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.

Everyone decries the randomness of recent editions of 40k, and I have to say, even as a person with no fond memories of an edition before 6th, I agree, on principle if nothing else. The random warlord charts and random psychic powers add ten minutes to the game before turn 1. Random charge range makes assaulty units unreliable and difficult to position. etc. But I wonder, where does randomness affect game design positively? I'd like to hear other people's thoughts on this.

 Powerfisting wrote:
But I wonder, where does randomness affect game design positively?

By adding an element of the unknown to the game. If I shoot at this unit will I destroy it or will I miss? I want to destroy it, my opponent wants me to miss. We roll dice to decide what the outcome is. Where randomness goes wrong (as it does in 40k) is when it starts to become a substitute for player choices, not merely a system for resolving the outcomes of player choices.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Powerfisting wrote:
But I wonder, where does randomness affect game design positively?

By adding an element of the unknown to the game. If I shoot at this unit will I destroy it or will I miss? I want to destroy it, my opponent wants me to miss. We roll dice to decide what the outcome is. Where randomness goes wrong (as it does in 40k) is when it starts to become a substitute for player choices, not merely a system for resolving the outcomes of player choices.

It adds unpredictablility to the game: My fire warriors want to shoot at the scary berserkers. They all miss. Feth. The berserkers charge next turn. they get blasted in overwatch. None of them die. Feth. They fail their charge. Thank you, God Emperor

It accounts for things out of the human control. A commander cannot control how many of his men hit, or how many get hit or flee. He can try his best to influence the odds but at the end of the day there are things that the commander cannot help.

I guess it adds chaos on the battlefield.

Randomness is good when it is necessary, makes the game interesting, and provides variety in game play.

Randomly determining "first player" is necessary, because otherwise you could reach a stalemate before a model was deployed. In a case where both players wish to deploy last, for example.

Random missions are good. If all missions were Kill Points, then everyone would only take the toughest, killiest units in their codex. If all missions were Maelstrom-like, then everyone would only take the fastest, most easily redeployed units in their codex. Having random missions with a variety of win conditions permits the notion of "Take all comers armies" that have different strategies.

Randomness in 40k takes it from a Strategic game, like chess, and makes it a Tactical game, like poker. In chess, you're 100% certain of the outcome of your efforts. The risk and reward are entirely determined by the skill of the players. In a Tactical game, you decide how to risk your resources, and while you hypothetically have a good idea of what the outcome will be, you can't be sure until after the commitment has been made.

In other words, you don't know if you'll blow up that tank until after you roll the dice, and since you can't try again if you fail, you might waste resources that could have been more effective elsewhere. Do you shoot your multi-melta into the side arc of the Vindicator, with decent odds to cripple it, or do you take a larger risk and try to stop the Land Raider while it's cargo is outside of charge range? Randomness there is exciting, and rewards the ability to weigh risk and reward, rather than rewarding the ability to know that you'd be better off killing the Land Raider if you were certain that you could do so. Take the Queen, not the Bishop.


Randomness is bad when it completely alters the strategy you are working towards, and have no control over it.

If I want to build a "Shooty" Space Marine HQ, and don't roll the Warlord trait that gives a unit Rending, then crap-star. Knowing that I probably WONT roll that trait, even with a reroll, makes building such a Character a probable waste of points. Similarly, if I build a Choppy SM HQ, and roll Storm of Fire, that's crap too.

Random psychic powers are poor, especially with the disparity in relative power between them. That isn't even remotely accounted for by the required Warp Charge. Paying points for spells was so much better it hurts.

The Chaos Boon table is bad, not because it isn't fluffy, but it adds random rules randomly throughout the game, and that's a pain to keep track of. Not to mention, it ruins the notions of WYSIWYG. I rolled Mechanoid, and my model is a big pile of pervy-pink tentacles. Crap. I have an Iron Hands Warlord that starts randomly growing daemonic parts, and fleshy bits, and that is stupid too.

Random terrain that you "discover" when you step on it. Like nobody thought to throw a stick in that bubbling puddle to see if it would dissolve it. Nope, jump in and hope for the best! Why bother scouting the terrain, that you've built your headquarters for a major offensive upon? I'm sure those razorwings just moved in, like, 5 minutes ago, and nobody noticed.

Personally, I dislike the random objectives of Maelstrom. More specifically, I dislike that they change so completely randomly, and more or less prevent multi-turn strategy / tactics, since you basically win the game through turn-over of objectives. Yes, objectives might take multiple turns to achieve, but the player that can accomplish a higher turnover rate is the one that wins, so you're actively trying to avoid multiple-turn tactics. It just leaves me cold to the missions as they are.


Random is good when you have opposing actions. I'm trying to shoot you, and you're trying to not be shot. Random is bad when it takes away player freedom. I want a specific Warlord trait, to work with a unit build, and I don't get it. Or I invest in a Psyker and I get powers that are not useful to my list.

random is good when you can account for it, like hitting, wounding, saves, etc. It isn't good when it's legitimately random - 50/50 shot either way. You can't account for that, you can't build strategies around that, you just have to hope the dice go your way. The biggest offender is that Chaos table and most of the chaos daemons codex, as well as random psychic powers.

Will your psyker be able to melt tanks with his mind, or softly pat butterflies as they waft by? WHO KNOWS.

Randomness the player controls versus randomness for randomness sake. In Warhammer Fantasy, one of the better examples of random was the Ratling Gun. It fired d6 shots...and could fire another additional d6 shots...and another...but if you rolled doubles for the number of shots, you jammed. Are you feeling lucky? Likewise the Nova Accelerator for the Riptide, any controlled risk where you calculate whether the risk is worth the payoff.

Contrast with, say, Daemon warp storms...

Randomness in the game mechanics covers a number of things that are too detailed to cover in the rules themselves, or on the tabletop. You miss a shot, one of your troops slips in the mud, the model you're drawing a bead on moves behind a small rise in the ground, there's been a rockfall on the road.

In the standard 40k setup, where you get to choose the troops that make up your force right down to individual weapons, randomness in setup may be at odds with the rest of the game and I can see why a lot of people don't like it.

There are games that do allow for total randomness - Two Hour Wargames' NUTS! WWII game has random reserves rolls, so your infantry platoon can find themselves facing a King Tiger with no bazookas. In that case, your mission objective has just changed...

If you want to see just how random a battle can be, Antony (sic) Beevor has a fairly decent new book out on the Battle of the Bulge, called "Ardennes 1944". It covers the levels the level of unpredictability that bad weather, limited intelligence and unpreparedness can cause. The Germans found that winter roads (which they already knew well) ranged from driveable to mudpits or ice-covered deathtraps. The Americans defended villages with scratch forces of cooks, drivers and mechanics and a random array of weapons and ammunition. German snow smocks made them hard to hit during the day, but they stood out a mile during the night fighting around Bastogne.

Black Hawk Down is another good book about how small mistakes and delays snowball to trrn a situation bad

Totally random forces is a bit too hardcore even for most historical gamers, but the others can make a wargame into a real challenge - an attack isn't just a case of concentrating your forces, but having flexibility, backup plans and workarounds. Again - there's no law that says you have to like that kind of thing.

When my only hope of killing that Wraightknight with even the most powerful unit in my list is praying that he doesn't roll a 6 on the D weapon chart.

 Powerfisting wrote:
But I wonder, where does randomness affect game design positively?

Only when there is no way to make it without dice roll.

Randomness of dice rolls is good I think...
You wanna talk crappy randomness?? Try playing CSM.

I like the randomness for things like Perils of the Warp where it randomizes the results of a bad roll result. The Shokk Attack Gun is fun because its entire gimmick is being incredibly unreliable and yet potentially deadly. Lootas can be fun because the number of shots is the random roll, averages out to a respectable 2 shots (1 or 3 being the random extremes).

Things like Mob Rule are meh because the success or failure of it depends on randomness so it becomes more unreliable. Also its an army wide rule (unless your a weedy grot) so your can't really pick units that avoid the rule. Combine that with Ork's terrible leadership, lack of armor saves, and reliance on open topped vehicles which explode like crazy and you get a very frustrating moral situation that can cause huge swings for your army strengths due to these mechanics.

Bad RNG is things like the Zapp Gun and Bubblechucka in which the actual operation of the unit is dependent on RNG and it makes selecting targets difficult. Try firing a zapp gun at a Knight and you could end up rolling a strength value that is too low to even glance it and that's before any rolls to hit or penetrate. These random rolls need to happen before you target a unit so you can know how effective they can be before they target something. At least something like a Snazzgun which its D6 AP roll has the same Str so you know it can wound or glance/pen a target.