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.

 Ailaros wrote:
Right, but so what?

Trying to make another game like 40k is only a problem because you're making it like 40k. If that's the case, then just play 40k.

There's no reason you can't port over the models and fluff much more easily, though. You can use your predators and dreadnoughts in flames of war by just using the flames of war rules for vehicles. They won't be the same rules as the rules for them in 40k, but, well, isn't that the ENTIRE POINT in the first place?

Because if you didn't want them to have different rules, then you'd just play 40k.

How well does Flames of War do psychic powers? Or jump infantry? Demons? Probably as well as Warmachine does transports and fliers.

The idea wasn't to make another game like 40k- you've missed the point. The idea is to provide a way to get some 40k models on the table, acting like they do in the 40k fluff and have a tactically deep and challenging game without having major imbalances or rules disputes. That has been achieved. It's only that the scope of the game- notably larger models like fliers- aren't easily translated and to be fair 40k has worn its own share of criticism over the scale of the game.

But this is wandering off topic. Randomness should only be invoked where necessary- as an arbiter. It can rob a player of victory who wins as surely as one who loses. I for one don't want to beat my opponent because of some random act of fate neither of us could cause, control or direct. Nor do I wish to lose to one. It diminishes the game for both of us.

If you look at Hordes of the Things or the earlier fantasy version of WRG Ancients, you simply map the magical elements of the new game on to the existing non-magical elements.

For example, a dragon works as an elephant with a fire syphon and ignores all terrain when moving.

From the rules perspective it doesn't matter if a unit is represented by an elephant model or a dragon model. What matters is the effect on enemy units.

 amanita wrote:
Randomness should resolve a player's actions and decisions.

Randomness should not be their actions and decisions.

Nicely put.

Rolling to hit or save a wound? That's fine, that gives an impartial judge to what suceeds and what fails and can be counted on reliably, and you can build a list making sure your odds are good and expect largely consistent results.

Rolling for psyker powers or warlord traits? Now I can't trust my psykers and warlord to actually be good or even capable of doing what I paid for them to do. I'd be perfectly willing to pay more points to get the powers or warlord traits I want according to their utility. As it stands now, you can end up rolling witchfires for units with a BS of zero or your Tau warlord's super special skill is being slightly better at assault. It also makes "forging the narrative" much harder as it removes consistency from your characters. It'd be like having to roll on a table to decide what feats or spells you get every level in D&D. It's essentially saying I can't create an army with the flavour I want it to have and means that I can be completely screwed by bad dice rolls at the start of the game.

Objective cards? Now I can't even plan ahead for what I'm actually going to have to do every game. Rolling for gametype was already annoying enough for people who brought in an army that turns out to be totally unsuitable for the mission at hand, now it feels like I'm playing Mario Party with Power Armor with all these random events.

Night fighting? This isn't a problem of night fighting being randomly rolled. It's a problem with night fighting's length making absolutely no sense. Do we all fight on the fastest rotating planets in the universe or is there a gentleman's agreement to only fight in the last minutes of day or night?

Random charge distances? Not only is it one of many slaps in the face to a method of combat that has only grown weaker in every edition since third, it also, again; makes no sense, especially when shooting is always garaunteed. When my Carnifexes charge my wife's Wraithguard only to undershoot their charge range within four inches and thus be left standing there picking their noses (apparently they must have all slipped on banana peels left by the farseer or something) while the D-scythes fire up and fry all of them I'm left standing there wondering how is that even possible. Meanwhile said Wraithguard will always reliably get to fire their templates every time, it may not do much of anything if the distort rolls are bad or the enemy rolls really well on their invulnerable saves (and FNP), but they will at least get to fire off with 100% certainty at any valid target in range.

It feels less like I'm in command of the game and more like I'm moving things around to spectate for the results of a slot machine.

A good comparison to the cards in 40k are the mission cards in Deadzone. You each draw your mission cards before you start playing, it stays the same for the whole game. You may need to play objectives, you may need to focus on particular enemy units, get to the other side of the board, a good variety which has differences for each faction. Your mission draw is random, but it's done once and then you can base your strategy around it for the rest of the game. It's a *much* better system than randomly changing your objective every turn which doesn't let you plan things out, rather just make required knee jerk reactions.

 Yonan wrote:
A good comparison to the cards in 40k are the mission cards in Deadzone. You each draw your mission cards before you start playing, it stays the same for the whole game. You may need to play objectives, you may need to focus on particular enemy units, get to the other side of the board, a good variety which has differences for each faction. Your mission draw is random, but it's done once and then you can base your strategy around it for the rest of the game. It's a *much* better system than randomly changing your objective every turn which doesn't let you plan things out, rather just make required knee jerk reactions.

Unless I read it wrong, you only change your objectives after you achieve the previous ones or if you really don't like the objective. On that basis you're hardly changing everything every turn.

In the battle reports I've seen, it seems as though basically every turn due to not liking the cards and/or achieving objectives, people are changing cards that often. Limited sample ofc, and may not be that bad.

I don't see how random charge distances are realistic in any case. My IG could charge at the same speed as a Speed Freak biker, or they could trip over their shoelaces- all 50 of them.

 Banzaimash wrote:
I don't see how random charge distances are realistic in any case. My IG could charge at the same speed as a Speed Freak biker, or they could trip over their shoelaces- all 50 of them.

Nothing in 40k is necessarily realistic, its just a representation. GW wanted to make it harder to guarantee that assault units can get into the safety of close combat. There are lots of ways you could justify what the dice roll actually represents, but its only the final effect that is important to gameplay.

 Flinty wrote:

 Banzaimash wrote:
I don't see how random charge distances are realistic in any case. My IG could charge at the same speed as a Speed Freak biker, or they could trip over their shoelaces- all 50 of them.

Nothing in 40k is necessarily realistic, its just a representation. GW wanted to make it harder to guarantee that assault units can get into the safety of close combat. There are lots of ways you could justify what the dice roll actually represents, but its only the final effect that is important to gameplay.

It still really isn't thanks to chaos daemons and super turbo bikers and guards. It's just random for lulz because 40k loves randomness.

 Flinty wrote:

 Banzaimash wrote:
I don't see how random charge distances are realistic in any case. My IG could charge at the same speed as a Speed Freak biker, or they could trip over their shoelaces- all 50 of them.

Nothing in 40k is necessarily realistic, its just a representation. GW wanted to make it harder to guarantee that assault units can get into the safety of close combat. There are lots of ways you could justify what the dice roll actually represents, but its only the final effect that is important to gameplay.

Then they chose one of the worst possible ways to do it.

Rather than mess about with charge distances.
Why not just make units have to pass a morale/motivation test before they can charge?

This is a better way to deal with the isue IMO.

War game players are happy enough with risk management, based on probabilities...

They are not happy when the dice roll determine the in game action for them.

Eg 'I only have a 1 in 12 chance of failing to motivate my unit to charge the bunker.I will take that risk!'

Is much better than
'oh bugger I only rolled 4 on 2D6 , leaving my unit in the middle of open ground ready to be shot to bits next turn!'

Might as well go 6+D6 Charge distance.

Has anyone actually tried 40K with any of the varied suggestions?

 Flinty wrote:

 Banzaimash wrote:
I don't see how random charge distances are realistic in any case. My IG could charge at the same speed as a Speed Freak biker, or they could trip over their shoelaces- all 50 of them.

Nothing in 40k is necessarily realistic, its just a representation. GW wanted to make it harder to guarantee that assault units can get into the safety of close combat. There are lots of ways you could justify what the dice roll actually represents, but its only the final effect that is important to gameplay.

But there is no way that a man can run as fast as a motorbike, which is what is happening when you roll boxcars. Even as a representation it is flawed.

 Flinty wrote:

 Banzaimash wrote:
I don't see how random charge distances are realistic in any case. My IG could charge at the same speed as a Speed Freak biker, or they could trip over their shoelaces- all 50 of them.

Nothing in 40k is necessarily realistic, its just a representation. GW wanted to make it harder to guarantee that assault units can get into the safety of close combat. There are lots of ways you could justify what the dice roll actually represents, but its only the final effect that is important to gameplay.

Exactly that.

Your 50 guardsmen charge, following their captain. He trips over and everyone else takes this as an order to hit the dirt. The key point is that your charge does not get into contact. Precisely why does not matter.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Flinty wrote:

 Banzaimash wrote:
I don't see how random charge distances are realistic in any case. My IG could charge at the same speed as a Speed Freak biker, or they could trip over their shoelaces- all 50 of them.

Nothing in 40k is necessarily realistic, its just a representation. GW wanted to make it harder to guarantee that assault units can get into the safety of close combat. There are lots of ways you could justify what the dice roll actually represents, but its only the final effect that is important to gameplay.

Exactly that.

Your 50 guardsmen charge, following their captain. He trips over and everyone else takes this as an order to hit the dirt. The key point is that your charge does not get into contact. Precisely why does not matter.

All guns are now 4d6 to represent the randomness of the battlefield it's because of smoke and orders from the commander.

Or are we going to argue that assault is good and balanced with shooting?

And it still raises a question... how is it that some terminators can charge further or even as far as a biker? Add to that, even killkrazy's point makes no sense. They charge then say forget it and run back

Why is it we randomise to charge, but not to move, that too doesn't make sense. Should we also be rolling a D6 to check if weapons jam? It doesn't even represent what is going on in any way. Why charges fail DOES matter, otherwise why not have infantry moving 12" just because.

I propose that every time we do anything we should make a random roll to see if it actually happens.
Want to move a unit? Roll for it.
Want a unit to shoot? Roll for it.
Want to deploy a unit? Roll for it.
You might think that you're capturing that objective, but because you rolled low your unit is too busy picking daisies to capture it.

 StarTrotter wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Flinty wrote:

 Banzaimash wrote:
I don't see how random charge distances are realistic in any case. My IG could charge at the same speed as a Speed Freak biker, or they could trip over their shoelaces- all 50 of them.

Nothing in 40k is necessarily realistic, its just a representation. GW wanted to make it harder to guarantee that assault units can get into the safety of close combat. There are lots of ways you could justify what the dice roll actually represents, but its only the final effect that is important to gameplay.

Exactly that.

Your 50 guardsmen charge, following their captain. He trips over and everyone else takes this as an order to hit the dirt. The key point is that your charge does not get into contact. Precisely why does not matter.

All guns are now 4d6 to represent the randomness of the battlefield it's because of smoke and orders from the commander.

Or are we going to argue that assault is good and balanced with shooting?

And it still raises a question... how is it that some terminators can charge further or even as far as a biker? Add to that, even killkrazy's point makes no sense. They charge then say forget it and run back

My point is that the result of the die roll is what is important. You can rationalise it any number of ways. If you prefer, the captain leading the charge gets hit; he goes down and everyone following him hits the dirt. A minute later he recovers from his swoon, caused by a glancing blow to the head, but the timely opportunity to attack has been lost. How can that make no sense?

If you want to compare it with random ranges for shooting, we already have them in the form of night fighting, for example. It could be perfectly reasonable to roll 4D6 for visual range every turn of every game. I certainly wouldn't argue with it. It could be an interesting game.

I think the biggest problem is with 'fictional setting' for games it CAN allow more 'relaxed justification '.

Rather than work within a intuitive and easy to learn consistent structure of interaction the player can identify with.

The developers can simply use 'a wizard did it..' or 'its just the way of the warp.' to cram loads of cool ideas into the game without really looking at the internal consistency of the game play.

I think this is the core issue with current 40k development, they are trying to inspire purchases with cool looking and sounding product.With little to no thought given to actual game play.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Flinty wrote:

 Banzaimash wrote:
I don't see how random charge distances are realistic in any case. My IG could charge at the same speed as a Speed Freak biker, or they could trip over their shoelaces- all 50 of them.

Nothing in 40k is necessarily realistic, its just a representation. GW wanted to make it harder to guarantee that assault units can get into the safety of close combat. There are lots of ways you could justify what the dice roll actually represents, but its only the final effect that is important to gameplay.

Exactly that.

Your 50 guardsmen charge, following their captain. He trips over and everyone else takes this as an order to hit the dirt. The key point is that your charge does not get into contact. Precisely why does not matter.

All guns are now 4d6 to represent the randomness of the battlefield it's because of smoke and orders from the commander.

Or are we going to argue that assault is good and balanced with shooting?

And it still raises a question... how is it that some terminators can charge further or even as far as a biker? Add to that, even killkrazy's point makes no sense. They charge then say forget it and run back

My point is that the result of the die roll is what is important. You can rationalise it any number of ways. If you prefer, the captain leading the charge gets hit; he goes down and everyone following him hits the dirt. A minute later he recovers from his swoon, caused by a glancing blow to the head, but the timely opportunity to attack has been lost. How can that make no sense?

If you want to compare it with random ranges for shooting, we already have them in the form of night fighting, for example. It could be perfectly reasonable to roll 4D6 for visual range every turn of every game. I certainly wouldn't argue with it. It could be an interesting game.

Rationalise terminators running as fast as a bike.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or gretchin for that matter

 Banzaimash wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Flinty wrote:

 Banzaimash wrote:
I don't see how random charge distances are realistic in any case. My IG could charge at the same speed as a Speed Freak biker, or they could trip over their shoelaces- all 50 of them.

Nothing in 40k is necessarily realistic, its just a representation. GW wanted to make it harder to guarantee that assault units can get into the safety of close combat. There are lots of ways you could justify what the dice roll actually represents, but its only the final effect that is important to gameplay.

Exactly that.

Your 50 guardsmen charge, following their captain. He trips over and everyone else takes this as an order to hit the dirt. The key point is that your charge does not get into contact. Precisely why does not matter.

All guns are now 4d6 to represent the randomness of the battlefield it's because of smoke and orders from the commander.

Or are we going to argue that assault is good and balanced with shooting?

And it still raises a question... how is it that some terminators can charge further or even as far as a biker? Add to that, even killkrazy's point makes no sense. They charge then say forget it and run back

My point is that the result of the die roll is what is important. You can rationalise it any number of ways. If you prefer, the captain leading the charge gets hit; he goes down and everyone following him hits the dirt. A minute later he recovers from his swoon, caused by a glancing blow to the head, but the timely opportunity to attack has been lost. How can that make no sense?

If you want to compare it with random ranges for shooting, we already have them in the form of night fighting, for example. It could be perfectly reasonable to roll 4D6 for visual range every turn of every game. I certainly wouldn't argue with it. It could be an interesting game.

Rationalise terminators running as fast as a bike.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or gretchin for that matter

Movement phase

To be honest at the size it is played now w40k has problems with ranges , because either normal guardsman have bionic legs and run like demons or most rifles , including those who are the size of RPG , have a smaller range then some pistols .

 Banzaimash wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Flinty wrote:

 Banzaimash wrote:
I don't see how random charge distances are realistic in any case. My IG could charge at the same speed as a Speed Freak biker, or they could trip over their shoelaces- all 50 of them.

Nothing in 40k is necessarily realistic, its just a representation. GW wanted to make it harder to guarantee that assault units can get into the safety of close combat. There are lots of ways you could justify what the dice roll actually represents, but its only the final effect that is important to gameplay.

Exactly that.

Your 50 guardsmen charge, following their captain. He trips over and everyone else takes this as an order to hit the dirt. The key point is that your charge does not get into contact. Precisely why does not matter.

All guns are now 4d6 to represent the randomness of the battlefield it's because of smoke and orders from the commander.

Or are we going to argue that assault is good and balanced with shooting?

And it still raises a question... how is it that some terminators can charge further or even as far as a biker? Add to that, even killkrazy's point makes no sense. They charge then say forget it and run back

My point is that the result of the die roll is what is important. You can rationalise it any number of ways. If you prefer, the captain leading the charge gets hit; he goes down and everyone following him hits the dirt. A minute later he recovers from his swoon, caused by a glancing blow to the head, but the timely opportunity to attack has been lost. How can that make no sense?

If you want to compare it with random ranges for shooting, we already have them in the form of night fighting, for example. It could be perfectly reasonable to roll 4D6 for visual range every turn of every game. I certainly wouldn't argue with it. It could be an interesting game.

Rationalise terminators running as fast as a bike.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or gretchin for that matter

How long is a phase? Where does it state that all phases are the same length, or even that different units utilise the same length of time to undertake their actions? How fast is the bike going? Its all a representation.

The rules specifically state that the normal 6" movement represents a careful advance taking frequent pauses to check for the enemy, stop for orders and take firing positions. Its easy to extrapolate that to allowing infantry to move much faster with less caution, e.g. to charge into combat.

Alternatively when infantry makes really big rolls, maybe it represents the combined movement of the charging unit plus an enemy counter-charge.

 Flinty wrote:

 Banzaimash wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Flinty wrote:

 Banzaimash wrote:
I don't see how random charge distances are realistic in any case. My IG could charge at the same speed as a Speed Freak biker, or they could trip over their shoelaces- all 50 of them.

Nothing in 40k is necessarily realistic, its just a representation. GW wanted to make it harder to guarantee that assault units can get into the safety of close combat. There are lots of ways you could justify what the dice roll actually represents, but its only the final effect that is important to gameplay.

Exactly that.

Your 50 guardsmen charge, following their captain. He trips over and everyone else takes this as an order to hit the dirt. The key point is that your charge does not get into contact. Precisely why does not matter.

All guns are now 4d6 to represent the randomness of the battlefield it's because of smoke and orders from the commander.

Or are we going to argue that assault is good and balanced with shooting?

And it still raises a question... how is it that some terminators can charge further or even as far as a biker? Add to that, even killkrazy's point makes no sense. They charge then say forget it and run back

My point is that the result of the die roll is what is important. You can rationalise it any number of ways. If you prefer, the captain leading the charge gets hit; he goes down and everyone following him hits the dirt. A minute later he recovers from his swoon, caused by a glancing blow to the head, but the timely opportunity to attack has been lost. How can that make no sense?

If you want to compare it with random ranges for shooting, we already have them in the form of night fighting, for example. It could be perfectly reasonable to roll 4D6 for visual range every turn of every game. I certainly wouldn't argue with it. It could be an interesting game.

Rationalise terminators running as fast as a bike.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or gretchin for that matter

How long is a phase? Where does it state that all phases are the same length, or even that different units utilise the same length of time to undertake their actions? How fast is the bike going? Its all a representation.

The rules specifically state that the normal 6" movement represents a careful advance taking frequent pauses to check for the enemy, stop for orders and take firing positions. Its easy to extrapolate that to allowing infantry to move much faster with less caution, e.g. to charge into combat.

Alternatively when infantry makes really big rolls, maybe it represents the combined movement of the charging unit plus an enemy counter-charge.

Cool story. Still doesn't explain how that charging unit is moving at the same speed as a motorbike or why your "enemy counter-charge" doesn't change its board position, but it is a cool story!

That's just silly especially since the enemies never really get to move and only really get buffs if they actually have the rule counter-charge. Overall just no.

So then overall from this I hear that we are encouraging...
Shooting 4d6
Charge 2d6
Movement 1d6
Run 1d6

Woooo! Have fun with that! #ForgingtheNarrative

I am actually encouraging that sarcastically.
I think all of them, including random charge, are completely awful ideas that make the game less tactical and engaging.

 Banzaimash wrote:
I don't see how random charge distances are realistic in any case. My IG could charge at the same speed as a Speed Freak biker, or they could trip over their shoelaces- all 50 of them.

but many game systems have fixed charge rates regardless of how far the unit can move in the movement phase. It's a different sequence, it's not a new "movement" phase. I'd be all for a fixed 6" assault distance, and that would be 6" for everything. Assault is all about CQB and melee, it shouldn't matter how far you can move...that's what the movement phase is for. Terrain would not slow infantry down but vehicles could bog and bikes take terrain tests etc.
Granted, it may seem odd that a dreadnought assaults twice as far as a jetbike in the current system, but I don't see why a jetbike should assault further than a dreadnought. You've already had your movement bonus in the Movement phase.

bullyboy wrote:

 Banzaimash wrote:
I don't see how random charge distances are realistic in any case. My IG could charge at the same speed as a Speed Freak biker, or they could trip over their shoelaces- all 50 of them.

but many game systems have fixed charge rates regardless of how far the unit can move in the movement phase. It's a different sequence, it's not a new "movement" phase. I'd be all for a fixed 6" assault distance, and that would be 6" for everything. Assault is all about CQB and melee, it shouldn't matter how far you can move...that's what the movement phase is for. Terrain would not slow infantry down but vehicles could bog and bikes take terrain tests etc.
Granted, it may seem odd that a dreadnought assaults twice as far as a jetbike in the current system, but I don't see why a jetbike should assault further than a dreadnought. You've already had your movement bonus in the Movement phase.

Eh I wouldn't mind if they diversified movement a bit more. At this point it's like you go 6" or you go 12" or you just skip to 18+
It's kind of wild really. I get why there would be caution. Orks would likely have a lower movement which means enemies can juke even better and so on, still, I can't help but feel variable movements would really make a difference. That or I'm insane either can work.

Wouldn't it be awesome if units actually had a movement characteristic to define how fast they move? Wouldn't that be amazingly innovative? *cough* 2nd edition

The removal of the movement characteristic was a "wtf?" moment for me and it remains confusing why after all these years we don't just have a movement characteristic instead of a bunch of special rules to describe varying movement rates. It seems like one of the most fundamental things that different models have different move rates so should just be included in their profile.