and that there is over abundance of random throws in 40k doesn't mean they have to add more crucial random throws. And yes, low AP shots if not twin linked are too random, something could be done to make them more reliable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Palindrome wrote:

English Assassin wrote:
Firstly, it's more than a little rude to call somebody else a liar, secondly, I give up, obviously the nebulous idea of Warhammer 40,000 in your head supercedes its designers' stated intentions.

While you seem to be fixated upon a reality that has never existed. There is no way in hell that 2nd ed was designed as a competative game.

Wtf, looks like you deliberatly cut the part of the post you quoted which contradicts what you say:

English Assassin wrote:

"The aim of Warhammer 40,000 is to fight battles against other players. Win or lose battles are entertaining challenges in which you try to out-think and out-play your opponent, taking advantage of what good luck comes your way, but ultimately relying upon sound tactics to win the day." Warhammmer 40,000 Rulebook 2nd Edition, page 4

....it is another topic that maybe it didn't work as competitive. The idea was competitive ruleset (the game where you fight the battle to win instead of throwing dice and writing books based on the effects), not narrative one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Walls wrote:What I am getting from this is hobbyists shouldn't play the game, TO's shouldn't change the game... except INAT, everything should be allowed as is... except Forgeworld, GW IS a competitive game... but isn't.

Why is hobbyist and someone who wants competitive ruleset ussualy portrayed as being on opposite side of the fence, I don't get it. What stops a hobbyist from enjoying a good balanced ruleset, he/she plays by the rules anyway, no? Why a more luck based game is better for hobbyist, I don't know a single person incapable of grasping tactics in 40k after a few matches. So maybe better rules are good for everyone, just there are maybe different mindsets when sitting to the table but that's not a matter of rules. Not to mention a supposed WAAC would have a harder time to smash some pure fluffy army if there was more balance.

Quake 3 had normal maps and tourney maps, what's the problem for GW to make scenarios for tournaments with rules exceptions etc, everyone has fun. But no, narrative driven players are all like kill the WAAC, hooray no more tournaments and let's apologise for company laziness. It's not that the ruleset good for everyone is impossible, you can do it either with common rules or competitive core ruleset + optional narrative part/ narrative core ruleset + exceptions for competitive play . GW won't do it because the're lazy and there's no reason to work more - they will just use cinematic excuse, alienate part of the fanbase, cater to kids with new edition and there are people who will like all that anyway. Along with price hike, buying products to fix their already expensive products and whatever happens with the fluff but that's another topic.

Chance of missing a 2+ on d6 save : 16.67%
Chance of rolling a 2 on 2d6 charge: 2.78%

~ When you roll your saves you play the average, you don't get an automatic. Why do you feel charging should be any different? Is losing my 2+ save HQ model really not crucial even though my average odds are better?

Chance of rolling a 4+ on d6 save: 50%
Chance of rolling a 7+ on 2d6 charge:58.34%

If you ever played (or theorized) on averages, which we all have, and you had a 4+ save model, you banked on living 50% of the time. Now, I have a 1" better charge than last edition for a regular model at an average rate of better than my 50/50 save.

If you want to talk about leadership values: Sure I have to take wounds before I take that 2d6. But what if I get unlucky and miss 3 2+ saves which forces me to take that test? The chance of that happening is so slender in comparison to me getting a 1" better charge.

Honestly, if you are going to complain about something all of a sudden becoming "randomized" (i.e.- now playstyle being based on the hopes of average dice) then maybe you should re-think how you've been strategizing this game all along.

Honestly, if you are going to complain about something all of a sudden becoming "randomized" (i.e.- now playstyle being based on the hopes of average dice) then maybe you should re-think how you've been strategizing this game all along.

Quite.

But people have a terrible urge to equate 'random factor' to 'loss of control' (actually should be 'loss of absolute control') to 'less tactical'. Whereas in fact a true tactical simulation should have nothing that is not reliant on a random factor in order to have it work as desired.

I really like random charges as they open up tactical options (declare a charge with a unit 8" away from your intended enemy. If they overwatch against it, they can't overwatch versus your uber-assault unit that is 3" away. Yet if they don't and you make it in, they've lost the overwatch anyway) as well as you having to allow for them maybe not going off (and if you want absolute control, you can still get it by starting your charge 2" or less from the enemy).

When you roll your saves you play the average, you don't get an automatic. Why do you feel charging should be any different? Is losing my 2+ save HQ model really not crucial even though my average odds are better?

Because logically i'm more likely to shoot someone in the head when firing at them then I am to trip while running across empty pavement. Why is assaulting random when actual movement isn't? Why are gun ranges not random?

If you ever played (or theorized) on averages, which we all have, and you had a 4+ save model, you banked on living 50% of the time. Now, I have a 1" better charge than last edition for a regular model at an average rate of better than my 50/50 save.

The %'s don't matter, what matters is that the tactical basis of movement and positioning is trivialized by a reliance on luck. How people still don't understand this boggles my mind.

Honestly, if you are going to complain about something all of a sudden becoming "randomized" (i.e.- now playstyle being based on the hopes of average dice) then maybe you should re-think how you've been strategizing this game all along.

Why? That doesn't even make sense. Why would I rethink knowing assault distances and proper movement in the last 30 years of this game because some turd in a bad vest decided it was more cinematic to terminators to trip in unison sometimes?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Blood and Slaughter wrote:

Honestly, if you are going to complain about something all of a sudden becoming "randomized" (i.e.- now playstyle being based on the hopes of average dice) then maybe you should re-think how you've been strategizing this game all along.

Quite.

But people have a terrible urge to equate 'random factor' to 'loss of control' (actually should be 'loss of absolute control') to 'less tactical'. Whereas in fact a true tactical simulation should have nothing that is not reliant on a random factor in order to have it work as desired.

I really like random charges as they open up tactical options (declare a charge with a unit 8" away from your intended enemy. If they overwatch against it, they can't overwatch versus your uber-assault unit that is 3" away. Yet if they don't and you make it in, they've lost the overwatch anyway) as well as you having to allow for them maybe not going off (and if you want absolute control, you can still get it by starting your charge 2" or less from the enemy).

Congratulations, you just wasted the points on a spare unit to make up for the randomness of the games new assault phase rules. Once you wipe out that unit I hope you enjoy getting shot off the table by the player making the strategically and tactically intelligent decision to not partake in assaults at all. If only you didn't have spend points on extra redundant and useless units maybe you'd be able to compete. Doesn't this new edition open up a whole new lovely world of tactics that you can use to try to mitigate the fact that the core rules now favor not assaulting things? Sure seems tactical. It's like how modern metallurgy greatly increased the tactical options of swords and armor in theoretical battles that don't occur because using those tactics means you've lost the game.

Why is fixed assault distance over open ground such an essential thing?

In 5th I found almost everyone hugged cover anyway so it was almost always 2d6, pick the highest. 6th has actually made charges more likely in most instances I find, and allows you to chance your arm from further away if you're prepared to take the Overwatch.

Random charges add to decision making rather than take from it. To be honest I'd quite like random movement distance too (though less variable than charge because an assault is necessarily rather different to other battlefield movement

Honestly, if you want a game with greater absolute control, that's fine, everyone has different preferences. But to suggest a game with less absolute control (but as much or more decision making) is more broken or less tactical is nonsense.

by the player making the strategically and tactically intelligent decision to not partake in assaults at all.

Oh don't talk twaddle, assault is just as solid an option as shooting in 6th, it's just not generally better than shooting like it was in 5th.

Why is fixed assault distance over open ground such an essential thing?

Because going over doesn't help you and going under screws you. If you're at 9-10 inches you're just going to run. If you're at 7 or below you're going to assault. The run is the same as it always was, the assault could still fail. Add in lessened cover saves, losing models from the front from overwatch, and the new rally rules and now that there's a numerically significant chance of failing charges 5 inches or over (about a fifth from pure dice, more if you lose distance due to overwatch) and it makes it tactically less viable to engage in assaults. Assaults don't occur in large numbers so a single badly rolled assault value can lose you the game.

In 5th I found almost everyone hugged cover anyway so it was almost always 2d6, pick the highest. 6th has actually made charges more likely in most instances I find, and allows you to chance your arm from further away if you're prepared to take the Overwatch.

In fifth the vehicle rules allowed for much faster upfield movement as well as assaulting from flanking or rear positions. In sixth you're going to be making a lot more long distance charges (where you'll just run instead).

Random charges add to decision making rather than take from it.

No, overwatch added decision making. Your decision hinged entirely on overwatch and not the randomness of the charge. In the future please be able to tell the difference.

Honestly, if you want a game with greater absolute control, that's fine, everyone has different preferences. But to suggest a game with less absolute control (but as much or more decision making) is more broken or less tactical is nonsense.

Of course, but this isn't an overarching statement about conceptual idealizations of games. This is a specific scenario in a changed ruleset in a single game.That changed ruleset reduced the tactical input of the player. No one on this forum has ever made a sound argument about how this increased tactical options and you're not really breaking the mold here.

That changed ruleset reduced the tactical input of the player. No one on this forum has ever made a sound argument about how this increased tactical options and you're not really breaking the mold here.

Nope.

Look, say in 5th you had a unit 5" away from the enemy and for some unknowable reason said enemy was not in cover. You have now a simple decision: charge or not. You must merely determine the likelihood of success.

Now in 6th there's less certainty. You've a decent chance of making it in, but perhaps there's going to be a lot of overwatch (say 30 guardsmen). Perhaps you don't want to take that overwatch fire if you can help it. Now you have another unit that is 8" away. poor chance they'll make it in, but they might, and they may be in a better position to take ioverwatch, or just more expendable. So now you've forced the enemy to make a decision -- one that simple overwatch and fixed charge would not have allowed, it's entirely to do with the random charge. Will he shoot the 8" unit and therefore be unable to fire on the 5" unit. Or will he chance it not making it in and so not fire. This is variable charge increasing decision making demands. Decision making is the essence of tactical thinking.

Blood and Slaughter wrote:

I really like random charges as they open up tactical options: declare a charge with a unit 8" away from your intended enemy. If they overwatch against it, they can't overwatch versus your uber-assault unit that is 3" away. Yet if they don't and you make it in, they've lost the overwatch anyway.

THIS.

Combined actions coordinated with multiple units is the way to mitigate overwatch.

Assaulters actually have to plan and work a little more from a tactical perspective now, and that is a good thing in my book...

Look, say in 5th you had a unit 5" away from the enemy and for some unknowable reason said enemy was not in cover. You have now a simple decision: charge or not. You must merely determine the likelihood of success.

Well, technically you could opt to not assault or run.

Now in 6th there's less certainty. You've a decent chance of making it in, but perhaps there's going to be a lot of overwatch (say 30 guardsmen). Perhaps you don't want to take that overwatch fire if you can help it. Now you have another unit that is 8" away. poor chance they'll make it in, but they might, and they may be in a better position to take ioverwatch, or just more expendable. So now you've forced the enemy to make a decision -- one that simple overwatch and fixed charge would not have allowed, it's entirely to do with the random charge

Remember when I said that you're attributing the extra tactics to overwatch but saying it was the random charge? Yeah, this is pretty much that. The random charge has nothing to do with this scenario. If you had overwatch in fifth you would have opened up the exact same "new tactical options".

The fact that you now twice failed to recognize that simple fact and keep going on about a nearly useless tactic that requires redundant assault units (thus wasting points and losing you the game) implies that this conversation is fruitless.

I'm done here. A tactic that hinges on making bad trades with poorly done movement all with the aim of overcoming randomness that can be better overcome in numerous other ways isn't a viable tactic. You could just as easily run at the enemy to deny them the overwatch and be assured of an assault the turn after but I don't see you suggesting it because it's a bad idea, just like what you're suggesting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CT GAMER wrote:

Blood and Slaughter wrote:

I really like random charges as they open up tactical options: declare a charge with a unit 8" away from your intended enemy. If they overwatch against it, they can't overwatch versus your uber-assault unit that is 3" away. Yet if they don't and you make it in, they've lost the overwatch anyway.

THIS.

Combined actions coordinated with multiple units is the way to mitigate overwatch.

Assaulters actually have to plan and work a little more from a tactical perspective now, and that is a good thing in my book...

Actually you mitigate overwatch by shooting, not assaulting. By throwing out two units you engage directly in and thus force overwatch. If one of your two units is a death start then theres no reason to try to mitigate overwatch via hammer and anvil since your hammer is already going to be nearly immune to overwatches. Handing out free swords when everyone is picking up guns doesn't increase the tactics of the fight, it just creates daydreamy scenarios that don't actually occur. It's much more fruitful to just shoot the enemy and let them walk into your overwatch. Every codex barring tyranids is fundamentally better when preparing to receive assaults then when making them in sixth edition.

Every codex barring tyranids is fundamentally better when preparing to receive assaults then when making them in sixth edition.

Erm, no.

Blood and Slaughter wrote:

Every codex barring tyranids is fundamentally better when preparing to receive assaults then when making them in sixth edition.

Erm, no.

Name one that's better with an assault oriented force vs a shooting one.

Emp. wrote:Chance of missing a 2+ on d6 save : 16.67%
Chance of rolling a 2 on 2d6 charge: 2.78%

~ When you roll your saves you play the average, you don't get an automatic. Why do you feel charging should be any different? Is losing my 2+ save HQ model really not crucial even though my average odds are better?

Chance of rolling a 4+ on d6 save: 50%
Chance of rolling a 7+ on 2d6 charge:58.34%

If you ever played (or theorized) on averages, which we all have, and you had a 4+ save model, you banked on living 50% of the time. Now, I have a 1" better charge than last edition for a regular model at an average rate of better than my 50/50 save.

If you want to talk about leadership values: Sure I have to take wounds before I take that 2d6. But what if I get unlucky and miss 3 2+ saves which forces me to take that test? The chance of that happening is so slender in comparison to me getting a 1" better charge.

Honestly, if you are going to complain about something all of a sudden becoming "randomized" (i.e.- now playstyle being based on the hopes of average dice) then maybe you should re-think how you've been strategizing this game all along.

- before you roll for save, you roll to hit and to wound, it's not let's roll one dice to see whether this guy dies or not, the overall outcome of my units being shot at is more predictable
- most of the time, loosing one guy would be less crucial than failed charge I guess
- it's randomised movement which is fundamentaly bad, a world of difference and step too far in randomising, I don't have to re-think anything - I'm not against randomness but against an excessive amount of it
- the combined chance for 2" to 5" charge is just below 30% and those are bad results because of overwatch
- that there are random elements is no reason to further randomise it, or maybe let's randomise the whole movement and gun ranges... imagine that stupidity of the game
- 2d6 charge is another random element where you have to make up for it, you can't have too many of those

This is a specific scenario in a changed ruleset in a single game.That changed ruleset reduced the tactical input of the player.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of tactics. Tactics is not the same as certainty in the least, less certainty does not mean less tactical. That's all the charge roll has introduced, less certainty.

No one on this forum has ever made a sound argument about how this increased tactical options and you're not really breaking the mold here.

And no one has made a sound argument as to why there are less tactical options.

Why is assaulting random when actual movement isn't? Why are gun ranges not random?

Irrelevant, the game doesn't have it, no one needs to argue why or why not. The argument is whether non certainty in charges that the game does have is less tactical than in 5th.

The %'s don't matter, what matters is that the tactical basis of movement and positioning is trivialized by a reliance on luck. How people still don't understand this boggles my mind.

Quite the contrary, the roll for charge and understanding the probabilties makes the tactics of movement and positioning prior to that far more involved. If you think movement and positioning has been trivialised then you will probably be losing most games as you haven't grasped the increased importance of both.

If you're at 9-10 inches you're just going to run. If you're at 7 or below you're going to assault.

Far from it, if you idea of tactics is that simple then that may be partly why you struggle to see why the charge roll is better than the old fixed charge from a tactical perspective.

No, overwatch added decision making. Your decision hinged entirely on overwatch and not the randomness of the charge. In the future please be able to tell the difference.

No, the lack of knowledge of charge success makes a huge difference to your decision making, irrespective of overwatch. You need to understand that just because one rule affects decision making (overwatch) does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that another rule doesn't (charge roll). Overwatch on the whole has a small affect on decision making compared to the charge roll.

before you roll for save, you roll to hit and to wound, it's not let's roll one dice to see whether this guy dies or not, the overall outcome of my units being shot at is more predictable

Its irrlevant whether it was 3 rolls leading to the result or 1, either way you have a probability of death or not.

The overall outcome of the enemy shooting at you is not more predictable unless you are looking at the most vague of predictions. 20 bolter shots at marines with a 1/9 chance of a kill per shot has an expected range of 0-7 kills, my idea of a 'more predictable' outcome is not that my squad might be all dead, totally untouched, or something in between. I could roll 1 dice or 20 dice with re-rolls and all sorts, if the final probability is 1/9 then the overall spread of likely results doesn't alter.

My chance of exploding the landraider with the melta I just outflanked behind it is ~20%, again hardly a 'more predictable' outcome, just roll a D5 and say it succeeds on a 5 rather than roll to hit, penetrate and damage affect.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of tactics. Tactics is not the same as certainty in the least, less certainty does not mean less tactical. That's all the charge roll has introduced, less certainty.

You seem unable to differentiate between "tactics" and "choice". You are treating them like they are one and the same. Without a framework of intention with positive and negative consequences you can not have a tactic, nor can you have a tactic when the tactic produces an undesirable result (such as the one you keep mentioning).

And no one has made a sound argument as to why there are less tactical options.

That's because you don't understand the difference between a framework wherein tactical decision making is emphasized and one wherein tactical decisions can be made numerously with uncertain or negative consequences. A tactic is a "thing that produces a desired result", and thus it's on the impetus of the player to establish what his goal is with a specific tactic. You can never not have a "tactic" when you are willing to damage yourself to achieve a goal. That's also not likely going to be a "tactic" in the overarching framework of the game as you are producing a logically undesirable result for yourself in order to engage in an activity that you believe is beneficial or enjoyable. Tactics are purely subjective and thus something can not have quantitatively more of less of them unless choice is removed. That doesn't mean things can't be more or less tactical than one another. There are infinite "tactics" for flipping a coin, just as there are for rolling dice. When you remove "control" from the "tactics" you remove the efficacy of those tactics which is where you can measure how tactical a game is. Efficacy in decision making is the final arbiter in tactical choice driven scenarios. The efficacy in choice making under random assaults is lessened because control is lessened because results are uncertain. That random charge can invalidate every tactic that led to the scenario wherein that charge occurred. In a more tactical game the charge would be the culmination and continuation in a string of choice driven scenarios, not the one wherein choice becomes secondary to chance.

Irrelevant, the game doesn't have it, no one needs to argue why or why not. The argument is whether non certainty in charges that the game does have is less tactical than in 5th.

No, but if you're pro one and not the other it shows you to have no actual logical stance on this issue.

Quite the contrary, the roll for charge and understanding the probabilties makes the tactics of movement and positioning prior to that far more involved. If you think movement and positioning has been trivialised then you will probably be losing most games as you haven't grasped the increased importance of both.

Rolling dice isn't a tactic. Positioning is. You're only argument here is that players will have to recognize when it is or isn't beneficial to run instead of charging. The only problem with that is that you're now invalidating the previous two turns of positioning that led to an assault by applauding a system that invites being safe over sorry and which encourages redundancy over accurate movement.

Far from it, if you idea of tactics is that simple then that may be partly why you struggle to see why the charge roll is better than the old fixed charge from a tactical perspective.

You have absolutely no idea what that word means and I would appreciate if you would stop using it.

No, the lack of knowledge of charge success makes a huge difference to your decision making, irrespective of overwatch. You need to understand that just because one rule affects decision making (overwatch) does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that another rule doesn't (charge roll). Overwatch on the whole has a small affect on decision making compared to the charge roll.

Thank you for equivocating. So now overwatch doesn't matter? Your only example tactic hinged entirely on its existence. I sure do love debating people who don't have an actual point to their argument.

Plumbumbarum Wrote:

Why is hobbyist and someone who wants competitive ruleset ussualy portrayed as being on opposite side of the fence, I don't get it. What stops a hobbyist from enjoying a good balanced ruleset, he/she plays by the rules anyway, no? Why a more luck based game is better for hobbyist, I don't know a single person incapable of grasping tactics in 40k after a few matches. So maybe better rules are good for everyone, just there are maybe different mindsets when sitting to the table but that's not a matter of rules. Not to mention a supposed WAAC would have a harder time to smash some pure fluffy army if there was more balance.

Quake 3 had normal maps and tourney maps, what's the problem for GW to make scenarios for tournaments with rules exceptions etc, everyone has fun. But no, narrative driven players are all like kill the WAAC, hooray no more tournaments and let's apologise for company laziness. It's not that the ruleset good for everyone is impossible, you can do it either with common rules or competitive core ruleset + optional narrative part/ narrative core ruleset + exceptions for competitive play . GW won't do it because the're lazy and there's no reason to work more - they will just use cinematic excuse, alienate part of the fanbase, cater to kids with new edition and there are people who will like all that anyway. Along with price hike, buying products to fix their already expensive products and whatever happens with the fluff but that's another topic.

QFT. Had friends way back when they worked on Quake 3 so I understand where you are coming from using that analogy. Those were the good old days.

What I am getting from this is hobbyists shouldn't play the game, TO's shouldn't change the game... except INAT, everything should be allowed as is... except Forgeworld, GW IS a competitive game... but isn't.

Why is hobbyist and someone who wants competitive ruleset ussualy portrayed as being on opposite side of the fence, I don't get it. What stops a hobbyist from enjoying a good balanced ruleset, he/she plays by the rules anyway, no? Why a more luck based game is better for hobbyist, I don't know a single person incapable of grasping tactics in 40k after a few matches. So maybe better rules are good for everyone, just there are maybe different mindsets when sitting to the table but that's not a matter of rules. Not to mention a supposed WAAC would have a harder time to smash some pure fluffy army if there was more balance.

Quake 3 had normal maps and tourney maps, what's the problem for GW to make scenarios for tournaments with rules exceptions etc, everyone has fun. But no, narrative driven players are all like kill the WAAC, hooray no more tournaments and let's apologise for company laziness. It's not that the ruleset good for everyone is impossible, you can do it either with common rules or competitive core ruleset + optional narrative part/ narrative core ruleset + exceptions for competitive play . GW won't do it because the're lazy and there's no reason to work more - they will just use cinematic excuse, alienate part of the fanbase, cater to kids with new edition and there are people who will like all that anyway. Along with price hike, buying products to fix their already expensive products and whatever happens with the fluff but that's another topic.

I"ve asked this question many times to people on this forum who routinely perpetrate this stereotype, none of them have replied with an answer yet.