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.

skyth wrote:If you think random charge distance is better, there is no helping you...

Okay, thank you for your unsolicited opinion about me as a person.

You're welcome.

Well, I don't play WFB yet, but random charge distance sounds pretty boss to me.

If anything, making it reliable makes the game more tactical: it's another chance you're going to have to take into account to make decisions. If you're just moving the same amount every time, it seems like that would get pretty stale quickly.

It doesn't get stale actually. Especially when you are playing against good players.

skyth wrote:You're welcome.

Modquisition on. Lets keep the language acceptable thank you. We all know what you really meant to say was Frazzled mod is Bestest Mod!

Please may we not have personal nasties bandied chaps
it has been a good natured thread up to now.

Minsc wrote:
They are also going to a Lords of the Ring style charge. I don't think I've seen anyone who's in favor of this, barring a few Dakkaites who insist that the game requires "More randomness for more fun". Which is funny, as it's about as fun watching your regiment be charged by some Chaos Knights 25" away (the 3D6+M rumor for cavalry) as it is watching your general and his unit be unable to charge an exposed flank 5.5" away that you spent the entire game setting up, because you rolled a 1 for your charge distance.

On the subject of 'Randomness For the Random God' ...

I actually like a level of unpredictability in my games, more than the 'average' GW gamer. I love the Eye of the Gods (though not how seldom I'm allowed to roll on it), that giants do what they want, and gateway has so far been a total trip in the fickleness of dice (I have yet to auto-remove anybody, though have gotten a lot of 2x S8-10 and 11x S3-4). To put this in 40k terms, I purposefully run possessed because of the random ability keeping things fresh. I am even able to stand that chaos dreads are uncontrollable 1/3 of the game (though that pushes it for me).

So I like random. I do not like random charges (and I hate how dicing through difficult terrain charges works in 40k). As I think I've intimated elsewhere, it's the apparent ganking of the movement phase and invalidation of the very process and purpose of charging that will keep me from 8th should it happen, and nothing else.*

- Salvage

*Note that I actually run warriors of chaos, who benefit from nearly every change stated thus far. High initiative means they go first all the time, no armor ablation means their 2+ save is now ridiculous, +D6" charge for M3-6 models means that their charge range is now 5-10" (barring standards or musicians adding to this!) vs the 8" that it is now, and however they do fighting in more ranks, warriors are simply going to get more WS5 S4 attaks in. And I still do not want.

It seems the people who are for random charges are part of the group that want to be able to win regardless of how badly they were outplayed.

Unfortunately, this is part of the core GW demographic.

I was gonna write out a long post explaining the benefits of randomness and that the true test of a talent player is being able to cope with it but Skyth and some of the others in this thread aren't going to change their perception on the changes.

Basically I personally find almost all the changes awesome and look forward 8th edition as the book that brings me back after VC's, DC's, and DE's broke the game for me.

Do it anyways Hulk. Don't you know that internet arguments are not to convince the people arguing, but rather to convince the people watching silently?

Randomness FTW!

That's why people like O&G, and the like... as long as it's not too overpowering, a little randomness makes the game fun imho

Randomness also makes the game frustrating.

Random charges would be overpowering. (Especially if they have the '1' always fails rule.)

skyth wrote:Randomness also makes the game frustrating.

Random charges would be overpowering. (Especially if they have the '1' always fails rule.)

Exactly. I can't see anyone bothering with Orcs if they have to test first for animosity to see if they squabble and then again to see if they can charge. No one plays them now as it is. Randomness is reflected pretty well in dice rolls to wound, hit armor, leadership, etc. Adding in something to see if I can even charge now is stretching it a bit too far. Movement was the one thing in the game I had absolute control over and now that's up to a D6 roll which just sounds incredibly frustrating.

Hulksmash wrote:I was gonna write out a long post explaining the benefits of randomness and that the true test of a talent player is being able to cope with it but Skyth and some of the others in this thread aren't going to change their perception on the changes.

When the power level varies as much as it does, increased randomness is pretty much a mandatory fix, simply to keep the power armies from being guaranteed able to run roughshod over weaker armies.

That and the whole mistaken notion that command, control, communications, coordination, information, and mobility would be completely predictable in pseudo-historicals era...

RiTides wrote:Randomness FTW!

That's why people like O&G, and the like... as long as it's not too overpowering, a little randomness makes the game fun imho

Exactly!

And sorry for repeating myself but people are reading to much into rumours and making assumptions with only a partial view of things... Even if rumours are correct you are only looking at one paragraph of a full ruleset.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hulksmash wrote:I was gonna write out a long post explaining the benefits of randomness and that the true test of a talent player is being able to cope with it but Skyth and some of the others in this thread aren't going to change their perception on the changes.

Basically I personally find almost all the changes awesome and look forward 8th edition as the book that brings me back after VC's, DC's, and DE's broke the game for me.

Please do, dont let the moaning squad put you down...

Hulksmash wrote:I was gonna write out a long post explaining the benefits of randomness

There are some benefits, yes. I pointed out the 25" cavalry charge to smash into the enemy early on, and there's also the fact that you can align yourself outside the reliable charge range of an enemy.

However, you can't just go "Oh look there's bonus' to this rule so it's great". When you include the penalties and what they mean to some armies (Orcs need to pass two rolls before they can do anything, which is practically a 33% chance of failure each turn), the rule does less good than damage.

There's a difference between planning for unlikely situations (what happens if my Stubborn Giant breaks this turn), and planning for things that are really unlikely (Cold Ones smashing you in the face turn 1 with a 20+" charge pre-banners, Savage Orc Boar Boyz screaming 37" forward to hit your army's core in the first player-turn of the game) events. I'm an Orc player, and I've seen that you can work randomness into your favor (Just last saturday I used the 6 on an Animosity to get from 3" into wood to 1" into wood, thus making a charge on a Bolt Thrower) as well as need to plan around it (not basing your entire battle plan on a unit with a 16% chance of sitting with its thumb up its rear). Saying "Oh no, it's more helpful than harmful and is a sign of a true player's skill" is a load of crock. Wiping out a unit of six spider riders at long range in hard cover with twelve handgunner shots is not a sign of tactical genius - it's a sign of dice gods favor for the other player.

Randomness can be fun in moderation and can play a small part in a general's planning. Making a 33% chance of doing nothing a turn or dropping a S5 mortar on your Wizard's head because he made the mistake of casting Second Sign of Amul with two dice (getting an Irresistible Force) is not.

Minsc wrote:Randomness can be fun in moderation and can play a small part in a general's planning. Making a 33% chance of doing nothing a turn or dropping a S5 mortar on your Wizard's head because he made the mistake of casting Second Sign of Amul with two dice (getting an Irresistible Force) is not.

Wow, it's like you don't understand math at all. IF on 2 dice is 1/36 = <3% chance. Assuming the S5 5" template is 12/2d6, that's another 1/36 chance. So you're talking about something that's got odds over a thousand to one against (1,296:1 odds). Those are pretty safe odds when your risk is less than a tenth of 1% - it's closer to 0% than 1%.

As for the 1/3 chance of doing nothing, what's that from - O&G re-roll passed Animosity now?

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Minsc wrote:Randomness can be fun in moderation and can play a small part in a general's planning. Making a 33% chance of doing nothing a turn or dropping a S5 mortar on your Wizard's head because he made the mistake of casting Second Sign of Amul with two dice (getting an Irresistible Force) is not.

Wow, it's like you don't understand math at all. IF on 2 dice is 1/36 = <3% chance. Assuming the S5 5" template is 12/2d6, that's another 1/36 chance. So you're talking about something that's got odds over a thousand to one against (1,296:1 odds). Those are pretty safe odds when your risk is less than a tenth of 1% - it's closer to 0% than 1%.

As for the 1/3 chance of doing nothing, what's that from - O&G re-roll passed Animosity now?

Not trying to speak for Minsc but I'm pretty sure he's talking about two totally separate events. One is the 33% chance that an Orc unit will not be able to charge under the proposed new system (if like WotR a 1 on the charge roll is a stall). The other is a theoretical "wacky fun" miscast he made up for example (since the new IF table is supposed to be crazy) that is potentially devastating but hey it's wacky and fun right? (many of us think it's really not)

The 33% for Orcs is because there is a 1/6 chance for animosity and a 1/6 of a stall for a charge (again if this is like WotR which is seems to be). It's more like a 31% chance but whatever.

Scottywan82 wrote:Really? All we learned was random charge distance and more guys = better.

Did you not read the whole thing?

My bestigors have great weapons, and now they can only fight in one rank. They're already not that good, and now they are even more crippled!

Swords/Spears are fine, helps my gors a bit.

The panic part is STILL scary, its 18", and the LD bubble for general is only 12", it still screws with my beastmen even more, as well O&G (we have basically the same LD in all departments)

Random charge distance screws me even more than I thought was possible, I just need 2" to reach them to charge, OH WAIT, I ROLL A fething

I lose.

Mother of god.

We should all write angry letters yelling about rumors we heard and how they have no right to change or modify our beloved Warhammer Pitched Battles game

Random charge distance would be a horrible mistake in general. However, I think my dwarfs, who have not charged anything in 17 months, would be happy enough with the change.

Kirasu wrote:We should all write angry letters yelling about rumors we heard and how they have no right to change or modify our beloved Warhammer Pitched Battles game

I see what you did there...

From what I heard about the random charge is that it's only like +-1inch. Also that units no longer have the big fail charge thing.

Paniced units only panic those of smaller unit strength in 12 inches. The general's immune panic "aura" is 18 inches.

Love how 4 lines of rumored rules changes = 528 pages of rules.

Fairly certain there are shed loads of rules that will alleviate some of the disadvantages to these rules.

Fateweaver wrote:Love how 4 lines of rumored rules changes = 528 pages of rules.

Fairly certain there are shed loads of rules that will alleviate some of the disadvantages to these rules.

And I'm sure the new Ork codex is chock full of more options than the old Ork Codex, I mean it's like four times the old one's size.

Though, to be fair, they could just put in the scenarios and special rules for most of the WHFB supplements and they could probably make up the page gap without too much complaining from the fanbase.

Also, nice switch Kirasu. Not wanting random charges or great weapons to be worthless = we want it to stay pitched battle scenarios.

I've updated it again, from earlier. I can't be bothered to change all the blue over, but the red stuff is what's new anyway.

I'll finish editing tommorow.

Has anyone else seen this one page update? Just curious for some more confirmation.

Unit Strength is gone?

I see this as arguably a game breaker for some lists, depending on how Flanking now works. Armies with small cavalry units designed for flanking are probably going to be redesigned, and those reliant on stuff like a Monster-mounted character hopping around are going to be in trouble (actually, they're going to be pretty much dead unless you don't have a US requirement to flank). Not too many units can beat a static 5 with a starting 0, requiring an average of at least 9 attacks total when everything's S6 or better. DE are probably going to be the worst hit here.

Heavy Infantry being unable to march is going to slow a few armies down, but not many (how many have infantry w/ full plate and shields? Dwarves and Chaos?). Could be debilitating to them, however (since they're losing the mobility edges they might have held). Chaos Warrior armies are going to slow to a crawl as it is now (which means if Chaos Warrior v War Machine Gunline, poor Chaos Warriors, if CW v Combat Army, poor combat army having to wait to die).

Stubborn for a wider front doesn't sit too well for me. I can see red rover formations being set up for the purpose of holding the enemy for a few extra turns. Funnily enough, the armies that would be most benefited by it (Skaven, Goblins, and so on) are - by current FAQ rulings - the least benefited as they can only use unmodified leadership (meaning Ld 5 stubborn Skaven). I can see the rule for wide = stubborn being abused, but only for a few armies (Elves & Dwarves, for instance).

Dear god people will have to bring regiments of infantry!

The more stuff comes out the more I like. They've debunked some of the weirder stuff (magic weapons in the woods) and confirmed some others. In fact I'm seeing a whole new game where people need to field regiments of troops and calvary and use them wisely instead of 3-4 units and monstrous creatures/character mounted monsters. Ahhhhhhhh. So happy

Orcs are cheap enough that they can still be stubborn too. And it looks like Dwarves are gonna be immune to the no-marching thing in heavy armor. And dwarves cost to much to abuse the stubborn thing to much. 9pts starting is a big point sink since you'll need 25-30 to make sure you stay stubborn.

The rules are changing? This could possibly be game breaking for some armies.

In other news, are some of the rumors in black font for anyone else? I think they are supposed to be red?