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.

What if Warhammer 40k was much less random?
Like no more rolling to hit wound etc and that shots go through depending on statistics.


Things like Morale should still be checked as on average it will never fail.
Or Scatter Dice etc.

Obviously there should be some things that are and somethings that aren't.
So what if this game was less random what do you think would happen?

Orks would always win through sure numbers.

Which I'm totally alright with

It would be much more enjoyable to play.

It'd be terrible.

The game would be boring as hell, since the outcome of every event would be known in advance. For example, you'd never have to worry about risking your suicide melta unit to kill a tank, you'd know before you commit whether or not it will work. You'd never have to wonder whether it would be better to risk a long charge (and a round of overwatch) or move the unit safely into cover instead, you'd just check whether you auto-kill the target unit or not and act appropriately. With no more skill needed to react to unexpected events the game would become even more focused on building the perfect list, and much less fun.

 Peregrine wrote:
The game would be boring as hell, since the outcome of every event would be known in advance. For example, you'd never have to worry about risking your suicide melta unit to kill a tank, you'd know before you commit whether or not it will work. You'd never have to wonder whether it would be better to risk a long charge (and a round of overwatch) or move the unit safely into cover instead, you'd just check whether you auto-kill the target unit or not and act appropriately. With no more skill needed to react to unexpected events the game would become even more focused on building the perfect list, and much less fun.

Exalting this hard.

 Peregrine wrote:
The game would be boring as hell, since the outcome of every event would be known in advance. For example, you'd never have to worry about risking your suicide melta unit to kill a tank, you'd know before you commit whether or not it will work. You'd never have to wonder whether it would be better to risk a long charge (and a round of overwatch) or move the unit safely into cover instead, you'd just check whether you auto-kill the target unit or not and act appropriately. With no more skill needed to react to unexpected events the game would become even more focused on building the perfect list, and much less fun.

I ... can't think of anything else to say. This is perfect. I agree 100% randomness

Then 40k would become chess..with morale checks.

 Peregrine wrote:
The game would be boring as hell, since the outcome of every event would be known in advance. For example, you'd never have to worry about risking your suicide melta unit to kill a tank, you'd know before you commit whether or not it will work. You'd never have to wonder whether it would be better to risk a long charge (and a round of overwatch) or move the unit safely into cover instead, you'd just check whether you auto-kill the target unit or not and act appropriately. With no more skill needed to react to unexpected events the game would become even more focused on building the perfect list, and much less fun.

I hate to agree with Peregrine, but ^this.

/thread?

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
The game would be boring as hell, since the outcome of every event would be known in advance. For example, you'd never have to worry about risking your suicide melta unit to kill a tank, you'd know before you commit whether or not it will work. You'd never have to wonder whether it would be better to risk a long charge (and a round of overwatch) or move the unit safely into cover instead, you'd just check whether you auto-kill the target unit or not and act appropriately. With no more skill needed to react to unexpected events the game would become even more focused on building the perfect list, and much less fun.

I hate to agree with Peregrine, but ^this.

/thread?

I hate to agree with either Solofalcon OR Peregrine, but I'm forced to agree. Random dice rolls approximate the unforeseen vagaries of fate and add a much needed dimension to the game. If I wanted to play a game that had only one right way to do anything, I would play WoW. If I really felt the need to roll dice while playing a game with only one right way to do anything, I would play Axis & Allies.

I'm just joshin' with you, Makutsu. But on the real, I think we need the dice rolls.

Well the current game system doesnt support a diceless system.

But your suicidal unit will never make it to the lines since without a good positioning or something to cover them.

The whole point is to be more like chess and less like a game of just tossing dice.

The game would have no drama or any of those triumphant moments where against all odds, your chainsword sergeant gets the lucky blow on a Chaos Lord and wins the day. I know a lot of complaints go around about 40k being too random, but the game isn't chess. It's a means to tell a story that reflects the fluff.

 Makutsu wrote:
But your suicidal unit will never make it to the lines since without a good positioning or something to cover them.

My deep striking melta stormtroopers disagree. I know exactly where they're going to arrive, and whether they're going to kill their target before I even put them on the table. Now instead of having to weigh the risks on things like ideal shooting position vs. mishap danger all I have to do is look at whether or not they're going to succeed. If they are, I use them. If they aren't, I don't. No more skill or strategy involved, just list building.

The whole point is to be more like chess and less like a game of just tossing dice.

Chess only works like it does because it's an abstract strategy game, not a "simulation" like 40k. If you want a chess version of 40k just play chess with 40k models as the pieces.

Hi everyone, I recognize this is a What If scenario where if things were just LESS random, not entirely diceless.

When you take Chance out of it, players naturally turn to other diceless factors that affect the game, such as:

List Building - we already do this, so no biggie, but you will see even more cookie cutter builds.

Movement - you know how we sometimes give an inch? Like if terrain is weird, we don't want our friend's miniature to fall over, so we just are good sportsman and say, "Well, he's close enough to be in range." It's because even if that's the case, Chance is a buffer; the guy can shoot, but that doesn't mean he can hit, wound, saving throw, etc. But when you take that buffer of Chance from it...we WILL stop giving each other an inch.

Rules Lawyering - people argue (rules as written vs. intended), but usually only on big things because again, Chance is a buffer. So I let you interpret that you get some advantage to shoot me, but you still got to roll some dice, so there's no guarantee. As you remove Chance, there will be more bickering on smaller issues.

---

So after considering these issues, imagining my last few games with less dice, I came to the following theory:

When we can't blame the dice, we become total dicks.

We're going to argue over a quarter-inch of movement and rules as written because THAT is more of the game now.

You guys already explained it's boring because it's more predictable. I agree it's more boring, but not JUST that.

It's because then instead of playing a game like generals, we'll be Rules Lawyers and sue for victory.

It would be difficult to rewrite the rules for all of the different things that could happen, all of the different tactics that could be employed.

It would be interesting to be sure to either just use averages, or to use some kind of ratio between troop types and situations to determine outcomes....I can definitely see some he arguments over particulars though.

 Kommissar Waaaghrick wrote:


When we can't blame the dice, we become total dicks.

We're going to argue over a quarter-inch of movement and rules as written because THAT is more of the game now.

You guys already explained it's boring because it's more predictable. I agree it's more boring, but not JUST that.

It's because then instead of playing a game like generals, we'll be Rules Lawyers and sue for victory.

Don't tell GW there is another way to get their lawyers further involved in the game.

I guess it depends on what you see the purpose of a random mechanic in a game to be.

I don't know if the point of it is to make the game more challenging (bad die rolling forcing you to get creative, etc.), because there are ways to make a game more challenging in a more refined, more predictable way. For example, the game Go has a simple, elegant handicapping system that really works rather well.

I don't know if the point is to make the game more interesting, either. I mean, the most boring armies to play against are gunlines, and gunlines eschew the less-random parts of the game (like movement), and really only focus on stuff that is controlled by a random mechanic (shooting).

I also don't know if it improves the player experience directly. I've seen more shouts of anger and rolled eyes over failing a 4" charge and losing two terminators to three armor saves than I've seen glee at hitting with every swing in close combat. I mean, really, at best it's a wash, as your good luck is necessarily your opponent's bad, and vice versa. I've also on more than one occasion played a game where we decided to just skip mysterious objectives and other pointlessly random new bits of 6th edition.

So then what, really, do you add to the game by having all of these random elements in it?

The thing you add with randomness is that it makes it so that you can lose games, even if you're the better player.

As best I can tell, this means two things. The first is that you can play games with worse players, which means you get to play games at all, some times. For example, I'm a much better strategy game player than my wife. There isn't a classic game from battleship to stratego I can't just horribly krump her at. The games we CAN play are games like dominion.

In the case of that game, the "better" strategies are also the riskier ones. In the end, you only wind up winning about half your games, once everybody gets up to a certain basic mastery of the game. In 40k, that takes longer (because the game is more complex), but the same idea is sort of true. Rather than a straight handicap, which sort of just rubs things in, you have a pressure release valve for more intense gamers so that they can still go at it with their full brain power, and they also don't win games all the time, ensuring that games stay fun for everyone, regardless of skill level.

The second thing that the dice do is give you a different definition of player skill. In 40k, player skill is playing the odds. You can play them longer or shorter given a huge combination of possible moves and actions, but you're still playing odds. The "better" odds-playing is more of a choice of personal preference, rather than player skill making you "better" at the game than another person.

A lot of people don't seem to understand this, but if you play the game long enough, you'll eventually see it. 40k isn't a game where you pit two players against each other, and the better person wins. This means if you win, that means you're not (necessarily) a better person. Once you understand this core idea that the randomness implies, then there isn't a whole lot of room to be terribly proud of yourself as a 40k player.

That doesn't mean that everybody understands that, of course (the fact that tournaments exist... for a dice game... are proof enough of that), and there's plenty of pride to go around, but sooner or later, the dice afflict the proud.

Or, as has already been said...

Kommissar Waaaghrick wrote:When we can't blame the dice, we become total dicks.

So, in the end, I don't think the randomness really does anything to improve the game, but what it does do is to improve the players. Players who have a healthier attitude about winning and playing against the less-skilled.

Even if the only way that the dice accomplish this is to cut out the riffraff.

 Ailaros wrote:
II don't know if the point is to make the game more interesting, either. I mean, the most boring armies to play against are gunlines, and gunlines eschew the less-random parts of the game (like movement), and really only focus on stuff that is controlled by a random mechanic (shooting).

No, you've got that completely backwards. The whole point of a gunline is to remove randomness and anything else that could be even slightly unpredictable. Instead of depending on small elite units that need skill and luck to work you just line up a giant pile of guns and trust that if the dice roll even close to average you win. And with all of your points spent on maximum-efficiency guns you're going to roll enough dice to minimize the chances of the dice failing you.

So then what, really, do you add to the game by having all of these random elements in it?

You add unpredictability. A moderate amount of randomness ensures that you have to deal with risk vs. reward tradeoffs and adapt to unexpected events.

That said, 6th's use of randomness to replace player decisions (like random psychic powers) is just stupid.

The "better" odds-playing is more of a choice of personal preference, rather than player skill making you "better" at the game than another person.

Nonsense. This is the thing you still don't understand (and tournament players do): having a random element doesn't remove skill, and knowing how to play the odds requires a significant amount of skill and experience. There's a reason why in even heavily random games like poker the better players consistently win while the weaker players consistently lose.

 Peregrine wrote:
Nonsense. This is the thing you still don't understand (and tournament players do): having a random element doesn't remove skill, and knowing how to play the odds requires a significant amount of skill and experience. There's a reason why in even heavily random games like poker the better players consistently win while the weaker players consistently lose.

I don't gamble, but isn't poker all about bluffing and steady nerves and stuff?

Wouldn't blackjack be a better example?

Yeah, poker has very little in common with 40k.

I would agree that blackjack is a much closer analogue, but really, the closest game is craps. You roll dice with set rewards for the odds you choose to play. There are no "better" or "worse" odds, assuming a basic competency with the game. In this case, player skill does matter, but more player skill after a pretty low point has very little impact on the game.

The reason you see tournaments for 40k and you don't see tournament craps is that some players think that 40k is like a game that it isn't like.

 Pouncey wrote:
I don't gamble, but isn't poker all about bluffing and steady nerves and stuff?

IOW, skill.

Wouldn't blackjack be a better example?

Not really, since blackjack isn't played against other players. You don't care about being better than the other players, you just need to be good at counting cards and following betting rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ailaros wrote:
There are no "better" or "worse" odds, assuming a basic competency with the game.

Err, lol? Do you really think that 40k, beyond "basic competency", doesn't involve any skill in arranging the best odds and dealing with the outcome?

The reason you see tournaments for 40k and you don't see tournament craps is that some players think that 40k is like a game that it isn't like.

Yeah, those poor deluded tournament players. Good thing you're here to tell them how they aren't having fun the right way.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
I don't gamble, but isn't poker all about bluffing and steady nerves and stuff?

IOW, skill.

Yes, skill, but not with knowing the odds and applying that knowledge.

Wouldn't blackjack be a better example?

Not really, since blackjack isn't played against other players. You don't care about being better than the other players, you just need to be good at counting cards and following betting rules.

Blackjack is played against the dealer. And counting cards is 100% about the ever-changing odds.

Poker is still a terrible analogy. There is an element of randomness to it, but it only affects the game at a call. It is possible to play an infinite number of rounds of poker without the cards ever even being revealed.

I mean, for poker to be an analogy for 40k, I'd have to roll to see if I hit with my meltagun in secret, and then start a bidding war with my opponent over what the number is, or to have some way of negotiating with your opponent, and the result of your agreement determines if I hit with the meltagun.

Take poker and strip it of all the elements that don't pass through a random element, and bring it down to just the random parts with odds playing, and 40k is much, much closer to War than to Poker.

Except it's not quite like War, because you get to choose your odds to play, which is why it's almost exactly like blackjack.

Or Craps, because it's the same thing, but with dice.

While I find myself in agreement with Peregrine I can't help but recall all the threads where he decried the advent of random tables as game-breaking and lazy on the part of GW.

 Ailaros wrote:
Poker is still a terrible analogy. There is an element of randomness to it, but it only affects the game at a call. It is possible to play an infinite number of rounds of poker without the cards ever even being revealed.

I mean, for poker to be an analogy for 40k, I'd have to roll to see if I hit with my meltagun in secret, and then start a bidding war with my opponent over what the number is, or to have some way of negotiating with your opponent, and the result of your agreement determines if I hit with the meltagun.

Take poker and strip it of all the elements that don't pass through a random element, and bring it down to just the random parts with odds playing, and 40k is much, much closer to War than to Poker.

Except it's not quite like War, because you get to choose your odds to play, which is why it's almost exactly like blackjack.

Or Craps, because it's the same thing, but with dice.

Just from an "application of skill with odds/mental mathhammer" perspective, I think it's closer to blackjack, though I'll admit I only have a rudimentary understanding of either game.

With blackjack, the odds of particular cards being drawn is affected by what's on the table already. If there's a 2 on the table, there's less of a chance of drawing a 2 from the deck. Card counting, from my understanding (which is based entirely on what I see described on various crime dramas that actually bother with explanations) simplify the odds to keeping a simple tally and adding or subtracting a small number from the tally whenever a particular type of card is drawn. While it's easy enough to hammer out the odds beforehand and figure out what your anti-infantry squad is likely to do to a squad of MEQ and GEQ, when you start taking casualties, and start dealing casualties, the odds of what it takes to do certain things changes, because the number of relevant models change. Though, I guess you could figure it out on a per-model basis and just multiply.

But with craps, the odds of the dice rolls is always the same. There's always 2 dice, and though the objective of the dice roll changes throughout the game, the odds of getting each of those results remains the same every time.

You mean a game of math hammer? -.- Now people only would make their lists to be so so many % good....

MarsNZ wrote:
While I find myself in agreement with Peregrine I can't help but recall all the threads where he decried the advent of random tables as game-breaking and lazy on the part of GW.

That's because we're talking about two different kinds of randomness:

Good randomness resolves actions. For example, if I shoot a melta gun at a tank I have X% chance of success (because if I can pick the outcome I obviously pick "kills the tank"), and the dice are just a random number generator to decide whether I succeed or fail. Good randomness is reasonably predictable, you don't know exactly what a particular roll will be but you know the random mechanic follows a nice bell curve and can make sensible strategic decisions based on that knowledge.

Bad randomness replaces choices. For example, the random warlord trait tables in 6th. This is the kind of thing that a player would like to choose for themselves (based on fluff or strategy), but instead it's completely random. The randomness adds nothing but frustration to the game, and is the lazy alternative to making balanced and interesting choices.

 Pouncey wrote:
Yes, skill, but not with knowing the odds and applying that knowledge.

Err, yes, it's entirely about knowing the odds. How do you think you know when to bluff or when to call an opponent's bluff?

Blackjack is played against the dealer. And counting cards is 100% about the ever-changing odds.

No, blackjack is played against the cards, the dealer just holds the cards. The dealer does not make any choices, and you're not trying to out-play them in any meaningful way. You just make your choices and see what the cards do. So while you're counting cards and betting based on that information you aren't making decisions, you're just mindlessly following a rule system. You could easily write a simple computer program that could play blackjack better than any human since it would entirely eliminate the chance of making a mistake in counting or remember the correct bet choices.

 Ailaros wrote:
I mean, for poker to be an analogy for 40k, I'd have to roll to see if I hit with my meltagun in secret, and then start a bidding war with my opponent over what the number is, or to have some way of negotiating with your opponent, and the result of your agreement determines if I hit with the meltagun.

I'm not saying that poker works like 40k, obviously the games are completely different. But the point is that even in a game with a huge random element like poker skill still matters and the winners are consistently the best players. The fact that the cards are random (and can sometimes screw you no matter how well you play, or give you completely undeserved wins) doesn't remove the skill element, it just means that skill in poker is about how you use the random cards.

40k is no different. There is a random number generator involved, but the random number generator is only a small part of the game and better players will consistently win.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pouncey wrote:
Card counting, from my understanding (which is based entirely on what I see described on various crime dramas that actually bother with explanations) simplify the odds to keeping a simple tally and adding or subtracting a small number from the tally whenever a particular type of card is drawn.

Kind of right. You keep track of which cards (of the important types) of cards have been played so you know roughly what the "average" card value is in the remaining part of the deck (and therefore what you can expect to draw). But it's not about simplifying the odds, it's about knowing when to bet. Blackjack, played without card counting, has odds that slightly favor the house: if you play 1000 games you will end up with slightly less money than you started with. What card counting does is tell you when the odds are temporarily in your favor (because the cards remaining in the deck are ones that are likely to let you win). So you place small bets when the odds favor the house (losing a bit of money), and big bets when the card count tells you that it's in your favor. If you do it properly the odds now favor you slightly, and 1000 games will almost certainly give you a net profit (until the casino kicks you out).

And of course this has nothing to do with 40k, since no similar "hidden information" mechanic exists.

Okay, I can see how the original analogy makes sense now. Sorry about that.

I was thinking in a totally different frame of mind.

And now I'm going to bed, because the sun is coming up.

I think we really need to determine what we mean by 'randomness'.
All table war games need a way to represent chance of an action being performed successfully.

Whether this is determined by a card deck, dice roll ,etc, does not matter, but a simple method to determine element of risk is needed IMO.

However, using randomness to mess with the game play (player choice,) to stop people being able to work out the most effective units and combos for them.Seems like a lazy way to deal with game play /balance issues.(I totally agree with Peregrine. )

IF the rules for 40k were written with the game play of 40k in mind.RATHER than using WHFB game mechanics and resolution methods , and heavy patching to get it sort of' 'good enough'.

The rules could cover the fast dynamic game play 40k SHOULD have.
(Starting with Epic rules and ADDING detail, would be much better way to arrive at a 40k rule set IMO.)

There are loads of great modern game mechanics and resolution methods that can deliver well defined rules, and fast intuitive game play.
Unfortunately 40k does not use any of them....

I think in the end it comes down to: do people like dice or not?

If people don't like dice, there are plenty of Eurogame boardgames without any random factors. Or chess, as was mentioned (although there is still the "random" factor of who plays white).

If people like dice, they will find a way to use them. Heck even Ticket to Ride had a dice expansion because some people find the excitement, suspense, and tension of rolling dice to be enjoyable.

Personally I like dice of all shapes and sizes. They are a great skill equalizer, as was mentioned. But I think 40k has too many random elements that remove player decision instead of supporting it.