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.

Lots of wargames already have randomisation of things like charge distance, move distance , turn length, game length and range. (In the case of range there is a modifier that reduces your chance to hit at longer range.)

Random charge distance is coming in WHFB.

That will mean between 40K and WHFB we have random factors for charge distance, move distance (Run and Move through cover) and game length.

It will hardly be a major departure to bring random assault move distance into 40K.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
40K already has randomisation of the Run move, move through difficult terrain, range in night fights, and game length.

It will hardly be a major departure to bring random assault move distance into 40K.

I like pre-measuring, but this random assault move thing is awful. I'm sure, at first, it'll make assault armies a little less nuts, but we'll get that inevitable codex creep of "your ultra-fancy assault unit gets +7" to charge range".

nosferatu1001 wrote:

NuggzTheNinja wrote:Premeasuring sucks. Learn how to read distances or suffer the consequences. Part of the thrill of playing is guesstimating the assault range of your unit for that crucial assault.

Guess you wont be playing 8th ed then.

the point is the "thrill" of being able to see the world in 6" increments will be replaced with *gasp* tactics.

Yeah OK buddy you got me there.

I don't play fantasy and I have no desire to play fantasy.

The idea of handing distances to you on a silver platter is exceptionally stupid, especially when combined with the new random charging distance rule. They've basically replaced good generalship with luck. Which is what I'm assuming you meant by "tactics", right?

NuggzTheNinja wrote:I don't play fantasy and I have no desire to play fantasy.

The idea of handing distances to you on a silver platter is exceptionally stupid, especially when combined with the new random charging distance rule. They've basically replaced good generalship with luck. Which is what I'm assuming you meant by "tactics", right?

Here's a scenario for you: two armies face each other, each with a number of units with a 16-inch threat radius, and each handled by a player with an exceptional grasp on spatial relations. What happens?

Answer: both armies dance around at about 17 inches, until/unless a spell that affects the situation manages to go off (luck), or the game ends. Neither of these "masters of tactics" is going to put their units into a threatened situation, everything else being equal.

What value a superb understanding of tabletop distances, if the other player has the same?

Now, the same scenario in 8th edition WHFB. Each unit now has a threat radius of 8 + 2d6 inches. The players now get to make a very real risk tolerance assessment - if they move within 20 inches, they are (theoretically) in range for a charge, but their opponent probably won't declare one, as a failed charge will make a counter-charge far more likely. What about at 19 inches? 18? 16? How close are you, the general, willing to move your units in order to tempt your opponent into trying for a charge?

Is luck involved? Sure. Both systems involve MANY dice rolls; "luck" is an inherent part of any system where you're rolling 3 or more dice, just to remove a single model from play. But responses like the above reveal either a lack of understanding of what tactical decisions are opened up by pre-measuring, or a willful tendency towards reactionary absolutism.

Randomization with two dice works well since the results bellcurve lets you play the odds. Single dice rolls are a total shot in the dark.

Janthkin wrote:... if they move within 20 inches, they are (theoretically) in range for a charge, but their opponent probably won't declare one, as a failed charge will make a counter-charge far more likely. What about at 19 inches? 18? 16? How close are you, the general, willing to move your units in order to tempt your opponent into trying for a charge?

Just to make sure I understand... is the new WFB rule that if the charge fails to make the whole distance, you still move the distance rolled (thus moving close and "making a counter-charge far more likely")?

Kolath wrote:

Janthkin wrote:... if they move within 20 inches, they are (theoretically) in range for a charge, but their opponent probably won't declare one, as a failed charge will make a counter-charge far more likely. What about at 19 inches? 18? 16? How close are you, the general, willing to move your units in order to tempt your opponent into trying for a charge?

Just to make sure I understand... is the new WFB rule that if the charge fails to make the whole distance, you still move the distance rolled (thus moving close and "making a counter-charge far more likely")?

From what I recall, a failed charge results in moving the lower of the two dice (e.g., roll a '2-4', fail your charge, unit moves 2" forward; it might be the higher of the two dice, though).

Given that a +10" result is 6 times more likely than a +12" result, I stand by my "far more likely"

Kilkrazy wrote:Lots of wargames already have randomisation of things like charge distance, move distance , turn length, game length and range. (In the case of range there is a modifier that reduces your chance to hit at longer range.)

Random charge distance is coming in WHFB.

That will mean between 40K and WHFB we have random factors for charge distance, move distance (Run and Move through cover) and game length.

It will hardly be a major departure to bring random assault move distance into 40K.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
40K already has randomisation of the Run move, move through difficult terrain, range in night fights, and game length.

It will hardly be a major departure to bring random assault move distance into 40K.

Will they offset this advantage to shooting units by making their shots random range?

If GW changes the assault range to random, then I will either sell my armies, play 5th, or wait until 7th and hope they change it back.

Nuggz - you confuse strategy (like chess) with tactics

Perfect knowledge of charge distances = strategy
Imperfect knowledge = tactics.

What is it when one player has perfect knowledge and one player has imperfect knowledge?

Redbeard wrote:What is it when one player has perfect knowledge and one player has imperfect knowledge?

Life.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Nuggz - you confuse strategy (like chess) with tactics

Perfect knowledge of charge distances = strategy
Imperfect knowledge = tactics.

Not really.

I see how you're attempting to apply them here, but it's a very shallow interpretation of the two words in this context. Either way, I think that measuring distances is for crybabies.

jbunny wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Lots of wargames already have randomisation of things like charge distance, move distance , turn length, game length and range. (In the case of range there is a modifier that reduces your chance to hit at longer range.)

Random charge distance is coming in WHFB.

That will mean between 40K and WHFB we have random factors for charge distance, move distance (Run and Move through cover) and game length.

It will hardly be a major departure to bring random assault move distance into 40K.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
40K already has randomisation of the Run move, move through difficult terrain, range in night fights, and game length.

It will hardly be a major departure to bring random assault move distance into 40K.

Will they offset this advantage to shooting units by making their shots random range?

If GW changes the assault range to random, then I will either sell my armies, play 5th, or wait until 7th and hope they change it back.

Assault range already is random if you Run your assault units or move them through difficult terrain.

Janthkin wrote:

NuggzTheNinja wrote:I don't play fantasy and I have no desire to play fantasy.

The idea of handing distances to you on a silver platter is exceptionally stupid, especially when combined with the new random charging distance rule. They've basically replaced good generalship with luck. Which is what I'm assuming you meant by "tactics", right?

Here's a scenario for you: two armies face each other, each with a number of units with a 16-inch threat radius, and each handled by a player with an exceptional grasp on spatial relations. What happens?

Answer: both armies dance around at about 17 inches, until/unless a spell that affects the situation manages to go off (luck), or the game ends.

This situation is far more likely in Fantasy than in 40k. Unfortunately, ever since 3rd edition when GW decided to dumb down vehicle movement rules, the movement of forces has been more or less predictable, especially since there has been a shift toward mech builds in 5th edition.

Regardless, it's a problem that exists only in a vacuum and, perhaps, in WHFB. In reality, either people are not playing opponents with the exact same build, or they aren't *that* good at estimating range. It adds an element of randomness to the game without the need for rolling dice.

Killkrazy,

If you run you can't assault so that does not belong in the same conversation. As for assaulting through cover, yes you are right, but you can avoid that situation as much as possible. And when the late turn assault comes up an inch short due to a roll of a die it really takes alot of the tactics out. Esp when you are 2 inches away and roll snake eyes.

Like I said the game needs less luck not more.

Depends if you consider assault to be the process of running six inches or the process of moving across the battlefield and into contact.

Besides, Fleet allows you to Run and Assault.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:This situation is far more likely in Fantasy than in 40k. Unfortunately, ever since 3rd edition when GW decided to dumb down vehicle movement rules, the movement of forces has been more or less predictable, especially since there has been a shift toward mech builds in 5th edition.

Actually, while it's somewhat easier to describe in terms of Fantasy, it's more likely to come up in 40k - there are a LOT of units with identical threat ranges. As-is, I often see my opponents having to address this issue - genestealers have a threat range of 13-18 inches, which constrains deployment/movement both near board edges (outflanking) and near my front lines. See also fleeting Wyches, orks, Thunderwolf cav, and daemons.

40k does have more guns with wildly-variable ranges, I'll grant you.

Regardless, it's a problem that exists only in a vacuum and, perhaps, in WHFB. In reality, either people are not playing opponents with the exact same build,

Doesn't take the exact same build, just a few similar units - 7" heavy cav in WHFB, fleeting foot troops in 40k (or even dueling assault-mech builds)

or they aren't *that* good at estimating range. It adds an element of randomness to the game without the need for rolling dice.

The underlying discussion is that some people ARE that good at estimating range. For those of us who have an over-developed ability to estimate tabletop distances, not pre-measuring isn't introducing any randomness, and it's not really contributing to the tactical elements of the game.

Janthkin wrote: For those of us who have an over-developed ability to estimate tabletop distances, not pre-measuring isn't introducing any randomness, and it's not really contributing to the tactical elements of the game.

This I think hits on the real point, none of the folks I see arguing in favor of barring measurement claim it impedes them, so they must like the advantage it gives them over others.

Marc

It isn't really about having an advantage or not for me and yes I can eyeball 18" easy, I worked construction.

What it means to me is that random element that makes the game fun. In war movies, sometimes troops charge an enemy position and get gunned down horribly as they 'assault'. Cavalry gets tired because its galloping too far right before it hits the enemy line. Alexander the Great's horse gives out right before he charges the elephant, etc. That is why assault distances are kept deliberately 'iffy'... because a successful assault can make or break a game, so it should be risky and uncertain.

Assault is far far overrated in this game and has been, for as far back I can remember, an extremely overpowered method of what some people mistakenly call 'tactics'. At least 5th got rid of using assault to avoid getting shot at, which IMO was about as abusively rules-system scrounging as you can get (yeah I played 3rd/4th ed. guard versus speed freaks so I know all about it).

We cannot 'pre-roll' the dice before we declare our shots either. All this talk about 'strategy' and 'tactics' is just plain silly since they mean different things to different players, and usually are defined in whatever way makes the player defining them sound like their method is genius.

Playing the system is (gasp)'tactics'? removing the weaker models in the rear to retain your tarpit, or the base-to-base ones so you can have a counter charge or fire phase is theoretical 'tactics' by the system... but it's not like exactly realistic tactical genius, just playing the system. Why don't we premeasure the dice rolls while we're at it? Oh yeah! because uncertainty makes things fun!

(edit: sorry double clicked)

Guitardian wrote:It isn't really about having an advantage or not for me and yes I can eyeball 18" easy, I worked construction.

What it means to me is that random element that makes the game fun.

These are contradictory statements. In the first, you say that you can eyeball distances easily. In the second you say it is a random element that makes the game fun. If you can accurately gauge the distances, then it isn't random for you, it's only random for the person you're playing against.

As the change in Warhammer 8th edition replaces a fixed charge distance with a variable one based on the models movement plus a dice roll, the random element is not only preserved, but made equal for both players. It actually increases the random element that you claim is fun, because even someone who has worked construction will then see their troops fail the occasional charge. If that's what you think is fun, why are you opposed to a rules change that increases that?

Hey I'm all for it bro. The more random the better in my opinion. Not everyonce can micro-manage an army list to a tournament standard either, but those of us who can don't always exploit that as the all powerful factor in the game either. Whatever 8th ed WFB is doing (which I couldn't care less about because there are far better cheaper fantasy games out there but thats besides the point) may add that general's indecision to it as well and more power to em. However, In 40k you are not allowed to premeasure a charge, if you can't get up the hill while being gunned down by the machinegun then that's just how it works. You can look at your 12" long shoe as a point of reference or I can look at my L-shape thumb, but if its a quarter inch off then I just don't get in there. It seldom comes up, but it is the rules. If you worry about 6" charge, or 2" backhatch, then get a chess board. I would rather suffer my mistakes of that quarter inch for dramatic idealism.

Remember Shawn arguing with me over a fraction of an inch when he was the one that kept repositioning his models so their bases could fit in the terrain? It's not that he was trying to cheat or be a poor sport, but that quarter inch made all the difference in the endgame, which is why we called it a draw, because he is a good sport. I believe missing the occasional shot or charge is the risk you take for dancing around the perimeters of threat ranges, and we're all in the same boat. Some of us may have a canny eye for it, but some of us have newer codex, or fatter wallets, or better math skills too. It all adds up. It's that kind of ambiguity that I feel people should just go with because it IS FUN and dramatic when the uber-charge of the super-dooper command squad falls short by a half an inch, and both players laugh about it after it epicly fails.

Premeasuring based off of the fact that some people can't estimate distances well is stupid.

That's like saying we need to cut all basketballplayers somewhere in the shins so that everyone is only 6' tall so there is no 'personal advantage'. Some people are better at some things than others..it's not fair, but that's life.

If we were going to start premeasuring it should be on the premises that forces will have these low-tech devices called range finders (much like what even golfers use today), of course if we are basing it off of real life aspects, then most of 40k wouldn't exist...

My vote goes to not premeasuring. No reason to change that. People don't need crutches. At this rate, by 10th edition there won't be codexes, only prebuilt army lists designed by GW to ensure that their overpriced models are sold.

Kilkrazy wrote:Depends if you consider assault to be the process of running six inches or the process of moving across the battlefield and into contact.

Besides, Fleet allows you to Run and Assault.

Well, considering that I am talking about a rule, I thought it was implied that I was talking about the moving 6".

As far as fleet goes, not every army has that rule. You should never based game wide rules around one rule that 90% of armies can not benefit from. You also can't say they have a random assault range cause they can run and then assault since they are forgoing their shooting. The run happens in the shooting phase and not the Assault phase so therefor the assualt is not random.

Semantically you are correct.

From the viewpoint of the overall game the randomness of Run and difficult terrain mean that moving a unit into H2H nearly always involves some random factor even without specific die rolling for the actual assault move.

If a player's unit doesn't have Fleet, it is his choice whether to Run and Assault or to shoot and assault. It is a tactical decision and doesn't affect the fact that the Run movement is of random. Players often just Run their troops through difficult terrain to get through it faster.

There are many units which have or don't have all kinds of rules. In one sense the game is about the large number of exceptions to core rules. I don't see a problem with this specific rule just because there are lots of units which don't have it. Besides, GW could make sure at least one unit in every codex has Fleet if it is important for game balance.

My main point is that the game already contains several instances of randomisation of movement and range, so adding a specific randomisation to the Assault move perhaps is not a major departure from established practice.

Would it be a great departure? No. I just feel it would add more luck to a game that is already heavily dependant on luck. Something that is not needed.

And while we are talking semantics, units WITHOUT fleet can not run and assault.

Maybe it's where I play, but I have gone whole games without ever making a Difficult Terrain test for any unit. So like I said before, you can limit if not completely remove most of the random assault ranges due to terrain.


Edit: Also just because the game contains an element does not mean the game automaticly needs more of that element. Just ask Tau if the game needs more assaults?

You assume there will be more assaults if this rule is brought it.

That would depend on how the rule works. It might produce fewer assaults due to players needing to move closer to the enemy before launching an assault move with at least 75% chance of contacting.

I'm not sure how it works in WHFB8. I think each unit typ gets a base assault move + the better one of two dice.

A new edition also gives the opportunity to change some other rules. For example, a rule allowing the target of a failed assault to counter-fire would be very beneficial to Tau.

I am not assuming more assaults. I was just making a pioint that just because something is already in the game (luck), does not mean more of it (luck) needs to be added to the game. If you made random assaults then luck plays a bigger role in the game.

I made arefference to Tau, because they suck in HtH. I am sure that they would not want rules added to make assaults easier. Esp with the logic of since there is already assualts in the game it is ok to add more.

It seems those in favor of pre-measuring and those opposed are firmly divided into separate camps at this point. What GW does in 40k 6th ed is anyone’s guess and thankfully it’s probably a long way off. I will add to this discussion however that pre-measuring would have a positive impact on a players ability to cheat. There are tricks – tricks which I refuse to use, but are “pre-measuring” without pre-measuring.

If my hand is roughly 6” from pinky finger to thumb I can very easily place my hand next to some models to support my weight while I measure a distance somewhere else or move models. I can use the placement of my hand to more accurately guage distances.

Many players have seen the video of a player locking his measuring tape at 12”, measuring something, then setting his ruler down with the tape extended next to another unit to get a clearly pre-measured distance without overtly pre-measuring while he moved the unit he originally measured (to keep his opponents attention distracted from what he was doing).

Likewise, if I know the base of my model is just over 1” in diameter I can stand back from the table, hold my measuring tape up to my eye, and measure the distance between units, then divide it by my measurement of a model base at the same perspective to determine almost exact distance.

These techniques are very underhanded but they do happen and I think most players would consider them a form of cheating. Pre-measuring would eliminate all of this by simply allowing blatant measuring for both players as they see fit.

jbunny wrote:I am not assuming more assaults. I was just making a pioint that just because something is already in the game (luck), does not mean more of it (luck) needs to be added to the game. If you made random assaults then luck plays a bigger role in the game.

I made arefference to Tau, because they suck in HtH. I am sure that they would not want rules added to make assaults easier. Esp with the logic of since there is already assualts in the game it is ok to add more.

Another way to look at it is that the more dice rolling there is, the more the luck evens out due to the law of averages (or regression to the mean.)

Random assault move distance will not add luck if players make sure to move inside the minimum possible strike range in order to make the dice irrelevant. However it will reduce the number of assaults because players doing this will take longer to get into range.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

incarna wrote:It seems those in favor of pre-measuring and those opposed are firmly divided into separate camps at this point. What GW does in 40k 6th ed is anyone’s guess and thankfully it’s probably a long way off. I will add to this discussion however that pre-measuring would have a positive impact on a players ability to cheat. There are tricks – tricks which I refuse to use, but are “pre-measuring” without pre-measuring.

...
...

I agree. In my opinion it is perhaps the best argument in favour of pre-measuring.