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.

Uriels_Flame wrote:

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.

What dose Orks BS have to do with his complaint that Feel No Pain is going to hurt his Nobz, there the ones using it not the other guy.

Uriels_Flame wrote:

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.

What's Overwatch and SnapFire?

And, scrolling down the OP, I have to say, I like the sound of the Psychic Cards which would mean more focus on Psychic Powers *nods in direction of Eldar Farseers*

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

i hope this edition is so static that it drives all of the non mathhammering non-comp players away. That would be awesome.


See what i did there?
Your sentence is the same thing as mine which is pointless and non constructive, also ridicolous.

For topic's sake.

I am actually wondering how obstructed vehicles cover's will be affected. Since some of the cover will still be 4+, they might keep "smoke" covers as 4+ and make the regular vehicle cover 5+. I would like that.

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

You can't do all that in a turn anyway, so if I'm interpreting what you wrote correctly somebody's already dead.

The Shadow wrote: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

I dont think you can do this now. I dont have the rules in front of me but I dont think you can embark and disembark the same unit in the same turn.

pizzaguardian wrote:

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

i hope this edition is so static that it drives all of the non mathhammering non-comp players away. That would be awesome.


See what i did there?
Your sentence is the same thing as mine which is pointless and non constructive, also ridicolous.

Hahaha then you're in for a world of disappointment my son. Also your jimmies seem a bit rustled, you may want to calm down there.

Looking over these rum0rz, I like a couple things: You can move and fire rapid fire weapons at their full range. I've always been confused as to why you couldn't; so I'm glad that this is seeing the light of day. I'm also liking the reduction of cover saves.

As for the "interactive" terrain, we'll see how it works out. It fits with the flavor of 40k, or at least the flavor of Rogue Trader which is why I think it is cool. We will see how well implemented it is. I'm sure my friends and I will try it out for a couple games. If we don't like it, we'll throw it out. If we like it, we'll keep it in.
We already removed seizing the initiative (probably the dumbest rule ever made for 40k) so it wouldn't be the first time.

I'm also curious about the random charge. There's a big difference between charge of 2d6" choose highest, and 6"+2d6" choose highest. Though if it's the latter, I don't know how crazy it will be especially since the name of the game for these rumors seems to be removing models from the front.

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

Yes, it would be awesome to watch 40k's playerbase halve and have game stores across the world drop it for it's competitors (which are almost universally better balanced and less random). I'm sure you'll feel much better with all the extra space. Death did wonders for the battletech community as well.

Assault then moving sounds idiotic and prone to disaster. I'm not really sure how armies are meant to operate that way. If true, it's just going to be a rule I'll ignore. Don't do official tournaments anyway.

As a BA player, these rumours have me a bit worried. FnP nerf for one thing is going to hurt a lot. Random charge lengths... well, I think that is obvious why that is worrysome. I don't get what the point of having fast vehicles is if everyone can move and shoot now. Hitting vehicles on a 3+ and hull points make our mech straight up weaker too.

So, yeah... at least we get free I10 strikes when charging now. That makes up for everything else we lost, right?

<GENERAL WARNING: there's a lot of snark in here. If you can't discuss these rumors without targeting comments at another poster, I'm going to remove your ability to discuss them. This is your only warning.>

Deschenus Maximus wrote:As a BA player, these rumours have me a bit worried. FnP nerf for one thing is going to hurt a lot. Random charge lengths... well, I think that is obvious why that is worrysome. I don't get what the point of having fast vehicles is if everyone can move and shoot now. Hitting vehicles on a 3+ and hull points make our mech straight up weaker too.

So, yeah... at least we get free I10 strikes when charging now. That makes up for everything else we lost, right?

DE is hurt by the fnp nerf more then anyone imo. At least BA still have a 3+. Several of the units in the DE codex have either no armor save or a 6+ which is balanced by their FNP.

If ya'll are expecting a balanced game from GW, they were founded in 1975 have zero games that can make that claim. 6th will take some things away, give other things to you, and create new problems and opportunities, just like every edition. Just rest assured: Marines will be better than Xenos across the board and there is no way in hell that will change.

Getting back on track with rumors, BramGaunt over on warseer is saying GW is playing this release very close to the chest, and not to expect your own copy (emphasis mine) on 6/23/12. Anybody remember the paint release in April? A week before they went on sale stores had a small demo batch for customers to try.

I'll put money down that says despite all their bad history with releases and public knowledge, GW will have preview rule books when the white dwarf comes out, to help spur Pre orders.

Skarboy wrote:If ya'll are expecting a balanced game from GW, they were founded in 1975 have zero games that can make that claim. 6th will take some things away, give other things to you, and create new problems and opportunities, just like every edition. Just rest assured: Marines will be better than Xenos across the board and there is no way in hell that will change.

Chaos, Eldar, and Tyranids were utterly dominant in fourth. Why do people have such short memories on this forum?

Skarboy wrote:If ya'll are expecting a balanced game from GW, they were founded in 1975 have zero games that can make that claim. 6th will take some things away, give other things to you, and create new problems and opportunities, just like every edition. Just rest assured: Marines will be better than Xenos across the board and there is no way in hell that will change.

100% agreed there.

Not that I'm complaining, as most of us have played GW (and other) companies games for a while.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Skarboy wrote:If ya'll are expecting a balanced game from GW, they were founded in 1975 have zero games that can make that claim. 6th will take some things away, give other things to you, and create new problems and opportunities, just like every edition. Just rest assured: Marines will be better than Xenos across the board and there is no way in hell that will change.

Chaos, Eldar, and Tyranids were utterly dominant in fourth. Why do people have such short memories on this forum?

Compared to Rogue Trader, 2nd, 3rd, and 5th ed - how long did 4th last again? Or you could look at it like GW woke up and saw Marines weren't on top and hatched the jump to 5th ed.

haroon wrote:

Deschenus Maximus wrote:As a BA player, these rumours have me a bit worried. FnP nerf for one thing is going to hurt a lot. Random charge lengths... well, I think that is obvious why that is worrysome. I don't get what the point of having fast vehicles is if everyone can move and shoot now. Hitting vehicles on a 3+ and hull points make our mech straight up weaker too.

So, yeah... at least we get free I10 strikes when charging now. That makes up for everything else we lost, right?

DE is hurt by the fnp nerf more then anyone imo. At least BA still have a 3+. Several of the units in the DE codex have either no armor save or a 6+ which is balanced by their FNP.

Buddy, I really feel for DE, believe me. I see nothing good at all for them so far. Still, doesn't take away the fact that FnP nerf is going to suck for us too, even if it sucks less.

Deschenus Maximus wrote:As a BA player, these rumours have me a bit worried. FnP nerf for one thing is going to hurt a lot. Random charge lengths... well, I think that is obvious why that is worrysome. I don't get what the point of having fast vehicles is if everyone can move and shoot now. Hitting vehicles on a 3+ and hull points make our mech straight up weaker too.

So, yeah... at least we get free I10 strikes when charging now. That makes up for everything else we lost, right?

I'm concerned about this as well, but I'm not pushing the panic button yet. The nerf to FNP is going to just mean we'll have to field larger squads. So you'll probably see less relience on Razorbacks on more on Rhinos and Decent of Angels. From everything I've seen, seems like Assault is going to be even deadlier especially with weapons having AP values so I'm not worried there. My biggest fear is that fast vehicles are worthless now and we pay a premium for them. Time will tell...

ShumaGorath wrote:
Controlling resource management is a skill. Risk is a resource you take within the limitations of your role in a given game system. When there is no choice between safe under performance and a possibly beneficial risk then there is no inherent skill based decision making. You are playing against a human opponent, there is already a random element within the game that you can not control and making decisions based on the risk and reward of attempting to anticipate your opponents decisions is what good and balanced games are based on. By limiting the human interface within the game and replacing resource managed risk/reward with inherent "randomness" you reduce the decision making and required skill within a system. Chess takes a lot of skill to play. It has no random elements aside from the human one. Rock paper scissors takes zero skill, it has no form of risk or reward, it is purely chance. The more random elements GW introduces into 40k the more it is like rock paper scissors and the less it is like chess. Stated another way the more random elements that are introduced into 40k the less skill is required and the more "luck" has to do with the final outcome of a given game.

If this concept breaks your brain then you should probably not comment on it anymore. It's not confusing.

I honestly can't agree with this at all. There is a skill in randomness that is inherit in all systems. There is no point in a battle when you go into it and say "well I'm guaranteed to get this as a result." Generals must decide between their odds, some may be more beneficial than others. And it takes a good general to take control of the randomness in the game. If you think randomness reduces skill required, then you are easily in the category of a person who can't mange their army properly. Reducing the randomness is what you should consider in everything you do. Maybe instead of derping across open ground for 6" you decide to get into cover 4" away and next turn you are that much closer to them when you do move, and this will reduce the randomness of the charge. Maybe consider better units if you want to be part of braindead marches across the field, give them better survival in equipment. The randomness if yours to mold and reduce, and if you can't handle that then maybe 40k won't be for you.

Also Napoleon Bonaparte would even support this idea. He felt that any general who hid behind the veil of "it's was luck" are merely hiding their own incompetence as a commander.

And on top of that Rock, Paper, Scissors is actually a highly skilled game. There are dozens of research papers given on the psychology of making your decision when going up against an opponent. You must decide what type of person he is, what has he done in the past, consider what the last result he threw was. There are almost no random events that you can't control/predict given enough skill. Now if the idea of increasing your skill in 6th breaks your brain then you should probably not comment on it anymore.

Compared to Rogue Trader, 2nd, 3rd, and 5th ed - how long did 4th last again? Or you could look at it like GW woke up and saw Marines weren't on top and hatched the jump to 5th ed.

Chaos and eldar were dominant in third as well. Hell, eldar were dominant in second. They've had a pretty good run. For the first year or so into fifth Orks were utterly dominant and they were only replaced by guard who are still one of the power three. Generic space marines have been underpowered in almost every edition GW has ever released with blood angels and space wolves usually popping up to each be overpowered for a time (generally wolves more than bloods). Marines have never really been dominant past what their inherent number of codexes would imply. That said, when half your game is composed of different colors of one faction it's going to be overpowered sometimes.

As a player who only started in 5th, and after it had been out for a while, a question:

What is usually the difference with a collectors edition version of the rulebook or boxed set?

Is it just artwork, or a sleeve (on the book) or something else?

Perhaps I misread some things here on what might actually get a collectors edition; can anyone shed some light on;

1 - What will have a collector's edition?
2 - How might it be different?

thanks!!

pretre wrote:

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.

From Whitehats 6/11 rumour on the first page: "Vehicles go the same distance in the movement phase (I believe 6" and fire everything regardless if fast or not) but in the shooting phase can make an extra move (apparently some kept forgetting what vehicles moved to fast to fire..."

As written it is Crystal Targetting Matrix for everyone. Hope this helps clear up your misunderstanding lord_blackfang


And BTW pretre, my reading comprehension is fine. I have a strong enough understanding of both the games rules and its tactics that I'm still able to finish mid pack and occasionally place with my Tau at our regular tourneys in Houston. Thats right, I play tourneys with Tau, guess by others comments on this thread that makes me a WAAC player.

Dantalian wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Controlling resource management is a skill. Risk is a resource you take within the limitations of your role in a given game system. When there is no choice between safe under performance and a possibly beneficial risk then there is no inherent skill based decision making. You are playing against a human opponent, there is already a random element within the game that you can not control and making decisions based on the risk and reward of attempting to anticipate your opponents decisions is what good and balanced games are based on. By limiting the human interface within the game and replacing resource managed risk/reward with inherent "randomness" you reduce the decision making and required skill within a system. Chess takes a lot of skill to play. It has no random elements aside from the human one. Rock paper scissors takes zero skill, it has no form of risk or reward, it is purely chance. The more random elements GW introduces into 40k the more it is like rock paper scissors and the less it is like chess. Stated another way the more random elements that are introduced into 40k the less skill is required and the more "luck" has to do with the final outcome of a given game.

If this concept breaks your brain then you should probably not comment on it anymore. It's not confusing.

I honestly can't agree with this at all. There is a skill in randomness that is inherit in all systems. There is no point in a battle when you go into it and say "well I'm guaranteed to get this as a result." Generals must decide between their odds, some may be more beneficial than others. And it takes a good general to take control of the randomness in the game. If you think randomness reduces skill required, then you are easily in the category of a person who can't mange their army properly. Reducing the randomness is what you should consider in everything you do. Maybe instead of derping across open ground for 6" you decide to get into cover 4" away and next turn you are that much closer to them when you do move, and this will reduce the randomness of the charge. Maybe consider better units if you want to be part of braindead marches across the field, give them better survival in equipment. The randomness if yours to mold and reduce, and if you can't handle that then maybe 40k won't be for you.

Also Napoleon Bonaparte would even support this idea. He felt that any general who hid behind the veil of "it's was luck" are merely hiding their own incompetence as a commander.

This is why I dislike discussing game design with people who aren't trained in the theory of it. You glossed over half of what I posted so that you could reinforce the idea that randomness inextricably is risk and reward. Did you even read the second half of my post? I really doubt it. I go into managed randomness as a resource and you seem to have glossed over the concept entirely in favor of a straw man so you could argue against things I didn't say.

And on top of that Rock, Paper, Scissors is actually a highly skilled game. There are dozens of research papers given on the psychology of making your decision when going up against an opponent. You must decide what type of person he is, what has he done in the past, consider what the last result he threw was. There are almost no random events that you can't control/predict given enough skill. Now if the idea of increasing your skill in 6th breaks your brain then you should probably not comment on it anymore.

No. Just no. Given ten thousand games of rock paper scissors against an opponent you will end up having won a third of the time. If you're both equally congizent of each other than any predictability will be worthless once the standard deviation reinforces itself. Most games of rock paper scissors don't go that far, but in any comparison to 40k you have to look past the bunk science of prediction in natural chaos. You are not Laplaces demon. If you presume they'll start with rock you've got a couple percentage points higher than average to win the hand but these behavioral structures are inconsistent in the long term.

I look forward to learning new rules! All we have seen up to this point is a few rumors that will all come together into a complete rule set. I am wondering quite a few things myself. For example
-Bikes will only move 2in faster than infantry?
-If bikes move faster than infantry then why do vehicles move the same speed and foot slogers?
-if move assault shoot then for cinematic then why cant you fire pistols into assault? but you can fire at assaulters (snapfire)/
-Random terrain? buying terrain? IDK kinda cool may add something we did not know was missing.
-psychic power cards!!!! Gotta catch em' all! I kinda hope they add an element like collectible cards in there but that is just wishlisting.

All of these things will be answered when 6th drops. certain units being over costed has not stopped me from running them just because they look cool yet it will not stop me in the new ed. maybe I will even get lucky and all of those units will be good in the new ed. Change is great if for no other reason than the fact that one person in particular hates change and I love to watch him squirm.

Lets roll the dice and see what happens in true wargaming form! Hears to the orks who win on 6's and loose on 1's let the warhammer world BURN!!!

Dantalian wrote:I honestly can't agree with this at all. There is a skill in randomness that is inherit in all systems. There is no point in a battle when you go into it and say "well I'm guaranteed to get this as a result." Generals must decide between their odds, some may be more beneficial than others. And it takes a good general to take control of the randomness in the game. If you think randomness reduces skill required, then you are easily in the category of a person who can't mange their army properly. Reducing the randomness is what you should consider in everything you do. Maybe instead of derping across open ground for 6" you decide to get into cover 4" away and next turn you are that much closer to them when you do move, and this will reduce the randomness of the charge. Maybe consider better units if you want to be part of braindead marches across the field, give them better survival in equipment. The randomness if yours to mold and reduce, and if you can't handle that then maybe 40k won't be for you.

Your statements here reflect a certain naivte. Many are the times that commanders/generals must go into battle in less than ideal situations. They use risk management to reduce/manipulate the variables in their favour as much as possible.This mean reducing the variables, heck physical conditioning training is designed to minimize the variable of fatigue. Thing is that the other general is doing the same thing and has to deal with the same battlefield conditions. This is why positioning is important.

What I am getting at is that a general won't engage the enemy if there are to many variable that can not be handled(Such as weather, swampy or volcanic terrain, ect...) The general would not commit to the battle but would withdraw to a better position.

Now that is real world and this is a game that has people pitting their armies in battle. It makes sense that the battle would take place in an area that was neutral(No bais againt one army or the other). The reason for this is that both generals would have manuveured for such. If you want rules that can favour one army over another then play an ambush scenario but don't ruin the whole game just to get that effect.

I really feel that this is a failing on GWs part to properly balance their game system. By this, I mean that GW already had movement modifiers in game and then gave special rules to ignore those modifiers to most of the armies(Remember when pinning or breaking morale was an effective means of slowing your opponent?)

Now, as I said earlier, this is a game. A Cometitive game. The point of the game is not to see who bought the beter army but who the better player is. When trying to do such, non-equitable variable completely undermine the entire concept of the game. Instead of people blaming each other as to being to FLUFFY or to WAAC , Maybe we should be holding GW for not getting it right after 25 years.


Edit for on-topic question:
Why make 40k like fantasy? Seriously, Fantasy sales have plummeted in our area since 8th dropped(Especially in the last 3 months). The regulars have dropped to under half their normal numbers and WHFB tournies have turned into no show affairs of just a couple of players.

I think this 'space magic' rumor has signaled my transition into warmachine...

if only i didn't live in the UK, where FLGSs are about as common as a fair price for space marines in australia...

oh well, i'll believe all this when i see it. and i really hope i don't see it.

ShumaGorath wrote:
This is why I dislike discussing game design with people who aren't trained in the theory of it. You glossed over half of what I posted so that you could reinforce the idea that randomness inextricably is risk and reward. Did you even read the second half of my post? I really doubt it. I go into managed randomness as a resource and you seem to have glossed over the concept entirely in favor of a straw man so you could argue against things I didn't say.

But yet at no point in your reply do you disprove what I have said, meaning you have no strong counter argument? All I see in your post is that you think adding an extra random roll removes decision making and that isn't true as I stated in my post. I'm getting a good laugh at the idea you consider it more skill full just running as fast as you can across the board as apposed to considering what you should do to reduce the risk of doing so. You don't want a random charge because you don't want to think about what you have to do to make it work.

ShumaGorath wrote:No. Just no. Given ten thousand games of rock paper scissors against an opponent you will end up having won a third of the time. If you're both equally congizent of each other than any predictability will be worthless once the standard deviation reinforces itself. Most games of rock paper scissors don't go that far, but in any comparison to 40k you have to look past the bunk science of prediction in natural chaos. You are not Laplaces demon. If you presume they'll start with rock you've got a couple percentage points higher than average to win the hand but these behavioral structures are inconsistent in the long term.

That isn't true at all actually. The only way scientists have been able to get a one-third result in matches is if they blindfold the players AND do not tell them what the opponent threw. There are even national tournaments for this game where multiple players managed a greater than 50% success rate after nearly 700 samples. As long as there is a human mind calling the decision it is not random and becomes predictable. The human mind processes everything as logically as it can, thus altering and effectively removing the random factor in most things. This is not a bunk science, these are facts backed up with solid and well supported science.

focusedfire wrote:
Your statements here reflect a certain naivte. Many are the times that commanders/generals must go into battle in less than ideal situations. They use risk management to reduce/manipulate the variables in their favour as much as possible.This mean reducing the variables, heck physical conditioning training is designed to minimize the variable of fatigue. Thing is that the other general is doing the same thing and has to deal with the same battlefield conditions. This is why positioning is important.

What I am getting at is that a general won't engage the enemy if there are to many variable that can not be handled(Such as weather, swampy or volcanic terrain, ect...) The general would not commit to the battle but would withdraw to a better position.

Now that is real world and this is a game that has people pitting their armies in battle. It makes sense that the battle would take place in an area that was neutral(No bais againt one army or the other). The reason for this is that both generals would have manuveured for such. If you want rules that can favour one army over another then play an ambush scenario but don't ruin the whole game just to get that effect.

Tell me what type of map you can play one that has zero bias for one army or the other? I can't think of one in 40k at all. Every piece of terrain you put on that board is better for one army or the other, and for every piece of terrain you take off the board benefits others. There is no such thing as a perfectly unbiased map in 40k. You should decide if you want to attempt an assault based on the terrain, which varais game to game. The army you play against would also determine if you wish to hide in terrain on the advance or not. You say I wrote with naivte, but you by far have the most since you write from the point of view that all armies are balanced and all maps and unbiased.

But yet at no point in your reply do you disprove what I have said, meaning you have no strong counter argument?

Because what you said was mostly in reference to a post I didn't make. You straw manned for a paragraph, the best defense is to point out your debate fallacy. Which I did. It's not worth responding to a point that isn't argued in faith.

All I see in your post is that you think adding an extra random roll removes decision making and that isn't true as I stated in my post.

You continue to woefully and probably intentionally misinterpret what I said.

I'm getting a good laugh at the idea you consider it more skill full just running as fast as you can across the board as apposed to considering what you should do to reduce the risk of doing so.

Is anyone else reading this discussion? Does this make sense to anyone else?

You don't want a random charge because you don't want to think about what you have to do to make it work.

Adding a large margin of error just reinforces the idea of redundant planning rather than accurate planning. Redundant planning is not more skillful than accurate, it's actually dramatically less so as it encourages repetitious overlapping behaviors to overcome the inbuilt uncertainty. It specifically encourages the behavior of "running accross the board en masse" in order to overcome via scale the randomness. A persons ability to accurately place his models in an offensive or defensive position is less important in a game with large margins of error. A persons ability to accurately guage charge distances and plan in advance is actively harmed by this kind of randomness. It does nothing to make the game more skillfull and repetitiously stating that it does without support doesn't make it true.

That isn't true at all actually. The only way scientists have been able to get a one-third result in matches is if they blindfold the players AND do not tell them what the opponent threw. There are even national tournaments for this game where multiple players managed a greater than 50% success rate after nearly 700 samples. As long as there is a human mind calling the decision it is not random and becomes predictable. The human mind processes everything as logically as it can, thus altering and effectively removing the random factor in most things. This is not a bunk science, these are facts backed up with solid and well supported science.

As soon as you actually post that solid science it'll be more than you making gak up. Keep in mind, I'll actually click those links so try to choose ones that aren't bad science.

ShumaGorath wrote:It does nothing to make the game more skillfull and repetitiously stating that it does without support doesn't make it true.

So far all we have is your word on this with no proof other than continuously stating its true. Your argument so far is absolutely no different from mine.

ShumaGorath wrote:As soon as you actually post that solid science it'll be more than you making gak up. Keep in mind, I'll actually click those links so try to choose ones that aren't bad science.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44162400/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/science-shows-you-how-win-rock-paper-scissors/#.T9fhquMQp8E

This is a good starting article into it, and it is the article that made me choose it as my masters thesis. Unfortunately I can't provide with too much proof since most of mine comes from physical textbooks and online eReserves that have no public access.

You two might need to take this to a separate thread.

And if everyone else can keep this thread on topic, then it can stay open.

If not...

Dantalian wrote:
Tell me what type of map you can play one that has zero bias for one army or the other? I can't think of one in 40k at all. Every piece of terrain you put on that board is better for one army or the other, and for every piece of terrain you take off the board benefits others. There is no such thing as a perfectly unbiased map in 40k. You should decide if you want to attempt an assault based on the terrain, which varais game to game. The army you play against would also determine if you wish to hide in terrain on the advance or not. You say I wrote with naivte, but you by far have the most since you write from the point of view that all armies are balanced and all maps and unbiased.

Actually, go back and actually read what I wrote, rather than just skimming. If you do, you will see that I acknowledge that a real world general would do everything to gain an advantage but the problem is that his opposing general would be doing the same thing. Hence, they may end up fighting in a place with a slight terrain advantage but by the time the battle is joined both generals have done everything they can to mitigate the variables. Hence seperate unit by unit movement variables just add an unnecessary element of randomness that does little to reflect what would have been handled before the battle.

As to your point about the terrain affecting the game bais, That is why both poeple agree to the level of terrain and board layout before the game starts. Both generals get a chance to mitigate the variables before the battle starts. What this comes down to is how much you want the dice to decide who wins or your tactics. Non-Codex variables that do not apply equitably to both players just defeats the purpose of Tactics.