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.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Ok, how much can actually go wrong in 6x the soldiers body length?

At 30mm, maximum charge range is equal to 36 feet.

Don't start banging about about verisimilitude, you'll hit your own gopher hole pretty quickly.

So for you one model = one man/elf/whatever.

IIRC WFB the ratio was more like 10/1, a model that has been continued in 9th Age.

Your comparison may be good for 40K, but for WFB it's invalid.

I never played Fantasy as much as 40K, but I'm pretty sure that's an assumption on your part, unless you can cite something official that supports that idea?

Mentioned frequently in earlier WHFB editions.

Ok, that's not a problem. Still presents an issue when debating from a point of view of verisimilitude when you've got models of the same scale mounted on griffons, dragons and whatever that I assume aren't meant to represent 10 griffons/dragons/unique named individuals alongside abstracted units which are supposed to represent multiple individuals, despite being treated as one individual for all gaming purposes.

-

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Mentioned frequently in earlier WHFB editions.

It doesn't really translate well into reality though, for the reasons Azreal already mentioned. I can understand where people come from when they state their 20-man units represents something much larger, but then... what is the single mage model meant to represent? A team of mages? What about big monsters, like dragons or hydras? What about supposedly "unique" war machines, like Makaisson's Goblin-hewer?

I've never seen WHFB as a "mass battle game", as some people ardently seems to believe. It's a game for big skirmishes and small, dark age-like battles, with about 100 guys per side.

If you want to play true "mass battles", 28mm is not your scale. Go with regiment-based games and smaller scales instead.

 Korinov wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Mentioned frequently in earlier WHFB editions.

It doesn't really translate well into reality though, for the reasons Azreal already mentioned. I can understand where people come from when they state their 20-man units represents something much larger, but then... what is the single mage model meant to represent? A team of mages? What about big monsters, like dragons or hydras? What about supposedly "unique" war machines, like Makaisson's Goblin-hewer?

I've never seen WHFB as a "mass battle game", as some people ardently seems to believe. It's a game for big skirmishes and small, dark age-like battles, with about 100 guys per side.

If you want to play true "mass battles", 28mm is not your scale. Go with regiment-based games and smaller scales instead.

I can certainly remember it back around the times of Grom the Paunch attacking High Elves in the boxed set, that the rank and file were a rough representation of 10 per mini, but that the characters, monsters etc were 1 for 1.

I don't think it makes much difference tbh if you pay attention to that or don't, it's a bit like saying 'well, when it comes to shooting in 40k, we're using an abstract as the actual range of the guns would be much much further', for me it boils down to 'is it a fun game, do the minis look great?' if the answer to those points is yes, I'm quite content.

The 9th Age rationale is that characters are accompanied by an elite group of guards so the ratio is maintained.

War machines are typically representing batteries, not individual machines.

Monsters are the exception, and the 10/1ish ratio means it's much more impressive when a dragon kills ten to fifteen models in an round - that's over 100 dead infantry!

I don't really think it's necessary to try and explain away the scale problems of a wargame. Any explanation is always going to have faults and at the end of the day it mostly comes down to "28mm models are too large to represent a proper battle, so this is our compromise". It doesn't have much bearing on the game itself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bottle wrote:
I agree with Vulcan that random charges are essential to a fantasy battle game with premeasuring (and as an aside I think all games should have premeasuring).

With both premeasuring and set charges, the games would become too cagey with players not wanting to move forward into the charge range of the enemy - with random charges people can take risks, and that's fun.

I don't even think Fantasy NEEDS random charge distances. If you removed charge bonuses for a lot of units that don't inherently have impact weapons, take in to account that different units have different charge ranges and different units have different desires to get in to combat then it's not as much of a problem.

I hear a lot about how pre-random charges WHFB was apparently a game of creepy crawly not trying to get in to each other's charge range.... that usually wasn't the case for my games, infantry can't keep out of the charge range of cavalry, you usually can't sit just outside the range of a gunline or artillery army and once units start smashing in to each other and bodies start dropping, sitting around and waiting for your enemy to get in to charge range ceases being an option.

I can only imagine it would have been a problem if you were playing 4" move infantry CC army vs 4" move infantry CC army, in which case you probably need to come up with a better system altogether and random charge distance isn't that system.

It was also not a problem in my local groups, as most people built their units around being able to survive a cav charge. OR they would have units up front to bait the charge and flee. Seems people would forget that you could flee as a charge reaction.

I don't really like games of chance, I prefer games that reward skill and strategy. However, there are downsides to skill games...

Chess is widely regarded as being a "skill game" with very little luck involved. I play chess all the time, and I'm alright at it (not world class, but I've played in local leagues for my city and stuff). I also have some friends who enjoy chess at a more casual level, and it would be great if we could play together, but sadly we can't. Despite me being a thoroughly mediocre player at a competitive level, none of my casual friends have even the remotest hope of beating me; they don't even want to try any more. To them it's just a one-sided game that I always always win at. They don't even like playing each other where I can see, because they get self concious that they might somehow offend my highly developed chess sensibilities with their "n00bishness" (which of course they don't). I guess I don't really enjoy playing them either though. I've tried going easy on them, warning them about blunders, playing with fewer pieces, I even played a game blindfolded, calling out the moves... but there is just no way of closing the skill gap, to make a game that we can both enjoy, and where they don't get crushed. It's a shame, because I love chess, but unless both the players are "reasonably" close in skill, the outcome is almost predetermined.

Poker on the other hand is much easier to play with friends. I have some friends who take it seriously and like to calculate pot odds etc... I have other friends who need to have the hands printed out so they know what beats what, but everyone is able to play together, because skill is only a marginal edge in poker.

Ideally I think games need to have a balance: reward good play and good strategy, but also have a bit of randomness, so that nothing is guaranteed.

 Bottle wrote:
I feel it's different for Fantasy and 40k, and I wouldn't mind set charge ranges coming back into the 40k game. The difference being that fantasy is a game where most units need to charge and few have shooting whereas 40k is a game where most units have shooting and few charge. The random charge ranges add a much needed risk and reward into the fantasy game, and as Peregrine pointed out the 2D6 is perfectly suited for this with the high probability of rolling a 7 with gradually lower probability on the way to 2 or 12. It means most of your plans will come to fruition if you can manoeuvre within 7" but occasionally a spanner will get thrown in the works or you'll pull off an epic charge against the odds and to me those are some of the best moments in gaming.

I think it's the opposite, actually. Remember, the primary goal of random charge distances is to prevent shooting units from sitting 0.00001" outside of charge range at all times and make it possible for melee units to successfully charge. In a fantasy game with very limited shooting this isn't all that much of an issue, especially in a game like WHFB with huge blocks of infantry and rank bonuses mattering as much as how many casualties you inflict (therefore minimizing the importance of charging vs. being charged). Both sides need to get into melee to win the game, so it's going to happen one way or another. But in a shooting-heavy game like 40k you can have whole armies that will never allow a charge to happen at all if they have any choice about it. Melee combat is only going to happen if you have a mechanic that forces it to, therefore you need something like random charge distance to prevent shooting units from kiting all game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:
Chess is widely regarded as being a "skill game" with very little luck involved. I play chess all the time, and I'm alright at it (not world class, but I've played in local leagues for my city and stuff). I also have some friends who enjoy chess at a more casual level, and it would be great if we could play together, but sadly we can't. Despite me being a thoroughly mediocre player at a competitive level, none of my casual friends have even the remotest hope of beating me; they don't even want to try any more. To them it's just a one-sided game that I always always win at. They don't even like playing each other where I can see, because they get self concious that they might somehow offend my highly developed chess sensibilities with their "n00bishness" (which of course they don't). I guess I don't really enjoy playing them either though. I've tried going easy on them, warning them about blunders, playing with fewer pieces, I even played a game blindfolded, calling out the moves... but there is just no way of closing the skill gap, to make a game that we can both enjoy, and where they don't get crushed. It's a shame, because I love chess, but unless both the players are "reasonably" close in skill, the outcome is almost predetermined.

Poker on the other hand is much easier to play with friends. I have some friends who take it seriously and like to calculate pot odds etc... I have other friends who need to have the hands printed out so they know what beats what, but everyone is able to play together, because skill is only a marginal edge in poker.

Going to have to disagree with this. The difference between chess and poker is not just about randomness, it's about what kind of games they are.

Chess is non-random, but the greater problem is that it's a solved game with no hidden information. A sufficiently advanced player (or a computer, of course) can tell you the correct play every turn, so maximizing chess skill is all about studying the game sufficiently to know the correct answer. If you don't put that massive amount of time and effort into memorizing correct answers you're going to make mistakes and keep weakening your position until you finally lose. But consider, as a contrast, a hypothetical version of X-Wing that replaced the random dice with an average roll. Because X-Wing's maneuvering system is not a solved game there's still an element of trying to out-guess your opponent in a situation where there is no single correct answer. And because there's hidden information even the highest-skilled player will still frequently make "wrong" plays that a weaker player can exploit. It might not be enough to win the game very often, but at least it gives a better sense of having a chance.

Poker is a game with a very significant skill element. The random factor is overwhelming compared to skill for a single hand, but in the long run the skilled player is going to end up with all of the clueless newbie's money (similarly to how casinos are very profitable businesses despite being "random"). What poker offers is the illusion of success. The newbie is still going home with empty pockets at the end of the night, but along the way they're going to win some hands and feel the thrill of victory. They can tell themselves that they had a chance, it wasn't just an exercise in seeing how quickly they could lose. They'll be wrong, of course, but that comforting lie makes it a lot easier to look back at the experience and say "this was fun".

Also, a major factor is that chess is a "serious" game where you typically devote your whole attention to playing while poker tends to be a social activity that you do while you're drinking and chatting with your friends. If you're losing badly at chess there's nothing to distract you from the experience and you're not having fun at all. If you're losing at poker you just complain about how broke you are and have another beer, you're still hanging out with your friends and having a good time. Unless you're playing for lots of money (and you aren't, with people who have to print out the hand ranks) the game is really just an excuse to get together with people you like.

 Peregrine wrote:
I think it's the opposite, actually. Remember, the primary goal of random charge distances is to prevent shooting units from sitting 0.00001" outside of charge range at all times and make it possible for melee units to successfully charge.

But IMO it's an absolutely stupid way of achieving that goal. Give shooty units a penalty for moving or moving more than X distance so they can't just retreat out of range every turn, or a bonus for shooting when within Y inches (that also happens to correspond to the assault unit's charge range), make sure assault armies have viable options which can get in to combat faster to pin down units so they can't just keep retreating away. Or have random charge distance with a narrow range so you don't have the current stupidity of being possible to charge 12" but still having a 28% chance of failing a 5" charge. Or make it so if you move directly away from a unit, you suffer a penalty to shoot that unit. Or have alternating unit activations.

One or a combination of several of those are better options than "derrr, lets make charge distance COmPleTLy FeTHinG RaNDoM so nobody knows what's going on!!!"

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
But IMO it's an absolutely stupid way of achieving that goal. Give shooty units a penalty for moving or moving more than X distance so they can't just retreat out of range every turn, or a bonus for shooting when within Y inches (that also happens to correspond to the assault unit's charge range), make sure assault armies have viable options which can get in to combat faster to pin down units so they can't just keep retreating away. Or have random charge distance with a narrow range so you don't have the current stupidity of being possible to charge 12" but still having a 28% chance of failing a 5" charge. Or make it so if you move directly away from a unit, you suffer a penalty to shoot that unit. Or have alternating unit activations.

Penalties for moving are bad and encourage gunlines. The last thing you want to do is get people to say "well, I can't move away from threats, might as well deploy my whole army on the back edge of the table and never move".

A bonus to shooting is what we already have with rapid fire. The problem is that a shooting unit has incentive to move to exactly 11.99999999" away from one model to receive the bonus, almost certainly kill that model, and end the turn more than 12" away (and out of charge range). And if you make the distance shorter than charge range to the point where a shooting unit is going to get charged if they move in to take the bonus then hardly anyone will ever use it unless it's likely to wipe out a whole unit. Getting a shooting unit charged means losing the shooting unit, so how often are you going to use a rule that effectively says "gain X% more firepower, at the end of the shooting phase remove this entire unit as casualties".

Giving assault armies options to get into combat faster breaks the game and favors alpha strike armies. Playing a 28mm game on a 6x4 table is bad enough as it is, making units even faster than they already are compresses the table too much and negates the value of positioning. It isn't fun when the game is reduced to "on turn 2 I will charge and wipe your whole army off the table unless you table me in your one shooting phase you're going to get". The whole point of random charge distance is that it increases the potential threat range that kiting units have to respect without making movement significantly faster.

Random charge distance within a narrow range is possible, but less effective at stopping kiting units. If the average has to be kept at the same 6" as before then increasing the minimum charge distance means decreasing the maximum. 3+D6" would actually increase the chance of failing a 5" charge, to 33% instead of 28%, so the only option that works with the D6 system is 4+D3". And if the maximum increase in threat range is only 1" then what's the point in having random charge distance at all?

Penalties to moving away from a unit do not work in a tabletop game. It's way too much bookkeeping and arguing about "well that wasn't directly away". And it makes no fluff sense at all, why does moving in one direction make it harder to shoot?

Peregrine, all your counterpoints just reek of narrowmindedness. I understand from previous discussions you don't like the idea of viable assault armies and I think it's showing through in you seeing the only way to "fix" the 0.0001" issue is to feth over assault armies by making them random pieces of junk.

 Peregrine wrote:
Penalties for moving are bad and encourage gunlines. The last thing you want to do is get people to say "well, I can't move away from threats, might as well deploy my whole army on the back edge of the table and never move".

Depends what those penalties are and how effective gunlines are...

A bonus to shooting is what we already have with rapid fire. The problem is that a shooting unit has incentive to move to exactly 11.99999999" away from one model to receive the bonus, almost certainly kill that model, and end the turn more than 12" away (and out of charge range). And if you make the distance shorter than charge range to the point where a shooting unit is going to get charged if they move in to take the bonus then hardly anyone will ever use it unless it's likely to wipe out a whole unit. Getting a shooting unit charged means losing the shooting unit, so how often are you going to use a rule that effectively says "gain X% more firepower, at the end of the shooting phase remove this entire unit as casualties".

So stop removing casualties from the front.

As for units not wanting to get close to take advantage of shooting, it all comes down to balancing it correctly. So constantly moving further away or moving at all isn't a viable option in all situations.

I'd also combine the bonus for being within X range with a penalty for moving and shooting so you can't just stay exactly at X range all the time.

Giving assault armies options to get into combat faster breaks the game and favors alpha strike armies. Playing a 28mm game on a 6x4 table is bad enough as it is, making units even faster than they already are compresses the table too much and negates the value of positioning. It isn't fun when the game is reduced to "on turn 2 I will charge and wipe your whole army off the table unless you table me in your one shooting phase you're going to get". The whole point of random charge distance is that it increases the potential threat range that kiting units have to respect without making movement significantly faster.

So redistribute movement, like it used to be, 4" standard move and 8" charge/run or 6" for a standard move and an additional 6" in the assault phase; and weaken shooting so assault armies don't get blown off the table before they get across it.

In other threads you've always seemed happy to trash 40k rules and start over yet on this point you are very intractable.

Penalties to moving away from a unit do not work in a tabletop game. It's way too much bookkeeping and arguing about "well that wasn't directly away".

I don't think it would be that hard to keep track of. You could make it as simple as "any movement that ends your move 2" further away than when you started".

And it makes no fluff sense at all, why does moving in one direction make it harder to shoot?

Don't be silly, of course it makes fluff sense, moving away from the enemy means you either turn your back on the enemy, walk away and then turn around and reacquire them, or stumbling awkwardly backwards. It's far easier to stay entrenched and shoot or advance and shoot.

The ridiculous levels of randomness in 40K are a huge turn-off for me, particularly the random objectives. Randomness has been a substitute for good game design in 40K for a while now. I remember an article in WD by Jervis where he spoke about how much fun it was to roll on tables. Maybe for you, Jervis, but it's not much fun rolling a completely useless warlord trait or watching superhuman special operatives run back and forth between objectives that they've suddenly remembered are important again.

I think Infinity has the randomness nailed. The vast majority of the play is tactical and based upon player decisions, but the crit element can cause even the best laid plans to take a setback, which perfectly captures that there are some things that can't be controlled in warfare. There is always a decision to be made between risk and reward, but putting yourself in bad situations and hoping for good dice invariably fails.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Peregrine, all your counterpoints just reek of narrowmindedness. I understand from previous discussions you don't like the idea of viable assault armies and I think it's showing through in you seeing the only way to "fix" the 0.0001" issue is to feth over assault armies by making them random pieces of junk.

You're right, I don't like assault armies and don't think they should be viable. 40k should be about shooting first, with assault (and occasional assault specialist units) used to finish off the last survivors of a target you've weakened and pinned down with shooting. But that isn't really relevant here. The reason I'm calling random charge distance a necessary buff to assault units is that I've looked at some of the other options and they just don't work, not that it's all part of my secret plan to nerf assault even more.

Depends what those penalties are and how effective gunlines are...

If the penalty is negligible enough to avoid encouraging gunlines then it isn't relevant and just adds to the bloated mess of rules. And if gunlines are weak while shooting on the move has a serious penalty then you've just crippled shooting armies entirely and turned 40k into WHFB with different models.

As for units not wanting to get close to take advantage of shooting, it all comes down to balancing it correctly. So constantly moving further away or moving at all isn't a viable option in all situations.

The problem is that it's something that's virtually impossible to balance. A rule that effectively says "you get an X% shooting buff, but if you don't completely wipe out the target unit your unit is removed as casualties at the end of the shooting phase" is too severe a penalty to work well. If the bonus firepower is small then nobody will ever voluntarily get in close to use it and you've added rules bloat in return for nothing. If the bonus is large then you create very binary situations where shooting units either massacre everything in a single turn or become one-shot suicide weapons. To make something like that viable at all you'd have to completely rebalance and redesign melee combat so that shooting units aren't auto-killed (or, worse, locked in combat) as soon as they're successfully charged.

I'd also combine the bonus for being within X range with a penalty for moving and shooting so you can't just stay exactly at X range all the time.

That doesn't work at all! Why is anyone going to move up into range for the close-range buff when it's negated by the penalty for moving? You just set up your gunline and roll dice, and whether or not you get the close-range buff depends entirely on whether or not your opponent voluntarily lets you have it.

So redistribute movement, like it used to be, 4" standard move and 8" charge/run or 6" for a standard move and an additional 6" in the assault phase; and weaken shooting so assault armies don't get blown off the table before they get across it.

Err, this doesn't work at all. 4" move and 8" charge makes it worse for assault units. You still have the same 12" threat range from your starting point (and same 12.00001" range to be safe), except you're 2" farther away because you could only move 4" on the previous turn instead of 6". And you can't just nerf shooting to give you an extra 2-3 turns of life because you still have to deal with the 5-7 turn limit (unless you want to make the game take even longer to play by adding extra turns). The end result of that change doesn't really even accomplish anything besides splitting the events of turn 1 into two separate turns. Shooting takes two turns to inflict a turn worth of damage, while moving assault units takes two turns to move a turn worth of distance. You've slowed down the pace of the game without changing the end result.

(I do, however, agree that certain overpowered shooting units need to be toned down significantly.)

In other threads you've always seemed happy to trash 40k rules and start over yet on this point you are very intractable.

The issue is that this one point has a whole lot of related points that interact with it. Sure, it might not be necessary if you make a completely new game in the 40k IP, but in the context of "how should 6th edition, a minor update to the rules, have responded to allowing measurement at any time" those major redesigns of the rules are simply not possible.

Don't be silly, of course it makes fluff sense, moving away from the enemy means you either turn your back on the enemy, walk away and then turn around and reacquire them, or stumbling awkwardly backwards. It's far easier to stay entrenched and shoot or advance and shoot.

Aside from all the other issues with talking about which direction models are facing in a game where infantry models have no "front" direction, you're forgetting the fact that the move -> shoot -> charge sequence is an abstraction of events that can happen in any order. A unit in the "real" battle is capable of shooting from its starting position and then falling back (or shooting from its starting position and then moving forwards or sideways). So what you're saying here is that it makes fluff sense for a unit to suffer a penalty to shooting because, once it is done shooting, it is going to move in the wrong direction.

I like a little bit of both.

I played a game of 8th ed WHFB yesterday for the first time in a long time and it reminded me why I hate random charge distances.

I won, but I won purely because of the random charge distance.

Opponent had higher movement and more bonuses to charging and also had more shooting, so I resolved that I was going to get charged but also couldn't stand around so I just advanced.

I won because I made a lucky roll for some fast cav charging his shooty unit so it only got 1 phase of shooting off, then his 2 main close combat units all rolled low distances for charging and fell short, allowing me to smash them next turn.

Everything else that happened didn't matter because his shooty unit was tied up and his chargey units failed their charge.

Random movement sucks. Waste of an hour and a half playing a game when the outcome is that.

Would you rather have auto-lost because he had stronger shooting AND better movement? Is it that much more fun to lose a game in list-building before a single model touches the table?

No he paid the points for better moving and shooting, I had more models, more units and more ranks. If he'd made the charges then it would have come down to whether my setup was good enough to hold his charges, get models in to flanking positions and fight back while tying up his shooting units. It would have been a much fairer fight.

Instead it was a massacre because units he'd paid the points to have shooting didn't really get a chance to shoot because I rolled a lucky charge range and units he'd paid the points to have a higher movement and more impact on the charge rolled unluckily low so were left in the open.

It's a stupid way for a game to work. If you pay triple the points for a model that is fast or mounted on a horse, it SHOULD be hard to stop them from getting the charge because that's why you pay the points for it, it undermines the game when swings in luck determine what should be tactical decisions.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
No he paid the points for better moving and shooting, I had more models, more units and more ranks. If he'd made the charges then it would have come down to whether my setup was good enough to hold his charges, get models in to flanking positions and fight back while tying up his shooting units. It would have been a much fairer fight.

Instead it was a massacre because units he'd paid the points to have shooting didn't really get a chance to shoot because I rolled a lucky charge range and units he'd paid the points to have a higher movement and more impact on the charge rolled unluckily low so were left in the open.

It's a stupid way for a game to work. If you pay triple the points for a model that is fast or mounted on a horse, it SHOULD be hard to stop them from getting the charge because that's why you pay the points for it, it undermines the game when swings in luck determine what should be tactical decisions.

I think that's the part everyone is forgetting, and has been lost in translation. If you pay more for Assault Marines/Chaos Knights as your fast moving assault troops, they should be able to do their job, and better than other cheaper units. If not, what's the point of running them? Also seems odd that there's even a CHANCE that Dwarf Warriors could ever charge farther than a mounted unit.

 Vulcan wrote:
Would you rather have auto-lost because he had stronger shooting AND better movement? Is it that much more fun to lose a game in list-building before a single model touches the table?

Answering for myself - as someone who abandoned Warhammer in part because of random charge distances - YES.

Fixing a list building problem by breaking the movement rules =/= good game design.

It means that you need to fix and balance your damned army building rules.

Do not break other systems by entering random numbers - fix what is broken.

I play Kings of War - most often I win, in general because I am a better general than my opponents.

Sometimes I lose - generally when I am outplayed by my opponents. (My good lady's goblin army beat me for the first time last week! I am so danged happy about that I could burst!)

Winning and losing should not be determined solely by random numbers (Dreadfleet - I am looking at you!)

Mantic is a tiny company - yet they are doing a better job of balancing and playtesting their games than their much, much larger competitor.

Warlord Games is a tiny company - yet they are doing a better job of balancing and playtesting their games than their much, much larger competitor.

Wizards of the Coast is a big company, producing a game that is all about the random numbers - yet they are doing a much better job of balancing and playtesting their game!

The Auld Grump

 Just Tony wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
No he paid the points for better moving and shooting, I had more models, more units and more ranks. If he'd made the charges then it would have come down to whether my setup was good enough to hold his charges, get models in to flanking positions and fight back while tying up his shooting units. It would have been a much fairer fight.

Instead it was a massacre because units he'd paid the points to have shooting didn't really get a chance to shoot because I rolled a lucky charge range and units he'd paid the points to have a higher movement and more impact on the charge rolled unluckily low so were left in the open.

It's a stupid way for a game to work. If you pay triple the points for a model that is fast or mounted on a horse, it SHOULD be hard to stop them from getting the charge because that's why you pay the points for it, it undermines the game when swings in luck determine what should be tactical decisions.

I think that's the part everyone is forgetting, and has been lost in translation. If you pay more for Assault Marines/Chaos Knights as your fast moving assault troops, they should be able to do their job, and better than other cheaper units. If not, what's the point of running them? Also seems odd that there's even a CHANCE that Dwarf Warriors could ever charge farther than a mounted unit.

I think it comes down to drawing a line between players' strategy and random events.

Maybe I manage to thwart his charge by using disruption units or staggering my battleline, but that comes at a cost to me (paying the points for those units, disrupting my own line to to hopefully disrupt his) and then maybe the Dwarf Warriors DO get a chance to charge the Bretonnian Knights, but it becomes a factor of player choices and out playing each other resulting in it.


Random movement just undermines the game in that way.

Of course it does depend where you draw the line, you could execute a perfect plan and weigh all the balances in your favour only to have a few poor rolls in close combat which make you lose anyway. But there's something even more frustrating about not even being able to execute the plan because of a bad movement roll (someone forgot to put fuel in the jump packs that morning or someone went around and tied a regiment's shoe laces while no one was looking?). Also the fact that it increases the importance on a single roll of the dice, meaning the variability to what is an extremely important outcome is way too high.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
Chess is widely regarded as being a "skill game" with very little luck involved. I play chess all the time, and I'm alright at it (not world class, but I've played in local leagues for my city and stuff). I also have some friends who enjoy chess at a more casual level, and it would be great if we could play together, but sadly we can't. Despite me being a thoroughly mediocre player at a competitive level, none of my casual friends have even the remotest hope of beating me; they don't even want to try any more. To them it's just a one-sided game that I always always win at. They don't even like playing each other where I can see, because they get self concious that they might somehow offend my highly developed chess sensibilities with their "n00bishness" (which of course they don't). I guess I don't really enjoy playing them either though. I've tried going easy on them, warning them about blunders, playing with fewer pieces, I even played a game blindfolded, calling out the moves... but there is just no way of closing the skill gap, to make a game that we can both enjoy, and where they don't get crushed. It's a shame, because I love chess, but unless both the players are "reasonably" close in skill, the outcome is almost predetermined.

Poker on the other hand is much easier to play with friends. I have some friends who take it seriously and like to calculate pot odds etc... I have other friends who need to have the hands printed out so they know what beats what, but everyone is able to play together, because skill is only a marginal edge in poker.

Going to have to disagree with this. The difference between chess and poker is not just about randomness, it's about what kind of games they are.

Chess is non-random, but the greater problem is that it's a solved game with no hidden information. A sufficiently advanced player (or a computer, of course) can tell you the correct play every turn, so maximizing chess skill is all about studying the game sufficiently to know the correct answer. If you don't put that massive amount of time and effort into memorizing correct answers you're going to make mistakes and keep weakening your position until you finally lose. But consider, as a contrast, a hypothetical version of X-Wing that replaced the random dice with an average roll. Because X-Wing's maneuvering system is not a solved game there's still an element of trying to out-guess your opponent in a situation where there is no single correct answer. And because there's hidden information even the highest-skilled player will still frequently make "wrong" plays that a weaker player can exploit. It might not be enough to win the game very often, but at least it gives a better sense of having a chance.

Poker is a game with a very significant skill element. The random factor is overwhelming compared to skill for a single hand, but in the long run the skilled player is going to end up with all of the clueless newbie's money (similarly to how casinos are very profitable businesses despite being "random"). What poker offers is the illusion of success. The newbie is still going home with empty pockets at the end of the night, but along the way they're going to win some hands and feel the thrill of victory. They can tell themselves that they had a chance, it wasn't just an exercise in seeing how quickly they could lose. They'll be wrong, of course, but that comforting lie makes it a lot easier to look back at the experience and say "this was fun".

Also, a major factor is that chess is a "serious" game where you typically devote your whole attention to playing while poker tends to be a social activity that you do while you're drinking and chatting with your friends. If you're losing badly at chess there's nothing to distract you from the experience and you're not having fun at all. If you're losing at poker you just complain about how broke you are and have another beer, you're still hanging out with your friends and having a good time. Unless you're playing for lots of money (and you aren't, with people who have to print out the hand ranks) the game is really just an excuse to get together with people you like.

Very true, and of course you are right that they are very different kinds of games, but the randomness is also a part of that difference. Obviously, it's that random factor in poker which provides the "illusion of success", and that might be a big part of what makes it a "fun" game to play over beers.

I disagree with you "a little" that the newbie doesn't have a chance in poker. Over the course of thousands of hands online, skill will certainly be the defining factor in poker. In a single game of knock out, however, there is probably still enough luck to upset the outcome, especially when there is a mix of players. In some ways it's much harder to play poker against bad players, because they do unpredictable things. People limp in with 2-7 and then hit a full house of twos and sevens, or refuse to fold a drawing hand against ridiculous odds, and then hit their card on the river. Sometimes you can also just have a bad beat: you think you've got the nuts with a full house (Jacks over Kings), and then someone else flips over KK, or you've got a flush to Ace, you bet into it, and then someone else has a highly improbable straight flush (that really happened to me). Escalating blinds in also another great way for lucky players to triumph over tight players.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make was about accessibility. Games of chance are often more accessible, because anyone can be lucky, while skill can be a barrier with some games. Games of skill are, however, very rewarding when you put the time in, but if you put too much time in, then you might find yourself alone with a game that none of your friends can hope to challenge you at. I like games which are a happy medium.

Do I like or hate randomness in wargames? Hmmm...I play Orcs. I LOVE RANDOMNESS!!!!

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Do I like or hate randomness in wargames? Hmmm...I play Orcs. I LOVE RANDOMNESS!!!!

Naturally, well done, fellow Ork.

I love randomness myself when appropriate, for example in highly narrative games like Necromunda I say pile on the random tables, the more the merrier! In bigger, army-scale games I'm likely to be playing a bit more seriously and too much randomess can annoy me, slow down the game and be unfair.

 Mymearan wrote:
I love randomness myself when appropriate, for example in highly narrative games like Necromunda I say pile on the random tables, the more the merrier! In bigger, army-scale games I'm likely to be playing a bit more seriously and too much randomess can annoy me, slow down the game and be unfair.

In games that you can play in under an hour I think randomness is more acceptable, because you're likely to play 3 or 4 games in an afternoon.