PDA

View Full Version : Random (or Randumb?)



Baaltor
18-03-2013, 23:53
So in these days following the release of the latest edition of Codex: Chaos Daemons I've seen a lot more contention over the issue of randomness than I would've expected. When the core rule book came out, though my view may differ from yours, I observed many people in uproar over the lack of control over the options players enjoy. I am no curious to see now in numbers what people really think about random wargear in the latest codex as of this date.

I have a hypothesis that its partially do to people who're not DoC players not having to deal with the randomness in their own army. I don't mean to be drawing accusations, that's just my thought, it maybe wrong, or it maybe right. Let's not start arguing about whether it's unfair or not.

So for the pole I split it up into what army you play, if you like the randomness, and if you want it in your own army. This is a fairly large topic I'm curious about, and it's not just limited to the contents of the chaos book; the rules in WH40k are becoming more random in general, and I'd like to know what people think half a year into 6th.

I know some discussion will follow, and that the broadness of the topic leaves it fairly open, but I'd like to keep these things out of the scope of the thread. Things I'd like to see are what you voted, why, and anything else you'd like to say.

Fantasy vs. 40k: Yeah, some of us aren't happy with the fact that the army's shared between systems, but it is, and it has nothing to do with this poll. Unless of course we're talking about the randomness of WHFB latest edition vs. older ones.
"Just Deal With it": We know this book's here to stay, the goal of this thread isn't whining, but to enlighten ourselves as to the current view of the game's direction.
"Powerlevels": This has nothing to do with power. Period. I think the Daemon book is VERY strong, but I don't enjoy playing the book because of the randomness for example.
Whining: As you see above I'm somewhat disappointed with the book, but it's not the worst one out their, we got nice models etc.. We're here to discuss the game and where it's going, not be ********.

To start: I screwed up, and don't know how to edit polls, or if indeed it's possible.

The Seventh option was supposed to be you don't play the army, but don't like random

rapterz
19-03-2013, 01:09
Voted option 1. I like the random. I understand that I lose out on the chance to actually equip my army the way I want, but really daemons are, in my interpretation of the fluff, a force one can't control. I know the designers probably didn't intend for it, but it really pumps me up to roll for rewards. None of them suck and its for a lack of a better word, chaotic.

I chose daemons as an army to be different from regular loyalist players, and even chaos marines. I would like to see more armies incorporate a random element, though not as extensive as daemons. Orks already have random elements, and are a popular army (even though the two points are probably not correlated.) so I imagine adding a random aspect won't damage an armies popularity.

The argument that daemons suffer as a result of this table is tired at this point though. They tried something new, and woe and behold, people don't like it.:(

Carnage
19-03-2013, 01:36
Voted option 1. I like the random. I understand that I lose out on the chance to actually equip my army the way I want, but really daemons are, in my interpretation of the fluff, a force one can't control. I know the designers probably didn't intend for it, but it really pumps me up to roll for rewards. None of them suck and its for a lack of a better word, chaotic.

I chose daemons as an army to be different from regular loyalist players, and even chaos marines. I would like to see more armies incorporate a random element, though not as extensive as daemons. Orks already have random elements, and are a popular army (even though the two points are probably not correlated.) so I imagine adding a random aspect won't damage an armies popularity.

The argument that daemons suffer as a result of this table is tired at this point though. They tried something new, and woe and behold, people don't like it.:(


Not to sound like a dick, but a lot of people disagree that random = chaotic.

Building armies that can vary wildly in ability game to game is silly and falls squarely into the "cinematic" game style that GW is trying to push. My problem is that it spits in the face of competitive gaming, which I happen to enjoy. I like having an army that will play the same from game to game, and will not being unstoppable Monday, and balls on Tuesday.

The 6th edition rulebook, CSM codex and now the demon codex have been full of charts of randomness....where does it stop? Random evolutions for tyranids? Random weapons for orks too? Do we get to the point in a few years where your Chapter master has to roll to see what chapter trait he has that day? To see what weapon he has? To see what color his boots are?

It's a dangerous precedent, and a tight, competitive and non-"Randumb" rule set helps everyone, casual and tourny player alike. Randumb just hurts the people that want to take this game even remotely seriously.

rapterz
19-03-2013, 05:20
Not to sound like a dick, but a lot of people disagree that random = chaotic.

If you didn't intend to offend me, then don't type that. I'm smart enough to infer you don't mean that personally good sir.

I also respect the view that a lot people don't view the random aspect as chaotic. I do though, and you won't convince me otherwise. I'm just looking at the positives. The Chaos table is admittedly a potential hamper in strategy, but I don't think mathematically you will win or lose by it. I get you're competitive too, as I like to imagine I am as well. Orks win plenty of games, and their psyker support is completely random. Daemons aren't going to vary dramatically in performance each game; the units don't roll on tables to do things, just that table and rewards at the start of the game. I recall someone made a fair point that the rewards don't really affect how a unit performs, only that it buffs them and potentially allows for a dual role. If the Realm of Chaos table seriously bothers you severely, well, The Imperium can always use another marine player.

Basileus66
19-03-2013, 06:19
The game is random enough, to need more randomness.

I remember one lesson I learned in college: don't add unnecessary steps to an experiment, because if you do the probability of making mistakes will rise exponentially. The warpstorm table can be a good idea in the design board, but it adds up an unnecessary layer of complexity to a real game, being "unnecessary" the operative word in this case.

Chrysis
19-03-2013, 06:29
Unavoidable Random Tables like the Chaos Boon table and the Warp Storm table are an implicit admission that they are making no attempts to try and balance anything. While they may end up a net gain over multiple games (more good results than bad), that sort of long term is irrelevant. They absolutely aren't balanced over the course of one game, and are random for the sake of random.

Malagor
19-03-2013, 06:55
Don't play Daemons but I like them being random. It fits them and so far has provided with some fun games both for the opponent and the daemon player.
As for other armies, well no as daemons are a unique snowflake in terms of fluff. Orkz should have a element of random to it but the others it won't fit as much.

ismeno
19-03-2013, 06:55
And thats why I love it. But then, I grew up playing Orks in Rogue Trader...,,,,

MajorWesJanson
19-03-2013, 07:07
Certain armies do fit with random- Daemons and chaos rewards in CSM, and orks especially.

fgsfds-
19-03-2013, 08:38
I play Daemons as allies with my Chaos Marines, and I enjoy the random-factor. It makes the games more interesting and makes it harder to tell the outcome. The weirder the course of the game is the better. I'm not the ("ONLY RIGHT") kind of player who always plays to win.
BUT I didn't want my army to be completely uncontrollable, so I choose not to form it out of only Daemons. With a Chaos Space Marine & Daemon army I have a better chance of winning.

murgel2006
19-03-2013, 09:17
I voted one because I like the new randomness in the game.
It makes it harder to abuse rules, codices etc.. It comes down to what you want IMO.
A game you play for fun reasons purely or a game you want to use as a rather predictable tournament tool.
For me it is the former and randomness improves the fun for the me and the people I play with.
I can understand that it is quite the opposite for the people who play the later. (And many of the online community are of that mindset.)

Szalik
19-03-2013, 09:22
Generally speaking, new edition made this game too random for me, to the point that I rarely play. I prefer games with high level of control over units, where planning is the key to success. So if asked, I reply: Randumb.

Still I think that the new deamon codex apart from the extremes in the Warp storm table is a step in the right direction.

First of all Deamons can at last deploy in a normal way, You have control over Your units in the deployment phase.
Chaos rewards are more or less useful.


I'd love to see an army being an opposite to the random deamon codex, an army where there are a lot of weak effects that auto hit, auto wound, make predictable movements, are not sweeped etc.

rapaxvita
19-03-2013, 09:46
The way i see it is that the complete opposite of the randomness of a 40k game, is a really elaborate game of chess. There is nothing random in chess and it is all controlled by the player and to be honest i don't think that it makes it very interesting to me (i understand some people do enjoy chess, but im simply not one of them). Therefore i like the element of randomness of the game, however i think there is a limit and this daemon rule is coming really close to that limit.

Fluff wise it also fits quite well because the daemons are entities of the warp, which is a seething fluctuating realm of emotion and power. This is reflected quite reasonably in the rules with them getting random buffs but are still quite powerful.

MajorWesJanson
19-03-2013, 09:55
I'd love to see an army being an opposite to the random deamon codex, an army where there are a lot of weak effects that auto hit, auto wound, make predictable movements, are not sweeped etc.

Autohit, autowound, predictable movements? May want to find a game that does not use dice at all.

Scammel
19-03-2013, 10:08
I think there's a debate to be had over just how random Daemons are in the first instance. Their psychic disciplines are only small ones, the reward tables all have a desireable 'primaris' option (and the rolls are cheap enough to not be a particularly risky investment), the Warp Storm table has a great potential to not do an awful lot and can be mitigated with instruments etc. It's all certainly a lot less random than the old book, with the armies waves being determined on an incredibly fickle 3+ and the first wave having to go without any manner of icons.

Azulthar
19-03-2013, 10:16
As a Daemon player, I enjoy the random, but wouldn't want other armies to be random (with the exception of Chaos and Orks, because it suits them as well).

I think it's fluffy, it's unique and it's not very unbalancing. There are even some small benefits to gain for "all comer" lists.

Denny
19-03-2013, 10:25
I like random daemons. I play them now as a side army but they were my first 40K army. I move on to Eldar & Dark Eldar because I started getting bored with the daemons. The new codex has made me excited to pick them up again.

I get that some players like ‘reliable’ armies. Fair play to them, but I enjoy a bit of random in games because I enjoy high risk/high reward. This is why I like Dark Eldar; one bad dice roll and I lose my raider and about half its contents BUT, if I pull it off, I cause massive damage.

I think the game benefits from some random armies (Daemons, Orks, Skaven in fantasy) and some 'predictable' armies (Marines).

I get that it’s frustrating when your army changes between editions (I’d be really annoyed if my beloved Skaven suddenly because predicable and reliable) but I think daemons should have been random to begin with. Besides deployment, the last army was one of the most reliable in the game, and that just doesn’t seem right for imaginary-made-flesh-psychotic-warp-monsters.

ihavetoomuchminis
19-03-2013, 11:23
i like randomness as long as it doesnt screw you. like the ork looted tank...roll a dice and if you roll a 1 your model does nothing. eldar wraithlord....and the lower results of the warpstorm table are other examples. i dont like randomness that benefits the opponent because youre paying points for that model and the opponent is not. and what disturbs me most about this kind of randomness is that no loyalist army has it.

Denny
19-03-2013, 11:36
I dont like randomness that benefits the opponent because youre paying points for that model and the opponent is not. and what disturbs me most about this kind of randomness is that no loyalist army has it.

. . . Plasma guns?
I roll a 1 and fail a save I die (and take the expensive gun with me).
That surely benefits my opponent, yet plasma is very popular . . .

Fear Ghoul
19-03-2013, 11:37
I voted that I like the random in Daemons of Chaos but didn't want other armies to have that level of randomness because that was the option that best fitted my opinion. Technically speaking I'm not a huge fan of the random gifts (not a critic either) and I have always hated random psychic powers/magic spells, but I do think Orks and Chaos Marines also thematically fit some level of randomness above the level of other armies.

Inquisitor Shego
19-03-2013, 11:43
. . . Plasma guns?
I roll a 1 and fail a save I die (and take the expensive gun with me).
That surely benefits my opponent, yet plasma is very popular . . .

Which is factored into the points cost. Also you're not randomly rolling to see if you even get that plasma gun

budman
19-03-2013, 11:48
I want some random armys
Orks, chaos, jerkaro (the monkeys) should be like that... I loved the two old ork books
Heck... I miss rolling up hero types from the RT days (you may now hate me)... if there was an army that was that random I'd be on it like stink on nurgal.
does every army have to be that random no some army it makes no sence for tau and crons should have very little to no randomness.

budman
19-03-2013, 11:49
Which is factored into the points cost. Also you're not randomly rolling to see if you even get that plasma gun

I miss the days of rolling for thing like that marrines with lazguns and guards with vortex granades.
Fun days.

ehlijen
19-03-2013, 11:53
Randomness to the level displayed in the Daemons Codex, to me, indicates an antagonist status for the army. It's the unpredictable challenge that you pit the hero army against to see if they prevail. For a campaign or an RPG game that's great, but it doesn't fit or work well in a game about the explicit competition of two protagonist armies for one objective that 40k is at its core.

If a player sits down for a 40k game, he puts his army on the table to see if he can make it win. But if he has little or no control over what that army actually is, it ceases to be his army and the game is no longer 40k as we know it.

I don't know whether that's good or bad on an absolute scale, but it will very likely annoy some people who prefer 40k the way it was before.

RandomThoughts
19-03-2013, 12:16
I couldn't find the "I don't play Daemons of Chaos, I don't like them being random, I don't want other armies to be random" choice... ^^

IcedCrow
19-03-2013, 12:23
It's a dangerous precedent, and a tight, competitive and non-"Randumb" rule set helps everyone, casual and tourny player alike. Randumb just hurts the people that want to take this game even remotely seriously.

That's the problem right there. People who take themselves and the game way too seriously. "Randumb" also makes the game more fun for those of us who gave up on our goals and aspirations to be on the cover of Nerd Illustrated or get voted into the Warhammer World Hall of Fame where a golden bust of our neckbearded self can be seen condescendingly looking out at the masses of dumb noobs complete with our win/loss record and number of world titles held etched lovingly into a plaque at the base.

I can just as easily say "It's a dangerous precedent, and a loose, for fun with some "random" rule set helps everyone, casual and tourny player alike. People who take the game too seriously hurt the game and themselves because they take themselves and the game too seriously."

"Randumb" tests your ability to react. Something it seems few people can actually do. A lot of people are good at copying lists from the internet and then crutching their way with that, and a lot of people are good at spending a couple of days number crunching their army list to perfection, but throw an unknown at them and they freak out and melt down (and then their face lights up with blood red rage as they tantrum and rant about that's why they lost, the stupid "randumb" not their lack of brilliance, as if people are making fun of them because they weren't good enough at warhammer). Considering that real military tactics and actions revolve around being able to react to the unknown, I like it, and I'll take it over sterile games where everything plays out by the numbers every time.

Really what it boils down to is what are you wanting out of a game. I'm glad that there is a game out there that is not trying to be a professional sport. We already have enough of our hobby games running "world championships", its nice to have one that is built around the premise of "for fun" and not around the premise of "ESPN-4 endorsements and world titles".

If you want super competitive rulesets that are sterile, those exist as well. Meander that way and play your heart out.

duffybear1988
19-03-2013, 12:27
I don't play daemons (I did try but 6th edition sucks), I hate the drive towards randumb everything that GW are forcing us towards.

It isn't cinematic - it's stupid!

Take my last game for example. I had a blob squad of IG with the closest guy 3 inches away from a BA scout (on his own after I killed the rest last turn), and 4 inches away from a BA assault marine (again on his own after I failed to kill him in the shooting phase). So my 21 guardsmen charge and roll a 3, meaning I cannot split charge and end up getting 1 guardsmen in combat with the scout. The scout kills my guardsman and I fail the stubborn Ld9 test on the Commissar who shoots another of my guys to keep me in combat. In any of the older editions my guardsmen would have had no trouble bringing down 2 marines, especially if one was a scout. Thanks to the absolutely pathetic random charge rules I lost the game in that one moment. The assault marine was able to charge my leman russ and krak grenade it to death in the following turn, handing my opponent an extra point and causing me to lose my objective. Random charging just doesn't work when it comes to assaulting through open ground... it doesn't matter how you paint it, the game just isn't fun when things like that happen (and they happen a lot).

@ IcedCrow - we disagree on pretty much everything (as usual), but I do like reading your posts. That first paragraph is gold :D

Chapters Unwritten
19-03-2013, 12:32
I feel randomness has value but GW use it as a crutch. It is, after all, a great way around having to make things be decently balanced or fairly costed.

The big issue with randomness isn't so much its presence in your army, as much as the fact GW use it to gloss over things they don't know what to do with.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

buddy_revell
19-03-2013, 12:35
i quite like the random element. ive never gone in for tournament style play, and i quite like the idea that you can never predict exactly whats going to happen in game. in my opinion, its levelled the playing field for many people and put power back into the hands of people who just like to play for fun. the random element has always struck me as a bit of a boon; you dont ever really end up with anything negative, and more often than not you have a "default" choice that you can take if you dont like the random result.

for those who dislike a certain direction a new edition is going in, the previous editions are still there to play, as are the codexes. the only way GW are "forcing" anyone towards a certain direction is if youre interested in GW-hosted tournies, and want to keep up-to-date. in which case, stop complaining and suck it up.

IcedCrow
19-03-2013, 12:45
@ IcedCrow - we disagree on pretty much everything (as usual), but I do like reading your posts. That first paragraph is gold

Meh we just have different things that entertain us no biggie. I aim to entertain though :D

Denny
19-03-2013, 12:49
Which is factored into the points cost. Also you're not randomly rolling to see if you even get that plasma gun

True. But it is still an example of Imperials (and others) having a random gaming mechanic that can hurt them.
As for random equipment rolls: don't Grey Knight inquisitors have to roll for the effects of their looted daemon weapons, and Daemon Hosts their powers?

. . . It's almost like Chaos having random stuff is all part of the plan! :eek:

duffybear1988
19-03-2013, 12:53
i quite like the random element. ive never gone in for tournament style play, and i quite like the idea that you can never predict exactly whats going to happen in game. in my opinion, its levelled the playing field for many people and put power back into the hands of people who just like to play for fun. the random element has always struck me as a bit of a boon; you dont ever really end up with anything negative, and more often than not you have a "default" choice that you can take if you dont like the random result.

for those who dislike a certain direction a new edition is going in, the previous editions are still there to play, as are the codexes. the only way GW are "forcing" anyone towards a certain direction is if youre interested in GW-hosted tournies, and want to keep up-to-date. in which case, stop complaining and suck it up.

See my problem is that I was the best player at my club before 6th edition hit. I don't say this boastfully I'm just trying to set the scene. I pretty much won every game I played, and yet the other gamers loved playing me. Why? Because it was a challenge and although I played hard, I have always tried to avoid being one of those WAAC gamers who makes the game crap for everyone else. I have never once spammed a unit and always theme my armies. I also don't swap every time a new codex comes out. The other gamers revelled in trying to beat me and it always meant I was playing to the best of my ability.

Since 6th edition dropped I have won maybe 1/6th of my games. Now I get trounced by the latest noob with his point and click Necron list or whatever the latest craze is. Whereas I was always fair and polite in victory, these kids really rip into me about how awesome they are and how great their tactical ability. In reality they have none and I'm finding it hard to be gracious in defeat.

All 6th edition has done is replace the WAAC gamers who were horrible to play, with a bunch of people who failed epically in 4th/5th and are now winning simply because random things go their way. They are just as horrible as the old 5th edition WAAC gamers we used to see at tournaments.

I know this may not happen everywhere but that's what it's like gaming at my local, and that's why I very rarely go any more. There's no way they will go back to playing older editions...

MLP
19-03-2013, 12:56
See my problem is that I was the best player at my club before 6th edition hit. I don't say this boastfully I'm just trying to set the scene. I pretty much won every game I played, and yet the other gamers loved playing me. Why? Because it was a challenge and although I played hard, I have always tried to avoid being one of those WAAC gamers who makes the game crap for everyone else. I have never once spammed a unit and always theme my armies. I also don't swap every time a new codex comes out. The other gamers revelled in trying to beat me and it always meant I was playing to the best of my ability.

Since 6th edition dropped I have won maybe 1/6th of my games. Now I get trounced by the latest noob with his point and click Necron list or whatever the latest craze is. Whereas I was always fair and polite in victory, these kids really rip into me about how awesome they are and how great their tactical ability. In reality they have none and I'm finding it hard to be gracious in defeat.

All 6th edition has done is replace the WAAC gamers who were horrible to play, with a bunch of people who failed epically in 4th/5th and are now winning simply because random things go their way. They are just as horrible as the old 5th edition WAAC gamers we used to see at tournaments.

I know this may not happen everywhere but that's what it's like gaming at my local, and that's why I very rarely go any more. There's no way they will go back to playing older editions...

This. Unfortunately this.

buddy_revell
19-03-2013, 12:57
See my problem is that I was the best player at my club before 6th edition hit. I don't say this boastfully I'm just trying to set the scene. I pretty much won every game I played, and yet the other gamers loved playing me. Why? Because it was a challenge and although I played hard, I have always tried to avoid being one of those WAAC gamers who makes the game crap for everyone else. I have never once spammed a unit and always theme my armies. I also don't swap every time a new codex comes out. The other gamers revelled in trying to beat me and it always meant I was playing to the best of my ability.

Since 6th edition dropped I have won maybe 1/6th of my games. Now I get trounced by the latest noob with his point and click Necron list or whatever the latest craze is. Whereas I was always fair and polite in victory, these kids really rip into me about how awesome they are and how great their tactical ability. In reality they have none and I'm finding it hard to be gracious in defeat.

All 6th edition has done is replace the WAAC gamers who were horrible to play, with a bunch of people who failed epically in 4th/5th and are now winning simply because random things go their way. They are just as horrible as the old 5th edition WAAC gamers we used to see at tournaments.

I know this may not happen everywhere but that's what it's like gaming at my local, and that's why I very rarely go any more. There's no way they will go back to playing older editions...
and your point is what, exactly? you used to win a lot and now you dont? and now you rarely go to play games because you lose?

like i said, suck it up. either ask your friends who are now beating you if they want to go back to losing, and see if theyd like to play 5th edition again. my guess would be no. if youre that good of a player, youll figure out how to stack the odds of all that randomness in your favour. if youre not, im sure your gaming club wont miss you.

MLP
19-03-2013, 13:01
and your point is what, exactly? you used to win a lot and now you dont? and now you rarely go to play games because you lose?

like i said, suck it up. either ask your friends who are now beating you if they want to go back to losing, and see if theyd like to play 5th edition again. my guess would be no. if youre that good of a player, youll figure out how to stack the odds of all that randomness in your favour. if youre not, im sure your gaming club wont miss you.

I think it was more the point of people winning by luck of the randomness without any tactical insight or stacking the odds in your favour. It can be rather annoying in pick up games or tournaments. Games with your friends it doesn't matter so much though.

Denny
19-03-2013, 13:03
Since 6th edition dropped I have won maybe 1/6th of my games. Now I get trounced by . . . a bunch of people who failed epically in 4th/5th and are now winning simply because random things go their way.

. . . something here doesn't quite add up . . .

If its only about luck they shouldn't win all the time. Luck swings both ways.
Perhaps you learnt to play 5th edition so well you're struggling to change your approach?

Denny
19-03-2013, 13:04
Since 6th edition dropped I have won maybe 1/6th of my games. Now I get trounced by . . . a bunch of people who failed epically in 4th/5th and are now winning simply because random things go their way.

. . . something here doesn't quite add up . . .

If its only about luck they shouldn't win all the time. Luck swings both ways.
Perhaps you learnt to play 5th edition so well you're struggling to change your approach?

IcedCrow
19-03-2013, 13:05
I'd be interested to see battle reports highlighting exactly how random elements are winning these poor players so many games or have some examples. In my area of the grimdark, the good players from the previous edition are still the good players. The noobs are still playing like noobs, and the guys that didn't win very much in 5th are still not winning very much in 6th (and that includes playing armies like necrons and grey knights)

If I saw noobs smashing good players and I saw poor players suddenly beating those guys that are really good because of random, I'd definitely side against random, but I'm just not seeing that happen here.

My win/loss in 3rd edition 40k was astronomical. Not because I was a good player. Quite the contrary, I fielded the 14 starcannon eldar list in a marine meta and couldn't lose despite being a noob.

Once I dropped that army my w/l record has remained constant in 4th, 5th, and today's edition.

buddy_revell
19-03-2013, 13:05
I think it was more the point of people winning by luck of the randomness without any tactical insight or stacking the odds in your favour. It can be rather annoying in pick up games or tournaments. Games with your friends it doesn't matter so much though.

all 40k is, is randomness. always has been. youre rolling dice for crying out loud. the way you win the game is by stacking the odds in your favour, and having contingency plans should it all go wrong.

duffybear1988
19-03-2013, 13:10
and your point is what, exactly? you used to win a lot and now you dont? and now you rarely go to play games because you lose?

like i said, suck it up. either ask your friends who are now beating you if they want to go back to losing, and see if theyd like to play 5th edition again. my guess would be no. if youre that good of a player, youll figure out how to stack the odds of all that randomness in your favour. if youre not, im sure your gaming club wont miss you.

My point is that this game used to be fun for everyone at my club. 6th edition randomness takes the fun out of it and a fair few of those who used to play don't any more because of it.

I don't have a problem with losing if there is a proper reason for losing- Bad deployment options, the other list being the rock to my scissors, the other player just being better than I am.

Some things are always going to be random in Warhammer, they have to be. But this latest 6th edition randomness craze adds nothing and takes away a great deal.

As for my gaming club missing me - it's funny you should say that. When I used to frequent the store every week with a fully painted army, everyone else focused on painting their figures as well so that we could take photos and create dioramas and such. Since we '6th edition haters' have stopped going the tables have been filled with unpainted plastic figures and nobody really bothers to paint.

So maybe, just maybe, us leaving has had an effect on the club. I find it hilarious how so many people who claim to be playing for fun can't be bothered to paint their figures these days...

buddy_revell
19-03-2013, 13:13
My point is that this game used to be fun for everyone at my club. 6th edition randomness takes the fun out of it and a fair few of those who used to play don't any more because of it.

I don't have a problem with losing if there is a proper reason for losing- Bad deployment options, the other list being the rock to my scissors, the other player just being better than I am.

Some things are always going to be random in Warhammer, they have to be. But this latest 6th edition randomness craze adds nothing and takes away a great deal.

As for my gaming club missing me - it's funny you should say that. When I used to frequent the store every week with a fully painted army, everyone else focused on painting their figures as well so that we could take photos and create dioramas and such. Since we '6th edition haters' have stopped going the tables have been filled with unpainted plastic figures and nobody really bothers to paint.

So maybe, just maybe, us leaving has had an effect on the club. I find it hilarious how so many people who claim to be playing for fun can't be bothered to paint their figures these days...

i cant speak for your club. im just saying that if my FLGS had someone who spat his dummy out because he struggled figuring out how to continue his win/loss ratio from one edition to another, i cant imagine anyone missing him should he leave.

also, like i said, why not continue playing 5th if it means that much?

duffybear1988
19-03-2013, 13:14
I'd be interested to see battle reports highlighting exactly how random elements are winning these poor players so many games or have some examples. In my area of the grimdark, the good players from the previous edition are still the good players. The noobs are still playing like noobs, and the guys that didn't win very much in 5th are still not winning very much in 6th (and that includes playing armies like necrons and grey knights)

If I saw noobs smashing good players and I saw poor players suddenly beating those guys that are really good because of random, I'd definitely side against random, but I'm just not seeing that happen here.

My win/loss in 3rd edition 40k was astronomical. Not because I was a good player. Quite the contrary, I fielded the 14 starcannon eldar list in a marine meta and couldn't lose despite being a noob.

Once I dropped that army my w/l record has remained constant in 4th, 5th, and today's edition.

This happened to me on Saturday -

Take my last game for example. I had a blob squad of IG with the closest guy 3 inches away from a BA scout (on his own after I killed the rest last turn), and 4 inches away from a BA assault marine (again on his own after I failed to kill him in the shooting phase). So my 21 guardsmen charge and roll a 3, meaning I cannot split charge and end up getting 1 guardsmen in combat with the scout. The scout kills my guardsman and I fail the stubborn Ld9 test on the Commissar who shoots another of my guys to keep me in combat. In any of the older editions my guardsmen would have had no trouble bringing down 2 marines, especially if one was a scout. Thanks to the absolutely pathetic random charge rules I lost the game in that one moment. The assault marine was able to charge my leman russ and krak grenade it to death in the following turn, handing my opponent an extra point and causing me to lose my objective. Random charging just doesn't work when it comes to assaulting through open ground... it doesn't matter how you paint it, the game just isn't fun when things like that happen (and they happen a lot).

Next time I down at club I will do a proper battle report with pictures.


i cant speak for your club. im just saying that if my FLGS had someone who spat his dummy out because he struggled figuring out how to continue his win/loss ratio from one edition to another, i cant imagine anyone missing him should he leave.

also, like i said, why not continue playing 5th if it means that much?

As I said, I don't spit my dummy out at club (I moan on here instead), and it isn't about the win/loss ratio. I just don't see the appeal of 6th edition.

Konovalev
19-03-2013, 13:17
It boggles my mind how bothered people are by the Daemons random reward table. Shouldn't you all be complaining about the table in the Chaos Space Marine codex? The table that is much more random, with much worse results? The table that some chais units can pay for a roll on. The table that many chaos units are forced to roll on if they win a challenge, which they are forced to issue and accept?

buddy_revell
19-03-2013, 13:23
As I said, I don't spit my dummy out at club (I moan on here instead), and it isn't about the win/loss ratio. I just don't see the appeal of 6th edition.
you dont see the appeal because of your rate of losses. you said as much in your earlier post.

when alls said and done man, if you dont like 6th, carry on playing 5th. ask your fellow gamers if they want to play 5th with you, or find a different club.

IcedCrow
19-03-2013, 13:36
Here's a game that happened last saturday as well that I was watching for our campaign:

Chaos player rolls his landraider with chosen assault squad. They come busting out of the land raider. Player is going to attempt a multi assault against a series of dark angels units to get them off of the objective.

He shoots his assault wpns and pistols, kills a couple dark angels. They fail their morale and fall back, and chaos player can't multi assault now since the unit he shot at is not a viable target to charge anymore. He loses game 5-4, largely because of that one moment.

Those things happen.

Your illustration with the failed random charge actually highlights what i like about the game... that its not going to play out exactly the same. 3rd ed, 4th ed, 5th ed... the games all played out the same. I knew that X tactic was going to work all of the time. Every game down at the store was the same, the difference was that it was a new week and outside the seasons were changing. Inside the armies were all doing the same thing, just rolling through the motions.

If the game is hinging on that one charge being pulled off to win and I fail by rolling a "3" when I need a 4 or more, that means there were other things that I did up to that point that were not the best choices but instead I'm blaming my loss on the failed charge roll. That's still not going to allow noobs to beat good players because noobs are going to make a lot of bad choices that stack the odds against them whereas a good player will make a lot less mistakes and the odds will be heavily in their favor because of it.

We have several players that do that... they blame their loss on their dice and then when I watch their game I note about a half a dozen mistakes or slight errors that they did that could have stacked the odds better in their favor that because they did not, it came down to the dice roll at the end which failed, and they throw their hands up in the air and say the game is too random or the dice screwed them.

The current system is very much one that makes players weigh risks and utilize risk management and reactionary skills whereas the old edition everything worked all the time and you didn't really have to manage risk or react as much, if at all.

I used to do that too. Then I started recording my games and learned how to watch what I did wrong or what I could have done better and in games where I felt the dice were screwing me, after analyzing I saw a slight misstep here and there slowly stacked the odds against me. Its like adding a 5 lb weight to a barbell. You don't notice it at first, but after you keep stacking 5 lb weights on it becomes too heavy and you have to drop it because you can't carry it anymore even though individually the 5 lb weights are very light.

Denny
19-03-2013, 13:43
My point is that this game used to be fun for everyone at my club. 6th edition randomness takes the fun out of it and a fair few of those who used to play don't any more because of it.

That's unfortunate.
I, on the other hand, am really enjoying 6th edition (5th had gotten really stagnant and predictable; by turn two you knew who had won most games).

Not saying either of us is right, just that different people like different things.

DeathGlam
19-03-2013, 13:46
I like the randomness in certain armies but then im a fluff gamer, never intend to go to a tournament as i play GW not an actual sport or full on competative game.

I like more randomness as it makes 40k more tactical, as you have to have more then plan a for if the dice rolls go against you if your playing any army.

40k is currently a risk management game which i love.

MajorWesJanson
19-03-2013, 13:57
I find it hilarious how so many people who claim to be playing for fun can't be bothered to paint their figures these days...

Playing for fun or playing to win has nothing to do with willingness or ability to paint models.

Basileus66
19-03-2013, 14:14
Random is not bad in itself. Hell! I play a game with die rolls, so randomness is a given!

What I dislike from the randomness in the demons is that it isn't limited to combat -as everybody else- or even to the purchase of pre-battle equipment, but that it is pervasive for the whole game.

Ok. I tried my demons yesterday, against GK of all armies! I won the game... but it was a nightmare to be distracted from what was happening on the table by suddenly remembering, after I already started moving units, that I needed it to roll in the Warpstorm table... So, move the units back to their starting positions, roll and see if something happened to them that would affect how I would maneuver them next.

Perhaps, the reason of my hate for the said table is that I don't actually game, but when I play I am actually watching a movie in my mind, and the rolls in the Warpstorm act like commercials that stop the flow of the film!

Fear Ghoul
19-03-2013, 14:15
Randomness where the bad outcomes are equally weighted against the good outcomes IS balanced but it is not competitive. Anyone who claims that they are now losing most of their games because of the extra randomness in 6th was most likely gaming 5th edition, rather than 6th edition somehow having it in for them.

MajorWesJanson
19-03-2013, 14:21
Random is not bad in itself. Hell! I play a game with die rolls, so randomness is a given!

What I dislike from the randomness in the demons is that it isn't limited to combat -as everybody else- or even to the purchase of pre-battle equipment, but that it is pervasive for the whole game.

Ok. I tried my demons yesterday, against GK of all armies! I won the game... but it was a nightmare to be distracted from what was happening on the table by suddenly remembering, after I already started moving units, that I needed it to roll in the Warpstorm table... So, move the units back to their starting positions, roll and see if something happened to them that would affect how I would maneuver them next.

Perhaps, the reason of my hate for the said table is that I don't actually game, but when I play I am actually watching a movie in my mind, and the rolls in the Warpstorm act like commercials that stop the flow of the film!

One of our local daemon players uses a mini whiteboard to write down the various gifts for each model that takes them, and a reminder to roll warpstorm. Works quite well.

Ssilmath
19-03-2013, 14:28
DuffyBear, part of your problem is that you played the combat incorrectly. Do not forget that you get the 3 inch pile in move on your initiative step, which would have brought the rest of your platoon into the combat. You didn't lose the game to a bad roll, you lost the game to not following the rules correctly. That may be the cause of your troubles, not the increase in randomness.

Gossipmeng
19-03-2013, 14:50
I don't play CD and I don't want other armies in 40k to be random. I don't really care that CD are random, but it keeps things interesting. They may have gone over board with the random tables though...

ehlijen
19-03-2013, 14:56
Here's a game that happened last saturday as well that I was watching for our campaign:

Chaos player rolls his landraider with chosen assault squad. They come busting out of the land raider. Player is going to attempt a multi assault against a series of dark angels units to get them off of the objective.

He shoots his assault wpns and pistols, kills a couple dark angels. They fail their morale and fall back, and chaos player can't multi assault now since the unit he shot at is not a viable target to charge anymore. He loses game 5-4, largely because of that one moment.

Those things happen.

Your illustration with the failed random charge actually highlights what i like about the game... that its not going to play out exactly the same. 3rd ed, 4th ed, 5th ed... the games all played out the same. I knew that X tactic was going to work all of the time. Every game down at the store was the same, the difference was that it was a new week and outside the seasons were changing. Inside the armies were all doing the same thing, just rolling through the motions.

If the game is hinging on that one charge being pulled off to win and I fail by rolling a "3" when I need a 4 or more, that means there were other things that I did up to that point that were not the best choices but instead I'm blaming my loss on the failed charge roll. That's still not going to allow noobs to beat good players because noobs are going to make a lot of bad choices that stack the odds against them whereas a good player will make a lot less mistakes and the odds will be heavily in their favor because of it.

We have several players that do that... they blame their loss on their dice and then when I watch their game I note about a half a dozen mistakes or slight errors that they did that could have stacked the odds better in their favor that because they did not, it came down to the dice roll at the end which failed, and they throw their hands up in the air and say the game is too random or the dice screwed them.

The current system is very much one that makes players weigh risks and utilize risk management and reactionary skills whereas the old edition everything worked all the time and you didn't really have to manage risk or react as much, if at all.



There is a key difference between the example you give and the daemons codex: the example resulted from a risk willingly taken not working out. Had the chaos player not chosen to fire his weapons, or at least not enough of them to cause a panic check, that situation would not have arisen.

The Warp storm table doesn't work that way; neither player can affect what the result will be. It is theoretically possible that a daemon army will self destruct from warp storm rolls alone, with no action from the opponent required, regardless of any tactics used. Is that a fun game? On the other end of the table, the daemon player might be allowed to replace the enemy HQ with a herald with no effort required or counter to protect against that available. Is that a fun game?

Randomness is fine, but this lack of control isn't, really. When shooting, you fire the gun you chose to bring at a target you pick after both players try to manipulate the odds through maneuvering their respective units. When resolving the warp storm, the players follow directives called by the dice with no choice allowed or required. The first is a decision followed by a dice roll, the second is just a dice roll.

Scammel
19-03-2013, 15:18
When resolving the warp storm, the players follow directives called by the dice with no choice allowed or required.

The Daemon player isn't quite helpless though. Instruments are a fine example of how to mitgate the effects of the table. Taking Heralds to mitigate the instability result is another. Taking the Grimoire (and maybe Kairos) and a Fecundity or Divination Herald to mitigate the reduced invun saves is another.

Bubble Ghost
19-03-2013, 15:41
Difficult to tell whether some of these comments are about the level of randomness in general, or the Daemons' randomness compared with other armies.



Game in general:

The common view among those for whom gaming is srs bsns is that "random" is a lazy excuse for poor balance, and a short-termist replacement for substantive challenge. That's a fair reflection of that position, right? If I posted that on 3++ Is The New Black I think I'd get an Amen Brother from most people over there. People who hold this opinion tend to be competitive players, and their most frequently played ace is the assertion that a rule set optimised for tournament play would be beneficial for ALL players, not just themselves.

Problem is, this viewpoint stems from a narrow-mindedness about gaming in general. The mistake comes in thinking that tournament-style play is the only way to care about results. Everyone cares about results - even if triumph isn't your aim, you want to feel that you are progessing, and you want the game to reward cleverness, because those things add to the sense of reality that more narrative players enjoy. Nobody graduates to 40K straight from snakes and ladders. The difference comes in whether you give a toss about a game's ability to provide proof of superiority within the 5-game sample size of a tournament weekend.

Personally, I don't care whether the best player wins a game. I care whether the best player has won more at the end of the year. From my point of view, factors beyond my control, but whose possibility can be accounted for, represent additional challenge and variety, and the creation of a sense that I'm playing within a wider context, that the battlefield is a battlefield and not a petri dish in a lab. Sometimes a lucky incident will win or lose you a game, but as long as the luck evens out in the long term - and in 40K, it unquestionably does so - then I'm satisfied, and have had a richer experience than if I'd been using sterile rules that actively eliminate the unexpected.

The level of unpredictability 40K has at present adds to the game as it is intended to be. It only detracts from it if your purpose is to not merely establish the best player, but do so very quickly, and I don't think I'm making too big an assumption to suppose that this is not the majority of players.

PS. It's also constructive to differentiate between something that really is random (such as what an objective turns out to be), and something that is variable but not any more random than the rest of the game (such as charge lengths, which are simply a manipulable means of limiting your ability to exploit out-of-universe knowledge of the turn sequence [or in WFB's case, the movement rules]. Being "in combat" is in itself a beneficial effect, often regardless of the outcome of the actual fighting, and so you have to gamble on known odds to gain it. Same as anything else in the game).




Daemons:

This an argument that could go on forever. I think it's entirely appropriate that Chaos armies, and daemons in particular, be more "random" than other armies though, for two reasons. First, that while "Chaos = randomlol" is a crude way of satirising it, it's true to an extent; Chaos is fickle. You don't know what it's going to do. I can't see a better way of evoking this than making players unsure of what it's going to do either. It's the most direct and fundamental reflection of a background factor in all of 40K.

And second (and a bit more subjectively), I find it helps create the sense that the daemons are part of a vast mass, rather than a small group of specific individuals. I only use daemons as allies for my CSM myself, but I watched a game with a full daemon amy the other week, and what struck me was how daemonic they seemed compared to their previous incarnation, when they were basically dudesoldiers like everyone else's, just painted funny colours and with a weird deployment method. The main reason for this was their incorporation into the psychic system, as opposed to just having "magic" guns, but the unpredictability was also a big part of it. It felt like this was part of a daemon horde, as oppose to Daemon Bob and a few of his mates, and that's part of how rules can help create a sense of context, like I said earlier.

duffybear1988
19-03-2013, 15:49
DuffyBear, part of your problem is that you played the combat incorrectly. Do not forget that you get the 3 inch pile in move on your initiative step, which would have brought the rest of your platoon into the combat. You didn't lose the game to a bad roll, you lost the game to not following the rules correctly. That may be the cause of your troubles, not the increase in randomness.

Well that'll teach me not to leave the rulebook at home. I did query it with my opponent who said that I couldn't pile in as he had already killed the lone guardsman who was in combat. Next time I will bring out the hardback rulebook and slap him with it...

Denny
19-03-2013, 15:54
The daemon player might be allowed to replace the enemy HQ with a herald with no effort required or counter to protect against that available. Is that a fun game?

. . . Errr, yes? :angel:

ColShaw
19-03-2013, 16:06
Personally, I don't care whether the best player wins a game. I care whether the best player has won more at the end of the year.

This is an excellent point, and one which is often forgotten. I've heard it said about baseball's 162-game season, "Every team will win 54 games, every team will lose 54 games, and the season is decided in the other 54." This is completely true. Even the very best MLB teams lose 1/3 of their games. That doesn't mean they're not dominant on the field.

The best player shouldn't win EVERY time. Heck, even in chess, that doesn't happen.

IcedCrow
19-03-2013, 16:24
There is a key difference between the example you give and the daemons codex: the example resulted from a risk willingly taken not working out. Had the chaos player not chosen to fire his weapons, or at least not enough of them to cause a panic check, that situation would not have arisen.

The Warp storm table doesn't work that way; neither player can affect what the result will be. It is theoretically possible that a daemon army will self destruct from warp storm rolls alone, with no action from the opponent required, regardless of any tactics used. Is that a fun game? On the other end of the table, the daemon player might be allowed to replace the enemy HQ with a herald with no effort required or counter to protect against that available. Is that a fun game?

Randomness is fine, but this lack of control isn't, really. When shooting, you fire the gun you chose to bring at a target you pick after both players try to manipulate the odds through maneuvering their respective units. When resolving the warp storm, the players follow directives called by the dice with no choice allowed or required. The first is a decision followed by a dice roll, the second is just a dice roll.

The example I gave was in response to "i rolled a "3" on charge distance and failed and lost the game because of it"

The demon table rage is a different argument.


The Warp storm table doesn't work that way; neither player can affect what the result will be. It is theoretically possible that a daemon army will self destruct from warp storm rolls alone, with no action from the opponent required, regardless of any tactics used. Is that a fun game? On the other end of the table, the daemon player might be allowed to replace the enemy HQ with a herald with no effort required or counter to protect against that available. Is that a fun game?

Is that a fun game? sure. All of those things are possible. It's also possible that your opponent will six dice a killer spell tears your army apart with no real effort required or a counter to protect it, or kill your HQ with no effort. I treat the two in a similar fashion.

I run events. My concerns are that people aren't getting tabled all of the time, and that games are close and fun and not one dimensional wins where the outcome of the game can be decided by turn 2, because that's one of the quickest ways to drive people out of the hobby and I want to retain players (and given a group of say 10 people, 1 will be really good, 1 will be really poor, the other 8 are typically average, but five or six of those average guys will think that they are also really good in my experience). I also care that the better players win more than the not-better players. So far, those goals are still being achieved and as such, I'm on board. The demon codex/army list is not going to suddenly start tabling opponents on a regular basis from just existing any more than casting the sixth spell and erasing units does or showing up with Grey Knights and plopping them on the table does.

In the end "the best player" takes a lot more things into consideration where as before it took into consideration how well a person could min/max a list, and then how well they could exploit mistakes and game the game. Now you also have to take into consideration risk management as well.

In the end it also comes down to some people don't handle losing very well, and they aren't having fun if they are losing. The random table just gives them a target to place their blame on.

Chapters Unwritten
19-03-2013, 16:41
I don't think the random stuff affects my game all that much. It is just annoying. Some of it is non-immersive or senseless.

For example, a forest is generally a forest. But in the world of 40k they are bizarre deadly places with any number of potential hazards. This is very jarring when you consider I, an unarmed untrained human, can walk through even a rugged forest without much issue. I could understand them being random to a degree but they are pretty wild considering this fact.

Fast forward to ruins. Dangerous unstable buildings covered in rubble and falling masonry, having sufferred shelling or worse from the all time powerhouse armies of the 41st millennium. What do they make these? Why, the safest and most reliable defensive structures in the game, of course. No random roll required; that shaky floor that was hit by an orbital strike 10,000 years ago is as safe as ever. No random roll, no danger, not even any obstruction to your movement if there's a wall in the way.

Randomness like that bothers me. The table doesn't need to randomly try to kill us. Hinder us/help us is great, it adds tactical choices we need to make, but actually losing guys to tripping over weeds and such is a throwback to the goofy origins of this hobby and is in direct opposition to the rest of it.

I like the randomness but I tire of it as a crutch for unit design. It makes the other things that don't have that crutch that much more powerful, and frankly the game has enough dice-rolling and book keeping as it is.

IcedCrow
19-03-2013, 16:50
Could make ruins dangerous terrain. I've considered doing that.

Baman
19-03-2013, 16:52
I'd mostly draw the line at the deployment.
I play Orks mainly, and the randomness of SAGs, Lootas D3 shots, etc, are all ok in my book. But these are all things that happen ingame, and if I don't want to gamble with these units, I can choose to not use them. So when I eventually get Daemon allies for my CSM, I will never use a single unit with the warpflame rule for example.
Random wargear for the Daemons on the other hand, means you cannot truly plan out your list and if you buy any gifts beside the primaris weapon things, you are paying for something you don't even know what is. Similarly, I also absolutely hate the retarded random rolls for psychic powers and magic in WFB, it's nothing but a hindrance that gimps any attempt at planning your strategy with them, besides resorting to ridiculous tricks like taking more mages so you can be sure to get all spells.

Although some of the in-game LOLRANDOM crap is simply stupid. Namely the warpstorm chart (Though even more so in WFB when it can potentially instakill a 500 points wizard in the first turn) and the clearly broken CSM Daemon transformation. It's completely obvious they did not even bother trying to balance this crap. Which is why I always insist on house rules ignoring them.
If they absolutely want random stuff then at least don't include stuff that can kill 1/4th of your enemy's army's points solely on a lucky roll, or charts with good and bad rewards where the "good" reward is actually bad as well in most cases.

Ssilmath
19-03-2013, 16:57
Chapters, your argument falls apart once you read the bits where mysterious terrain is optional. You aren't required to use them, and if you want to you can apply various dangerous or mysterious rules to other parts of the table. I really don't know how they could have made it any more explicit that the various terrain features are tools that can be used to make the game more immersive, not inviolable additions designed to slow down gameplay. You're the leader of a club, why don't you lay out some events that utilize those tools to make things interesting, rather than complain about an issue that doesn't exist?

Chapters Unwritten
19-03-2013, 17:12
For starters, the placement in the book. The format should always be to present the terrain in simplest terms, but that's a discussion for another thread (I personally feel, as a document designer by trade, that the 6E book is MILES behind the 5E book).

Let me be clear here: I am EXTREMELY dedicated to my club (and, by extension, the game) due to the personal circumstances surrounding its creation. So I have played with pretty much everything in the main rulebook, just because of that. It is not whether or not the referred bits I mentioned are required; just that, when in use, they are jarring. Who thinks a forest, even one in the 41st millennium, is more dangerous to navigate than a collapsing building?

I have been encouraging people to use the random objectives as I feel that adds a lot to the game (also, unlike the terrain bits, Mysterious Objectives is specified as a rule of the missions. Our club is very by-the-book, for better or worse -- as stated elsewhere, it caters to players who like this game despite its faults, so they prefer to play it as "correctly" as they can).

Just because something is optional does not mean it makes sense. To me, in 6E, GW used optional in the same way they used random -- as a crutch. The optional rules for all the strange terrain ought to be in the back section of the book, not in the main rules.

Konovalev
19-03-2013, 17:23
The optional rules for all the strange terrain ought to be in the back section of the book, not in the main rules.

What's in the back section of the book? Besides the glossary and reference pages?

ihavetoomuchminis
19-03-2013, 17:24
several well thought and reasoned posts

In few words.....IcedCrow....I.LOVE.U. :D

Couldn't agree with you more (this time).

IcedCrow
19-03-2013, 17:42
In few words.....IcedCrow....I.LOVE.U. :D

Couldn't agree with you more (this time).

Thank you thank you. Give me a couple more days and I can come up with something you disagree with strongly. I'm good like that :)

Grocklock
19-03-2013, 17:45
random is fun, i don't want it like the deamon book ffor everyone but a little splatter here and there is good. like the chaos and dark angels book.

I do find it quite funny how people where saying how predictable everything was with the game before and how the game had become rock paper scissors, so gw change it, and people still are not happy. if you don't want the random dont play it. AGREE before the game that you can choose the warlord traits, or choose/not even use the random terrain (this ones an option anyway). as far as the deamon powers and psychic powers go my group have been play testing that you can choose the option as long as you pay 20 points. this has worked quite well. As 20 points gets you the garentee but it comes at a price.

Chem-Dog
19-03-2013, 17:50
I'm a Daemons player, amongst other things, and I don't have an issue with "randomness" as such, the wax and wane of Daemonic manifestations is worthy of representation as is the fact that the relative strength of any god (and thus their minions) is in a constant state of flux.

I've been playing since RT days and have seen many a random chart (including random equipment charts - for Space Marines) and for the most part they are of the acceptable variety, the kind that sometimes helps, sometimes hinders, is sometimes awesome and sometimes awful. Where we have problems is when the only way of measuring an item's effectiveness is across the span of multiple games - sometimes it helps all game and sometimes it hinders all game, unless kept fairly subtle you're handing players over to the occasionally unbeatable opponent.

daveNYC
19-03-2013, 17:59
Chapters, your argument falls apart once you read the bits where mysterious terrain is optional.

Whether or not something is optional doesn't really change whether or not it is good or bad. The Warpstorm table could be optional and people would still be praising and/or damning the thing.

The problem I have with the new level of randomness is that it takes away more than it adds to the game.

1) Warpstorm: The tail end results (2,3, 11, 12) are pretty major and could win/lose the game right there. They should have trimmed it down to a D6 table and limited the results to low level army (de)buffs and some terrain type changes. Not to mention that even the god stomp results aren't evenly distributed since 6 and 8 are more common than 5 and 9.

2) Daemonic Wargear tables: Rolling for equipment and boons creates a disconnect between the player and their army. Personally I like creating an HQ unit and saying this is Zippy, he has X, Y, and Z. He likes to shoot/chop with whatever I give him. I'm far less interested in saying Zippy is a Bloodthirster who doesn't have equipment, but he's really tight with the boss so he'll probably get hooked up with some good stuff when the time comes to fight. The same goes for Warlord traits and Psyker powers. It isn't just the role you want these characters to have in the game, their powers and abilities are part of who they are in the story you've created in your mind for your army and its leaders. Not to mention that you end up with goofy situations where Ahriman, greatest Sorcerer ever, has no idea what he's going to be casting one game to the next.

3) Chaos Boon table: Combined with manditory challenges and accepting of challenges, this is pretty stupid. Abaddon, despoiler of worlds, nemesis of the Imperium, Honey Badger incarnate among the traitor legions... he can be forced to go one on one with an Imperial Guard Sargent, win, and then turn into a chaos spawn. I like the concept of the Boons, but they should have been broken down into five tables based on the gods (and one undivided) and had Spawn and Daemon Prince removed. And do something about the manditory challenges. I have no idea why the designers think it's fun for you to not have control over your units. What is it, is Chaos RANDOM, or is it always having to fight honorable one on one combat with anyone who asks?

Basically the increase in table usage makes me feel as though the army is less something that I created and run and more something that is generated on the fly by dice when the game happens. Dice, by the way, that are more than willing to demonstrate that they don't have my best interests at heart. Additionally, many of the random changes don't do much for creating a cinimatic narative. Kharn being stuck in single combat with IG sargents, Ahriman not knowing what he'll be able to cast, or Zippy (the Bloodthirster) not being sure what he'll be packing when he busts into realspace.

Chapters Unwritten
19-03-2013, 18:03
What's in the back section of the book? Besides the glossary and reference pages?

From page 339 onward there is a whole slew of good but random (ironic, eh?) gaming stuff.

First are several crazy missions. Then on page 360, some tips on how to best create your own. 361 has several suggestions for mission narratives. Page 362 and 363 has new skirmish rules that are akin to battle missions' Kill Team bit, but 6th editionified. On page 366 there are tons of pre-created mission special rules for you to use, as well as warzone traits (randomly selectable).

This area seems like a better place to include optional stuff, to me.

Baman
19-03-2013, 19:00
Basically the increase in table usage makes me feel as though the army is less something that I created and run and more something that is generated on the fly by dice when the game happens. Seconding this. Not to mention that it gives a slap in the face to anyone that enjoys modelling WYSIWYG. It has crossed my mind that modelling psykers and somehow showing the psychic powers they use would be cool, either through some special effects materialising from their hands/staves or through runes or equipment. But not so much point doing that when I have to throw a dice every time anyways.

As for the CSM challenge, it could easily have been made to make sense in the right context. Lucius for example, should be more than keen on challenging anyone with a reasonably high weapon skill. But it does get silly if YOUR lord is a slippery pirate renegade that cramps with laughter at the concept of "honour". If it's just to please the gods, then maybe let you choose between accepting the challenge or getting a LD debuff for the rest of the phase or something similar to how Skaven can hide in the back row in WFB. And some sense of scale between the units involved when it comes to the boons.

Konovalev
19-03-2013, 19:03
I'm far less interested in saying Zippy is a Bloodthirster who doesn't have equipment, but he's really tight with the boss so he'll probably get hooked up with some good stuff when the time comes to fight. The same goes for Warlord traits and Psyker powers. It isn't just the role you want these characters to have in the game, their powers and abilities are part of who they are in the story you've created in your mind for your army and its leaders. Not to mention that you end up with goofy situations where Ahriman, greatest Sorcerer ever, has no idea what he's going to be casting one game to the next.

Bloodthirsters do not come without equipment. They come with a special close combat weapon, and what is essentially a plasma pistol IIRC. Given that psychic powers are manifested through interactions with the warp, how difficult is it to say that warp conditions make some powers more/less desirable than others during a given battle. And this is why Ahriman has powers xyz to use and not abc. There is no perfect middle ground here, we're stuck with rules made for a game and fluff made for a story. Some are more easily reconciled than others.

the_picto
19-03-2013, 19:06
I'm a daemon player and I'm fine with the tables as a concept, but have some issues with their implementation.

People do seem to be overreacting a bit though. 90% of your army does exactly what it says on the tin, your bloodletters have power swords, your daemonettes have rending and your soulgrinders have whatever guns you chose. Random gifts only effect a handful of models and so aren't going to radically change the army from one game to the next. They are also optional. A herald has 8 items of wargear he can choose for certain, several mount options and 3 loci. So there's plenty of costomisability without bothering with rolling for gifts.

Chapters Unwritten
19-03-2013, 19:12
I think it would have been really Chaosy to make their wounds overflow from challenges, but that was just me.

I understand people's complaints. Tables are not intuitive at all, and it seems more and more that GW uses them to deal with units they aren't sure what to do with (like Possessed).

IcedCrow
19-03-2013, 19:47
Tables are not intuitive at all, and it seems more and more that GW uses them to deal with units they aren't sure what to do with (like Possessed).

I see this thrown around a bit, that one would use a random chart if one just didn't understand game design or game theory enough to put solid rules down and use it like a crutch.

But that concept, while it might adhere to some people, is not universal. There is an entire theory around items like random charts and their implementation. If you purposely don't want a unit to behave the same way every game, for example, you would implement just this very thing. That is not sloppy nor unintelligent (in all cases), it is, to me, a valid implementation in some instances. I think an army where all units were random would be silly, but an army with a couple of random mechanics in it makes things more interesting (for people like me) as I am more of a reactionary player as opposed to one that must dictate the flow of a game.

As there seem to be two popular approaches to gameplay (predictability and stacking the predictable odds in your favor vs unpredictability and risk management and reaction) it is important to note which direction the designer is coming from. Obviously if one likes predictability one will rally hard against any game design that does not favor predictability and vice versa.

Chapters Unwritten
19-03-2013, 20:22
I want to believe they do certain things for the betterment of the game, but the spawn and possessed charts clearly illustrate otherwise. I wouldn't be surprised if they just took everything from play testing and put it into a table for some things.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

daveNYC
19-03-2013, 21:12
There is no perfect middle ground here, we're stuck with rules made for a game and fluff made for a story. Some are more easily reconciled than others.

Except as of roughly six months ago, the rules allowed you to pick what psyker powers you had. Now they don't. It's fair to be asking things like "Why did they do this?" "Is this an improvement to the game?" and "Where is this all heading?"

And it's not about attempting to reconcile the fluff with the rules. It's about losing your connection to your army when the decisions involved in building that army are outsourced to a D6. The derp handwavium required to explain the table rolling is just the icing on the cake.

duffybear1988
19-03-2013, 21:29
You know what chaps? I'm thoroughly enjoying the banter on here this evening. There are good arguments on both sides it seems.

I can't remember back to early 5th edition, but was there quite as much division between the like and the dislike sides as there is now?

xavos
19-03-2013, 21:57
As there seem to be two popular approaches to gameplay (predictability and stacking the predictable odds in your favor vs unpredictability and risk management and reaction) it is important to note which direction the designer is coming from. Obviously if one likes predictability one will rally hard against any game design that does not favor predictability and vice versa.

I think there is division between those who like a degree of uncertainty in their games and those that are more inclined towards stacking the odds. I hope that for the benefit of all, good games design allows a level of crossover between the two.

For example what if Codex Chaos Daemons allowed you to choose from a basic but utilitarian set of gifts but also allowed you to roll off for others if desired, with varied results? What if you could choose whether to roll for the Warpstorm, albeit with different outcomes? The devil is in the detail, and a player may decide that the benefits are not worth the risk. Or he may throw caution to the wind in true chaotic fashion. The random table may provide an avenue for strategy, given the right design.

IcedCrow
19-03-2013, 22:19
You know what chaps? I'm thoroughly enjoying the banter on here this evening. There are good arguments on both sides it seems.

I can't remember back to early 5th edition, but was there quite as much division between the like and the dislike sides as there is now?

Honestly this division showed up first when fantasy rolled to 8th edition. When random charges came out, people lost their **** and the rage was so epic that planet earth glowed brighter than the sun. Over a couple years that died down, but then 40k went through pretty much the same thing fantasy did (with things like random charges and random powers) and people once again lost their ****.

I think before in the older editions, you had a system that was firmly rooted in the predictable outcome camp and that anyone that liked uncertainty or reaction either didn't play warhammer, or just bit their tongue and went with it. Now that the game caters to an entirely different design ethos, those that were used to the old way (that they liked) are furious and those that like the uncertainty and reaction are now loudly praising the system because they/we finally get something that we like.

I don't think that the division is wrong or shows any one side to be more right than the other... I think that its just a division of what people want out of a game (I'm usually pretty content with discussing the two sides in a nice way, i only get annoyed when the demeaning or the negative connotations come out to play)

IcedCrow
19-03-2013, 22:22
I think there is division between those who like a degree of uncertainty in their games and those that are more inclined towards stacking the odds. I hope that for the benefit of all, good games design allows a level of crossover between the two.

For example what if Codex Chaos Daemons allowed you to choose from a basic but utilitarian set of gifts but also allowed you to roll off for others if desired, with varied results? What if you could choose whether to roll for the Warpstorm, albeit with different outcomes? The devil is in the detail, and a player may decide that the benefits are not worth the risk. Or he may throw caution to the wind in true chaotic fashion. The random table may provide an avenue for strategy, given the right design.

I think that that would be cool. However, I think that the moment predictability/absolute tactics guy plays chaotic random guy and chaotic random guy gambles and wins a good bonus and wins with it that predictability / absolute tactics guy loses his **** and flips a table over in rage and blames his loss on the random chart that gave chaotic guy the boon. I think that there are probably a good number of people that could marry those two principles but I think that there are an equal number of people that cannot coexist with both.

Inquisitor Shego
19-03-2013, 22:39
One of my main concerns with the army is that, however rare this event may be, say a game is not won by me as a player, but by the army I have chosen having a certain rule called the Warp Storm. What I mean is on the final turn, a roll on the Warp Table causing Khorne to become an irate pirate, and punch some hapless eldar dire avengers off of an objective, winning me the game.

Have I won that game? Or did a Codex writer somewhere win it? I only say this because although I play to win, I prefer a challenge or to defeat my opponent in a more hands on fashion.

Ssilmath
19-03-2013, 23:38
I would look at it from the perspective that the odds of those Dire Avengers getting blasted off the table are the same as a unit of Horrors getting blasted off an objective. It's not different then losing a game because your Storm Eagle rockets scattered off target and blew apart the Veterans sitting on an objective, or winning a game because a Plasma Gun overheated and killed the last Marine in a squad. It's just a part of the game, and if the game is close enough that one errant roll decides the outcome, then it was a good game no matter who won or lost.

For an example, I played against Dark Angels today, with Belial and a command squad with FnP dropping behind my Guard lines. A squad unloaded with First Rank Fire, and managed to kill the entire squad of Termies. Yeah, 30 flashlight shots took out a squad that my Possessed and Terminators have bounced off several times before. The odds of that happening are almost non existent, but if I had won the game (Still lost on objectives) I wouldn't have said that such an incredibly unlikely event won the game for me and felt bad.

ismeno
20-03-2013, 05:54
Alright younglings; this is rumour control with facts;
"Rogue Trader, the mother of 40K, was incredible random and unpredictable". Are 40K returning to those glorious(?) days? Well, not completely, but I think that the GW games designers are trying to bring back some of that flavour. I love it, I still think RT was great, but I totally see why the competetive generation is having a nerd-rage.......

duffybear1988
20-03-2013, 09:00
Alright younglings; this is rumour control with facts;
"Rogue Trader, the mother of 40K, was incredible random and unpredictable". Are 40K returning to those glorious(?) days? Well, not completely, but I think that the GW games designers are trying to bring back some of that flavour. I love it, I still think RT was great, but I totally see why the competetive generation is having a nerd-rage.......

I have played a fair bit of Rogue Trader and yes it is fun, but it's also not a wargame as such. There are far too many gaps in the rules, bits missing, left to the imagination etc for it to be classed that way. It's more like roleplay on the table top, and whilst I don't dislike this idea, taking 40k back to those days after 20+ years is bound to alienate quite a few people.

Now that was all well and good in the past when sci fi wargames were just being created, and companies were starting to realise that they could make money from it, so everything was a bit slapdash and players were expected to use their own initiative. But GW today are a different creature altogether. They made a name for themselves as one of the best organised wargames companies in the business, and have spent years creating great looking figures, and decent rules to battle with. If you look back you can see it in action.

2nd edition was far too long winded and complicated, and heroes ruled the day.

3rd edition was too streamlined and combat kicked butt. Rereading the book last night it was also clear that rules for some things like vehicles weren't really thought about until after the book was released (hence the Chapter Approved vehicle update).

4th edition was a vast improvement on 3rd. It had good rules, good missions, and frankly most of the codexes from this period were my favourite. You could really go to town personalising your army.

5th edition changed things. Some would say for the worst, but I like to think that early 5th was fine. Most of the problems with 5th come down to codex creep and GW's inability to price things correctly.

6th edition seems like a return to Rogue Trader in many ways. There are lots of random rolls and I get the impression that it's supposed to be taken in a completely different light to most of the previous editions.

I just think that after spending 20+ years shaping it towards one thing, many people were expecting it to carry on in that direction. Unfortunately for some this didn't happen and that's what people find annoying.

It's kind of like the band Muse - I loved all their other albums and have been a fan since they first started playing, but their latest work is absolutely rubbish.

Right, that went a bit off topic but I think it's clear-ish.

RandomThoughts
20-03-2013, 09:21
This is a complex thema, and a lot of good points have been made already.

I think there are basically three types of players here:
* Players that like to compete, and hate it when the game is decided by dice rolls and not by their skill
* Players that like to compete, and consider improvisation / reacting to unexpected events as a crucial skill
* Players that don't like to compete and feel the random elements levels the playing field for them

There might be more that I missed. I think I saw another pop up somewhere:
* Players that don't care about the game itself but like how unexpected things happening on the table emulate the uncertainties of war

Anyway, personally I belong somewhere between the first two. I understand the appeal of risk management and stacking the odds, of making hard decissions in the game, but I also like to plan ahead, and I like to feel after the game that I won (or lost!) on my own skill, not on random luck. I think this is mostly about control. I want to be in control, I like to "control my own destiny" as they say in the NFL playoff hunt, and I start getting cranky whenever I have to play a game where the dice matter more than any planning on my part. Which is, incidentially, why I make a terrible addition to Munchkin and Settlers of Catan games (I learned to sit those out by now).

Now, my personal opinion is that 40K is not really a good game for me anymore. I still love the models and fluff, which is why I still haunt this forum (also: boredom at work), but the game itself has been less and less fun for me and my gaming group. I recently converted a close friend to Warmachine, and I think the things he said during our last game highlights my issues perfectly. During the early game, the dice conspired against him. Hard. At some point the frustration came through when he loudly complained "With the dice scrwing up everything I try to do, I might just as well go back to playing 40K!!!"
His mood changed around midgame, when he started to pull ahead despite his bad dice rolls. Not really sure what happened there, but I think my other mate that he played against made some errors and miscalculations. In the end, my pal started to dominate the game and was just about to table his opponent when he became careless and exposed his general. At that point, the other guy exectued a perfect execution, winning the game after all.

In comparison, in 40K, large parts of the game always seem to go into auto-play mode after the first turn or two. Deployment matters, a lot, but outside of some inconventional shifts with fast units moving around the board in unexpected ways, the sole focus of the game often becomes target selection. "This unit charges that unit. This unit shoots at that unit." The most dramatic (interesting) moments are usually when a player needs to kill a unit urgently THIS TURN. Firing unit after unit after unit, rolling dice and more dice and hopping for the precious 6es, the precious 1s on the saves, the gambler's high when the next dice rolls will decide over win and loss.

Don't get me wrong, but those moments when the crucial Terminator squad goes down before it can charge, the moment the enemy commander finally bites the dust are all great, and we celebrate them the same way we celebrate a touchdown by our favorite football teams. But in both cases, we're more like spectators. We didn't do it, we saw it happen, holding our breath, hoping for the big play.

Which can be nice, don't get me wrong, but I personally prefer the way Warmachine works out. Where you don't just point the one unit at the other unit, roll the dice and hope for the best. Activation order, stacking buffs, using models to clear shooting lanes for other models, allocating resources (Focus, deciding which spells to cast and where) make for an experience that is much closer to the offensive coordinator (to stay with the football analogy) devicing a devious touchdown play.

Again, it's about control. Not about absolute tactics that work all the time; on the contrary: Warmachine tends to reward improvisation in my personal experience; many useful models have one or two strictly situational abilities that can make a great impact if used at the right moment. Every game tends to play out differently (for us so far at least), simply because there are a lot of options and hard decissions built into the game and the units already.

But that being said, I think random elements are just half the issues I have with 40K. The other half are compulsory moves/actions. In my ideal 40K world, I'd be able to team up Fire Dragons with the Avatar. The Avatar charges / takes the charge as the front line unit, the Fire Dragons uns their Melta and Flamer weapons (which the Avatar is immune against) to turn the melee into a kill zone. In my ideal 40K world, imperial guard and chaos would tie down the enemy with cheap conscripts / cultists, then open fire with their heavy artillery. In my ideal 40K world, Dark Reapers and Devastators would rush out of melee, not rush into it because a single model in the front of the unit got touched. In my ideal 40K world, firing the Missile Launcher in a tactical squad at a tank over there would not prevent the other nine members of the squad firing their bolters into the infantry unit right in front of them.

But yeah, that's my take, really.

Vet.Sister
20-03-2013, 10:32
I voted for option 7. I have never liked randomization as a balancing factor in rules design. I accept that the dice must be random, after that... it just irritates me! Especially when I lose control of my units/army. :mad:

Szalik
20-03-2013, 11:49
I must say I really dislike this "risk management" being suddenly thrown around by GW fanboys as an argument or advantage in the 6th WH40k and 8th WFB, like there were no dice in this game before. There were and were even more than enough to constantly test the game plan that players had when approaching the gaming table.
Combined with poorly written rules, "to hit" and "to wound" tables presented by GW apologists as "balanced", I'm quite surprised we don't have random equipment, units randomly appearing and disappearing from the table...uhh wait.


When random charges came out, people lost their **** and the rage was so epic that planet earth glowed brighter than the sun. Over a couple years that died down, but then 40k went through pretty much the same thing fantasy did (with things like random charges and random powers) and people once again lost their ****.


Leaving negative connotations apart, this is an important yet inaccurate observation. A lot of people are/were angry that more and more solid game rules are replaced with d6, 2d6 etc. that is true. It was not a rant "omg I'm losing, this randomness is bad" as some try to portrait even in this discussion. The arguments were clear and were coming from a long time players.
I cannot agree though that discussion died down. It is "player base" that died down, those people simply moved to other games because game developer crossed the line willingly or not. I'd say willingly to appeal more to the " intellectually less demanding customers" like kids (combine it with the changes in appearance of models, like deamonettes, Dark Elves etc.).

In my opinion it is important to remind other players and GW , that making this game more and more random is not an approach that is/was approved by a considerable amount of wh40k fans. In case of CSM Codex, that was disliked by many it was simple, players had a chance to move to another army, still remain in the environment and state their opinion on CSM codex, Lash etc. In case of core rules they have only one way, with a green EXIT sign over it, their voice in the discussion gone also.

And before anyone suggest "adapt or die"... You can only bend to some point. I love the genre and have tried to maintain the ability to share a common ruleset with other 40k players but was unable, because the rules were so much "dumbed down" that I found it insulting. I have adapted...the rules. But as You may know, sharing common ruleset, playing by so called "official" rules with GW symbol on it is very important for many, to the point that choosing worse is "better" because it's common.

Speking about "adapt or die" approach. It was said that this change to core rules is a hit those hardcore tournament orientated, power gaming players. In my opinion this is not true, to emphasize it even stronger that's a total BS. I'd say it's the other way round, these guys are the most adaptive genre of players around because they adapt on a monthly basis. They have already adapted. Both them and unsuccessful codex jumpers (and kids) are a cattle for GW they will buy new stuff (good for GW) and sell the older to second hand ebay buyers (not that good for GW).

The ones that were hit the most were people like me. I want to play a good, involving game from time to time with rules not insulting my common sense.
I want to play the game in my favourite setting with as few rules "WTF?" rules moments as possible. I want a game that responds to my decisions, have flexible rules, good "to hit" and "to wound" charts (where is 2+ to hit, where is autowound in case of S=2xT ?), not a strict "code" (assault phase), black or white approach (removing whole units from failed morale), not nearly everything decided by a dice roll !

But it looks like this "randomness" infection not only spoiled core rules but is present in new army books. In both CSM and CD books there is this dangerous approach showing, that was less visible in the previous army books. Both Chaos Boon and Warpstorm tables are inevitable when playing those armies. I cannot choose not to apply those (well in case of CD I can choose them as an ally), like not choosing an unit of possesed. Combined with GW's inability to cut off the extremes in their pursue to make more and more aspects random, more and more games will be played with players as an observers and dice throwers, rather than uhh players.

Don't get me wrong, I think that CD and Orks are a good place to pour some wacky randomness into this game. Random gifts are quite ok because they are not MANDATORY (yet). But I'm afraid that combined with the approach in the core rules, warlord traits, psychic powers, A LOT of the game is being taken away from player's choice and decided by a dice roll.

IcedCrow
20-03-2013, 12:45
Again, it's about control. Not about absolute tactics that work all the time; on the contrary: Warmachine tends to reward improvisation in my personal experience; many useful models have one or two strictly situational abilities that can make a great impact if used at the right moment. Every game tends to play out differently (for us so far at least), simply because there are a lot of options and hard decissions built into the game and the units already.

But absolute tactics that work all the time IS all about having total control. Warmachine is a great game, the fact its so popular shows that, just not a game that I enjoy (mainly because I feel it is a magic: the gathering game with miniatures and that's not something that appeals to me: combination-based games, skirmish-level games, and games that are centered around a super powerful individual and their henchmen.

Absolute total control to me is absolute tactics. I also concede that in this day and age, absolute control is the predominant design philosophy. As a game designer myself that works on video games, this has been the case since the mid to late 90s on. That is just the culture that we live in now. The problem for me lies in the fact that I want a wargame that closer emulates war, and in war you never have absolute control and have risk management and reaction skills that you must utilize (maybe I just loved the sandbox drills we had when I was in the army which exercised all of those things and it carries over now to my hobbies)


I must say I really dislike this "risk management" being suddenly thrown around by GW fanboys as an argument or advantage in the 6th WH40k and 8th WFB, like there were no dice in this game before. There were and were even more than enough to constantly test the game plan that players had when approaching the gaming table.

There was very little risk management. I can't agree with any part of the above. The risk management in previous games of Warhammer Fantasy came down not to dice, but to making sure you were not within the 1/8" to be charged by your opponent, as in WHF 7th ed the game often revolved around whom charged whom first. While dice were certainly a part of that, they were a minor part of that. Players would stack the deck so heavily in their favor that even loaded dice loaded towards 1s and 2s weren't enough to overcome that. I'm not coming from a standpoint where I never played those editions either, I was a hardnose tournament powergamer from 5th through 7th edition. I'm intimately familiar with the lack of risk management in previous editions of fantasy and 40k (and back in the day I probably would hate the current edition too because back in the day my style was also about absolute-control to the point I picked armies that circumvented dice rolling entirely such as undead/demons and autobreak fear etc)

Previous editions of 40k same thing. Risk management? It was about min/maxing your list. My eldar army from previous editions laughs at the concept of risk management. The only risk management they had were to decide which two full marine units they were going to annihilate in their shooting phase.

Everyone and their mother was running grey knights or space wolves. There was no risk management with those armies either. The games all played out pretty much the same with minor changes here and there. If ever there was a comparison to warmachine where I favored warmachine, it was during these days when at least the warmachine games were all different, whereas the 40k and WFB games were largely mirror matches.

There was little risk management in previous editions. My vampire count army that I used to win two leagues with and place high in Chicago had no concept of risk management at all. I pointed, clicked, and off they went. Oh I beat you by one because I loaded the front rank down with vampires and its mathematically stacked to the point where its basically impossible where that couldn't have happened? Well you automatically flee now. Bye bye.

Demon armies in 7th edition? Risk management? No. Dark elf army with the unkillable lord flying around? No risk management there. All about stacking the odds heavily in your favor and absolute control over the table. Grey knights? Risk management? Can't say that with a straight face either and that army constituted over half of most competitive tournaments.

There may have been a degree of risk management in previous editions but it was minimal at best. You may hate that "fanboys" such as myself tout that risk management is what the new game is all about, and hate away, but that is exactly what the new editions are. Less absolute control, more forcing you to react. Some players love that. Others that require absolute control HATE that. Absolute control or wanting control is completely opposite from having to react. If you are having to react you are responding to something which means you don't have control because you are having to react. (And I can sympathize because if this was 2001 I would be on here talking about how random games ruin competitive play and I would shelve my armies and go find a competitive game to play. That doesn't mean reactionary games cannot be competitive, rather it is that I hated the concept that I was not in charge of my own destiny because I had to have total control and back then 22 year old me considered not having control as not being competitive)

There is nothing "dumb" about random, just as there is nothing "dumb" about needing absolute control. There are games on the market today that utilize absolute control design philosophy that one who needs absolute control would love to play. Play it and enjoy your freetime more than playing in a system you don't like.

As an aside, as I'm not a warmachine fan, I don't play it or frequent their forums to tell the players that play it how much I hate their game and how I think that they are all fanboys and dumb. Its a style I'm not a fan of, nor probably ever will be, and I gave it a fair shake for a couple years by collecting a cryx force and painting it up and playing in several events and an entire campaign. They are sitting in a case now and are proxied for D&D figs now when I need them. I still recognize that it is a lot of fun for others which means that as a game it succeeds. Just as the new reactionary risk management style that heralds back to 80s design philosophy is also good for those that enjoy that (and apparently there are still a lot of us left). That doesn't make us "dumb" or "fanboys" any more than the people that love DUST, or Warmachine, or Infinity, or Squad Leader or any other game are dumb and fanboys.

Ssilmath
20-03-2013, 14:45
I'm wondering what exactly are the random elements that make the game uncontrollable? Random terrain shouldn't really factor into things. That is not only completely ignorable, but it is suggested that you choose the effects depending on how the terrain is modeled. Even going by the book, the effects are random only if you want them to. Warlord traits could have been better implemented, but the effects aren't game changing. Every codex but Daemons gets to plan their gear out, and Daemons get to plan the majority of their gear out. Fluff reasons aside, it is an interesting departure from the norm that will appeal to some people, and will not appeal to others. That doesn't make it bad or lazy, just different.

Now, I can see random charge length being an issue, and I've missed several charges that before I would have easily gotten. I've also pulled of charges that would have been impossible before. There are many reports of people missing a 5 inch charge, but how many people happily report how they rolled up a flank due to making an 11 inch charge? There is a level of unpredictability built into the system now, and to be fair bad rolls are punished more than they used to be. Shooting has gone up in relative power, which is going to be very frustrating to people who collected melee heavy armies.

I don't think that these elements take much control out of the hands of the player. There is still a lot of tactical skill required, both for where you move and what targets you choose. In my experience, the rise in power of shooting has actually made maneuver more important and made the movement phase more than pushing your models towards the nearest enemy. 6th edition for me has required more forethought and skill than before, but I don't expect that to be universal for everybody.

For background, I'm not just a GW apologist. I played Warmachine for years, and still would if I had a gaming group in my local area. I switched completely to 40k recently due to the games with my gaming buddies being completely predictable and feeling the same each time. In the three years I played tournaments regularly (Every month or two) I lost a grand total of one game, despite not running a Choir of Menoth after the first year. And you know, I could determine almost exactly how a battle would turn out based on army composition, terrain and likelihood of rolls. For some, that is a great thing, and more power to them. While I was playing, I greatly enjoyed that amount of control. For now though, I like having a bit of unpredictability thrown into the mix. I hate to use the dreaded "C" word, but things really do feel cinematic now.

A.T.
20-03-2013, 15:12
I'm wondering what exactly are the random elements that make the game uncontrollable?Of all the random elements in the game I think the only things I would point to as being 'randumb' would be the warpstorm and the various terrain/deathworld/etc charts - these are things which arbitrarily remove models from play without intervention from either player and are akin to having an annoying kid run up and grab a couple of models from the board each turn.

The random charge lengths are, in my opinion, too random - the range of possible outcomes increases the emphasis on dumb luck. The random psychic powers also feel like randomness for the sake of randomness and change the nature of psykers from 'take this power, use this way' to 'cross fingers and hope for good power'.

My personal pet peeve though has to be with a 5th ed army - sisters, and their single D6 roll at the start of every turn to determine whether or not they get to use any of their special rules that turn. The original 3rd ed system of faith points required a degree of foresight and planning while the new system is nothing more or less than pot luck.


At the end of the day it's a game of dice, it's random by nature, but every extra unnecessary layer of dice rolling dilutes the effect of a players skill on the outcome.

Inquisitor Shego
20-03-2013, 15:14
Because Ssilmath it's something else taken away from the player and thrown up in the air. Something we lost, not something we gained. But to clarify, unlike Random Charge, Psychic Powers, and Random warlord traits, this is something that effects only the daemon player, in an army that's already somewhat lacking. Again I like this book, a lot more than the last book too, but to have one arm tied behind your back (or maybe just a couple of fingers) makes me look at the devs and go "Really? Reallllly?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5ljaS9q1fI = sums up our wargear table.

duffybear1988
20-03-2013, 15:39
Yeah the Daemons book does seem to have gone crazy with the randomness (more than normal GW crazy :D). Even my mate who loves daemons to bits has shelved them because he just can't make them work.

IcedCrow
20-03-2013, 16:37
I mean, honestly, I think I understand what absolute tactics are on an abstract level, but so far I haven't encountered a situation in tabletop gaming where I thought "I wish this tactic had a greater chance of failure"! What I did encounter a lot in 40K was tactics that made me think "I wish I had a counter against that tactic!" Seeing it coming, knowing it it will come and how it will play out, and still being unable to do anything against it, is what bothers me a lot more.

Let me try to explain what exactly I mean, as "absolute tactics" can be misinterpreted. I myself may be using the wrong words.

An absolute tactic is an action that will always work. Not always succeed, but rather always execute. Bishop moves diagonally all the time. Knight moves in an L all the time. Black Knight cavalry always charges 14".

You make an excellent reference at the end of your post about one dimensional games and how bad they are. That is spot on my point. One dimensional games. At the hardnose powergaming level, it seems that I and my mates would strive whole heartedly to smash our opponent as one dimensionally as possible. Indeed, many tournaments still reward you based on how bad you beat up the guy across the table. You don't want a fun close game in a tournament, you want a one sided win to keep you at the top of the leaderboards.

So you need to stack the odds. Random things by their nature prohibit this. My two successful armies of either system were vampire counts in fantasy and eldar in 40k. That was intentional.

I chose eldar because the meta is massively dominated by 3+ save marines. Eldar were excellent at killing them. I stacked them to mow over marines and they did well at it. 8 months into 40k, I had won my first rogue trader tournament because I figured out that starcannons and lots of them were really good and that 9 out of 10 people showing up were running in power armor.

I essentially had total control.

Vampire counts - fed off of auto break. I loaded my unit with vampire thralls and just threw it forward. It was virtually impossible for them to not auto break you. I had total control in many instances.

Nothing random could have curtailed those effects and at the time my ego was largely associated with how well I did in warhammer tournaments. It was win-win.

There came a point when the one dimensional aspect we were pushing began to wear on me. I noticed mates dropping out entirely as they were bored, and soon I saw most games of 40k or warhammer as the same. Same armies doing the same thing using the same absolute tactics garnering for different dice rolls. This is why my attention is more on casual and having fun because that is what retains players. Always having to recruit can get tiresome and I find that the average lifespan of a typical warhammer player is roughly 3-5 years before they are out entirely. Hardnose style gaming takes a toll on most peoples' patience over time, even if they are winning, because the fun wears off. At least I'm speaking for me and the people I know that quit over the years.

You could literally walk up to any table as I had done dozens and dozens and dozens of times, ask what turn the players were in, and figure out the result of the game with a large degree of success based on board set up.

I can guess ranges to within a half an inch on any standard table. Black Knights always charge 14", I know where 14" is. I know where to declare the charge, the charge will always succeed, and that the only thing really stopping me at that point is if my opponent flees (which is built into my charge parameters) or bad dice preventing my min/max unit from winning, and with math hammer in 2 seconds my approximate percentage of success were. Every time. That's absolute tactics.

Now I have to add a new parameter. What happens if I fail the charge? And not because my opponent fled (which is something i had to alreayd consider, and certainly not because I misguessed range because I haven't misguessed a range in many years) How will I get around that? What will it expose me to? Before that was never an option as I knew I was within 14", I was charging, and if I felt he would flee that would be built into my decision (as if he was baiting and fled that would always cause a fail and I would always end up position X).

I no longer have total control over my charging unit.

Same with 40k. I knew that if my uber unit of death was within 12" of you at the start of my turn, I was charging, and you were screwed because there's nothing you can do about it.

Now I don't know that. I have to go "what if I fail my charge, what then?" Total control removed from my hands. I have to now build a contingency plan on if i fail, waht will i do? Do I gamble knowing that if I fail I am counter charged or shot up? Do I risk that?

That's more akin to real war, which to older me is what I want, because it makes the game more interesting, less one dimensional whereas before there was no question on what was going to happen.

I move unit X here on turn 1. I move unit X here on turn 2 and charge you. I have a Y% of defeating you and moving into that. If Y > acceptable score, I will probably win game barring really bad dice.

That was warhammer 7th and 40k 5th for me every game.

Oh look Joe and Bob are playing. They are in turn 3 and their table looks like it did last game they played on turn 3. Game is playing out largely the same. I notice Joe has super min/max unit in charge range. Bob is going to lose again as he is wiped out by turn 5 because he is an inch too close. Yep. Bob lost again in turn 5 just as we predicted. Had Bob been an inch farther he would have shot super min/max unit in the face, had a 56% of dropping its combat strength and then it would have been 50/50.

I don't like games playing out like I'm a director directing the action. That got boring. I did it for years. This is why I don't really rage against random charging or getting rid of guess ranges. Random charging makes me have a contingency plan for failure, and guess ranging is so worthless to me as I can guess any range on the table anyway nearly all the time that its removal netted no changes in my games at all. Warpstorm to me is meh. I could take it or leave it. It makes them have a new mechanic that is different so that's good to me.

In 7th edition fantasy you played demons because you wanted to win the world championship of warhammer and get your face in the hall of fame. You definitely don't play demons now with that attitude and I can see many people dropping demons (as have nearly all the local powergamers here) if they are primarily about winning tournaments because that random nature means you lost some control. Powergaming, coming from one that powergamed, is almost entirely about having total control and stacking odds, and you cannot power game and do so with random on a consistent scale.

One by one the power armies are coming in line so I'm wondering where we will be in a year or two if there aren't any more powergaming codices left.

Ssilmath
20-03-2013, 16:41
Well Shego, all it takes is changing your perspective. The random wargear is not a vital tool taken away, it's an added bonus that can give you capabilities you didn't have before. I doubt you're going to change your perspective, as you seem quite determined to hate the changes, but there it is.

There's also a considerable lack of reading comprehension, so let me put this in simple terms. You can choose not to use mysterious or random terrain. You may not like the rules detailing them, but leave the people who like them in peace. It's not even houseruling things, the rules are optional. So you can't use mysterious terrain or random placement as something to dislike.

The Warpstorm chart is also not nearly as game changing as people think. The odds of frying a Psyker come out to about 1 in 54. The odds of killing a psyker with a well placed artillery shot are about 5 in 18. The odds of losing a full squad of daemons is 1 in 1296, the exact same odds of having the 1 surviving daemon suddenly turn into a healthy squad. The extremes on the Warpstorm chart have extremely long odds of doing anything game changing, and the more common rolls are more like artillery than anything else.

I get that people do not like it, but that does not mean bad or lazy game design. The changes are very deliberate, very thought out. Whether you as an individual like them is entirely irrelevant.

RandomThoughts
20-03-2013, 17:05
For background, I'm not just a GW apologist. I played Warmachine for years, and still would if I had a gaming group in my local area. I switched completely to 40k recently due to the games with my gaming buddies being completely predictable and feeling the same each time. In the three years I played tournaments regularly (Every month or two) I lost a grand total of one game, despite not running a Choir of Menoth after the first year. And you know, I could determine almost exactly how a battle would turn out based on army composition, terrain and likelihood of rolls. For some, that is a great thing, and more power to them. While I was playing, I greatly enjoyed that amount of control. For now though, I like having a bit of unpredictability thrown into the mix. I hate to use the dreaded "C" word, but things really do feel cinematic now.

I guess that is the big difference then between us. Because I can't. For me, every Warmachine game is still full of chances and dangers and unexpected turns. More than 40K used to be. I enjoy discovering things, and figuring out new tactics as I play, new possibilities I didn't realize before I had. And the complexity of Warmachine offers quite a bit of that, I think, with seldom used abilities on models you still use because they are useful even without that ability suddenly coming together to create a touchdown.

I guess the thing is that even with all the control we have in Warmachine, the game still holds a lot of surprises in store for me every time. If that wasn't the case, I might probably agree with your point of view.


I essentially had total control.

Vampire counts - fed off of auto break. I loaded my unit with vampire thralls and just threw it forward. It was virtually impossible for them to not auto break you. I had total control in many instances.

Nothing random could have curtailed those effects and at the time my ego was largely associated with how well I did in warhammer tournaments. It was win-win.

There came a point when the one dimensional aspect we were pushing began to wear on me. I noticed mates dropping out entirely as they were bored, and soon I saw most games of 40k or warhammer as the same. Same armies doing the same thing using the same absolute tactics garnering for different dice rolls. This is why my attention is more on casual and having fun because that is what retains players. Always having to recruit can get tiresome and I find that the average lifespan of a typical warhammer player is roughly 3-5 years before they are out entirely. Hardnose style gaming takes a toll on most peoples' patience over time, even if they are winning, because the fun wears off. At least I'm speaking for me and the people I know that quit over the years.

You could literally walk up to any table as I had done dozens and dozens and dozens of times, ask what turn the players were in, and figure out the result of the game with a large degree of success based on board set up.

I can guess ranges to within a half an inch on any standard table. Black Knights always charge 14", I know where 14" is. I know where to declare the charge, the charge will always succeed, and that the only thing really stopping me at that point is if my opponent flees (which is built into my charge parameters) or bad dice preventing my min/max unit from winning, and with math hammer in 2 seconds my approximate percentage of success were. Every time. That's absolute tactics.

Well, like I said above, it is completely different for me, which probably explains my different preferences. I'm way off from absolute control of the game. I probably stumble through most of my games more than I feel comfortable admitting, but with those insufficient skills and the greater control over my models granted by the game, I feel somewhat in control. I'm in my comfort zone, if you want.

I guess, with full mastery of the game, I might get bored myself. At which point random elements that force me into unfamiliar situations might become welcome. As things are right now, I find myself in unfamiliar situations every single game, so I'm fine.


I don't like games playing out like I'm a director directing the action. That got boring. I did it for years.

Accepted.

Inquisitor Shego
20-03-2013, 18:38
Well Shego, all it takes is changing your perspective. The random wargear is not a vital tool taken away, it's an added bonus that can give you capabilities you didn't have before. I doubt you're going to change your perspective, as you seem quite determined to hate the changes, but there it is.

I seem quite determined to hate it? No, I just hate it. I don't sit at home, look at the book and go "grrrr, must resist all logical arguments" like I have a mission. I just see it and go, "....needs improvement."

Ssilmath you talk of changing perspective, but on the flip side of the coin, one can say that loving change is not necessarily a good thing, and that in life we need a few constants. Your perspective, an interesting one, is to say that you are guaranteed.... lets say at the most basic level

10 points = sword of daemonness + lucky dip in the thrift store clothing bin
20 points = greater sword of daemonness + lucky dip in a wallmart bin
30 points = Grimoire of Every Simpsons Quote ever + lucky dip in your Amazon wish list

Which works if EVERYBODY is playing by those set of rules. But then I look at this random daemon army of ours, with a severe lack of shooting, means of popping mech, and fliers*. I look at this army with a severe lack of survivability. Where as Dark Eldar can (or could) brag about being the glass cannon (au revoir, monsieur 5th Edition), Daemons are no cannon, all glass. They've got a couple of things like scouting hounds, or stealth-grinders, but ultimately their shooting is lacking, their toughness is lacking. Maybe you'll get a shooting psychic power (that chucks feel no pain on them, assuming you hit, assuming you pass LD, assuming they suffer not the witch, etc), but generally, our army seems to be swarm forward and carve with claws, whilst a gimmick table has uninspired effects.

This is, to clarify, in a game called Warhammer 40k, where everybody is packing guns. The nids have ample guns, the orks have ample guns, and even khornate berzerkers who probably throw their bolt pistols at the enemy have ample guns :p Daemons are an army so heavily melee the last thing we need is a wargear table which gives us more melee, but a crane game with a chance of scooping up some undependable shooting. We have zero frag grenades (beyond something khornate), which is a good way to sell a grotesque kit of a cave squid on a segway.

The options that we get are crap. Period. Partly because the randomness takes away one of the key strengths in a list: synergy. Sometimes two bad options merge to become an amazing one. Sometimes an army list is meant to be a puzzle you piece together. Not with Daemons. Now the book does a chunk for you. Not all of it mind, but enough to cripple you further against those precious loyalist lists that don't seem to get thematically cinematic debilitating mechanics.



The Warpstorm chart is also not nearly as game changing as people think. The odds of frying a Psyker come out to about 1 in 54. The odds of killing a psyker with a well placed artillery shot are about 5 in 18. The odds of losing a full squad of daemons is 1 in 1296, the exact same odds of having the 1 surviving daemon suddenly turn into a healthy squad. The extremes on the Warpstorm chart have extremely long odds of doing anything game changing, and the more common rolls are more like artillery than anything else.

I don't mind the warpstorm table so much. I merely hate how cheap it is. Not in terms of point costs, but in terms of it just being a cheap slap to either army (mostly your enemy) that once again, you have almost no say over. Just bring a lot of trumpets and go *toot* when the storm cloud passes over the Long Fang squads. Someone mentioned in their battle report when first trying Daemons how the warpstorm killed more than they did with their entire army. Worrying, but maybe it's just discovering the new army list. Ultimately though, that table can do serious damage to large enemy armies. Don't right it off as some sideshow novelty act.


I get that people do not like it, but that does not mean bad or lazy game design. The changes are very deliberate, very thought out. Whether you as an individual like them is entirely irrelevant.

I disagree. You can like something and still admit it's ******* awful. I love the movie Zardoz. I would never for a second EVER say it's amazing. The same goes for this Codex. I love a lot of it, and know it will be A) A challenge B) Unique C) Fun D) Make my gunline opponents laugh their butts off. What I will never do is say "Can't wait for the next army to get random wargear. That'll get me rushing to the shelves."


The changes are very deliberate, very thought out.

Grey Knights, Space Wolves, Chaos Space Marines 3.5th Ed, 4th Ed, 6th Ed, half the 6th edition rules. If GW has set a precedent for planning, it has never been toward the desire for a balance and mutually accessible hobby.

Ssilmath
20-03-2013, 19:17
Well, I am sure I could dissect your points bit by bit. But as you've proven my point quite thoroughly, I have no real reason to.

Inquisitor Shego
20-03-2013, 19:30
Well, I am sure I could dissect your points bit by bit. But as you've proven my point quite thoroughly, I have no real reason to.

Then I'll dissect yours, you'll dissect my counter points, we'll hit about 50 posts between us, both feel the same way, and no doubt in (hopefully) many years time look back on our lives and consider this one of the biggests wastes of the precious commodity known as time. Instead I'm getting back to my Daemon army list, as I've just at list hit the magic 2,000 points, and found myself quite satisfied with the end result. Once I've got the fluff drummed up I'll post it

Bingo the Fun Monkey
21-03-2013, 09:28
I play Orcs and Goblins in fantasy in large part because Animosity keeps things interesting. This random element, among others, ensures the army reliably delivers me a payload of fun and tactical challenge each time I play.

I picked up 40k Daemons in 5th ed because I liked the models. I'm now positive I will be playing this edition given the random nature of the army. I love that I don't have to worry about WYSIWYG, and I will probably make a ceremony out of rolling for gifts prior to each game. Another aspect I like about it is that in a traditional list where you have full control over who gets what, there are always going to be options that you always gloss over and never give a shot (either because the internet says it's garbage or it looks like garbage on paper), and this provides a means to bypass that automatic self-censorship.

Don't get me wrong. I play to win, but a win is hollow if I don't feel as if I've been challenged.

For a well oiled face-rolling experience in a competitive setting, I play a game that was DESIGNED for competitive play: Warmachine.

duffybear1988
21-03-2013, 11:45
I wonder how much longer the game can carry on before GW have the idea to make army lists completely random! Some of the stuff lately seems to be aimed at getting us to buy increasing numbers of kits just in case a unit champion becomes a spawn or get promoted to daemon prince etc.

I'm scared of the day they realise that they could make half the army lists completely random (call it special reserves/rounding up scattered friendlies etc) and force us to buy one of each unit in case we happen to roll them in game... and people would still play it.

RandomThoughts
21-03-2013, 11:58
I wonder how much longer the game can carry on before GW have the idea to make army lists completely random! Some of the stuff lately seems to be aimed at getting us to buy increasing numbers of kits just in case a unit champion becomes a spawn or get promoted to daemon prince etc.

I'm scared of the day they realise that they could make half the army lists completely random (call it special reserves/rounding up scattered friendlies etc) and force us to buy one of each unit in case we happen to roll them in game... and people would still play it.

Fun fact, but once in high school I actually had that idea that we'd play games using randomly rolled lists. Was long before I became aware of balancing and unit tiers and stuff. What stopped us was the fact that we didn't have the models, and allowing people to reroll until something came up that they actually have seemed to favor players that only had a few overpowered things...

Cheeslord
21-03-2013, 12:59
before playing 40K I used to play Heroscape;- because there were no hard and fast rules for force sides, we did come up with a random way of generating armies and it was great fun (though it was based on drawing and auctioning cards for every unit you owned so it didn't require any more models to be bought at all.

... of course it would require heavy modification for 40k.

Mark.

Konovalev
21-03-2013, 13:42
I wonder how much longer the game can carry on before GW have the idea to make army lists completely random! Some of the stuff lately seems to be aimed at getting us to buy increasing numbers of kits just in case a unit champion becomes a spawn or get promoted to daemon prince etc.

I'm scared of the day they realise that they could make half the army lists completely random (call it special reserves/rounding up scattered friendlies etc) and force us to buy one of each unit in case we happen to roll them in game... and people would still play it.

Oh the delicious exaggerations spawned on whineseer. I'm scared of the day when 40k becomes 10 tactical marines with bolters vs 10 tactical marines with bolters at 24" and a single tree between them.

ihavetoomuchminis
21-03-2013, 13:48
Oh the delicious exaggerations spawned on whineseer. I'm scared of the day when 40k becomes 10 tactical marines with bolters vs 10 tactical marines with bolters at 24" and a single tree between them.

it is what you describe in 3/4 of the games played...

Konovalev
21-03-2013, 14:06
it is what you describe in 3/4 of the games played...

Your games are different from mine then. In mine there's only 9 bolter marines and the only thing they do is catch bullets for the missile launcher guy as if he were the Emperor himself.

Ssilmath
21-03-2013, 14:09
I see the thread has been reduced to reductio ad absurdum arguments now. Time to put this one out to pasture.

Baaltor
21-03-2013, 23:12
I see the thread has been reduced to reductio ad absurdum arguments now. Time to put this one out to pasture.

No you.

Wait, I mean I think you may be right (first thing you've said this thread that I've agreed with frankly ^.^), and I've got my answer as to what people think.

I may be entirely against the idea of random on this scale, but I was surprised to see the overall good response the codex was getting. Thanks to the poll here I can see that an enormous proportion of players, daemonic and otherwise prefer it this way. I feel kind of torn here, as I really dislike it; but at the same time I'm at least happy that most people seem to be enjoying it. I can't really say that the book is written badly, even if I may feel this way, and I strongly dislike it. I felt the same way about the Necron release.

To all of those of you who participated in this thread and discussed your views constructively, thanks for taking your time and lending us your words; I those of us who tried to learned a lot.