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.

terranarc wrote:Something about that just feels so off.

A lot of that is literally ripped from pancake edition and the vehicles rumors make no sense.
So let me get this straight, if I stun you twice, a weapon pops off? If I penetrate you once with an autocannon, all other missiles and bolters being fired from the opposite side of the vehicle magically find its way into the hole I made previously? Haha
FFS, these are the worst wishlist/fake rumors I've ever read.

Still thanks for passin it along Mez.

Makes about as much sense as shaking or stunning a tank in the first place. When an armored vehicle takes a hit that does nothing to it the people inside don't hide under their chairs and wait for the noise to go away.

Nightbringer's Chosen wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Makes about as much sense as shaking or stunning a tank in the first place. When an armored vehicle takes a hit that does nothing to it the people inside don't hide under their chairs and wait for the noise to go away.

Eh, always assumed stunned represented something like a missile explosion -almost- flipping the tank or a momentary power interruption while they reroute things. Shaken maybe knocks the turret around in the wrong direction or impairs targeting vision with explosion debris or something. "Shaken" and "Stunned" are just easy terms to represent "recoverable damage resulting in short-term interruption of service".

In modern armor warfare that kind of thing doesn't really happen. Who knows though, the vehicles of the far future seem to be pretty badly designed, so maybe they just have shaky ignitions or something. Either way that explanation would add a form of legitimacy to the idea of stacking results. If the turret got spun round in a bad position and then took another hit maybe it's breaking completely now.

Nitros14 wrote:

Palindrome wrote:
On the other side of the coin the rumours fro fantasy 8th sounded really good before it was released and look how that turned out.

8th is the best ruleset Fantasy has ever had.

Since 8th Fantasy has become tremendously more popular.

Except among people who want a dice game to be perfectly predictable and non-random I guess.

In the same way that any game that hemorrhages players and sales becomes "tremendously more popular"! Like it if you want but eighth edition was a disaster that drove a significant portion of their playerbase away from the game. On it's face it's a bad game system that seems more designed to be a drinking companion or wacky board game for children than anything adults would enjoy. YMMV

Vaktathi wrote:If they intend on "balancing" vehicles like this, it's the most awkward and hamfisted way of doing it, and it really just makes dealing with vehicles in general rather frustrating if for nothing than the record keeping. Also not seeing how shaking/stunning should upgrade to blowing off guns and immobilzing the tank, to ultimately destroying it. That said, this sounds exactly like something GW would do.

Again, armored vehicles are not shaken or stunned when hit by weapons. If they aren't damaged or destroyed nothing happens. The incoming fire may influence the behavior of the occupants, but no one gets hit with an RPG and decides to not move the tank. Shaken/stunned is inane and should of been removed from the game a decade ago for being silly. Any game mechanic that reduces the incidence of the logically impossible scenario of a shaken/stunned result is a mechanic that's on the right track.

Palindrome wrote:
I always assumed that stunned/shaken results simply meant minor damage that could be quickly repaired by the crew or an injured crewman.

That's not really representative of how vehicular warfare works in the real world though. The vehicles occupants would rarely have the technical expertise to actually fix the vehicle they're driving and combat vehicles are generally designed without important easily broken and easily fixed systems. There's virtually nothing in or on a modern tank or aircraft that can be "fixed" by the occupants from within the vehicle without tools in a short period of time. Crew injury makes more sense, but that would logically result in a permanently reduced capability for the vehicle, not just one round of inaction.

Nitros14 wrote:Fantasy was dead around here in 7th, 8th brought it to life. Who knows obviously your experiences are very different. I certainly enjoy fantasy a lot more than 40k right now.

Rumours about commercial sales are just that. I'm sure people who hate 8th are all too willing to believe it's a commercial failure based on rumours.

Anecdotally the game seemed to suffer greatly from the intensely overpowered army books "designed for eighth" and eighth itself seemed to kind of push out the community that had cared about game balance and had been concerned about the direction balance had gone with recent army books. Whichever rumors you wish to believe go ahead and believe them, but I've never heard a single store owner or rumor state that fantasy is doing better after eighth and I've heard quite a few that state the opposite. Where there's smoke there is often fire.

Pyriel- wrote:

Not to mention that there are other armies than SM that use rapid fire weapons. Not everyone cares about your stormbolters.

Really, there are...?
Same can be said back, not everyone cares about your opinion.

Thing is these rumors dont make sense from a logic point of view, there has to be stuff missing. It is never a good idea to throw in really big game changers into a somewhat balanced set of variables, the result...well just take a look at what happens every time relic tries that when balancing their games, lol.

Theres nothing missing. Infantry based rapid fire weapons are useless. They have been useless since halfway through third edition. No one takes a unit because the bolter is a worthwhile weapon, it was difficult to convince people to even take fire warriors and they're the best that infantry based firepower has ever had. Storm bolters are a fringe weapon that themselves have never been particularly good, to refuse an obvioius and much needed buff to basic infantry to protect the sanctity of a gun that was both rare and unliked anyway is silly.

To pretend that 40k is "somewhat balanced" or that it's portrayal of warfare couldn't do with some tweaking is disingenuous. As a simulator of the logical flow of warfare 40k isn't great.

ShadarLogoth wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Pyriel- wrote:

Not to mention that there are other armies than SM that use rapid fire weapons. Not everyone cares about your stormbolters.

Really, there are...?
Same can be said back, not everyone cares about your opinion.

Thing is these rumors dont make sense from a logic point of view, there has to be stuff missing. It is never a good idea to throw in really big game changers into a somewhat balanced set of variables, the result...well just take a look at what happens every time relic tries that when balancing their games, lol.

Theres nothing missing. Infantry based rapid fire weapons are useless. They have been useless since halfway through third edition. No one takes a unit because the bolter is a worthwhile weapon, it was difficult to convince people to even take fire warriors and they're the best that infantry based firepower has ever had. Storm bolters are a fringe weapon that themselves have never been particularly good, to refuse an obvioius and much needed buff to basic infantry to protect the sanctity of a gun that was both rare and unliked anyway is silly.

To pretend that 40k is "somewhat balanced" or that it's portrayal of warfare couldn't do with some tweaking is disingenuous. As a simulator of the logical flow of warfare 40k isn't great.

Yeah we really need to iron out those pesky illogical stunned and shaken rules so my suspension of disbelief can be settled and I can focus on the more rationally palatable aspects of the game like long range weapon touting bio-morphing space traveling insects, human souls being bound to mechanized bodies, magical psychic powers, space elves and orcs, Gods manifesting themselves out of hedonistic tendencies... you know the logical meat and potatoes of my plastic toy soldier's imaginary universe.

Regardless of the silliness of the setting the game is an abstraction of modern post industrial warfare. It's basically just world war two with giant samurai in it. A big point of that warfare is small arms firefights and those haven't been particularly meaningful in 40k for a decade. Almost every unit that can fire a rapid fire gun is better off using it as a club instead. Portions of the game that don't work in a logical or "realistic" way and aren't in some other way good detract from the game. Some of them are required (igougo), and some are part of the fluff and fun (close combats), but some things are neither fluffy nor logical. Some things are just remnants of poor game design in the past and should/need to be revised.

Formosa wrote:

pretre wrote:

Nice photoshop looking cover, it does look badass to be fair, but as i said it looks photoshoped, hope its real as i love DA

That doesn't look photoshopped to me. It's heavily artifacted and could be shopped but it doesn't have any obvious signs of being altered.

TheSneak109 wrote:

Mezmaron wrote:Strength vs Toughness chart changed to be like fantasy, so everything can be wounded on a 6.

My MC's are really going to enjoy those Lasguns...

I don't really understand the point of this change, it just makes the efficacy of high toughness as a defensive measure truly less effective. It could open up the gates for more ubiquitous T8 or above though which could be cool.

d-usa wrote:Maybe it forces you to play tactically with high toughness creatures? Just because you are T7 doesn't mean that you can just march across the table in the open.

That would imply that that has ever been the case. Which it hasn't. Most MCs can be easily brought down in a single turn of shooting and if you're not ignoring st4 at least than the immunity to low strength fire is effectively meaningless anyway.

pretre wrote:

mercury14 wrote:

Mezmaron wrote:
Power weapons are ap3 but give a 5++ parry save in combat.

Elder would be getting horribly shafted. Can't wait till my Banshees go from being Termi-killers to basically expensive Storm Guardians against them.

Glass cannons to basically just glass.

Banshees don't have an Invul in CC right now, do they? 5++ with Fortune? 5/9 chance of saving against power weapons. That's a bit better than they have now.

The answer to terminators is supported dire avengers anyway. Cause 40+ wounds and you're going to be left with 3 out of 10 terminators presuming it was a full squad. Banshees just sort of broke on the rocks of storm shields before anyway.

Thunderfrog wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

pretre wrote:

mercury14 wrote:

Mezmaron wrote:
Power weapons are ap3 but give a 5++ parry save in combat.

Elder would be getting horribly shafted. Can't wait till my Banshees go from being Termi-killers to basically expensive Storm Guardians against them.

Glass cannons to basically just glass.

Banshees don't have an Invul in CC right now, do they? 5++ with Fortune? 5/9 chance of saving against power weapons. That's a bit better than they have now.

The answer to terminators is supported dire avengers anyway. Cause 40+ wounds and you're going to be left with 3 out of 10 terminators presuming it was a full squad. Banshees just sort of broke on the rocks of storm shields before anyway.

How are you coming up with 40+ wounds? Are you assuming multiple squads disembarked wave serpents and blade-stormed a single unit of termies?

9 Dire Avengers Blade Storm = 27 shots.
1 Exach w/ dual cats = 5 shots.

32 Shots per unit assuming no casualties. Thats about 21 hits and 10.5 wounds before saves. So about 2 unsaved wounds if your lucky. To kill 7 terminators and stay in averages it's going to take 3 full squads of DA's bladestorming a unit of termies at a range of 18 inches away. (Even if they were guided and the termies were doomed you add about 3.5 wounds before armor saves.)

Hardly a terminator killer....and besides, in this current incarnation of 40k, squads of DA's 10 strong with a full exarch kit plus a cheap serpent are 252 points and rarely ran in that fashion. Yay for 750 points of Dire Avengers being needed to kill a unit of termies.

Yes, I am presuming more than one squad. 3.5+3.5 = 7 meaning 3 remaining. Terminators are a high value target worthy of saturation. 504 points of DAs to make a 400-500 point termy squad combat innefective seems fine to me.

davethepak wrote:

labmouse42 wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:Honestly I wouldn't have as much of a problem with the background revolving mostly around the Marines, as long as the game rules were balanced so every race was viable to play. What most people have a problem with are Marines being the poster boys, and having the best rules, and often being the cheapest army to collect/play (even with $75 land raiders or $82 storm ravens).

Saying all marine armies have the best rules is simply incorrect. BT and C:SM are at the bottom of the power curve right now. [i]IG, DE, and Necrons all have codex's that are easily better than those 2.

Exquese me? My tau beg to differ greatly with the assertion that Codex space marines are at the bottom of the power curve.

I have to agree 100% that its ok that the game focuses on the Human Heros...its because we are humans ...if this was a tau game, the tau would be the A#1 spot. I could care less about fluff focus, I just want the rules balanced ...

I am hoping some of the "rumored" changes do make it in - as a few of them might just give my beloved xenos a bit of a needed boost.

I argue in the opposite direction, C:SM is pretty well bottom tier. Not tau bad, but definitely bottom rung. Black templars however have some pretty tier one builds with tank hunting missile spam since they get cyclones and typhoons cheap and can double up in 5 man term squads with tank hunter. With sixth the army is going to become pretty amazing considering 100% of it's shooting will be improved with preferred enemy.

davethepak wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

davethepak wrote:

labmouse42 wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:Honestly I wouldn't have as much of a problem with the background revolving mostly around the Marines, as long as the game rules were balanced so every race was viable to play. What most people have a problem with are Marines being the poster boys, and having the best rules, and often being the cheapest army to collect/play (even with $75 land raiders or $82 storm ravens).

Saying all marine armies have the best rules is simply incorrect. BT and C:SM are at the bottom of the power curve right now. IG, DE, and Necrons all have codex's that are easily better than those 2.

Exquese me? My tau beg to differ greatly with the assertion that Codex space marines are at the bottom of the power curve.

I have to agree 100% that its ok that the game focuses on the Human Heros...its because we are humans ...if this was a tau game, the tau would be the A#1 spot. I could care less about fluff focus, I just want the rules balanced ...

I am hoping some of the "rumored" changes do make it in - as a few of them might just give my beloved xenos a bit of a needed boost.

I argue in the opposite direction, C:SM is pretty well bottom tier. Not tau bad, but definitely bottom rung. Black templars however have some pretty tier one builds with tank hunting missile spam since they get cyclones and typhoons cheap and can double up in 5 man term squads with tank hunter. With sixth the army is going to become pretty amazing considering 100% of it's shooting will be improved with preferred enemy[u].

I really hate to break this to you, but a really close look at the vow on page 25 says...."[i]IN CLOSE COMBAT..." for preferred enemy. Yeah, sad day. :( My other BT buddies were fairly upset at this too...

That is disappointing though as someone who doesn't play templars it's also somewhat of a relief.

Therion wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:Chaos can take Daemons again!

It's so Games Workshop-like games design if you think about it. No need to balance anything anymore if everyone can take everything. Well not everyone of course. Chaos gets one ally, Necrons and Eldar and Dark Eldar and Tau and Nids and Orks get zip and the Imperium allies with half the armies in the game. Now that I think of it maybe they're consolidating all the Imperium books to 'Codex Imperium' this way.

Allies are the easiest way to destroy an entire game system. Compared to this none of the random this random that or crazy psychic powers seem bad. Once allies are in, people are truly then just playing with their toy soldiers instead of playing an actual game that makes any sense whatsoever.

Before someone says there's probably some restrictions to allies -- It's irrelevant, unless the restriction is 'with your opponent's consent'. Even if you have to take a HQ and 2 troops from each book (which I doubt) it'll create a whole new tier 1 of armies. In case you were wondering they're all Imperium combinations.

I thought the rumor said that allies were only a thing in team games and they were just a guideline to that type of play. If not this would certainly be one of the stakes in the heart of 40k, there would be no way to balance this system at all. Here's hoping they aren't stupid enough to throw away their franchise!

H.B.M.C. wrote:I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you Therion – allies are a tremendous way to destroy any notion of balance – but looking at 40K’s most recent history with allies, the Daemonhunters and Witch Hunter Codices, I don’t recall either of them breaking the game?

You never had your deep striking army shot at preemptively by nine Leman russ battletanks as it landed because there was a 45 point model hiding in a chimera apparently. That said, that's about the extent of the broken before. The old allies system had the fact that inqisitorial and demon hunting units were pretty awful which kept it balanced. The moment every army can have psyfledreads or whatever the powercore equivalent is in the next meta is the moment you're going to start seeing it happen. That's when the system breaks down.

Therion wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you Therion – allies are a tremendous way to destroy any notion of balance – but looking at 40K’s most recent history with allies, the Daemonhunters and Witch Hunter Codices, I don’t recall either of them breaking the game?

I do recall those books being completely idiotic. Taking allies from either book was disallowed from basically every European tournament for the entire duration of those books, because all it did was allow perfectly competitive armies like IG to take a psychic hood and some other nonsense that they didn't need and weren't designed to need. The fact just was that those books didn't have much other useful stuff to grab. I'm pretty sure you understand the notion that armies have some weaker force organisation slots and are supposed to have some inherent weaknessess. Vendettas are the best fast attack choice in the entire game for example, and allowing armies that have garbage fast attack to use them just breaks the balance. Same goes for stuff like Purifiers which are the single most undercosted infantry unit in the game. Why should Grey Knights suddenly have access to Vendettas?

The sad thing is that I'm sure there's hundreds of players out there who would honestly use these rules just to make funny or fluffy armies, but allowing this garbage would be a killing blow to the tournament scene. That's why it'll never be allowed in any form of course even if the rulebook has it, but that won't stop me from being pissed off about the fact that GW forces active players to house rule the game just so that it's even remotely playable.

I agree with most of what you're saying though I disagree about the "intention" of any of the design flaws. Codex choices that are weak and underutilized are such due to bad codex design, not because of intentionally "weak" assets giving an army "flavor".

- Assault moves are indeed 2d6", but added together. Units equipped with jump packs can re-roll the dice to see how far they charge.

- Every army must select a "Warlord" or single general to lead the army, this leader gets an ability. They can choose between three different types of abilities, "Personal", "Inspirational" or "Strategic". They then roll on one of those charts to see what ability it is. The two examples given were a Grand Master giving all friendlies within 12" his Ld of 10 (Inspirational), and a Chaos Lord being a scoring unit (Personal, the ability itself was called "Immovable Object")

Oh good, more inane pointless randomness to make the game less fun.

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

The level of GW fun im willing to spend money on is dwindling quickly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tetrisphreak wrote:

Alpharius wrote:

SlaveToDorkness wrote:When you're shooting at a unit and the powerfist Sgt. is 1/32" closer than the Goob With Bolter then it will get ugly. Very.

Another good point, and exactly what I was talking about.

Unless, you know, GW has thought of this and figured something out to help with it?

BrookM wrote:Specialists die and other mooks pick up the goods?

Something along those lines, like the 'field promotion' rule in Warmachine/Hordes.

Another way to make it less of an argument is to stipulate in the casualty removal that "Models that are within 1" of the closest model(s) can be allocated wounds". That would keep the theme and idea while making measurements quick and less contested. It's too late for input on it now, the rules are written, printed, and soon to be shipped. Let's all grit our teeth in anticipation while we wait to game the system.

EDIT -

Given the idiots that make this game I doubt they'll do anything to reduce the incidence of arguments.

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, stealing the initiative), 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'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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

spectreoneone wrote:

darrkespur wrote: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...

I like it!

In all seriousness, I see it in terms of accessing those powers in battle, not really learning it. If we view it in terms of magic, I see the randomness as if the caster misspoke part of an incantation, or they didn't do the proper motion, etc., as if they were put under combat stress. Back to 40k, though, there is a lot we're not seeing here. Perhaps the introduced randomness is due to some sort of surge in the warp that has unleashed even more powerful psyker potential, but with the penalty of being highly unstable. I see it as a way GW can justify massive psyker power creep. I personally like it, though. It makes using a powerful psyker a gamble that has potentially huge payoff, or possibly huge detriment. Sounds fun to me!

Thats not how psychic or sorcerous abilities work in the fluff. The tides of the warp effect how powerful a psychic is on any given day, but they don't really change what said psyker knows how to do. If the psyker can't use his normal powers it's because he can't use any at all and it's a very rare scenario.