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.

The Division Of Joy wrote:
People like zlayer are just as bad for the WM scene as power gaming cheese mongers are for 40k. That smug sense of superiority really boils my urine. We had people cheering when it was realised there was more WM that anything else at my local club for the first time. Like they'd banished some evil spirit. The tribalism is pathetic.

I'd also argue that you can buy to win to an extent. Or cheese your way to a win. The local TFG for a first list, bought everything for a tier 4 syntherion and made it very boring to play. Is that unbeatable? No, but it needs an experienced player to think of a good counter and will require more model buying. The other TFG just sets up a load of forests and plays his legion list. Again, not much fun.

A game against a TFG is rubbish no matter what, and both systems allow them to act up.

Thank god not all WM players are like this, because I enjoy the game when it's played with a decent person.

The Thing is that "my kind", get our thrills when we here about stuff like that.. When you say you have two dudes with list like that.. I want to play them and see if I can beat them.. I get that good "fuzzy feeling", taking down the hard competition. When i get beaten in Warmachine/Hordes it just triggers me to play even more to get better at the game..

Now I have been playing W/H since 2010, and back then most of us where the 40k rejects, the people that just had to PG everything and abuse the broken rules of GWs game.. I think that has changed. And I do not know why but I instantly felt really satisfied when you wrote "we had people cheering when it was realised there was more WM in your local club" I think it comes down to the competitive nature in us, Beating 40k in sales and players is also a "WIN". And our way of thinking is that we "WANT TO BEAT GW". That is the explanation why people where cheering.. It is like hearing your local football club that where playing in the second division a few years ago, is now a serious contender and has just beaten Arsenal... You cheer of pure Joy..you just can't help it..

We cant help being the way we are, we are just very competitive players.. But one thing that is important to understand, it is not fun playing against someone who dosent give a dam if he wins or loses, it takes all the fun out of a game for me. If my opponent dosent care, whats the point? why are we playing? Many carebare 40k do not really care about winning or losing, they get the kicks from other things, like COOL LORE(because i will admit right here and now that I think 40k has the superior lore). Or painting the miniatures, I also like the 40k Miniatures alot more then the Warmachine I have.. But as a competitive player I can't play 40k, Because I am going to Ruin someones day if I do, or I will get super frustrated having to face some broken stuff that I cant counter with my own skill..

I'm trying really hard here to explain that some of us just get our kicks from the competitive nature of a game. That is the "main thing", we cant tone it down becuase the fun for us is to always "tone it up", and play the best and most optimal thing that we can.. But the good thing with W/H is that I cant PG myself to victory with rules abuse..I cant destory another persons "FUN".. It is a much more balanced experince for all involved..

Noir wrote:
What does models or fluff have to do with what system you use. I could never figure out the "I need to use this model for this game or This game use model I do not the look of". Then there is "that system use that fluff, I to unimaginative use fluff I like" from people who paint miniatures and play with them, is just a cop out.

I'll have a go at explaining my feeling on this.

Models are more than just a model to me, the fluff plays a role in me liking, buying and using the model and I wouldn't want to use it where it is something different. Now if I'm playing a WW2 game, a T-34/85 is a real tank with history behind it so they'll be pretty consistent between model manufacturers and rulesets, taking scale into account, so I can use my model in different rulesets but I wouldn't want to use it as a completely different tank. Then a fantasy skeleton spearman is usually pretty generic and will work across fantasy rulesets but not as pre-feudal Scottish spearman. However my Tyranids are Tyranids and pretty specific to 40K. I want my Carnifex to work like x and have y options, using it as a generic big alien bug might work but is not good enough for me. Going further like using my Tyranids as Legion of Everblight warbeasts (Being the closest 40K to WMH match I have) would never work, they're completely different.

I could use a fandex or a 40K conversion for another ruleset but if I'm with the group will let me use them then the chances are we are already the kind of group that can work around 40K's flaws easily enough.

Hope that made sense.

 Elemental wrote:

 zlayer77 wrote:

We can all be "Douchbags" in warmachine Hordes because the balanced rules makes everything fair and even.. You would know this if you play the game.. ANd my post was for the 40k people whom many are convinced that warmachine/hordes is full of "POWER GAMING douchebags", and they are right, but the fact is it has ZERO outcome on the gameplay...

You see that thing sailing into the distance behind you? That's the point.

You're making a valid point in an absolutely terrible, awful way, that confirms every bad stereotype of WM players that gets expressed by people who are usually pure 40K players who associate competitiveness with being a jerk. You've just said the game is full of "douchebags", and you think that'll make people want to play? Really? You really, really don't see how that might put people off, or promote the stereotype of "that game I don't want to try 'cause it's full of WAAC'ers"? Well, I guess they're not MANLY enough to handle this XTREME wargame! Come off it.

Here's the thing; I broadly agree with you that an asset of WM is that it doesn't have the stigma against trying "too hard" to win that 40K has--rather than worrying about social contracts and not having a "too good" list, you can just show up and play the game. But to say the personality of the opponent doesn't matter is just plain wrong--yes, I've played games against a few complete twerps, and while having a balanced system made the game itself run smoother, it didn't make the experience itself fun. I'd argue the opposite--that by removing rules arguments and "too good" lists as a point of tension, WM lets me have friendlier games.

The Main thing is that your game wasent "Ruined" by rules abuse.. and "usally pure 40k players who associate competitiveness with being a jerk", that is the issue I am trying to get at. GWs game is so broken that when you try and maximize your army and the rules you become a Jerk and a douchebag.. These 40k players look at warmachine and all they see is the competitive nature of the game, and they get a knee jerk reaction, Warmachine/hordes must suck because it is a pure competitive game.. If I start playing this I will get rules abused and face broken combos and I will have Zero fun playing it.. This assumption comes from years of experince playing a broken game like 40k.

Now I am trying to illustrate that this is not really the case.. People can be douchebags in W/H but it wont effect you as much(if it even effects you), compared to 40k, when you get so frustrated and pissed off that you never want to play against that person again...

Also I'm trying to explain that for some people the "RULES" come secondary, this catagory of players will probably have more fun sticking with 40k because that experince offer them more in the "hobby department" and cool "fluff" department... I have used the term "Carebaer", and I think that fits 40ks playerbase these days.. Those that are left in that "hobby", want more then a balanced games to get their "Kicks", and then a more balanced game might play better but it wont get them the "the warm and fuzzy feeling" they need to enjoy a table-top game..

 MWHistorian wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
WM is often a one trick pony.
If it works, the enemy is usually toast.

40k offers a bit than a powerful feat placed at the right moment.

Honestly, either you guys have no idea about what you are talking about or you must live in some weird alternate reality (my bet is on the first)...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1RjOHgAtuE&list=UULj9pso-Tmp6PPPX6GL_9bA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0KIb8uHTaM&list=UULj9pso-Tmp6PPPX6GL_9bA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEnbfC1kFH4&list=UULj9pso-Tmp6PPPX6GL_9bA

And 40k doesn't offer anything other than dice rolling for 3 hours, that game has the tactical depth of Yahtzee...

My experience is certainly not based on YouTube videos.

My guess is that these people's experience from WMH comes from a few games where they just ran at each other, someone who knew what they were doing slaughtered them and they got frustrated.
I've been playing for about six months now and I'm just now "getting it." The feats are useful but not an end game by any means. There's far more tactical depth than 40k that it's not even funny. My last game had an objective in the center and the strategies my Cryx opponent used against me took me off my guard and almost won it for him. It wasn't just pile in, it was across the board to keep me moving forward and the way he did it was brilliant. (Sacrificed his whole army to do it though.) Before that we had a river on the board and our jacks were trying to toss each other into the water.
My local meta is mostly noobs and just learning the game they often just do straight battles. But scenarios are slowly creeping in and changing how you play and adding more depth.
Even at its most basic, WMH is more strategic than the largest game of 40k.

lol get over your self, some people just are not interested in playing magic the gathering with miniatures.

You're demonstrating my point, that you and others don't really know or understand the game.

While i agree with some of your points, I think some of the people combating against you are doing so because you seem incapable of granting any points to the opposition whatsoever. Which is fine, but with that single-minded surety of opinion, there's an opposite and equal surety that you're wrong (which, btw, is not my opinion, and i would say the same thing to you to other people on the side of the same fence).

They are both good game systems for VERY different reasons, and the "good" things people will get out of them and the issues they both have are very very different. . Anyone unwilling to admit that is engaging in fanboyism, and that's on either side of the isle.


I would say this, at the risk of a bit of bias.... having played both systems really extensively, i'll say WM/H is probably a tactically deeper game with a tighter ruleset, however i personally find GW rules systems more conducive to having a fun time gaming with my friends, rather than spending a third of the night trying to figure out arcane rules interactions and how to play them properly (which then opens up a different subset of issues... rules research, vs. no official stance on rules, and what's better, etc.... which is another whole cascading ball of wax).

Both have their ups and downs, depending on the mileage and experience one is looking to get.


You may disagree with me, which is fine, but i can absolutely guarantee that I "understand" PP games. I was an Infernal for nearly 4 years.


-- Haight

I have to say I remain puzzled about the people who complain how 40k rules 'keeps getting worse and worse', implying players who were around at 5th edition and quit thereafter. Objectively, 40k 7th edition is much better than 6th or 5th edition when it comes to lacking rules ambiguity, consistent wording etc. I didn't play 4th edition but by looking at 3rd and 4th edition Codices, things were way worse back then. Seriously, rules-wise 7th edition is a LOT tighter than two or three previous editions.

Granted, there are things which annoy me (formation/detachment system which has got out of hand, random psychic powers and warlord traits, too many roll-offs to start a game etc) but would I go back to 5th edition? No way. Sure, some things were better back then (vehicle damage, most notably) but overall, no.

people could just understand these two types of gamers then all this VS crap could come to an end... Warmachine is the better GAME.. 40k is probably the better experince.. Our local gaming club is like a Mental DOJO, people scream, argue and are mean to one another.. That is just HOW WE ROLL... We love it.. we come back week after week for more.. Now we have had some 40k players come by over the years(who are the experince types) and they run for the Door quicker then the flash as soon as the CHaos breaks out.. The record is at 5m on a dude who more or less turned in the door and ran out after he saw what was going down and I explained "FEAR does not Exist in the DOJO" and "MERCY is for the WEAK" hahah, he had traveld 45m to get there and ran out in 5m "IT WAS FUN as hell", and we still have good laugh about it haha.. But he knew that this was not for him, because in front of him was just the type of players he rememberd hating to "play" in 40k.

That's horrific?? Someone spent 45mins to come over to play some games and was driven away from the club in five mins - do you flag up the sort of environment you enjoy playing in on your club website - was the guy invited or just turned up...........

As some one who also does a bit of martial arts - "mercy is for the weak" is not something that's normally promoted in them to my knowledge? - at least not these days - it might have been in the days of Imperial Japan and that helped lead to the whole "inferior races" and atrocities?

What I'm getting from this thread is that many WMH players are disillusioned 40k players who care a lot about balanced rules, multi-layered tactics and a game that requires a significant amount of almost chess-like concentration each time you roll a dice or move a little man a few inches this way or that. People like MWhistorian seem to be the exception. I can certainly understand that mentality (I'm guessing it's a similar mindset to people who play DOTA and games like it), but I can't identify with it in the least. I'm that elusive "beer and pretzels" type of gamer that so many people deride GW for catering to. I don't necessarily need balance, I'm not in it for carefully considering every single move I make on the table, I just want to immerse myself in what I consider to be an amazing universe, using beautiful models that I've painstakingly put together, converted and painted, in the company of people I enjoy hanging out with

Now this I understand and agree with - we just (on the whole) find that we can have a game where both sides would like to win but in general not at the expense of fun. We had a recent 6th rules 40k small League which was relatively relaxed - I won one game out of 6 with my Sisters but beat both the 2nd place and nearly beat the eventual winner so was more than happy. We played games and yes 40k rules have issues but we tended to just say - "happy with this? - yeah that seems fair.."

I don't get the "pre-measuring" removes tactics as again lets look at board games with squares or similar -

tactics is not I feel about guessing the specific distance on a table - especially not when other elements that should be hard to determine in real life are not represented. The actual variable range of weapons, trajectory (firing guns uphill and not firing "high"is apparently harder than downhill) of the firer or even the uncertainly of battle - who or what is actually over the other side of the hill (just read an interesting article in a war gamming mag about hills)

Going back to WMH and premeasuring - there still seems to be two camps of this; Compare and contrast:

Not allowed. You can measure the control area of your caster in your turn at any time. That's it.

Being able to utilize the ability to measure your control area is an important skill in warmachine. It seems to me that you're thinking of it as an exploit, which it is not. It is completely intended to be able to use these measurements to attempt to judge distance between models.

thanks

Backfire wrote:
Seriously, rules-wise 7th edition is a LOT tighter than two or three previous editions..

After 7 fething editions, the last four of which are just revisions of third, there should be absolutely no rules issues anymore. The YMDC subforum should, at most, have a couple of posts per day at this point. But that's not the case.

Our local gaming club is like a Mental DOJO, people scream, argue and are mean to one another.. That is just HOW WE ROLL... We love it.. we come back week after week for more.. Now we have had some 40k players come by over the years(who are the experince types) and they run for the Door quicker then the flash as soon as the CHaos breaks out.. The record is at 5m on a dude who more or less turned in the door and ran out after he saw what was going down and I explained "FEAR does not Exist in the DOJO" and "MERCY is for the WEAK" hahah, he had traveld 45m to get there and ran out in 5m "IT WAS FUN as hell", and we still have good laugh about it haha..

I'm out. You sound like the sort of morons that give wargamers a bad name.

Backfire wrote:
I have to say I remain puzzled about the people who complain how 40k rules 'keeps getting worse and worse', implying players who were around at 5th edition and quit thereafter. Objectively, 40k 7th edition is much better than 6th or 5th edition when it comes to lacking rules ambiguity, consistent wording etc. I didn't play 4th edition but by looking at 3rd and 4th edition Codices, things were way worse back then. Seriously, rules-wise 7th edition is a LOT tighter than two or three previous editions.

Granted, there are things which annoy me (formation/detachment system which has got out of hand, random psychic powers and warlord traits, too many roll-offs to start a game etc) but would I go back to 5th edition? No way. Sure, some things were better back then (vehicle damage, most notably) but overall, no.

People didn't quit because the rules became more or less tight or ambiguous than in previous editions, people quit because whatever tactical depth existed in the game was replaced with random everything and because whatever semblance of structure existed in 5th and previous editions were replaced with the abominations that are the formation/detachment/allies system and ultimately the inclusion of Apocalypse style units in "normal" 40k. That is why people quit when 6th / 7th edition were released.

Besides, whatever rules ambiguities existed in 5th edition were more than adequately resolved by the Inat FAQ.

PhantomViper wrote:

People didn't quit because the rules became more or less tight or ambiguous than in previous editions, people quit because whatever tactical depth existed in the game was replaced with random everything and because whatever semblance of structure existed in 5th and previous editions were replaced with the abominations that are the formation/detachment/allies system and ultimately the inclusion of Apocalypse style units in "normal" 40k.

Ally system is as old as 40k, it was out of the game for what, 7 months at the tail end of 5th edition? It was not a 'new' addition.

And if anything, 6th and 7th edition are much LESS random than 5th edition which had extremely random, uncontrollable elements: reserves, night fighting, missions which depended totally on end-of-game rolls, vehicle damage...

Well, you know, that and 6th/7th hardly made a meaningful improvement in the vague/poor wording department, especially given the cost and the number of years GW has had to figure it out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Backfire wrote:
And if anything, 6th and 7th edition are much LESS random than 5th edition which had extremely random, uncontrollable elements: reserves, night fighting, missions which depended totally on end-of-game rolls, vehicle damage...

...Are...are you being serious?

7th being LESS random than 5th?

Well, you hear something new everyday I suppose.

 Blacksails wrote:
Well, you know, that and 6th/7th hardly made a meaningful improvement in the vague/poor wording department, especially given the cost and the number of years GW has had to figure it out.

But that was not the point, wasn't it? Objectively, the wording and rules consistency is much better in the 7th than in the 5th, despite everything.

And yes, 6th/7th are much LESS random than 5th. People think otherwise, because they only look at random elements ADDED to the game - most of which are pretty inconsequential (which admittably could be argued as a reason why they should not have been added in the first place) - and ignore elements which were removed - which were much more signifant when it came to deciding the winner.

The Division Of Joy wrote:

Our local gaming club is like a Mental DOJO, people scream, argue and are mean to one another.. That is just HOW WE ROLL... We love it.. we come back week after week for more.. Now we have had some 40k players come by over the years(who are the experince types) and they run for the Door quicker then the flash as soon as the CHaos breaks out.. The record is at 5m on a dude who more or less turned in the door and ran out after he saw what was going down and I explained "FEAR does not Exist in the DOJO" and "MERCY is for the WEAK" hahah, he had traveld 45m to get there and ran out in 5m "IT WAS FUN as hell", and we still have good laugh about it haha..

I'm out. You sound like the sort of morons that give wargamers a bad name.

Actually they sound like a bunch of pre-teens.

I've been playing WMH ever since the game was released in 2003 and I would also have turned back and walked out of that place as fast as I could. It has nothing to do with what game you play, but with people's attitudes towards their fellow gamers, especially people that are new to a particular gaming group.

Explain to me all the random elements like warlord traits, psychic powers, maelstrom, charge distances, and so on, somehow make the game less random than 5th, which had none of these things?

I also disagree the wording improved by any reasonable margin. Given the cost and number of editions, I would expect there to be virtually zero problems.

The Division Of Joy wrote:

Our local gaming club is like a Mental DOJO, people scream, argue and are mean to one another.. That is just HOW WE ROLL... We love it.. we come back week after week for more.. Now we have had some 40k players come by over the years(who are the experince types) and they run for the Door quicker then the flash as soon as the CHaos breaks out.. The record is at 5m on a dude who more or less turned in the door and ran out after he saw what was going down and I explained "FEAR does not Exist in the DOJO" and "MERCY is for the WEAK" hahah, he had traveld 45m to get there and ran out in 5m "IT WAS FUN as hell", and we still have good laugh about it haha..

I'm out. You sound like the sort of morons that give wargamers a bad name.

Yep...


Here's what I'll say:


There's playing a game tough, within the rules. You can net-list, or bring the most uber "power gamer" list in existence, regardless of game, and still not be a douche.... Sounds to me like the people in this club would bring the hardest list imaginable to a demo game for a 5 year old.

Bringing the toughest list possible doesn't make you "TFG", being "TFG" makes you that, and it sounds very, very much like there's a ton of that gak going on over wherever that is. In all the games, across all the systems that I've played, between my opponent and I, the only "screaming" that happens is when the 1s show up on the dice when they aren't wanted, or some ridiculous thing happened that should never have (such as grots holding their ground against an onslaught of fire from Legion of the Damned troops, only to, a turn later, wipe out said LotD in CC)




It seems that, regardless of how good or bad rules are, there are people here who have forgotten the root word here: game. And games are meant to be fun. If people derive their fun from demoralizing, putting down or other forms of harrassment (as this is what it'd be in just about any other situation, or worse)... perhaps you need some help.

The Division Of Joy wrote:

Our local gaming club is like a Mental DOJO, people scream, argue and are mean to one another.. That is just HOW WE ROLL... We love it.. we come back week after week for more.. Now we have had some 40k players come by over the years(who are the experince types) and they run for the Door quicker then the flash as soon as the CHaos breaks out.. The record is at 5m on a dude who more or less turned in the door and ran out after he saw what was going down and I explained "FEAR does not Exist in the DOJO" and "MERCY is for the WEAK" hahah, he had traveld 45m to get there and ran out in 5m "IT WAS FUN as hell", and we still have good laugh about it haha..

I'm out. You sound like the sort of morons that give wargamers a bad name.

My thoughts exactly. I couldn't imagine being around anyone like that and having a good time. I don't particularly enjoy yelling at people or being yelled at. Your LGS should not be Fight Club.

Backfire wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

People didn't quit because the rules became more or less tight or ambiguous than in previous editions, people quit because whatever tactical depth existed in the game was replaced with random everything and because whatever semblance of structure existed in 5th and previous editions were replaced with the abominations that are the formation/detachment/allies system and ultimately the inclusion of Apocalypse style units in "normal" 40k.

Ally system is as old as 40k, it was out of the game for what, 7 months at the tail end of 5th edition? It was not a 'new' addition.

Hmmm... What? I've played 40k from 3rd edition up to 6th and I honestly didn't see any ally tables in the rulebook before 6th edition.

Backfire wrote:

And if anything, 6th and 7th edition are much LESS random than 5th edition which had extremely random, uncontrollable elements: reserves, night fighting, missions which depended totally on end-of-game rolls, vehicle damage...

So for you, mission rules are the same as core rules? Random charge distances somehow have the same weight in gameplay as something like night fighting?

And maelstrom cards that have you randomly choosing objectives each turn that may not even be possible to accomplish and that give an also random amount of victory points are somehow less random than a roll that decided when the game would end?

I would say the following 6th Ed was way more random than 5E, and 7th has cut down on some of the randomness, with the exception of Malestrom missions if you use them. The issue I have with the game is the release schedule, and lack of meaningful army building restrictions, that lead to tons of super broken combos that lead to games that are simply put not very enjoyable.

As to the main topic, people should play what they like, both systems have their flaws, at the moment my choice is niether as other games seem to be more enjoyable than either.

 Blacksails wrote:
Explain to me all the random elements like warlord traits, psychic powers, maelstrom, charge distances, and so on, somehow make the game less random than 5th, which had none of these things?

Because 6th edition removed much randomness which existed in the 5th, much of which was way more signifant than warlord traits, which lets face it, are largely irrelevant even for the Special characters which have them fixed. Examples:

-Vehicle damage - in 5th edition there was very little cumulative vehicle damage. Fate of the vehicle being shot was entirely on the mercy on Damage Table, where it was destroyed on 5+, whilst some results, depending on situation, did essentially nothing at all. Getting a Weapon destroyed on a Battlewagon which was going to flood you in angry Meganobz was useless. If you had poor luck, you could keep shooting at a vehicle entire game, yet it wouldn't die. This was often hugely frustrating.

-Night fighting: this always came on 1 of 3 scenarios and you could do nothing about it. In-game, it was extremely limiting for a shooting army, as your shooting range was rolled 2d6*3. Oh boy if you rolled '3' for your Devastator squad which was taking a shot on that transport. Now, personally I think this system was much better than current one where Night fighting is essentially inconsequental, but one cannot deny it was extremely random, often game-deciding.

-reserves: you had to roll up to Turn 4 whether your reserves came in. This could lead to devastating situations, especially if opponent had abilities which affected your reserve rolls. Nowadays, it's to Turn 3 and rolls are easier, meaning games are almost never decided on poor reserve rolls, which was common in 5th.

-scenarios: One of three rulebook scenarios (Capture & Control IIRC) had just one objective for each player. This led to pretty silly "I control-Now I contest" tug-of-war, where victory rested whether the game ended on a turn one player happened to be contesting an objective with a shot-up Razorback or lone Gun Drone. This can still happen of course, but with more varied missions and secondary objectives, it's more rare.

-random charge distances - people seem to forget that they existed in 5th too, after all most of the time you were charging through terrain. Or at least that's how it was in my games.

Sure enough, 6th and 7th have random stuff, too much IMO especially as I said, most of it is largely irrelevant and just slows down setting up & playing the game. However when it comes to random dice rolls deciding the winner, it is undeniable that 5th was more random than subsesquent editions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:

Hmmm... What? I've played 40k from 3rd edition up to 6th and I honestly didn't see any ally tables in the rulebook before 6th edition.

Allying was limited to Imperial allies in the Codices, and gradually removed during the 5th edition. There were also at least one army which could ally with anyone - Kroot Mercenaries. I think the removal was because it was already planned that universal ally rules would be brought back in 6th.
Didn't 2nd edition have universal ally rules too, or am I thinking of Rogue Trader?
6th edition Ally table was really bad, though, way too lenient with alliances.

 Blacksails wrote:
Explain to me all the random elements like warlord traits, psychic powers, maelstrom, charge distances, and so on, somehow make the game less random than 5th, which had none of these things?

I also disagree the wording improved by any reasonable margin. Given the cost and number of editions, I would expect there to be virtually zero problems.

-Warlord traits are mostly inconsequential or conductive to what the warlord already does. Thus it is either irrelevant or more of the same, they do not significantly complement what the lord does.
-Psychic powers are less random and more useful, Before you picked 1 or 2 from 6, now you pick 1 among 4 or more and get additional powers by rolling them. Just like fantasy you are supposed to plan with the primaris not your rolls. so at the very least this mostly remained the same.
-Maelstrom missions are an excellent addition, the mechanic is there to counter power creep, the problem is not the mechanic is what is written in the cards, which is balance and that has always been an issue with 40k
-Random charge distance is only actually random if you try hail marys, otherwise the average is pretty easy to calculate and mitigate buy actually standing closer. This i much less random than eye ganging distances, that is why statistics is a science and carpentry a trade. And as they mentioned before, in 5th at least half the charges in the game were random already.

On the note of random, that's part of what I hate about 7th edition from reading the book (disclaimer: Never played a game of it). Random warlord traits, random psychic powers, random objectives, too much random.

Let me create my commander as I want him to be, not how the dice tell me I can do it. Creating my own characters was always one of the best parts about 40k that I fondly remember, so let me build what I want. Psychic powers I kind of get and that's how they were in 2nd edition, but I didn't like random then and don't like random now.

For me 6E added more randomness than it removed.

Night Fighting was in every mission, and it was random if/when it occured so you could not plan for it. and it granting armies huge cover saves, or impossible to hit beyond ranges was huge, more so than it was in 5e where it was for the first turn in a deployment where most of your opponents army was off the table.

For missions 6E added Relic to Capture and control for highly random missions, throw in scouring with the random objective values and it was way more random than 5e missions.

Random distances did exist in 5e but were less common, not every charge was into terrain. Furthermore overwatch adds randomness to charging, oh I'll charge, my guy died...well that sucks.

Random Psychic powers (in 6E often with random effects, and deny the witch was highly random)

Random Warlord traits

Grounding checks on FMCs (you want game deciding randomness)

Throw in codex stuff like the warpstorm table, or chaos boons, or Serpent shields, and randomness became a huge thing in 6e.

I've seen games decided by random events that were out of the hands of players far more in 6E than I did in 5E, where the only big random thing was vehicle damage.

7th improved on 6E randomness with toned down codices, and tighting up some rules, but casting psychic powers in now way more random.

Seriously, Maelstrom an excellent addition? Maybe in theory, but what was published is a joke. You randomly roll how many VPs you get. You want to talk important random rolls, that right there takes the cake.

Random charge distance everywhere always is actually important. Sure, given enough games and enough charges, it'll all average out, but when you need to make a safe 4" charge and roll snake eyes, you might have lost the game.

Warlord traits can make a difference. The difference between getting fear and granting move through cover is not to be overlooked.

Psychic powers being random is the same thing, only more important. Rolling the two best powers versus the two worst powers can have a big impact on the game. The random mechanic is a very poor and lazy substitute for actual balance.

Vehicle damage was mitigated by HPs, but the chart still remains as a random mechanic that can instagib you. Same goes for reserves; still random, just mitigated some.

On top of all that, we have random charts for things like perils, random D3 this and D6 that, and the random mess that is Maelstrom.

Safely, at best, I can see someone arguing randomness has remained the same. I feel the total amount of control a player has now is less than it once was through all the tables and random D3s and D6s.

WayneTheGame wrote:
On the note of random, that's part of what I hate about 7th edition from reading the book (disclaimer: Never played a game of it). Random warlord traits, random psychic powers, random objectives, too much random.

Let me create my commander as I want him to be, not how the dice tell me I can do it. Creating my own characters was always one of the best parts about 40k that I fondly remember, so let me build what I want. Psychic powers I kind of get and that's how they were in 2nd edition, but I didn't like random then and don't like random now.

Psi powers are not random, you are not supposed to plan getting the 6 on table X, you are supposed to plan ahead with the primaris if you are low lvl and you are likely to get what you need if you are lvl 4 and want to roll on the table.

The only truly game breaking random thing in 40k right now, imo, is the D-weapon table. All the other random stuff is fine to me, Invisibility aside. You don't have to play Maelstorm.

xxvaderxx wrote:


Psi powers are not random, you are not supposed to plan getting the 6 on table X, you are supposed to plan ahead with the primaris if you are low lvl and you are likely to get what you need if you are lvl 4 and want to roll on the table.

I don't know how randomly rolling to see if you get one of the 6 powers is anything but random.

 Blacksails wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:


Psi powers are not random, you are not supposed to plan getting the 6 on table X, you are supposed to plan ahead with the primaris if you are low lvl and you are likely to get what you need if you are lvl 4 and want to roll on the table.

I don't know how randomly rolling to see if you get one of the 6 powers is anything but random.

Because there is one you always know that you can get. The issue is if there is another one which is truly game-deciding, but the only one that strikes me as such is Invisibility and maybe Iron Arm.

Right, so would you say its still random to see if you can anything other than the primaris?

You know, rolling a dice to randomly generate a number, as opposed to just selecting it a non random fashion.

Mymearan wrote:
The only truly game breaking random thing in 40k right now, imo, is the D-weapon table. All the other random stuff is fine to me, Invisibility aside. You don't have to play Maelstorm.

No one is claiming that any of it is game breaking we are just talking about the reasons that have led people to quit the game when 6th edition was released.

Mymearan wrote:
The only truly game breaking random thing in 40k right now, imo, is the D-weapon table. All the other random stuff is fine to me, Invisibility aside. You don't have to play Maelstorm.

You mean other than the thunder blitz table, and the stomp damage table?

Oh and the warpstorm table, where you can potentially remove important pieces of your or your opponents army completely at random, same with the boon table in CSM nothing like killing a sargent and losing your warlord.....

or in 6th e rolling invisibility, rolling the 4++ invunerable power on your screamer star, rolling fortune for eldar.... (though I guess some of this removed randomness in game once you had a 2++ re-rollable)

Or like I said scouring....

But like I said for me the lack of meaningful army construction restrictions makes the game less enjoyable, as does the inclusion of superheavies.