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.

No random charts in chess, no random move distances in chess, no terrain, no dice, the pieces are defined on both sides exactly the same granting a mirror match. Chess is one player versus another in a mental boxing match where all moves can be anticipated, where the player that makes the least mistakes wins. Nothing is random.

40k is not chess, outside of Regicide. Just adding dice adds a random element. Different armies with different units, terrain with different and sometimes random rules, and a you-go-I-go player turn sequence that includes phases adds a level of complexity that denies a mirror match even when both armies are identical. It's still one player versus anther, but mistakes start at army building, and don't stop until the final die is rolled.

Randomness turns a mental boxing match into a game of chance. A game where skill and experience are valid, and the ability to reduce randomness is desired. Now we are talking a out poker, rather than chess. You win games of chance by midigating the effects of randomness via making good decisions. 40k is a game of chance, biased during army building, midigated via good decisions, and dominated by mastering risk-reward mechanics.

Sure, you hate all the randomness. Other people enjoy the randomness. There are games out there for you if this one isn't working for you.

SJ

The fu...

How is it that to you, it makes sense to say:

"So you don't think it makes sense to have random warlord traits, stop playing 40k, you clearly hate everything to do with dice, go play chess"

What is wrong with you?

Turn the argument around. Clearly all Jeffersonian cares about is random dice rolling and hates any player interaction, so he should stop playing 40k and play yahtzee instead.

@jeffersonian000
We all dislike pointless randomness that just makes the game longer to play without any good reason.(I reserve actual hate for those that deserve it.)

Removing valid tactical decision making ,and replacing it with random rolls was a decision taken by GW Chairman T.Kirby to 'sell toy soldiers to children'.
As he believed that children were unable to deal with over-arching tactical planning found in tactical war games, but would happily learn lots of data instead of tactical interaction.
He did not want experience and player skill to count too highly , and would prefer a complete game of chance so any one could win if they were lucky.
And wanted lots of special rules to help sell the latest releases to the collectors.

So if you are over the age if 16, and prefer playing games to collecting stuff just for the sake of it.

Then perhaps the direction GW has moved in over the last decade or so is not the direction you would like.
And perhaps the fact GW has lost nearly 2/3 of its sale volumes over the last decade or so.May indicate mature players who want tactics over gimmicks made up a much larger proportion of the customer base than T.Kirby believed.
(A more professional Chairman might actually base decisions on actual market research, rather than assuming the path of least effort was the best.)

Speaking of tactical planning in wargames, Epic Armageddon and Maelstrom's Edge do away with as much randomness as possible. There is very little in those systems that you cannot rely on.

Should those playerbases move to chess instead?

All I'm saying is that dealing with an ever changing environment is a skill you can learn and master. Wishing for a time that never was goes no where. Feel free to adjust your game to your level of comfort, but claiming that the game as is lacks tactics and/or strategy is a fallacy. The current game is balanced around all those random dice ... and tall line of sight blocking terrain. /wink

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The current game is balanced

Oh goodie, now I know I can never trust your words ever again

Lanrak wrote:
@jeffersonian000
We all dislike pointless randomness that just makes the game longer to play without any good reason.(I reserve actual hate for those that deserve it.)

Removing valid tactical decision making ,and replacing it with random rolls was a decision taken by GW Chairman T.Kirby to 'sell toy soldiers to children'.
As he believed that children were unable to deal with over-arching tactical planning found in tactical war games, but would happily learn lots of data instead of tactical interaction.
He did not want experience and player skill to count too highly , and would prefer a complete game of chance so any one could win if they were lucky.

Well, to be honest, the average isn't, due to that whole frontal lobe thing.

@jeffersonian000.
If the environment is ever changing, then it is impossible to learn and master it by definition@Because as soon as you learn it it changes!
You can learn to put up with poor game play and lack luster rules writing though.

It is possible to learn new ways to use units in a game with enough tactical depth to keep players interested for long periods of time.(EG most actual tactically focused war games, like Epic Armageddon, do this.)

Compared to other war games current 40k does lack tactical depth, (meaningful in game decision making).,This can, and has been proven by objective comparison.

No one is questioning that 40k has strategic depth.(Army selection is focused on to help sell minatures.)

40k has never been balanced enough for random pick up games.And adding on all the extra random stuff in 6th and 7th ed, is a clear sign the game devs have given up on actual game play IMO.

@Verviedi.
I am not sure exactly what you mean by your post?

Most young war gamers are happy to persevere with a tactically deep game, until they learn the tactical choices that work for them.
(Collectors may not be interested in tactics obviously.)

However, most tactically focused war games tend to have well written rules that deliver intuitive game play.(And much better game balance.)
These tend to be much easier to develop narrative for, as there are very few WTF moments in the game to try to explain away.

 Selym wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The current game is balanced

Oh goodie, now I know I can never trust your words ever again

Oh goodie, now I know you can be trusted to quote out of context.

SJ


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lanrak wrote:
@jeffersonian000.
If the environment is ever changing, then it is impossible to learn and master it by definition@Because as soon as you learn it it changes!
You can learn to put up with poor game play and lack luster rules writing though.

False equivalency. You can learn to deal with an ever changing environment, as well as master it. Poker with a 6+ deck autoshuffle is a great example, as is most sports.

It is possible to learn new ways to use units in a game with enough tactical depth to keep players interested for long periods of time.(EG most actual tactically focused war games, like Epic Armageddon, do this.)

Correct. Chess and Go have been around for hundreds of years, and both went through centuries of alternate versions before the current versions became standard in recent times.

Compared to other war games current 40k does lack tactical depth, (meaningful in game decision making).,This can, and has been proven by objective comparison.

No one is questioning that 40k has strategic depth.(Army selection is focused on to help sell minatures.)

40k has never been balanced enough for random pick up games.And adding on all the extra random stuff in 6th and 7th ed, is a clear sign the game devs have given up on actual game play IMO.

No disagreement here.

SJ

Lanrak wrote:

@Verviedi.
I am not sure exactly what you mean by your post?

Most young war gamers are happy to persevere with a tactically deep game, until they learn the tactical choices that work for them.
(Collectors may not be interested in tactics obviously.)

However, most tactically focused war games tend to have well written rules that deliver intuitive game play.(And much better game balance.)
These tend to be much easier to develop narrative for, as there are very few WTF moments in the game to try to explain away.

Until you are about 20, your brain is not developed enough to process what we call "foresight" (Predicting and compensating for future events). This also extends to complex tactics.

 Verviedi wrote:

Lanrak wrote:

@Verviedi.
I am not sure exactly what you mean by your post?

Most young war gamers are happy to persevere with a tactically deep game, until they learn the tactical choices that work for them.
(Collectors may not be interested in tactics obviously.)

However, most tactically focused war games tend to have well written rules that deliver intuitive game play.(And much better game balance.)
These tend to be much easier to develop narrative for, as there are very few WTF moments in the game to try to explain away.

Until you are about 20, your brain is not developed enough to process what we call "foresight" (Predicting and compensating for future events). This also extends to complex tactics.

I...what? That is by far, the dumbest thing I have ever read. By 16, most "gamers" understand tactics. That's why games like Tactics Ogre were so popular. I'm not even sure where you're getting this. Sure, you can argue adults don't mature until 20-25, but gaming in general and tactics are a totally different beast.

I could be wrong, of course. From what I've read, people can't comprehend complex long-term strategies until that age, but my information could be incorrect.

The brain does not fully develop until around 20 ish. It does not stopyou from predicting the future, it inhibits risk assessement.

Hence why teenagers do stupid gak all the time.

Well, that reinforces a fact that everybody already knew. That I'm a moron who can't remember facts correctly. No idea how I managed to twist that into "not being able to predict the future".

Don't worry, many post-20's adults never learn risk management despite having fully developed brains.

SJ

Speaking of tactical planning in wargames, Epic Armageddon and Maelstrom's Edge do away with as much randomness as possible. There is very little in those systems that you cannot rely on.

Epic doesn't have randomness in the "roll a D6 to see if you get to shoot D6 shots at strength 2D6!" kind of randomness (which is just rolling dice for the sake of rolling dice!) but I can assure you there's plenty of randomness in the bits that matter.

Imperial Guard players have it the worst (because everyone else can get initiative 1+ in one way or another); at a critical moment, your completely untouched Superheavy tank company can say "you know what? Actually I'd be happier not moving. Go away and stop asking us to do stuff."

I'm not saying that's a bad thing, by the way - putting up with your troops not doing exactly what you want, when you want, is a part of a wargame feeling more 'realistic', and one element of Bolt Action & Black Powder I very much like. But it's definitely random.

Yes, it's also somewhat needed of the gameplay. It can be done away with, but you actually lose something by removing it. Most of the randomness in 40k can be removed, and it would lose nothing whatsoever.

 Selym wrote:
Yes, it's also somewhat needed of the gameplay. It can be done away with, but you actually lose something by removing it. Most of the randomness in 40k can be removed, and it would lose nothing whatsoever.

It would only lose the fun. Please, go ahead and play a game of 40k with no dice, no rolls, no random, and tell us how that worked out.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

It would only lose the fun. Please, go ahead and play a game of 40k with no dice, no rolls, no random, and tell us how that worked out.

SJ

Well its a good thing no one is advocating removing all dice rolling and randomness.

Ignore him, to Jeffersonian the removal of even a single dice roll means that 40k must be played as chess. There is no middle ground. Either 100% random all the time or gtfo and stop playing "wargames".

Random =/= fun.

 Selym wrote:
Ignore him, to Jeffersonian the removal of even a single dice roll means that 40k must be played as chess. There is no middle ground. Either 100% random all the time or gtfo and stop playing "wargames".

Random =/= fun.

No, not at all. A wargame with no random element is effectively Chess, or Go, or Checkers, or any other similar game. I'm not advocating that everything must be random. The post I responded to listed everything in the current game that was random as being bad for the game, to which I pointed out that an game without randomness is effectively Chess. I have also challenged my detractors to play a game of 40k with no dice, no random tables, no random distances, etc., and to let us know how that went. It's not hard, it's what Math-hammer does. Try it out, see what it's like. Sure, you can remove randomness from 40k, but which randomness? What replaces it? Have you played Age of Sigmar? AoS is Warhammer Fantasy Battles with quite a bit of the randomness removed. Do you want to play Age of 40k? Sure sounds like it.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Selym wrote:
Ignore him, to Jeffersonian the removal of even a single dice roll means that 40k must be played as chess. There is no middle ground. Either 100% random all the time or gtfo and stop playing "wargames".

Random =/= fun.

No, not at all. A wargame with no random element is effectively Chess, or Go, or Checkers, or any other similar game. I'm not advocating that everything must be random. The post I responded to listed everything in the current game that was random as being bad for the game, to which I pointed out that an game without randomness is effectively Chess. I have also challenged my detractors to play a game of 40k with no dice, no random tables, no random distances, etc., and to let us know how that went. It's not hard, it's what Math-hammer does. Try it out, see what it's like. Sure, you can remove randomness from 40k, but which randomness? What replaces it? Have you played Age of Sigmar? AoS is Warhammer Fantasy Battles with quite a bit of the randomness removed. Do you want to play Age of 40k? Sure sounds like it.

SJ

Jancoran, either you are actively trying to troll here, or your reading comprehension needs checking, too. Making for three people this thread.

Where did I state that I wished to remove ALL random? You ask here what random I wish to remove, I already answered this:

 Selym wrote:
Random warlord traits, random psychic powers, random game modes, random wargear selection in CD, random charge moves, random running.

All utterly unnecessary, they add nothing to the game, and they reduce the value of player decisions.

Why do you assume that I hate ALL random components, when I said this:

 Selym wrote:
Your reading comprehension needs checking. OP was not sayi g that random = fun at all. The major point was that decisions had to matter. Some random may be necessary, but more random makes your decisions less relevant.

And this:

 Selym wrote:
Hence why neither I nor OP claim that random precludes fun. Just that additional, irrelevant, randomness does not add fun.

So far you are putting words into my mouth, and equating the removal of unnecessary components with wanting to play Chess. 40k minus the aforementioned random components is damn near 5E of 40k. Sure 5E had optional random mission selection, and it had random running, but those didn't make much sense to me. Warlord Traits, Psychic Powers and Wargear selections do not, have not, and never will NEED to be random. It detracts form the tactical aspect, devalues player input, and impedes Narrative Forging, as it makes no damn sense that Commander Hihgar of the 293rd Landsharks cannot tell if he prefers stabbing or shooting the enemy warlord.

And don't even go on to Maelstrom. At what point has a battle ever hinged on the activation of a psychic power, outside of buffs/debuffs and damage? Why would having a psyker suddenly grant you free "win points"?

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

No, not at all. A wargame with no random element is effectively Chess, or Go, or Checkers, or any other similar game. I'm not advocating that everything must be random. The post I responded to listed everything in the current game that was random as being bad for the game, to which I pointed out that an game without randomness is effectively Chess. I have also challenged my detractors to play a game of 40k with no dice, no random tables, no random distances, etc., and to let us know how that went. It's not hard, it's what Math-hammer does. Try it out, see what it's like.

I don't know if its deliberate, but you are grossly misunderstanding the arguments that have been repeated to you several times now. I'll make it abundantly clear: NO ONE IS ADVOCATING THE ENTIRE REMOVAL OF EVERY SINGLE RANDOM ELEMENT AND/OR DICE ROLL. Please stop even mentioning it, as its entirely irrelevant.

Sure, you can remove randomness from 40k, but which randomness? What replaces it?
SJ

The unnecessary randomness that isn't required to have an engaging tactical wargame. We've had editions where basic stuff was less random, and people overwhelmingly enjoyed it more. To rattle off a few; charge distance, psychic powers, warlord traits, Maelstrom, and random wound allocation. Its dicerolling for the sake of dice rolling and remove both a tactical elements of player decision making, and removes control from the player to forge their own narrative, something GW parrots all too often. Let the player decide what kind of commander runs their army, or what their psyker has spent dozens of years mastering. Let the player set themselves up to get a guaranteed charge, rather than set up a charge for 6" and flip snake eyes. Let a player win a game based on their plan and how they react to the other player, not based on who can roll the best D3s and get lucky card draws.

And remember, we've had editions where psychic powers weren't random, where charge distance wasn't random, and where all mission types weren't random. People thoroughly enjoyed those editions and never complained it wasn't random enough. Ultimately, you only need the dice to exist to act as a random arbitrator to decide on damage rolls and other more fluid elements, like morale and leadership.

Unless of course you feel everything should be random, like randomly rolling for wargear, or even what units you can take. But of course, that's ridiculous.

 Blacksails wrote:

Unless of course you feel everything should be random, like randomly rolling for wargear, or even what units you can take. But of course, that's ridiculous.

Please stop giving GW ideas for the 8th Edition Daemons codex... Random wargear tables is already too much.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

Unless of course you feel everything should be random, like randomly rolling for wargear, or even what units you can take. But of course, that's ridiculous.

Please stop giving GW ideas for the 8th Edition Daemons codex... Random wargear tables is already too much.

Ah, don't worry, I'm sure you'll get an even better idea...like random movement! Roll a scatter die and 2D6 for every unit and move them in that direction by the amount shown on the dice! Exciting stuff!

And tactical, because bow you have to compebsate for unfavourable positioning, jist like ina real war.

Good essay.

The way I made it exciting is to emotionally invest myself into the game as much as possible.
For instance, create a custom character. Play with said character with the rule that if that unique character dies, you cannot use it anymore. EVER!

That's what I did. I made whole backstories for these people and wrote them down! I'll give an example of my favorite character, which was basically me becoming an Ork.

Gark Firespittah (Garrik Feuerian)
Former Terminator of the Protectorate (My own custom Space Marine faction), Garrik Feuerian became the Ork known as Gark Firespittah after he was shot in the head by a Kustomized looted Eldar energy weapon which bathed his brain in Ork energies. The wound, while not fatal, Korrupted Garrik's mind, driving him Krazy and making him believe he was an Ork. Upon regaining consciousness Garrik was found by a gang of Blood Axe Orkz who accepted him under particularly unique circumstances (Mainly, he got real mad when they called him a Humie, because wouldn't that tick any good Ork off?). He has since tattooed his skin green, filed his teeth to fangs, permanently removed his hair and Kustomized his armor, painting it green, red and black.
His Terminator helmet had small horns added (Thanks to my soldering iron!) and I did a pretty good job of painting an Ork face decal on it which was supposed to be the face of dat punk what called him a humie! Ripped it off, nailed it to his helmet (and took all his teef).
Garrik was also a member of a secret Protectorate experiment to manipulate the gene seed. Many of his implanted organs were somewhat unique. His Multi-lung gained the capability to produce a highly toxic, combustible gas which, in combination with an ignition chemical from the modified Betcher's Gland, enable Gark to literally spit fire at his enemies, hence his name.

Point being, I loved this character dearly. He was part of my life. If he ever died in battle he would be lost forever. (He never did, but he's lost forever now because I gave him as a gift to a dear frienemy I used to krunk with.) I would have retired him, putting him on a shelf with a folder containing everything I had relating to the character and never used it in battle again.
It makes you excited to play because of the stakes you set for yourself. It's also a nifty way to sneak units into armies they don't usually go into! Everybody I played with loved the backstories of my characters so much they made tons of exceptions to normal alliance rules.

Just a couple minor points:

Tell me to read better, then calling me Jancon despite quoting me, begs to differ.

1st Edition (Rogue Trader) had random wargear and random unit tables. GW already did, 30 years ago.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:


1st Edition (Rogue Trader) had random wargear and random unit tables. GW already did, 30 years ago.

SJ

And you're not seriously advocating we return to that, are you?

But I can tell you to read better, as I made no mistake about your name.

*Edit* I see you've conveniently avoided addressing any of the real issues and missed the point again. The point about bringing up a prior edition (one very similar to the current one, very much unlike an edition that was dramatically overhauled and 30 years old) was that it didn't have that randomness and people enjoyed it.