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.

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

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

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

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

Kaldor wrote:

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

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

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

Kaldor wrote:

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

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

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

Kaldor wrote:

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

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

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

Kaldor wrote:

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

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

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

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

Elemental wrote:

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

Adapt or die.

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

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

Elemental wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Blood and Slaughter wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, the bit below caught my interest.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"You remind me of Citadel Finecast"

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

Adam LongWalker wrote:

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

"You remind me of Citadel Finecast"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

40k is not 'cinematic'.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh gosh, you're so funny!



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

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

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




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


*ducks*

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

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




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


*ducks*

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

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

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

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

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



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




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

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


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


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


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ANYWAY.

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


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

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

So kudos for that. =)

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

Right backatcha big guy!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sucks to be a horde army, thats for sure.

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

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

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

Just my opinion.

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

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

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

Possibilty of terminators rolling 12 is just as bad.

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

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