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.
Verviedi wrote: Randomized events that cause you to randomly lose (losing a turn = auto loss) are trash game design.
Non-randomized events that cause you to auto lose are even worse, such as showing up to an event and facing off against an army that counters everything your army does.
Verviedi wrote: Randomized events that cause you to randomly lose (losing a turn = auto loss) are trash game design.
Non-randomized events that cause you to auto lose are even worse, such as showing up to an event and facing off against an army that counters everything your army does.
Well that is sort of random, or at least unpredictable. Either that or you just made poor decisions when designing your army.
I feel you need to strike a balance between randomness, player skill, and army powers.
It should not be the case that a game should have an obvious victor from the start, unless one player is either an idiot, or trying to lose.
Having something unpredictable in the middle of a game is not necessarily a bad way to help us get there. For example, Blood Bowl. While not a particularly balanced, fair, or even consistent game, player skill and weighing the odds are made fairly important by the fact that at any moment reality might gak on you. Sometimes a game needs something systemic to react to.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/22 22:00:50
ncshooter426 wrote: Age of Sigmar doesn't follow a set you-go-I-go round. At the beginning of each round, opponents roll off to see who will go first. That means that there is always a chance the guy who just finished his round gets go go again - a pretty big tactical consideration (either boon or bane) to be aware of.
Funny, AoS is panned as the easier of the games - but I find it far more tactically driven than 40K.
Trying to compensate for potential randomness maybe involve player skill and tactics, but it does not mean it makes a game more tactically driven or skillful, because randomness can screw you over. AoS is easier and less skillful, because random chance plays a proportionally larger role. It's like adding one part skill to three parts random chance, you have technically added more opportunities for skill to matter, but the game overall is now more determined by luck than it previously was.
Blood bowl is the classic example of this. Requires more input mid game than most GW properties, but random chance is such a huge factor that it's impossible to say it's all but impossible to say it's a more skillful game than most.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/22 22:17:20
ncshooter426 wrote: Age of Sigmar doesn't follow a set you-go-I-go round. At the beginning of each round, opponents roll off to see who will go first. That means that there is always a chance the guy who just finished his round gets go go again - a pretty big tactical consideration (either boon or bane) to be aware of.
Funny, AoS is panned as the easier of the games - but I find it far more tactically driven than 40K.
Trying to compensate for potential randomness maybe involve player skill and tactics, but it does not mean it makes a game more tactically driven or skillful, because randomness can screw you over. AoS is easier and less skillful, because random chance plays a proportionally larger role. It's like adding one part skill to three parts random chance, you have technically added more opportunities for skill to matter, but the game overall is now more determined by luck than it previously was.
Blood bowl is the classic example of this. Requires more input mid game than most GW properties, but random chance is such a huge factor that it's impossible to say it's all but impossible to say it's a more skillful game than most.
Randomness and skill are not mutually exclusive. Yes, more randomness means that the better player has a lower winrate vs an inferior player, but the skill-cap can still be very high. The typical example is poker, without a doubt a random game but with a huge skillcap. A physically limited game like Warhammer needs to be quite random in order to support local gaming circles. Small player pool in an area means that there is no way to match players with other players of equal skill, bad (and un-competitive) players are going to need free wins in order to protect their egos or they might just stop playing.
sossen wrote: Randomness and skill are not mutually exclusive. Yes, more randomness means that the better player has a lower winrate vs an inferior player, but the skill-cap can still be very high. The typical example is poker, without a doubt a random game but with a huge skillcap. A physically limited game like Warhammer needs to be quite random in order to support local gaming circles. Small player pool in an area means that there is no way to match players with other players of equal skill, bad (and un-competitive) players are going to need free wins in order to protect their egos or they might just stop playing.
I agree they aren't mutually exclusive, I even made the point that one game can require more skill than another, even if that same games result is determined more by luck than skill. I just think AoS is a game where the randomness tends to weigh heavier overall than 40K currently.
As far as the need for randomness, that's also solved by most long term players having a fairly garbage "for fun" army or army build they can break out as needed. If you play with people who won't do that... well warhammer is also a social game, and you can't really compensate for having a less than pleasant group of players.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/22 23:08:12
ncshooter426 wrote: Age of Sigmar doesn't follow a set you-go-I-go round. At the beginning of each round, opponents roll off to see who will go first. That means that there is always a chance the guy who just finished his round gets go go again - a pretty big tactical consideration (either boon or bane) to be aware of.
Funny, AoS is panned as the easier of the games - but I find it far more tactically driven than 40K.
Trying to compensate for potential randomness maybe involve player skill and tactics, but it does not mean it makes a game more tactically driven or skillful, because randomness can screw you over. AoS is easier and less skillful, because random chance plays a proportionally larger role. It's like adding one part skill to three parts random chance, you have technically added more opportunities for skill to matter, but the game overall is now more determined by luck than it previously was.
Blood bowl is the classic example of this. Requires more input mid game than most GW properties, but random chance is such a huge factor that it's impossible to say it's all but impossible to say it's a more skillful game than most.
Having played both, movement and weapon choice are far larger of a concern than 40K. AoS has reduction of blob strength as it dies off - something that would have curbed the conscript issue right out. Basically, I think it's a better game system overall - but at least some elements were carried over to 40K. Randomness makes it interesting, makes it better.
In reality - there is nothing really deep tactically about either system. Trade off for being fun I suppose.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/22 23:24:27
Pretty sure the chance of a random double-turn wouldn't work well in 40k. Do you really want a Tau (or even Imperial Guard) gunline to get a double-turn early in the game, when most of their guns are still on the field?
Also, even an AoS style double-turn is significantly different than straight-up losing your turn to a roll. At least in AoS, for that to happen the person getting the double-turn had to have already gone second, meaning you've already got at least one turn against them. But if you can just straight lose a turn, what if you lose your first turn? The enemy would get to alpha-strike you with a full-strength army twice, for most armies that'd end the game on the spot.
Verviedi wrote: Randomized events that cause you to randomly lose (losing a turn = auto loss) are trash game design.
Non-randomized events that cause you to auto lose are even worse, such as showing up to an event and facing off against an army that counters everything your army does.
That's when you realize that you did a bad job writing your list, and write a better one next time.
Verviedi wrote: Randomized events that cause you to randomly lose (losing a turn = auto loss) are trash game design.
Funny, that seems to work fine in AoS.
Explain.
Age of Sigmar doesn't follow a set you-go-I-go round. At the beginning of each round, opponents roll off to see who will go first. That means that there is always a chance the guy who just finished his round gets go go again - a pretty big tactical consideration (either boon or bane) to be aware of.
Funny, AoS is panned as the easier of the games - but I find it far more tactically driven than 40K.
40k has enough shooting that a double turn would be utterly disastrous. It "works" in a melee driven game like AoS. Not in 40k.
Peregrine - If you like the army buy it, and don't worry about what one random person on the internet thinks.
So what I'm seeing here is a discussion on "concerns about" and "arguments for" random events. I think it would be easier to argue about potential events than just the hypothetical concept;
- At the end of each game turn, roll 2D6 (or maybe 3D6, for variety's sake) and consult a chart
- Several possible results do nothing
- One result is select D3 units for each army, those units (chosen by opposing player) are hit by meteors / falling debris / warp rifts
- One result is whichever player has the least amount of points left on the field gets to respawn a quantity of their army
- One result is one randomly selected item of terrain or objective collapses / detonates / vanishes with a KRAK
Selym wrote: So what I'm seeing here is a discussion on "concerns about" and "arguments for" random events. I think it would be easier to argue about potential events than just the hypothetical concept;
- At the end of each game turn, roll 2D6 (or maybe 3D6, for variety's sake) and consult a chart
- Several possible results do nothing
Why do they exist, then?
- One result is select D3 units for each army, those units (chosen by opposing player) are hit by meteors / falling debris / warp rifts
So, through no fault of my own, even if I am playing perfectly, I am penalized by losing units because I rolled the wrong result on a chart?
- One result is whichever player has the least amount of points left on the field gets to respawn a quantity of their army
So, the effort I expended to remove a portion of their army is rendered null, because I rolled the wrong result on a chart. The game is now unbalanced, because my opponent gets (X + Y) points, and I only get my starting X.
- One result is one randomly selected item of terrain or objective collapses / detonates / vanishes with a KRAK
So, I or my opponent loses victory points because the table says so? Say, an objective I'm holding disappears on turn 4, and I lose the game because I rolled the wrong result.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/07/23 01:53:56
Peregrine - If you like the army buy it, and don't worry about what one random person on the internet thinks.
Selym wrote: So what I'm seeing here is a discussion on "concerns about" and "arguments for" random events. I think it would be easier to argue about potential events than just the hypothetical concept;
- At the end of each game turn, roll 2D6 (or maybe 3D6, for variety's sake) and consult a chart
- Several possible results do nothing
Why do they exist, then? Because it's not supposed to be guaranteed that something will happen every turn.
- One result is select D3 units for each army, those units (chosen by opposing player) are hit by meteors / falling debris / warp rifts
So, through no fault of my own, even if I am playing perfectly, I am penalized by losing units because I rolled the wrong result on a chart? Both players get hit, and it is triggered on a game turn. If you're close to causing a tabling this could have the potential to finish them off. It should also help actually *discourage* tabling, as players should be less likely to risk their units in high-risk high-reward scenarios (such as deepstriking),
because it could leave them with too few units to survive one of these. I also have not specified the quantity of damage, so it could be anywhere from "annoying" to "deadly".
- One result is whichever player has the least amount of points left on the field gets to respawn a quantity of their army
So, the effort I expended to remove a portion of their army is rendered null, because I rolled the wrong result on a chart. The game is now unbalanced, because my opponent gets (X + Y) points, and I only get my starting X. Intended to balance out a clear looser so that they actually have a chance to fight back. Makes games not constantly end in a tabling if this occurs. Unless you measure fun by how many tablings you caused in a day, this is far from the end of the world.
- One result is one randomly selected item of terrain or objective collapses / detonates / vanishes with a KRAK
So, I or my opponent loses victory points because the table says so? Say, an objective I'm holding disappears on turn 4, and I lose the game because I rolled the wrong result. Isn't it possible to score points mid-game while sitting on an objective? Eh. This list is a set of possibilities to discuss the merits or lack thereof in having a random event system.
One thing to remember is that the whole point of a random event system is to have players play more conservatively, due to not knowing when reality will gak on them (as per the 40k universe).
No, it isn't. Points are only gained at the end, unless you're playing Maelstrom, which is its own special kind of bad.
Why are you penalizing people for playing well and doing damage to their opponent's army? High-risk high-reward things are already high-risk enough, they don't need more risk. If I'm better than my opponent, I deserve the win.
Peregrine - If you like the army buy it, and don't worry about what one random person on the internet thinks.
Verviedi wrote: No, it isn't. Points are only gained at the end, unless you're playing Maelstrom, which is its own special kind of bad.
Why are you penalizing people for playing well and doing damage to their opponent's army? High-risk high-reward things are already high-risk enough, they don't need more risk. If I'm better than my opponent, I deserve the win.
Sure, in a game where skill actually mattered. But this is 40k, sadly. As previously established in the thread, 40k games are pretty unbalanced at the army level.
That and they are expendable discussion points. I'm not trying to penalize skillful players. Spent five minutes trying to direct the conversation in a useful direction only to encounter someone who seems determined to take the whole thing personally.
Verviedi wrote: The optimal changes to 40k would shift it in the direction of the following composition.
70% skill ingame, 20% skill listbuilding, 10% luck. Right now, it's about 33% all around.
I'm not taking things personally, if that was directed towards me. I'm criticizing your ideas, not being insulted by them.
Criticism's fine, that's what the list is for. It helps to criticise in the third person, to avoid being interpreted as personally offended, though.
I'd put 40k at: 15% In-Game Skill, 10% Luck, 75% Listbuilding. It is really quite hard to "just make" a viable list, especially post 5e. Most of us can conjure up a viable list for one or more different races in about a minute because we've been doing this for years, but workable lists are utterly counter-intuitive and unfluffy. You literally have to make a statistical breakdown of everything, simply because that's what the rest of us do.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/23 03:55:08
As an AdMech player, I can agree. You'd think that our lists would be based on Skitarii and Kataphrons, which our fluff says are spammed in great numbers.
...Lol, nope.
Peregrine - If you like the army buy it, and don't worry about what one random person on the internet thinks.
Doesn't matter anymore. New FAQ (as of today) states that Flyer battlefield role units (Stormravens, Avengers, Dakka Jets, etc) and empty Fortifications no longer count for Sudden Death, so if a turn ends and you only have Flyer FOC units on the board? You lose.
That probably won't apply for the ETC itself, but it will probably apply for all future tournaments.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Taikishi wrote: Doesn't matter anymore. New FAQ (as of today) states that Flyer battlefield role units (Stormravens, Avengers, Dakka Jets, etc) and empty Fortifications no longer count for Sudden Death, so if a turn ends and you only have Flyer FOC units on the board? You lose.
Yeah, generally that's not going to apply to the tournament. I mean, if they used the FAQ any army list which used razorwing flocks would be over 2000 points, invalid, and therefor instantly lose.
Are there any lists that would actually be playable if they used the FAQs?
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
Mr Morden wrote: Are there any lists that would actually be playable if they used the FAQs?
Conscript and brimstone horror spam lists would be fine. I actually think a few of the stormraven lists would be as well. As well as the oddball sister/ork list I think I saw a couple of.
I'm quite sold on Northern Irelands AdMech list. It's focusing on onagers and kastellans. Can it make the cut in a highly competitive environment?...or is it a bit too soft?
rollawaythestone wrote: Wow that's a lot of Razorwing Flocks. Geez they have to fix that unit. Also kind of sad no one is playing Craftworld or stock Harlequins - it's all Ynnari.
Guess why?
Lists with dozens of Razorwing Flocks are a bit unreal. They shouldnt allow proxies.
Spoiler:
ARMY FACTION: Ynnari + TOTAL COMMAND POINTS: 6 + TOTAL ARMY POINTS: 1986 + ARMY FACTIONS USED: Ynnari, Drukhari, Harlequins, Asuryani + TOTAL REINFORCEMENT POINTS: not applicable
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
== Vanguard detachment == Ynnari – (744 pts) +1 CP HQ1: Shadowseer (134), Neuro disruptor (10) (Mirror of minds) [144pts]
Elites1: Beastmaster (56), Power sword (4) (Combat Drug: Splintermind) [60pts] WAR-LORD – (Inspiring leader)
Elites2: Beastmaster (56), Power sword (4) (Combat Drug: Hypex) [60pts]
Elites3: Beastmaster (56), Power sword (4) (Combat Drug: Grave Lotus) [60pts]
Fast1: 12 Razorwing flocks (84) [84pts]
Fast2: 12 Razorwing flocks (84) [84pts]
Fast3: (unlocked by beastmaster) 12 Razorwing flocks (84) [84pts]
Fast4: (unlocked by beastmaster) 12 Razorwing flocks (84) [84pts]
Fast5: (unlocked by beastmaster) 12 Razorwing flocks (84) [84pts]
== Outrider detachment == Ynnari (636 pts) +1 CP HQ2: Yvraine (Gaze of ynnead, Word of the phoenix) [132pts]
Fast6: 12 Razorwing flocks (84) [84pts]
Fast7: 12 Razorwing flocks (84) [84pts]
Fast8: 12 Razorwing flocks (84) [84pts]
Fast9: 12 Razorwing flocks (84) [84pts]
Fast10: 12 Razorwing flocks (84) [84pts]
Fast11: 12 Razorwing flocks (84) [84pts]
== Supreme command detachment == Ynnari (616 pts) +1 CP HQ3: Yncarne (Ancestors grace, word of the phoenix) [337pts]
HQ2: Maugan Ra [159pts]
HQ3: Farseer (Doom, Fortune) (106), singing spear (14) [120pts]
ARMY REINFORCEMENT POINTS: 0 ARMY REINFORCEMENT FACTION: NONE
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/25 14:19:38
Former moderator 40kOnline
Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!
Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a "" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."
Does anyone know of ETC is ignoring the FAQ, or is there a last minute scramble to have every team fix their lists in line of the changes to flyers, razorwings, and Ynnari?
Randomness and skill are not mutually exclusive. Yes, more randomness means that the better player has a lower winrate vs an inferior player, but the skill-cap can still be very high. The typical example is poker, without a doubt a random game but with a huge skillcap. A physically limited game like Warhammer needs to be quite random in order to support local gaming circles. Small player pool in an area means that there is no way to match players with other players of equal skill, bad (and un-competitive) players are going to need free wins in order to protect their egos or they might just stop playing. 
