PDA

View Full Version : The new mob rule is the worst thing ever (ok maby not but its bad)



bad dice
30-06-2014, 15:58
yea pretty much what the title says.

I could not care less for the ingame effect of this rule. Cause i dont realy care for the faith of my boys (except maby for the warboss cause that be me).

But lets just look at how this rule works

normal ld works like this

1) take more then 25% causulties
2) take a test
3) if fail run back 2d6 if pass nothing happens

the mob rule works like this

1) take more then 25% causulties
2) take a test
3) if fail run back roll a d6 if pass nothing happens.
4) consult the chart if 1 run if not in combat if not 1 check a effect
5) roll a d6 and get random hits
6) distribute the hits ranomly on the sqaud.

Now lets look at worse case senario

You have a units of 30 boys whit 3 special weapons a nob, a warboos and a mek whit a force field
What can happen next is going to blow your mind
you take 9 causulties
so you take the ld test and fail (not much chance of that but ok it happens)
you roll a 6 so its a squabble
you take 6 s4 hits and 6 wounds

now comes the fun part
at this point you have 1 warboss 1 big mek 1 nob 3 special weapons and 17 boys. So you have a 1/23 chance for anny of the characters a 3/23 for the weapons and a 17/23 chance to hit a boy.
But wait it does not say that thits ignore save and some of the boys are whitin 6 inches of the mek and some are not so you have to ranomize between them
And then you find out that the rule books says you need to randomize afther every wound. So for each of the 6 wounds the ods on hitting a specific model will be diffrend AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH.
But no biggie you work it out and get it done. and you'r glad it only took you 15 min to work out all the 6 hits.

So basicly if you want to play perfectly whitin the rules. The mob rule changes a 30 second event whit only 2 outcomes ( you stay or you go) into 15 minutes of mathproblems whit hundrets of differnd posible outcomes. (since anny combination of models in the unit could take a wound )

WTF GW.
I know you think your catering to the smarter parts of the worlds population but this **** is over the top.

Also rembere depending of what is left of a unit its going to be diffrend every singel time.

Mandragola
30-06-2014, 16:09
That does sound pretty bad. I've occasionally come across rules where I've wondered if they ever actually tried it in practice to see what happened. Another example was firing a battery of 3 wyverns, each launching 4 twin-linked blast templates with wounds allocated from the centre of each. This has actually been streamlined in the new edition.

What you probably needs to do is make yourself a way of rolling a D30 ,then just reroll if you get a 29 (or whatever) and that guy is dead. Maybe you could even paint numbers on the back of your boyz' bases. Work for you, but maybe like a daemon player you just have to do a bit of pre-game admin to make the in-game process go faster.

Jind_Singh
30-06-2014, 16:31
It's not that bad if you give it a moment..

Let's take you e.g. - there are 6 models out of 30 that are unique.

I'll roll the D6 to see how many hits - I rolled a 3

So then I'll roll 3 dice - and on 1's I'll assign the hits to a random special model, 2-5 I'll hit a boy, 6 I'll re-roll (At this point say I roll 1, 3, 4 - that's 2 hits to normal boyzs and one for the special dudes - I'll roll another D6 to see which one of the dudes it affects)

Why - because only 1/5 models is special if 6/30 models are unique.

OR if I was an Ork player I'd invest in a D blank - blank being the biggest number I can get ideally D30 if they exisit - just to make my life easier

There are ways around this that won't end the world - it's like when GW 1st came out with the mixed saves from shooting last ed - look at how the sky fell then - and lo and behold gamers adapated and it's now done with minimum fuss. Daemons in Warhammer were moaned about due to the chart where all units are affected by dice rolls every magic phase - and lo and behold it's done nothing but add 6 minutes to every game to make the roll 6 times....

Shiodome
30-06-2014, 16:40
1. that method isn't accurate
2. if you think even that flawed method isn't a pain in the ass interruption to a games 'flow' you're just weird.

bad dice
30-06-2014, 17:08
Well yea thats the point

It's not that it can't be done right, or that it is hard to do. But it's just a stupid interuption of game flow. And it takes way to long. For instance playing orks at a tournemant as a horde is even more imposible then before. Not only does it take for ever to move 120+ models. It now also takes for ever to work out your ld tests. So you wont ever get your full turns in, on a normal tournament that gives you about 1,5-2 hours for a 1800 point game. And since a ork horde gets most of its vp later in the game when they have closed the gap between armies. Well you can see that that might not be the way to go

Jind_Singh
30-06-2014, 17:09
1. that method isn't accurate
2. if you think even that flawed method isn't a pain in the ass interruption to a games 'flow' you're just weird.

I'm weird for trying to think up something that will make my gaming life easier? Then I'll take weird over moaning hippies anyday! :P

Look folks - at the end of the day if it's your army you'll come up with something that works.

I'd even go as far as having 30 round bases with numbers painted on them - in my dicing cup - and I'll pull them out if I need to randomize.

Anything works - it's just what you want to do - it's your game and you play it how you want to.

I just love the percentage of gamers who bitch and whine about "this is lame" and yet if they spent even half that time and energy into looking for a fix the tabletop lands would be a happier place.

House Stark - Winter is coming - well I'll stick to sunshine and beers thanks

Moirdryd
30-06-2014, 17:11
6/23 models are special in any way. So that's 1/4 near enough. So you randomise for that 1/4, use a D4 or D% or 1-4 on a D6 rerolling 5 or 6. Any rolls f a 1 effects a character or spec weapon, since you have 6 of them declare a number for 1-6 for each model and roll a d6 to allocate. The 17 boyz? If some have an effect that others don't then randomise accordingly. Given that this will happen for One unit in your Army maybe twice in a fight it's probably not a burden.

The ork army always used to be fun of random factor weaponry and behaviours. There used to be (like there is in WFB) Animosity at the start of a turn, there used to be a table for the Shokk Attack Gun, a random Strength and Armour mod for the Zzapp! Gun (complete with Misfire table), HopSplat! Guns (were hilarious and awesome) and random pain boy / mad doc tables. They also used to have the boss breaking heads/mob rule stuff too and Weirboyz were... Well... Weirdboyz. Orks today are far too straight forward and reliable on the table.

bad dice
30-06-2014, 18:12
6/23 models are special in any way. So that's 1/4 near enough. So you randomise for that 1/4, use a D4 or D% or 1-4 on a D6 rerolling 5 or 6. Any rolls f a 1 effects a character or spec weapon, since you have 6 of them declare a number for 1-6 for each model and roll a d6 to allocate. The 17 boyz? If some have an effect that others don't then randomise accordingly. Given that this will happen for One unit in your Army maybe twice in a fight it's probably not a burden.

The ork army always used to be fun of random factor weaponry and behaviours. There used to be (like there is in WFB) Animosity at the start of a turn, there used to be a table for the Shokk Attack Gun, a random Strength and Armour mod for the Zzapp! Gun (complete with Misfire table), HopSplat! Guns (were hilarious and awesome) and random pain boy / mad doc tables. They also used to have the boss breaking heads/mob rule stuff too and Weirboyz were... Well... Weirdboyz. Orks today are far too straight forward and reliable on the table.


1) 6/23>1/4 and near enough isn't good enough if you want to do it right
2) That's not the point i am trying to make the point is it takes way to long
3) Bubble guns are a example of cool random. Its random and the results verry a lot so its fun it comes whit tention when you make the roll, same for a zapp gun, the same for scatering a blast , the same for takeing a normal ld test. The results matter and it takes little time. The mob rule takes for ever to work out and the results hardly matter. That is whay its a bad rule

Axel
30-06-2014, 18:41
I admit that "random hits" are a braindead idea - always was, but I am sure "comeptetive" players will insist you roll it out in the hope that it kills a valuable model (closest, special weapon, character, whatever...) I then am sure if it hits characters they still get their "watch out".

Just let the affected player pick the models, or if you like it complicated take them from "close to opponets table edge".

Crapped. Not so bad as character sniping with artillery, but bad.

Ssilmath
30-06-2014, 18:43
1) 6/23>1/4 and near enough isn't good enough if you want to do it right

How anal retentive can you get? Does a 1/92 difference really mean anything in even the short run? It's good enough of an approximation.

Gungo
30-06-2014, 18:47
1) 6/23>1/4 and near enough isn't good enough if you want to do it right
2) That's not the point i am trying to make the point is it takes way to long
3) Bubble guns are a example of cool random. Its random and the results verry a lot so its fun it comes whit tention when you make the roll, same for a zapp gun, the same for scatering a blast , the same for takeing a normal ld test. The results matter and it takes little time. The mob rule takes for ever to work out and the results hardly matter. That is whay its a bad rule
This edition seems to be foregoing the streamlining done in third edition.
As a joke the most fair way to randomize hits. Get a bingo ball, number all your bases, throw whatever # of balls in the bingo wheel, draw them as needed. I'm mostly joking however I agree it's super inconvienant. Instead of random it should of been the closest models to your nob. Since the idea is your nob should be knocking heads to keep your boys from running. Or just steal the commissar rules from AM. Roll a d6 on a 4-6 it's the ork players choice, on a 1-3 it's the opposing players choice. Quick and simple

Latro_
30-06-2014, 18:59
Most of the time the unit will have boyz and you cant have a unit over what 35ish with characters

maybe do it like this:

Roll a d3
1 2 or 3 thats ya tens.
Always make the non normal boyz the first 6 in the unit and say warboss 1, nob 2, mek 3 etc. Roll a d10 and thats whats hit.

So if you ever roll a 2-3 then ye golden a normal boy is hit no need to roll again.
roll a 1 then uh oh roll a further d10 and if its not 1 to whatever ya special stuff is then a normal boyz is hit.

I came up with this off the top of my head, it might not be mathematically sound hehe.

So I roll:
1, 10 - normal boy
1, 1, - warboss
1, 2, - nob
2 - no need for d10 - normal boy
3 - no need for d10 - normal boy

If you don't have 30 in the unit then 20 = d2 1-3/4-6m 10 just roll the d10

I think this will be faqed so normal boyz get crumped first :D

edit: ok it is flawed cus say you had 11 you roll a d2 and you have a 50% chance of the poor boy at no 11 getting hit. Hmmm in this case maybe still roll the d10 and if its not 1 you apply the inverse so say:
11 guys left you roll:
2, 2 (second batch of ten second model, well there isnt 12 guys so change this to 1,2)

Saunders
30-06-2014, 20:45
I've been using a straightforward means of resolving random hits for the past couple editions, a method that has found its way in to the rulebook for 7th as an example for resolution.

Break the unit down in to factors of 6. That covers a squad of up to 36 models (if you have squads with more than 36 models, prepare by packing a d10 for including further factors of 6 up to 120 models)
Let's take the original example of 30 boys, a nob, a warboss, and a mek. That's 33 models.
Roll a pair of d6, one after the other. First roll is a 3, second roll is a 4. 3rd bracket of 6 models, 4th model in. Okay, count from one direction in to the squad to pick out the 16th model. That's about the worst case scenario, being that it's in the middle of the pack. Further down the count is easier, and vice-versa. Say you roll a 5 and a 5. That's 29; if you have 33 models, just count in from the opposite direction by 4. If your result is higher than the total number of models in the squad, just reroll until you get a valid result. If you have a lot of random hits to allocate, roll them all before you start counting in and just go down the list of numbers as you go across the unit.


Don't make it out to be more complicated than it needs to be. In practice, this process is easier since a player is rarely dealing with that many models for random allocation; rarely do you deal with that many models if you've already been subjected to a morale check to reach this point. The important thing is to think about how to resolve this situation before you reach it in a game, so you are prepared to resolve it in a prompt and logical fashion.

Freman Bloodglaive
30-06-2014, 21:09
How simple would it have been to say, Mob Rule: Orks always count the number of models in their unit as their leadership (maximum 10) unless their base leadership would be higher. This Mob Rule ignores leadership modifiers.

Saunders
30-06-2014, 21:27
How simple would it have been to say, Mob Rule: Orks always count the number of models in their unit as their leadership (maximum 10) unless their base leadership would be higher. This Mob Rule ignores leadership modifiers.

Because that's an entirely different rule. Clearly, they wanted to go in a different direction than ork mobs all having high Ld.

bad dice
30-06-2014, 21:51
Because that's an entirely different rule. Clearly, they wanted to go in a different direction than ork mobs all having high Ld.

Clearly they are major retards and did not think this thing trough. ;-P

But serriusly for all thier talk in the wd for elegance in desing and thigns like that. My god is this rule badly implimented

Freman Bloodglaive
30-06-2014, 22:08
Of course, but it has the same effect, Orks don't run away easily, without the incredible inelegance of the new rule.

yabbadabba
30-06-2014, 22:22
I just love the percentage of gamers who bitch and whine about "this is lame" and yet if they spent even half that time and energy into looking for a fix the tabletop lands would be a happier place.

House Stark - Winter is coming - well I'll stick to sunshine and beers thanks No matter how true this is, it's just best to walk away.

Just walk away.

Saunders
01-07-2014, 01:08
Of course, but it has the same effect, Orks don't run away easily, without the incredible inelegance of the new rule.

If it had the same effect, we wouldn't be talking about how to resolve hits against their own unit.

AngryAngel
01-07-2014, 01:37
How anal retentive can you get? Does a 1/92 difference really mean anything in even the short run? It's good enough of an approximation.

It is being anal, close enough is close enough, but aren't these random allocations a bit of a pain ? I know I can't stand them. Once it comes up in a game, it further bogs the game down. This game that they claim they stream line in their new rule releases and yet add table after table and random wound allocation on random wound allocation. Which is completely counter to streamlining. It's beyond silly. I'd rather just let them put the wounds on scrubs and be done with it. ( That is in fact what I do in my games as it is needlessly pointless to just make it all random upon random. )

I think the ultimate killing joke is GW claiming they have any elegance in their rules design. An act dropped at the first sign of scrutiny.

Best fix ? Just ignore it and let the person who controls the unit pick who is hit, done. Do the same for transports exploding, or any other chaos theory rule they pump out. Does it give the controlling player a bit more power ? Sure it does, but then, why not ?

Ssilmath
01-07-2014, 01:44
It is being anal, close enough is close enough, but aren't these random allocations a bit of a pain ? I know I can't stand them.

How much time can it possibly slow it down? A minute or so while you check a 1/4 chance and then a 1/6 chance (If necessary)? I mean seriously, you and I both know it doesn't take that long to do the random allocation with d6 hits, so why make it a big deal?

AngryAngel
01-07-2014, 01:56
Why need to do that pointless crap at all ? Any amount of time it takes over just picking who is hit, is a waste of time. It is inelegance and pointless chaos at its finest. As if you want to break it down further, it would even matter where in the unit the wounds come from. ( For shooting wounds later, charges, CC, etc ) So yeah, it can take awhile longer then a minute, increase the size of the squad, increase squad set up and yeah your doing some work. I've had Guard squads vector struck, last edition, 3 commissars in the squad set up differently, 3 different equipped Sgts, heavies, specials, add in random, pain in the butt. Yes that is a worse case scenario, but I mean really why do they feel the need to make us do this in the first place ?

Ssilmath
01-07-2014, 02:09
Why need to do that pointless crap at all ?

Because it gives some agency to the active player. It gives a chance that your attacks will do something important, rather than chewing away ablative wounds. In this specific case, it's having a potential for more of a penalty than "Wups, you lose 2 Boyz, oh darn." You might not like that as a reason, but it does serve a purpose.


Yes that is a worse case scenario, but I mean really why do they feel the need to make us do this in the first place ?

It's always the worst case scenario put forward as the commonplace scenario.

Minsc
01-07-2014, 02:11
You randomize wounds when you sit in a transport that blows up as well, afaik, and I haven't really seen that many complains about that.

I guess it has a bigger impact on Orks due to their lousy armour, but still.

lethlis
01-07-2014, 02:29
I would rather lose 1-2 boys on average than have the unit run AFTER failing a leadership test.

So lets look at it. LD 7(assuming no characters which would be dumb but meh)
1/2 the time you are going to fail
d6 so 3.5 hits.
1.75 wounds
1.5 dead orks. O no, that is assuming that you are not running pain boy or heavy armor.

Now compare that to everyone else, who will fail(and unless you are marines) be useless for a turn. I will take that over falling back, being further from assault and then losing a turn of movement. Now is it as good as fearless? Nope, but as far as things go its not bad. Also for most of the small units where you were worried anyway you were not getting fearless anyway.

adreal
01-07-2014, 03:17
I thought the mob rule only really mattered in combat. I have only glanced at it, but don't all the results say (except for 1) if not in combat, treat as a fail??

Freman Bloodglaive
01-07-2014, 04:00
If it had the same effect, we wouldn't be talking about how to resolve hits against their own unit.

Fine, fail leadership check, voluntarily remove D3 models, pass test.

Axel
01-07-2014, 05:00
How much time can it possibly slow it down? A minute or so while you check a 1/4 chance and then a 1/6 chance (If necessary)? I mean seriously, you and I both know it doesn't take that long to do the random allocation with d6 hits, so why make it a big deal?

You need to roll for each and any Ork you loose this way. Two rolls, probably. And you have to make sure which number is the "different" Ork (any) before you roll, and if you hit a character you will roll for "Watch Out" in addition.

This compared to just taking away a model WILL take time away from the rest of the game. Most of all, it is annoying, as imho the effort does not add a sufficient level of detail.

Ssilmath
01-07-2014, 05:09
You need to roll for each and any Ork you loose this way. Two rolls, probably. And you have to make sure which number is the "different" Ork (any) before you roll, and if you hit a character you will roll for "Watch Out" in addition.

The way random allocation works, you roll to determine closest model (Where the damage originates from). So divide in half and assign evens/odds. Repeat till down to one ork. Then apply failed saves. Done, doesn't take that long to do, and you don't have to do it for each Boy you lose.

Axel
01-07-2014, 05:20
"that model is treated as being the closest model ... until ... the model is slain"

Sorry, once dead - new allocation.

Ssilmath
01-07-2014, 05:29
"that model is treated as being the closest model ... until ... the model is slain"

Sorry, once dead - new allocation.

Hmmm, my reading of the parts you conveniently left out ("Until ....the attack ends or...") was that it lasted for the duration of the attack, but let's give you the benefit of the doubt. Then just do it twice, or use a d66 and count through the Orks until you reach that model. Seriously, is it such a hardship?

AngryAngel
01-07-2014, 06:02
Yes, it is both a hardship and pointless randomness. I have never supported such lazy game design inclusions before and I most surely don't now. They had the useless random target for Commissars before in the last guard book. They took it out and replaced it with 3+ controlling player chooses, 1-2, the other player chooses. Simple, elegant, but still leaves that random chance in there most everyone loves. Would that have really been that hard to do with the Ork rule ? The very fact they take random away from some rules shows they can think up new ways to make things have bite without being over the top random. Must smack boys, 1-2 roll, opponent chooses who gets whacked, 3+ controlling player picks. Much quicker and so much more simple and still leaves that chance to have deeper impact then controlling player just whacking scrubs.

Muad'Dib
01-07-2014, 07:18
Yes, it is both a hardship and pointless randomness.
Possible explanation is that random is good for forging the narrative. It takes away player's attention off the fact that they are opponents, and instead makes them like spectators to a fabulous movie!
Also randomness eases/removes the 'pain' of being outplayed by your opponent - if you lose cause the Daemon player rolled good Warpstorms or Gifts, you don't have to worry that you are less skilled in gaming than your friends. This might be hard to understand for the average Warseer person, but in Starcraft 2 they removed your lose count from your profile (you can only see your win count lol) cause supposedly many people were put off thinking about their loses. But if you lose cause of randomness, then it's not as bad I'd say? People have a great need to explain to themselves why bad things happened to them, and "he outplayed me" is a not-so-comfortable for many; but "I lost cause of the dice" diffuses the entire situation - hence random = good according to GW. I dunno how likely it is that GW follows such a design philosophy, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me.

bad dice
01-07-2014, 08:40
Possible explanation is that random is good for forging the narrative. It takes away player's attention off the fact that they are opponents, and instead makes them like spectators to a fabulous movie!
Also randomness eases/removes the 'pain' of being outplayed by your opponent - if you lose cause the Daemon player rolled good Warpstorms or Gifts, you don't have to worry that you are less skilled in gaming than your friends. This might be hard to understand for the average Warseer person, but in Starcraft 2 they removed your lose count from your profile (you can only see your win count lol) cause supposedly many people were put off thinking about their loses. But if you lose cause of randomness, then it's not as bad I'd say? People have a great need to explain to themselves why bad things happened to them, and "he outplayed me" is a not-so-comfortable for many; but "I lost cause of the dice" diffuses the entire situation - hence random = good according to GW. I dunno how likely it is that GW follows such a design philosophy, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me.
What do you realy think they ar that out of touch whit thier player base. In all the dozens of ppl i play whit there is no one i know that would prefer to lose cause of faith instead if lack of skill, If i wanted to play a game of chance i would play blackjack. The whol atraction of the game part of the hobby is that it is tactical

mongoosedog300
01-07-2014, 08:44
Yes, it is both a hardship and pointless randomness.

1) Pull your head out of you rear-end.
2) It's a game that is entirely decided by randomness. The entire game is pointless really in the grand scheme of things, so stop acting like games workshop owe you some perfect game. If you don't like it, don't play it.

How hard is someone's life that they can't figure out a way to randomly allocate some wounds? It's entirely up to the digression of the player what "random" is. You could roll dice for it, have a you choose, I choose style, draw straws, literally anything. It adds a fun extra element to the game for an already fun game. I know people seem to hate tables, but the "tactical" hey day of the game (rogue trader and 2nd) were full of em. Random tables are fun in my opinion. They add extra elements that we can't account for, which means you need to be able to apply a bit of thinking in your game and that makes it a bit more tactical in my books.

bad dice
01-07-2014, 08:57
1) Pull your head out of you rear-end.
2) It's a game that is entirely decided by randomness. The entire game is pointless really in the grand scheme of things, so stop acting like games workshop owe you some perfect game. If you don't like it, don't play it.

How hard is someone's life that they can't figure out a way to randomly allocate some wounds? It's entirely up to the digression of the player what "random" is. You could roll dice for it, have a you choose, I choose style, draw straws, literally anything. It adds a fun extra element to the game for an already fun game. I know people seem to hate tables, but the "tactical" hey day of the game (rogue trader and 2nd) were full of em. Random tables are fun in my opinion. They add extra elements that we can't account for, which means you need to be able to apply a bit of thinking in your game and that makes it a bit more tactical in my books. Can i sell you ships and seas form ad&d its great it has 20 random tables and a single combat round can take up 2 hours to work out. I think you would enjoy it verry much. Its as good as new cause our group used it only once.

Bloodknight
01-07-2014, 09:21
Buy one of these:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9_%C3%A0_trente_faces

1 is the warboss, 2-5 are meks, the rest are boyz.

That said, you'll probably be able to make do with a D20 most of the time.

hobojebus
01-07-2014, 10:07
You guyz are clearly forgettin Gdubs ain't no nacy rules compny, dey make modelz!

Cheeslord
01-07-2014, 10:41
I see they didn't bother to fix random wound allocation from 6th edition. Its not so bad as long as there are very few sources of it (because it is, as has been pointed out, an utter pain to do correctly). Not sure implementing it into the main special rule for orks is such a good thing.

Something that would need a houserule, to be sure, but since most simplifications will change the probability of an important model getting hit you would need to check your opponents are OK with this...

Mark.

<edit> a smartphone app could reduce the pain of this...

Itsacon
01-07-2014, 10:56
Use the Warhammer Quest or Blood Bowl way of randomizing: Have counters for the relevant models, toss them in a cup and draw as many as needed.

Easiest is to use small coloured tokens, and simply declare: Red is boss, green is mekboy, yellow is boy near mekboy, blue is a normal boy.

Axel
01-07-2014, 11:13
Hmmm, my reading of the parts you conveniently left out ("Until ....the attack ends or...") was that it lasted for the duration of the attack,

Its "until the attack ends or the model is slain", which means that if you happen to get a boy with a working save or several wounds (like a nob) several attacks will go on him, but the normal boy will die and you have to reallocate randomly. The "model slain" part of it is imho what counts - you can NOT avoid a new randomizer when the model dies and there are attacks left.



1) Pull your head out of you rear-end.
2) It's a game that is entirely decided by randomness. The entire game is pointless...

My problem is that it adds not enough to the game to be worth the bother of rolling. And those who REALLY lead large mobs into combat on a regular base do not look forward to ranomize hits on 20+ models. I have no problem fielding a d20 or d30 for the occasion, but whats the gain? This is, simply, bad game design.

adreal
01-07-2014, 11:40
I was wrong, ignore my last post

Vipoid
01-07-2014, 11:59
How anal retentive can you get? Does a 1/92 difference really mean anything in even the short run? It's good enough of an approximation.

Out of curiosity, would you think the same about, say, the shooting phase?

I mean, if the odds of them killing one of your models worked out at 6/23, would you allow them to skip the usual rolls and just roll a d4 instead?

Theocracity
01-07-2014, 12:08
Out of curiosity, would you think the same about, say, the shooting phase?

I mean, if the odds of them killing one of your models worked out at 6/23, would you allow them to skip the usual rolls and just roll a d4 instead?

Well, the shooting phase has a defined series of rolls written in the rules that determine its results. The process for random allocation isn't as well defined, so it makes sense to figure out the easiest, closest way to do so.

Personally I've never bothered with random allocation. Any time I have to remove casualties from a blown up transport I just remove boyz, as have all of my opponents. If anyone has a problem with it I'd likely just roll a d6 and let my opponent choose a model if it's a 1. I don't really care if that's not statistically accurate.

Losing Command
01-07-2014, 12:14
So actually it's Random Wound allocation that is the worst thing ever, not the new Mob rule.

tneva82
01-07-2014, 12:17
I mean, if the odds of them killing one of your models worked out at 6/23, would you allow them to skip the usual rolls and just roll a d4 instead?

Depends on what we are talking but can see doing that.

Hell we don't neccessarily even bother with dice rolls. Pask-punisher with lascannon+melta's shooting at some poor AV12 HP3 vechiles with no infantry nearby? We just take the tank out. Odds of survival is so bloody slim no point doing that pile of dice rolling.

Avatar_exADV
01-07-2014, 12:31
It's fair to say that random allocation is fine so long as you ignore it. ;p

It's one of those things that takes up a tremendous amount of time if you play it straight, simply because the d6 isn't good at randomly selecting numbers that are not 1-6. If your opponent insists on it, that probably says enough about your opponent right there.

Vipoid
01-07-2014, 12:35
Hell we don't neccessarily even bother with dice rolls. Pask-punisher with lascannon+melta's shooting at some poor AV12 HP3 vechiles with no infantry nearby? We just take the tank out. Odds of survival is so bloody slim no point doing that pile of dice rolling.

I've done things like that, actually.

Most frequently, if I've just got a few models left in combat and my opponent has a boatload of attacks to roll, we just remove my models to save time.

Denny
01-07-2014, 12:50
Now lets look at worse case senario

That's not the worst case scenario. :wtf:

The worst case scenario is you take the mob rule test, the dice ricochets off your Warboss’ power claw and accidentally lodges in your opponent's throat. You try to help him, but he suffocates right in front of you. A passing police car spies the scene through the window and arrests you. You try to plead your case but it turns out the cop is secretly in love with your wife/girlfriend/boyfriend/mother and fakes a DNA report which results in your conviction.

On your way to the prison the zombie apocalypse begins and you find yourself trapped in the prison truck with limited food and only the career criminal known as Dave the Depraved for company.

All because of a Mob Rule check . . . damn you GW! :mad:

Scammel
01-07-2014, 12:55
I smirked until Dave the Depraved, then just flat-out guffawed.

Muad'Dib
01-07-2014, 13:19
What do you realy think they ar that out of touch whit thier player base. In all the dozens of ppl i play whit there is no one i know that would prefer to lose cause of faith instead if lack of skill, If i wanted to play a game of chance i would play blackjack. The whol atraction of the game part of the hobby is that it is tactical
Yes, I would really think this. This is a company that is hellbent obsessed about only ever updating an army's rules when they do a model release resulting in armies in WFB/40k having an out of date book for over 5, 7, 10+ years...; and often being sub-par or borderline unplayable, or monobuild at best. And they are aware of the fact that you can do this otherwise - they did a very needed/succesful balance errata for Dark Elves in 6th WFB. But they are just so desperate for sales that they adopted the idea of "people are more likely to buy when models and rules are updated together & rarely" wholeheartedly.

GW for me is actually a synonym, or the perfect example, for being out of touch with reality. Here's what one of GW's dudes said at the Chapterhouse trial recently:

Q. And what happens at a Games Day?
A. Lots of Games Workshop fans turn up in a big hall, and they
get very, very, very excited about talking to the guys that make
the stuff and seeing exhibits and participating in games and
doing some fun things. They get to paint miniatures. They get
to build scenery. And they get to do their favorite hobby
activity, which is buy some product from Games Workshop, which,
of course, is very good for us as business.

At another point the guy refers to forum Warhammer related discussions as "goobering" (as in like little children kinda locked in their own world) See http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/6420/355433.page for lots more.
('very very very excited'...reminds me of Pink Horror's description from the Realms of Chaos books...:D)

Ssilmath
01-07-2014, 13:24
Out of curiosity, would you think the same about, say, the shooting phase?

I mean, if the odds of them killing one of your models worked out at 6/23, would you allow them to skip the usual rolls and just roll a d4 instead?

Do you really need to ask to know how I would respond to that? But since you ask, if it came up I wouldn't have any issue with it.

Vipoid
01-07-2014, 13:29
Do you really need to ask to know how I would respond to that?

Well, it wasn't a perquisite for my continued survival, if that's what you mean. :p


But since you ask, if it came up I wouldn't have any issue with it.

Fair enough.

Really, I was just curious as to whether such rounding of fractions wouldn't bother you in this specific instance, or if you'd be fine with it in other areas of the game as well.

Gungo
01-07-2014, 13:35
I don't know why people are still arguing about this. The mob rule is fine, random wound allocation sucks. So everyone should just use the commissar rules from AM when they were smart enough to change it from random wound allocation to roll a d6 on a 1-2 opponent choses a model and on 3-6 you chose. However I don't think your nob should be part of that choice since technically he is the one bustin heads.

Althenian Armourlost
01-07-2014, 13:43
We agreed to allocate hits to models closest to the highest LD model (nob or warboss), with that one exempt. After all, he's the one making sure they get back in line.

bad dice
01-07-2014, 13:46
I don't know why people are still arguing about this. The mob rule is fine, random wound allocation sucks. So everyone should just use the commissar rules from AM when they were smart enough to change it from random wound allocation to roll a d6 on a 1-2 opponent choses a model and on 3-6 you chose. However I don't think your nob should be part of that choice since technically he is the one bustin heads.

Why? well probebly cause they don't agree.

As for you solution. I don't think that ork players will agree to that when the chips are down. It should have just been a normal boy (or trooper in the comisars case) I doubt the commisar would shoot the plasma gunner in the face and trow away the plasma gun

Theocracity
01-07-2014, 14:19
I don't know why people are still arguing about this. The mob rule is fine, random wound allocation sucks. So everyone should just use the commissar rules from AM when they were smart enough to change it from random wound allocation to roll a d6 on a 1-2 opponent choses a model and on 3-6 you chose. However I don't think your nob should be part of that choice since technically he is the one bustin heads.

Well, if you roll Bustin' Heads it's the nob doing the krumping. If you roll Squabble its a general melee. But in general I agree that that's a generally nicer way of handling it that I would suggest if it came up as a problem.

AngryAngel
01-07-2014, 18:42
1) Pull your head out of you rear-end.
2) It's a game that is entirely decided by randomness. The entire game is pointless really in the grand scheme of things, so stop acting like games workshop owe you some perfect game. If you don't like it, don't play it.

How hard is someone's life that they can't figure out a way to randomly allocate some wounds? It's entirely up to the digression of the player what "random" is. You could roll dice for it, have a you choose, I choose style, draw straws, literally anything. It adds a fun extra element to the game for an already fun game. I know people seem to hate tables, but the "tactical" hey day of the game (rogue trader and 2nd) were full of em. Random tables are fun in my opinion. They add extra elements that we can't account for, which means you need to be able to apply a bit of thinking in your game and that makes it a bit more tactical in my books.

1) Once more, someone who happens to disagree has to act like a rude individual, and attack someone first out. Thanks for that, I'd suggest you do the same.
2) I act like this company, we buy product from owe us good quality for their heavy price, sorry if you don't agree.

It is entirely your opinion that random on random on random, adds Moar fun. Perhaps you should join GW HQ, they'd enjoy your in put I am sure. As well I must ask if your, perhaps a bit off base, as random tables, pressed with random wound allocation don't add one iota of extra thought to the game process. For instance what level of thought what so ever, will make you better prepared and/or have any difference to random wound allocation ? As well we must have highly different views of tactical if random nonsense tickles your tactical bone.


Use the Warhammer Quest or Blood Bowl way of randomizing: Have counters for the relevant models, toss them in a cup and draw as many as needed.

Easiest is to use small coloured tokens, and simply declare: Red is boss, green is mekboy, yellow is boy near mekboy, blue is a normal boy.

Something of an interesting choice, yet still, I'd rather it not be oh so random, personally speaking, but such is a good way of doing it if you must.


Well, the shooting phase has a defined series of rolls written in the rules that determine its results. The process for random allocation isn't as well defined, so it makes sense to figure out the easiest, closest way to do so.

Personally I've never bothered with random allocation. Any time I have to remove casualties from a blown up transport I just remove boyz, as have all of my opponents. If anyone has a problem with it I'd likely just roll a d6 and let my opponent choose a model if it's a 1. I don't really care if that's not statistically accurate.

Which is what we do around my area as well.


So actually it's Random Wound allocation that is the worst thing ever, not the new Mob rule.

More or less but as the two are linked, I can see some people throwing hate to the mob rule as well for it. However, it is the random allocation I find stupid, the rule itself, at its base I find good.


It's fair to say that random allocation is fine so long as you ignore it. ;p

It's one of those things that takes up a tremendous amount of time if you play it straight, simply because the d6 isn't good at randomly selecting numbers that are not 1-6. If your opponent insists on it, that probably says enough about your opponent right there.

Agreed


That's not the worst case scenario. :wtf:

The worst case scenario is you take the mob rule test, the dice ricochets off your Warboss’ power claw and accidentally lodges in your opponent's throat. You try to help him, but he suffocates right in front of you. A passing police car spies the scene through the window and arrests you. You try to plead your case but it turns out the cop is secretly in love with your wife/girlfriend/boyfriend/mother and fakes a DNA report which results in your conviction.

On your way to the prison the zombie apocalypse begins and you find yourself trapped in the prison truck with limited food and only the career criminal known as Dave the Depraved for company.

All because of a Mob Rule check . . . damn you GW! :mad:

I think this is but moments away from happening.


I don't know why people are still arguing about this. The mob rule is fine, random wound allocation sucks. So everyone should just use the commissar rules from AM when they were smart enough to change it from random wound allocation to roll a d6 on a 1-2 opponent choses a model and on 3-6 you chose. However I don't think your nob should be part of that choice since technically he is the one bustin heads.

Which is what I was saying earlier, same kind of rule, just better then complete mad random.


We agreed to allocate hits to models closest to the highest LD model (nob or warboss), with that one exempt. After all, he's the one making sure they get back in line.

For that part, that is a reasonable choice as well.

Inquisitor Kallus
01-07-2014, 19:07
Random can be fun Angry, just ask Ork players. We also play a game with lots of randomness (dice rolls), it just tends to be the people who are worried about losing that worry about random things. Random psychic powers etc I think are cool. Arent missions random too? And what about choosing sides etc. Good generals make do with what they have

Haravikk
01-07-2014, 19:13
Use the Warhammer Quest or Blood Bowl way of randomizing: Have counters for the relevant models, toss them in a cup and draw as many as needed.
This is what I'd do; you can buy counters dirt cheap, or if you have different colours of dice then you can use those, just so long as your opponent knows what each colour represents, and if a counter is ambiguous (e.g - red for specials) then you only need to randomise from a small set of models if that particular counter comes up.

If even that's too annoying then just simplify further with anything your opponent agrees with, e.g - just take the nearest models to the source of the shooting (they're killed for slowing the others down), or roll a scatter dice to determine the direction from which you remove models or something.

AngryAngel
01-07-2014, 20:01
Random can be fun Angry, just ask Ork players. We also play a game with lots of randomness (dice rolls), it just tends to be the people who are worried about losing that worry about random things. Random psychic powers etc I think are cool. Arent missions random too? And what about choosing sides etc. Good generals make do with what they have

Which is point in case, not every ork player loves all things random, first. Second, with all the random already, it is better to stream line some of it away. ( That is assuming people don't just pick missions, which sometimes we do, and not leave it up to total randomness, and we haven't used random objective abilities since a couple months after 6th edition came out ). I know plenty who don't like random psychic powers but they hardly leave you a choice in using random to pick them, so in that your forced to. Saying that your worried of losing, is why you don't like random, is silly and perhaps an attempt to devalue the opinion of someone who says random isn't always fun ? I put the question to it, as I'm unsure what your implying. I guess only beardy power gamers want less random ? Perhaps some clarification there.

There is plenty of random for randoms sake in core game make up. We don't need more in core army game mechanics. Rolling for amount of vp we gain, rolling for psychic powers, rolling for warlord trait, rolling for table sides, rolling for who places objectives first, rolling for what MoW objectives we get ( or drawing ) rolling for night fight, rolling for who deploys first, rolling for seize the init, rolling for extra game turns. Rolling for what the objectives do, rolling for various effects of some named terrain features now.

Then, add in who knows how many random wound allocations during the game, with all the other ( needed random rolling for to hit, to wound, reserves, LD, etc, etc ) Doesn't it seem a bit excessive ? Some random you need, some you could do without, random wound allocation you can do without. Which leads me to un related note, but still, shows lack of clear purpose, why remove pinning from so many weapons then ? Because it bogged the game down ? Was of little use ? It has been cited by supporters of the change that it stream lined things, but then you leave in the laundry list of actual game bogs, that do slow the game progress down ?

However, I guess only Good Generals see the beauty in GWs choices.

Ssilmath
01-07-2014, 20:12
We don't need more in core army game mechanics.

So, because you personally don't like random, it invalidates everybody who does and invalidates specific design choices? Your opinions and personal desires trump all?

AngryAngel
01-07-2014, 20:18
Of course it does Ssilmath my old friend, you know better then to ask for an answer to the obvious....Or, it could also be any of the reasons why the absolute love of random is disliked by some, myself included.

yabbadabba
01-07-2014, 20:25
I am not sure if this subject warrants 4 pages. It is a classic case of where either you stick to the rules 100%, and then you need to derive a way of dealing with said rules, or you have a helpful gaming group who agree to either modify the current rule or playtest a new one. This happens in more wargames than I care to mention, especially for new rules.

If you must filed such a mega-unit, with quite a few eggs in it, then there is no reason why you cannot be prepared with counters to represent the randomness. It will take less effort to equip an Apocalypse army thus, than it would take to put together a single unit.

Gonefishing
01-07-2014, 20:27
So, because you personally don't like random, it invalidates everybody who does and invalidates specific design choices? Your opinions and personal desires trump all?

And because you do it invalidates everyone who doesn't?

Personal opinion only* I hate the ever increasing reliance on Randomness in the game, and would much prefer they streamlined or returned the power of "choice" over many significant elements of the game, not every decision I take as a player should be defined by a random table.

I have no problem with "fun" randomness (back in the day my epic ork army used to love the randomness of my shokk attack guns and pulsa rockets), but I fail to see what's fun about making virtually every step I take (even list building) dependant on some sort of random table.

AngryAngel
01-07-2014, 20:32
If they took out those random tables Gonefishing, there would be no more fun, it would be dead, for everyone. The last spark, of the emperor, snuffed out, in the exodus of many pages of random charts. How could we be so blind ? It was our universe and we destroyed it....( cue sad music and weeping mothers )

yabbadabba
01-07-2014, 20:37
I have no problem with "fun" randomness (back in the day my epic ork army used to love the randomness of my shokk attack guns and pulsa rockets), but I fail to see what's fun about making virtually every step I take (even list building) dependant on some sort of random table. Try playing Rogue Trader. Or Realms of Chaos.

Ssilmath
01-07-2014, 20:57
If they took out those random tables Gonefishing, there would be no more fun, it would be dead, for everyone. The last spark, of the emperor, snuffed out, in the exodus of many pages of random charts. How could we be so blind ? It was our universe and we destroyed it....( cue sad music and weeping mothers )

Can you respond to anything without taking it to an extreme? It's pretty much impossible to have a conversation right now.

DoctorTom
01-07-2014, 21:15
This is what I'd do; you can buy counters dirt cheap, or if you have different colours of dice then you can use those, just so long as your opponent knows what each colour represents, and if a counter is ambiguous (e.g - red for specials) then you only need to randomise from a small set of models if that particular counter comes up.

If even that's too annoying then just simplify further with anything your opponent agrees with, e.g - just take the nearest models to the source of the shooting (they're killed for slowing the others down), or roll a scatter dice to determine the direction from which you remove models or something.

Or, you give the player a hammer, blindfold him, spin him around a bit, and have him whack at the table until he hits one of the models in the unit. That one suffers the hit.

yabbadabba
01-07-2014, 21:34
Or, you give the player a hammer, blindfold him, spin him around a bit, and have him whack at the table until he hits one of the models in the unit. That one suffers the hit. what is wrong with Haravikk's suggestions then?

Vipoid
01-07-2014, 21:56
what is wrong with Haravikk's suggestions then?

What's wrong with DoctorTom's? ;)

DoctorTom
01-07-2014, 22:02
what is wrong with Haravikk's suggestions then?

Just the situation in the first place that he has the suggestion for. At least my way might provide more amusement if you're taking the extra time out to resolve something that should have been more streamlined in the first place. :p

yabbadabba
01-07-2014, 22:33
Just the situation in the first place that he has the suggestion for. At least my way might provide more amusement if you're taking the extra time out to resolve something that should have been more streamlined in the first place. :p OK, sorry mate but that has added neither substance, development or humour to the discussion for me.

Inquisitor Kallus
01-07-2014, 22:56
Can you respond to anything without taking it to an extreme? It's pretty much impossible to have a conversation right now.

I dont believe he can...

There are all kinds of ways that models can be randomised as taking a wound, its no biggie. I like the idea of the table it adds a bit more to the orks, kind of like the animosity table in fantasy though I know some people are upset, especially that they dont get fearless for large mobs automatically now, myself, im looking forward to trying it and the rest of the dex

Gungo
01-07-2014, 23:14
Why? well probebly cause they don't agree.

As for you solution. I don't think that ork players will agree to that when the chips are down. It should have just been a normal boy (or trooper in the comisars case) I doubt the commisar would shoot the plasma gunner in the face and trow away the plasma gun
In small units random isn't a big deal but in larger units it becomes time consuming and burdensome. Which is why the commissar rule change was so much better in the AM codex. However I don't know what fluff you are reading commissars could care less what rank or weapon you are firing. Remember the old commissar rule had them shooting a random sergeant. Also remember that imperial guardsmen are expendable even in the lore and weapons such as plasma guns are easily salvaged from thier corpse. The commissar has no qualms shooting a plasma gunner if that was the guardsmen who was one of the first to turn and flee. Hence why it's quasi random with the owning player choosing or your opponent choosing which model to remove.

Abaraxas
02-07-2014, 02:51
One should always remember: "If you listen to fools...the Mob Rules!"

Losing Command
02-07-2014, 04:47
There was an article from Jervis in a WD quite recently where he admits to having an addiction to random charts, and that he even makes some that only fit on a A3 sheet or something....

Anyway, he then goes on that he learned from listening to others that everybody does like large random charts ... when they are optional, and not a mandatory part of core rules. I guess the GW rules department somehow lost the memo about that :rolleyes:

Don't get me wrong, some of the new random things are actually quite OK. The mysterious objectives for example have little enough impact on the game that it doesn't feel they changed the outcome, while still providing bonusses that can help you when facing a bad matchup. Flyers never really managed to take off at the LGS, partly because the Skyfire Nexus result for objectives meant that even armies who had zero anti-air at the time could park something scoring next to it and start swatting things out the air.

spiderglow
02-07-2014, 18:54
Its way easier to use a couple of ten sided dices. First divide in 2 or 3 groups with less than 10 minis per group

Then use dices to select the one dying. If not existing repeat .

Saunders
02-07-2014, 18:58
Its way easier to use a couple of ten sided dices. First divide in 2 or 3 groups with less than 10 minis per group

Then use dices to select the one dying. If not existing repeat .

Which works equally as well with d6 (which is, in fact, what the 7th ed rulebook suggests). I posited this earlier in the thread but it was disregarded; I suspect many of the people posting here are doing so only with the intention of deriding the rule, and not looking to be constructive.

spiderglow
02-07-2014, 19:16
Which works equally as well with d6 (which is, in fact, what the 7th ed rulebook suggests). I posited this earlier in the thread but it was disregarded; I suspect many of the people posting here are doing so only with the intention of deriding the rule, and not looking to be constructive.

I agree. If you encounter a player so picky on this rule or probabilities, there is another option to offer. Just pick his minis an place them on a bag, shake and ask that player to pick the models to me removed as casualties.

yabbadabba
02-07-2014, 19:44
I agree. If you encounter a player so picky on this rule or probabilities, there is another option to offer. Just pick his minis an place them on a bag, shake and ask that player to pick the models to me removed as casualties. This - oh so this!

Thanks spiderglow, a real smiler there!

Gonefishing
02-07-2014, 21:38
This - oh so this!

Thanks spiderglow, a real smiler there!

Ahem....


OK, sorry mate but that has added neither substance, development or humour to the discussion for me.

So its fine for someone to make a funny when they share your viewpoint, but not when they don't?

yabbadabba
02-07-2014, 21:45
So its fine for someone to make a funny when they share your viewpoint, but not when they don't? Nothing like that at all.

Axel
02-07-2014, 21:58
I suspect many of the people posting here are doing so only with the intention of deriding the rule, and not looking to be constructive.

Why should anybody be constructive on how to pick a random model, when the problem is not HOW to do it but the effort to do it at all. Taking two models off the table takes less then 2 seconds - instead of randomizing two models out of who knows how many, perhaps dividing up the large mob in equal subgroups, rolling to decide (hopefully there is no hassle when these groups have different sizes), then make sure which number fits to which Ork in the subgroup, rolling again and THEN taking out ONE model. Yeah, you CAN do this in 20 seconds if you know the process and your opponent trusts you - but for what gain? And it MAY take a good deal longer at times.

I would have no problem with the randomized casualties if it would add some layer to the game. As it stands, it does not.



Just pick his minis an place them on a bag, shake and ask that player to pick the models to me removed as casualties.

Now, that is what I call a constructive contribution. Exactly the kind Saunders mentioned...



Nothing like that at all.

Just like that, so it looks :-)

Seems that this threat runs out. Some don`t like it, some don`t like that some don`t like it. I am out here - and will just not play anybody who insists on randomizing casualties like this - I will houserule that the owner picks "random casualties" in all cases - a close second after "watch out sir" always works against barrage...

yabbadabba
02-07-2014, 22:01
Just like that, so it looks :-) Um, I think my answer to that is no, but I may have misread and misunderstood you mate.

Gonefishing
02-07-2014, 22:09
Nothing like that at all.

Ok, so just out of curiosity - what is the difference?

Dr Tom said:


Or, you give the player a hammer, blindfold him, spin him around a bit, and have him whack at the table until he hits one of the models in the unit. That one suffers the hit.

Spiderglow said:


I agree. If you encounter a player so picky on this rule or probabilities, there is another option to offer. Just pick his minis an place them on a bag, shake and ask that player to pick the models to me removed as casualties.

Both comments (in my opinion) are quite amusing and tongue in cheek, both comments involve probable blunt force trauma to someone else's models....

Your reply to Dr Tom is:


OK, sorry mate but that has added neither substance, development or humour to the discussion for me.

Your reply to Spider is:


This - oh so this!

Thanks spiderglow, a real smiler there!


The only difference I can see between the two is that Dr Tom (from his comments) thinks there's an issue with the rule, and Spider (from his comments) does not....

Genuinely curious what the difference is?

yabbadabba
02-07-2014, 22:16
The difference is one deals with the rule that is in debate in this thread; the other deals with a specific type of player and has nothing to do with the rule in question, just uses it as a context.

Two separate things.

Now, let's get back to the rule.

Gonefishing
02-07-2014, 22:47
The difference is one deals with the rule that is in debate in this thread; the other deals with a specific type of player and has nothing to do with the rule in question, just uses it as a context.

Two separate things.

Now, let's get back to the rule.

Got to be honest...I don't really see the difference between the two statements, other than the differing viewpoint of the posters (like/dislike) - maybe its just me.

Hey Ho - back to the thread.

** Ps, Spider, Tom- I laughed at both ;)

spiderglow
02-07-2014, 22:57
Got to be honest...I don't really see the difference between the two statements, other than the differing viewpoint of the posters (like/dislike) - maybe its just me.

Hey Ho - back to the thread.

** Ps, Spider, Tom- I laughed at both ;)

Thanks man. I was being sarcastic, however maybe someone would use numbered tokens taken from a bag, I would buy some of those to accelerate this rule. (In case someone asks, if you take out of the bag a number not applicable to a mini just repeat the process)

T10
02-07-2014, 22:59
Having seen the mob rule take effect a couple of times in an actual game, I can offer the following observations.

One failed Pinning test after having been forced out of a wrecked Trukk caused four hits for three casualties. Damage was resolved against majority Toughness, and since all models had the same save we took those immediately. It was a very simple matter to split the unit of 12 Orks into two groups and randomize group/model and this was over in less about a minute. Sure, was a bit of a hassle communicating what was actually rolled for: "These six Orks are group one, these five group two. I rolled a 5, a high roll, so that's group two. Counting left to right I roll 4, so one-two-three-four: this guy. Now ther are ten Orks left, so we'll have two groups of five."

Second, a unit got badly shot up and failed a Morale check. The unit suffered a single causalty due to the Mob rule, and that model was selected and removed in under five seconds.

Third, a unit got beaten in close combat with only the character survivng. Rolled Squabble, so no further casualties but the model had to flee.

All in all, there was a noticable work-load but not much of an impact. All in all the Ork player was unimpressed by the casualties taken, not bothered with the process of resolving them, and satisfied that units that would have fled with the 5th ed. Codex (due to having too few models left and thus no longer count as Fearless) instead held their ground. As the opponent, I was entertained by the Ork way of maintaining discipline.

Greyhound
02-07-2014, 23:08
T10, the only issue is, would you put the nob in group1, where he has less chance to be hit, or in group2?

Saunders
03-07-2014, 02:14
Please don't drag me in to this conversation about ostracizing players, guys. Random allocation does just that--random allocation, which can affect any number of things depending on which models are removed (potentially removing special weapons or adding distance to its interactions on the table; you wouldn't get this, for example, by giving odds for either player removing models. Through a method such as that, there is a proportionately much higher chance of the opposing player getting to remove special models in larger squads, whereas if you merely have the controlling player remove models then having to do so will never have the same kind of impact on larger squads)

I'm afraid I can't agree that it doesn't add anything to the game. It may be somewhat of a pain sometimes to resolve, but there are ways to do it with minimal hassle, and I don't see why it's worth getting so flustered about.


T10, the only issue is, would you put the nob in group1, where he has less chance to be hit, or in group2?

Rolling a 6 for the second group would be a total reroll, thus there being no difference in being hit; every model is assigned a single result.

bad dice
03-07-2014, 06:40
Please don't drag me in to this conversation about ostracizing players, guys. Random allocation does just that--random allocation, which can affect any number of things depending on which models are removed (potentially removing special weapons or adding distance to its interactions on the table; you wouldn't get this, for example, by giving odds for either player removing models. Through a method such as that, there is a proportionately much higher chance of the opposing player getting to remove special models in larger squads, whereas if you merely have the controlling player remove models then having to do so will never have the same kind of impact on larger squads)

I'm afraid I can't agree that it doesn't add anything to the game. It may be somewhat of a pain sometimes to resolve, but there are ways to do it with minimal hassle, and I don't see why it's worth getting so flustered about.



Rolling a 6 for the second group would be a total reroll, thus there being no difference in being hit; every model is assigned a single result.

You are kidding right 1/2*1/6=1/12 1/2*1/5=1/10. (also note that boh of these ar not the "real" odds that would be 1/11)

So there is a difference right there. And thats a futhe point against random allocation. It realy does not work well whit the standard tools of the game (the d6) Unless you have groups that can be divdided into multipels of 6

Geep
03-07-2014, 07:00
You are kidding right 1/2*1/6=1/12 1/2*1/5=1/10. (also note that boh of these ar not the "real" odds that would be 1/11)

So there is a difference right there. And thats a futhe point against random allocation. It realy does not work well whit the standard tools of the game (the d6) Unless you have groups that can be divdided into multipels of 6
No-

Just to establish the situation clearly: The unit has 11 models, divided into 2. Group A is 6 models, Group B is 5.
If you did as Saunders suggests and re-roll all model selection dice when group Group B model 6 would be selected then the odds remain even for every model in both groups (as it's not "1/2*1/6" vs "1/2*1/5", but 2 lots of "1/2*1/6"). If you didn't re-roll all selection dice then yes, there is an advantage to what models are allocated to what groups.

I agree that it's not hard to work out what to do for wound allocation, but there is a problem that it is overly complex and can take an excessive amount of time. Continuing from the above example, I've had to do randomisation very similar to that before, and rolled Group B model 6 continuously (I think my record is 3 or 4 times). That's really frustrating, and the benefits of it are pretty much none (unless playing a very specialist squad, like many uniquely armed Grey Knights, etc.).

bad dice
03-07-2014, 07:25
No-

Just to establish the situation clearly: The unit has 11 models, divided into 2. Group A is 6 models, Group B is 5.
If you did as Saunders suggests and re-roll all model selection dice when group Group B model 6 would be selected then the odds remain even for every model in both groups (as it's not "1/2*1/6" vs "1/2*1/5", but 2 lots of "1/2*1/6"). If you didn't re-roll all selection dice then yes, there is an advantage to what models are allocated to what groups.

I agree that it's not hard to work out what to do for wound allocation, but there is a problem that it is overly complex and can take an excessive amount of time. Continuing from the above example, I've had to do randomisation very similar to that before, and rolled Group B model 6 continuously (I think my record is 3 or 4 times). That's really frustrating, and the benefits of it are pretty much none (unless playing a very specialist squad, like many uniquely armed Grey Knights, etc.).

Yea you are correct i read his post wrong .Silly ,me.

T10
03-07-2014, 07:49
T10, the only issue is, would you put the nob in group1, where he has less chance to be hit, or in group2?

Ruleswise both options are fine, and personally I would be fine with the controlling player handling with randomizations.

Edit: Also, the Nob (as a character) would at times be excluded from the pool of candidates; depending on the Mob rule table roll of course.

-T10

totgeboren
03-07-2014, 09:06
Tried the new orks yesterday, and it was fun. But the new mob rule was just horrible. If it was one unit, like Grots or something that had this sort of badly thought-out rule I could understand it, but for every ork unit combined with a Ld of about 7 across the board and it's just a disaster for playability.
Ok, maybe I had some bad luck, but I failed almost every Ld test I had to take except on my Warboss & Nobs. It was a small game, Armoured Krumpany style army with only 43 orks (plus vehicles) all in all, and I lost 10 to the new Mob Rule, and had 20 orks left at the end of the game. So the new Mob rule killed about as many Orks as my opponent, and each time we had to randomize who in each unit was supposed to get killed.

Horrible rule-design, and not fun in the least.

Oh, the Wierdboy sucks too, it's definitely better to include a Big Mek or Painboy instead. All this based on one game! ^_^

Felwether
03-07-2014, 09:39
I think I'm just going to dust off some of my old Inquisitor D10s and assign numbers to models at the time of rolling.

So for a unit of 20 with a Nob and big shoota I roll two D10s. Numbers 1-18 are boyz, 19 is the big shoota and 20 is the Nob.

Simples.

Killgore
03-07-2014, 09:53
The amount of time it takes to resolve the randomisation will depend on how pedantic the players are.

If its a big mob most of my regular gamers will simply be satisfied with removing a random Ork boy, and resorting to dice rolls etc when dealing with smaller units with more specialised equipment.


Having to assign model groups, cracking out special D&D dice etc will not make for a fun game for anyone.

Cheeslord
03-07-2014, 10:07
The problem is, if that Ork mob is just on the brink of charging or shooting range of an enemy unit, it matters which of the identically equipped boys are removed as that might get them charged (or allow them to charge) in their next turn, etc. I am all for houseruling to make it work, but it is not entirely trivial to do so.

Mark.

Vipoid
03-07-2014, 10:07
The amount of time it takes to resolve the randomisation will depend on how pedantic the players are.

By 'pedantic' do you mean 'following the actual rule'?

totgeboren
03-07-2014, 10:12
I hope they change it in the FAQ to just be 'the controlling players decided who gets killed'. As it is witten it's too harsh, too cumbersome and too unfun.

Greyhound
03-07-2014, 10:31
Ruleswise both options are fine, and personally I would be fine with the controlling player handling with randomizations.
Ok so I'll put the special weapon in the group of 6 rather than the group of 5.
because you don't mind and I prefer 1/12 than 1/10 chance to cope the wound.

Vipoid
03-07-2014, 10:40
Rolling a 6 for the second group would be a total reroll, thus there being no difference in being hit; every model is assigned a single result.

Is there any chance you could show the math for that?

You might be right, but I'm interested to see how you worked that out.

Greyhound
03-07-2014, 11:18
Is there any chance you could show the math for that?

You might be right, but I'm interested to see how you worked that out.

There is a slight mistake
1/2 chance to get group 1
1/6 to get an individual
Therefore 1/12

1/2 chance to get group 2
1/5 to get an individual (6 are ignored)
Therefore 1/10

Not the same odds, but what he says is that it's close enough and he allows me to decide to put the boys I want to save in group 1

Geep
03-07-2014, 11:22
Vipoid- the maths is pretty simple. I assume Saunders won't mind me trying to explain it.

Let's assume we have 11 Orks, and name our 10 orks A to K. Each Ork has just one letter assigned to it, so that's simple. We divide out Orks into 2 groups- Group (i) has orks A to F, Group (ii) has orks G to K.
Then we roll- first of all, 1-3 hits Group (i), 4-6 hits Group (ii). Even chances for each group.
We then roll another dice, with the possible outcomes for Group (i) shown, then Group (ii).
1- A, G
2- B, H
3- C, I
4- D, J
5- E, K
6- F, *

The asterisk is a complete re-roll of both group selection, and ork from that group. Each ork appears only once, every possible die combination has a unique result- a 1/12 chance of occurring. If you get the re-roll result it doesn't shift that stat- there's still a 1/12 chance for each ork when you roll again (and a 1/12 chance of having to re-roll a third time). This hold true regardless of the number of groups or the number in each group, it's just easiest to show with only a single ork missing from the 12.

It's only if you don't re-roll group selection that the group size will make a difference.

Edit due to Ninjas:

There is a slight mistake
1/2 chance to get group 1
1/6 to get an individual
Therefore 1/12

1/2 chance to get group 2
1/5 to get an individual (6 are ignored)
Therefore 1/10

Not the same odds, but what he says is that it's close enough and he allows me to decide to put the boys I want to save in group 1
This is only true if you don't re-roll the group selection, as well as individual selection. Just because the re-roll possibility isn't an 'individual' doesn't mean it should disappear from the statistical probability.

nickjspencer
03-07-2014, 11:33
Is it just me that as both and Ork player and regularly facing them as opponents, simply ignore the random allocation unless there are a handful of models left? Even if roll a 6 for amount of hits, chances are only 3 will wound, so just take away Boys. It's a game remember ladies and gents. Fair enuff if you have 6 Boys and a Warboss, but not for full mobs.

Mauler
03-07-2014, 11:34
It is inelegance and pointless chaos at its finest.

Orks. :D



So actually it's Random Wound allocation that is the worst thing ever, not the new Mob rule.

Yes. I'm not sure how being given a mechanism which 1) gives a 16% chance (or better with a Bosspole?) to ignore an assault loss and 2) significant chances to swap a few models for a passed morale test is a Really Bad Thing.



Personally I think it's a fluffy rule which adds to the character of the army. Seriously, how slowly do some of you roll dice?

Roll the D6 for wounds, get that number of wound dice to one side. Takes like 4 seconds.
If there's 6 or less allocate a D6 number to each and roll a dice per wound to allocate.
If more than 6 models draw a line down the middle of the unit, roll, 1-3 it's one side, 4-6 it's the other. Step 1 done, takes about 3 seconds.
Glance at the models on that side, if there's 6 or less allocate a D6 number to each and roll a dice per wound, if it's 7 or more draw another line and divide again. Step 2 done, 6 seconds gone, tops. Repeat if needed. I really can't see it taking up loads of time over the course of a game, possibly 5 minutes overall to a 1-3 hour game?

hobojebus
03-07-2014, 12:37
The amount of time it takes to resolve the randomisation will depend on how pedantic the players are.

If its a big mob most of my regular gamers will simply be satisfied with removing a random Ork boy, and resorting to dice rolls etc when dealing with smaller units with more specialised equipment.


Having to assign model groups, cracking out special D&D dice etc will not make for a fun game for anyone.

Following the rules isn't pedantry.

Vipoid
03-07-2014, 12:39
Vipoid- the maths is pretty simple. I assume Saunders won't mind me trying to explain it.

Let's assume we have 11 Orks, and name our 10 orks A to K. Each Ork has just one letter assigned to it, so that's simple. We divide out Orks into 2 groups- Group (i) has orks A to F, Group (ii) has orks G to K.
Then we roll- first of all, 1-3 hits Group (i), 4-6 hits Group (ii). Even chances for each group.
We then roll another dice, with the possible outcomes for Group (i) shown, then Group (ii).
1- A, G
2- B, H
3- C, I
4- D, J
5- E, K
6- F, *

The asterisk is a complete re-roll of both group selection, and ork from that group. Each ork appears only once, every possible die combination has a unique result- a 1/12 chance of occurring. If you get the re-roll result it doesn't shift that stat- there's still a 1/12 chance for each ork when you roll again (and a 1/12 chance of having to re-roll a third time). This hold true regardless of the number of groups or the number in each group, it's just easiest to show with only a single ork missing from the 12.

It's only if you don't re-roll group selection that the group size will make a difference.

I see.

Thanks for taking the time to explain that. :)

T10
03-07-2014, 13:59
Ok so I'll put the special weapon in the group of 6 rather than the group of 5.
because you don't mind and I prefer 1/12 than 1/10 chance to cope the wound.

No problem, that seems quite sensible. Or should I be bothered that you do not purposfully and voluntarilly put yourself in a disadvantageous situation?

-T10

T10
03-07-2014, 14:03
Following the rules isn't pedantry.

Well... If you have a unit that includes 6 candidate models and you are required to randomly select 6 distinct models, it would be pedantic to follow the rules to the letter (randomizing repeatedly among a shrinking number of candidates) rather than immediately selecting all 6 models.

-T10

Vipoid
03-07-2014, 14:10
Well... If you have a unit that includes 6 candidate models and you are required to randomly select 6 distinct models, it would be pedantic to follow the rules to the letter (randomizing repeatedly among a shrinking number of candidates) rather than immediately selecting all 6 models.

-T10

That seems like a poor comparison though. You're talking about a very specific case where randomising becomes unnecessary - since there exists only one possible outcome.

yabbadabba
03-07-2014, 16:54
I hope they change it in the FAQ to just be 'the controlling players decided who gets killed'. As it is witten it's too harsh, too cumbersome and too unfun. One of the reasons GW switched to this method, via closest model, was because of complaints that letting the controlling player choose also cause issues.

T10
03-07-2014, 16:56
That seems like a poor comparison though. You're talking about a very specific case where randomising becomes unnecessary - since there exists only one possible outcome.

You mean to say that insisting on following the rules in that special case is not pedantic? I dare say it fits the definition perfectly.

Your willingness to skip the randomization process on the flimsy excuse that it is "unnecessary" disqualifies you from the position High Lord Pendantist.

yabbadabba
03-07-2014, 17:05
Your willingness to skip the randomization process on the flimsy excuse that it is "unnecessary" disqualifies you from the position High Lord Pendantist. My mum has said I have been a good boy and can play out more often. If the position is free, can I have it?

Vipoid
03-07-2014, 17:06
Your willingness to skip the randomization process on the flimsy excuse that it is "unnecessary" disqualifies you from the position High Lord Pendantist.

My resignation well be on your desk tomorrow. :cries:

Gonefishing
03-07-2014, 17:13
I have the perfect solution, GW could release a random randomisation table for those random essential gaming moments when the game isn't being random enough!

Saunders
03-07-2014, 20:20
One of the reasons GW switched to this method, via closest model, was because of complaints that letting the controlling player choose also cause issues.

Indeed, since 5th edition they've worked to reduce the impact of larger squads having a surplus of ablative wounds (ironically, hidden power klaws come to mind--the days when there was little in a way of means to actually kill that single nob w/power klaw without having to mow through the other 30 boyz in the squad)

If you notice, there are very few instances of player selection removing models. If an attack does not come from a definable direction, affected models are typically resolved through random allocation these days. TBH, it thematically makes sense. They're not exactly breaking the mold with this decision, it is simply that some players cannot A) be arsed to roll a few extra dice, and/or B) acknowledge that random allocation creates fundamentally different possible results than deliberate allocation by either player.

I mean, it's okay to not like it. Insisting on house-ruling it because random allocation adds 20 minutes to a game is another matter entirely (that said--I haven't seen or heard any instances of random allocation causing significant issues for players that know how to do random allocation, which is why I've made several attempts to detail an effective way of resolving random allocation in this thread)

Greyhound
03-07-2014, 20:31
From the responses in this thread it is obvious that not everyone has full understanding of how you multiply probabilities together, so I expect a large amount of tables around of the world having unfair advantages and erroneous outcomes when it comes to spread the wounds.

Saunders
03-07-2014, 20:37
From the responses in this thread it is obvious that not everyone has full understanding of how you multiply probabilities together, so I expect a large amount of tables around of the world having unfair advantages and erroneous outcomes when it comes to spread the wounds.

Which is the real shame. If anyone asks, pg 11 in The Rules has a section explaining how to conduct random selection with a d6.

Gonefishing
03-07-2014, 21:56
Indeed, since 5th edition they've worked to reduce the impact of larger squads having a surplus of ablative wounds (ironically, hidden power klaws come to mind--the days when there was little in a way of means to actually kill that single nob w/power klaw without having to mow through the other 30 boyz in the squad)


There are other ways to do this though, back in 4th you had the torrent of fire rules let the shooter choose one of the wounding hits, more recently you have precision shots etc for sniping duties. Back in 5th you had to allocate at least one wounding hit to each unique model in the unit (if enough hits covered the unit), not ideal against 30 plus orks but it worked once you had whittled them down.

In 7th its almost an overkill of killing the "specials", position them badly in the unit / or your opponent gets the drop on you and they are taking wounds, precision fire - they are taking wounds, Transport/explosion in the vicinity - they are taking wounds. Then if that bloke (sorry Ork) with the power klaw does make it across the table and into CC, he gets challenged and killed before he has swung. It is a clunky, and broadly unnecessary game mechanic (IMO), I would much prefer my opponent just removed the Orks he wanted to in this sort of situation, its quicker, less hassle, and less disruptive to the game (again, just my opinion).

Cheeslord
04-07-2014, 10:45
I have the perfect solution, GW could release a random randomisation table for those random essential gaming moments when the game isn't being random enough!

Inspirational!

I would like to submit the following for the benefit of the top GW design staff who we all know lurk on these forums under disguised names in order to be horrified:

Random rule randomization rule:
- This rule is optional. Unless you roll an even number on a D6 or it is Tuesday. It counts double on a 3.
Roll a D6 at the start of each game turn apart from turn 3 where you roll a D7 (this can be approximated by rolling 2D6, halving the result and adding 1 if you didn't roll a double)

on a 1-3, nothing happens
on a 4-6, the chaotic powers of chaos have messed with your continuity. Turn to page (D6X20+(D6X10)+2D6-32). Roll a D6 and consult the following chart:
1- Select the 2D6th paragraph. Replace all numbers in that paragraph with new ones rolled on D6D6 (roll a D6 to determine how many D6 you roll)
2- Swap all the nouns in the D6th paragraph with the nouns in the 2D6th paragraph. Reverse the order of the verbs in each paragraph and replace all adjectives with "Mattward"
3-roll once on each random table in the rulebook. Apply each result to a random unit regardless of any circumstances.
4-Swap half your units with the person closest to you. Swap half the terrain on the battlefield with the closest objects not on the battlefield.
5-remove every odd numbered page from your rulebook. Replace with(1-2 pages from rulebooks from other games systems, 3-4 pages from newspapers, 5-6 toilet paper). Apply all rules as now written.
6- Reroll on this table, but you must write the result in permanent marker on your rulebook. Effects remain in play till you buy a new rulebook.

Vipoid
04-07-2014, 12:48
I really wish I could sig that...

Good show. :D

kendaop
04-07-2014, 15:00
I bring a graphing calculator with a random number function ready. Makes randomization a piece of cake.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

Gonefishing
04-07-2014, 17:13
Inspirational!

I would like to submit the following for the benefit of the top GW design staff who we all know lurk on these forums under disguised names in order to be horrified:

Random rule randomization rule:
- This rule is optional. Unless you roll an even number on a D6 or it is Tuesday. It counts double on a 3.
Roll a D6 at the start of each game turn apart from turn 3 where you roll a D7 (this can be approximated by rolling 2D6, halving the result and adding 1 if you didn't roll a double)

on a 1-3, nothing happens
on a 4-6, the chaotic powers of chaos have messed with your continuity. Turn to page (D6X20+(D6X10)+2D6-32). Roll a D6 and consult the following chart:
1- Select the 2D6th paragraph. Replace all numbers in that paragraph with new ones rolled on D6D6 (roll a D6 to determine how many D6 you roll)
2- Swap all the nouns in the D6th paragraph with the nouns in the 2D6th paragraph. Reverse the order of the verbs in each paragraph and replace all adjectives with "Mattward"
3-roll once on each random table in the rulebook. Apply each result to a random unit regardless of any circumstances.
4-Swap half your units with the person closest to you. Swap half the terrain on the battlefield with the closest objects not on the battlefield.
5-remove every odd numbered page from your rulebook. Replace with(1-2 pages from rulebooks from other games systems, 3-4 pages from newspapers, 5-6 toilet paper). Apply all rules as now written.
6- Reroll on this table, but you must write the result in permanent marker on your rulebook. Effects remain in play till you buy a new rulebook.

LOL!

As a positive bonus the random rule randomization rule would generate a %16.6 percent rise in rulebook sales! Everyone's a winner (baby), more randomly random randomness simplified by the randomised randomisation rule, making the perfect randomiser for the game, and more profit at the same time!

AngryAngel
04-07-2014, 18:10
You know, I like where this random is going. I think I can finally be at peace, at last, knowing the world will be, forever random.

hobojebus
04-07-2014, 18:29
You know, I like where this random is going. I think I can finally be at peace, at last, knowing the world will be, forever random.

I say to you Kumquat.

Axel
04-07-2014, 19:12
I like where this random is going.

I diced off wether I like this or not. Once I have understand the results, I will tell you...

On another note, GW could now sell a "randomizing dice set" with d10, d12, d20 and d30 for a meagre price to support this rule. For Orks, there is a limited addition in green for double the price (with an added d4 for MANz)