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.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Just a couple minor points:

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

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

SJ

Lol, after so many arguments with Jancoran, I have begun seeing him everywhere. You both have similar style.

And to the 1E point, I don't like Rogue Trader either. That still does not mean that I want 40k to be chess.
Address the fact that I have never stated I wanted to remove all random, and the fact that my version of how 40k should be existed as much as your one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To back up my point:

 Talizvar wrote:

LESS RANDOM! I cannot stress more. A general or psycher not knowing what skills/powers they have until the day of battle is rather funny and irritating all at once.
I understand that to simulate war you need to add some uncertainty but at least a nod of the head to statistical odds would be nice.

We seem to have moved to an "objective scavenger hunt" as the game of choice since again: we do love our random.
At least it makes it difficult to list tailor but falling back on killing the enemy as fast as possible is still viable.

 Blacksails wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:


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

SJ

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

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

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

No, but I am advocating for posters to read the thread before posting out of context. My point has always been that a game of chance requires chance. Removing all randomness changes the game from a table top dice game to a variant of Chess. Sure, there are areas of the current game that seem too random to some, but not to others. My challenge still stands: play a game with all the dice rolls removed, no randomness, and report back. Let us know how much fun it was. Or, if that seems to extreme, why not just remove the random bits you don't want in the game, test play a game or two, and report back what you removed, what you replaced it with, and how much fun you had.

40k is a game of chance, where either player can win or lose on luck. It is a mistake to assume 40k is a tactical simulation suffering from too much random dice rolling. As always, if you aren't having fun, stop buying it. Vote with your wallet. If you think the game would be more fun with changes, then make those chances, test them out, and let us know how that went.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

No, but I am advocating for posters to read the thread before posting out of context. My point has always been that a game of chance requires chance. Removing all randomness changes the game from a table top dice game to a variant of Chess. Sure, there are areas of the current game that seem too random to some, but not to others. My challenge still stands: play a game with all the dice rolls removed, no randomness, and report back. Let us know how much fun it was.

Oh for feth's sake. Are you sure you're reading this thread and not just repeating the same rubbish over and over?

>Game of chance requires chance
Sure, and games of chance tend to do well in casinos. However, 40k is a TT RPG with tactical elements. So far it achieves neither of those things, primarily due to the extreme amounts of excessive random. Wanna Forge the Narrative by running a campaign with Commander Evilstein of the Landsharks regiment? Cool, but he forgets his commanding abilities each game. And sometimes gets bonus points for slaying an irrelevant character. Nope, not fulfilling an RPG there. Wanna lead your army to victory? Cool, just wait until we- oh, there we go, you opponent wins because he has a psyker and you don;t, and thus gets a free VP. Despite that psyker being an amnesiac who specialises in nothing at all. Sometimes he can make his platoon invisible, but most days he just makes that battlecannon shell more accurate.

>Removing all randomness changes the game to chess.
Sure. I never denied that. But I also never advocated it either. Quote me if you disagree.

>Play a game with all dice rolls removed and report back
Me from 10 years ago says "hi". It was cool for playing chess with my dad, and making pew pew noises with an action man figure when I was six was funny, but this is a system and universe that really can only be played and understood by older teens, and adults. And only the latter can buy into it these days.

>Advocates reading the thread
>Fails to read the thread

There's a certain irony when you tell other people to read the thread, but continue to assert something no one has claimed or advocated.