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.

Reecius wrote:
You said it would be BEST for the game if people stopped trying to make it a sport. You were explicit, actually.

MM, that is badly misquoting him, You missed the key part of what was said.

The best thing for the game would be for people to stop trying to make it into a sport and then get all bent out of shape that it isn't chess.

No explicit statement at all about you should stop trying to make it a sport, it was those who afterwards 'get all bent out of shape that it isn't chess' he was talkling about.

OverwatchCNC wrote:Your assertion seems to suggest you want us to play the game how you want.

He clearly stated he doesn't care how you play it in the very sentence before the bit you highlighted. You were trying to read something that just wasn't there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

keithb wrote:
No they don't, it is just that a large percentage of gamers insist on playing everything always "by the book" and refuse to do anything about the shortcomings in the rules/codexes.

I suspect that many people have totally different ideas what shortcomings are in the book, and that will in large part be driven by what/why you play the game. If you want to play competitively you probably see different shortcomings to those who prefer grab a bunch of cool (but 'unviable') models and play a quick game over lunch, preferably ending with 2 HQs duking it out mano a mano. Those who like tanks probably see different shortcomings to those who like an infantry style game etc. Another gane I play a lot sees both me and my main opponent have different ideas of what is right and wrong, we stick with playing by the book.

There's one universal shortcoming - it's moving away from tactical game route to cheap cinematics. I don't care if my army is nerfed in the process, I care for the game relying on tactics more than luck.

There's good drama and tension - will my plan work, will my opponent guess it, how is he going to react, can I predict his plan, is my manouver properly synchronised and last but not least - will I win the game and deservedly so

There's cheap drama and tension - will I roll 7 on 2d6 to get my charge, will it be 6 on this dice for the mysterious forest, please let it be 6

puree wrote:

Reecius wrote:
You said it would be BEST for the game if people stopped trying to make it a sport. You were explicit, actually.

MM, that is badly misquoting him, You missed the key part of what was said.

The best thing for the game would be for people to stop trying to make it into a sport and then get all bent out of shape that it isn't chess.

No explicit statement at all about you should stop trying to make it a sport, it was those who afterwards 'get all bent out of shape that it isn't chess' he was talkling about.

OverwatchCNC wrote:Your assertion seems to suggest you want us to play the game how you want.

He clearly stated he doesn't care how you play it in the very sentence before the bit you highlighted. You were trying to read something that just wasn't there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

keithb wrote:
No they don't, it is just that a large percentage of gamers insist on playing everything always "by the book" and refuse to do anything about the shortcomings in the rules/codexes.

I suspect that many people have totally different ideas what shortcomings are in the book, and that will in large part be driven by what/why you play the game. If you want to play competitively you probably see different shortcomings to those who prefer grab a bunch of cool (but 'unviable') models and play a quick game over lunch, preferably ending with 2 HQs duking it out mano a mano. Those who like tanks probably see different shortcomings to those who like an infantry style game etc. Another gane I play a lot sees both me and my main opponent have different ideas of what is right and wrong, we stick with playing by the book.

I am aware of what he said in the sentence prior. That is why I was pointing out his assertions afterwards were contrary to his previous statements.

OverwatchCNC wrote:

puree wrote:

Reecius wrote:
You said it would be BEST for the game if people stopped trying to make it a sport. You were explicit, actually.

MM, that is badly misquoting him, You missed the key part of what was said.

The best thing for the game would be for people to stop trying to make it into a sport and then get all bent out of shape that it isn't chess.

No explicit statement at all about you should stop trying to make it a sport, it was those who afterwards 'get all bent out of shape that it isn't chess' he was talkling about.

OverwatchCNC wrote:Your assertion seems to suggest you want us to play the game how you want.

He clearly stated he doesn't care how you play it in the very sentence before the bit you highlighted. You were trying to read something that just wasn't there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

keithb wrote:
No they don't, it is just that a large percentage of gamers insist on playing everything always "by the book" and refuse to do anything about the shortcomings in the rules/codexes.

I suspect that many people have totally different ideas what shortcomings are in the book, and that will in large part be driven by what/why you play the game. If you want to play competitively you probably see different shortcomings to those who prefer grab a bunch of cool (but 'unviable') models and play a quick game over lunch, preferably ending with 2 HQs duking it out mano a mano. Those who like tanks probably see different shortcomings to those who like an infantry style game etc. Another gane I play a lot sees both me and my main opponent have different ideas of what is right and wrong, we stick with playing by the book.

I am aware of what he said in the sentence prior. That is why I was pointing out his assertions afterwards were contrary to his previous statements.

I stopped posting because of the level of butt-hurt defensiveness going on. Please move on...

CT GAMER wrote:Im asserting that 40K is a bad game to play as a sport because it is flawed for such use by it's own form and design (and always has been).

Maybe it's time to fix that then, as it's mainly GW fault. Maybe it's time to add great rules to great models and great fluff. Best way to do that, make GW listen to competitive players and TOs imo.

CT GAMER wrote:Your desire to want to play a game compeatively is fine. Your choice of vehicle to do so is highlly questionable.

Not pointed at me but why is that, lots of factions or sth? Or just because we should accept the fact that game designers are lazy/ incompetent/ stubborn/ whatever and move on? Not arguing just curious of your reasoning.

Palindrome wrote:40K, like all GW games, aren't designed for competative play and never have been. People can modify the rules all they like but unless they completely overhaul the game (and all the codices) the game will never allow completely fair games. To be honest this is a good thing as the type of ruleset that would be required for truly competative play would be flat and featureless.

I'm not sure if anyone is asking for completly fair games. I guess the main point is the ruleset that makes tactics most important thing in the game instead of roleplaying/ cinematics/ adventurous sth, the ruleset that as much as possible rewards thinking, planning etc.

Palindrome wrote:GW's continued reluctance to make a serious effort to internally and externally balanced their codices highlights their attitude to competative gaming. after all its not as if balancing is particularly hard.

Yes I agree, it's not that hard to balance it as it's percieved. Why GW refuses to do so is another topic, covering lots of things from laziness to model sales.

Palindrome wrote:Competative players need to accept that the game simply wasn't designed for them in the same way that I need to accept that it wasn't designed for adults.

What's there to accept? Kids are brilliant. They ussualy play soccer, chess or Go when they are ~7. Designed for 12+ means designed for adults as well imo.

Plumbumbarum wrote:There's one universal shortcoming - it's moving away from tactical game route to cheap cinematics.

There are no universal short comings, it is all subjective.

I don't care if my army is nerfed in the process, I care for the game relying on tactics more than luck.

Increased luck arguably means more and better tactics are needed to win relaibly - you have to plan for more things going wrong as well as things going as planned. I used to be a very good chess player back when I used to play it, and that had no luck (well barring a flip to see who got white) but it is a hell of a lot more boring than 40k IMHO. Also IMHO good war games need a 'good' luck element in them to provide the uncertainty that is reflective of your role as a commander with incomplete control over the units you order. As Napolean said "In war, luck is half in everything.".



Automatically Appended Next Post:

OverwatchCNC wrote:
I am aware of what he said in the sentence prior. That is why I was pointing out his assertions afterwards were contrary to his previous statements.

The person who points out that you are trying to put a square peg into a round hole is not implying that he cares that you actually want to do that. There was no contradiction. You simply choose to impart a meaning that wasn't there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Plumbumbarum wrote: Or just because we should accept the fact that game designers are lazy/ incompetent/ stubborn/ whatever and move on? Not arguing just curious of your reasoning.

Why GW refuses to do so is another topic, covering lots of things from laziness to model sales.

A company designs a game that they want to make in the way they want to, aimed at whatever market they wish to aim at, be it GW or whoever. The fact that some people pick up that game and find it not so good for their preferred style of game does not mean that the company was lazy, incompetent or whatever. It quite possibly means that some players are trying to push a square peg into a round hole so to speak. No problem with that, but if it doesn't work out, blaming the company for laziness/incompetence etc is just stupid and hardly likley to endear them to the game designers (if they are hoping to change their minds). They either accept the game isn't for them and move on, or play the game as best they can to fit their play style.

CT Gamer said he's done, and requested we move on, so I will be moving on in this discussion from anything he or I said in reference to one another.

DarthDiggler wrote:
Pot meet kettle, kettle meet pot. California has a reputation for over regulation and micro managing the daily lives of their citizens. Please leave that out of this game.

This made me laugh so hard.

I don't think I've ever seen a bigger stretch of logic or of opinion as fact. Good job!

I humbly suggest that TOs ignore the trolls and whiners and hammer out a reasonable system that can be implemented by most tournaments. Consistency is more important than what non-tourney players think.

puree wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:There's one universal shortcoming - it's moving away from tactical game route to cheap cinematics.

There are no universal short comings, it is all subjective.

Philosophically speaking, yes. For a wargame with 100+ pages of rules and army books, not sure if opinion on going cinematics heavy should be subjective, it's just bad. Anyway maybe a poor choice of a word on my side, I mainly reffered to imo main problem with the book which is above all the "I hate 6th because my army doesn't work anymore" nitpicks (or at least that would be nitpicks if the changes nerfing armies were good for the game and whether they are or not is another discussion)

puree wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:I don't care if my army is nerfed in the process, I care for the game relying on tactics more than luck.

Increased luck arguably means more and better tactics are needed to win relaibly - you have to plan for more things going wrong as well as things going as planned. I used to be a very good chess player back when I used to play it, and that had no luck (well barring a flip to see who got white) but it is a hell of a lot more boring than 40k IMHO. Also IMHO good war games need a 'good' luck element in them to provide the uncertainty that is reflective of your role as a commander with incomplete control over the units you order. As Napolean said "In war, luck is half in everything.".

I totaly agree with your chess arguments and about war games needing a "good" luck element but random charges are not "good" luck element, there's enough luck already involved in resolving shooting and melee. There needs to be an equilibrium which 6th edition breaks imo.

puree wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote: Or just because we should accept the fact that game designers are lazy/ incompetent/ stubborn/ whatever and move on? Not arguing just curious of your reasoning.

Why GW refuses to do so is another topic, covering lots of things from laziness to model sales.

A company designs a game that they want to make in the way they want to, aimed at whatever market they wish to aim at, be it GW or whoever. The fact that some people pick up that game and find it not so good for their preferred style of game does not mean that the company was lazy, incompetent or whatever. It quite possibly means that some players are trying to push a square peg into a round hole so to speak. No problem with that, but if it doesn't work out, blaming the company for laziness/incompetence etc is just stupid and hardly likley to endear them to the game designers (if they are hoping to change their minds). They either accept the game isn't for them and move on, or play the game as best they can to fit their play style.

If the game is unbalanced, probably needs fixing from the start to not break the tournament, the reactions to rules or balance problems takes months or years, that might be a sign of laziness or incompetence. If there are things that raise suspicion of making rules not to make the game better but to sell more models (like purposely invalidate some older popular ones), that might be a sign of company being shady. Or maybe they are devoted enthusiast who love their game and do everything that is in their opinion best for it, that was covered under "whatever".

If the company sells the game under "wargame"moniker and pushes it into adventure game territory, some of the blaming might be justified, especialy that it's not the game you just pick up and try, some people picked it up before and see it taking the opposite route to the one it was on when they started. There are numerous solutions to this, like official tournament rules section in the rulebook for example, there's none.

A company designs a game that they want to make in the way they want to, aimed at whatever market they wish to aim at but if it already has the big player base and alienates a solid part of it, which probably spent a truckloads of money on their products and have no possibility to get it back, who's to blame for that obviosly bad situation? And how to call such company? Arrogant, elitist, careless, incompetent, overabundant of self-assurance? So much money for their products, 6 editions out and there still have to be threads like this...

I've seen a lot of posts here that assume that GW actually cares about what it's customers say they want. (Hint: they don't.) All GW cares about is whether products sell. (Another hint: they do.)
This is the way it's going to be until GW goes under.

Fetterkey wrote:You know, I've seen a lot of really polarizing and extreme discussion of 6th edition recently. There have been people saying that all kinds of things are going to need to be in the game, need to be out of the game, or are otherwise balanced/unbalanced. I've been guilty of some of that discussion myself, and I think it's honestly pretty silly.

At this point, I'd like to take a moment and just do a quick reality check on 6th edition competitive play:

We don't know what's going to be like.

It's pretty clear by now that 6th edition isn't the disaster that some people had predicted, but the specifics of how a lot of things are going to work are still up in the air. Will random objectives/terrain be a boon or a problem? What scenarios will prove popular? Will secondary objectives be accepted? Will double FOCs? How will allies, fortifications, and flyers affect the metagame? Is this finally the edition where Forge World can go mainstream? All of these things aren't clear at this stage.

The only way for us to find out is to play games. I'm sure a lot of you guys have strong opinions about the above-- I do too! But I don't know whether I'm right, and the only way to find out is to see how these things work out in actual play. So, before we freak out over this change or that change, let's actually play some games. Let's run some events and see who and what makes it to the top tables. Right now, we don't know what is and isn't good-- so let's wait and see before we go nuts.

If we go into this new edition with cool heads and reasonable attitudes, things will likely be fine. Let's get out there, play some games, and see how it all hashes out.

It is funny how a thread which started with such a positive message turns out to be the same old discussion we always have about competitive play or whether a edition is good or bad.

Let me remind people that it has still been less than 30 days since the rules came out and we already have lovely blanket statements like double FoC is terrible. Keep playing the game for about a year and then tell me double FoC is bad along with the reasons and we can have a reasonable debate. This also goes for all the rules that require you to use dice to determine effects. Play hundreds of games and get back to me-- FYI I am not talking about ones you play in your head everyday

Play hundreds of games and get back to me-- FYI I am not talking about ones you play in your head everyday

Be careful on what you wish for. It might come true.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
I'm not sure if anyone is asking for completly fair games. I guess the main point is the ruleset that makes tactics most important thing in the game instead of roleplaying/ cinematics/ adventurous sth, the ruleset that as much as possible rewards thinking, planning etc.

If 40k is ever going to be a real tournament ruleset it has to provide fair games.

The problem here though is that 40K has never been much of a tactical game due to the limited things on what you can do on the tabletop; no real suppression mechanics, no way to effectively react to enemy actions, no command and control elements. Its basically move-shot-assault and not much more; there is also no synergy between units, at least in the core rules.

40k does have an element of tactics of course but I would be loathe to call it a tactical wargame, 6th hasn't changed this.

I'm not sure why people are saying that 6th is any less tactical? It actually looks a bit better in this regard than 5th as the new cover and wound allocation rules require more careful positioning. Yes there is a random charge distance but it could be argued that this is actually more tactical as an assault requires more planning to succeed.

Palindrome wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
I'm not sure if anyone is asking for completly fair games. I guess the main point is the ruleset that makes tactics most important thing in the game instead of roleplaying/ cinematics/ adventurous sth, the ruleset that as much as possible rewards thinking, planning etc.

If 40k is ever going to be a real tournament ruleset it has to provide fair games.

Yes obviously, I was mainly adressing the word "completly" which is impossible and unnecessary. Good enough balance for both players having a chance to win is much needed and possible.

I'd like to adress that quote again btw

Palindrome wrote:40K, like all GW games, aren't designed for competative play and never have been. People can modify the rules all they like but unless they completely overhaul the game (and all the codices) the game will never allow completely fair games. To be honest this is a good thing as the type of ruleset that would be required for truly competative play would be flat and featureless.

I'm not sure about this. I think you can have all kind of crazy units and features as long as they are adequatly costed and do not make overly abusive combos. Making such things balanced in 40K is possible imo, requires lot of work with playtesting and monitoring probably but GW is being paid enough.

Palindrome wrote:The problem here though is that 40K has never been much of a tactical game due to the limited things on what you can do on the tabletop; no real suppression mechanics, no way to effectively react to enemy actions, no command and control elements. Its basically move-shot-assault and not much more; there is also no synergy between units, at least in the core rules.

40k does have an element of tactics of course but I would be loathe to call it a tactical wargame, 6th hasn't changed this.

There is a lot of tactics in 40K but I agree there are far better systems to come out with. That's why it should have gone in the more tactical direction, it's about damn time for the game to live up to its price.

Palindrome wrote:I'm not sure why people are saying that 6th is any less tactical? It actually looks a bit better in this regard than 5th as the new cover and wound allocation rules require more careful positioning. Yes there is a random charge distance but it could be argued that this is actually more tactical as an assault requires more planning to succeed.

I agree about wound allocation, it's actualy a good change vs 5th (bar Look Out Sir imo) and not the only good one. Makes it even more sad to see challenges, allies, mysterious everything, double foc etc (some might actualy turn out good but I very much doubt all of it will, especialy reading what GW says about 6th) and 2d6 charge which imo is not tactical at all.

Standard shooty unit hidden behind a wall able to assault 11" or 12" all of the sudden and genestealers rerolling 4" to 5" let's say, I see nothing tactical just wild. The randomness should be removed or at least limited. Phil Kelly himself said it's for "tension and drama", I can have the same tension and drama rolling dice and beting money on results, don't need their 70$ equivalent rulebook.

Makes it even more sad to see challenges, allies, mysterious everything, double foc etc (some might actualy turn out good but I very much doubt all of it will, especialy reading what GW says about 6th) and 2d6 charge which imo is not tactical at all.

You seem to be confusing rules and tactics.

Random 2D6 charge range is neither tactical or non-tactical is it simply a rule. This is a game, your tactics are what you use to win or lose, given the rules of the game.

Before you had a 6" charge, there was notihing tactical about it, it was just a rule. Now you have a random charge distance that follows a bell curve (barring re-rolls). Again it is just a rule. Either way requires you plan accordingly, either way requires tactical thought. Things are not more tactical just because they are more certain - that may make tactics easier to come up with, but that is not the same as better tactics.

Which provides for a game that requires more thought and tactics? IMHO the new way, I now have to account for and plan around the fact that my unit may not reach the target I want to reach. that forces me to think a lot more about where and how I move, and whether to try charging or not (no need to give overwatch shots if I'm not likely to make it). On the other side of the hill it forces me to think more about how I defend against an assualt, in 5th I would know he couldn't get to me because I knew exactly how far he could move, now I have to make a decision on whether I should pull back a bit and stack the odds against the charger or to hold nearer that objective or remain in range of another unit etc. That feels far more like an interesting tactical decision to me.

You may or may not like the randomness (I can understand that a lot of people won't) but that does not make the game less tactical per se.

If you like to feel the game is a bit more realistic then I'd say the new way is better as well. As a commander it always feels odd that I can be absolutely sure that I can tell unit X to charge someone and know precisely that they will or will not get there. Whilst the mechanism may be crude, I can see the random distance as being a simple way of introducing that lack of control, Unit X gets the order and hestitates! - which unit did I mean? or to much lead flying forcing a slower advance to contact, squad memebers just feeling safer in the woods and not wanting to charge across the open to their death.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

If the game is unbalanced, probably needs fixing from the start to not break the tournament,

You appear to be assuming that they consider 'the' tournament something worth aiming for. As I said before, any company will have its particular markets that it aims for. If they do not see the tourney scene as being something to aim for then in their eyes the game isn't broke and therefore isn't in need of fixing in that context.

A company designs a game that they want to make in the way they want to, aimed at whatever market they wish to aim at but if it already has the big player base and alienates a solid part of it, which probably spent a truckloads of money on their products and have no possibility to get it back, who's to blame for that obviosly bad situation?

I can't think that 40k have ever really been a 'tourney ready' game by any stretch of the imagination. For as long as I can remember players have been complaining about tourney balance for that reason. If someone bought tons of stuff on the basis of 40k being a tourney based game then I'd not be blaming GW if that is what you mean.

Whilst I can only guess (and from a UK perspective), I'd doubt that the tourney players who are complaining really make a 'solid' part of the customer base. The majority of 40k players probably never go to a tourney, and probably a large part of those who do go to tourneys don't particularly complain about whether the game is balanced or not. Certainly from my own experience the couple of fairly 'hard core' tourney players I have known have all been pretty relaxed about the game, they enjoy the game and setting and they enjoy playing in tourneys.

I'd also note that army balance doesn't seem to be a great issue for the couple of serious tourney players I've personally known, they will turn up with good competitive armies and expect to meet players of a like mind at least in the later stages, so will probably be fighting good balanced close games against those who will expect to face what they are facing. Having better balance across armies is not likely to change that, you will still likely face the not so good players in round 1 or 2 and the better players in later rounds who will probably provide a good close game irrespective of army balance.

Balance issues between armies is not unique to 40k either. I've seen historical wargames with as many tourney balance issues. Some systems have a wide time range (e.g biblical -> medieval) and cover wide geographical regions, these can have issues in that some armies are just not going to cut it, not because the ganme is unbalanced, but because some arimes really don't cut it against certain other armies. I've stood and watched a friend play for one of the top spots in such a tourney and win against an opponent who never stood a chance simply due to the army matchup.

There is certainly a very strong argument that 40k armies should be more balanced, it doesn't have the 'historical' excuse after all. But if you are used to playing in such tourney environments then you get used to the fact that very few wargames are really that balanced even at tournies.

I wish those who want to play 40k in competitive tournies the best of luck, if that is how you want to play to then go for it. But as noted earlier in the thread, I don't really understand those who get all hot unde th ecollar when it doesn't quite fit, nor those who blame GW for not providing what they wanted.

puree wrote:You seem to be confusing rules and tactics.

Random 2D6 charge range is neither tactical or non-tactical is it simply a rule. This is a game, your tactics are what you use to win or lose, given the rules of the game.

The rule hurts tactical play because it hurts planning, increasing the chance of good plan failing because of bad roll. Yes this is how the game works but it's only 2 dice so very random, the rules should be written to avoid such situations as much as possible and some assaults are crucial. Yes you can take that possibility into account and plan accordingly but the probability of bad rolls with shooting, wounds or saves is enough. The way you present it, every fixed movement or gun range changed to random would add to the tactics but I see it that it would just become the game of accidents. There has to be the line where randomness stops and 2d6 charge crosses it imo.

The same applies to "realistic" point imo, every fixed value should be changed to random, do they hesitate to move, is there smoke and debris that he sees 5" less, does the bullet flying through the rubble lose part of its strenght etc.

puree wrote:Whilst I can only guess (and from a UK perspective), I'd doubt that the tourney players who are complaining really make a 'solid' part of the customer base.

Maybe, I only guess as well. Assumed that competitive players are biggest spenders and there's quite a solid number of 40k tournaments around the world.

puree wrote:I wish those who want to play 40k in competitive tournies the best of luck, if that is how you want to play to then go for it. But as noted earlier in the thread, I don't really understand those who get all hot unde th ecollar when it doesn't quite fit, nor those who blame GW for not providing what they wanted.

I'm absolutely a casual player, I run 3 carnifexes because I love the model. I just want GW to listen to competitive players and TOs and make me a solid ruleset to play with. They have that great piece of feedback and data and don't use it, blows my mind.

tastytaste wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:You know, I've seen a lot of really polarizing and extreme discussion of 6th edition recently. There have been people saying that all kinds of things are going to need to be in the game, need to be out of the game, or are otherwise balanced/unbalanced. I've been guilty of some of that discussion myself, and I think it's honestly pretty silly.

At this point, I'd like to take a moment and just do a quick reality check on 6th edition competitive play:

We don't know what's going to be like.

It's pretty clear by now that 6th edition isn't the disaster that some people had predicted, but the specifics of how a lot of things are going to work are still up in the air. Will random objectives/terrain be a boon or a problem? What scenarios will prove popular? Will secondary objectives be accepted? Will double FOCs? How will allies, fortifications, and flyers affect the metagame? Is this finally the edition where Forge World can go mainstream? All of these things aren't clear at this stage.

The only way for us to find out is to play games. I'm sure a lot of you guys have strong opinions about the above-- I do too! But I don't know whether I'm right, and the only way to find out is to see how these things work out in actual play. So, before we freak out over this change or that change, let's actually play some games. Let's run some events and see who and what makes it to the top tables. Right now, we don't know what is and isn't good-- so let's wait and see before we go nuts.

If we go into this new edition with cool heads and reasonable attitudes, things will likely be fine. Let's get out there, play some games, and see how it all hashes out.

It is funny how a thread which started with such a positive message turns out to be the same old discussion we always have about competitive play or whether a edition is good or bad.

Let me remind people that it has still been less than 30 days since the rules came out and we already have lovely blanket statements like double FoC is terrible. Keep playing the game for about a year and then tell me double FoC is bad along with the reasons and we can have a reasonable debate. This also goes for all the rules that require you to use dice to determine effects. Play hundreds of games and get back to me-- FYI I am not talking about ones you play in your head everyday

Why do get to decide when debates can happen? Why should anyone get back to you, no one was talking to you in the first place.

Certain rules are obviously going to cause problems with the current codex's, we'll see what happens when the new books start coming out.

Why do you all care so much?

Why don't you all get out of your Douche Canoe's and just enjoy the game no matter how you wish the play it.

All of this just takes the fun away from the game, close the thread, that's the best solution to this nonesense.

L0rdF1end wrote:Why do you all care so much?

Why don't you all get out of your Douche Canoe's and just enjoy the game no matter how you wish the play it.

All of this just takes the fun away from the game, close the thread, that's the best solution to this nonesense.

Feel free to not read/post in this thread then. No one here gives a crap if you give a crap.

Couple things I can't let go. You guys who are moaning about random charges are missing two crucial things:

1) Most charges in games involving GOOD players were already random, thanks to the abundance of terrain. If anything, two dice added makes it sligtly LESS random than it was before. Yes, out in the open there was no random movement, but honestly how often does that happen when the opponent is not basically rolling over and giving you the charge anyhow?

2) Random Charges do not make the game less tactical, its just that the tactics are now focused in risk management, similar to Blood Bowl (or 8th Fantasy). The random objectives and warlord traits are bad uses of randomness, but charges are a known entity you can gague the risk of at all times. Random charges did not kill 8th edition Fantasy, it was a lack of new books for two years and the unbalanced magic that hurt it for a while, but guess what? The same people who won all the time in 7th (or 6th or 5th) are generally winning all the time in 8th, so obviously skill still plays a role in that game. I suspect it will in 6th 40k as well.

Anyhow, carry on....

Random Charges do not make the game less tactical, its just that the tactics are now focused in risk management

Absolutely. Adding random elements to a game is not necessarily making it 'less tactical'.

It's my opinion that there are two sorts of players (broadly speaking): those who like control and tend to equate greater control with more opportunity to plan and execute their plans; and those who you could indeed term 'risk managers' who tend to like the fact that greater randomness forces you to adapt to things not going to plan.

Now one is not 'better' than the other. But it is my opinion that the latter is more akin to 'war' than the former. In war nothing ever goes to plan. Of course 40K is not a simulation and 'reality' playes no part. But I like my wargames to force me to cater for 'bad luck', hence I actually really like 6th -- for me it has way more character than 5th, and also needs (it seems to me) more forethought and planning, not less precisely because there is more chance involved and also more complex interactions with cover, 'facing', etc.

Phazael wrote:Couple things I can't let go. You guys who are moaning about random charges are missing two crucial things:

1) Most charges in games involving GOOD players were already random, thanks to the abundance of terrain. If anything, two dice added makes it sligtly LESS random than it was before. Yes, out in the open there was no random movement, but honestly how often does that happen when the opponent is not basically rolling over and giving you the charge anyhow?

2) Random Charges do not make the game less tactical, its just that the tactics are now focused in risk management, similar to Blood Bowl (or 8th Fantasy). The random objectives and warlord traits are bad uses of randomness, but charges are a known entity you can gague the risk of at all times. Random charges did not kill 8th edition Fantasy, it was a lack of new books for two years and the unbalanced magic that hurt it for a while, but guess what? The same people who won all the time in 7th (or 6th or 5th) are generally winning all the time in 8th, so obviously skill still plays a role in that game. I suspect it will in 6th 40k as well.

Anyhow, carry on....

ad 1. That was unnecessary randomness as well, imo, same as d6 run. Initiative drop would suffice maybe, or no +1 attack charge bonus, don't know top of my head but generaly I'd like it done differently.
ad 2. Yes warlord traits are worse than 2d6 charge but easier to houserule out. It's good to read that it works in fantasy, I want it to be better just doubt it tbh. I'd really be happy to be proven wrong so that 2d6 is a great design choice, now if only Phil Kelly didn't say it's for "tension and drama"...

Risk management, the combined chance for 2, 3, 4 or 5 is just under 30% and there's overwatch, not that great in the end. Anyway, the sky is not falling, I just despise such drama and tension it's like the guy disarming the bomb in last second in the movies or scripting in video games, cheap.

And obviously it does not negate skill, it's just the rules are taken in the wrong direction imo, 6th could and should be so much better. Anyway not more whining from me, seems to hurt feelings.

If we go into this new edition with cool heads and reasonable attitudes, things will likely be fine. Let's get out there, play some games, and see how it all hashes out.

That's not how these things actually work. You'll just be calm when everything goes over a cliff.

I've only played 4 games with 6th ed, but so far i am liking most of the asects of it.

Still not sold on Fortifications or second FOC tables but i havn't had any experience with them yet.

Random objectives are great as it means they actually DO something and make them worth holding.


Random terrain makes things interesting and makes you think twice about diving into a wood for the cover save - bt it coudl also give you a boost as well.

Allies are ok - potentially cheesy if you play against a WAAC kind fo guy i suppose.

Flyers are pretty tough. Only played against a Talon and a Raven so far. The Talon went doen to 1 volley from 2 Anni barges, the Raven took fire from 15 warriors, a StormTek, a Ghost Ark and a Monolith - only lost a single Hull Point!

I'm a fan of the ADL in a big big way. I usually put a squad of FD's with an exarch or just a cheap cheap squad of DA's behind it.

I feel a little bad though, usually that 100 point fire-platform kills enemy fliers the turn they come into play. My suggestion is if taking flyers take a couple instead of just one.

Any game that has rules that define a winner and a loser, can and will be played competitively at least some of the time.

If you want to "forge a narrative", you're better off with a tabletop RPG.

I like the randomness of 2d6 for charge. Kinda balances out the fact that you can pre-measure now. I like to use my imagination, when rolls go wrong or really well. To tell a story while the game is playing out, with my opponent if he/she like that to or to myself if not. If everything is pre-determined then the the game is all about calculations and it's boring.

wowsmash wrote:I like the randomness of 2d6 for charge. Kinda balances out the fact that you can pre-measure now. I like to use my imagination, when rolls go wrong or really well. To tell a story while the game is playing out, with my opponent if he/she like that to or to myself if not. If everything is pre-determined then the the game is all about calculations and it's boring.

Like all those fixed weapon ranges, eh? In any case, I'd rather have a 'boring' set charge range than endure the endless tedium brought on by pre-measuring.

Pre measuring is something people just need to get used to being able to do. It will mostly go back to how it used to once people get a hang of it.

As far as the main topic.

Zero Destination, no items on. If anyone gets that reference you will know what I am talking about.

Ian Sturrock wrote:
If you want to "forge a narrative", you're better off with a tabletop RPG.

You mean like Rogue Trader?