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.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

Alpharius wrote:As Therion mentioned elsewhere, GW thinks random = fun, so I expect lots more random this time around!

Given that the entire system is based upon dice rolls everyone who enjoys 40k must also like randomness. I don't understand why people have such a hatred of randomness, providing that it sin't all pervasive and doesn't detract from the game itself then I think that it is a good thing.

It's creeping into pervasive and detracting. It was already there with some things (reserves), but when crucial bits of army planning or in game tactics are at the mercy of dice instead of human decision making (warlord strategies, assaults) it detracts strongly. I play 40k to play a game, not watch the dice feth one player into losing.

Well said. Maybe next edition they'll introduce incredibly funny random armies: You're supposed to buy enough of every model so you can field every unit in your codex multiple times and then in the start of every game after choosing which side deploys first you random roll your army and the weapon options and then you play! If you don't have the models available for the unit you random rolled you lose that roll and have to play with a smaller army than your opponent so make sure your miniature case is stacked! The edition after that you start by random rolling your army book! But don't worry: Even if you end up getting a weaker army than your opponent, you'll be random rolling at the end of the game anyway who won because in 40K moral victories are what count. 1-2 player A won, 3-4 player B won, 5 draw, 6 Jervis Johnson won.

Palindrome wrote:

Alpharius wrote:As Therion mentioned elsewhere, GW thinks random = fun, so I expect lots more random this time around!

Given that the entire system is based upon dice rolls everyone who enjoys 40k must also like randomness. I don't understand why people have such a hatred of randomness, providing that it sin't all pervasive and doesn't detract from the game itself then I think that it is a good thing.

Sample size matters.

The more dice you roll the less luck remains a factor (as the number of rolls approaches infinity, the results will conform more and more to the expected probabilistic outcomes). However, when a single die roll has a substantial impact on the outcome of the game, that's a bad thing. Whether or not this will be the case with this alleged addition to the rules is unknown; however, if an HQ model can be designated a scoring unit, that potentially grants some armies a tremendous advantage, and it's exactly this kind of thing that should be avoided.

KingCracker wrote:

This I agree with. The 5th edition wound allocation is honestly part of the reason I stopped bringing Nobz so much. It was fething annoying and REALLY bogged down the flow of the game. To save myself and my opponents time, I just stopped taking them.

OMFG agree. I have been taking MANZ not because they are better than NOBZ (as they aren't) but because they really don't have the same tediousness of WAC. I have really just been avoiding nob-dependant builds.

I look forward to this being out of the ruleset.

I see both good, and bad in the rumors. That bad thing is that at the moment they are just that...... Rumors. GW has refused to comment on anything until 6th edition is released so I guess we just have to wait and see.

On another note I saw someone in the forum mention something about a digital copy of the rulebook, but that is news to me. Anyone else heard anything on this?

Added BoW, Darnok and Warseer rumors from the last day or so to Rumor Accuracy thread.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

Alpharius wrote:As Therion mentioned elsewhere, GW thinks random = fun, so I expect lots more random this time around!

Given that the entire system is based upon dice rolls everyone who enjoys 40k must also like randomness. I don't understand why people have such a hatred of randomness, providing that it sin't all pervasive and doesn't detract from the game itself then I think that it is a good thing.

It's creeping into pervasive and detracting. It was already there with some things (reserves), but when crucial bits of army planning or in game tactics are at the mercy of dice instead of human decision making (warlord strategies, assaults) it detracts strongly. I play 40k to play a game, not watch the dice feth one player into losing.

I completely and utterly disagree. "No plan survives contact with the enemy." I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you've never served in the military. We train, and train, and train, but when it comes time to apply the training we undergo to prepare ourselves for a combat situation, SOMETHING always changes/goes wrong. Our plan is never executed flawlessly, and we have to adapt. It is how we adapt to the chaos of our plans failing that determines victory. The randomness of the dice rolls imitates warfare quite brilliantly. It is in how you react to the dice rolls, the unknowns, the equipment failures, etc. that determine how good of a commander you are. Sure, there are times where the dice gods will completely and utterly hate you and ruin your day, but the same thing happens in warfare. That awesome piece of "perfectly" engineered weaponry could suddenly fail without warning, and you lose the battle because of it. I've had it happen to me on several occasions...not in a battle (thankfully) per se, but when we really needed an important piece of equipment to work to properly accomplish a mission, it failed just out of the blue. So, I see it as a good thing that reserves are at the mercy of a dice roll (reinforcements can, and will get delayed...timing is NEVER perfect), random assault distances represent the fact that a charge is a moving mass of bodies, "controlled chaos," so to speak (not to mention that not every soldier has exactly the same endurance, nor is every piece of terrain the same, thusly making a charge a gamble. A quick look back in history shows the serious gamble a "bayonet charge" really is). So, I say bring on the randomness...it makes a commander have to adapt and overcome the challenges of trying to control a battle.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you've never served in the military.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that that's irrelevant and stupid. I'm playing a game. I want meaningful input within that game. If I don't have it I'm not going to play it. I'm not here to watch a gakky "simulation" of space samurai kicking eachother, I'm here to make decisions and attempt to outplay someone within a defined set of rules. When bs gets in the way I start playing a different game. I'm not here to respect the random chaos of everyday life, if I wanted to do that i'd just go play roulette all day.

spectreoneone wrote:I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you've never served in the military.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you've never commanded an army...

Alpharius wrote:The whole 'from the front' thing is going to make things really annoying.

And needlessly complex and precise from a game which claims to be neither...

I honestly don't see how grabbing models from the front is any harder than grabbing models from the back. It would really be hard not to see which models are closest. And the arguments over measuring are going to be no different than those moments that your gun is just shy of reaching a vehicle hull or your night fight test is just short of the enemy. If you are so worried about your sergeants then keep them in the back ranks since they are still likely to get within 2" of models on the charge anyways.

English Assassin wrote:

spectreoneone wrote:I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you've never served in the military.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you've never commanded an army...

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say none of that post adds to the thread, nor does this one, ironically.


Edit - to add to the topic -

Dantalian wrote:

Alpharius wrote:The whole 'from the front' thing is going to make things really annoying.

And needlessly complex and precise from a game which claims to be neither...

I honestly don't see how grabbing models from the front is any harder than grabbing models from the back. It would really be hard not to see which models are closest.

Right now when firing at vehicles, players determine what facing they're in by eyeballing an X that goes through the center of the hull and stretches for infinity. It's worked fine in my common opponent pool, I agree that eyeballing the nearest model or models will be similarly easy. Among the tournament crowd who care WAY too much about winning i see problems ahead, however.

Only 3 days to go.... Oh wait, diffrent time zones. :( dang it being 12 hrs ahead.

ShumaGorath wrote:

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you've never served in the military.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that that's irrelevant and stupid. I'm playing a game. I want meaningful input within that game. If I don't have it I'm not going to play it. I'm not here to watch a gakky "simulation" of space samurai kicking eachother, I'm here to make decisions and attempt to outplay someone within a defined set of rules. When bs gets in the way I start playing a different game. I'm not here to respect the random chaos of everyday life, if I wanted to do that i'd just go play roulette all day.

Well, considering that 40k is a tabletop WARgame, you're doing exactly what I stated in my post. Sure, we're in an unrealistic, OTT, environment, but in the end it all boils down to one thing: it's a battle that is part of an ongoing war. War is frought with chaos and randomness, which is why it makes a good game, because no two games will ever be the same. You seem to fail to understand that concept. There is meaningful input in a battle/wargame, but it only lasts so long in a dynamic warfare environment, and it is mostly reactionary. If you really have that much of a problem with the chaos and randomness of war, then perhaps you really should stop playing the game.

All of that aside, as I stated, perhaps in another thread, all of these rules are completely out of context without the whole BRB, and we're speculating, getting angry, etc. over nothing until we see how the rules work in synergy.

spectreoneone wrote:...random assault distances represent the fact that a charge is a moving mass of bodies, "controlled chaos," so to speak (not to mention that not every soldier has exactly the same endurance, nor is every piece of terrain the same, thusly making a charge a gamble. A quick look back in history shows the serious gamble a "bayonet charge" really is). So, I say bring on the randomness...it makes a commander have to adapt and overcome the challenges of trying to control a battle.

If a squad of space marines (genetically enhanced super soldiers) fail to charge in open terrain because you roll snake eyes, it eliminates the excuses of endurance and terrain. So unless they fail in a slapstick fashion what makes them fail.

ShumaGorath wrote:

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you've never served in the military.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that that's irrelevant and stupid. I'm playing a game. I want meaningful input within that game. If I don't have it I'm not going to play it. I'm not here to watch a gakky "simulation" of space samurai kicking eachother, I'm here to make decisions and attempt to outplay someone within a defined set of rules. When bs gets in the way I start playing a different game. I'm not here to respect the random chaos of everyday life, if I wanted to do that i'd just go play roulette all day.

So you want a WARgame that doesn't have anything to do with the randomness of war?

Well, considering that 40k is a tabletop WARgame, you're doing exactly what I stated in my post. Sure, we're in an unrealistic, OTT, environment, but in the end it all boils down to one thing: it's a battle that is part of an ongoing war. War is frought with chaos and randomness, which is why it makes a good game, because no two games will ever be the same.

War also makes a gakky game, that's why wargames tend to have stringent rules that reduce the randomness of it and distill it down to a relateable and enjoyable format.

You seem to fail to understand that concept.

You seem to fail to understand that this is a game first and a war second. If the game is gakky and unfun because it's lolrandom and everything is decided by the flip of a coin then it's not a good game.

There is meaningful input in a battle/wargame, but it only lasts so long in a dynamic warfare environment, and it is mostly reactionary. If you really have that much of a problem with the chaos and randomness of war, then perhaps you really should stop playing the game.

I might. There is at least 3 major competitors with significantly better wargames on the market. I like GWs fluff and models, but if the game is gakky then it's gakky and you'll have to have fun playing alone.

All of that aside, as I stated, perhaps in another thread, all of these rules are completely out of context without the whole BRB, and we're speculating, getting angry, etc. over nothing until we see how the rules work in synergy.

True, but if you don't want to actually discuss the ramifications of the rumors then what are you doing here?

Cyrax wrote:

spectreoneone wrote:...random assault distances represent the fact that a charge is a moving mass of bodies, "controlled chaos," so to speak (not to mention that not every soldier has exactly the same endurance, nor is every piece of terrain the same, thusly making a charge a gamble. A quick look back in history shows the serious gamble a "bayonet charge" really is). So, I say bring on the randomness...it makes a commander have to adapt and overcome the challenges of trying to control a battle.

If a squad of space marines (genetically enhanced super soldiers) fail to charge in open terrain because you roll snake eyes, it eliminates the excuses of endurance and terrain. So unless they fail in a slapstick fashion what makes them fail.

Doesn't necessarily have to be in "slapstick" fashion. We all forget that, although the game is represented in a turn based format, if we were to play these battles out cinematically, many of these actions would take place simultaneously. Have you ever tried to charge through a hail of gunfire. Perhaps your courage takes over, and you charge right through, or perhaps you're forced to dodge evasively as your running up. There are so many different ways this could realistically happen, even to the Space Marines. Just because they're genetically enhanced super soldiers does not mean they're infallible.

I would love to have the randomness taken out of the game! Every time I shoot a railgun at a tank I know it will blow up! No need to roll since the result should already be given in the rule book. Sure glad my codex also said I go first instead of rolling a d6 for it at the beginning of the game.

Has anyone ever played Stargrunt2? In most missions, you'd get dummy counters to represent ECM on the battlefield, but both you and your opponent would get to "scan" the opposing deployment and remove a few counters of your choice. Which meant that, if you're just not lucky, you show up with a lot less models, of a far lower quality, than your opponent.

I admit, the fact that the entire game had no point cost for models, squads or vehicles made it hard to grasp the exact situation as well. Pinning was also ubiquitous, so it bogged down to a static game very often too.

I'm not sure I want that much randomness in my game.

And as a side note, I know this is the interwebz and all, but could we, I don't know, keep it a tad more respectful, maybe?

spectreoneone wrote:

Cyrax wrote:

spectreoneone wrote:...random assault distances represent the fact that a charge is a moving mass of bodies, "controlled chaos," so to speak (not to mention that not every soldier has exactly the same endurance, nor is every piece of terrain the same, thusly making a charge a gamble. A quick look back in history shows the serious gamble a "bayonet charge" really is). So, I say bring on the randomness...it makes a commander have to adapt and overcome the challenges of trying to control a battle.

If a squad of space marines (genetically enhanced super soldiers) fail to charge in open terrain because you roll snake eyes, it eliminates the excuses of endurance and terrain. So unless they fail in a slapstick fashion what makes them fail.

Doesn't necessarily have to be in "slapstick" fashion. We all forget that, although the game is represented in a turn based format, if we were to play these battles out cinematically, many of these actions would take place simultaneously. Have you ever tried to charge through a hail of gunfire. Perhaps your courage takes over, and you charge right through, or perhaps you're forced to dodge evasively as your running up. There are so many different ways this could realistically happen, even to the Space Marines. Just because they're genetically enhanced super soldiers does not mean they're infallible.

And welcome to the apologists argument. Remember kids, just because your terminators weren't shot at, are behind the enemy, and are running across an open road does't mean the road isn't wet. Realism!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dantalian wrote:I would love to have the randomness taken out of the game! Every time I shoot a railgun at a tank I know it will blow up! No need to roll since the result should already be given in the rule book. Sure glad my codex also said I go first instead of rolling a d6 for it at the beginning of the game.

This game seems like it might be more your style.

ShumaGorath wrote:



This game seems like it might be more your style.

Someone rolled a 1 on their sarcasm detection today.

spectreoneone wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you've never served in the military.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that that's irrelevant and stupid. I'm playing a game. I want meaningful input within that game. If I don't have it I'm not going to play it. I'm not here to watch a gakky "simulation" of space samurai kicking eachother, I'm here to make decisions and attempt to outplay someone within a defined set of rules. When bs gets in the way I start playing a different game. I'm not here to respect the random chaos of everyday life, if I wanted to do that i'd just go play roulette all day.

Well, considering that 40k is a tabletop WARgame, you're doing exactly what I stated in my post. Sure, we're in an unrealistic, OTT, environment, but in the end it all boils down to one thing: it's a battle that is part of an ongoing war. War is frought with chaos and randomness, which is why it makes a good game, because no two games will ever be the same. You seem to fail to understand that concept. There is meaningful input in a battle/wargame, but it only lasts so long in a dynamic warfare environment, and it is mostly reactionary. If you really have that much of a problem with the chaos and randomness of war, then perhaps you really should stop playing the game.

All of that aside, as I stated, perhaps in another thread, all of these rules are completely out of context without the whole BRB, and we're speculating, getting angry, etc. over nothing until we see how the rules work in synergy.

40k is above all a game, not a battlefield simulator. Like most games, there's a certain degree of skill involved. Most people feel more satisfied when the outcome of the game is determined by the extent to which they were able to employ their skills in said game. A game decided primarily by luck always leaves at least one party unhappy whereas close games tend to be remembered more favorably. The goal should be maximizing players' satisfaction, not maximizing accuracy to which the game emulates war between psychic space aliens and laser-toting robots.

Dantalian wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:



This game seems like it might be more your style.

Someone rolled a 1 on their sarcasm detection today.

If you were being sarcastic that implies that you're pro randomize everything which means the gif was accurate.

Watching people arguing against a Therion/Shummy tag-team. It's like a fething bloodbath in here.

I must say I enjoyed the "it's called a WARgame" comment. Yeah, and that's called semantics.



Adding more 'LOL RANDOM' to the game does not enhance it. It not only takes choice and cause/effect away from the players, it also slows down the game. Let's roll for this, now let's roll for that. How 'bout rather than joining squads automatically at the end of the movement phase we have IC's roll to see if they join? 4+ they join the unit. How about when a unit disembarks we roll to see if they do it quickly enough, and on a 3 or less they're too slow and cannot do anything else this turn. More dice rolls for everyone!!!

ShumaGorath wrote:

Dantalian wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:



This game seems like it might be more your style.

Someone rolled a 1 on their sarcasm detection today.

If you were being sarcastic that implies that you're pro randomize everything which means the gif was accurate.

You will argue with anyone on anything for the sake of arguing. I will be the bigger man here and advise you to please move it on to your own thread and keep things on track here. I'm sure the MODs would be very happy if you did.

ShumaGorath wrote:War also makes a gakky game, that's why wargames tend to have stringent rules that reduce the randomness of it and distill it down to a relateable and enjoyable format.

But not all do, and enjoyment is a highly subjective argument.

You seem to fail to understand that this is a game first and a war second. If the game is gakky and unfun because it's lolrandom and everything is decided by the flip of a coin then it's not a good game.

Yes, it is a game, but I don't see it as "a game first, war second" scenario. It's a game of warfare. I view it as warfare. I will concede that there can be excessive randomness, but on the level of having random charge distances, commander traits, etc. I think it adds a human element, instead of a mechanical element. In juxtaposition to your coin flip argument, I offer that a game is unfun if there is a set, surefire way of winning every time, because then there are no winners.

I might. There is at least 3 major competitors with significantly better wargames on the market. I like GWs fluff and models, but if the game is gakky then it's gakky and you'll have to have fun playing alone.

And that's fine. It's your opinion, and I won't judge you for it, because I don't believe in doing something I don't personally enjoy, if I don't have to. I just hope that you're able to find a system that fits your own desires.

True, but if you don't want to actually discuss the ramifications of the rumors then what are you doing here?

There's nothing wrong with discussing the ramifications of change...but getting a ragequit mentality, or saying "I'm gonna quit 'cuz the internets said 40k iz gunna suk!" is getting really old. That's just more me venting my frustration about it.

Dantalian wrote:

You will argue with anyone on anything for the sake of arguing. I will be the bigger man here and advise you to please move it on to your own thread and keep things on track here. I'm sure the MODs would be very happy if you did.

The bigger man typically doesn't need to puff out his chest and announce that he is, in fact, the bigger man...

Danny Internets wrote:

Dantalian wrote:

You will argue with anyone on anything for the sake of arguing. I will be the bigger man here and advise you to please move it on to your own thread and keep things on track here. I'm sure the MODs would be very happy if you did.

The bigger man typically doesn't need to puff out his chest and announce that he is, in fact, the bigger man...

He does when he has a low self esteem and is sitting in his room in the dark at 6:30AM reading a forum on tabletop gaming and laughing at people arguing over rumors.

'Cept he's not really arguing over rumours. He's arguing about how random =/= more fun.

Mathieu Raymond wrote:Has anyone ever played Stargrunt2? In most missions, you'd get dummy counters to represent ECM on the battlefield, but both you and your opponent would get to "scan" the opposing deployment and remove a few counters of your choice. Which meant that, if you're just not lucky, you show up with a lot less models, of a far lower quality, than your opponent.

I admit, the fact that the entire game had no point cost for models, squads or vehicles made it hard to grasp the exact situation as well. Pinning was also ubiquitous, so it bogged down to a static game very often too.

I'm not sure I want that much randomness in my game.

And as a side note, I know this is the interwebz and all, but could we, I don't know, keep it a tad more respectful, maybe?

I really like Stargrunt 2, and it's firing resolution and indeed movement can be random as hell. Things get pinned and bogged down by stuff going Very Badly Wrong all the time, casualties could be any member of a squad and you won't necessarily know how badly they're hurt until you take a break to tend their wounds.

It's great.

It's NOT designed, even vaguely, for tournament play. It's not particularily good for pick up games either.

If 40k goes more towards the Stargrunt end of the spectrum, I will be happy. If it adds a whole load of pinning and psychology I'll be even happier. A bit of WAR in a WARgame, as I mentioned above.

This isn't necessarily to eveyone's taste, and for that I'm sorry, but a game can't please everyone.

I found the previous two editions of Warhammer loathesome and think 8th is great, so clearly GW think it's my turn

I'm all for full randomness, crazy allies combos, and "rule of cool" game changes. I like soft score tournaments and getting a nice swerve on when I play too. The very vocal and very competitive players will always be there, but I believe in reality they are far outnumbered by the beer/pretzel gamers and kids just having fun. I kind of secretly hope it makes pure competition tournaments all but impossible, then it will be easier to find the fun events to attend...