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.

H.B.M.C. wrote:'Cept he's not really arguing over rumours. He's arguing about how random =/= more fun.

Which all spawned from everyone putting their input in on randomness being part of the game as a rumor.

Now if everyone wants to direct their attention to BOWs new 40k post about the 6th edition book, I think you might find it rather amusing.

http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/40k-6th-released-june30/

BladeWalker wrote: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...

Yes! Punch that straw man. He can't fight back, so tear him limb from limb!

Ain't nothin' quite like shifting the argument to 'very competitive players'. Such an easy target.

Dantalian wrote:Which all spawned from everyone putting their input in on randomness being part of the game as a rumor.

And? So? But? Therefore?

BladeWalker wrote: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...

In terms of allies...I'm really hoping that there are more stipulations than the allies chart. Hopefully they implement some sort of penalty if the factions you take are not trusted allies, etc. But, then again, how broken would a GK + IG combo be? There really has to be more to the allies than we're getting. (either that or we're being massively trolled).

I definitely agree with you, though, on the amount B&P gamers vs. tourney gamers, and a lot of these new rules cater to that (B&P) crowd, I believe. However, I don't think that tournaments will be on the decline. It's always up to the TO to set the format for the tournament, and they can always set house rules as they see fit. Win-win IMHO.

Edit: for clarity

spectreoneone wrote:

I definitely agree with you, though, on the amount B&P gamers vs. tourney gamers, and a lot of these new rules cater to that (B&P) crowd, I believe. However, I don't think that tournaments will be on the decline. It's always up to the TO to set the format for the tournament, and they can always set house rules as they see fit. Win-win IMHO.

Edit: for clarity

Agreed, if the base game format caters to more people and then tournaments are tweaked for the local or regional meta and players desires it is a win-win for sure.

The thing about randomness is that some things you can plan for, build in redundancies to the list, and work around with mathhammer. Some events can be gamechanging; they're only fun if you can realistically plan ahead.

Imagine that for each unit, you had to roll a dice before the game: and if you rolled a 1, that unit's dropship sucked a bird into its engine and crashed on the way down. Representative of 'real warfare'? maybe. Fun and interestingly tactical? no.
Imagine that you similarly had to roll a leadership test every time your unit wanted to do anything at all, to represent them receiving communications. Or that, every time a unit activates, they roll 2D6 and on snake-eyes their munitions explode and the unit is removed from the game. Neither would be fun, even though both could happen in real warfare.

It is a fallacy to assume that "B&P" gamers must have opposite wants and needs to 'tournament gamers'. Balanced clear rules benefit everyone. What about that is so hard to understand?

But anyway, RE: Allies, correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the WFB rulebook have a main section for the rules and then another sort of 'optional' rule section with loads of fun add-ons and whatnot. I could see the Allies being in that section, rather than part of the standard core game.

I have to agree with a lot of people when I say I also hope there will be a lot more stipulations on the allies chart. This didn't work in 2nd edition and I think it will do far worse now than ever. I know I'm wishing for a miracle here, but I would hope that GW really doesn't go out of their way to reinstate a previously failed design. Think of the nids guys, those poor buggers

40K is already far to random; why do we have to roll to hit and to wound anyway? Wouldn't it be much more fun if two SM squads in combat automatically hit with 50% of their attacks, wound with 50% of their hits and 1/3 of wounded marines die? The game would be much more controllable and a joy to play!

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.

Surely if the chaos of the ensuing battle is able to effect your ability to run so noticably, it should do the same to effect your movement phase and shooting ability just as much? Why can everyone always move 6" in open ground, but all of a sudden when it comes to running, things get so crazy that they can only go 1" some turns and 6" later? If its that manic, why is that heavy bolter weilding Devastator able to roll 3 dice every shooting phase? Surely sometimes they'd only have the chance to fire one or two rounds?

If they're using that logic to justify randomizing some things then they should do it for everything. I'd much prefer a game that has a greater dependancy on player skill than randomly deciding stuff though. Sure its okay to have the occasional random quirks that forces the player to adapt, but a game with too much randomness takes away from the fun IMO

Nobody is against rolling dices when they make sense, I mean if you're charging through difficult terrain or you're getting shot because of the overwatch, then it's ok. I'm also ok with 3"+d3 at least then you have some certainty in your actions but the new system is complete random and I think has no reasons to back it up. Yes it's just a game but it isn't backgammon it's Warhammer.

H.B.M.C. wrote:It is a fallacy to assume that "B&P" gamers must have opposite wants and needs to 'tournament gamers'. Balanced clear rules benefit everyone. What about that is so hard to understand?

But anyway, RE: Allies, correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the WFB rulebook have a main section for the rules and then another sort of 'optional' rule section with loads of fun add-ons and whatnot. I could see the Allies being in that section, rather than part of the standard core game.

I don't necessarily think they have different "needs," but I think that, for the most part at least, they have different "wants." For a B&P player (and, I'm generalizing here), a fun game is more important than winning said game. For a tourney player (again, generalization), winning is more important than fun. Wants (i.e. their reason for playing) are different, but their needs (a playable, and yes, balanced game) are the same.

For allies, don't play WFB, but technically, all rules are optional within your gaming group. If your group doesn't like the allies rule, or any rule for that matter, you can make house rules for that (the 5th ed. 40k BRB even states that somewhere, if I remember correctly). As gamers, we just have to think outside of the box.

@all: Please stay on-topic and refrain from sniping at each other.

Dantalian wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:'Cept he's not really arguing over rumours. He's arguing about how random =/= more fun.

Which all spawned from everyone putting their input in on randomness being part of the game as a rumor.

Now if everyone wants to direct their attention to BOWs new 40k post about the 6th edition book, I think you might find it rather amusing.

http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/40k-6th-released-june30/

I don't think I've ever seen a group of people manage to be more smug and offputting in everything they put out than BOW. That just took like 12 paragraphs to say the exact same thing I've seen in six bullets elsewhere.

Never mind, pointless non-rumour post

spectreoneone wrote:For a B&P player (and, I'm generalizing here), a fun game is more important than winning said game. For a tourney player (again, generalization), winning is more important than fun.

This is tricky. It sounds like you're contrasting a competitive person playing competitively against having fun. Certainly, a fun game for a competitive player is one that will allow him to play competitively -- and that generally entails clear rules that give players real control over the gameplay. Like HBMC, I don't see how players who don't necessarily like tournaments could suffer for having such rules.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Dantalian wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:'Cept he's not really arguing over rumours. He's arguing about how random =/= more fun.

Which all spawned from everyone putting their input in on randomness being part of the game as a rumor.

Now if everyone wants to direct their attention to BOWs new 40k post about the 6th edition book, I think you might find it rather amusing.

http://www.beastsofwar.com/warhammer-40k/40k-6th-released-june30/

I don't think I've ever seen a group of people manage to be more smug and offputting in everything they put out than BOW. That just took like 12 paragraphs to say the exact same thing I've seen in six bullets elsewhere.

I would have to agree with you on that.

spectreoneone wrote:For a tourney player (again, generalization), winning is more important than fun.

What??? Did you really just type that?

H.B.M.C. wrote:

spectreoneone wrote:For a tourney player (again, generalization), winning is more important than fun.

What??? Did you really just type that?

Well depending on the game I would say this is true, but not warhammer by a longshot. I would never collect and play warhammer if I wasn't having fun. I mean the only reason you would ever compete in a competition where you sacrificed any fun you are having is if there is a significant prize at the end (protip: 40k doesn't have this).

Now I think what he meant to say is that winning is the fun part rather than just playing. Again, I don't agree with this (but on some other games I do).

spectreoneone wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:It is a fallacy to assume that "B&P" gamers must have opposite wants and needs to 'tournament gamers'. Balanced clear rules benefit everyone. What about that is so hard to understand?

But anyway, RE: Allies, correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the WFB rulebook have a main section for the rules and then another sort of 'optional' rule section with loads of fun add-ons and whatnot. I could see the Allies being in that section, rather than part of the standard core game.

I don't necessarily think they have different "needs," but I think that, for the most part at least, they have different "wants." For a B&P player (and, I'm generalizing here), a fun game is more important than winning said game. For a tourney player (again, generalization), winning is more important than fun. Wants (i.e. their reason for playing) are different, but their needs (a playable, and yes, balanced game) are the same.

For allies, don't play WFB, but technically, all rules are optional within your gaming group. If your group doesn't like the allies rule, or any rule for that matter, you can make house rules for that (the 5th ed. 40k BRB even states that somewhere, if I remember correctly). As gamers, we just have to think outside of the box.

I recently played a game where half my army in reserves came in turn five. The game ended turn five. I can not control my rolling, all I can do is make the yes/no decision of "put this in reserve". No one would enjoy this. The badly placed randomization of the reserves mechanic gave the game to my opponent. I didn't enjoy it, he didn't enjoy it. No game was actually played since 1k vs 2k isn't a fair fight. There was no decision making or reaction to this. I rolled double ones and then some exceptionally bad deep strike scatters that put things back into reserve. The differences between B&P players and tourney players is almost non existent in what they actually want. Clearly written and balanced rules with consistency and interest benefit everyone. Scenarios like this, which are indicative of a badly written ruleset hurt both camps equally. It made me not want to play the game anymore. I could of played two games of warmachine in that time frame and had a better experience in both. This is the kind of randomness that I hate. The kind that takes personal involvement in the stakes of the game out. When I can blame two or three rolls for how the game turned out then it wasn't a game. It was a bad run at a dice table.

Tournament players "want" less badly placed randomization and more balance. So do B&P players, though they sometimes don't know it since they often conflate randomization with realism or zaniness or they decide to attempt to reduce the argument to one where any presence of randomness at all is what is at stake. There is a big difference between randomized shooting or combat and a randomized force org or scoring trait on a general just as there is a big difference in a randomized game length and one player getting to go first because he rolled a six. Randomization is not inherently good or bad, it's just how it's utilized by the games design. GW game designers are very bad at knowing when and when not to make something random.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

spectreoneone wrote:For a tourney player (again, generalization), winning is more important than fun.

What??? Did you really just type that?

You're reading too far into my generalization. I'm not saying that a tournament player does not want to have fun by any means. I'm saying that getting that "W" in a tournament is more important than having a grand old time doing it. Competitive tournament play in ANY game is stressful, and many folks who play games competitively are in it for the thrill of winning, not necessarily for the fun of the game itself.

I realize that not all tournament players are like that (that's why I put the generalization caveat on my statement). I also realize that not all B&P players are laid back guys that aren't competitive. I was just illustrating my point using the opposite ends of the spectrum.

spectreoneone wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:

spectreoneone wrote:For a tourney player (again, generalization), winning is more important than fun.

What??? Did you really just type that?

You're reading too far into my generalization. I'm not saying that a tournament player does not want to have fun by any means. I'm saying that getting that "W" in a tournament is more important than having a grand old time doing it. Competitive tournament play in ANY game is stressful, and many folks who play games competitively are in it for the thrill of winning, not necessarily for the fun of the game itself.

I realize that not all tournament players are like that (that's why I put the generalization caveat on my statement). I also realize that not all B&P players are laid back guys that aren't competitive. I was just illustrating my point using the opposite ends of the spectrum.

You're using a reductionist logical fallacy to attempt to support your arguments since they're not particularly sturdy otherwise. Please don't do that.

In other words, tournament players are having fun at tournaments.

I honestly hate the idea of psychic powers being random like fantasy. I play Tau (and Dwarfs) and have no psychers, but the idea of someone getting screwed out of their list with a lot of bad rolls does not settle well with me. But in the long run this will be a strength of the Tau I guess, since Tau never have had to rely on psychic benefits before we don't have that random factor to effect us.

Random traits on your commander also sounds really cool. I like the idea of their being universal set of traits a commander can have to influence the game. But then GW decided to make this a dice roll too like psychic powers which is very blah to me. Depending on the list of what is available as a trait, this could swing very hard to one persons favor or not depending on your roll.

Also think of HQs like Eldrad who would have to roll for both these things. Suddenly one person on the field is holding a lot more power and has become a greater target in which his elimination may strongly weaken the enemy players game. Of course this could also make him really strong if the trait buffed psychic powers.

I remember random psychic powers from 2nd Ed.

"Ok... my Libby draws... Scan. Great. And... Machine Curse. I'm fighting 'Nids!!! AHH!"

I'm intrigued by what these sets of powers will be, but again, this is an area where more random =/= more fun.

Manchu wrote:In other words, tournament players are having fun at tournaments.

Exactly. Obviously, it's not always the case, but for some it's just about that competitive environment. They just happen to be good at 40k, or they like the aesthetic, etc., and couldn't really give a hoot how fun the game itself actually is. They know they can win, and that's what matters to them, because it satisfies their desire to be recognized at being the best at something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dantalian wrote:I honestly hate the idea of psychic powers being random like fantasy. I play Tau (and Dwarfs) and have no psychers, but the idea of someone getting screwed out of their list with a lot of bad rolls does not settle well with me. But in the long run this will be a strength of the Tau I guess, since Tau never have had to rely on psychic benefits before we don't have that random factor to effect us.

Random traits on your commander also sounds really cool. I like the idea of their being universal set of traits a commander can have to influence the game. But then GW decided to make this a dice roll too like psychic powers which is very blah to me. Depending on the list of what is available as a trait, this could swing very hard to one persons favor or not depending on your roll.

Also think of HQs like Eldrad who would have to roll for both these things. Suddenly one person on the field is holding a lot more power and has become a greater target in which his elimination may strongly weaken the enemy players game. Of course this could also make him really strong if the trait buffed psychic powers.

I think that randomness in psykers makes sense, in terms of that their power is drawn from the warp. I just think that it needs to be implemented intelligently, obviously. Perhaps instead of doing a separate test for perils of the warp, each psyker has a table that includes their powers, plus a perils of the warp option...we'll just have to see, though.

As for the commander traits...I think that if there are like three options, a d3 determining the style my commander has isn't so bad. Enough randomness to keep games interesting, but nothing excessive.

spectreoneone wrote:
As for the commander traits...I think that if there are like three options, a d3 determining the style my commander has isn't so bad. Enough randomness to keep games interesting, but nothing excessive.

From what I understand there are three categories in which you choose one beforehand, and then roll for your trait from that categories pool at the start of the game.
The choice of which type of abilities you want is chosen by you, but the dice determines what ability you get. I'm assuming that all these commander trait trees will have either three or six traits a piece.

Dantalian wrote:

spectreoneone wrote:
As for the commander traits...I think that if there are like three options, a d3 determining the style my commander has isn't so bad. Enough randomness to keep games interesting, but nothing excessive.

From what I understand there are three categories in which you choose one beforehand, and then roll for your trait from that categories pool at the start of the game.
The choice of which type of abilities you want if chosen by you, but the dice determines what ability you get. I'm assuming that all these commander trait trees will have either three or six traits a piece.

That still sounds pretty good, but I would hope they went with three rollable traits per category. With 9 total commander traits, you would get a nice variance within the game. Personally, I would like it to go one step further, and roll a d3 for the category. I think it would cut down on a lot of list tailoring/netlisting shenanigans. I'm still unsure. I'd like to see what exactly they will be implementing in this area, and how it will affect the overall game.

I can just imagine a space marine librarian sitting in his inner sanctum, concentrating on his learning. Books of arcane knowledge are stacked up on the table and he has been practicing the rites to the Null Zone spell for months. All of a sudden, the warp strikes at him and grants him the ability to see round corners. The librarian sighs, packs up his books and proceeds to his drop pod, hoping that next time the Emperor might reward his hard work with something a bit more appropriate to the matter in hand...

spectreoneone wrote:

Dantalian wrote:

spectreoneone wrote:
As for the commander traits...I think that if there are like three options, a d3 determining the style my commander has isn't so bad. Enough randomness to keep games interesting, but nothing excessive.

From what I understand there are three categories in which you choose one beforehand, and then roll for your trait from that categories pool at the start of the game.
The choice of which type of abilities you want if chosen by you, but the dice determines what ability you get. I'm assuming that all these commander trait trees will have either three or six traits a piece.

That still sounds pretty good, but I would hope they went with three rollable traits per category. With 9 total commander traits, you would get a nice variance within the game. Personally, I would like it to go one step further, and roll a d3 for the category. I think it would cut down on a lot of list tailoring/netlisting shenanigans. I'm still unsure. I'd like to see what exactly they will be implementing in this area, and how it will affect the overall game.

How about we base our armies color schemes on a d6 as well? I mean, it's not like people try to theme their armies around anything, clearly we want all of our decision making and list building done at random. You should try out mordheim, you'd love it.

Except we know from recent codexes that pyskers can still choose their spells so you're complaining about something that we know for definite will not be in the new edition.