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.

http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2012/07/22/40k-humor-rumors-of-7th-edition/

Thought this might give a few of you some lolz!

HEHEHE.

Also, I'll have something for you in a couple weeks.

Glad you thought it was funny.

And sweet! Looking forward to your masterpiece!

I like it. I saw this kind of trend in 8th Fantasy and was wondering if it'd carry over to 40K. I guess the answer is "yes".

I'm not sure where GW picked up on this "More random automatically equals MORE FUN!!!1" idea but.... I am disinclined to agree

Passive-aggressive whining is still whining.

RatBot wrote:I like it. I saw this kind of trend in 8th Fantasy and was wondering if it'd carry over to 40K. I guess the answer is "yes".

I'm not sure where GW picked up on this "More random automatically equals MORE FUN!!!1" idea but.... I am disinclined to agree

I concur entirely.

Especially since I feel that GW put the random elements in all the wrong places.

As I see it, there are outcomes and there are player actions. A player makes an action (dependent on a variety of factors), and because of those actions there is an outcome. If random elements influence outcomes, that's okay. If random elements influence player actions, then there's a caveat, because you're taking an element of gameplay away from the player. It's like Snakes and Ladders (a truly horrendous game), you don't actually play the game. There are just random elements and outcomes. And that's the movement GW has made with many of the random elements in 6th edition.

RatBot wrote:I like it. I saw this kind of trend in 8th Fantasy and was wondering if it'd carry over to 40K. I guess the answer is "yes".

I'm not sure where GW picked up on this "More random automatically equals MORE FUN!!!1" idea but.... I am disinclined to agree

If you are disincline to agree, doesn't that mean you agree?

As to your point about 'randomness' and 8th ed you do have a point. If GW had adopted the principle of the winds of magic, but left the power level of the spells at the level they were in 7th it would have made the 'randomness' more relevant. Ironically all they achieved was to make level 4 casters more common - which flies in the face of the min max list - on the off chance that half the army could be wiped out in the magic phase.

That said 8th ed is way more fun than 7th - which was a turgid and frankly boring game.

I tried to view the link, but I rolled snake eyes and failed the charge with the cursor =/

You know, after reading that article I fancy a game of Randomhammer. Will bring it up next time I go gaming.

M.

Miguelsan wrote:You know, after reading that article I fancy a game of Randomhammer. Will bring it up next time I go gaming.

M.

...and no one noticed the difference...

marielle wrote:

RatBot wrote:I like it. I saw this kind of trend in 8th Fantasy and was wondering if it'd carry over to 40K. I guess the answer is "yes".

I'm not sure where GW picked up on this "More random automatically equals MORE FUN!!!1" idea but.... I am disinclined to agree

If you are disincline to agree, doesn't that mean you agree?

I guess, technically, but I was being a bit snarky, which, of course, does not translate well into text. I adamantly and vehemently disagree with "everything random means more exciting!" I can't honestly say whether or not 7th edition was better, as I only played two or three games of 7th, but I did play quite a bit of 6th and remember liking it a lot. I absolutely do not think adding more randomness is they way to go, and their idea that magic would be less powerful in 8th is.... obviously untrue, in the (admittedly few) 8th edition games I've played that involved a level 4 Wizard, one side was quite often able to absolutely cripple the other in one or two magic phases.

DarknessEternal wrote:Passive-aggressive whining is still whining.

And Passive-aggressive whining about passive-aggressive whining is what?

...


... Whineception?

I love the randomness, The charge distances are great. The wondering whether you will get the power you want is aswell.
Warlord traits are MEH, hit or miss.
But the worse is the random terrain like the one that kills psykers.

Avatar 720 wrote:I tried to view the link, but I rolled snake eyes and failed the charge with the cursor =/

@Darkness Eternal

It was humor partner, meant as a joke.

@Kovnik Obama




Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Thread

Yeah, I agree that the randomness is just not cool. I don't understand why they did this, honestly. It just isn't fun to not have control over what your models do.

@hotsauceman1

Well, if the Bronies support 6th edition, then Matt Ward definitely hit it out of the park with this rule set!

Just kidding dude, I am glad you're liking the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Miguelsan

We're honestly thinking about doing a video battle report with those rules for a laugh! hahaha

Kovnik Obama wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:Passive-aggressive whining is still whining.

And Passive-aggressive whining about passive-aggressive whining is what?

...


... Whineception?

I was gonna call it fanboy butthurt...


Sorry guys, but that article was some funny stuff.

Glad you thought it was funny!

Reecius wrote:Glad you thought it was funny!

I thought it was funny, but you forgot the biggest rumor of all for 7th edition:

The Most Important Rule:

When selecting your army before a battle, roll a D6 and consult the table to see which units and wargear you can bring. A 2000 point army has 15 rolls, while you can roll one of those die for and on a 4+ you get 2 rolls on the Allies chart.

(This way you practically have to buy every model GW makes, since every unit can be rolled for! Gotta catch'em all!)

We actually did include that rule, you must have missed it! haha

Please, for the love of Warhammer fans pocketbooks, never EVER even SUGGEST a rule that makes us have to buy every model GW makes......they would put that gak in their FAQ in seconds. Then it would be Randomhammer 41k: So Broke it Hurts.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:Passive-aggressive whining is still whining.

And Passive-aggressive whining about passive-aggressive whining is what?

...


... Whineception?

yo dawg I heard you like whining?

Mad4Minis wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:Passive-aggressive whining is still whining.

And Passive-aggressive whining about passive-aggressive whining is what?

...


... Whineception?

I was gonna call it fanboy butthurt...


Sorry guys, but that article was some funny stuff.

Yea it was funny. Good Job on the parody Reecus.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:Passive-aggressive whining is still whining.

And Passive-aggressive whining about passive-aggressive whining is what?

Balance.

I can't exhalte the link :(.

It was humorous, but I don't think random charge ranges is that big of a deal. It seems better then just 6in charge, in that it represents that charges do have a momentum, and that sometimes it doesn't have enough steam to make it. As for random warlord traits and all the random mysterious terrain, its a load of gak.

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:It was humorous, but I don't think random charge ranges is that big of a deal. It seems better then just 6in charge, in that it represents that charges do have a momentum, and that sometimes it doesn't have enough steam to make it.

That sounds fine and dandy, until you brutally lose a game because the charge you were trying to set up all game went to pieces when you rolled a 4 when all you needed was a 5.

Sure, you can say that some charges might lose momentum, but if a force of hardened warriors had gone to great lengths to plan a decisive charge into combat, they'd sure as hell not stop right in front of their target.

Fafnir wrote:

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:It was humorous, but I don't think random charge ranges is that big of a deal. It seems better then just 6in charge, in that it represents that charges do have a momentum, and that sometimes it doesn't have enough steam to make it.

That sounds fine and dandy, until you brutally lose a game because the charge you were trying to set up all game went to pieces when you rolled a 4 when all you needed was a 5.

Sure, you can say that some charges might lose momentum, but if a force of hardened warriors had gone to great lengths to plan a decisive charge into combat, they'd sure as hell not stop right in front of their target.

It was obviously the twig on the floor that tripped up the charging space marines...

Lord Rogukiel wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:It was humorous, but I don't think random charge ranges is that big of a deal. It seems better then just 6in charge, in that it represents that charges do have a momentum, and that sometimes it doesn't have enough steam to make it.

That sounds fine and dandy, until you brutally lose a game because the charge you were trying to set up all game went to pieces when you rolled a 4 when all you needed was a 5.

Sure, you can say that some charges might lose momentum, but if a force of hardened warriors had gone to great lengths to plan a decisive charge into combat, they'd sure as hell not stop right in front of their target.

It was obviously the twig on the floor that tripped up the charging space marines...

I thought GW(ard) was going for climactic and action packed craziness?

Wouldn't it seem like they would rather have a 12inch charge as standard? That seems more cinematic.

I hate random anything. Except Orks. Orks and Orcs are the only armies that should include randomness.

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:It was humorous, but I don't think random charge ranges is that big of a deal. It seems better then just 6in charge, in that it represents that charges do have a momentum, and that sometimes it doesn't have enough steam to make it. As for random warlord traits and all the random mysterious terrain, its a load of gak.

If the problem was, as often said, the insertion of pre-mesuring, why not simply make charges 6'' + 1D6?

2'' charges are pretty frakking stupid.

At least they didn't make it something like if they rolled a double one, remove a model as a casualty due to being trampled or something. Terrain so far though...

Sounds legit.