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.

haroon wrote:

Kurce wrote:

OHHH!!!! THAT is what interactive terrain? Oh man. This is bad. This is really bad. I hope this rumor is false. Last thing I want is to move a squad into some trees and the trees turn into mutant spore spewing aliens that attack my squad. This is so terrible. I might just put my blinders on and ignore that whole section of the rulebook.

That is the first thing i want lol, mutant spore spewing terrian on an alien planet? I hope the rules reflect a situation where you dont know whats in the terrian untill you move inside. That would be so fun.

That kind of thing sounds fun occasionally but I don't think I'd even want it to be as common as a single face on a d6. Maybe have a standard scenario rule where on players roll a die and if there is a 6 there's some sort of weirdness in effect, then roll another die to identify the weirdness and 'xeno vegetation' is one option.

ShumaGorath wrote:

haroon wrote:

Kurce wrote:

OHHH!!!! THAT is what interactive terrain? Oh man. This is bad. This is really bad. I hope this rumor is false. Last thing I want is to move a squad into some trees and the trees turn into mutant spore spewing aliens that attack my squad. This is so terrible. I might just put my blinders on and ignore that whole section of the rulebook.

That is the first thing i want lol, mutant spore spewing terrian on an alien planet? I hope the rules reflect a situation where you dont know whats in the terrian untill you move inside. That would be so fun.

Until it hurts you and then it isn't fun. I don't know anyone playing fantasy that actually enjoys the random terrain elements. This is a game against another person, you should have to beat the game itself as the same time.

If it hurts you thats part of the fun. I dont have to win in every situation to enjoy the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Balance wrote: That kind of thing sounds fun occasionally but I don't think I'd even want it to be as common as a single face on a d6. Maybe have a standard scenario rule where on players roll a die and if there is a 6 there's some sort of weirdness in effect, then roll another die to identify the weirdness and 'xeno vegetation' is one option.

Yes that would be prefect. The first time you enter a piece of terrian roll a dice and on a 6 somthing crazy happens roll on a crazy terrian table.

I'm looking forward to 6th edition. 5th has become stagnant and predictable. This will be my forth different 40k Edition in real time. I abandoned 3rd and 4th after a few games each btw.

If it hurts you thats part of the fun. I dont have to win in every situation to enjoy the game.

Neither do I, but playing with a handicap that I was unaware of until the game decided to screw me in a way that I couldn't plan around or compensate for is aggravating in the extreme. It cheapens my opponents victory.

Altruizine wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:

I am not arguing over which takes more skill, as I think they both have their points. I'm arguing over which is more fun for me and makes for a better flowing game. If you simply made every aspect of the game random - every move, number of attacks, if a unit got to do anything at all, everything - have you increased the skill requirements of the game? Maybe, but it would certainly be a more clunky game and be far less fun (at least for me).

That's a perfectly acceptable basis for consideration, but it bears pointing out that they aren't making every action random. No sane person would claim that all randomness is bad, and therefore all random results should be taken out of the game OR that all preset values are bad, and that everything should be random. My problem is understanding why people could believe that this one aspect of randomness is gamebreaking, when it's gravest possible impact would be no different to rolling a bunch of 1s on a critical shooting roll during turn 6.

It's just one more variable to manage.

I agree that not all randomness is bad, such as random face eating area terrain sounds fun to me. I just hate random movement.

ShumaGorath wrote:

No, I'm giving it the exact amount it needs, you're doing backflips through hoops to justify needless excess.

I'm surprisingly refreshed for having just done backflips through hoops. One would think that such activity would be, y'know, strenuous and demanding rather than effortlessly simple.

ShumaGorath wrote:And that's idiotic. Put me in a field and one in six times I am not going to go a sixth as fast as one of the other five times. If I had a car that had a 17% chance of breaking down I'd sue somebody.

Am I allowed to fire mortars at you while you run your sets to see if it affects your consistency?

If you read/watch documentary accounts of military action you will find they're full of descriptions of painfully slow crawls through hostile environments. You don't just bounce forward at your maximum speed.

Maelstrom808 wrote:
I agree that not all randomness is bad, such as random face eating area terrain sounds fun to me. I just hate random movement.

I actually dislike the way magic terrain works in WFB, because 5/6 pieces of terrain end up having effects. If 83% of the physical world was magical I think sentient life would have died out long ago.

We just houseruled it so that 1/6 pieces is magical, and it solved the problem completely.

haroon wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

haroon wrote:

Kurce wrote:

OHHH!!!! THAT is what interactive terrain? Oh man. This is bad. This is really bad. I hope this rumor is false. Last thing I want is to move a squad into some trees and the trees turn into mutant spore spewing aliens that attack my squad. This is so terrible. I might just put my blinders on and ignore that whole section of the rulebook.

That is the first thing i want lol, mutant spore spewing terrian on an alien planet? I hope the rules reflect a situation where you dont know whats in the terrian untill you move inside. That would be so fun.

Until it hurts you and then it isn't fun. I don't know anyone playing fantasy that actually enjoys the random terrain elements. This is a game against another person, you should have to beat the game itself as the same time.

If it hurts you thats part of the fun. I dont have to win in every situation to enjoy the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Balance wrote: That kind of thing sounds fun occasionally but I don't think I'd even want it to be as common as a single face on a d6. Maybe have a standard scenario rule where on players roll a die and if there is a 6 there's some sort of weirdness in effect, then roll another die to identify the weirdness and 'xeno vegetation' is one option.

Yes that would be prefect. The first time you enter a piece of terrian roll a dice and on a 6 somthing crazy happens roll on a crazy terrian table.

I won't lie. I hope you play a game where every single piece of terrain you step on turns out to be detrimental for you. Turn 1, some of your stuff dies/becomes near useless. Your opponent blasts your army apart on his turn. Turn 2, you move into some other piece of terrain and more of your stuff dies/becomes near useless. Start of your opponent's next turn he just glumly throws dice on the board because the game killed half of your stuff and not him.

Yay.

ShumaGorath wrote:

If it hurts you thats part of the fun. I dont have to win in every situation to enjoy the game.

Neither do I, but playing with a handicap that I was unaware of until the game decided to screw me in a way that I couldn't plan around or compensate for is aggravating in the extreme. It cheapens my opponents victory.

While I respect your opinion I dont quite understand it. Its not a handicap its just random chance. Does rolling poorly in a single given situation "cheapen your opponents victory" ?

CT GAMER wrote:

focusedfire wrote:


If I want to play a rpg then there are pathfinder, white wolf, rifts, shadowrun, ect., ect.

And if I wanted to study pie charts and statistical breakdowns I could take a math course at my local community college.

Any quality changes that make the game less predictable and less open to Mathhammer are a good thing as far as I'm concerned

1)Maybe you should take those cousres in college, they will help you in the long run.

2)You are making the assumption that adding random psychic powers will be a "quality" change.

3)Randomness/=improved tactical play. Randomness only exacerbates the problems already inherent in an unbalanced system.

Milisim wrote:If 40k goes the way of WHFB, I will be buying a 3rd 40K ARMY!

Randomness to me = fun.

I obviously do not know what Im talking about since Ive only been playing since RT days and my opinion is disregarded as I believe comp players in 40k ruin the game... Adding more Randomness to the game will hopefully IMO (And from what I can tell GW's aswell) bring about a more beer and chips atmosphere to 40k and move away from the comp days.

I was under the impression I would most likely sell my 40k stuff and move on to infinity, FoW and WHFB as my main games but with the leaks Im seeing here.... I might stick around for a bit.

Randomness within your codex is ok. Game wide randomness where the outcome of the game is determined in a first turn or pregame dice role,...not so much. Also, this randomness usually either ends the game super quick or slows it to an agonizingly slow crawl. There is a reason I don't play my fantasy armies right now. 8th ed made the game as much fun as passing a kidney stone while watching paint dry.

Milisim wrote:also I am not one of the people who pine for the 7E days of WHFB either. (Even though 8E magic is OP)


Random events and other mechanics allow for a more interesting game. Like someone said though... 50% of the hobby is Rec vs Comp. So balancing the two is hard to do.

1)Good, at least we agree that WHFB style magic/psychic powers hurt the game balance. This has been my point all along.

2)Random events applied equitably and moderately make for a more fun game, randomness that B***h slaps only one player is not fun for either player. What I am talking about is that if you want to affect movement then have a scenario where at the start of each game turn a roll for gravity(or tetonic instability) is made that can either slow or speed up both armies. A system where there is the possibility that only one harmy will suffer decreased movement or where one army gains access to new psychic devastation abilities that some other armies don't just creates further imbalance that the quote "Comp" or "WAAC" players will just exploit further.

DarthOvious wrote:
The problem is that you get those competetive players everywhere, not just at the tournies. Well GW have now pulled out of the competetive circuit so they don't need to service that part. I'm not against tournies or competetiveness but there are other players out there who just don't like it and it really shows your bitterness at the sounds of this by insulting people with lines like "You do not know what you're talking about". I think you've just shown here that you are one of those WAAC players with that kind of attitude just because he has a different opinion from you.

And by implying that someone you do not know is a WAAC player, you have just shown yourself to be most likely the same type person that is on the other side of the fence.

Those competitive types you are finding everywhere, no one is forcing you to game with them. They are, also, the ones paying for the luxury of you being a casual gamer/collector by constantly purchasing units to stay competitive. It comes accross that you don't see this because for some reason people are not supposed to try to win a game that has a winner and a loser at the end of most games.

CT GAMER wrote:
I think a little "fog of war" and murphy's law are good things for the game. You don't.

If it ends up being too much for you you can always bow out gracefully and go play warmahordes...

There is a big difference between a little fog of war &/or murphy's law and the mess that is WHFB magic system but then your next line here gets to the truth of the matter and all I have to say is
Obvious ____ is obvious.

Leth wrote:Actually chess is more about recognizing patterns, same with street fighter. Thats why the experienced players can have problems with newbs(not to say they will lose, just have problems) because they have no idea what the hell they are doing.

You ever meet a grand master. They have spent years training to think 10-15 moves ahead. It is not simple pattern recognition. Now if you had made a martial arts reference about a novice doing something so dumb that it is completely unexpected and he gets a lucky shot, then maybe. Even then that usually only happens to those of intermediate training or ability. With true masters(Not attendance black belts) this does not happen to in any form of a regularly occuring measurable event.

Altruizine wrote:
These randomness vs. skill discussions break my brain every time they crop up. I am always astounded when seemingly intelligent people believe that operating in a system where you know the set value of every move you make is somehow MORE demanding than operating in a system where your decisions can backfire and force you to manage your strategy on the fly. Fewer variables does not equate to more "skill" required (leaving aside the discussion of what constitutes a skill and which skills should actually be promoted in a wargame [hint: eyeballing measurements is not one of them, unless someone wants to publish a Carpentryhammer 40K expansion]).

Knowing the exact outcome of your decisions is the province of anal control freaks who can't deal with the unexpected. Furthermore, there should be very few situations where a game comes down to a single roll that can deal you a "random| defeat... and when there is, you let it happen.

First, My God Man, your hubris is showing...I..I mean its right out there for everyone to see. Cover it up before anyone can see that little thing attached to it.

Second, An individuals' skill is measured not against random sets of variable but againt their piers. In order to do so, variables have to be reduced to a minimum.

Third, There are many ways that risk management skills can be measuered without resorting to a dice roll. The only skill measured when adding more dice to roll in an unequitable system(Where both players are not affected by the same dice rol) is whether or not you have studied how to manipulate("cuff" or cheat) your dice.

Being able to determine distances with just your eyes is a very important skill that (Yes) carpenters and snipers both develope. Removing that element is just another step in dumbing down the game IMO. And BTW, Spacial reasoning is an experience skill that is easy to develope through a thing called experience and basic math skills.


As I said above about randomness:
Random events applied equitably and moderately make for a more fun game, randomness that B***h slaps only one player is not fun for either player. What I am talking about is that if you want to affect movement then have a scenario where at the start of each game turn a roll for gravity(or tetonic instability) is made that can either slow or speed up both armies. A system where there is the possibility that only one harmy will suffer decreased movement or where one army gains access to new psychic devastation abilities that some other armies don't just creates further imbalance that the quote "Comp" or "WAAC" players will just exploit further.

Edited for quotes, spacing, spelling and to explain these edits

I'm surprisingly refreshed for having just done backflips through hoops. One would think that such activity would be, y'know, strenuous and demanding rather than effortlessly simple.

Sometimes it's easier to use bunk logic then it is admit that something isn't perfect.

Am I allowed to fire mortars at you while you run your sets to see if it affects your consistency?

Yeah, if that's a rule in the game. Sure. Except it's not. Random charge distances occur without rhyme, reason, or justification. They're just randomness for its own sake. Which is bad.

If you read/watch documentary accounts of military action you will find they're full of descriptions of painfully slow crawls through hostile environments. You don't just bounce forward at your maximum speed.

Hostile environments like "An empty road". If the enemies actions had anything at all to do with the randomness then it would be ok. Except it has nothing to do with it.

Is there any reason at all to assume that interactive terrain is WHFB style "mysterious terrrain"?

tuebor wrote:Is there any reason at all to assume that interactive terrain is WHFB style "mysterious terrrain"?

The fact that it's what they used in the most recent edition of fantasy which also introduced random charge distances, another shared element. It's being developed by the same team in the same company so it's not illogical to assume that similar systems will be similar in function. The two games tended to share major revisions in the past.

If you're playing a game with your friends you can just say that the terrain isn't magic/weird/explosive/floor made of lava or whatever. My ruins and landing pad aren't suddenly going to be wallpapered with nails and carpeted with molten lead just because the rules say then can be 1/6 of the time.

I'm enjoying the discussion on the merits and detractors of random movement in the thread.

One thing that seems to be pushed aside in this discussion is that assault charges are getting an overall boost in the new edition (6" assault move + highest D6 from a 2D6" roll). Is there any argument that close combat assault in 5th ed does not need an increase in effectiveness (or at least the threat of it)?
I

themonk wrote:I'm enjoying the discussion on the merits and detractors of random movement in the thread.

One thing that seems to be pushed aside in this discussion is that assault charges are getting an overall boost in the new edition (6" assault move + highest D6 from a 2D6" roll). Is there any argument that close combat assault in 5th ed does not need an increase in effectiveness (or at least the threat of it)?
I

No. What's more, with casualties coming from the front, extending assault range is completely justified.

ShumaGorath wrote:

tuebor wrote:Is there any reason at all to assume that interactive terrain is WHFB style "mysterious terrrain"?

The fact that it's what they used in the most recent edition of fantasy which also introduced random charge distances, another shared element. It's being developed by the same team in the same company so it's not illogical to assume that similar systems will be similar in function. The two games tended to share major revisions in the past.

Then make the system work together like in the past, or do as they said when they made the game not playable together. Making one fantasy, one science fantasy with basically the same system is a joke and a slap in the face, pick a damn plan GW and then get it right already. How had is it to have one company vision for your game and stick to it.

lord_blackfang wrote:

themonk wrote:I'm enjoying the discussion on the merits and detractors of random movement in the thread.

One thing that seems to be pushed aside in this discussion is that assault charges are getting an overall boost in the new edition (6" assault move + highest D6 from a 2D6" roll). Is there any argument that close combat assault in 5th ed does not need an increase in effectiveness (or at least the threat of it)?
I

No. What's more, with casualties coming from the front, extending assault range is completely justified.

I'm not sure you've thought that argument through. I've also asked if anyone feels there is a justification that monstrous creatures and Dreadnoughts get to complete a charge a turn earlier than before. This isn't a deal breaker for me but I simply can't see a good reason for the change. Now that I think of it, less than 5% of the rumoured 6th edition changes are necessary or even beneficial to the game.

If darnok's birdies are true, Sanguinary Guard would become terminator's with jump packs, all for the price of a terminator!!

Therion wrote:Now that I think of it, less than 5% of the rumoured 6th edition changes are necessary or even beneficial to the game.

Time to sell your armies then! I can't even recall if we really heard over 20 individual, specific changes yet.

themonk wrote:I'm enjoying the discussion on the merits and detractors of random movement in the thread.

One thing that seems to be pushed aside in this discussion is that assault charges are getting an overall boost in the new edition (6" assault move + highest D6 from a 2D6" roll). Is there any argument that close combat assault in 5th ed does not need an increase in effectiveness (or at least the threat of it)?
I

The big one for me is the rumour of all vehicles getting the Crystal Targeting Matrix. This means all vehicle can now Jump shoot Move (or Move shoot move for nor skimmers). This to me explains why they are making vehicles easier to hit in cc. IMO, this is big. My crisis suit teams are going to have a lot of work ahead if these things are true.

lord_blackfang wrote:

Therion wrote:Now that I think of it, less than 5% of the rumoured 6th edition changes are necessary or even beneficial to the game.

Time to sell your armies then! I can't even recall if we really heard over 20 individual, specific changes yet.

This is a thread about rumors and speculation, if you don't want peoples reactions to rumors and speculation this may not be the thread for you.

I'm trying to figure out if this hullpoints thing is going to make my vehicles weaker or about the same, especially now that they can move 6" and fire everything.

It's going to make Predators even stronger, using a Space Marine example. And it'll also make the Lumbering Behemoth rule kind of stupid. (well, I guess Lumbering Behemoth let's you fire your ordnance with everything else, but who knows if that'll change too in 6th? Maybe I can fire my Vindicator's Storm Bolter with it's Demolisher Cannon now! :O)

focusedfire wrote:
The big one for me is the rumour of all vehicles getting the Crystal Targeting Matrix. This means all vehicle can now Jump shoot Move (or Move shoot move for nor skimmers). This to me explains why they are making vehicles easier to hit in cc. IMO, this is big. My crisis suit teams are going to have a lot of work ahead if these things are true.

You're reading stuff that isn't there. Nowhere does it say vehicles can move after shooting.

lord_blackfang wrote:

focusedfire wrote:
The big one for me is the rumour of all vehicles getting the Crystal Targeting Matrix. This means all vehicle can now Jump shoot Move (or Move shoot move for nor skimmers). This to me explains why they are making vehicles easier to hit in cc. IMO, this is big. My crisis suit teams are going to have a lot of work ahead if these things are true.

You're reading stuff that isn't there. Nowhere does it say vehicles can move after shooting.

To be fair, a lot of folks don't understand the current ruleset and it is published, faq'd and errata'd. Understanding a rumor post? Yikes.

Randumbness is like alcohol. A little bit is fun, but too much and you feel like crap the next day.

The game already required you to adapt to the randomness of shooting and assaults. Adding random Powers, random terrain, and random movement is not required.

The only reason that i keep coming to this thread is to see what news and rumors there are associated with the new rules set.

i have some apprehension about some of the suggested changes, however since none of these changes is more than a rumor i have yet to pass final judgement on the system. Seems like everyone is getting butt hurt over nothing. We all have differing opinions about the game, so maybe vitriol is unecessary when responding to somebody who has an opposing viewpoint.

That said, I am still looking forward to reading some more rumors about the proposed changes. If by interactive terraiin they may be refering to the ability to purchase terrain like mines or obstacles, that would be of great benefit to some armies. I have never played WFB so i have no idea what they have done with that system.

Move, Assault, then shoot?! Ugh. That, for me, has really un40k-ified the game. Made it more like Fantasy. Don't get me wrong, I love Fantasy, but the feel of the current rules is great.

And my Ork Nobz aren't going to like the Feel No Pain nerf.

And I swear, if you can no longer embark on a vehicle, move said vehicle, disembark and then shoot SOMEONE IS GOING TO DIE.

Not looking forward to this update

The Shadow wrote:Move, Assault, then shoot?! Ugh. That, for me, has really un40k-ified the game. Made it more like Fantasy. Don't get me wrong, I love Fantasy, but the feel of the current rules is great. (

With the addition of Overwatch/Snap Fire (though at BS1) makes this fine with me. I think this edition will see a rise of armies getting to do more in the opponents phases.

Orks don't hit anything anyway, so BS2 or 1 doesn't matter much.

jbunny wrote:Randumbness is like alcohol. A little bit is fun, but too much and you feel like crap the next day.

The game already required you to adapt to the randomness of shooting and assaults. Adding random Powers, random terrain, and random movement is not required.

Forget shooting and assault, that should be random. It was the random game length that killed me with last edition.

If there is no other good to come from 6th I pray that they at least did away with random game length.

I hope that this edition is so crazy that it drives all of the mathhammering comp players away. That would be awesome.