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.

I see this as an argument quite a lot - this or that rule or version of a rule is a 'feels bad' moment and shouldn't be used.

It's becoming almost synonymous with 'i personally don't like it'.


But surely a central theme of wargames is adapting tactics to deal with suboptimal conditions. That you won't always have the best, most fun or effective unit/position/choices available?

Where did this conventional wisdom that a rule that 'feels bad' to use is unworthy of existence come from?

 Hellebore wrote:
I see this as an argument quite a lot - this or that rule or version of a rule is a 'feels bad' moment and shouldn't be used.

It's becoming almost synonymous with 'i personally don't like it'.


But surely a central theme of wargames is adapting tactics to deal with suboptimal conditions. That you won't always have the best, most fun or effective unit/position/choices available?

Where did this conventional wisdom that a rule that 'feels bad' to use is unworthy of existence come from?

It comes from those who can't accept losing/missing/failing.
They can't deal with whatever the rule is during play so they try and convince everyone else to simply not use it.

 Hellebore wrote:
I see this as an argument quite a lot - this or that rule or version of a rule is a 'feels bad' moment and shouldn't be used.

It's becoming almost synonymous with 'i personally don't like it'.


But surely a central theme of wargames is adapting tactics to deal with suboptimal conditions. That you won't always have the best, most fun or effective unit/position/choices available?

Where did this conventional wisdom that a rule that 'feels bad' to use is unworthy of existence come from?

I think the "feelsbads" came from situations that were derived from withheld information combined with a total lack of interactivity - if you don't let me know you have a unit that when your character has relic X in 6" and you use these 2 strats on it, you auto-delete my mvp unit and force me into a position I can't have a fair game - that's a feelsbad moment, it's not necessarily your opponent being an ass either, it might simply be that there's such complexity and unclear interactions that it makes it a one-sided game.

It's almost synonymous with gotcha moments, situations where it feels your opponent is doing something so out of kilter that you didn't know could happen, that it feels somewhere between unfair and somewhat like cheating.

I agree it's become overused however to the point it means "I don't like it", when initially it was used in the context of situations that describe negative play experiences.

A feels bad moment is when you invite the boys over for game night and they want to play 40k 10th edition.

 Hellebore wrote:
I see this as an argument quite a lot - this or that rule or version of a rule is a 'feels bad' moment and shouldn't be used.

It's becoming almost synonymous with 'i personally don't like it'.


But surely a central theme of wargames is adapting tactics to deal with suboptimal conditions. That you won't always have the best, most fun or effective unit/position/choices available?

Where did this conventional wisdom that a rule that 'feels bad' to use is unworthy of existence come from?

Every other Master/Cpt in the game has a 0CP per stratagem rule per turn. For some reason it is once per game for my dude. All other armies kept their powerfists, chains fists, thunder hammers etc. My army lost its thunder hammers. For some reason when all other Masters/Cpts etc hit stuff on +2, my dudes somehow hit on +4. Every rules, weapon, datach sheet has the psychic trait. It has no internal synergies or bonuses, only handicaps from counter psychic rules from other armies. At the same time, there exists the eldar rule set. So it is not like GW doesn't know how to write powerful rules.

One I'm not fan is when unit either kills pretty much any unit other has without much of counterplay...or just doesn't die.

Doesn't have to be unbeatable but even if you win it might not be interesting game.

Last game vs necrons I had similar style tyranid and frankly we both could have saved time and not bother attacking...wouldn't have changed game.

I think this is a very interesting topic and speaks to the heart of why people play wargames and the different expectations they have.

Firstly, I don't think there is much dissent around the idea that a mixed-capability list should have a reasonable chance of achieving mission objectives against any other mixed-capability list of equivalent power. This can be extended to asymmetric power if the objectives are crafted well. Generally, I think players want a good chance to be able to achieve something that feels worthwhile to them. The aforementioned "gotcha" scenarios violate this by being too complicated for casual players to parse, and therefore counter. They "feel bad" because they exploit a lack of ability to commit to learning complex rules interactions across all armies, and most casual players do not have that ability because of time constraints etc. Most are counterable if you know about them, but therein lies the problem.

Secondly, what an individual players wants from and assumes about wargaming varies. An example which springs to mind is target priority rules in 4th edition 40k- a unit had to pass a leadership test to target an enemy unit that was not the closest enemy (there is a little more nuance, but this is the gist). I really like this rule nowadays, but I recall someone on this forum stating that rules that prevent your units doing what you intend are bad. I acknowledge this viewpoint, but personally I like the idea of battles simulating an engagement, where units do not always do what you say. I didn't see it as any different to units ignoring commands to move into cover (rolling short on a difficult terrain test) or ignoring commands to hold position by failing a morale test. For me, these add flavour that needs to be mitigated. I think my Imperial Guard should be less coordinated if their officers are killed. For someone else, these interrupted their ability to execute their battleplan. They wanted to do things with their soldiers how they chose. For them, target priority was a feel bad rule. To use a chess example, few people fall for the Scholar's Mate twice!

I think the two ends of this spectrum are chess, where every unit behaves predictably to a defined set of rules, and military simulation wargames that try to add fog of war. An example of the latter being the naval wargames played by the Youtuber Drachinifel and their peers, in which the Battle of Jutland was refought. They went to the extent of not allowing the supreme commanders to directly see the battlefield with decisions made purely on information delivered by subordinates to facilitate fog of war effects. Now obviously this is quite an extreme example, but clearly some people enjoy simulation wargames to the point they are willing to not even watch the game directly!

 Hellebore wrote:
But surely a central theme of wargames is adapting tactics to deal with suboptimal conditions.

Which is why most feel bad rules are labelled that way because they deny agency to one or both players, no matter what the "LeArN 2 pLaY" drones want you to think.

 Hellebore wrote:
I see this as an argument quite a lot - this or that rule or version of a rule is a 'feels bad' moment and shouldn't be used.

It's becoming almost synonymous with 'i personally don't like it'.


But surely a central theme of wargames is adapting tactics to deal with suboptimal conditions. That you won't always have the best, most fun or effective unit/position/choices available?

Where did this conventional wisdom that a rule that 'feels bad' to use is unworthy of existence come from?

It comes from this being a game more than a wargame. Feels bad = not fun, and if a game isn't fun, what's the point of playing?

The other side of it is, of course, that the internet doesn't lend itself to extensive and reasoned discourse. Shorthand happens, and being overly literal about interpreting it is a path to madness.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
But surely a central theme of wargames is adapting tactics to deal with suboptimal conditions.

Which is why most feel bad rules are labelled that way because they deny agency to one or both players, no matter what the "LeArN 2 pLaY" drones want you to think.

Do you have an example of such a feelbad mechanic? Because i 100% have had people say some things were feelbad yet they still had agency

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Do you have an example of such a feelbad mechanic? Because i 100% have had people say some things were feelbad yet they still had agency

Interceptor in Heresy comes to mind. Basically nobody fields Flyers because it's trivially easy to get a free shot at incoming Reserves with every heavy weapon in your army.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Do you have an example of such a feelbad mechanic? Because i 100% have had people say some things were feelbad yet they still had agency

Interceptor in Heresy comes to mind. Basically nobody fields Flyers because it's trivially easy to get a free shot at incoming Reserves with every heavy weapon in your army.

That however is less of an issue with the interception reaction and has more to do with the fact that it basically is always nightfighting making an augury scanner which grants free unlimited " reaction of interception an must take to ignore the 24 " limit.

I probably play a little fast and loose with the term "feelsbad." Generally, I use it to mean something like...

"This mechanic creates results that reduce my ability to engage with the rules in a satisfying way; especially in cases where it feels like the rule is doing more to reduce my enjoyment than add to it."

* Flubbing a to-hit roll can be frustrating, but mechanics to randomize how effective a unit's attacks are add uncertainty to the game in a way that is well-worth those minor frustrations. Not a feels-bad.

* I used a djinn blade/daemon weapon/oldschool drukhari drugs to kick butt harder, and then I took damage as a result. That was a willing tactical choice. Not a feels-bad.

* Pre-nerf craftworlders using a bunch of fate dice to automatically hit/wound and thus inflict mortal wounds that bypass all your army's defenses and invalidating any defensive decisions you might have made? Feels bad. Because there's not much you can do to meaningfully engage with the situation.

* 7th edition tau having wargear to ignore LoS and cover, intercept deepstrikers, and overwatch your front lines to death so that your charge is harder? Feels bad because it shuts down the tactics that *should* be the interesting counterplay when facing a shooting army.

* An enemy beatstick unit being kind of overpowered for its points cost? Not fun, but not something I'd describe as "feels bad."

Edit: I'd maybe add on to that that rules that prevent you from using other rules you invested in are kind of feels bad. Imperial Fists ignoring cover in 8th edition was NOT a particularly strong chapter tactic, but it was still kind of a feels bad rule because it took away the interesting decision of using cover to make your units more durable, plus it negated any wargear/chapter tactic/etc. you may have taken that provided cover. Like, way to turn my venomthropes from an interesting support unit into merely an overpriced melee unit.

Just saying, if you cant handle "feelsbad" moments, perhaps you'd be better off not playing GW games to begin with

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
But surely a central theme of wargames is adapting tactics to deal with suboptimal conditions.

Which is why most feel bad rules are labelled that way because they deny agency to one or both players, no matter what the "LeArN 2 pLaY" drones want you to think.

Do you have an example of such a feelbad mechanic? Because i 100% have had people say some things were feelbad yet they still had agency

Howabout unit you can't kill? Necron warriors is unit most units in game can't kill. Tyranids have pretty much no way short of insane dice rolls(sure you can hope opponent fail 20/20 4+ rolls...but whats the odds?) To actually kill it.

Of course reverse can sort of be true as well. So you have game where at the end armies were almost literally as they started...

Was it unwinnabie for either? No. But not much of interest. There was actually very little reason for us to put out models as secondary draws mattered more...

And don't consider game where only way 1 side avoids death is hide behind los blocking(the moment you move out you die without accomplishing anything) particularly interesting.

tneva82 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
But surely a central theme of wargames is adapting tactics to deal with suboptimal conditions.

Which is why most feel bad rules are labelled that way because they deny agency to one or both players, no matter what the "LeArN 2 pLaY" drones want you to think.

Do you have an example of such a feelbad mechanic? Because i 100% have had people say some things were feelbad yet they still had agency

Howabout unit you can't kill? Necron warriors is unit most units in game can't kill. Tyranids have pretty much no way short of insane dice rolls(sure you can hope opponent fail 20/20 4+ rolls...but whats the odds?) To actually kill it.

Of course reverse can sort of be true as well. So you have game where at the end armies were almost literally as they started...

Was it unwinnabie for either? No. But not much of interest. There was actually very little reason for us to put out models as secondary draws mattered more...

And don't consider game where only way 1 side avoids death is hide behind los blocking(the moment you move out you die without accomplishing anything) particularly interesting.

Necron units can be killed if you bring a decently choppy hero and use Epic challenge. What unit can't be killed in nids? (Genuinely don't know, havnt played against the, yet)

And even then, i'd argue that units being unkillable isnt a problem as long as they arent also able to project a ton of damage easily (which lychguards at least don't)

There's feels bad, and there's feels bad.

A lot of people in 5th ed. didn't want to use the wound allocation mechanics, or put more thought into close combat that forming a massive dogpile, because it might not be beneficial for them.

On the other end of the spectrum, having your Leman Russ pop out of existence because a nearby sergeant in the same melee accepted a challenge because 6th ed's challenge mechanics were jank, is pretty understandable.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
But surely a central theme of wargames is adapting tactics to deal with suboptimal conditions.

Which is why most feel bad rules are labelled that way because they deny agency to one or both players, no matter what the "LeArN 2 pLaY" drones want you to think.

Do you have an example of such a feelbad mechanic? Because i 100% have had people say some things were feelbad yet they still had agency

Howabout unit you can't kill? Necron warriors is unit most units in game can't kill. Tyranids have pretty much no way short of insane dice rolls(sure you can hope opponent fail 20/20 4+ rolls...but whats the odds?) To actually kill it.

Of course reverse can sort of be true as well. So you have game where at the end armies were almost literally as they started...

Was it unwinnabie for either? No. But not much of interest. There was actually very little reason for us to put out models as secondary draws mattered more...

And don't consider game where only way 1 side avoids death is hide behind los blocking(the moment you move out you die without accomplishing anything) particularly interesting.

Necron units can be killed if you bring a decently choppy hero and use Epic challenge. What unit can't be killed in nids? (Genuinely don't know, havnt played against the, yet)

And even then, i'd argue that units being unkillable isnt a problem as long as they arent also able to project a ton of damage easily (which lychguards at least don't)

Unit doesn't need hero to survive i couldn't kill them even without characters.

Nids he could kill...but they came back often benefitting ME that unit dies.

So we were in i can't kill him, he can't kill me fast enough i don't just come back. I didn't even bother rolling attacks anymore where i didn't have to.

 Hellebore wrote:
I see this as an argument quite a lot - this or that rule or version of a rule is a 'feels bad' moment and shouldn't be used.

It's becoming almost synonymous with 'i personally don't like it'.


But surely a central theme of wargames is adapting tactics to deal with suboptimal conditions. That you won't always have the best, most fun or effective unit/position/choices available?

Where did this conventional wisdom that a rule that 'feels bad' to use is unworthy of existence come from?

Where is this conventional wisdom being expressed?

I am not aware of a wargaming dictionary that defines "feels bad", but to me a test of whether a moment is "feels bad" or not is whether or not both players who were acting in good faith feel that way. If someone feels bad after losing a game then, barring other information, its not a "feels bad" moment that we need to worry about. But there may be lots of other situations that are "feels bad" moments. A

A lop-sided victory could be a genuine "feels bad." Lets say the TO decided that he should ignore the Leviathan tourney pack and set up the board without any LOS blockers. The winner would likely be the one who won the dice roll to go first. The result would likely be a "feels bad" for both players, even the victor.

If one player is acting without information that they should have then the result can be a "feels bad." This can be the result of inexperience, but its a thing nonetheless. Just having things go wrong is not a "feels bad" to me. Let's say that my opponent moves his Hellblasters up and kills my centrepiece model with some hot rolls while supercharging. I might be unhappy with the result, but that wouldn't be a feels bad. He took a risk and was rewarded - its a dice game! I took a risk positioning my centrepiece model where it could be shot like that.

Let's say he fails to kill his target and then rolls all 1s for his Hazardous checks. He knew the risk and took it so its more likely to be a memorable and epic moment than a feels-bad. But let's say he Supercharges when shooting at my Deathwing Knights and then proceeds to lose over half his models to unlucky Hazardous checks. If he didn't know about my unit's innate damage reduction ability on its datacard when he made his decision then that could be a feels-bad moment. He would feel bad that he took a risk that could not give a reward, and I would feel bad about not asking him if he was sure when he declared that he was Supercharging.

I think that "feels bad" is related to somewhat but different from Negative Play Experience (NPE). Feels-bad moments tend to occur inadvertently through player interactions where perhaps there is incomplete information, while NPE is baked into the rules. Feels bad is experienced by both players (or maybe even just the winner) while NPE might only apply to one (the player on the receiving end).

A ten-man Desolator Squad firing indirect with old Oath of Moment full re-rolls was NPE. A Wraithknight leaf-blowing opposing armies off the board on Turn 1 through windows in the terrain was NPE for the receiving player. I suppose it could also be a "feels bad" for the Aeldari player but they likely went into the game hoping that would happen. Getting "Vected" is entry-level NPE. Having a melee unit fail a charge due to a Vanguard detachment unit moving out of range could also be NPE.

So NPE might be something we just have to "get over" and account for in our tactics while "feels bad" is something that we should work to avoid.

tneva82 wrote:

Unit doesn't need hero to survive i couldn't kill them even without characters.

Nids he could kill...but they came back often benefitting ME that unit dies.

So we were in i can't kill him, he can't kill me fast enough i don't just come back. I didn't even bother rolling attacks anymore where i didn't have to.

so you struggle with killing terminators then? Because thats pretty much what solo lychguards are, with 1-2 coming back per turn

To me feel bad is when it seemingly fails at creating either a good simulation or bring an interesting/enjoyable mechanic to life. Unfortunately often subjective to at least some extent.

Underpriced/OP units are most often the source, not by themselves, but because their rules or inclusion either makes the game flat out one sided to the point where gameplay becomes tiresome, or because they make no sense lore/simulation wise and therefore are harder to enjoy.

An example of this outside of 40k because list would be too long, in 1rst edition BA.

Rallying would not allow you to ignore pin markers and thus meant it could never fulfill the role it was supposed to have. Rule that fails to enrich gameplay, this felt bad.

Reconnaissance vehicules could make 2 moves thanks to strange escaped moves that were always possible, making them unfair and game breaking as you could more often than not never shoot at them. Feels bad because you could get your army steamrolled by a min maxed two armoured cars (though hellcats were the absolut worst at that game) with tactic passing away in the process. Plus the idea of sonic-ing their way at FTL speed across a WW2 bmnattlefield felt inconvenient.

Hopefully both were patched.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
So NPE might be something we just have to "get over" and account for in our tactics while "feels bad" is something that we should work to avoid.

I agree with this sentiment though I don't know how commonly accepted these definitions are. The 8th/9th stratagem experience was conducive to 'feels bad' moments because it was impractical to memorize every stratagem, so getting blindsided was inevitable. The way the game was written (no secret information, assumed perfect game knowledge) didn't sync with how it was actually played, and the result was bad moments where you got screwed by that disconnect between the implicit expectation of the rules and the reality of the game.

However, I think the more common uses of 'feels bad' I see have more to do with randomness and what mechanisms are left up to chance. There is a tension between two extremes of game design- one extreme where you have full, precise, deterministic control over your army and dice are only used to resolve interactions with the opponent, and the opposite extreme where almost everything is affected by random chance and your job as a general is to manage the chaos as best you can.

Most modern wargames lean towards the former, but 40K leans especially hard in that direction, so mechanics where your units or abilities don't always work as intended may be dissatisfying for players who prefer games without that sort of unpredictability. They want games where if they lose it's because they feel like the opponent directly outplayed them, not because they rolled a 1 to cast a psychic power that needed a 3+. It's a matter of degrees, because we all accept that failing rolls is part of the game and something you have to plan around, but many players have strong personal expectations about what things they should have to roll for and what things they shouldn't, and failing a roll for something that they feel should be automatic is frequently expressed as 'feels bad'.

I only think it's fallacious if 'feels bad' is being expressed in this way as an objective criticism rather than a subjective dislike. Personally I enjoy games like AK-47 Republic- a game where you don't know which of your troops will even show up to the fight, let alone what they'll do when they get there- but most 40K players wouldn't, and that's completely fine.

I agree - there are no set definitions for these things.

I can understand people "feeling bad" when their dice abandon them, but I don't really worry about that too much. Failing a charge with an amazing melee unit which then gets shot off the board could be a "feels bad", but that's part of the game for me. Complete randomness is not something that I want, but I am OK with things not always going the way that I wanted. Counting on rolling a 3+ to activate an ability (common in AoS for instance) often leads to disappointment, but that door swings both ways. The player on the other end of the ability has a chance.

We should, as players, account for probabilities in our plans and have some levels of redundancy.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I agree - there are no set definitions for these things.

I can understand people "feeling bad" when their dice abandon them, but I don't really worry about that too much. Failing a charge with an amazing melee unit which then gets shot off the board could be a "feels bad", but that's part of the game for me. Complete randomness is not something that I want, but I am OK with things not always going the way that I wanted. Counting on rolling a 3+ to activate an ability (common in AoS for instance) often leads to disappointment, but that door swings both ways. The player on the other end of the ability has a chance.

We should, as players, account for probabilities in our plans and have some levels of redundancy.

I do tend to think of random charge distances as being a slightly "feels bad" rule. It's less of an issue in 9th and 10th as your opponent is generally meeting you in no man's land, but it can still stink. Like, you moved your melee unit forward, thus putting it at risk of enemy fire, then you charged, and instead of being rewarded for taking a melee unit and following the steps needed to deliver the unit, you roll snake eyes and thus accomplish nothing before having your unit blown away. And on the flip side, getting wrecked by a deepstriking unit that made a lucky charge roll without really having a chance to retaliate doesn't feel great either. (Although that's less of an issue thanks to screens, overwatch, etc.)

Basically, the random charge distance isn't there because that's the best way to decide whether a unit gets into melee. It's there because GW wanted to get rid of scatter dice (good call) -> which meant they changed how deepstriking worked -> which meant they needed a new way to determine how close you could get/whether you could charge that turn -> which lead to them deciding that *sometimes* you'll successfully charge out of deepstrike, but not always. Thus the 2d6 roll. The 2d6 roll is there to make it possible for units to pull off long-distance charges without giving everyone an absurdly long guaranteed charge range. I don't think the designers thought that sometimes failing a 4" charge would be good for the game.

I'm pretty sure random charge distance appeared before scatter dice were removed. I think random charges came in 6th and definitely by 7th, but scatter dice were removed in 8th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
So NPE might be something we just have to "get over" and account for in our tactics while "feels bad" is something that we should work to avoid.

I agree with this sentiment though I don't know how commonly accepted these definitions are. The 8th/9th stratagem experience was conducive to 'feels bad' moments because it was impractical to memorize every stratagem, so getting blindsided was inevitable. The way the game was written (no secret information, assumed perfect game knowledge) didn't sync with how it was actually played, and the result was bad moments where you got screwed by that disconnect between the implicit expectation of the rules and the reality of the game.

However, I think the more common uses of 'feels bad' I see have more to do with randomness and what mechanisms are left up to chance. There is a tension between two extremes of game design- one extreme where you have full, precise, deterministic control over your army and dice are only used to resolve interactions with the opponent, and the opposite extreme where almost everything is affected by random chance and your job as a general is to manage the chaos as best you can.

Most modern wargames lean towards the former, but 40K leans especially hard in that direction, so mechanics where your units or abilities don't always work as intended may be dissatisfying for players who prefer games without that sort of unpredictability. They want games where if they lose it's because they feel like the opponent directly outplayed them, not because they rolled a 1 to cast a psychic power that needed a 3+. It's a matter of degrees, because we all accept that failing rolls is part of the game and something you have to plan around, but many players have strong personal expectations about what things they should have to roll for and what things they shouldn't, and failing a roll for something that they feel should be automatic is frequently expressed as 'feels bad'.

I only think it's fallacious if 'feels bad' is being expressed in this way as an objective criticism rather than a subjective dislike. Personally I enjoy games like AK-47 Republic- a game where you don't know which of your troops will even show up to the fight, let alone what they'll do when they get there- but most 40K players wouldn't, and that's completely fine.

You have more eloquently expressed much of what I was trying to say above. I agree with everything you have written here.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I agree - there are no set definitions for these things.

I can understand people "feeling bad" when their dice abandon them, but I don't really worry about that too much. Failing a charge with an amazing melee unit which then gets shot off the board could be a "feels bad", but that's part of the game for me. Complete randomness is not something that I want, but I am OK with things not always going the way that I wanted. Counting on rolling a 3+ to activate an ability (common in AoS for instance) often leads to disappointment, but that door swings both ways. The player on the other end of the ability has a chance.

We should, as players, account for probabilities in our plans and have some levels of redundancy.

I do tend to think of random charge distances as being a slightly "feels bad" rule. It's less of an issue in 9th and 10th as your opponent is generally meeting you in no man's land, but it can still stink. Like, you moved your melee unit forward, thus putting it at risk of enemy fire, then you charged, and instead of being rewarded for taking a melee unit and following the steps needed to deliver the unit, you roll snake eyes and thus accomplish nothing before having your unit blown away. And on the flip side, getting wrecked by a deepstriking unit that made a lucky charge roll without really having a chance to retaliate doesn't feel great either. (Although that's less of an issue thanks to screens, overwatch, etc.)

Basically, the random charge distance isn't there because that's the best way to decide whether a unit gets into melee. It's there because GW wanted to get rid of scatter dice (good call) -> which meant they changed how deepstriking worked -> which meant they needed a new way to determine how close you could get/whether you could charge that turn -> which lead to them deciding that *sometimes* you'll successfully charge out of deepstrike, but not always. Thus the 2d6 roll. The 2d6 roll is there to make it possible for units to pull off long-distance charges without giving everyone an absurdly long guaranteed charge range. I don't think the designers thought that sometimes failing a 4" charge would be good for the game.

An interesting theory, but they got rid of scatter dice 2 editions after the 2d6 charge roll was introduced.

I'm going the be honest, I think the only objective measure of a feels bad (as objective as something like this can be anyway) is when both the person preforming the action and the one on the other side feels bad about it.

For a personal example, stratagems. I hate stratagems, no loath them. I hate being on the receiving end of them, and I hate using them. I hate how they cannibalize wargear, I hate how you cannot deal with them besides lay there and take it, I hate all of it. I don't like heresy's reactions much either, but those at least you can plan around and mitigate. Stratagems are almost entirely uninteractable besides a handful of "make it 1CP more" abilities scattered across the games. I think stratagems are a feels bad for both parties, and I think at least a few people agree.

 Hellebore wrote:
I see this as an argument quite a lot - this or that rule or version of a rule is a 'feels bad' moment and shouldn't be used.

It's becoming almost synonymous with 'i personally don't like it'.


But surely a central theme of wargames is adapting tactics to deal with suboptimal conditions. That you won't always have the best, most fun or effective unit/position/choices available?

Where did this conventional wisdom that a rule that 'feels bad' to use is unworthy of existence come from?

You're discussing wargames on the Internet, which means you're in a room full of people who operate from the assumption that the only possible way wargames can be fun is for them to be exact, perfect replicas of their personal idea of fun. To you, the thing that's wrong is the people complaining that the game isn't fun, because you think it is and therefore the other player's attitude is the only possible problem; to the people complaining about the rules feeling bad, however, the game isn't fun and therefore the problem is the game.

 Rihgu wrote:

An interesting theory, but they got rid of scatter dice 2 editions after the 2d6 charge roll was introduced.

Did they? I could have sworn 6th and 7th edition were still using 6" charges. As I remember it, difficult terrain required you roll 2d6 take the highest to determine your charge range through dt, but that's not really the same thing. There was also fleet which generally let you run/advance 1d6" functionally giving you a d6+6" charge range.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:

An interesting theory, but they got rid of scatter dice 2 editions after the 2d6 charge roll was introduced.

Did they? I could have sworn 6th and 7th edition were still using 6" charges. As I remember it, difficult terrain required you roll 2d6 take the highest to determine your charge range through dt, but that's not really the same thing. There was also fleet which generally let you run/advance 1d6" functionally giving you a d6+6" charge range.

Nope. 2d6" for charges in 7th.