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.

Yes, I'm following it, because I have some perverse fascination at watching character attacks over what should be a rational, eager (or dreading) discussion of an upcoming potential ruleset.



You both have points. Mr. Game Theorist, guess what. The idea of using Randomness as a Resource is, well, a little over most people's heads. I do game design myself, and I don't quite get what you're going for, especially as your points seem to be contradictory.

Mr. Napoleon Quoter, you also have a point when you say that a Good General (TM) ought to be able to mitigate any trouble that a random result may cause, and plan contingencies for all outcomes (it's called a Xanatos gambit, by the way, if you pull that off correctly).


Guess who else is reading. The MODS. Now stop arguing with each other here and take it to PMs if you want to go into detailed, link-supported arguments about the effects of Randomness on gameplay difficulty. This thread is for rumors.




And speaking of rumors, anyone know if that one Vehicle Weapons rule might still be included? The one that gave vehicles points that they could spend to fire each weapon, that doubled if they didn't move, and you got more for higher armour value vehicles?

Move, Assault then Shoot?

What the hell do Assault weapons do? Maybe they can "shoot" while "in assault?"

Does this not buff mech-spam even further? Now it's even harder to get things out of their cans and kill them, no more Melta ---> Assault. It's Melta--->They shoot and maybe even assault you.

As a guard player who fields blob squads with melta and power weapons this makes me sad. But then again I guess it makes my Veteran squads even better. Like I needed more encouragement to take them.

RE: Hitting vehicles based on speed, you better get a buff if they didn't move. This makes vehicles mech even better since it'll be impossible to hit vehicles are move quickly. Land Raiders are really, really, really good now.

I assumed randomness of charges was one of the rumors people were discussing. This is my mistake and I will cease in this fruitless discussion. Thanks Alpharius for not letting it be devolved into any lower levels of waffling and Straw manning.

A unit can't claim a object while inside a vehicle.

I like this simply because it would further detract from the last turn control/contest game transport heavy lists play. And if this is true along with vehicles cannot contest, then we really have something new and good on our hands.

There's new kinds of instance death. If your say strengh 8 vs a space marine captain toughness 4
you only do 2 wounds! Strengh (9?) or more would do 3 wounds & kill him.

Not sure how I feel about this. It would give a lot of SC better odds, but there are quite a few T5 units in the game now. I see this as no more than another way to buff power armor again by removing it's chances of being instantly killed. This goes well with the return of 5+ cover benefiting Power Armor armies.

n kill point missions you get kill points based on what the units points cost, so for example a
landraider would be worth 5 kill points & a unit of marines 3pts.

Another thing to bring arguments and slow the resolution of the game. Now if your opponent has no book and no list, you will have to simply take his word on it.

focusedfire wrote:
Your statements here reflect a certain naivte.

I read that and it imminently coloured everything you just said as very pretentiousness. After that I stopped reading anything you and Dantalian have said after that point.

I have been mostly lurking and reading threw this thread enjoying it, and would hate to see it closed. I mean come on, a mod just posted a warning to stop right above your last post.

Could you two be gents and take it to PM's? Or just Agree to Disagree Already?
=C

The end is near. I will sell all my models on ebay and commit ritual seppuku on Ustream on release day. It's the only way to properly express my rage at random charge distances.

I think randomness to a certain extent is a good thing. One of the newer White Dwarfs had rules for Battle Missions that played out on Death Worlds where deployment is you go I go, first turn is determined by a roll off, and the games ends on turn 5 on a 4+. I think a lot of this will make it into 6th Edition and is a good thing as it offers a random element for knowing when the game can possibly end and it makes the first turn more of a tradeoff and eliminates alpha strike.

When this becomes a problem is when random elements are introduced that can easily turn the tide of a game on a single roll. Nothing I've seen seems to go in this direction. There's a lot of comments on here where a random game doesn't require skill to play which I don't think is accurate. Unless you're flipping over 2 cards and playing "War", there is a measure of skill and luck involved with any game. In 40K the skill can be list building, tactics, estimating distances, knowing what you and your opponents army can do, target priority, etc. these are all skills that are necessary to winning the game.

I doubt we'll end up with a ruleset where the luckiest person will win every time and one roll will decide a game. Sure, there are elements like that in 5th, but there isn't a lot of context for the info we have at this point to make an definite determinations. I think 6th Edition will come with it's own set of skills to master and I welcome all the changes and excited to see what this edition will bring.

Arschbombe wrote:The end is near. I will sell all my models on ebay and commit ritual seppuku on Ustream on release day. It's the only way to properly express my rage at random charge distances.

Psh, if you were a real man you'd commit ritual seppuku based on these unsubstantiated rumors.
Oh and you'd also leave me in your will for all of your Warhams.

Arschbombe wrote:The end is near. I will sell all my models on ebay and commit ritual seppuku on Ustream on release day. It's the only way to properly express my rage at random charge distances.

Yeah heaven forbid for some fun to happen. So are you sure it's just a random D6 to charge or a 6"+D6? So if it's the former, then fine sell your stuff, you just look like a cry baby (if that was not sarcasm, then I missed the boat.) If it's the later, then it's what you already have now, but you can say you have a bonuse D6 to add onto that now. It will make the game faster.

Why not try it first before whining and complaining, if that is what you are doin.

I think my main problem with these rumours is that the two games systems used to be just that, two game systems. if these hold true then it will just be fantasy in space. random charges, random magic, big on infantry, and god knows what else. i really think that GW has goofed here, assuming these are correct, which judging on the proximity of the release, is quite likely

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

How many mathhammering comp players do you play against warpcrafter? How often do you play these types of people?

Arschbombe wrote:The end is near. I will sell all my models on ebay and commit ritual seppuku on Ustream on release day. It's the only way to properly express my rage at random charge distances.

Seppuku? That's weak. At least D6 for your method of suicide. That's irony at it's best.

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.

Except for the portions where I cite in game and in system examples while discussing the basic logical structures of game theory. When I started claiming that you were arguing in bad faith (because you were) and you then started saying the same about me (because apparently claiming you were arguing in bad faith is itself a bad faith argument (which is true)). I don't think this is really a considerate way for you to argue your points.

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

Ahh, the top google result. Fascinating. This article was specifically why I asked for something with substance. I googled a bit before posting and was pretty bemused by the articles lack of citation and general subsistence on a single mans experientially derived quotes. It's the specific bunk "science" I was hoping you'd avoid.

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 could reference the masters itself. one would think you would be prepared with significantly more presentable material. You must of done preliminary research or research outside of your schools copyrighted research network access.

Preferred Enemy is including shooting and you may reroll wound rolls of a 1 (either shooting or combat)

Now this rule seems rather enjoyable to me since it would make a whole lot of sense AND possibly benefit Tau as well as destroyers and Tyrants. Maybe running an ethereal would be a possible to a degree. Take it as bait and hide it in the flanks. If your opponent knows of it's weakness he will try to go for it. If you have LoS blocking terrain this could buy you a turn or two before he ignores it or manages to kill it.

But I always hated how "Price of Failure" doesn't match the fluff they of the codex itself. It seemed that when the ethereal died the Tau just became enraged, not run away.

Alpharius wrote: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...

I'd be happy to have a thread about the concepts of randomness as a managed resource and randomness in game design. I took issue with something in the proposed ruleset and he took issue with my issue taking. I've been vaguely referential to 40k and the rumors in my posts, but I'll end the discussion here. It wasn't being had in good faith and I don't feel like having it become dominated by some sort of hairbrained aside about the psychology of rock paper scissors championships.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dantalian wrote:

Preferred Enemy is including shooting and you may reroll wound rolls of a 1 (either shooting or combat)

Now this rule seems rather enjoyable to me since it would make a whole lot of sense AND possibly benefit Tau as well as destroyers and Tyrants. Maybe running an ethereal would be a possible to a degree. Take it as bait and hide it in the flanks. If your opponent knows of it's weakness he will try to go for it. If you have LoS blocking terrain this could buy you a turn or two before he ignores it or manages to kill it.

But I always hated how "Price of Failure" doesn't match the fluff they of the codex itself. It seemed that when the ethereal died the Tau just became enraged, not run away.

In the fluff they are usually presented as being shocked or disheartened as the psychic/pheromonal link is broken and then filled with rage after they recover. It should result in pinning, not fleeing, but the order of operations makes sense. Preffered enemey in shooting, the new close combat AP rules, and the depowering of transports is going to make black templar missile heavy termy spam armies ludicrously powerful.

The kamikaze ethereal trick does sound fun

theharrower wrote:I think randomness to a certain extent is a good thing. One of the newer White Dwarfs had rules for Battle Missions that played out on Death Worlds where deployment is you go I go, first turn is determined by a roll off, and the games ends on turn 5 on a 4+. I think a lot of this will make it into 6th Edition and is a good thing as it offers a random element for knowing when the game can possibly end and it makes the first turn more of a tradeoff and eliminates alpha strike.

When this becomes a problem is when random elements are introduced that can easily turn the tide of a game on a single roll. Nothing I've seen seems to go in this direction. There's a lot of comments on here where a random game doesn't require skill to play which I don't think is accurate. Unless you're playing flipping over 2 cards and playing "War", there is a measure of skill and luck involved with any game. In 40K the skill can be list building, tactics, estimating distances, knowing what you and your opponents army can do, target priority, etc. these are all skills that are necessary to winning the game.

I doubt we'll end up with a ruleset where the luckiest person will win every time and one roll will decide a game. Sure, there are elements like that in 5th, but there isn't a lot of context for the info we have at this point to make an definite determinations. I think 6th Edition will come with it's own set of skills to master and I welcome all the changes and excited to see what this edition will bring.

I think people naturally like a Random element in general. I play TF2 on a group of servers/with a established community, and it's their Stock Map and Standard Server that are the most popular ones. You almost never see people playing on the No Crit Servers. No Crit Servers are more perceptible and more a challenge of skill. You can't always just spam rockets and pipe bombs hoping for the random crits. For alot of people in the community that predictability makes the game less fun.

Personally I'm more interested in how this new 8th ed magic system/Pyschic Disciplines will work out in 6th. How Random/Dangerous using the powers will be? Will they be as powerfull as the destroying whole units and even armies in a single turn? ect, ect, ect?

H.B.M.C. wrote:

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

How many mathhammering comp players do you play against warpcrafter? How often do you play these types of people?

Quite a bit actually. They consider every game that is not in a tournament to be practice for a tournament. They blather on and on about what they are wanting out of the game and they expect me to sit and listen to an extensive diatribe about how I didn't cooperate with their agenda of tournament practice because I did something crazy like laying out six very different Ork lists and rolling 1 D6 to determine which one I'll be using, or answering every "Why did you do that, when this would have been smarter?" question with a description of how the Warboss had to run off to retrieve his startled by a nearby explosion or some other fluffy detail, which REALLY irritates them. And any time somebody starts talking to me about mathhammer, I chuck dice at them and say "My little cuboid friends don't care!". Clear enough?

tetrisphreak wrote:... GW is playing this release very close to the chest...

And I would so love to know why.

Why would a company play the re-launch of its high selling product line close to its chest? What benefit is there in not letting everyone know, in not whipping up the hype machine, in not telling everyone what a great new game they've got coming out?

It. Doesn't. Make. Sense.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:... GW is playing this release very close to the chest...

And I would so love to know why.

Why would a company play the re-launch of its high selling product line close to its chest? What benefit is there in not letting everyone know, in not whipping up the hype machine, in not telling everyone what a great new game they've got coming out?

It. Doesn't. Make. Sense.

If the people don't like what the new rules are, they will not buy the book and quit beforehand. At least this way GW makes you spend a lot of money before you find out you hate it.

warpcrafter wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:

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

How many mathhammering comp players do you play against warpcrafter? How often do you play these types of people?

Quite a bit actually. They consider every game that is not in a tournament to be practice for a tournament. They blather on and on about what they are wanting out of the game and they expect me to sit and listen to an extensive diatribe about how I didn't cooperate with their agenda of tournament practice because I did something crazy like laying out six very different Ork lists and rolling 1 D6 to determine which one I'll be using, or answering every "Why did you do that, when this would have been smarter?" question with a description of how the Warboss had to run off to retrieve his startled by a nearby explosion or some other fluffy detail, which REALLY irritates them. And any time somebody starts talking to me about mathhammer, I chuck dice at them and say "My little cuboid friends don't care!". Clear enough?

Do you play 40k in an insane asylum..? I play with "Mathhammering comp people" all the time and I've never experienced what you just described. I've played with fluffbunny players a lot as well and I don't think I've ever heard a group complain about army composition so much before in my entire life.

Dantalian wrote:

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.

Also see: 10. Oops! Maya doomsday date corrected

That's a real good indication of "good science".

Note how Shuma said something to the effect of Players with about equal skill at the game\ will naturally enforce the standard deviation; this is what science tells us about unpredictable events with predictable outcomes.

I find myself simply incapable of finding fault with anything Shummy has said in this thread... amazing...

warpcrafter wrote:Quite a bit actually. They consider every game that is not in a tournament to be practice for a tournament. They blather on and on about what they are wanting out of the game and they expect me to sit and listen to an extensive diatribe about how I didn't cooperate with their agenda of tournament practice because I did something crazy like laying out six very different Ork lists and rolling 1 D6 to determine which one I'll be using, or answering every "Why did you do that, when this would have been smarter?" question with a description of how the Warboss had to run off to retrieve his startled by a nearby explosion or some other fluffy detail, which REALLY irritates them. And any time somebody starts talking to me about mathhammer, I chuck dice at them and say "My little cuboid friends don't care!". Clear enough?

Hmm... you play with a strange group of people then. I have to wonder why you play against these sorts of people?

On the other hand, did you ever consider what these 'mathhammering comp players' think about your apparent 'random LOLWUT?' play-style? Perhaps in an alternate universe your post might read:

bizzaro-warpcrafter wrote:Quite a bit actually. All I want to do is get in a practice game for the upcoming tournament, and this guy was having none of it. He even rolled his army list randomly! What the hell is that about? He kept doing things that actually made it worse for him, and when I got fed up with him essentially throwing the game on purpose I asked him why and he went on and on about his Warboss' fluff. What the hell? He started doing some really strange things that even the most basic grasp of probability would say was a bad idea, and when I asked him about it he talked about his 'cuboid friends'. Ahh! This game was so frustrating!

Man, that would be annoying!

H.B.M.C. wrote:It. Doesn't. Make. Sense.

They're using the Chewbacca defense to obscure that it's a bad system.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:... GW is playing this release very close to the chest...

And I would so love to know why.

Why would a company play the re-launch of its high selling product line close to its chest? What benefit is there in not letting everyone know, in not whipping up the hype machine, in not telling everyone what a great new game they've got coming out?

It. Doesn't. Make. Sense.

Rumour has it that clamping down on leaks was a part of the deal to allow GW to make a game around The Hobbit.

Platuan4th wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:It. Doesn't. Make. Sense.

They're using the Chewbacca defense to obscure that it's a bad system.

I kind of believe the rumor that it's part of their contract concerning the hobbit IP. That or they got a really kookie marketing team fresh out of school with some hip new ideas about drumming up enthusiasm and sales.

:Edit: Ninjad

I can't buy that their deal with the Hobbit stops them from promoting their own products. That's ludicrous.

Do they really think that the hobbit will save LotRSBG? I mean really, i don't think i have seen someone play that game in 6 months, i don't even know anyone who has played in the last 2 years. They must be really losing money there...

I agree with you there though H.B.M.C, the whole "tell no-one anything" approach really doesn't make sense. it's hillarious talking to GW staff members about it though, they tend to avoid the point and start complaining about

"stupid external retailers seeing their order forms and saying LOOK WHAT'S IN NEXT MONTH!" - GW blue-shirt at my local GW store

ShumaGorath wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:It. Doesn't. Make. Sense.

They're using the Chewbacca defense to obscure that it's a bad system.

I kind of believe the rumor that it's part of their contract concerning the hobbit IP. That or they got a really kookie marketing team fresh out of school with some hip new ideas about drumming up enthusiasm and sales.

:Edit: Ninjad

H.B.M.C. wrote:I can't buy that their deal with the Hobbit stops them from promoting their own products. That's ludicrous.

Unless the guy who orginaly said that was infact a part of GW marketing, and it's all a ploy to keep us talking and just accept that they have a very poor marketing department. All a ploy to cover their asses and keep them from being fired!

THE NUMBERS MAN! THE NUMBERS!

Davor wrote:

Arschbombe wrote:The end is near. I will sell all my models on ebay and commit ritual seppuku on Ustream on release day. It's the only way to properly express my rage at random charge distances.

Yeah heaven forbid for some fun to happen. So are you sure it's just a random D6 to charge or a 6"+D6? So if it's the former, then fine sell your stuff, you just look like a cry baby (if that was not sarcasm, then I missed the boat.) If it's the later, then it's what you already have now, but you can say you have a bonuse D6 to add onto that now. It will make the game faster.

Why not try it first before whining and complaining, if that is what you are doin.

This right here is why there needs to be some sort of accepted :Sarcasm: Orkmoticon.