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.

Let's see how much ofhis wailing and gnashing of teeth is going on in 6 months, when everyone has forgotten to keep complaining.

One of the funnest games I ever played was an armored column ambush in a ruined city, I took the role of the ambusher and my friend played a space marine armored column, I was outnumbered by 300-400 points, and was playing tau. I got slaughtered, but ended up wiping out half of his army, Including a predator which was 4 inches away from my commander battlesuit. It was supposed to be for a campaign but we never finished it.

Plumbumbarum wrote:Why not randomise every movement and gun range then? There has to be a line somewhere for random elements and I'm quite positive random charge is behind it.

Meanwhile, most people are positive that it's not.

Plumbumbarum wrote:Swarmlord is not going to trip over a rock or hesitate about charging resulting in 2" instead of his usual distance

Why not?

Kaldor wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:Swarmlord is not going to trip overOckhamock or hesitate about charging resulting in 2" instead of his usual distance

Why not?

The whole 'tripping over a rock' thing is getting annoying. The point of it is meant to represent 'something' stopping the charge. This is a 40k battlefield. Plenty can happen to make anything stop in its tracks. A stray shell could land in their path, a bodies could rain from a passing, wrecked transport, something particularly fast like a land speeder from elsewhere could zoom between the units. Forging a narrative only works if you have a good imagination.

A recent game against my friends black Templars had my Tyranids winning quite nicely, and I decided to abandon an objective in the closing turns to charge my 20 Hormagaunts into his line chaplain. He over watch fired his plasma pistol, overheated and killed himself. A more humorous outcome was seeing the tide of Hormagaunts caused him to cremate his head instead of face the horde. Not in character, but a funny footnote to the game we were chatting about afterwards.

That is, however, the problem with forcing this type of gameplay. Some people don't want that king of experience, and people who do want it can get it just easily from a more balanced system.

cin·e·ma·tic   [sin-uh-mah-tik]
adj
1. See Random

ran·dom   [ran-duhm]
adjective
1. See Fun.

Anpu42 wrote:It might have even cost me the game, but I decided that after a few games, failed charges is the price to pay for Pre-Measuring and it has made the game more exiting.

..."price to pay"? You know if it were a change that we were all asking for then maybe that comment would have made sense, but it just sounds to me like I'm being punished because of some arbitrary change GW made to the game that no one really cared about. If pre-measuring meant we needed random charges then I'd rather pre-measuring were left out of the game entirely, because random charges are stupid and make no sense, and no one needs pre-measuring because eyeballing ranges isn't that hard to do anyway.

Gifblaur wrote:Another side effect of the randomness actually tends to be the worse players have more chances against the better players, as is the case between my mate and I. She plays expecting to lose and plays accordingly but you know what? She's won more than half our 6th edition games.

That's not exactly a good thing, though. Skill should be what determines winners the majority of the time. A little bit of randomness is okay just so less-skilled players actually stand a chance, but by all rights a player who's better at the game should win more games.

When every game is basically decided by whoever rolls the dice better and everything else comes second (like actual tactics) then what's the fething point? Why even take the models out of the bag, why go through all the motions when you can get the same thing much quicker and easier by just rolling a d6 with your opponent and declaring the winner to be whoever rolls higher (if there's a tie you just re-roll until someone wins)? I want the same thing you all want, I want to play fun games with armies of models on well-made tables, I'm a fan of the "cinematic" by all means (that's the main reason why I love the idea of Dropzone Commander and can't wait to start playing), but I also want victories to mean something, I want to fething earn it. Same thing when I lose, when I lose a game I want it to be fair and square, I want it to be because I made mistakes or just plain got outplayed. A game that I only won because the opponent got screwed over by bad game design or bad rolls is a hollow fething victory at best, and a game that I feel like I lost due to the same and not because of any particular stroke of genius on my opponent's part is probably one of the worst things I've felt when playing any game. I'm not having fun when I feel cheated out of a win, or worse yet, when I feel like I cheated someone out of a win because they were using an older army or got screwed by dice.

But that's just my opinion, and apparently I'm in the minority. I don't know what it is about 40k players, but 40k players are the only ones who don't want balance or equity in gaming from what I can tell. Am I wrong? Is the fanbase for any other game like this? Because I haven't seen one like it.

happygolucky wrote:So another good thread RUINED by whiners...

Goddammit im sick of people whining about "how bad the rules are" I really Dont care if you Dont like the rules if you all want balanced rules there's the door: go play Warmahordes, I personally love the new rules to me it seems now more of "here are your rules they are your template go create fun scenarios" I love it all the only thing I would say needs changing is get disallow the warlord traits for SC and that is it.

If you don't like my "whining", there's the "Ignore" button. You might as well fething use it because I could care less if you're sick of it, I'm not stopping, and I'm not going anywhere. If you don't agree with me or like what I have to say then the ball is in your court, it's not my responsibility to censor myself or remove myself from the community for your benefit.

Also, I do have a Warmachine army. That hasn't, and won't, stop me from bitching about GW, considering I spent a couple grand on their stupid game and feel like it was all nothing but a waste in the end. PP could send me a personalized e-mail telling me to literally go feth myself, and it still wouldn't piss me off as much as GW's bs for the past 5 years, because in the end I haven't really lost that much...maybe $200 or less (not counting what I get back on eBay)? Compared to the amount of money I stand to lose if I quit 40k that's not even a drop in the bucket.

I lose either way. If I eBay all my gak I won't get back even half what I spent on it. If I focus on another game then I'm sitting on hundreds of dollars worth of useless product...clinging to a vain hope that GW will "fix" their stupid game and stop acting like morons.

happygolucky wrote:I was looking at the thread thinking "this seems like an awesome thread" then "oh look MORE whiners that want to butt-hurt all over a cool thread" look if you Dont like the rules Fair enough but please Dont go on threads like these and start ranting why the "rules are so (In your opinion) bad" its boring to see whiners on every thread that I see now about 40K relating to this kind of topics (instead make your own thread and that way you wont have arguments like the one I have read here).

We can't just have our thread where we get to complain, because even if we try to keep it mostly contained there will be "crusaders" who go to those threads in an attempt to try and convert people to the one true gaming path...like what happened with that thread in Tournament Discussions about 6th edition, where people saw an opportunity to come into the thread to tell people they were "fitting square pegs into round holes" and trying to play the game in a way it wasn't "meant" to be played (hell, at this moment the last post in that thread is a complaint about how balance in 40k is "bad" because it will take away "fun" or "characterful" elements, and how we're all wrong for wanting the game to be something other than what it is). Not to mention the idea of a dedicated "complaint" thread seems kind of unfair to begin with, since there's no designated "praise" thread where all useless praise and compliments can go.

happygolucky wrote:Personally me and some friend down at my FLGS are playing a house rule which is "no SC" because we all liked what we read in the rule book which was "you are the warlord" then we were thinking "so im a daemon... Yes please" my friends were thinking "so we are overlords and captains...Yeah" so we disallowed SC because we were bored seeing the same guy over and over again when we knew SC are only in battles for the most dire of circumstances... and we love this rule

Well that's good for you and your group if you all agree on it, but it's not good for the game as a whole. GW's trend in recent times is to use SC's to unlock options, giving players an incentive to buy the models and use the characters in games: by doing a blanket ban on SC's for a throwaway line in the book that says something about you being the "warlord" then you're restricting people from being able to build entire armies, taking options away from them and thereby making the game less fun, because you personally are "bored" of seeing them.

Also, who's to say you aren't that SC's superior? It can be hard to top Abaddon as the leader of an entire army but maybe you're a representative of one of the gods themselves and giving him the orders? This is why I don't like it when people try to introduce army composition and try to do it in the name of "fluff" in some way, in my opinion it shows a pretty obvious lack of imagination and ability to think outside the box. There's no rule in the book saying that SC even has to be Abaddon, it's entirely possible to just use his rules and create a character of your own to represent them on the field.

happygolucky wrote:40K now is a game more for having fun battles now and that the way I like it...

There's nothing wrong with wanting "fun battles", in the end that's what we all really want anyway. But I simply disagree that making competitive play possible takes the "fun" aspect away: you always were able to play campaigns with your friends if that's what you want, there was nothing at all stopping you before. 6th edition didn't open anything up for you, all it did was close doors for the rest of us.

happygolucky wrote:after all the goal of the game is to have fun not to win...

I don't have to win every game to have fun, but what's the point in playing a game where victory is impossible, as is the case with some of these "scenarios" people have dreamed up where the sides are so imbalanced the end result is decided before a single die is rolled? How is it fun knowing beforehand you're going to lose? Are you guys honestly confusing the feeling of hopelessness with "fun" or something? I also don't understand this idea that winning is a bad thing...winning is fun. I'd hazard a guess that even you like winning happygolucky, and that when you play a game you don't plan on playing like gak and losing intentionally, either. Why would you? Why waste your time playing a game just to lose?

If you do play that way then you're in a minority. Not before I played 40k have I ever met a person who played games with the sole intent of losing, I've never met anyone who derived enjoyment from getting his ass kicked over and over and over.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

-Loki- wrote:The whole 'tripping over a rock' thing is getting annoying. The point of it is meant to represent 'something' stopping the charge. This is a 40k battlefield. Plenty can happen to make anything stop in its tracks. A stray shell could land in their path, a bodies could rain from a passing, wrecked transport, something particularly fast like a land speeder from elsewhere could zoom between the units. Forging a narrative only works if you have a good imagination.

My imagination is good enough, I just think random charges are a poorly-implemented element of 6th edition.

You know what would be a cool way to stop charges? Defensive grenades. Make it so that squads with defensive grenades can cause the random roll when being charged, and it instantly works a lot better. The charge didn't just "randomly" fail for some mysterious reason, they got flash-banged or something. It still adds an element of randomness to the game that wasn't there before: if you roll low your charge fails, your troops are too disoriented and stop short to try and dive blindly behind whatever cover may be nearby. It adds a "cinematic" element because you can imagine this happening in a movie for sure. But most importantly it doesn't give the impression that the charge failed just completely at random, it happened for a clear and sensible reason. In your example a fast-moving vehicle like a speeder zooming between the units makes sense and could possibly affect that unit's movement that turn, but how do you explain them failing the charge if that didn't actually happen during the game? If the rules were slightly more detailed and did have elements like that in place it would force players to think a little more about how to move during their turn, too. You have to be careful so you don't screw yourself up and make yourself fail a charge against someone later in the turn, or your opponent could try to disrupt you by flying between assaulting units with a skimmer (a potentially risky move since you might end your move close to your enemy and get within melta range).

I'm no master of game balance so maybe they aren't all good ideas, but I honestly just don't think GW thought too hard about this stuff. More randomness is not always bad, but I don't like randomness for the sake of randomness. I wouldn't have minded if they made charges random in certain cases (like if wargear forces it) but making them all random all the time just comes off as being lazy and stupid to me.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

cin·e·ma·tic   [sin-uh-mah-tik]
adj
1. See Random

ran·dom   [ran-duhm]
adjective
1. See Fun.

lolololol

Sidstyler wrote:When every game is basically decided by whoever rolls the dice better and everything else comes second (like actual tactics) then what's the fething point? Why even take the models out of the bag, why go through all the motions when you can get the same thing much quicker and easier by just rolling a d6 with your opponent and declaring the winner to be whoever rolls higher (if there's a tie you just re-roll until someone wins)?

This is genius. Allow me to expand upon this game. Instead of re-rolling a tie to determine the winner, why not give points for comp? Only a WAAC spanker would dare show up with a d6 that had an actual six on it. Players playing in the spirit of the game would have an extra 1 in place of the 6. We can also give points for the prettiest dice, because no right thinking individual wants to be sitting across the table from some plain white dice. The dice company will move away from standard dice construction and go with lighter weight fineresin cast dice, while also introducing liquid gap filler, which just happens to do wonders for all those poorly cast resin dice they sell us.

Sidstyler wrote:random charges are stupid and make no sense,

Your argument hinges on this point, so you're going to have to do a better job of proving it.

Sidstyler wrote:every game is basically decided by whoever rolls the dice better

This is demonstrably false.

Sidstyler wrote:I could care less

I think you mean you couldn't care less.

Sidstyler wrote:I simply disagree that making competitive play possible takes the "fun" aspect away

But what makes you think the game is less competitive?

helium42 wrote:Only a WAAC spanker would dare show up with a d6 that had an actual six on it.

HA! Love it. Great stuff.

Since it's not easy to find logical arguments for some of 6th edition rules, the "whiners" thrown at people ctiticising them has to appear at some point. Beware though, cinematic brigade, there are a few special insults awaiting you if you follow that path. It may start as delicate "fanbois" through harder "GW apologist", "GW backlicker", "undercover GW marketing operative" to the worst of them all...

"You remind me of Citadel Finecast"

Kaldor wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:Why not randomise every movement and gun range then? There has to be a line somewhere for random elements and I'm quite positive random charge is behind it.

Meanwhile, most people are positive that it's not.

Not sure where you've taken the data about 40k players preference from but whatever, most people prefer Madonna over Bach which of course does not make Madonna better.

Kaldor wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:Swarmlord is not going to trip over a rock or hesitate about charging resulting in 2" instead of his usual distance

Why not?

It's against the internal logic of the game, Swarmlord is just too swift, precise, aware of the surroundings with all the information from the other nids. He is able to direct fire of a few units at once so he is for sure able to run without trouble on the plain field or some other terrain not even labeled as difficult. That also applies to Calgars etc I guess, you're not becoming a hero of the universe misjudging distance or tripping every few charges.

-Loki- wrote:The whole 'tripping over a rock' thing is getting annoying. The point of it is meant to represent 'something' stopping the charge. This is a 40k battlefield. Plenty can happen to make anything stop in its tracks. A stray shell could land in their path, a bodies could rain from a passing, wrecked transport, something particularly fast like a land speeder from elsewhere could zoom between the units. Forging a narrative only works if you have a good imagination.

For a shell in their path, make me a rule that an unit under barrage or tank fire have random charge because of that. A wrecked transport is out as they are represented on the battlefield by wrecks from actual models, you can't have a wrecked transport out of nothing. Bodies, again make me a rule that dead models between units or in the first line cause the random charge - if noone died there, there's nothing to trip/ stop/ being slowed down over. What you came up with is far too abstract and excuses for a rule not valid explanations. New wound allocation makes it less abstract with each model representing an actual character position but there are shells and transports teleporting out of the sudden on the field. This is a battle out of Terry Pratchett rather than a grimdark war story.

Btw "you lack imagination to play 6th", that's a new one. I guess I have enough imagination being a rpg game master for years but logic follows, to not make an imagined spectacle a ridiculous one.

Plumbumbarum wrote: Swarmlord is just too swift, precise, aware of the surroundings... so he is for sure able to run without trouble on the plain field or some other terrain not even labeled as difficult.

Says who?

I don't remember reading anywhere that anyone would be immune to anything that might affect their ability to conduct a lengthy, uninterrupted dash across the battlefield, represented as a charge move.

Aren't Necron wraiths (for one) able to phase through solid matter? Or has it changed?
Anyway, I don't see why random charge length had to be implemented. It's like we're going to have random shooting length next. And since that's random, it's also most likely fun!

As soon as you add more random elements to a game you reduce the competitive aspects. It'd be like if you had to roll to see which of your units go to do anything in a turn (eg. on a '1' on a D6 your unit is frozen in time - and imagine this happens to every unit every turn). This would utterly destroy anything even remotely competitive.

The same thing happens with random, sorry, 'cinematic' charges.

I mean this is what Reecius said over on Taco Bell:

Random Charge lengths stink. Point blank, and I will make no apologies about hating this rule because it flat out isn’t fun. I understand why it is in the game to an extent (by the same logic, shouldn’t weapon ranges be random, too?) but I think a straight 2D6” is just TOO random. I can’t count how many games were lost because of failed charges from 3” away in the open. When you outmaneuver your opponent, and then just through dumb luck fail a charge that costs you the game, that sucks ass. There is nothing fun about it.

And that's not all the randomness he talks about in that editorial.

Kaldor wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote: Swarmlord is just too swift, precise, aware of the surroundings... so he is for sure able to run without trouble on the plain field or some other terrain not even labeled as difficult.

Says who?

I don't remember reading anywhere that anyone would be immune to anything that might affect their ability to conduct a lengthy, uninterrupted dash across the battlefield, represented as a charge move.

It is obviously not stated as "Swarmlord never trips over a rock", it is written that:

"This creature is the very pinnacle of Hive Tyrant bioform...

This creatue is to Hive Tyrant what Hive Tyrant is to a Termagant...

It is a monster of darkest nightmare that has preyed on empires and overseen the extinction of entire civilisations...

...and it represents the greatest Tyranid threat to the galaxy"

Doesn't sound like something not able to run without falling because of something in his way unless it's a monastery. The good human athlete when focused will rarely trip, what to say about the perfect, legendary bug-like creature. Then, there are stats - WS9 and I6 which shows something of godly agility, speed and precision.

But let's assume that you're right and the Swarmlord trips over a rock on the plain not difficult field, let's rewert to your earlier quote then:

Kaldor wrote:But with regards to 'cinematic' gaming: To me this does not simply refer to the stories and narratives the players come up with. It also refers to the game playing in a way that matches our preconceptions: we want our heroes to be heroic, our villains to be devious, our monsters to be monstrous, and so on. If we rely on 'gamey' mechanics we don't get that 'cinematic' feel.

So how is the creature cinematicly monstrous, tripping over a rock so not making a charge makes it rather laughable and sad. Kind of defeats the purpose of cinematic game, the whole 2d6 charge affair and 6th edition is full of such ridiculous contradictions.

Also "gamey" mechanics, seeing the Swarmlord carve it's bloody path through whole units of marines or terminators in 5th edition, not cinematic or monstrous enough for you? It's all in the stats, what else is needed there? Calgar makes everyone pass everymorale test, killed single-handedly an entire unit of genestealers on my table few days ago (5th again), drops orbital bombardments, not heroic enough for you? I don't get it.

H.B.M.C. wrote:As soon as you add more random elements to a game you reduce the competitive aspects.

That's actually not the case.

Instead, a measured dose of random elements introduces unknown variables that players have to account for.

There is a line, somewhere. On one side of the line, you have the right amount of random elements which encourage players to manage the resources under their control. On the other side of the line, player control is reduced by the inability of the player to make his units do what he wants.

Random charge length, IMO, falls firmly on the right side of the line. It rewards the players who are best able to stack the odds and minimise risk, without removing too much control from the player.

To refer to the quote you posted: if through dumb luck you fail a charge that costs you the game, you haven't really outmaneuvered your opponent, have you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Plumbumbarum wrote:It is obviously not stated as "Swarmlord never trips over a rock"

Is it perhaps because the idea of 'tripping over rocks' is absurd?

Swarmlord is great. That's cool. But does it mean he won't shy from an impressive defensive volley? Be distracted by something else on the battlefield? Flinch away from an ineffective incoming round?

No, it doesn't mean any of that. Because anything could be happening that might cause that short charge distance. There could be deafening explosions nearby, rounds being snapped off, or maybe a new threat is revealed to the Swarmlord and he has to take a minute to decide which threat best deserves his attention. It doesn't have to be anything represented by the rules or in-game actions. Those tac marines that were out of range are maybe firing anyway, their rounds ineffectual but still forcing the enemy to keep their heads down, for example. It could be almost anything.

I knew you wouldn't understand. I bet'cha didn't even read Reecius' article.

Why do we even bother talking to you?

H.B.M.C. wrote:I knew you wouldn't understand. I bet'cha didn't even read Reecius' article.

Why do we even bother talking to you?

When your whole argument is "I don't like it" then yeah, you're going to run into trouble when you're trying to explain to people why it's bad.

Seems to me like there is only the one rule that is causing the issue here. Most of the other randomness is mostly left alone, I think that says something.(Or maybe it's just easier to pick on this one rule, I don't know.)

But I think at this point we all need to just agree to disagree. We all have our opinions and in the end the only opinion that matters is GWs.

Actually, one last little thought. What is the distance that the old 6 inch charge was supposedly representing? I've heard several people hating on how before you could always pull off spectacular distance charges but I've never seen what the scale is(never cared honestly). Just curious.

Kaldor wrote:

To refer to the quote you posted: if through dumb luck you fail a charge that costs you the game, you haven't really outmaneuvered your opponent, have you?

What. I don't even.

Your calculated moves have just been thwarted by dumb luck, not by your opponent's skill nor your incompetence. If I were your opponent I wouldn't feel good because that was a hollow victory and I won not because I was good but because the dice saved me: I would've felt like I was outmaneuvered.

Kaldor wrote:Is it perhaps because the idea of 'tripping over rocks' is absurd?

Swarmlord is great. That's cool. But does it mean he won't shy from an impressive defensive volley? Be distracted by something else on the battlefield? Flinch away from an ineffective incoming round?

No, it doesn't mean any of that. Because anything could be happening that might cause that short charge distance. There could be deafening explosions nearby, rounds being snapped off, or maybe a new threat is revealed to the Swarmlord and he has to take a minute to decide which threat best deserves his attention. It doesn't have to be anything represented by the rules or in-game actions. Those tac marines that were out of range are maybe firing anyway, their rounds ineffectual but still forcing the enemy to keep their heads down, for example. It could be almost anything.

Yes tripping over the rock is kind of a symbol as it's hard to come with sensible explanation when it's not about IG grunts or something similar.

You say it doesn't have to be represented by the rules or in-game actions, I think consistency is necessary - otherwise why would there be rules explanations, fluff and rules themselves. If it's the smoke on the battlefield, I wan't cover save from it, if that's shooting then should be something really powerful as Swarmlord or anything else multi wound and toughness over 4 is not slowed by a direct lascannon or rocket to the chest, it has no fixed influence on said guys actions apart from losing a wound. Swarmlord keeping his head down because of bolters sounds as bad cinematics too. New threat is revealed, going by the fluff it would hardly be new and even if so, would take tiny part of the second at best.

Anyway you can imagine whatever you want when you play. For me the rule forces unnecessary cheap cinematics which require breaking the internal logic of the universe created by rules and fluff, often turning out ridiculous if touched by a deeper thought.

heartserenade wrote:Your calculated moves have just been thwarted by dumb luck, not by your opponent's skill nor your incompetence. If I were your opponent I wouldn't feel good because that was a hollow victory and I won not because I was good but because the dice saved me: I would've felt like I was outmaneuvered.

If you've managed to force the enemies hand to the point where he is unable to stack the odds in his favour and loses out on a dice roll, then that's been a pretty even game in my books. If he couldn't even get to within 8" at the start of his turn, he hasn't exactly been pulling off brilliant maneuvering tactics.

That's the point of random charge distances. Very rarely will they punish a good player. Instead, they punish the player who fails to plan ahead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Plumbumbarum wrote:it's hard to come with sensible explanation when it's not about IG grunts or something similar.

For you it is, although I don't understand why.

There's a multitude of perfectly plausible in-universe reasons for anything to roll a small distance on it's charge. I don't see why you have to build something up on a pedestal and then insist there is nothing that could make this god-like monster slow down or second-guess itself. It's not even remotely plausible.

Kaldor wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:I knew you wouldn't understand. I bet'cha didn't even read Reecius' article.

Why do we even bother talking to you?

When your whole argument is "I don't like it" then yeah, you're going to run into trouble when you're trying to explain to people why it's bad.

In fairness, Kaldor, I've posed several times the question: "What's so cinematic (or indeed tactically rewarding) about manoeuvring carefully to line up an assault only to have an expensive assault unit shot to buggery because its player rolled poorly?", without getting a satisfactory answer. No amount of tactical forethought (beyond only charging from less than 2") can eliminate that (probably game-losing) possibility.

Furthermore, though the various explanations you've offered make a degree of sense in themselves, they still don't sit easily in the game we know; Warhammmer 40,000 has never had fog-of-war mechanics, and still doesn't in any other aspect. Worse yet (and quite contrary to GW's supposed intentions) in the games of 6th ed. I've played thus far, the optimal strategy which the new rules have encouraged (since I play the kinds of armies which can do so) has been to sit tight behind newly-purchased Aegis lines and blaze away, leaving my opponent to suffer the effects of random charges, mysterious terrain, etc., which wins games, but is far from cinematic (or indeed fun).

Now, I entirely agree with your observation that a balance exists in games between random and controlled elements, but I can't agree that random charge distances (much less warlord traits, mysterious terrain and random psychic powers) are desirable random elements. I asked some time ago whether anybody could even think of another game which did likewise; the closest anybody could come was De Bellis Antiquitatis, a game from the late 1980s, which in any case doesn't randomise movement but activations (much like Warpath 2.0). Moreover, I can't recall even a single voice among the player community prior to this June asserting that assaults would benefit from more randomisation, or suggesting random movement as a solution. Nor do I recall any significant number of players pining for the randomness which 2nd ed's. psychic cards and strategy cards had given the game, indeed 2nd ed. has been for a long time a byword for nigh-unplayable complexity and randomness.

I have no issue with in principle with "cinematic gaming", nor even with (much as I mock) it "forging a narrative", but - as Malifaux, Dark Age and even Space Hulk all demonstrate - it doesn't need to come at the expense of meaningfully tactical gameplay, which is what a significant section of the playerbase enjoys.

Gifblaur wrote:Seems to me like there is only the one rule that is causing the issue here. Most of the other randomness is mostly left alone, I think that says something.(Or maybe it's just easier to pick on this one rule, I don't know.)

Warlord traits and mysterious terrain/ objectives are bad as well imo but easier to rule out.

Gifblaur wrote:But I think at this point we all need to just agree to disagree. We all have our opinions and in the end the only opinion that matters is GWs.

Or let's everybody agree and bitch everywhere, quit buying until GW reprints 6th edition with improved rules, fixed charge range and random bs out /dream

Seriously though, GW will never change their lazy rules writing or shady behaviour (like with reacting to rules abuse, codieces release model, unbalancing on purpose) with the army of people ready to defend all that crap.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kaldor wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:it's hard to come with sensible explanation when it's not about IG grunts or something similar.

For you it is, although I don't understand why.

There's a multitude of perfectly plausible in-universe reasons for anything to roll a small distance on it's charge. I don't see why you have to build something up on a pedestal and then insist there is nothing that could make this god-like monster slow down or second-guess itself. It's not even remotely plausible.

I use Swarmlord as a most obvious example of the rule not making sense cinematics - wise, it's not me who created it as the pinnacle of Tyranid creation, perfect bioform, possesing unimaginable inteligence etc. Replace with Terminators, Calgar or Typhus and it's still hard to explain it sensibly.

English Assassin wrote:In fairness, Kaldor, I've posed several times the question: "What's so cinematic (or indeed tactically rewarding) about manoeuvring carefully to line up an assault only to have an expensive assault unit shot to buggery because its player rolled poorly?", without getting a satisfactory answer. No amount of tactical forethought (beyond only charging from less than 2") can eliminate that (probably game-losing) possibility.

My response is that simply getting to within 9" isn't "carefully maneuvering" and doesn't really deserve to be rewarded with a guaranteed charge.

English Assassin wrote:Furthermore, though the various explanations you've offered make a degree of sense in themselves, they still don't sit easily in the game we know; Warhammmer 40,000 has never had fog-of-war mechanics, and still doesn't in any other aspect.

Well, it depends on how you interpret the mechanics. I mean, 24" range for most firearms is ridiculously short, so surely it takes into account the other battlefield factors like the ability to reliably aim, smoke or fog, distractions and so on. Not to mention the old difficult terrain rules.

English Assassin wrote:Worse yet (and quite contrary to GW's supposed intentions) in the games of 6th ed. I've played thus far, the optimal strategy which the new rules have encouraged (since I play the kinds of armies which can do so) has been to sit tight behind newly-purchased Aegis lines and blaze away, leaving my opponent to suffer the effects of random charges, mysterious terrain, etc., which wins games, but is far from cinematic (or indeed fun).

I think this is more a case of 'new hotness' than anything else, and will fade with time. I haven't seen it at all in my local area.

Now, I entirely agree with your observation that a balance exists in games between random and controlled elements, but I can't agree that random charge distances (much less warlord traits, mysterious terrain and random psychic powers) are desirable random elements.

I think the Warlord traits are a bit gimmicky, although not as game-breaking as some people insist. I don't mind them enough to bitch about them. Our group universally ignores mysterious terrain, and has done since it's inception in WHFB. Having come from WHFB though, having randomly selected Psychic Powers just seems natural. The alternative is to cost them, but that would be an exercise in futility.

But I really like random charge distances. It forces players to be more mindful of how they use their units, especially when game-turning assaults are in question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Plumbumbarum wrote:Replace with Terminators, Calgar or Typhus and it's still hard to explain it sensibly.

Except it's not. That's my point, that you place these creatures (or monsters, or heroes, or whatever) on pedestals and then can't imagine anything on the battlefield that would cause them to roll short on their charge distance.

I can imagine plenty of plausible in-universe things that would cause them to roll short. I don't understand why you can't.

Kaldor wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:Replace with Terminators, Calgar or Typhus and it's still hard to explain it sensibly.

Except it's not. That's my point, that you place these creatures (or monsters, or heroes, or whatever) on pedestals and then can't imagine anything on the battlefield that would cause them to roll short on their charge distance.

I can imagine plenty of plausible in-universe things that would cause them to roll short. I don't understand why you can't.

Ok, plain field, unit of Terminators - veterans of hundreds of battles and thousands of charges - charging the stationary infantry unit 6" away, let's say Termagants holding an objective. Terminators roll 3, what happened?

Plumbumbarum wrote:Ok, plain field, unit of Terminators - veterans of hundreds of battles and thousands of charges - charging the stationary infantry unit 6" away, let's say Termagants holding an objective. Terminators roll 3, what happened?

...over a kilometer away, a mycetic spore the size of a titan transporter hits the ground and disgorges and massive Biotitan.

...conflicting orders come through the vox, causing the sergeant to second guess his objective.

...incoming fire ricochets harmlessly from their armour, but the warriors turn to evaluate the source of the threat

...a nearby Zoanthrope crackles threateningly with electricity, causing the warriors to take cover

... a shadow flashes over the ground and the warriors look up: Harridan!

... they trip over a rock.

Squigsquasher wrote:Is 6th Edition perfect? No. But then neither is Warmahordes, Infinity, Flames of War or any other wargame. I present you with the Tyranid philosophy...

Adapt or die.

Careful! Someone could break their leg falling down that gigantic excluded middle you have there. No game is perfect, but that doesn't mean some are better than others.

happygolucky wrote:
Look I get what your trying to say: you want a balanced rulebook I get that and who dosnt? What I cant abide by is when people just constantly complain about the rules wanting a better book by tomorrow

How about wanting a balanced ruleset over four editions? (And I'll take a moment to pre-emptively reject any claims that "fun" and "balanced" are incompatible.)

Kaldor wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:Ok, plain field, unit of Terminators - veterans of hundreds of battles and thousands of charges - charging the stationary infantry unit 6" away, let's say Termagants holding an objective. Terminators roll 3, what happened?

...over a kilometer away, a mycetic spore the size of a titan transporter hits the ground and disgorges and massive Biotitan.

"Let's hurry with Termagants or someone will kill that first"

Kaldor wrote:...conflicting orders come through the vox, causing the sergeant to second guess his objective.

"Let's kill the Termagants to not waste time before they'll make up their minds"

Kaldor wrote:...incoming fire ricochets harmlessly from their armour, but the warriors turn to evaluate the source of the threat

"pffft"

Kaldor wrote:...a nearby Zoanthrope crackles threateningly with electricity, causing the warriors to take cover

"pfft, hurry up with Termagants and let's ground that next"

Kaldor wrote:... a shadow flashes over the ground and the warriors look up: Harridan!

"Don't worry brothers, that's illegal"

Kaldor wrote:... they trip over a rock.

Together

Being serious, when moving they had enough time to evaluate the battlefield and made the decision/ were ordered to charge, there's no time to think about new orders or look around, they're already focused on the target. There's even the rule that you can't assault anything other than the unit you shot at, that's how focused the unit is on enemy and no time to scan the horizont (assuming the biotitan drops out off the board, because on board it's either because of a rule or can't interupt the charge) or examine shadows.

Let's assume they are distracted, quick look is enough then - even driving a car at 120kph you have time to look around and not crash the same time, not to mention it's not that Terminators can freeze out of fear, worry or hesitate in the face of danger. I admit you posted some good ideas but none of those should halve the charge distance or stop the Terminators (maybe the conflicting orders but on the other hand, it's me issuing them, also I'm not sure about those uncertain chapter masters or captains). It's not their first drop and every battle in 40k is hell with deadly things falling from the sky, they're used to it, veterans and all.

Maybe the matter of interpretation but those are stretched for me.

salvadorjer wrote:I'd just like to get the ball rolling for a discussion covering two main topics.

1) Since cinematic play seems to be tthe writing on the wall for 6th ed does anyone know of great ways to increase that in play? I find custom scenarios to work quite often especially with a special rule or two added.

2) Given the discussions that often occur around TFG articles maybe we could discuss how to make the game not more enjoyable for yourself but for your opponent. This can be both cometitive anf fluffy play. (I'll insert bath here before the trolls get to it) I find taking 5 minutes to define all the terrain at the start of the game is a must.

Have at it dakka.

Its a catch phrase. As a matter of fact- some of us have played this way for quite a long time.

Want to make it enjoyable? Make a campaign for a planet, or system ala Dawn Of War, and add in your own snacks along the way.

easy examples include, but are not held hard and fast to-

1. Recon-

Scouts infiltrate a board, and have to explore it. Around the board are several bases of Loot, hidden side missions, cave systems, and bonus "Lost" troops.

Oh, by the way, your playing this Recon mission along with several other armies. After first contact, you gain the ability to deploy troops, and support increases, based on if you live or not.

2. Based on the evolution and results of Recon, there are other goals still out there, but in addition, you can deploy a single armored unit. Between the battles, you have the ability of reinforcing them with either support troops, or additional armor- That is unless your tanks get taken out of the action. And add the fact in there that sometimes, your chain of command doesn't think much of your losing the tanks- Because your higher ups have decided that your inabilty to keep your armor alive have shaken thier confidence that you can make the mission happen. You start getting negative attention, and detrimental decisions... Easy to hard, use your own imagination on how bad you want to make the price of failure.

3. If your commander fails a third time, a secondary leader will take command, and of course your leadership, being shaken by failure will be tested in each turn. ( In this case, theres several offshoots, from orbital bombardment of your unit by your command, to redeployment to another table- ( Where, depending on your war efforts, you will either have access to long range artillery, or removal from the battle altogether. ( Failure is not an option, especially three times in a row.) In the case of losing that commander, your army has a lack of confidence in thier chain of command , at least through game 3 or 4. Your troops will have to start making moral tests, or end up making thier own decisions to "redeploy" themselves. and start deciding for themselves, when and where they will deploy.

( I've seen this extreme go to the point where some of the units have defected, and disappeared. It wasn't pretty.)

Etc.etc.etc.


How to make something like this happen is to get together ahead of time, develop the world/ battlefield, and all the players come up with the side orders. It takes dedication, because after awhile, some of the armies start getting wiped out, only to reappear at later intervals, and return to fight over the same campaign fields.

(If you and your pals kick in $$$, you can even play for supplys/ extra units, or even boxes of base troops.)

I won the special edition Inquisitor, ( The one with the hat and trenchcoat, and special plasma gun) in one such game. Later on We dropped it down a notch and added special things like Side mission day- One such side mission day was bring in a squad of terminators, and fight your way to an extraction point. Those that made it got the ability to get to other poker chips that were on the table that coicided to different side items, special weapons, equipment options, new blister pack units, etc. ( of course that DID give you motivation to play, and hurry up and crank out that new special weapon/ figure, so you could use it at a later date.) The guys that came up with that gave the surviving units that got off the field in the time limit a free Terminator sprue. ( I didn't make it, I ended up using my Deathwing in a holding action, while others legged it for the Drop.

Games like this can be either cutthroat, or collective, depending on the crowd.

Point here being- your not just fighting a plain brown wrapper 1500 point game, and thats it.
Your fighting over a piece of dirt for a reason, your forces of course have to get there, so maybe you play a game of BFG, then they make planetfall, so of course you need to establish a strongpoint, and DZ, where you may or may not get the chance to drop in a couple of fortifications/ buildings/ towers, etc. AND then after the fact, you either win or lose, so maybe youo keep or lose that DZ/ Supplies/ Fortifications...

map, a well thought out environment, and a long term plan for the month. "The Battle of Hell's gate", The Battle of ....... your name here....." " Wolf's Lair I and II."

Kinda like a real battle. they are for a campaign, and you fight for a reason.

We did one where we took a map, and sectioned off different areas, and that also helped dictate some of the conditions.

I learned that I didn't like night fights with 12 inch visibility in one such game.

What do YOU think of that?

I had a big post typed up, but so many other posts have been made between now and then and everything's kinda already been said so I don't see the point anymore.

Basically, Kaldor: your explanations for why the charge could fail make sense (and are more reasons than GW themselves felt the need to give us), but honestly...any of these things could happen just as easily in the Movement Phase, too. So why isn't base movement random, especially during a part of the turn sequence when your troops are supposedly moving around cautiously and surveying the battlefield as GW explain in the rules? In the Assault Phase your guys have just focused on an enemy and committed to running straight for them balls-first while waving swords above their heads, most likely after having emptied their guns at them, so why would they be distracted by the same noises and explosions that have been going on this entire time that seemingly didn't bother them before deciding to charge?