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.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
I like some of the random elements - others less so.

I really like random charge distance - lots of games we have had at the club have had fun moments on both sides when you have or have not made it. we all know that about 7" is normal , fleet skewing this - I much prefer it to the warmachine version (with its silly can't premeasure but you can sorta) or earlier editions.

I don't think random Warlord tables is a good idea - unless its like the Psyker and you have a default choice........

Things like mysterious objectives / terrain - well I don't know anyone who uses them without agreeing first...............

Random charge ranges take tactical decisions away from the players and as such is one of the worst random elements of the game. Its basically the same as if every shooting unit in the game had to roll a die before shooting and on a 3- they couldn't shoot...

No it doesn't - you have both a maximum potential charge distance and a likely charge distance and you then make an informed choice as to what you are going to do - simples................

Set distance was always horrible as people edge towards each other - or cheat, sorry I mean skilfully estimate the distance between them (using various methods)

Take the tactical warlord trait number 1, you can discard 2 objective cards instead of 1. That is so grossly overpowered compared to the other results on the same table. It doubles your chance each turn of getting an objective you can actually use. You have no control over this beyond rolling on that table.

You can make certain your charges reach by only launching them from the minimum possible distance. You can't plan what objective cards to draw.

 Mr Morden wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
I like some of the random elements - others less so.

I really like random charge distance - lots of games we have had at the club have had fun moments on both sides when you have or have not made it. we all know that about 7" is normal , fleet skewing this - I much prefer it to the warmachine version (with its silly can't premeasure but you can sorta) or earlier editions.

I don't think random Warlord tables is a good idea - unless its like the Psyker and you have a default choice........

Things like mysterious objectives / terrain - well I don't know anyone who uses them without agreeing first...............

Random charge ranges take tactical decisions away from the players and as such is one of the worst random elements of the game. Its basically the same as if every shooting unit in the game had to roll a die before shooting and on a 3- they couldn't shoot...

No it doesn't - you have both a maximum potential charge distance and a likely charge distance and you then make an informed choice as to what you are going to do - simples................

Set distance was always horrible as people edge towards each other - or cheat, sorry I mean skilfully estimate the distance between them (using various methods)

You can't 'make an informed choice' when what information you have is based on a random number generator, that is the actual opposite of what 'informed choice' means.

Having fixed distances is the standard in the vast majority of miniature wargames because it promotes tactical thinking and positioning. The only reason why GW abandoned it was because they wanted to make their games more friendly to younger players that don't have that tactical reasoning yet but by doing so only managed to alienate a large proportion of their player base that doesn't wan't to rely on rolling dice to win their games for them.

But I forgot, these are the best editions of both games EVAR! Its really weird how the player base keeps leaving the systems despite it though...

In many historical wargames your chance of getting a charge is based on morale factors, some of which are random. Even if the actual distance is fixed, you don't automatically charge.

40K simply reverses this situation. Any unit will always charge any enemy, but they may not move far enough to contact.

You can make an informed choice on whether to attempt a charge because you know the probability of the dice that govern your charge distance.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
Randomness = the opposite of deathstars.

It's a spectrum. People hate things being too sure and being too random. They can't accept that it's pretty much one or the other.

The way it works is this. People like to be able to strategize and feel that their actions are informed. Gauging your chances of success is one of the components of that and so people like it. No randomness at all, and that element of the game is removed - it becomes chess. Pure strategy with no probabilities, only mechanical input and output.

Too much randomness, or the sort that is imposed on the player rather than resulting from their choices, also results in no probabilities, only chaos.

In short - playing the game so that the odds are in your favour as a result of your strategy and tactics = good. Simply having random things happen or your goals suddenly change drastically from turn to turn = bad.

Indeed, random and abrupt shifting of goals actually reduces unpredictability in a way. Because it determines what players will do in a much more immediate way. The card says you have to kill two enemy units now? The player suddenly needs to do that to maximise their VPs. That's not playing a game, that's just press the button when it flashes.

I played chess a lot, but not so much now. The lack of randomness eventually bored me. Things are always the same, or similar, in every game, and I like to be surprised and forced to adapt. I prefer a game with random elements.

That doesn´t mean 'the more random the better'. There should be tactics and decision making too. There should be a balance between luck and skill.

40k had a good mix for me. Then 6th pushed it too far and 7th is even worse in this regard. There are far too many rolls, far too many random elements and far too many random charts, and some of them are far too important, like picking a card and suddenly finding out you won. It reaches a point were decision making is not nedeed: you just move your units ahead and wait for the gods of fortune to decide who wins. There is no reason to care.

And then you have the 'Break the Narrative' randomness. Your Psykers do not know what are they able to do, and your warlord is particularly good at something, but this something changes from batlle to battle. It is rather silly.... and I think it is an excuse for not being willing to dedicate some effort to balance out the warlord traits, the psyker powers and other stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 knas ser wrote:
(...)
Indeed, random and abrupt shifting of goals actually reduces unpredictability in a way. Because it determines what players will do in a much more immediate way. The card says you have to kill two enemy units now? The player suddenly needs to do that to maximise their VPs. That's not playing a game, that's just press the button when it flashes.

^This.

I am not a fan of random sudden goals constantly shifting.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
I like some of the random elements - others less so.

I really like random charge distance - lots of games we have had at the club have had fun moments on both sides when you have or have not made it. we all know that about 7" is normal , fleet skewing this - I much prefer it to the warmachine version (with its silly can't premeasure but you can sorta) or earlier editions.

I don't think random Warlord tables is a good idea - unless its like the Psyker and you have a default choice........

Things like mysterious objectives / terrain - well I don't know anyone who uses them without agreeing first...............

Random charge ranges take tactical decisions away from the players and as such is one of the worst random elements of the game. Its basically the same as if every shooting unit in the game had to roll a die before shooting and on a 3- they couldn't shoot...

No it doesn't - you have both a maximum potential charge distance and a likely charge distance and you then make an informed choice as to what you are going to do - simples................

Set distance was always horrible as people edge towards each other - or cheat, sorry I mean skilfully estimate the distance between them (using various methods)

You can't 'make an informed choice' when what information you have is based on a random number generator, that is the actual opposite of what 'informed choice' means.

Having fixed distances is the standard in the vast majority of miniature wargames because it promotes tactical thinking and positioning. The only reason why GW abandoned it was because they wanted to make their games more friendly to younger players that don't have that tactical reasoning yet but by doing so only managed to alienate a large proportion of their player base that doesn't wan't to rely on rolling dice to win their games for them.

But I forgot, these are the best editions of both games EVAR! Its really weird how the player base keeps leaving the systems despite it though...

I have not said "its the best system ever", indeed the opposite on a number of threads - I just don't think random charge is a bad thing and fixed charge is..

If you can't make an informed choice based on simple probability then that's a shame - indeed its more complicated and tactical than simply saying I can always charge X distance. Working out the probability of being able to complete something and making an informed choice based on that is actually something that would be educational for younger people and apparently some older gamers.

As I said the fixed distance, coupled with "no pre-measuring" promotes cheating - Oh I am sorry its a specific skill - always has done.................

Err if you not rolling dice to win games then its a bit odd - now granted your preference maybe for a more chess like and ultra predictable game and that's all good............

Randomness should resolve a player's actions and decisions.

Randomness should not be their actions and decisions.

 Mr Morden wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
I like some of the random elements - others less so.

I really like random charge distance - lots of games we have had at the club have had fun moments on both sides when you have or have not made it. we all know that about 7" is normal , fleet skewing this - I much prefer it to the warmachine version (with its silly can't premeasure but you can sorta) or earlier editions.

I don't think random Warlord tables is a good idea - unless its like the Psyker and you have a default choice........

Things like mysterious objectives / terrain - well I don't know anyone who uses them without agreeing first...............

Random charge ranges take tactical decisions away from the players and as such is one of the worst random elements of the game. Its basically the same as if every shooting unit in the game had to roll a die before shooting and on a 3- they couldn't shoot...

No it doesn't - you have both a maximum potential charge distance and a likely charge distance and you then make an informed choice as to what you are going to do - simples................

Set distance was always horrible as people edge towards each other - or cheat, sorry I mean skilfully estimate the distance between them (using various methods)

You can't 'make an informed choice' when what information you have is based on a random number generator, that is the actual opposite of what 'informed choice' means.

Having fixed distances is the standard in the vast majority of miniature wargames because it promotes tactical thinking and positioning. The only reason why GW abandoned it was because they wanted to make their games more friendly to younger players that don't have that tactical reasoning yet but by doing so only managed to alienate a large proportion of their player base that doesn't wan't to rely on rolling dice to win their games for them.

But I forgot, these are the best editions of both games EVAR! Its really weird how the player base keeps leaving the systems despite it though...

I have not said "its the best system ever", indeed the opposite on a number of threads - I just don't think random charge is a bad thing and fixed charge is..

If you can't make an informed choice based on simple probability then that's a shame - indeed its more complicated and tactical than simply saying I can always charge X distance. Working out the probability of being able to complete something and making an informed choice based on that is actually something that would be educational for younger people and apparently some older gamers.

As I said the fixed distance, coupled with "no pre-measuring" promotes cheating - Oh I am sorry its a specific skill - always has done.................

Err if you not rolling dice to win games then its a bit odd - now granted your preference maybe for a more chess like and ultra predictable game and that's all good............

You can make whatever choice you wan't based on probability, it still can fail due to the dice rolls and that probability calculation that you've just made availed to the exact same thing as the 12 year old that just rolled the dice and got the 6's that he needed. Also I don't understand how you are patting yourself in the back so much for making simple probability calculation, you only have to make it once during your entire lifetime since the probability result of the charge dice roll will never change. You don't even need to make the calculation, you can just see the number online (I'll save you the trouble, that number is 7), after that it will all boil down to the random number generator and nothing that the player can do will change that...

And I'm again amazed at the capacity of GW players to insult their fellow GW player base, so now fixed charges and no pre-measurement promoted cheating in 40k and WHFB? Funny how other game systems have no such issues.

Are you seriously saying you never say people cheating with set movement cos I did all the time........ It was all over the debate about pre-measuring how its a "skill" to be able to "guess" the range - and then you would see people using all sorts of methods - from knowing the sizes of game boards to putting their hands down on the table etc etc...........seen it way too often in too many locations in many games.

I have also seen it in Warmachine / Hordes - indeed the whole system promotes it with the "measure your focus distance at any time but you can't premeasure" nonsense

Seen it other games..............as well.

As to you other point - right so you can easily predict the likely outcome of the dice roll but you can't make an informed choice based on that - instead you have to rely on a fixed figure? Makes no sense.

Obviously it can fail on the dice roll - that's the point!!! Its a game where you make choices, roll the dice and see what happens unless you think everything should be completely predictable - but that's Chess?

Same as shooting - oh that unit is in cover and this one is not - well you make a choice about if it will make a save and roll the dice - same thing.

Kyutaru wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:

Kyutaru wrote:Things like charge distance are at least explained in the rulebook as we're only simulating war games and sometimes unexpected things occur that have your men decide charging is a bad idea. You're only playing the army commander and sometimes your troops won't listen to you.

But why would this only apply to charging? Why not shooting? Why not have to take a leadership test for everything?

If you read the rulebook, it actually explains nicely why it applies to charging. Your troops are attempting to rush across a battlefield of live fire with enemies attempting to kill them just because you want them to close into melee and hack their opponents with swords. Sometimes there just isn't an opportunity for that in a battle as rushing out at the exact moment you want them to may result in complete slaughter or because an "event" occurred that made them think twice about charging. Heck, maybe a soldier's shoelaces were untied and he tripped and fell causing the charge to only be 2". Space Marines say never leave a man behind so they go back for the sucker. As for why that and not shooting? It's because you have to draw the line somewhere and start making decisions, regardless of how arbitrarily selected you think they might be. The game has evolved slowly over the last 7 editions, what made sense at the time might seem like random nonsense now.

We've been hearing Forge a Narrative enough times to be sick of it. What did you think it meant? Random stuff happens in war and things don't always go according to plan. The dice just simulates those events without expressly dictating what happened, leaving you to decide with your imagination. I've always thought the game does a decent job of simulating real events like buildings collapsing, tanks exploding, terrain hindering line of sight, even the "true" line of sight where we have to duck down and look through our model's eyes. Random charge ranges are just another part of that, factors that you can't always control interfering with your battle plans.

Then why do shots always fail past their range? Why is it I can fail a 2" charge with my bloody Daemonettes and bloodletters yet my Terminators might make a 12" jog? It's stupid and we all know it. Along with that, it should move you that far as well


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bullyboy wrote:
my only issue with allowing people to choose their warlord traits and psyker powers is that the same ones would be used over and over again. It would be another way of gaming your army, finding every combo and trick in the book to give you the advantage. Granted, this may be what you want in a tourny style game but I actually like variety (I did a thread on random generation of units a few weeks ago). I find people will generally play the same thing over and over which gets a little stale. The game already has balance issues, adding points for warlord traits and psychic powers will only make this worse as GW will not take the time to playtest them correctly.
There is nothing stopping a TO (or a group of friends) establishing a system that allows a player to "buy" his warlord trait or psyker powers for x points.
I'm a casual gamer though so like the "forge a narrative" approach that GW currently adopts. I could see this as an issue for competitive players though but I feel the system has way too much imbalance as it stands already. No reason to add more.

How is this any different than picking a melta gun or anything of the sort? Besides, it'd also permit players to "FORGE A NARRATIVE" where I could pick spells that fit the army and character as well as have a warlord that has what my fluff says he is good at.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You can make certain your charges reach by only launching them from the minimum possible distance. You can't plan what objective cards to draw.

Actually you can't. If you charge through cover it's -2. You can now fail a .5 inch charge

Overall, a bit of randomness is a good thing. There's nothing bad with it here and there! Shooting randomness is example of good randomness. Then you have the others. Random charge meaning you are relying heavily on luck on a value that doesn't occur as frequently as shooting meaning that it's far more random and even at .5 inches it is possible to fail it now. It also doesn't make sense why they always retreat back to where they originally stood and you can have super agile beasts of war rolling a 2 and terminators rolling a 12". Add to that few are willing to take those high rolls as the risks can be costly and waste a chance to run. Then there's the narrative destroying Warlord Trait and spells problem that makes no sense especially when you are "Forging a Narrative". Then there's random tactical objectives. Problem is that they are imbalanced. Some armies don't have psykers, some suck at assault, some should never try to challenge, and others still aren't as fast. Add to that, some objectives still give you random points so two people achieving the same objective might get different points and a single d3 is a very random thing with 3 objective points gained being huge. Random mysterious terrain exists as well mind you.

Now then, time for some armies.

CSM. The Helbrute suffers from randomness. When it gets hurt, it goes on a frenzy but you don't know what it might do. It might try to spam shooting standing still aiming at the nearest target despite having no guns or it might blitz charge the closest unit despite you making it more of a gun platform. It's random and takes agency away. Champions of Chaos forces you to declare challenges to then fight one another. If your character lives, they roll on a massive random table that might give them no benefits, turn them into a spawn (which can give an extra kill point and is forced out of the assault), get a random ability that is useful, get a worthless ability (nice +1 BS for my bolt pistol or better yet no gun), or become a prince. Leap for joy! Until you realize it's a 4W T5 MC with only a 5++ save that's going to possibly hand out a killpoint and spawns outside of the unit. It's random for the sake of random. Possessed have bad rolls that randomly make them good at a job they might not need to be good at combined with their sucky movement makes them worthless.

And... the most notorious of all... Chaos Daemons. There is a reason people often just default for standard items. It's because everything else is random. Want a lesser power? D6. Want a greater power? D6. Want an exalted? Well have no fears on a roll of 1 you get one free lesser and a bonus exalted power! Everything is random. Literally everything. Some abilities are even redundant where you might pay for a DP to have 3+ armour only to roll on the greater and get 3+ armour. Add to that, it makes it so you can't really kit out your chaos daemon with a theme. But wait there's more! The warpstorm table. Random d6 on the enemy so they might get hurt, d6 on opposing gods, roll a 3d6 ld on an hq and take the failed as wounds, roll 2d6 for all units and that many die, spawn extra daemons, +1 invuln, -1 invuln, if they have a psyker it takes a 3d6 ld and if it fails place a herald in its stead. There is so much randomness it's not even funny.

Finally, randomness for the sake of randomness is lazy. It means, above all else, the developers don't have to fix it. They can say it's balanced because it's random and s they mix in broken and worthless spells with no playtesting. But it's not. It just means that you can get god tier combos or worthless units at random.

Random charge ranges have some validity in 40k to avoid everyone hanging out at 12.1 inches. The problem is that having a spread of 2-12 inches is unacceptably variable. Trying to charge a unit 6 inches away has a 27% chance of failure, which results in assault being too weak against 100% reliable shooting. Replacing the 2d6 with a 1d3+5 provides the same average, but is now doesn't have a have chance of failure for reasonable charges while still preventing 12.1 syndrome.

Warlord Traits and psychic powers have no excuse for being random. Too many abilities only work if your list is built to effectively be able to utilize them, but nobody can afford to build there list around a trait you can't rely on getting. Re-rolling reserves is a great ability, but useless as a warlord trait and psychic power because any list with enough flyers/deepstrikers to value it can't afford to bet their list on a 1d6 and takes a 100% reliable comms relay instead.

Its even worse that the random powers are a failed attempt to hide how incredibly unbalanced they are. Invisibility is an absurd power and being random hardly fixes the problem, it simply means that Belakor, Sevrin Loth and psyker spam armies have an even bigger advantage over the guy who just takes a vanilla Librarian.

The bottom line is that if you complain that picking powers/traits would result in everyone taking the same abilities, that means you need to balance them, not futilely attempt to hide them behind RNG.

Yes you can fail charges, fleet also changes the odds......

you can fail to hit with a BS10 model from 1" away

You can miss a WS1 figure with a WS 10 figure

its a game with dice in...................

agree that the warlord traits is not right at the moment,

There's a line where increasing the degree of randomness only hurts the game and makes it less fun for all involved.
This line is several kilometres behind 40k as it speeds away from it.

As for random charge distance, I think If we're gonna keep it it's only fair to enforce random shooting distance as well.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Yes you can fail charges, fleet also changes the odds......

you can fail to hit with a BS10 model from 1" away

You can miss a WS1 figure with a WS 10 figure

its a game with dice in...................

agree that the warlord traits is not right at the moment,

It's not even that. To be frank I just wish it was a tad more consistent. Terminators get a lower assault charge, Daemonettes get a higher one, Bloodletters get a nasty charge range, orks get a decent charge range but can buff it with a waagh. For example, 4+d3 or even 4+d6 on one unit another having a 3+d3/6, and another with a higher score. It's random enough you might fail but also gives some reliability so you won't fail a 0.5" charge. Also I'd love if you had to move that distance. It helps assault armies get closer but it also gives a way to say OH MAN these guys are right in front of us everybody fire! Just toss out overwatch and you have a slightly more logical one and they won't even get a cover save probably. And fleet doesn't help all assault armies either. Look for much of Khorne to see how many don't have it. And yes a BS10 model can fail a shot but it's unlikely with a 2+/2+ roll. And missing with a WS10 isn't that surprising considering you can only hit at best on a 3+ for whatever reason. Even then you are statistically likely. Even if its a game of dice, there should be some consistency lest we also make guns have 3d6 range to show the randomness of war and more continuing to bloat a mess. A bit of variation is good but utter randomness for the sake of randomness is bad.

Yeah, I mean I like the re-roll exists now if you go battleforged but it's still more of a bandaid than anything else.

The worst part of rolling random distance on a charge is that when failed the unit doesn't move at all.

If the unit was allowed to move the distance they rolled or even half the distance they would at least have something to show for making the decision to attempt an assault instead of shooting. It is a single roll that negates all of the attack rolls that is the problem, just like the other excellent examples given so far.

Warlord would be better if it had more focused categories like shooting or assaulting categories so Tau don't get random bonuses for CC.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The worst part of rolling random distance on a charge is that when failed the unit doesn't move at all.

If the unit was allowed to move the distance they rolled or even half the distance they would at least have something to show for making the decision to attempt an assault instead of shooting. It is a single roll that negates all of the attack rolls that is the problem, just like the other excellent examples given so far.

Warlord would be better if it had more focused categories like shooting or assaulting categories so Tau don't get random bonuses for CC.

 snooggums wrote:
The worst part of rolling random distance on a charge is that when failed the unit doesn't move at all.

If the unit was allowed to move the distance they rolled or even half the distance they would at least have something to show for making the decision to attempt an assault instead of shooting. It is a single roll that negates all of the attack rolls that is the problem, just like the other excellent examples given so far.

Warlord would be better if it had more focused categories like shooting or assaulting categories so Tau don't get random bonuses for CC.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The worst part of rolling random distance on a charge is that when failed the unit doesn't move at all.

If the unit was allowed to move the distance they rolled or even half the distance they would at least have something to show for making the decision to attempt an assault instead of shooting. It is a single roll that negates all of the attack rolls that is the problem, just like the other excellent examples given so far.

Warlord would be better if it had more focused categories like shooting or assaulting categories so Tau don't get random bonuses for CC.

Oh I can beat that. My daemon prince rolled on CSM and got fear

Notwithstanding the random charge issue thing, I quite like a lot of the random tables as it means that no 2 games will ever be the same. You could play several times on exactly the same board with the same terrain and the same armies, but because of the random bonus powers, terrain effects and victory conditions the players are encouraged to play in different styles. To me its about the challenge and new problems to solve, rather than focussing on a single fixed army that does exactly the same thing every game.

 Flinty wrote:
Notwithstanding the random charge issue thing, I quite like a lot of the random tables as it means that no 2 games will ever be the same. You could play several times on exactly the same board with the same terrain and the same armies, but because of the random bonus powers, terrain effects and victory conditions the players are encouraged to play in different styles. To me its about the challenge and new problems to solve, rather than focussing on a single fixed army that does exactly the same thing every game.

I get what you are saying but I'll have to disagree particularly on a point. Before that, you brought up the entertaining prospect or rolling what the unit gets kit out with . Maybe i shall do that. I am building a chaos guard + mutants + lost and the damned army atm for fun and I'm building even grenade launchers and mortars! Anyways, I'd love victory conditions if it actually wasn't quite as random. Some secret objectives or several sounds amazing. That said, they should have been kitted out for each army and should be objectives throughout the game. My local GW (the only shop that let you play) once had a 2v2 where everybody got their own secret objective. It was one of our most memorable because everybody had something to do. The Tau defended my CSM (who was not super chaotic and more just renegade at the time) for reasons of suspicion of betrayal, my objective was to have his battle-suit killed, the Eldar's was to hold a specific structure, and the DA's was to knock out (kill) my cultist leader in CC. All of them were very possible and fit a unique narrative very well with minimal work and there was nothing more satisfying than piecing together everybody's objective, figuring it out from how everybody was acting and then manipulate the game and strategize to end up winning. If every army had objectives built for them, I wouldn't mind. Problem is you'll randomly get a card built for assault in a Tau army, a spell card in a necron/sob army, a shooting card in a list of pure khorne, kill a psyker when you haven to psykers to kill, random objective points, and, to cement it, they change every turn meaning you absolutely rely on luck.

Yonan wrote:The only rules written for use in the setting we like are the rules we are stuck with from GW.

You are not IN ANY WAY stuck with GW. There's no reason you couldn't port the minis and fluff over to warmahordes or flames of war, or whatever other game you like better. It would be trivial to reskin those games to make them fit the 40k universe.

The only reason you're playing 40k is because you want to play 40k. No one is forcing you at gunpoint to use rules that you don't want to use, or to play a game that you don't want to play. Get over it. You're playing 40k by choice.

Kyutaru wrote:If you read the rulebook, it actually explains nicely why it applies to charging.

I'm not saying it's impossible to come up with a reason to explain it. The question is why one of inconsistency?

If you need to take a 2D6 to see if you make it into charge range, why not return to 4th ed's needing to roll a 2D6 to see if you can target anything but the closest unit? Why not make a roll to see the range of your shooting weapons every turn? After all, if their leadership is breaking down, they're more likely to spray and pray, which drastically reduces effective range.

Ailaros wrote:I think accept is too harsh of a word. Wargammers outright embrace randomness.

knas ser wrote:I'd say that statement is refuted empirically.

Or...

Ailaros wrote:Which you can enjoy without playing the game. If you're playing the game, though, it means you want to play the game. Why you would want to play a game that you don't like doesn't make sense.

knas ser wrote:we want the game to be different than it is. Saying "why play it if you don't like it" is (a) simplistic - there's a lot we do like about the game and (b) in no way an actual counter to what people are saying, which is that they want it to be a game they do like.

For A, of course, it's irrelevant, as people aren't going to complain about the things they like.

And for B, if people want to play a game that they like, then they should play a game that they like. Why you would want to play a game that you don't like doesn't make sense.

If you like some parts and don't like others, if you're willing to play the game regardless, then you still like it enough to play it. Unless, of course, a person is whining because good isn't perfect, and therefore is garbage... that they still play anyways. Or they've quit and are trying to ruin it for everybody else who still plays.

I'd speculate further, but people aren't being very forthcoming with their motivations, or arguments specific enough to deduce them.

There's "good" and "bad" and 40k has fallen straight into the "bad" category for a while now. What makes it more amusing is that since people basically have to write their own versions of the rules anyways since GW is incapable, we aren't far from someone coming up with a Not-40k version of 40k that actually has competent people writing balanced rules that, surprise, would ALSO allow for noncompetitive "narrative" games, something that 40k does not do as it poorly allows narrative games and pisses on competitive gaming entirely.

Those tournament players that you and others like you (and GW themselves) ignore and pretend to not exist (if not outright deride) are the cornerstone of any rules-based game because they are the ones who will inevitably come up with the vague, obscure and/or broken rules that a sensible company would jump right on to fix, which in the end benefits everybody who plays. Pretending there is no problem doesn't make the problem go away.

 StarTrotter wrote:

Kyutaru wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:

Kyutaru wrote:...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You can make certain your charges reach by only launching them from the minimum possible distance. You can't plan what objective cards to draw.

Actually you can't. If you charge through cover it's -2. You can now fail a .5 inch charge

...

So, IDK, don't charge through cover, maybe?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

Kyutaru wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:

Kyutaru wrote:...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You can make certain your charges reach by only launching them from the minimum possible distance. You can't plan what objective cards to draw.

Actually you can't. If you charge through cover it's -2. You can now fail a .5 inch charge

...

So, IDK, don't charge through cover, maybe?

... Don't charge through cover.... Don't charge through wah? I'm really not going to argue with this. I'm just going to say the fact that it is theoretically possible to fail a .5 inch charge despite it being the only way some armies can function is idiotic. You say just "don't do it" but if I have moved my models that close why should I not make the charge? Should shooting armies too have to roll the range for guns and if it's behind cover they have to subract -2 from the range of the gun? Oh sorry we can't shoot you because you are behind cover. Plus how the heck will you charge certain units that just camp in cover or do you want to have to wait another turn before assaulting. Don't forget most assault units get to it at earliest Turn 3 more often 4. You mentioned making a minimum charge distance. Thing is there is no such thing as a minimum charge distance anymore. It's either 2 or 0. Both extremely difficult distances to reach in front of an opponent especially for fleetless individuals. Even if it's 3 inches not charging through cover there's a small statistical odd of failing and getting shot to non existence next turn. It's randomness for the sake of random.

 StarTrotter wrote:

... Don't charge through cover.... Don't charge through wah? I'm really not going to argue with this. I'm just going to say the fact that it is theoretically possible to fail a .5 inch charge despite it being the only way some armies can function is idiotic. You say just "don't do it" but if I have moved my models that close why should I not make the charge? Should shooting armies too have to roll the range for guns and if it's behind cover they have to subract -2 from the range of the gun? Oh sorry we can't shoot you because you are behind cover. Plus how the heck will you charge certain units that just camp in cover or do you want to have to wait another turn before assaulting. Don't forget most assault units get to it at earliest Turn 3 more often 4. You mentioned making a minimum charge distance. Thing is there is no such thing as a minimum charge distance anymore. It's either 2 or 0. Both extremely difficult distances to reach in front of an opponent especially for fleetless individuals. Even if it's 3 inches not charging through cover there's a small statistical odd of failing and getting shot to non existence next turn. It's randomness for the sake of random.

Random charge distance through cover existed already in 5th edition - and the distances you could charge were shorter than in 6th & 7th edition. I don't actually recall anyone ever complaining about that rule. Although in practice, most of the charging took place through terrain and was thus random. And of course, Run was random, which was signifant for units with Fleet.

I'm actually ambivalent with random charge distance (sometimes it's really annoying when it fails, sometimes it produces absurdly long charges which are equally annoying when you're receiving them), but as said, it is a byproduct of wanting to introduce premeasuring to the game, and I feel that advantages of premeasuring are far greater than downsides of random charge distance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:

Random charge ranges take tactical decisions away from the players and as such is one of the worst random elements of the game. Its basically the same as if every shooting unit in the game had to roll a die before shooting and on a 3- they couldn't shoot...

There used to be that sort of rule: Targeting priority.

Another was old Night fighting rule - which I feel was much, much superior to current, boring "better cover" rule.

Backfire wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

... Don't charge through cover.... Don't charge through wah? I'm really not going to argue with this. I'm just going to say the fact that it is theoretically possible to fail a .5 inch charge despite it being the only way some armies can function is idiotic. You say just "don't do it" but if I have moved my models that close why should I not make the charge? Should shooting armies too have to roll the range for guns and if it's behind cover they have to subract -2 from the range of the gun? Oh sorry we can't shoot you because you are behind cover. Plus how the heck will you charge certain units that just camp in cover or do you want to have to wait another turn before assaulting. Don't forget most assault units get to it at earliest Turn 3 more often 4. You mentioned making a minimum charge distance. Thing is there is no such thing as a minimum charge distance anymore. It's either 2 or 0. Both extremely difficult distances to reach in front of an opponent especially for fleetless individuals. Even if it's 3 inches not charging through cover there's a small statistical odd of failing and getting shot to non existence next turn. It's randomness for the sake of random.

Random charge distance through cover existed already in 5th edition - and the distances you could charge were shorter than in 6th & 7th edition. I don't actually recall anyone ever complaining about that rule. Although in practice, most of the charging took place through terrain and was thus random. And of course, Run was random, which was signifant for units with Fleet.

I'm actually ambivalent with random charge distance (sometimes it's really annoying when it fails, sometimes it produces absurdly long charges which are equally annoying when you're receiving them), but as said, it is a byproduct of wanting to introduce premeasuring to the game, and I feel that advantages of premeasuring are far greater than downsides of random charge distance.

Oh I know 5th had the same random charges occuring in conjunction with run for fleet. Then again, I honestly wish assault was reworked from the ground up at this point from the WS chart to sweeping advance to how it is more beneficial to stay until the enemy's turn, to everything else. That and I'd love to see the return of movement points that could be the basis for the charge, you have to move how much you charged as a drawback to the slight variation be it a d3+standard movement or +d6. Besides that I find it silly to argue that it was how we got premeasuring despite shooting always shooting the same range. Overall, I'd just like to see the ridiculous extremes removed. 12" charges happening is just as ridiculous as 2" failed charges existing.

Random rules rule in 7th... random (unbound) armies are the best example... Daemons randomly bringing in waves of more daemons....etc...

 Blacksails wrote:

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
They can't accept that it's pretty much one or the other.

You are referring specifically to 40k here, right? Because you just said its a spectrum, which implies that there is a middle ground in between. Like many other games.

There is! It's called "balance". Do you wanna introduce it to GW?

 Ailaros wrote:
You are not IN ANY WAY stuck with GW. There's no reason you couldn't port the minis and fluff over to warmahordes or flames of war, or whatever other game you like better. It would be trivial to reskin those games to make them fit the 40k universe.

We actually did that here for a few armies (to Warmachine). It's definitely *not* the same game but even with our limited playtesting it was still a better game (in my opinion). Reminded me very much of 2nd Ed and despite wholesale unit creation not a single rules issue. Some of it converts beautifully- Melta weapons with Armour Piercing? Great. Howling Banshees with Assault and Paralytic Shout? Excellent. Pink Horrors with Spawn [Blue Horror]? Perfect.

But that's the problem- it's not the same game. Not everything converts. More importantly no one should be forced- by the largest mini wargaming company on the planet- to make house rules for their game let alone convert it to another whole system just to make good use of the minis they were sold.

Right, but so what?

Trying to make another game like 40k is only a problem because you're making it like 40k. If that's the case, then just play 40k.

There's no reason you can't port over the models and fluff much more easily, though. You can use your predators and dreadnoughts in flames of war by just using the flames of war rules for vehicles. They won't be the same rules as the rules for them in 40k, but, well, isn't that the ENTIRE POINT in the first place?

Because if you didn't want them to have different rules, then you'd just play 40k.