PDA

View Full Version : The general idea of 8th is good but...



Gromdal
21-12-2010, 11:12
the implementation is terrible.

Years ago I voiced the idea quite loudly (even on this forum) that GW should fix the rampant issues with the game.

To name a few:

To slow paced.
To complex pointless rules.
Not enough death in combat and to much flight.

I told GW in order to get a greater customer base they should work on these issues.

As time passed they realised what I had been saying all along. And they created a new system to rectify some issues.

However they did it all wrong.

Some issues that they created:

Gamebreaking magic
Gamebreaking warmachines
Not balanced army books

The point of battlefield wargame such as warhammer should be to let the standard troopers decide the fate of the game. This has failed with the diffrent super spells and 1st round wins.

I hope GW learns from this and so that one day I can finally enjoy Warhammer.

Gatsby
21-12-2010, 11:25
I'm normally one of the first ones to damn GW for everything they do wrong (which is a lot) but you cant damn the army books (yet) as we don't even have one 8th ed book let alone 2 (and honestly you need 3 to compare) to see where the game is going.

logan054
21-12-2010, 11:33
The problem with the armybooks is that can't be less powerful than some of the newer books otherwise no one will buy them and moan about the power level of those books, I think we can expect to see more spells like the 13th spell in every book.

I sadly agree with the OP, the ideas behind 8th are really good and perhaps would have worked far better with less powerful lores and a complete reset of the books.

SteelTitan
21-12-2010, 11:36
You shouldnt worry just yet. Like someone said before me, give GW time to update the individual armybooks to the new core rules! It should work itself out (or at the very least solve some of the issues).

R Man
21-12-2010, 11:39
Gamebreaking magic

Outside of the Power Scroll and a handful of spells there is little wrong with the magic phase. It works well enough, and would benefit from only minor edits.


Gamebreaking warmachines

How are warmachines game breaking? Are we talking about S3 Stone Throwers? Or cannons which are not much worse than they were before?


Not balanced army books

I'm not surprised considering they are all 6th and 7th edition books.

Its not time to panic just yet.

yabbadabba
21-12-2010, 11:46
Gamebreaking Magic - no, I have to disagree. Also, how many people are following the "break concentration" rule? That has cut down on my magic substantially at points

Gamebreaking War Machines - again, no and I am an Empire player! What is your evidence for this?

Unbalanced Army books - enough people have pointed out the error here


The point of battlefield wargame such as warhammer should be to let the standard troopers decide the fate of the game. This has failed with the diffrent super spells and 1st round wins. Both of those comments are unsubstantiated. and certainly in the latter's case wrong.

I think Gromdal is just getting his thread count up. C'mon fella, give us the reasons and facts behind this, not just pie in the sky comments!

Sand
21-12-2010, 12:09
I told GW in order to get a greater customer base they should work on these issues.
Did you really tell them, though?

Anyway, the implementation is far, far from "terrible". 8th is, overall, a much better game than 7th and while there are aspects that I am not enamored with it's very much on the level of "this needs a few tweaks", not "this is broken beyond repair". Most of the needed tweaks are easily implemented by ourselves as players, which is very much a plus as game flaws go.

Odin
21-12-2010, 12:37
8th edition has its flaws, but not the ones raised by the OP.

logan054
21-12-2010, 12:53
Outside of the Power Scroll and a handful of spells there is little wrong with the magic phase. It works well enough, and would benefit from only minor edits.

I agree with this, i think the problem of people have is simply those game breaking spells, while few in number they do appear for some people all the time. I would also imagine those people complaining about the spells are using them. I only use the game breaking spells in 8th if you use them against me, gotta love 3rd eye :D


How are warmachines game breaking? Are we talking about S3 Stone Throwers? Or cannons which are not much worse than they were before?

My first thought on no partials was "how broken", after buying a hellcannon and using it I think if you still rolled for partials it wouldn't be worth using consider how often it actually hits. The only warmachines that annoy me are cannons (due to the new LoS rules) and Stanks. I think if GW removed the cannons ability to snipe characters a lot of people would have far less complains about warmachines.


I'm not surprised considering they are all 6th and 7th edition books.

Well I don't think I can remember a edition that has had balanced armybooks/codexs, i do think at times the designers get a bit carried away with the cool factor and don't always think of how certain things can be abused. I still think however considering all the changes another ravening horde style armylist would have been better, I do however understand why they may have not done this, I think it would have created just as many complaints as what we have now.

I do however think that some of erratas could have been handled far better than they have which could have avoided certain issues coming up, a prim example is the Book of Hoeth and Stank, why of why did they ignore that silly book and why did they make a Stank T10 :(


Gamebreaking Magic - no, I have to disagree. Also, how many people are following the "break concentration" rule? That has cut down on my magic substantially at points

I am glad you pointed that out actually, I hadn't read the rule properly so I first read that i just thought you had been trying to one dice spells or something, that actually makes a massive difference to the magic phase :D

Fredox
21-12-2010, 14:02
Game breaking magic is situation if your playing the game correctly. If you ask my recent opponents Waaagh is broken and how old is that spell. See what happens when you march your whole army to 1" away from a shooty army and waaagh into them so they don't get to stand and shoot and you then strike first with rerolls. Balanced army books would be a miricale unless they were all written at the same time or faq's changed points/stats. There will always be things you struggle against even with balanced army lists. Anyway roll on the new book.

Pulstar
21-12-2010, 14:10
"The general idea of 8th is good but..."

we really need to wait to get a new set of army books to see how good the edition is.

They should have done a second set of "Ravaging Hoard" army lists with this edition.

The RH list for the armies with the newer books that still work fairly well, could have been as simple as "See Army Book w/ FAQ applied".

DaemonReign
21-12-2010, 15:01
Gamebreaking magic
Gamebreaking warmachines
Not balanced army books


Magic - There surely are some nasty spells. The magic phase, in general, has been seriously confined - probably as a direct measure to counter the "new nature" of the nuke-spells.

Warmachines - Sure, indirect Fire is a but much.. But I don't think they're a problem at all.

Balance of Army Books - Never was as great a "problem" as some people would have it. Even less of a problem with 8th Ed. Surely, Wood Elves and TK (closely followed by VC) are weaker than others - but over-all the spectrum of theorethical "power" has been squeezed together alot with 8th Ed.

Of course, I think it all depends largely on the perspective one has. My perspective is from playing (on average) 3-4k games. I can see how your opinions about 8th ed makes more sense in smaller game-sizes.

I fully accept that GW wants to make money. The whole spirit of 8th Ed is basically "buy more toys, please" and that should also lead to larger games being played - larger games, where the mechanics work alot better compared to the smaller games.

That's why MY only big beef with 8th Ed, still, is the finite nature of power dice generation. GW - in my mind - made an edition that works increasingly better the bigger the game size is, and then they had to make a threesixty on the magic phase because "someone" wanted to revamp the basic Lores (or, more likely, because whiners from 7th Ed actually finally got to them).

So my verdict is this: Aside from the cap on power-dice (and the way it's completely cut loose from your points spent on magic) 8th Ed is simply an improvement in every way compared to seventh. There are DETAILS where I would have put some deeper thought into it all if I was a developer (steadfast-resolution, gifts and stomp, bla bla bla) but over-all both my thumbs are up.

madden
21-12-2010, 15:50
Agreed the larger the better we house rule that for every 1k over 2 we add an extra dice to the roll your turn you get 3 dice total and they get 2 dd total keeps the balance but stops the excesses to a degree.

DaemonReign
21-12-2010, 16:46
Agreed the larger the better we house rule that for every 1k over 2 we add an extra dice to the roll your turn you get 3 dice total and they get 2 dd total keeps the balance but stops the excesses to a degree.

Yeah anything goes. A little houserule like the one you describe is basically all you need for 8th Ed to be just simply Better compared to all previous Eds.

sorberec
21-12-2010, 18:44
How are warmachines game breaking? Are we talking about S3 Stone Throwers? Or cannons which are not much worse than they were before?

I take it you've not yet faced an Engineer, double mortar, double hellstorm list yet then. Prior to 8th I'd never faced a Hellstorm so just how nasty they are came as a shock.

sorberec
21-12-2010, 18:50
I do however think that some of erratas could have been handled far better than they have which could have avoided certain issues coming up, a prim example is the Book of Hoeth and Stank, why of why did they ignore that silly book and why did they make a Stank T10 :(


That silly book that takes up all your character's magic items allowance, meaning no ward save for your expensive wizard, and still requires you to meet the casting value of any spells cast with it as well as rolling a double in order to achieve IF?

Lord of Divine Slaughter
21-12-2010, 18:52
Not balanced army books

Well, there aren't any 8th ed. army books yet, so thats a rather moot point. Perhaps they'll decide to go for perfect balance this time :)

All your other gripes are quite subjective, and they can easily just be attributed to your local gaming environment - or if you are a tournament person, but then you asked for it ;)

So stop whining, and instead shape the game to suit your tastes. The point of the game after all is to have an excuse to showcase your painting skills and cool models :)

Tae
21-12-2010, 19:09
Gamebreaking Magic - no, I have to disagree. Also, how many people are following the "break concentration" rule? That has cut down on my magic substantially at points

Good question. Another one to ask is how many people are including their choice of lore when writing their army lists?

Purple Sun is all well and good until you run up against an Elf army!

Far too many stories about people rocking up to play a game with their Dwarf/Lizardman army only to find the opposing force conveniently having Death on their wizard (which is, Purple Sun aside, a mediocre lore at best).

yabbadabba
21-12-2010, 19:20
...and why did they make a Stank T10 :(.... Because anything can wound it now? I ignore Steam Tanks, the rest of an Empire army is can be ridiculously easy to squash, I should know
:(

Gorbad Ironclaw
21-12-2010, 19:20
The point of battlefield wargame such as warhammer should be to let the standard troopers decide the fate of the game.

It should? I had no idea there was such a limited success criteria for how the game could be fun. And surely that's the whole point, to have a game you can play and have fun?

The average grunt should certainly have his role in the game, but to claim that the point of the game is to make the average grunt (or anything else) all powerful and deciding is missing the point I think. Wouldn't we be much better of with a system where several different approaches was viable so people could play the game the way they wanted and found fun and entertaining?

theorox
21-12-2010, 19:30
This thread has the most positive comments of any "I don't like 8th" thread yet. Way to go guys, am i on the wrong site? :D

Theo

BigbyWolf
21-12-2010, 19:32
This thread has the most positive comments of any "I don't like 8th" thread yet. Way to go guys, am i on the wrong site? :D

Theo

Probably because the opening post is very bizarre, and most of us have already got our angst out on the 27 other threads started this week on similar subjects. ;)

Ironmonger
21-12-2010, 19:43
Probably because the opening post is very bizarre, and most of us have already got our angst out on the 27 other threads started this week on similar subjects. ;)

QFT, with the caveat that I always liked 8th.:)

Glen_Savet
21-12-2010, 19:43
I'm confused as to why so many people say there are no 8th edition books yet. Wasn't the Beastmen book designed with 8th edition in mind? Surely that one should qualify as the first 8th ed book.

BigbyWolf
21-12-2010, 19:53
Technically, yes. Think of it as more as a 7.5 though, as although rules and playstyle are better in 8th, the book itself refers to 7th edition rules/ limits, etc.

sorberec
21-12-2010, 20:02
I'm confused as to why so many people say there are no 8th edition books yet. Wasn't the Beastmen book designed with 8th edition in mind? Surely that one should qualify as the first 8th ed book.

Given that the Skaven book was released at the end of 2009 (can't remember if it was November or December) you'd expect that that would have been designed with half a mind towards the changes being made in 8th.

Emissary
21-12-2010, 20:14
Considering the no partials and giant rats rules in the new skaven book, I'd say it was.

logan054
21-12-2010, 22:47
That silly book that takes up all your character's magic items allowance, meaning no ward save for your expensive wizard, and still requires you to meet the casting value of any spells cast with it as well as rolling a double in order to achieve IF?

I really don't think you want me to get started on the Book of Hoeth, all be honest here, it isn't that hard to meet a casting value with +4 and if you roll sensibly. While it is true that character does not have a wardsave they do get a LoS roll and are you really going to be getting to be getting your sorcerer in combat if you can afford it.


Because anything can wound it now? I ignore Steam Tanks, the rest of an Empire army is can be ridiculously easy to squash, I should know
:(

It was only T6 before, it's not like you had a whole lot of options that couldn't wound it before, it was immune to strength 2 hits, in all my armies I really can't think of that many things couldn't wound it before, I mean really, does it really need T10, wouldn't T7 be enough!

yabbadabba
21-12-2010, 23:16
It was only T6 before, it's not like you had a whole lot of options that couldn't wound it before, it was immune to strength 2 hits, in all my armies I really can't think of that many things couldn't wound it before, I mean really, does it really need T10, wouldn't T7 be enough!Obviously not. In the end its a threat that can be easily countered or ignored. I think I have taken a steam tank only a handful of times.

Lyynark
21-12-2010, 23:48
Yes, it needs T10 since it's complete and utter crap once it has taken a wound or two. In 7th I wouldn't even dream of taking a stank since a measly bolt thrower could reliably render it useless in one turn.

logan054
22-12-2010, 00:20
How did you ever survive through 7th with it then!

artisturn
22-12-2010, 03:03
Steam Tank was pretty intimidating at first until I started using Spirit Hosts to tarpit them.

I am happy with 8th and what ever gripes I have are very minor and can be easily fixed with some house rules.

Geep
22-12-2010, 04:04
I think 8th ed is ok, but I would have far preferred them to just fix 7th ed. As it is they shoe horned in ideas from LotR and 40k and I just don't see why- it's just exchanged one can of worms for another.

I've also come across something which may be a rather large rules flaw- hopefully I'm overlooking something, but I've tried to explain it HERE (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=287237). If I have just missed something please point it out politely ;)

ftayl5
22-12-2010, 06:35
I'm enjoying 8th far more than I did 7th to be honest. I think the 'game-breaking' shooting is referring to the fact that cannons and stone throwers will hit unless the dice mess up. Whereas before, the skill of guessing ranges was required.

Scythe
22-12-2010, 08:46
I take it you've not yet faced an Engineer, double mortar, double hellstorm list yet then. Prior to 8th I'd never faced a Hellstorm so just how nasty they are came as a shock.

Did you notice how all those war machines have rules defined in a specific army book, which hasn't been updated for 8th edition? Did you also notice that generic war machines, like the stone thrower, went down in strength in the main rulebook?

It's an army book issue, not an issue of the new edition. Same with trebuchets, hellcannons, augmented dwarf stone throwers, etc.

Lyynark
22-12-2010, 11:32
How did you ever survive through 7th with it then!

I'm not quite sure what to make of that? Are you asking how I survived WITHOUT it?

logan054
22-12-2010, 11:50
No No, I am asking you how you got by with T6 in 7th ed when T10 is apparently needed.

yabbadabba
22-12-2010, 12:15
No No, I am asking you how you got by with T6 in 7th ed when T10 is apparently needed.
Step up attacks in combat.
More accurate war machines.
More powerful spells.
Anything being able to wound it.

Plus lets not rule out that for those who are easily distracted it represents an opportunity for a sales boost.

Gromdal
22-12-2010, 12:19
The largest problem with the fanbase of warhammer is that it settles with way to little improvement and forgive way to many problems.

The system is fine, just dont take xx with yy and dont use xx army against yy. Yeah sure a spell can instant win a game but its jst 33% chance so its okay.... (the issue isnt 33% or 15% the issue is the mechanic itself that leads to a less fun game).

So many fail to see the enormous potential warhammer has. Imagine that the rules and gaming would one day match the color and imagination of the fluff.
Warhammer would grow at insane rates.

To many people cant see the possibilty of what could be so theyalways settle with and defend what is.

Brownesyndrome
22-12-2010, 12:30
I think that there was always going to be the haters, but everything needs to change eventually otherwise it gets boring. I like it!

BigbyWolf
22-12-2010, 12:50
The largest problem with the fanbase of warhammer is that it settles with way to little improvement and forgive way to many problems.

The same can be said for a lot of things...film adaptations, sport, politics. Surely if the majority of the people that support the hobby are happy with the changes, then the company is doing its job. If GW do all the changes you want, and someone else isn't happy, should they update it again to fit in with their needs?

People have hit the nail on the head in this and other threads. If you don't like it, and your suggestions have the support of your gaming group, then introduce house-rules.

yabbadabba
22-12-2010, 12:58
Gromdal's just being a grumpy old dwarf ;)

Btw whats that instant win spell? I could do with it at the moment lol!

logan054
22-12-2010, 13:43
Step up attacks in combat.
More accurate war machines.

Cannons are no more accurate than they used to be, how many times did you actually miss with a cannon in 7th


More powerful spells.

How many of these spells actually have the strength to wound a Stanks on anything better than a 5+, also you have the broken concentration rule now


Anything being able to wound it.

It was only immune to strength 2 and 1 and it has a 1+ save, like I said before how many models in the game was it even immune to before?


Plus lets not rule out that for those who are easily distracted it represents an opportunity for a sales boost.

Now that one I can believe :p I do thinks its a bit annoying, I mean my shaggoth is going to suffer far more the changes you mentioned simply because its lower wounds,lower toughness, striking in I order and higher point cost. Sadly this did not get a boost, nor did the giant or any other large creature so really if the Stank got a boost surely these creatures should all have a Toughness boost?

I would be happy for just +1T on things like shaggoths, they actually needed it before we changed to 8th.

yabbadabba
22-12-2010, 14:03
Cannons are no more accurate than they used to be, how many times did you actually miss with a cannon in 7th See this is where I think you are having an issue. While for a war machine Vet accuracy or lack of it is neither here nor there as we will inevitably get roughly on the ball, for gamers as a whole, war machines became a lot more accurate, as you have removed 1 out of 3 variables to their effectiveness. In shooting lets also add the increase in the volume of potential shooting now allowed. As for spells, the Steam Tank is no longer immune to magic, so the Lore of Metal just became especially dangerous. Etc, etc, etc. Steam Tanks win games against unaware to inexperienced players. For every other occassion it is at best a points denier.

Lets face facts, the Steam Tank just became harder work to kill for some models that, arguably, it should have been hard work for in the beginning. But it hasn't become some undeniable, inexorable machine of death. It still has its same old weaknesses, and has grown a few more.

jthdotcom
22-12-2010, 14:09
The point of the game after all is to have an excuse to showcase your painting skills and cool models :)

Not for everyone...I can't paint, and I hate painting. I love playing the game, wether with painted models or bare plastic armies, the point of the game is to have fun playing it 1st and foremost, if it was just a showcase for painting skill, no rules would be needed, just a shelf to display them on

logan054
22-12-2010, 14:41
See this is where I think you are having an issue. While for a war machine Vet accuracy or lack of it is neither here nor there as we will inevitably get roughly on the ball, for gamers as a whole, war machines became a lot more accurate/quote]

With template weapons perhaps but how many template weapons can actually hurt a Stank anyways? How long does it take to learn basic maths anyways, I mean if your 6" back and you deploy 24" away and someone moved 6" you know they are 24" away, take away bounce, say 6" and you should always hits Stank.

Its not complicated, its something we all learnt at school

[quote]Lets face facts, the Steam Tank just became harder work to kill for some models that, arguably, it should have been hard work for in the beginning. But it hasn't become some undeniable, inexorable machine of death. It still has its same old weaknesses, and has grown a few more.

Arguably a lot of things should be a lot harder to kill, i guess it comes down to balance and I think we need to be honest here, if all FAQ's had been handled like this then we wouldn't be complaining. The problem we have things like this, SoA and then we have things like Daemonic mounts in the WoC which now suddenly are not worth taking. Its just a complete double standard, 8th ed is a good idea but due to lack of consistency and proper thinking about how certain things interact its falls on its face in certain areas.

Tregar
22-12-2010, 15:34
Just to butt in on the Steam Tank discussion, let's get some cold hard facts here:
-Cannons may be slightly easier to hit with now (Maybe from 2/3 of the time to 3/4), but the key is that they now wound on 4+ rather than 2+. Overall, they are far harder to kill now. Compare a bolt thrower as well, which is at -1 to hit and -2 to wound compared to 7th edition. Stone throwers only wound on 5+ rather than 2+.
Conclusion: Steam Tank is MUCH harder to kill with warmachines.
-Magic can affect the Steam Tank, but that mostly benefits it, except for against a trio of initiative spells (Purple Sun, Pit of Shades and Crack's Call). Don't say "Ahh but the Lore of Metal can still affect it!!!!" as if that matters a damn, it still hurt it in 7th edition. Spirit of the Forge was THE Steam Tank killer of 7th edition.

The Steam Tank has far fewer weaknesses than before, and has grown even more powerful. Even its own cannon has gone up in power. The only "Well, I guess that's no bad" aspect, is that no-one gets half-points for anything any more, so no more whining about doing 9 wounds to it and getting no points!

yabbadabba
22-12-2010, 15:35
Its not complicated, its something we all learnt at school That is outstandingly condescending.

Having taught kids how to play (remember, GW's core demographic?), estimating distances is something they have the one of the big struggles with. It is someting that comes with experience, pratice and time and having the nous to pre-measure the table to make sure it is the same size you are used to. Kids just want to play. If it is something that is easily learnt, as you imply, then there is no need to have it in the game, is there? GW is not a dedicated educational tool after all.

In actual terms, estimating the distance was less of a variable, if at all, than say the imprecise science of regulating the effective of the propellant with canons. There were plenty of methods of negating the need to "guess" ranges.

Removing the guess range makes war machines more accurate, makes makes it more of an even playing field for people of any age. There are consequences to this - characters cannot stay out of units and within TLOS of war machines, and some things become less effective for the points you are paying. For instance, for all their accuracy, war machines are now more vulnerable.

Tregar
22-12-2010, 15:37
Okay, now you just have to acknowledge that the increased accuracy is entirely compensated (and more) that the chances of a cannonball wounding the tank dropped from 83% to 50% ;)

Also the "ANYTHING can wound a Steam Tank now!" repetition really needs to die. How much in the game has S2 or less? Or have the Gnoblar Hordes been devestating Steam Tank battallions across the Empire since the advent of 8th edition? The only thing in the game I can think of that really cares is the Bloodcurdling Roar (2D6 S1 no armour), and even then that's 1 wound a turn (if you're lucky). Also people need to stop parroting that it becomes useless as soon as it takes a wound or two- it really doesn't.

It's no HPA, at least ;)

Caitsidhe
22-12-2010, 15:51
That is outstandingly condescending.

Yes. I agree with you. You must remember, of course, that Logan054 is one of those guys who decries the "cheese" of all factions he doesn't play and talks about how his stuff needs more. This is a guy whose logic tells him any person who plays a gun line is being cheesy while push button WoC armies require tactical genius to play. All in all, you just have to consider the source.

In regards to the Steam Tank (you will notice I don't give it any cute names)... it was a pain for me to deal with in 7th. It is about the same level of pain for me to deal with in 8th. Toughness-6 or Toughness-10... it is all the same to me. In 7th I could run a Treeman up to it and wound it in a reliable way (assuming it failed its armor save) but even that wasn't really the best way to tackle it. Nothing has changed. You handle the Steam Tank by avoiding it or bogging it down with something you don't care much about or it can't hurt.

What is the matter? What do we need this new thread for? Seriously... how many different whine threads do we need? Can we just create ONE big one for people to go vent in? There really isn't any difference between them. They all end up sounding the same.

logan054
22-12-2010, 16:56
That is outstandingly condescending.

Having taught kids how to play (remember, GW's core demographic?

Yes we know the age range that GW aims at however what does this really have to do with me? I don't play games with kids, if I am working I tolerate them and everything but in my spare time I am not going to be hanging out with them or anything. Kids just don't fit into my Beer and Warhammer approach, its hardly as if I want some 17 year old coming round my house for a few beers and game. Thats not even to say I hate people under a certain age, you certainly meet some good kids but i am 28 years old, hell I find some 21year olds annoying.

On a side note does removing guess ranges really mean some guy who has a couple of games is going to be winning games against people playing for several reason other than luck? I know when I started playing 40k in 2nd ed the rules used to be much more complicated than anything we have now, its hardly as if I failed the grasp the concepts of the game then. Maybe we just underestimate the intelligence of kids these days and perhaps we should be looking at ways to challenge them rather fall trap to this nanny society.


Yes. I agree with you. You must remember, of course, that Logan054 is one of those guys who decries the "cheese"

No I just wish all FAQ's had been equally, I don't believe I used the word cheese or broken, more daft change



Also the "ANYTHING can wound a Steam Tank now!" repetition really needs to die. How much in the game has S2 or less? Or have the Gnoblar Hordes been devestating Steam Tank battallions across the Empire since the advent of 8th edition? The only thing in the game I can think of that really cares is the Bloodcurdling Roar (2D6 S1 no armour), and even then that's 1 wound a turn (if you're lucky). Also people need to stop parroting that it becomes useless as soon as it takes a wound or two- it really doesn't.

It's no HPA, at least ;)

No one has said it is a HPA? you are right, anything can wound it, and we already said anything can wound, but how much of a difference does it make when pretty much anything could wound it before? the difference is more noticed against anything S5 or above, anyways just seems odd to me that this is the only big thing that they decided need a buff in the toughness department, any argument for increasing its toughness for free could equal be used for a treeman.

Urgat
22-12-2010, 17:17
Gromdal's just being a grumpy old dwarf ;)

Btw whats that instant win spell? I could do with it at the moment lol!

"smash table!"

Caitsidhe
22-12-2010, 17:17
In regards to the elimination of "guessing" from warmachines...

It was unfair to have it in the first place. I was very good at the math involved and could use stone throwers (I used to play Tomb Kings prior to my switch to Wood Elves) with pinpoint accuracy. I still remember the look on one opponent's face when I killed both his Hydra on my first turn with my Screaming Skull Catapults. My point is why should I pay a set price for my Screaming Skull Catapult and my opponent pay the same but his are vastly inferior? Why are HIS warmachine crew that much worse than mine? It was an unfair advantage.

The whole issue of age is irrelevant in my opinion. It has to do with fairness. If I pay the same price as someone for a unit, my unit should function just as well as his in accuracy. The only variable that he and I should bring to the game is how we choose to employ the item. Guess weapons brought a disparity into the game which I did profit from, but I'm glad it is gone.

Sand
22-12-2010, 17:22
The largest problem with the fanbase of warhammer is that it settles with way to little improvement and forgive way to many problems.

The system is fine, just dont take xx with yy and dont use xx army against yy. Yeah sure a spell can instant win a game but its jst 33% chance so its okay.... (the issue isnt 33% or 15% the issue is the mechanic itself that leads to a less fun game).

So many fail to see the enormous potential warhammer has. Imagine that the rules and gaming would one day match the color and imagination of the fluff.
Warhammer would grow at insane rates.

To many people cant see the possibilty of what could be so theyalways settle with and defend what is.This is pretty hard to take seriously. Your argument so far pretty much seems to be that 8th is "terrible" and that people who like it are just blind fanbois. It's not really an argument with much substance, honestly.


Okay, now you just have to acknowledge that the increased accuracy is entirely compensated (and more) that the chances of a cannonball wounding the tank dropped from 83% to 50% ;)

Also the "ANYTHING can wound a Steam Tank now!" repetition really needs to die. How much in the game has S2 or less? Or have the Gnoblar Hordes been devestating Steam Tank battallions across the Empire since the advent of 8th edition? The only thing in the game I can think of that really cares is the Bloodcurdling Roar (2D6 S1 no armour), and even then that's 1 wound a turn (if you're lucky). Also people need to stop parroting that it becomes useless as soon as it takes a wound or two- it really doesn't.

It's no HPA, at least ;)I think the Steam Tank has actually become far less intimidating in 8th. Stepping up and more attacks in general actually means something in this regard, magic being able to affect it isn't negligible either.

Then there's the other side of the coin; the Steam Tank has become a lot less effective, plain and simple. It doesn't break units anymore, due to Steadfast and while it is still good at points denial, so is everything now (to my mind, this was one of the things that made the Steam Tank a bit ott in 7th. It was pretty much 300 VP you were guaranteed not to get -now every big unit is like that).

As far as the Steam Tank goes, if I was an Empire player I'd much rather have its toughness reduced and play it by 7th ed. rules. Which I guess is my main point; you can't consider the Tank and it's T10 in a vacuum (something I find that most people who complain about it essentially do).


anyways just seems odd to me that this is the only big thing that they decided need a buff in the toughness department, any argument for increasing its toughness for free could equal be used for a treeman.I really, really don't think so.
A Treeman has not suddenly become vulnerable to a lot of spells that it was previously immune to, nor is a Treeman (or other monsters) dependent upon having it's full amount of wounds to operate.
Add to that that a Treeman -and any similar models- actually has gained a significant boost (in the form of "Thunderstomp") and I think it should become clear why the Steam Tank got a T boost.

It's not really fair to say that it's the only thing that has got a boost -it's just a lot more noticeable since it's explicitly spelled out in the FAQ.


The whole issue of age is irrelevant in my opinion. It has to do with fairness. If I pay the same price as someone for a unit, my unit should function just as well as his in accuracy. The only variable that he and I should bring to the game is how we choose to employ the item. Guess weapons brought a disparity into the game which I did profit from, but I'm glad it is gone.Well put :) -and also one of the great benefits of 8th ed. to my mind.

Tregar
22-12-2010, 17:46
No one has said it is a HPA? you are right, anything can wound it, and we already said anything can wound, but how much of a difference does it make when pretty much anything could wound it before? the difference is more noticed against anything S5 or above, anyways just seems odd to me that this is the only big thing that they decided need a buff in the toughness department, any argument for increasing its toughness for free could equal be used for a treeman.

Fella, I'm staunchly agreeing with you here ;) I was just saying that while Steam Tank is OTT after the rather needless errata, it could be worse, like the HPA. Not that that means anything! :D

logan054
22-12-2010, 18:39
I really, really don't think so.
A Treeman has not suddenly become vulnerable to a lot of spells that it was previously immune to, nor is a Treeman (or other monsters) dependent upon having it's full amount of wounds to operate.

Why even change it? did it really need changing? why change and leave so many other things as they are which clearly should have been changed with 8th ed in mind.

Caitsidhe
22-12-2010, 19:17
Why even change it? did it really need changing? why change and leave so many other things as they are which clearly should have been changed with 8th ed in mind.

Heh. Because it is their game and they can do what they want with it? Perhaps as the creators they feel they know better than you what "clearly" needs to be changed, particularly since only THEY know what they had in mind for 8th Edition. While I share your enthusiasm for a balanced game, I have come to accept that Games Workshop doesn't really sweat that much. There isn't much point in bemoaning it. The only thing they listen to is sales figures, up or down.

Every time I listen to someone go on a rant about Games Workshop I think of the movie Labyrinth:

Hoggle: Them's my rightful property. It's not fair.
Sarah: No, it isn't. But that's the way it is.

logan054
22-12-2010, 19:38
Heh. Because it is their game and they can do what they want with it? Perhaps as the creators they feel they know better than you what "clearly" needs to be changed

To be honest I think yabbadabba had it right "we ant sold enough Stanks", If they took that approach with my Shaggoth, he might not look as dusty :(

Lord Inquisitor
22-12-2010, 20:16
Hoggle: Them's my rightful property. It's not fair.
Sarah: No, it isn't. But that's the way it is.

This isn't very helpful in a discussion. Obviously this is the way it is. But there had to be a why, GW has been very leery of changing their army books in the past, what was it that meant they had to change the Steam Tank so drastically?

We can look at the possibilities:

1) Steam Tanks would otherwise be unworkable with the current rules.
Um, I don't see why any change was necessary. They were already taken in Empire armies, a large immune-to-spells T6 1+ armour monster still looks good under 8th ed rules and there were no rules conflicts. Indeed, what's really strange is that it wasn't given a random charge distance mechanic to make it fit into 8th as it's one of the only units that has a set charge range.

2) They did it to match other War Machines
Well, indeed, many other unique units like the Cauldron of Blood got changed to T10 (as the rules for shooting at it changed, so it would be invulnerable to all shooting if left as was). But... the Steam Tank didn't have the same rules issue that the Cauldron did?

3) They did it to sell more Steam Tanks.
Uh, this doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It was already a good unit and most Empire players had at least one if not two, and as noted above, I don't see any reason why they wouldn't be taken if T6 and immune to magic. Besides, if most existing Empire players already have them, why not concentrate on selling them stuff like infantry, which they don't have? And if you're going to errata just to sell models, why not errata some of the other units that just got obliterated by the 8th ed rules?

4) It was always meant to be this way.
An errata several years later seems odd. Especially from a company that has a history of leaving mistakes in and minimal errata unless necessary. It's also listed as an "ammendment" rather than "errata."

5) Because 6's always wound.
Were S2 attacks really that dangerous to Steam Tanks?

Overall, it remains one of the most puzzling things that they have done via errata. It has been pointed out that it does make more sense now, at least a bit - the Steam Tank is now largely immune to most weapon fire bar the heaviest cannons, but a magical hole in the ground will swallow it up. Makes more sense than vulnerable to cannonfire but immune to large holes in the ground. That said, what it really needs is more vulnerability in combat or ability for enemies to leave combat (or for it to leave combat). Yeah, that armour is very thick and may stop cannonballs so my greater daemon may indeed have trouble breaching it. So can I rip the wheels off instead and wander off please?

VoodooJanus
22-12-2010, 20:46
Malorian brings up a good point. In fact, one of the latest skills developed in children is conservation. While this may not seem to directly relate, it is actually quite relevant. When a person has difficulty determining (generally portrayed as) volumes, they will similarly have difficulty determining distances that are on an angle vs. those found on a straight line. Of course, this is usually fully developed by the time someone is 8 or 9, so it shouldn't really be a problem, but it still shows that some consideration must be shown for the younger folks whose advanced parietal lobe functions aren't as well practiced. Or those of us without knowledge of the pythagorean theorem (although I doubt that anyone actually used this to calculate distance, it is a useful conceptual tool.)

Here are the good things about 8th IMO:
1. Puts an emphasis on infantry and core, changing the visual aesthetic of the game for the better. (It wasn't so fun when you were up against a handful of models...) This is also true of the new rank fighting bonuses. More blood is always more fun :evilgrin:.

2. Implements a good force organization system that's based on points rather than slots.

3. Makes outright slaughters less prevalent due to the increased randomness and the increased pace of the game.

4. (the biggest bonus, IMO) (re)introduction of scenarios. Creates more varied gameplay and forces players to take more balanced lists in pick-up games.

Now onto the rest.

I am, truthfully, slightly bitter about 8th. I personally am in the 'should have slightly tweaked 7th rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater' camp. I am bitter, however, for entirely different reasons than those outlined by the OP. What I've noticed is that the issue with magic is usually rooted in the army that is utilizing it, rather than the lore itself. Lizardmen, for instance, have a ridiculous magic phase should they decide to take LoL. The same goes for certain High Elf lists (Teclis + to a lesser extent BoH.) However, you rarely hear about how Bretonnia's access to the Lore of Life is breaking the game. Or that Wood Elves' magic list is just TOO powerful. In fact, most of the problems with the edition on the whole are generally caused by old armies that weren't written with 8th's design philosophy in mind. That being said, the whole shebang would have been quite avoidable with a comprehensive errata to correct some of the more glaring imbalances, but I won't get into that here.

They did make some mistakes on the movement rules though. The decrease of importance in the movement phase, IMO, removes some of the feeling that I am responsible for my win rather than simply having an appropriate collection of models. In a perfect world, I would like the manner in which I used my models to be more important than the models I used. Of course, that's a very difficult feat to achieve and is really only truly realized in games like chess or go.

sorberec
22-12-2010, 21:29
Did you also notice that generic war machines, like the stone thrower, went down in strength in the main rulebook?

Did you notice how despite that they now kill more models?

R Man
22-12-2010, 22:22
Did you notice how despite that they now kill more models?

Ahhh! But which models?

Do they show an increase in killyness across the board? Or is it biased against certain units or unit types? The answer is yes. Heavy Troops and Cavalry are far more resistant to stone throwers than they were in the past and heavily armored infantry are much more resistant.

Astafas
22-12-2010, 22:49
Malorian brings up a good point. In fact, one of the latest skills developed in children is conservation. While this may not seem to directly relate, it is actually quite relevant. When a person has difficulty determining (generally portrayed as) volumes, they will similarly have difficulty determining distances that are on an angle vs. those found on a straight line. Of course, this is usually fully developed by the time someone is 8 or 9, so it shouldn't really be a problem, but it still shows that some consideration must be shown for the younger folks whose advanced parietal lobe functions aren't as well practiced. Or those of us without knowledge of the pythagorean theorem (although I doubt that anyone actually used this to calculate distance, it is a useful conceptual tool.)

Here are the good things about 8th IMO:
1. Puts an emphasis on infantry and core, changing the visual aesthetic of the game for the better. (It wasn't so fun when you were up against a handful of models...) This is also true of the new rank fighting bonuses. More blood is always more fun :evilgrin:.

2. Implements a good force organization system that's based on points rather than slots.

3. Makes outright slaughters less prevalent due to the increased randomness and the increased pace of the game.

4. (the biggest bonus, IMO) (re)introduction of scenarios. Creates more varied gameplay and forces players to take more balanced lists in pick-up games.

Now onto the rest.

I am, truthfully, slightly bitter about 8th. I personally am in the 'should have slightly tweaked 7th rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater' camp. I am bitter, however, for entirely different reasons than those outlined by the OP. What I've noticed is that the issue with magic is usually rooted in the army that is utilizing it, rather than the lore itself. Lizardmen, for instance, have a ridiculous magic phase should they decide to take LoL. The same goes for certain High Elf lists (Teclis + to a lesser extent BoH.) However, you rarely hear about how Bretonnia's access to the Lore of Life is breaking the game. Or that Wood Elves' magic list is just TOO powerful. In fact, most of the problems with the edition on the whole are generally caused by old armies that weren't written with 8th's design philosophy in mind. That being said, the whole shebang would have been quite avoidable with a comprehensive errata to correct some of the more glaring imbalances, but I won't get into that here.

They did make some mistakes on the movement rules though. The decrease of importance in the movement phase, IMO, removes some of the feeling that I am responsible for my win rather than simply having an appropriate collection of models. In a perfect world, I would like the manner in which I used my models to be more important than the models I used. Of course, that's a very difficult feat to achieve and is really only truly realized in games like chess or go.


Thats a VERY good post and I agree with a significant portion of it.

In particular I agree that Army books are the issue - and were the issue in 7th as well which is why I havent understood a lot of 8th bashing - and hopefully they will be changed. Or comp will be used to knock out special characters (in my mind a fairly normal drop) and cap max casting dice... then the game is really very good and a significant improvement.

Random charges are one of the best changes to the game - I can fairly reliably predict my little infantry will charge 11" (avg on 2d6 = 7, mv4) but cant guarantee it so need to take a gamble and be prepared for them not charging. Conversely I can predict most opponents infantry will also charge that distance but cant guarantee it... thats a massive improvement to the game from the old I guessed 1/4 inch better than you I WIN of 7th.

NB on the steam tank has anyone run the maths on how long a steam tank would have lasted in combat at T6 against most units now? The only reason I raise that is I put a block of GraveGuard w/ wight king into a steam tank supported by the flaming sword spell and they managed to put 2-3 wounds on it per combat phase... with T6 it wouldnt have lasted as it would have been 4-5 wounds per phase...

Autohitting not fighting in the opponents phase and no thunderstomp mean I wont bother taking the stank thanks.

Give me a pair of varhgulfs instead :angel:

Caitsidhe
22-12-2010, 22:59
[COLOR="Magenta"]This isn't very helpful in a discussion. Obviously this is the way it is. But there had to be a why, GW has been very leery of changing their army books in the past, what was it that meant they had to change the Steam Tank so drastically?

Actually, I think it is VERY helpful. Since you and I cannot change the fact that the Steam Tank has been altered, we profit more by simply accepting it and moving on. Knowing "why" is irrelevant. I doubt they will even tell us. If they try to justify themselves to us, it just opens up a long, messy can of worms wherein anyone and everyone that thinks they knows better can argue with them. It creates a precedent where it appears that they think they need our approval. They don't. What is helpful, is understanding what is within our power to change and what is not. The only thing in our power is ourselves and how we adapt our won tactics to the new Steam Tank.

In short, I would consider conversations about how to deal with the new Steam Tank a useful way to spend our time. We get something out of it, or at least there is the potential to get something out of it. The endless wondering why out loud (a passive aggressive complaint) or honest irritation and complaints do nothing whatsoever and profit no one.

logan054
23-12-2010, 01:12
Actually, I think it is VERY helpful.

At the end of the day while it is fruitless moaning about something GW does I would rather bitch about it online when I am not playing rather than the whole way through a game.

Caitsidhe
23-12-2010, 01:24
At the end of the day while it is fruitless moaning about something GW does I would rather bitch about it online when I am not playing rather than the whole way through a game.

I suppose this is fair enough. Just be aware that I don't come online to this forum to listen to you vent. If you were at a game with me and being a general bad sport about it, lamenting everything you didn't like and wasting my time, I would make fun of you and tell you what I think of such behavior. I will do the same here. You can complain and decry Games Workshop all you want; just don't be surprised if I do the same about you. At the end of the day, whining and mewling online is just as annoying as in person.

logan054
23-12-2010, 02:27
You could do that, or you could just not read the negative posts about 8th,and start all these productive topics you keep talking about ;)

Torga_DW
23-12-2010, 03:28
I think the problem some people are having with 8th is that they think it was supposed to be an improvement, a 'fix' if you will, to 7th. It wasn't. GW doesn't release new editions to fix game rules and make the perfect game. Every edition past, present and future will have good points and bad points that players like and don't like. This will not change for the forseeable future. There will never be an attempt to make the perfect ruleset, because where would they go from there?

Geep
23-12-2010, 03:47
The whole issue of age is irrelevant in my opinion. It has to do with fairness. If I pay the same price as someone for a unit, my unit should function just as well as his in accuracy. The only variable that he and I should bring to the game is how we choose to employ the item. Guess weapons brought a disparity into the game which I did profit from, but I'm glad it is gone.

I really strongly disagree with what I feel is being implied here (and in the rest of the post- I just didn't want to quote the entire thing). Essentially you seem to be arguing that the 'skill' of distance estimation gave you an unfair advantage. What about the 'skill' of tactical acumen? Or the 'skill' of rules knowledge and competence? Your same argument can be used to call these other things unfair when, clearly, they are what is required to play a competitive game.
I know this is not what you are meaning with your post, but merrily accepting a levelling/ skill lowering mechanic in this way seems to set a bad precedent IMO.

Edit: I should add I don't particularly care one way or another about the changes to guess weapons. It doesn't really change the accuracy of anyone I usually play against. I am against many other features of 8th edition which require little to no thought to implement well.

willowdark
23-12-2010, 04:19
The largest problem with the fanbase of warhammer is that it settles with way to little improvement and forgive way to many problems.

The system is fine, just dont take xx with yy and dont use xx army against yy. Yeah sure a spell can instant win a game but its jst 33% chance so its okay.... (the issue isnt 33% or 15% the issue is the mechanic itself that leads to a less fun game).

So many fail to see the enormous potential warhammer has. Imagine that the rules and gaming would one day match the color and imagination of the fluff.
Warhammer would grow at insane rates.

To many people cant see the possibilty of what could be so theyalways settle with and defend what is.

Or, we could be grateful for what it is, and understand that it wouldn't exist at all if not for the people who made it what it is.

It's a matter of entropy. Energy can never be converted from one form to another with 100% efficiency. Some amount of energy is always lost. As the energy that is that initial spark of inspiration is repeatedly channeled and processed through the many stages of production, it gets a little less perfect each step along the way. This can be trouble-shot, and is, but each solution is essentially just another step in the process, so there is always a lag that causes the final product to be just slightly inferior to the idea that inspired it.

You have to remember, GW is not one person like you are. It is a conglomeration of several people, all with there own ideas about how to make it good. It's a beast with many heads - one head says the magic phase needs toned down, while another says it must be spectacular so that people get exited about it. So, you get a good system peppered with game-breaking spells.

For my part, my initial shock has all but worn off. The only thing that genuinely still bothers me is the free LoS through woods.

R Man
23-12-2010, 05:57
I think the problem some people are having with 8th is that they think it was supposed to be an improvement, a 'fix' if you will, to 7th. It wasn't. GW doesn't release new editions to fix game rules and make the perfect game. Every edition past, present and future will have good points and bad points that players like and don't like. This will not change for the forseeable future. There will never be an attempt to make the perfect ruleset, because where would they go from there?

Well after making a perfect basic rules, and then releasing a set of perfect army books, they can then do the same for 40k.

Then after doing that they can release a Siege Set including all new terrain, all new units and some special scenario rules. Then they can do city fighting for 40k. Then they can do Fantasy Grand Battles including all new units for each army as well as scenarios and such. Then they can do 40k apocalypse. They can bulk out the rest of the time with model releases and that's the next 30 years covered.

Lord Inquisitor
23-12-2010, 06:36
Actually, I think it is VERY helpful. Since you and I cannot change the fact that the Steam Tank has been altered, we profit more by simply accepting it and moving on. Knowing "why" is irrelevant. I doubt they will even tell us. If they try to justify themselves to us, it just opens up a long, messy can of worms wherein anyone and everyone that thinks they knows better can argue with them. It creates a precedent where it appears that they think they need our approval. They don't. What is helpful, is understanding what is within our power to change and what is not. The only thing in our power is ourselves and how we adapt our won tactics to the new Steam Tank.

In short, I would consider conversations about how to deal with the new Steam Tank a useful way to spend our time. We get something out of it, or at least there is the potential to get something out of it. The endless wondering why out loud (a passive aggressive complaint) or honest irritation and complaints do nothing whatsoever and profit no one.
I was not complaining about the steam tank errata really. If it came across as a whine that wasn't the intent. I was discussing - in a thread about 8th Ed changes - the changes and their possible rationale. A discussion of anti steam tank tactics (which can be summarized as magic nuke it, tarpit it or rare magic item combo it) would be possibly more worthwhile, it would be suited in the tactics forum and not in a thread about the merits of 8th Ed changes.

I can fully understand that you do not wish to enter into discussion about the rationale or merits of 8th Ed rules, much of this either ends in flames or polarized arguments. I suggest you don't read threads about this then rather than getting upset about them or telling us what we should or shouldn't discuss.

I still am confused as to what the steam tank errata was FOR, why it was implemented given GW's longstanding reluctance to errata something when not absolutely needed. I would like to discuss this, maybe someone knows or can guess why. I do not wish to discuss tactics, steam tanks are with the new rules extremely extremely annoying - but I do not have trouble nor need advice dealing with them.

sorberec
23-12-2010, 06:46
Ahhh! But which models?

Do they show an increase in killyness across the board? Or is it biased against certain units or unit types? The answer is yes. Heavy Troops and Cavalry are far more resistant to stone throwers than they were in the past and heavily armored infantry are much more resistant.

For my armies it's across the board. Unfortunately I seem to have a set of dice that do roll entirely average over several games. I just seem to get all my crappy rolls against bloody Empire or Orcs & Goblins when they're pounding me with their template weapons.

I've now dropped my only high armour save unit, Dragon Princes, because they never survive a hit from a template weapon.

Scythe
23-12-2010, 07:29
Did you notice how despite that they now kill more models?

Nope, can't say I do, because they (basic stone throwers) do not. Things like Dwarf and Chaos Warriors now laugh off the S3 hits of a basic stone thrower, while they were in serious trouble previously.

sulla
23-12-2010, 07:44
I'm normally one of the first ones to damn GW for everything they do wrong (which is a lot) but you cant damn the army books (yet) as we don't even have one 8th ed book let alone 2 (and honestly you need 3 to compare) to see where the game is going.

Problem with that thinking is it will be one or more years before you see 3 8th edition army books released. It's not really reasonable to have to play a game system for that long without complaint when most of the problems could be eliminated by FAQing the things in the current books which are overpowered at present.



How are warmachines game breaking? Are we talking about S3 Stone Throwers? Or cannons which are not much worse than they were before?


I don't think anyone would say basic stonethrowers are OP. But I don't see many s3 stonethrowers. I do see lots of high strength stone throwers . When dwarves max out on strength runed throwers and WoC max out on hellcannons, it tends to indicate theres an imbalance between cost and benefit. I don't think GW did sufficient playtesting to realise the benefits of high strength in either the shooting or combat phases because I see the same trends in weapon selection for units too. It's not uncommon to see entire armies of dwarves or chaos warriors with great weapons (or halberds in the case of CW). I imagine if every army had the same options for the same points you would see great weapons for them too.

As for cannons, no they are only slightly better than in 7th edition, but they were too accurate then too. They should not be the laser guided cruise missiles GW envision them to be

RanaldLoec
23-12-2010, 07:50
I will be hung for this.

I like 8th edition I think Matt Ward did a great job.

I shall now await the arrival of the Warseer hit squad.

And yes I agree the issues with 8th ed could be solved with an faq which completely rewrites the skirmish rules and the woodelves book. Then I would be truely happy.

yabbadabba
23-12-2010, 08:03
I really strongly disagree with what I feel is being implied here (and in the rest of the post- I just didn't want to quote the entire thing). Essentially you seem to be arguing that the 'skill' of distance estimation gave you an unfair advantage. What about the 'skill' of tactical acumen? Or the 'skill' of rules knowledge and competence? Your same argument can be used to call these other things unfair when, clearly, they are what is required to play a competitive game. Not really. Even Allessio admits he knew the precise measurements of all his arm and fingers to aid with distance estimating at tournaments. Not much of a skill, eh? Why not just remove that issue?


I've now dropped my only high armour save unit, Dragon Princes, because they never survive a hit from a template weapon. Sadly my friend, you will come to accept this :cries:


Problem with that thinking is it will be one or more years before you see 3 8th edition army books released. It's not really reasonable to have to play a game system for that long without complaint when most of the problems could be eliminated by FAQing the things in the current books which are overpowered at present. FAQs have already been released mate. There are relatively few things that people are still having issues with eg. BoH, Teclis, Power Scroll and these can be dealt with by simple house rules, and I have no doubt most tournaments will start to comp soon if the haven't already.

edit: Of course the logical thing to do would be to request a sticky and get a Warseer FAQ going....... but this is Warseer after all :rolleyes:

Lyynark
23-12-2010, 08:46
No No, I am asking you how you got by with T6 in 7th ed when T10 is apparently needed.

As stated in my original post I never did bring it. This is not entirely true however. Every once in a while I would bring just for the lulz, but then I'd warn my opponent about it. But at the very most I took it once in every twenty battles. It was crap then and is crap now.

Jonny100
23-12-2010, 10:07
I will be hung for this.

I like 8th edition I think Matt Ward did a great job.

I shall now await the arrival of the Warseer hit squad.

And yes I agree the issues with 8th ed could be solved with an faq which completely rewrites the skirmish rules and the woodelves book. Then I would be truely happy.



I'm gonna agree with you here, as much flak as Ward gets (unjustified i think, but hey that's the Internet for you) I think he has done an amazing job with 8th, it's fun, simple and apart from a few little details an absolute joy to play.

logan054
23-12-2010, 11:22
As stated in my original post I never did bring it. This is not entirely true however. Every once in a while I would bring just for the lulz, but then I'd warn my opponent about it. But at the very most I took it once in every twenty battles. It was crap then and is crap now.

It was more a general statement, I certainly wouldn't call it crap however, a great points denial unit.

Caitsidhe
23-12-2010, 12:40
[COLOR="Magenta"]I was not complaining about the steam tank errata really. If it came across as a whine that wasn't the intent. I was discussing - in a thread about 8th Ed changes - the changes and their possible rationale. A discussion of anti steam tank tactics (which can be summarized as magic nuke it, tarpit it or rare magic item combo it) would be possibly more worthwhile, it would be suited in the tactics forum and not in a thread about the merits of 8th Ed changes.

In fairness, your comments came across as far less of whine than some. I can tell you really want to know "why" rather than just rant. Sadly, we will never know why. They aren't going to tell us for a variety of reasons (and good ones from their business model standpoint). I'm all for talking about the changes in 8th Edition, but most people aren't really talking about the changes. They are simply venting. This is talking about one's self, not 8th Edition.


I can fully understand that you do not wish to enter into discussion about the rationale or merits of 8th Ed rules, much of this either ends in flames or polarized arguments. I suggest you don't read threads about this then rather than getting upset about them or telling us what we should or shouldn't discuss.

I'm not upset. What gave you that idea? I'm also not telling you what you can and can't talk about. I'm simply saying that I consider certain behaviors annoying and rude (and bad sportsmanship) in person, and that being on the internet doesn't make them any less so. I agree with your right to talk about whatever you want, I just feel it is my duty (if I disagree with it) to say exactly what I think about it. If you want to start a CLEAR thread called: "VENT POST: WHAT I HATE ABOUT 8TH EDITION" or something else clearly designed for no other purpose, I would probably skip it. Unfortunately the whining and venting is being inserted into every damn thread no matter what it is about. The title of this thread clearly indicates there are going to be some peeves. I don't have a problem with peeves or the discussion of the SUBSTANCE of them. I have a few myself. However, we have yet to discuss any here in any way that verges on rhetorical value. What are we looking for here, a virtual bartender or shrink to listen to our woes and agree with us no matter what we say? Not to put to put to find a point on it but I have more self respect.


I still am confused as to what the steam tank errata was FOR, why it was implemented given GW's longstanding reluctance to errata something when not absolutely needed. I would like to discuss this, maybe someone knows or can guess why. I do not wish to discuss tactics, steam tanks are with the new rules extremely extremely annoying - but I do not have trouble nor need advice dealing with them.

I can guess why. Understanding why a company does something is no more difficult than understanding why an opponent (i.e. individual) does something. Psychology is what wins games, not lists or tactics. As has been pointed out many times by countless people, Games Workshop is not concerned with created a perfectly balanced game. It isn't their business model. They (foolishly in my opinion) feel their business is just to sell models, paint, and glue. They see no connection (nor do many here) with the competitive game side of the equation. I find this attitude laughable. It is a game. People play games because they are competitive. Such games are fun because humans are competitive by nature, some more than others. It is quite likely that if they made a better game, and by this I mean better balanced overall, that their sales would increase. If all their models filled a niche and had a certain value, more models would sell to competitors who do outnumber painters and collectors. It isn't politically correct to say so, but it is true.

They don't see it that way. No amount of my pointing it out is going to change their mind. Hell, I can't even convince people here that they are just as competitive as me. We lie best when we lie to ourselves. I listen to people on these forums get all full of themselves talking about just having fun, noble self sacrifice, and all that jazz. Even so, the relentless march of their posts indicate to me that they are upset because the competitiveness of their models has changed. Something in their army got nerfed. It doesn't jive. :) I know I'm going the long way around to explain this to you, or should I say... give you my educated opinion. Let me repeat, people lie best when they lie to themselves. This is what I visualize goes on at Games Workshop:

1. It is a big company grown far beyond its origins. There is the fluff side that clicks along at a good pace. There are people who do art. There are the people who design models. There accountants and HR people. The list goes on and on. And while individual people in their areas do have a central vision for their product there is no way to coordinate it around game balance because that is NOT their central vision. The game is a red-headed stepchild. In their psychology the game is a marketing tool, not the product itself.

2. With #1 in mind you have to understand there will never be a reliable schedule for any Codex or product that deals with gaming. They do not read all the complaints. They don't even have a master list of answers for their customer service people who field rules questions. You can get different answers to the same question in the same day. Errata and Faq changes come about ONLY when a big tournament they take part in showcases a problem or they themselves play the game and find something annoys them. That's right, the game changes they make are based on a limited number of games that they play themselves (when they have time) and one person gets annoyed. TADA! Eureka! Sammy plays his Steam Tank that they have been getting ready to market hardcore again and he is excited about it. Something big runs up to the Steam Tank and damages it on a 4+ and hurts it bad. "It should be tougher than that," Sammy thinks.

3. Errata and Faq changes do not go through Quality Control, at least not much of one. There are certain people who are tasked with it and they pitch it to another small group of people (at best) who aren't that interested in it. Sammy happens to be one of those people and the Steam Tank becomes Toughness-10. This means that SOME of our rules changes come about due to real problems that show up as an problem at tournaments. These embarrassments are so obvious they get serious consideration and changes. The rest are just arbitrary whims created by people who play (and have all the same emotional problems as the rest of us and no oversight) and get irate when something doesn't go their way.


Does this help? The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. We can try to think of elaborate, well thought out reasons for GW to do things but that isn't how it normally works. The obvious answer is that most rules changes are done because they MUST (obvious screwups at public tournaments) or because of whim.

logan054
23-12-2010, 13:03
They don't see it that way. No amount of my pointing it out is going to change their mind. Hell, I can't even convince people here that they are just as competitive as me. We lie best when we lie to ourselves.

You might want to consider that you just justify you over competitive nature by lying to yourself that every one is just like you ;) At the end of the day I see no point in being a over competitive player in 8th, the game is so much more random your going to win far more on dice rolls than tactical choices or even sound planning.

yabbadabba
23-12-2010, 13:08
If all their models filled a niche and had a certain value, more models would sell to competitors who do outnumber painters and collectors. It isn't politically correct to say so, but it is true. Got evidence to back that up? Shouldn't think so...


At the end of the day I see no point in being a over competitive player in 8th, the game is so much more random your going to win far more on dice rolls than tactical choices or even sound planning. Fair enough, prove it. Randomly select your army, randomise the deployment etc etc then see how much you win.

logan054
23-12-2010, 13:15
Fair enough, prove it. Randomly select your army, randomise the deployment etc etc then see how much you win.

So are you suggesting that careful planing trumps bad dice rolls?

Caitsidhe
23-12-2010, 13:22
You might want to consider that you just justify you over competitive nature by lying to yourself that every one is just like you ;) At the end of the day I see no point in being a over competitive player in 8th, the game is so much more random your going to win far more on dice rolls than tactical choices or even sound planning.

Heh. As I said... psychology is the key. Let's take you for example. What was that list of WFB armies you gave? Warriors of Chaos, Dark Elves, was it Demons too, and Vampire Counts? :) It sounds like your list of armies are all the top tier favorites from 7th Edition. Not one lower tier in there. Is that a coincidence? I am an extremely competitive guy. I come to the game FOR the challenge, so much so that I regularly take lesser tier armies to make it that much harder on myself.

You on the other hand are the competitor who takes armies to WIN... not for the challenge... but to WIN. If I were to analyze you based on your many posts, I would note that you lament the things opponents get to play against you while you. You slip in complaints about things in your own lists that you feel need to be stronger. These are telltale signs of someone whose only objective is to win. When I look at your collection of armies I can't help but notice the selection. I'm not pointing these things out as a slam on you. I'm pointing them out because it doesn't matter what a person SAYS about themselves. Only actions speak the truth.

Caitsidhe
23-12-2010, 13:30
Got evidence to back that up? Shouldn't think so...

Of course I don't. For evidence I would have to see them do it the other way and be able to compare and contrast it. I do, however, have commonsense behind me. If a model is effective at some job, as opposed to effective at no job, someone is more likely to buy it.

Let's consider Wood Elves for a moment. We have two Ranked Units that are close combat oriented. They are both Special troops (with one having the option of being Core only if you take a certain kind of Lord). They are Winter Guard and Treekin. The Treekin are felt (by the majority on forums anyway) to be an unattractive model. I don't find them ugly but I don't find them attractive either. The Winter Guard are a good looking model. At issue is the fact that Eternal Guard cannot do the job as well as Treekin. People don't buy them. In general, people don't use them. Even the shift in 8th Edition rules aren't likely to remedy this. Why is that?

Commonsense would dictate that people are choosing function over form. They are choosing application over art. With the 8th Edition change we have seen more and more people showing up with Treekin and only a small black sheep trying out Winter Guard (and usually never going back to them). :) My only evidence seems to be the trend toward models that WORK regardless of what they look like. Now, if GW were to make all of its models in such a way that they each had a niche job to do and did it well, there would be a reason to buy a wider variety of models. If the Winter Guard did have a specific job that the Treekin couldn't do (or any other WE model for that matter), it would get purchased to do that job.

yabbadabba
23-12-2010, 13:39
So are you suggesting that careful planing trumps bad dice rolls? Why don't you try it and see what happens?


Of course I don't. So its an opinion based on anecdotal evidence. Fair enough, doesn't make it the truth though, does it?

Sparowl
23-12-2010, 13:41
Some issues that they created:

Gamebreaking magic
Gamebreaking warmachines
Not balanced army books


I agree with the magic and warmachines.

8th edition didn't do anything to unbalance the army books. 7th edition had huge unbalance. 8th just shifted it around in terms of who is on top.

I'd also like to point out that in my experience the pendulum swung almost as far as possible in the opposite direction in regards to combats being to quick/long. Its gone from one round combats, to 4-5 round combats, due to steadfast. Not sure about other people, but a happier medium would have been nice.


Of course I don't.

Of course you don't. Big, sweeping statements are so much easier to make without bothering to have evidence.

arthurfallz
23-12-2010, 13:45
As for cannons, no they are only slightly better than in 7th edition, but they were too accurate then too. They should not be the laser guided cruise missiles GW envision them to be

In a game where you have 6 turns to use the sucker we can't adhere to real life on the accuracy of cannons. Having taken part in several ACW re-enactments I have some experience with artillery (my family was part of the artillery crew), and how they were employed in battle (at least in that era). They're a lot of points on average, never out of your core% and often a target for spells and scouts. If you make them any less accurate they begin to become questionable at fielding. YMMV.

logan054
23-12-2010, 13:56
Heh. As I said... psychology is the key. Let's take you for example. What was that list of WFB armies you gave? Warriors of Chaos, Dark Elves, was it Demons too, and Vampire Counts? :) It sounds like your list of armies are all the top tier favorites from 7th Edition. Not one lower tier in there. Is that a coincidence? I am an extremely competitive guy. I come to the game FOR the challenge, so much so that I regularly take lesser tier armies to make it that much harder on myself.


You on the other hand are the competitor who takes armies to WIN... not for the challenge... but to WIN.

I also had Empire, beastmen, the only reason I had beastmen and daemons was because of time I have been playing, my collections of beastmen and daemons expanded with the release of the HoC book. Now I can no longer combine these with my infantry based chaos army I never used them and decided to trade them away for more blood ravens, dark elves and chaos. Since 6th ed I have been using a Mono Khorne infantry army which only changed with 8th ed which is partly to do with growing bored of gaming style and partly how GW totally ripped my army to pieces with the new book (kinda killed the fluffy player in me. Anyone who knows me or has seen my lists of WoC floating about knows I am really not a play to win kinda guy. I was also already using marauders with great weapons before the WoC book came out simply because I love the old 5th ed marauder models.

As for DE and VC, I bought my VC for 8th ed and I bought my DE on release day as something different to play, while I have always wanted a HE army hate the ASF as a army wide rule and the cold one knights just look awesome.

I am sorry but the after years and years of people telling me how crap chaos warriors are use chaos knights because of how uncompetitive they are, now suddenly because of a edition change my army is competitive. It was hardly like I went out bought all those chaos warriors when the SoC campaign was on knowing that one day they would rock!

Its like my VC army, if I was that competitive I would have nothing but ghouls in the core section, I don't, I actually use two blocks of Skeletons warriors and 1 ghoul, I use a vampure lord, a vampire BSB and a necromancer. My Graveguard have HW+SH, my BSB does not go with my graveguard and does not have the regen banner. I use a Varghulf (well actually I use a werewolf but anyways), I use a big units of knights, the list goes on really, I could easily go on.


Why don't you try it and see what happens?

Again are you saying careful planning trumps bad dice rolls?

yabbadabba
23-12-2010, 14:01
Again are you saying careful planning trumps bad dice rolls?Of course not, WFB is based on the randomness of dice rolls. So are you going to try it?

Caitsidhe
23-12-2010, 14:03
So its an opinion based on anecdotal evidence. Fair enough, doesn't make it the truth though, does it?

Sadly so, but until they actually produce their models in such a way for us to test it, it is the best evidence we have. I'm not thrilled with supposition either, but I will engage in it when there is nothing else to base it on. I'm not a GW fanboy. They do lots of things which irritate me. I just don't see the point in talking about them. I'd rather talk about what I can do rather than what I can't. I have found, anecdotal though it may be, that I can always bet on the competitive side of human nature. I win far more often than I lose based on this credo. Most people are reactive, not proactive. You find the buttons to push and you can get them to do anything you want, both on the WHFB board or in real life. Hence, I don't subscribe to any vast conspiracy theories about GW. The game we get is simply the result of people trying to make the most against the path of least resistance. Sadly, that is not conducive to creating the perfect game. The only way we are going to be happy is to lower our expectations and have fun with what we get... or come up with game of our own. For the most part, you and I are on the same page.

logan054
23-12-2010, 14:06
Of course not, WFB is based on the randomness of dice rolls. So are you going to try it?

Only this


At the end of the day I see no point in being a over competitive player in 8th, the game is so much more random your going to win far more on dice rolls than tactical choices or even sound planning.

See what I am getting at, more dice rolls just means you have more chances for things to go wrong or incredibly right because of dice rolls, you can plan all you want but if you fail that frenzy, flop you dice you can easily lose a unit.

Caitsidhe
23-12-2010, 14:07
Again are you saying careful planning trumps bad dice rolls?

I can't speak for him, but I'll give you my two cents. Yes. Careful planning, i.e. good play can (and does) trump bad dice rolls. Good players plan for the WORST and hope for the best. That is how they win. I am no luckier than then next guy but I win far more often than I lose. I go into every engagement and battle assuming worst case scenarios. That way when the worst comes to pass I'm not out of the game, but when it doesn't I'm in even better position than I would have been otherwise.

yabbadabba
23-12-2010, 14:12
See what I am getting at, more dice rolls just means you have more chances for things to go wrong or incredibly right because of dice rolls, you can plan all you want but if you fail that frenzy, flop you dice you can easily lose a unit. Good planning mitigates bad luck. Flexibility allows you to adapt to such bad luck. Understanding and accepting the risk allows you to compensate for bad dice rolls. Thats why I don't think you will ever totally randomise you gaming approach because you won't take the risk.

I see no point in being an overly competitive player full stop, as I see it as bad manners.

logan054
23-12-2010, 14:16
I see no point in being an overly competitive player full stop

The overly competitive part is more what I am getting at ;)


I can't speak for him, but I'll give you my two cents. Yes. Careful planning, i.e. good play can (and does) trump bad dice rolls

I guess it depends how bad we are talking about here, mind a I think a good player can win a game without taking a competitive army as well ;)

Caitsidhe
23-12-2010, 14:24
The overly competitive part is more what I am getting at ;) I guess it depends how bad we are talking about here, mind a I think a good player can win a game without taking a competitive army as well ;)

I think you and I (and some others) are defining terms in a different way. To me, the word "competitive" is not a bad word. I define it as someone who comes to the table to give and get a good game. They are playing to win. This should come with a good attitude and manners whether or not they win or lose. You play to win, but you have a good time either way. A competitive player wants the challenge. They aren't really competing against YOU. You are just a proxy. They are playing for their personal best. I love playing competitive players because for my win or loss to mean anything, I have to know it was up against someone of quality. What pride can anyone take in beating a clearly inferior opponent? There is no pride in beating up old ladies, only shame. :)

Remember, you are talking to someone who has selected Wood Elves for 8th Edition. Why do you suppose I've done that? I am well aware of the drawbacks of the army. It is my belief that I can make a go of them. That is my challenge. That is my fun. I want people to BRING IT so I can put it to the test. It would have been far more cost effective to buy Blood Isle and trade out the Skaven to other friends of mine to do it and built a High Elf Army if winning was the only thing I care about. Winning is hollow unless it means something. It is not enough that I succeed; all others must fail. :) I don't just want to beat you. I want to beat you with Wood Elves. I want to beat you when you are bringing the most broken list you can find. That is what gives me a warm and toasty feeling.

logan054
23-12-2010, 14:39
Winning is hollow unless it means something. It is not enough that I succeed; all others must fail. :) I don't just want to beat you. I want to beat you with Wood Elves. I want to beat you when you are bringing the most broken list you can find. That is what gives me a warm and toasty feeling.

Those are the exact reasons I stuck with my infantry based Mono Khorne WoC list for so long, still I do enjoy games more now I have other tactical options in my list.

sulla
24-12-2010, 23:38
In a game where you have 6 turns to use the sucker we can't adhere to real life on the accuracy of cannons. Having taken part in several ACW re-enactments I have some experience with artillery (my family was part of the artillery crew), and how they were employed in battle (at least in that era). They're a lot of points on average, never out of your core% and often a target for spells and scouts. If you make them any less accurate they begin to become questionable at fielding. YMMV.All reasonable points, but why are they so much more accurate and powerful than bolt throwers? Why do bolt throwers get less accurate if you shoot them through trees or blocking troops but cannons don't? Why can you sit a friendly unit 1" in front of a cannon to protect it? I just think the mechanics of cannons in fantasy are some of their worst. I would have liked some element of the crew's ballistic skill to be involved in both them and stone throwers. Conceptually, I hate that a goblin or an elven sharpshooter or an empire artillery instructor are all just as accurate firing a cannon and all of them are more accurate than a bolt thrower, no matter the crew.

In actual game terms, I've played 10 times vs cannons this edition, and other than misfires, they haven't missed a shot. Possibly others have seen cannons firing with much less accuracy than vs me, but as far as my experience has told me, nothing else in the game has a strike rate remotely as good as them.

arthurfallz
24-12-2010, 23:58
In actual game terms, I've played 10 times vs cannons this edition, and other than misfires, they haven't missed a shot. Possibly others have seen cannons firing with much less accuracy than vs me, but as far as my experience has told me, nothing else in the game has a strike rate remotely as good as them.

In actual game terms I've fired my dwarven cannon about 20 times and hit about 3 times. The dice can really screw things over, especially when you aren't fighting big blocks. If I was fighting big blocks all the time (when I use my dwarves), I would likely hit more often.

Don't disagree on many of your other comments though; it seems certain war machines get no breaks. Just to give you the benefit of the doubt, I'm going to read over all war machine rules in both 7th and 8th and see how they stack up, then run some simulations. Can't hurt. :D

Theodred
25-12-2010, 04:44
Again are you saying careful planning trumps bad dice rolls?

To a certain extent, of course it does!

Obviously if every roll goes against you, then it's just not your day. But you can manipulate the odds through careful choices.


more dice rolls just means you have more chances for things to go wrong or incredibly right

Actually, it means the opposite. More dice rolls means a closer to average result.

Put 100 dice in a cup. Roll a single one out. What are the chances that all the dice you've rolled have come up a 1?

Now roll the other 99 out. Now what are the chances that they've all come up 1's?

The more dice you roll, the more your luck will average out.


The Treekin are felt (by the majority on forums anyway) to be an unattractive model. I don't find them ugly but I don't find them attractive either. The Winter Guard are a good looking model. At issue is the fact that Eternal Guard cannot do the job as well as Treekin. People don't buy them. In general, people don't use them.

I'm willing to be there are just as many players who AREN'T devoted forum goers or tournament players, who take the Winter Guard instead of the treekin.

I know that, despite being both a forumite and tournament player, I still take an Oldblood on a Carnosaur instead of a Slann, and have a unit of Cold One Riders in my Lizardmen army.

Sparowl
25-12-2010, 05:04
Actually, it means the opposite. More dice rolls means a closer to average result.

Put 100 dice in a cup. Roll a single one out. What are the chances that all the dice you've rolled have come up a 1?

1 in 6.


Now roll the other 99 out. Now what are the chances that they've all come up 1's?

The more dice you roll, the more your luck will average out.

Since they're all independent events, it comes out to......1 in 6 per dice.

I understand what you are trying to say about averages, but I think your example is flawed.

The Gambler's Fallacy, specifically the "Law of Averages" fallacy, tells us that one dice, rolling a 1, has an equal chance of rolling another 1 on the next roll. And the same chance on the third roll. Or, if you roll 3 dice, they all have a 1 in 6 chance, since they are all independent events.

The "Law of Large Numbers" suggests that over the course of 100 rolls, your dice rolls, added together and averaged, will produce 3.5 as the average roll. But it doesn't suggest that 1 out of 6 of those rolls will be a 1. In fact, that is a statistically small chance.

Lord Inquisitor
25-12-2010, 06:17
Since they're all independent events, it comes out to......1 in 6 per dice.
But the probability of ALL dice coming up 1s can also be calculated (1/6)^100. Which just isn't going to happen. (The chance is 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000015%)


The Gambler's Fallacy, specifically the "Law of Averages" fallacy, tells us that one dice, rolling a 1, has an equal chance of rolling another 1 on the next roll. And the same chance on the third roll. Or, if you roll 3 dice, they all have a 1 in 6 chance, since they are all independent events.
It's a fallacy that each die roll is an independent event?


The "Law of Large Numbers" suggests that over the course of 100 rolls, your dice rolls, added together and averaged, will produce 3.5 as the average roll. But it doesn't suggest that 1 out of 6 of those rolls will be a 1. In fact, that is a statistically small chance.
The more dice you roll, the closer the proportion of 1's comes to 1 in 6. At infinity it would be 1/6. Really don't know what you're getting at here.

Sparowl
25-12-2010, 08:04
The more dice you roll, the closer the proportion of 1's comes to 1 in 6. At infinity it would be 1/6. Really don't know what you're getting at here.

The more dice you roll, the closer you get to having an average of 3.5. Not an average of "rolling a 1 every 6 times you roll" (or every six dice you roll).

For the point of this discussion, I'm going to let it go, because it doesn't change what people think about rolling (most of which are fallacies), and is difficult to explain.

yabbadabba
25-12-2010, 11:39
All reasonable points, but why are they so much more accurate and powerful than bolt throwers? Canons are more powerful than bolt throwers, end of story. But they are not more accurate, not sure where you get that from.

Why do bolt throwers get less accurate if you shoot them through trees or blocking troops but cannons don't? Because they are just a big arrow powered by twisted animal sinew whereas a canon ball can take your foot off just by rolling, and would smash trees into smithereens, killing and wounding those underneath.

Why can you sit a friendly unit 1" in front of a cannon to protect it? Dunno, will look at that. Far as I know you can't, but you can with a stone thrower, mortar etc.

I just think the mechanics of cannons in fantasy are some of their worst. I would have liked some element of the crew's ballistic skill to be involved in both them and stone throwers. Hmm its a thought. I have a few ideas on that. Essentially you can fire a canon without the need of an expert with every canon, as it is mostly a mechanical action, you just need an idea on distance. That was often done with marking flags, premeasuring or one canon master who would plot out the distances on a map before hand then send those to each crew.

Conceptually, I hate that a goblin or an elven sharpshooter or an empire artillery instructor are all just as accurate firing a cannon and all of them are more accurate than a bolt thrower, no matter the crew. Nah, can't see the more accurate bit.

Lord Inquisitor
25-12-2010, 20:04
The more dice you roll, the closer you get to having an average of 3.5. Not an average of "rolling a 1 every 6 times you roll" (or every six dice you roll).
These are necessarily the same thing. Why do you think the average is 3.5 as you tend to infinity anyway? How does it magically end up average if the proportions don't average out too?

The formula for the "average roll" is the mean value of the dice rolls added together:
(a1+b2+c3+d4+e5+f6)/n= u
Where a-f are the number of dice that came up with the corresponding facing (a dice came up 1's, b dice came up 2's and so on), n is the sum of the dice rolled (a+b+c+d+e+f), and u is the arithmetic mean.

Since each result has a 1/6 probability, one expects (you might not but still) equal proportions of each result as the sample size tends to infinity. So a=b=c=d=e=f=1/6. So the formula becomes

(a1+a2+a3+a4+a5+a6)/(a+a+a+a+a+a)=u
= (a(1+2+3+4+5+6))/6a=u
= (1+2+3+4+5+6)/6=u
= 3.5 = u

Your "average dice roll" assumes equal proportions of each dice roll in order to calculate it.


For the point of this discussion, I'm going to let it go, because it doesn't change what people think about rolling (most of which are fallacies), and is difficult to explain.
Well, give it a go this once. I'm aware of most of the statistical and probability theory fallacies. I'm not saying "I've rolled 5 dice and not got a six, therefore the next roll should be a six" or anything like that. I'm saying that given a suitably large sample size, the proportions of each roll should equate to 1/6, getting closer as you approach infinity, and the mean approaches 3.5 for the same reasons.

If you still disagree, then you need to defend your position mathematically. Why don't the proportions tend to 1/6 and where did you get your expected average of 3.5 from anyway?

logan054
25-12-2010, 20:50
Put 100 dice in a cup. Roll a single one out. What are the chances that all the dice you've rolled have come up a 1?

I think Lord Inquisitor is doing a good enough job of explaining it.

SeaSwift
25-12-2010, 20:54
I think Lord Inquisitor is doing a good enough job of explaining it.

Yes, and it's proving your point wrong, in case you hadn't noticed. :p

H33D
25-12-2010, 20:59
Canons are more powerful than bolt throwers, end of story. But they are not more accurate, not sure where you get that from.

If you guess a certain range (I think about 8") behind the far edge of an enemy model, you have upwards of a 75 or 80 percent chance to hit that model, taking into account misfires and such as long as you have a rune of forging.

Bolt throwers use BS and so will usually only work at best two-thirds of the time. This is if you happen to have BS4 and there are no negative modifiers. Then it is also less strength and doesn't hit as many models.

Dwarf Cannons >> Bolt Throwers

As far as other cannons vs. other bolt throwers they are closer together in comparison but I think a normal cannon beats all bolt throwers.

Caitsidhe
25-12-2010, 21:21
The greater the sample, the more reliable the statistics. Dice become more and more reliable the more often you must roll them, i.e. statistical outliers are reduced by an ever widening bell curve. Probability is a harsh mistress. I have found there are two kinds of people when it comes to explaining probability.

1. There are people who refuse to accept that a roll of the dice is anything other than a singular event, i.e. the odds never change.

2. There are people who accept that die rolls cannot be considered as singular events and are linked (by our observation) in a series of increasing or decreasing probability.

It comes back to that old question, if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around, does the falling make a sound? I don't waste a lot of time trying to explain probability to people who refuse to look at the roll of a dice as anything other than a singular event. I leave them to their well deserved fate. Myself, I play the odds. In the fullness of time, they never let you down.

logan054
25-12-2010, 21:40
Yes, and it's proving your point wrong, in case you hadn't noticed. :p

Problem with a lot of people is you get so wrapped up i the maths, while in the course of game I am sure that you luck will average out this doesn't change the fact with rolling so many dice you have more opportunities for a bad dice roll at a. If you roll those 100 dice say four groups of 25 you have 5 chances to get a bad roll, if you rolling those dice in say groups of 10 then you have 10 chances to roll a single bad roll, while it may average out in the long run you still have more chances of a single bad roll. All you need do is think of this during a game, at the end of a day you only need a single bad roll to lose the game. Be it a miscast, a break test, some saves or to hits rolls, in the context of the game it dosnt matter if you had some great rolls for you charges, if you fail that critical roll it is game over, you have no control of how the dice are going to average out at the end of the day.

Caitsidhe
25-12-2010, 21:48
you only need a single bad roll to lose the game. Be it a miscast, a break test, some saves or to hits rolls, in the context of the game it dosnt matter if you had some great rolls for you charges, if you fail that critical roll it is game over, you have no control of how the dice are going to average out at the end of the day.

Ummm... hrm. No. If your game ever hinges on a single roll, you are not playing smart. I'm sorry. I wish there was another way to say it. There isn't. If your play style ever hinges your fate on a single roll or even a small series of them, you are gambling, not waging a tactical, strategic war. You are correct when you say that you have no control over the outcome of dice. That means you must apply your intellect to the things you do have control over. This means you plan for the worst and hope for the best. Every move you make is managed risk, with your next move, should the dice be unkind, already calculated and ready in your mind. Managed risk means that you don't put yourself in a position wherein a single bad roll will lose you an entire battle.

logan054
25-12-2010, 22:13
Ummm... hrm. No. If your game ever hinges on a single roll, you are not playing smart. I'm sorry. I wish there was another way to say it.

It happens, you can make a mistake early on, sadly we are not all perfect, your recovery can revolve around a single event in game, be it a combat, a miscaste or whatever. The game could well be very close because you are playing a equal opponent and one event will tip the game in your opponents favor, so many loses or even draws can be traced back to a single event, at the end of the day it only takes a tipping point to win a game.

Caitsidhe
25-12-2010, 22:38
It happens, you can make a mistake early on, sadly we are not all perfect, your recovery can revolve around a single event in game, be it a combat, a miscaste or whatever. The game could well be very close because you are playing a equal opponent and one event will tip the game in your opponents favor, so many loses or even draws can be traced back to a single event, at the end of the day it only takes a tipping point to win a game.

If mistakes happen, that is NOT the fault of the dice. It is yours. It is mine. We cannot blame bad dice rolls for our own mistakes. The capricious whims of fate are equally kind and unkind to all. If a single event decides the game, you can only blame yourself. The only time I will allow someone to blame the dice is when they are hit with a statistical dead end, i.e. an improbable series of bad rolls over several turns. You and I clearly play very different games of Warhammer and in a very different style.

I don't find Warhammer that different from Chess. For that matter, I don't find ANY tactical strategy game that different from Chess. I play them all with the same basics in mind. Granted, Chess doesn't involve random probability, but at a certain LEVEL of Chess you are always gambling on your opponent's moves. At a certain level of the game, all the territory and basic gambits are well known by both parties. This means you purposely leave openings and make mistakes to gamble on your opponent doing a particular thing. You manage risk because if your opponent doesn't do what you want them to do, you have to backtrack to regain the initiative.

If you are playing win, you should never have your entire battle wagered on a single engagement. You only take such risks when there really is no other chance left. If you are certain to lose without a "Hail Mary Pass," then you throw caution to the wind and throw the ball deep every time. At that point you have nothing left to lose, so you might as well throw the dice.

However, if you regularly find yourself in a position where you must throw such passes, it means you are not playing tactically. It means you are not managing your risk. It means you are, at best, thinking only one move ahead. Don't do that. There is no way for me to give this advice without sounding arrogant and full of myself. I'll accept those charges if it makes you feel better. Whether or not I am arrogant and full of myself is irrelevant. The quality of the advice is gold.

logan054
25-12-2010, 23:17
Can't I do find my self in such positions regularly actually, I am curious as to when i said any such thing? i don't recall even saying "i regularly lose warhammer", Oh I know, if I have anything negative say its because I lose at warhammer right? You know I like warhammer, its a great game but certain things to jar me about it, not enough to make me sell or my models and run out of the shop crying or anything. None the less they still annoy me, the Extra dice rolling is one of them from 7th to 8th is just another one of them. Just seems to me you have started this crusade against people who have anything negative to say almost as if we are not entitled to voice a opinion or something, which i find funny at best considering your comments on peoples armies choices, hypocritical might be better.

Caitsidhe
25-12-2010, 23:19
Can't I do find my self in such positions regularly actually, I an curious as to if I actually said any such thing?

You infer it. You spend a lot of time lamenting the fortunes of the dice. This infers to me that you often feel yourself at their mercy. That in turn implies a certain kind of play.

logan054
25-12-2010, 23:28
Or you just read far to much into things and look for hidden meanings with words, essentially its just more assumptions, actually i feel i have been winning far more due to the increased chance of the game, your welcome to think what you like but this is starting annoying, this wouldn't be the if I had told you this so many times. My only conclusion is you think I am a liar, your certainly imply it by taking this stance with anything I say that is not as positive as your like.

ChrisIronBrow
25-12-2010, 23:47
Logan054 is right, sometimes a game is decided by a single dice roll that you have no control over, either in list building or planning.


An example would be the last game I played with my Empire. I lost the roll to go first, my opponent cast the burning head spell that causes a panic test if it kills one model. It went off with irresistible force, and killed two swordsmen in my mage lords unit. I failed the panic check, on ld 10 from the general and +1ld banner nearby. So I reroll with my bsb and fail again, I roll flee results and the unit flees off the table.

That was game over, without a lvl 4 wizard (which the points would only allow me to bring one of) He dominated the magic phase and I was swept off the table in 3 turns.

R Man
25-12-2010, 23:58
Could we not alternatively say that the fault was not dice based, but the result of a poor decision. Namely the choice to put a high cost caster in a front line combat unit.

logan054
26-12-2010, 00:16
Thats a rather unfair thing to say without knowing the full details of the battle, the rest of his army or even a battle plan, I might raise a eyebrow someone what if he had said he had put him in a unit of halberdiers or knights.

Caitsidhe
26-12-2010, 00:21
Or you just read far to much into things and look for hidden meanings with words, essentially its just more assumptions, actually i feel i have been winning far more due to the increased chance of the game, your welcome to think what you like but this is starting annoying, this wouldn't be the if I had told you this so many times. My only conclusion is you think I am a liar, your certainly imply it by taking this stance with anything I say that is not as positive as your like.

I call them like I see them. So far it has served me very well. I'm not looking for any hidden meanings. You clearly put great stock by this notion that dice decide battles more than the skill of the participants. Myself and several others hold to the notion that skill is a greater influence on the outcome of battles. I could care less if you are winning more or losing more. If you attribute it to dice and not talent, that tells me a lot about you. It indicates your entire philosophy and approach to the game. My own stance is neither positive nor negative, so why would the positive or negative leanings of your own influence my opinion of you?

To me the only thing that matters as far as taking a read of your character and likely approach to the game is the fact that you lament dice. There is no clearer indicator of the type of opponent than their views on probability. It tells me what they are going to blame when things go wrong, how likely they are to take risk, and very clearly their perception of self in regards to defeat.

yabbadabba
26-12-2010, 00:31
If you guess a certain range (I think about 8") behind the far edge of an enemy model, you have upwards of a 75 or 80 percent chance to hit that model, taking into account misfires and such as long as you have a rune of forging. No, don't think so. And why are you buffing a canon when a Bolt Thrower isn't getting one? You are saying that 2 random rolls are more accurate than 1 here. And if we add runes, you can get a bolt thrower hitting on an 83.33% (2+).


Bolt throwers use BS and so will usually only work at best two-thirds of the time. This is if you happen to have BS4 and there are no negative modifiers. Then it is also less strength and doesn't hit as many models. Strength has nothing to do with this, this is about accuracy


Dwarf Cannons >> Bolt Throwers

As far as other cannons vs. other bolt throwers they are closer together in comparison but I think a normal cannon beats all bolt throwers. First, Dwarf Canons beat bolt throwers because of the great access to runes. But you paying substantially less for a bolt thrower than a non-runed canon, so again it isn't really a comparison in terms of overall. A canon beats a bolt thrower and you pay more for it.

But in terms of accuracy, I still haven't seen it yet.

Maoriboy007
26-12-2010, 00:35
Ummm... hrm. No. If your game ever hinges on a single roll, you are not playing smart.
Ummm, if my vampire lord gets gatewayed in the first couple of turns, then there is not a hell of a lot I can do about it. Unless my opponent is a complete muppet, then I've probably lost the game.
The same can be said for failing an unlikely Ld test , its easier to fail on a single dice roll than you imply, this is a dice game and at some point you are going to have to roll 'em.

Caitsidhe
26-12-2010, 00:40
Ummm, if my vampire lord gets gatewayed in the first couple of turns, then there is not a hell of a lot I can do about it. Unless my opponent is a complete muppet, then I've probably lost the game.
The same can be said for failing an unlikely Ld test , its easier to fail on a single dice roll than you imply, this is a dice game and at some point you are going to have to roll 'em.

If you are choosing to play Vampire Counts... then it falls on you to mitigate (through your play) the risk of certain events. Why is it no one wants to take responsibility for their failures? I take responsibility for mine. 1. Someone chooses Vampire Counts. You have selected an army with a particular risk. If it comes to pass, the fault is your own. 2. If getting "gatewayed" is a serious risk, then you have to play around it. It isn't going to happen to you on the 1st turn if you have deployed correctly. It isn't going to happen to you on the 2nd turn if you keep your movement in mind and focus your own resources on the threats that can do it. 3. All of this is irrelevant because we aren't making the argument that bad dice don't exist. We are making the argument that good play is more important than GOOD or BAD dice.

ChrisIronBrow
26-12-2010, 00:48
Could we not alternatively say that the fault was not dice based, but the result of a poor decision. Namely the choice to put a high cost caster in a front line combat unit.

Of course you could, if that's what had happened. It was a swordsmen block bunker behind my lines. TLOS means it could be targetted anyways.

ChrisIronBrow
26-12-2010, 00:55
If you are choosing to play Vampire Counts... You have selected an army with a particular risk. If it comes to pass, the fault is your own.

Oh, I get it now. Your just a jerk.




2. If getting "gatewayed" is a serious risk, then you have to play around it. It isn't going to happen to you on the 1st turn if you have deployed correctly. It isn't going to happen to you on the 2nd turn if you keep your movement in mind and focus your own resources on the threats that can do it.

And ignorant of the rules of the game.




3. All of this is irrelevant because we aren't making the argument that bad dice don't exist. We are making the argument that good play is more important than GOOD or BAD dice.

That's not what you've said up till this point.

I'm done with this conversation and with you.

R Man
26-12-2010, 00:57
Thats a rather unfair thing to say without knowing the full details of the battle, the rest of his army or even a battle plan, I might raise a eyebrow someone what if he had said he had put him in a unit of halberdiers or knights.

True. But can we not also expand on this another way? Could we not ask what else happened in the battle? What other elements were present? Chris then pointed out that this left him weak against his opponents magic, but were there other factors too? We do not have this information.

So, my comment was unfair, yes. But I had no other information on which to draw a conclusion. My aim was to point out that we can think of these problems differently. Its not just dice. Bad rolls will cause a problem, but for them to create a catastrophe something else must also be wrong.


Of course you could, if that's what had happened. It was a swordsmen block bunker behind my lines. TLOS means it could be targetted anyways.

What do you mean behind your lines? Behind other units? Because as far as I know TLOS does not allow you to actually see through other models. The TLOS problem is ******** anyway. Everyone already used TLOS already but now that they changed the name everyone suddenly panics. Err.. Forest problem exempted of course.

Surgency
26-12-2010, 00:58
Ummm... hrm. No. If your game ever hinges on a single roll, you are not playing smart. I'm sorry.

In 7th ed, I had a brettonian KotR regiment, with my standard bearer, and my general, in the same unit, against TK. This was my linebreaker unit, designed to bust through, and obliterate whatever they went up against. I charged a unit of Skellies, and lost combat. I killed ONE skeleton. He killed 2 knights, and caused a wound on my general. I then ran away from a fear causing unit. I wasn't able to rally the next turn, either. After that, they ran right off the board.

Skill was not involved there, it was purely dice rolls that killed me. I went on to lose that game, albeit barely.


So my game hinged on a single roll. Or rather, 3 rolls, that i failed each time.

Caitsidhe
26-12-2010, 01:08
Of course you could, if that's what had happened. It was a swordsmen block bunker behind my lines. TLOS means it could be targetted anyways.

So you were in a big block of swordsman, far enough forward to be within range but close enough to the back edge that a catastrophic failure of leadership would send you off the board? Likewise, your opponent was in a position due to whatever ELSE you were doing to move up the Wizard in question to get in range. Sorry... no matter how you slice it.... YOU had a hand in setting up events. Do I think your luck was bad? Yes. Do I blame the dice for your loss? No. Let me make one thing clear; I have lost games when really bad dice took place. I have, in fact, had a unit with a Leadership-10 (due to General) and BSD (allowing a 2nd roll) have to make a panic test and fail BOTH rolls. It happens. There were still things I could have done in the game which would have prevented the outcome.

Whenever I look back at a loss (I had one yesterday to Empire in fact) I can always find choices I made which ultimately had more impact than the dice, and/or increased the problems the bad dice wrought. This is what always makes me wonder about certain opponents (and people in general). At the end of my games, particularly those that went south, I always take stock of what I did and didn't do. I always want to know why I lost so I don't repeat the error. Bad dice is always allocated to the position it deserves, i.e. the bottom. I cannot control dice so there isn't really any point in affording it a high priority in this dissection. What is important is what I did and didn't do in response to the moves of my opponent. I just can't fathom the mind of people who look back on their games and all emphasis for the loss (and blame) goes to the dice or the so-called "cheesy" list of the opponent. Me? I'm going to give my opponent credit where credit is due and take myself to task for what I did wrong.

Here is an interesting problem, not unlike your issue. Most (well all) my lists have a Spellweaver Lord in them. Competitive WE really require it. When I fight a good Lizardman player, he/she is going to have a Power Scroll and Cupped Hands. My opponent is going to come out swinging, throwing (6) Dice at every single spell TRYING to get an IF simply so he/she can toss it on my Spellweaver. There is a damn good chance of hobbling my magic phase for the entire game. There isn't too much I can do to stop this, but what I can do.... I'm going to try. This means that I need to:

1. Go first if at all possible. This would allow me to try my own IF to get Throne of Vines up (if I have it) and mitigate the Miscast threat. Even this isn't foolproof as the opponent will just use dice to remove the remains in play spell. Going first does allow me to try and surge forward myself when facing this kind of opponent and hopefully get my own biggest spells off as fast as possible to hobble him. In other words, since I know a Miscast is going to be forced on me, I might as well do my best to get it myself with some big benefit (Dwellers perhaps) before it comes to pass. Use it before you lose it. Keeping my army smaller to deploy faster and hopefully get that +1 to going first is something is absolutely essential.

2. I could, of course, take some of the items that help mitigate Miscast. In higher point games I might have two Spellweavers to dissuade a Lizardman opponent. The value of said gunslinging magic goes down a bit when I have a spare (although not much).

3. I can surge as rapidly as I can on all avenues to give the opponent too many threats coming in to waste time trying to use massive resources to take out the Lord.

There are other things I can do. There are always other things. None of them are great against this particularly powerful combo, but we do what we can. My point is, that it is the choices I make that are more important. I am PLANNING for the WORST and hoping for the best. I will have gotten everything I can out of my models before they are gone, and if my opponent doesn't get off the nastiness... hell... gravy... I'm not hurt by having more than I assumed I would have.

logan054
26-12-2010, 01:14
I call them like I see them.

Might want to get your eyes tested then, you seriously do not have a clue what the hell you are talking about, all this rubbish about knowing the type of opponent. You know what happens when I lose and shrug followed by a "its happens" and then i look over what I have done that could have lead to loss/draw. Some times its the dice, sometimes its due to tactical mistakes, So professor know nothing stop pretending to have some amazing insight as to who I am and how I play the game, if you don't care stop bringing it up, I certainly do not bring such things into the conversation.


True. But can we not also expand on this another way? Could we not ask what else happened in the battle? What other elements were present? Chris then pointed out that this left him weak against his opponents magic, but were there other factors too? We do not have this information.

So, my comment was unfair, yes. But I had no other information on which to draw a conclusion. My aim was to point out that we can think of these problems differently. Its not just dice. Bad rolls will cause a problem, but for them to create a catastrophe something else must also be wrong.

Should we not ask what happened before making the unfair comment :p At the end of the day just losing that +4 to your dispel rolls can make a massive difference to a magic in which you already have less dice in to counter magic, of course losing a lot of points can have the psychological effect on you as well. I Had this ones a units of 10 khorne knights with hero failed the frenzied test, charge a full ranked unit if warriors in my first turn (went 2nd), flop the attacks, hero dies in a challenge and they get run down.

Caitsidhe
26-12-2010, 01:18
So my game hinged on a single roll. Or rather, 3 rolls, that i failed each time.

Your game hinged, as all games do, on your choice to charge the unit. I suspect that if you really thought about it there were all sorts of things you could have done. Would they have been better? Who knows. You made a conscious decision to charge a Fear causing unit in 7th Edition. You were managing your risk. Clearly if you ran off the board after only one attempt to rally, you were closer to an edge than not. In 7th Edition, the direction you charge from and the table edges are always something we had to watch to try avoid EXACTLY what you describe. I played Tomb Kings prior to my switch to Wood Elves. I made the best use I could of Fear because Tomb King troops really suck. :)

Caitsidhe
26-12-2010, 01:22
Might want to get your eyes tested then, you seriously do not have a clue what the hell you are talking about, all this rubbish about knowing the type of opponent. You know what happens when I lose and shrug followed by a "its happens" and then i look over what I have done that could have lead to loss/draw. Some times its the dice, sometimes its due to tactical mistakes, So professor know nothing stop pretending to have some amazing insight as to who I am and how I play the game, if you don't care stop bringing it up, I certainly do not bring such things into the conversation.

I didn't bring this topic up. :) The topic came up due to two very clearly defined positions on the dice. One position, which you seem to have been championing, is that luck (good or bad) plays a greater part in the game than skill. Myself and some others feel skill is more important. What I know about you is exactly what you tell us. You will blame dice. I will blame myself.

logan054
26-12-2010, 01:38
You will blame dice. I will blame myself.

Problem is you only read what you want to read, the use of the word blame very much indicates this, why would I "blame" the dice for winning me games? I can think of several games now that I think the tipping point has come from my hellcannon actually hitting a unit rather than missing or thinking to myself how things could have gone in a combat if I had made a few less saves or a few less hits.

Caitsidhe
26-12-2010, 01:41
Problem is you only read what you want to read, the use of the word blame very much indicates this, why would I "blame" the dice for winning me games? I can think of several games now that I think the tipping point has come from my hellcannon actually hitting a unit rather than missing or thinking to myself how things could have gone in a combat if I had made a few less saves or a few less hits.

Again, you are assigning it all to dice. Why wouldn't you credit yourself for choosing to take the Hellcannon, where you deploy it, what targets you choose to shoot (and in what order), and so on? If you really believe the game is mostly random, why do you worry about the rules at all? :)

ChrisIronBrow
26-12-2010, 01:52
Sorry... no matter how you slice it.... YOU had a hand in setting up events.

The "hand" I had was following the deployment rules of the game. I never got a turn before he moved up and cast.

You keep inventing reasons why it's our fault when luck ruins a game. but that's not always true.

Surgency
26-12-2010, 01:57
Your game hinged, as all games do, on your choice to charge the unit. I suspect that if you really thought about it there were all sorts of things you could have done. Would they have been better? Who knows. You made a conscious decision to charge a Fear causing unit in 7th Edition. You were managing your risk. Clearly if you ran off the board after only one attempt to rally, you were closer to an edge than not. In 7th Edition, the direction you charge from and the table edges are always something we had to watch to try avoid EXACTLY what you describe. I played Tomb Kings prior to my switch to Wood Elves. I made the best use I could of Fear because Tomb King troops really suck. :)

Tomb Kings troops may suck, but my string of losses with Brettonians shows me that Knight troops suck even more ;) my first roll to run away was 18 inches. My second was almost the same.

Caitsidhe
26-12-2010, 02:06
Tomb Kings troops may suck, but my string of losses with Brettonians shows me that Knight troops suck even more ;) my first roll to run away was 18 inches. My second was almost the same.

Well, Fear (and Terror) are much less of a boogeyman in 8th so I expect your Knights will fare fine. As far as I know, you are the only army that has easy access to Heroic Killing Blow too. I envy you that. My battle with Empire yesterday would have been much nicer if I could have turned off the Steam Tank with a single hit. :D

Surgency
26-12-2010, 02:15
Its been 2 years since I played a game with my brettonians. It wasn't just against Tomb Kings that they couldn't do anything. I think my knights accounted for 50 models, total. Thats not in 1 game, either, thats in all the games they played. They seriously suffered from Rubber Lance syndrome.

Caitsidhe
26-12-2010, 02:24
Its been 2 years since I played a game with my brettonians. It wasn't just against Tomb Kings that they couldn't do anything. I think my knights accounted for 50 models, total. Thats not in 1 game, either, thats in all the games they played. They seriously suffered from Rubber Lance syndrome.

They do suffer from a serious lack of options. They can (and do) hit hard but they suffer heavily depending on the match up because they have a lot of issues in regards to making an all comers list.

R Man
26-12-2010, 03:09
In 7th ed, I had a brettonian KotR regiment, with my standard bearer, and my general, in the same unit, against TK. This was my linebreaker unit, designed to bust through, and obliterate whatever they went up against. I charged a unit of Skellies, and lost combat. I killed ONE skeleton. He killed 2 knights, and caused a wound on my general. I then ran away from a fear causing unit. I wasn't able to rally the next turn, either. After that, they ran right off the board.

Skill was not involved there, it was purely dice rolls that killed me. I went on to lose that game, albeit barely.


So my game hinged on a single roll. Or rather, 3 rolls, that i failed each time.

A similar situation happened to me once. Except instead of a unit of skeletons, it was a flame cannon, and my story ended better, my knights rallied and got to fight again. However I learned a lesson. Now I never put two heroes in the same unit. I wonder why you don't do the same. After all splitting points and avoiding deathstars is one of the key ways to manage losses like this. As I noted before, dice can be bad, but they can only be catastrophic when something else is wrong.


Should we not ask what happened before making the unfair comment At the end of the day just losing that +4 to your dispel rolls can make a massive difference to a magic in which you already have less dice in to counter magic, of course losing a lot of points can have the psychological effect on you as well. I Had this ones a units of 10 khorne knights with hero failed the frenzied test, charge a full ranked unit if warriors in my first turn (went 2nd), flop the attacks, hero dies in a challenge and they get run down.

No actually. My point was to demonstrate a principle. I could have used a hypothetical example but I saw that one just above me. A more deep exposition onto the matter, via request was something I deemed inappropriate for this thread. After all, it is supposed to be about 8th edition, and the problem we are discussing has nothing to do with 8th in or over any other edition.

Okuto
26-12-2010, 03:14
8th is ok but i have to shelf my TK till we get a new book so I've been sugging it out with my empire. My Brets have also been shelved till i figure out what to change about them as well as my orcs till the new book comes

Surgency
26-12-2010, 04:31
A similar situation happened to me once. Except instead of a unit of skeletons, it was a flame cannon, and my story ended better, my knights rallied and got to fight again. However I learned a lesson. Now I never put two heroes in the same unit. I wonder why you don't do the same. After all splitting points and avoiding deathstars is one of the key ways to manage losses like this. As I noted before, dice can be bad, but they can only be catastrophic when something else is wrong.

This was during the height of 7th, when deathstars were the way to go. This was the first (and incidently, the only) time that I'd ran all my heroes in one unit. I knew going against fear causing units that I'd have to do a LOT of damage on the charge, so my goal was to cause as many casualties as possible right off the bat, and let instability destroy another large group, allowing me to defeat the unit in the second round.


Unfortunately, with something on the order of 22 str 5/6 attacks on the charge, I was still only able to kill 1 skeleton

Lord Inquisitor
26-12-2010, 04:44
1. There are people who refuse to accept that a roll of the dice is anything other than a singular event, i.e. the odds never change.

2. There are people who accept that die rolls cannot be considered as singular events and are linked (by our observation) in a series of increasing or decreasing probability.

It comes back to that old question, if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around, does the falling make a sound? I don't waste a lot of time trying to explain probability to people who refuse to look at the roll of a dice as anything other than a singular event. I leave them to their well deserved fate. Myself, I play the odds. In the fullness of time, they never let you down.
1. Each individual dice roll is a singular event. The odds of any given dice roll do not change.

2. Individual dice rolls must be considered singular events. Multiple dice rolls are considered together can affect the probabilities, sure. But each individual dice roll is a singular event.

I think I know what you mean, but what you have said is entirely wrong. You can never look at the single roll of a dice and say "well, I've rolled a 1 three times in a row, the odds of me rolling four 1s are very low so I can't possibly roll another one." No. Each dice roll is a singular event, the probability remains 1 in 6.

I'm not sure whether you meant that it isn't, but that's how it came across.



If mistakes happen, that is NOT the fault of the dice. It is yours. It is mine. We cannot blame bad dice rolls for our own mistakes. The capricious whims of fate are equally kind and unkind to all. If a single event decides the game, you can only blame yourself. The only time I will allow someone to blame the dice is when they are hit with a statistical dead end, i.e. an improbable series of bad rolls over several turns. You and I clearly play very different games of Warhammer and in a very different style.

Hang on, we can't blame the dice unless they are hit by an improbable series of bad rolls? Isn't that what we mean by blaming bad dice?

You yourself said you play the odds. Individual important rolls can make or break a game. To give an example, at a tournament game I had a situation where I had set up a flank charge on an enemy unit, and I only needed M+3" to make it. It was critical I made the charge - if I made it, I would undoubtably roll up his back line, if not that unit would counter charge another of mine and cause major problems. In the end of course I rolled snake eyes and I'm quite certain that this single roll turned certain crushing victory into eventual defeat. If the situation came up again, I would play it no differently.

But that's really the point of all this. The more game critical individual rolls, such as Ld tests or charging rolls you have, the less the "law of averages" balances out the game. In this, as in many things, 8th is a step forward and a step back. Combat involves a lot MORE dice rolls, so the outcomes are govorned by lots of attacks rather than just a few and differences in characteristics matter more. Terror-bombing was removed - a big source of tactic-less dice rolling that could make or break a game early on. These are fairly universally acknowledged to be a Good Thing. But game-dominating individual rolls were introduced where there was no randomness before, for example in the movement phase (charging, all the Ld-tests, terrain), the magic phase (winds of magic) etc.

The point of all this is not to say it's okay to blame the dice for bad games but that a game should be designed as much as possible to minimise the effect of individual dice rolls, particularly ones that can have a great effect early in the game, or can't be controlled or affected by tactical play, army design or both.


1. Go first if at all possible.

Heh, let me get this straight. Your advice for not blaming the dice rolls is to win the roll for first turn? :eyebrows:

Surgency
26-12-2010, 04:57
Heh, let me get this straight. Your advice for not blaming the dice rolls is to win the roll for first turn? :eyebrows:

so if you don't win the roll for first turn, then what do you blame?

Caitsidhe
26-12-2010, 05:37
1. Each individual dice roll is a singular event. The odds of any given dice roll do not change... 2. Individual dice rolls must be considered singular events. Multiple dice rolls are considered together can affect the probabilities, sure. But each individual dice roll is a singular event.

And yet... they aren't. They are only singular events if you only roll one time. Our very observation (among other things) links them together in a system. And like any system, there are connections on top of connections on top of connections. To try and put it in clearer terms, we (you and I who are interested in probability) are looking at a macroverse versus a microverse. In short, I don't believe in singular events. To explain probability (big picture versus small picture) in an abstract way there is this song I heard Kathy Matea sing once:

From a distance the earth looks blue and green
And the snow capped mountains white
From a distance the ocean meets the stream
And the eagle takes to flight

From a distance there is harmony
And it echoes through the land
It's the voice of hope it's the voice of peace
It's the voice of every man

From a distance we all have enough
And no one is in need
There are no guns no bombs no diseases
No hungry mouths to feed

From a distance we are instruments
Marching in a common band
Playing songs of hope playing songs of peace
They're the songs of every man

God is watching us God is watching us
God is watching us from a distance
[ keyboards ]
From a distance you look like my friend
Even though we are at war
From a distance I can't comprehend
What all this war is for

From a distance there is harmony
And it echoes through the land
It's the hope of hopes it's the love of loves
It's the heart of every man

And God is watching us God is watching us
God is watching us from a distance
Oh God is watching us from a distance



I'm not sure whether you meant that it isn't, but that's how it came across.

What I mean (if my abstract reference above doesn't help) is that thinking of rolls of the dice as singular events is counter productive. It is missing the forest for the trees. We seek patterns of probability and those can only be discerned from a distance.


Hang on, we can't blame the dice unless they are hit by an improbable series of bad rolls? Isn't that what we mean by blaming bad dice?

We are talking about a matter of degree. The discussion was whether or not your game should ever hang in the balance from ONE roll. It shouldn't. If your entire game is lost on one roll, things were already wrong before the dice hit the table. For me to let someone off the hook, i.e. let them (or even myself) claim their loss wasn't their own, it has to be a LOT of highly improbable rolls which cannot be mitigated in anyway. It condition doesn't happen very often. It is the bad luck version of winning the lottery. It means you don't just get the worst possible results on the dice once or twice or even three times, but every time despite all normal probability. The bad luck extend turn after turn after turn. In this unlikely event, someone could say they lost because of bad luck and not their own play. I think people trivialize their losses and the good play of others by trying to scapegoat the dice for everything.


You yourself said you play the odds. Individual important rolls can make or break a game. To give an example, at a tournament game I had a situation where I had set up a flank charge on an enemy unit, and I only needed M+3" to make it. It was critical I made the charge - if I made it, I would undoubtably roll up his back line, if not that unit would counter charge another of mine and cause major problems. In the end of course I rolled snake eyes and I'm quite certain that this single roll turned certain crushing victory into eventual defeat. If the situation came up again, I would play it no differently.

What is your point? I have never said that bad dice doesn't exist. I have had my fair share (same as anyone) of dice that go against me just as I've had my share of dice that go for me. What is at issue is whether or not you believe the main reason people win/lose is blind luck or the application of skill. I happen to believe the main ingredient in victory is skill, and that far too many people refuse to own up to their own losses.


But that's really the point of all this. The more game critical individual rolls, such as Ld tests or charging rolls you have, the less the "law of averages" balances out the game. In this, as in many things, 8th is a step forward and a step back. Combat involves a lot MORE dice rolls, so the outcomes are govorned by lots of attacks rather than just a few and differences in characteristics matter more. Terror-bombing was removed - a big source of tactic-less dice rolling that could make or break a game early on. These are fairly universally acknowledged to be a Good Thing. But game-dominating individual rolls were introduced where there was no randomness before, for example in the movement phase (charging, all the Ld-tests, terrain), the magic phase (winds of magic) etc.

There is a lot to discuss here and probably have to save some of it for another thread. What matters is that none of this is relevant to the topic at hand because the SAME changes affect everyone. This means the only variant that we don't all share is skill. There is new risk to be managed and in a different way, but it still comes down to risk management. In the end, those with more skill will win more often than those with less.


The point of all this is not to say it's okay to blame the dice for bad games but that a game should be designed as much as possible to minimise the effect of individual dice rolls, particularly ones that can have a great effect early in the game, or can't be controlled or affected by tactical play, army design or both.

I don't think you are trying to say its ok to blame dice for bad games. However, if you are saying that you think the game should be designed to minimize random factors, why don't you just play Chess? I'll be happy to play you. This is a war game and war is not Chess. There are random elements and unknown variables in them. Worse still, rarely in all of history has there ever been a battle in which the two sides were evenly matched. The great generals were differentiated from their peers by their ability to adapt and manage risk. Wars are won on the basis of the fewest mistakes, not the grandest strategy. In any event, Games Workshop isn't going to change the rules until 9th Edition so what they SHOULD have done really has no bearing on anything. I'm not being snide, just pragmatic. The only question is do you think the outcome of the games is random, or do you think skills play a part? If it is random, then I am defying odds at a remarkable level with my current win/loss ratio. I should be buying lotto tickets like crazy if this is all due to luck. God must love me.


Heh, let me get this straight. Your advice for not blaming the dice rolls is to win the roll for first turn?

No. You didn't follow the logic. I merely pointed out that I go into that battle knowing there are obstacles on the battlefield which I must overcome. If I know they are out there I must do everything I can to mitigate them. Taking steps to increase the odds in my favor of going first is proactive action. In other words, I am not going to blame the dice; I am going to influence the dice.

SeaSwift
26-12-2010, 09:30
And yet... they aren't. They are only singular events if you only roll one time. Our very observation (among other things) links them together in a system. And like any system, there are connections on top of connections on top of connections. To try and put it in clearer terms, we (you and I who are interested in probability) are looking at a macroverse versus a microverse. In short, I don't believe in singular events.

:confused:

So are you saying that if you roll 3 dice in a row, and the first 2 come up with 1s, the chance of the last one being a 1 as well is smaller? Because that is patently false - it is a D6, so the chance of it coming up as a 1 is 1/6.

If you roll 3 dice at once, however, the chance of them all coming up as 1s is 1/(6*6*6), I believe.

Harwammer
26-12-2010, 10:38
Caitsidhe are you talking about normal distribution when you talk of dice rolled together?

Let me ask some questions so I can understand your point. You know when you roll 2 dice, each dice is equally likely to be anything from 1 to 6. However, the sum of the dice is more likely to fall in the middle than at the edges of what could be rolled... When looking at the sum of 2 dice there are only 12 ways to get the edge 6 results (2,3,4,10,11&12) but 24 ways to roll the middle 5 results (5,6,7,8,9). Your twice as likely to roll a middle result than an edge one! I suppose this pattern gives the impression the dice 'like' to balance each other out when rolled together... Is this what you mean when you say dice rolled together affect each other?

WarmbloodedLizard
26-12-2010, 10:41
There is a lot to discuss here and probably have to save some of it for another thread. What matters is that none of this is relevant to the topic at hand because the SAME changes affect everyone. This means the only variant that we don't all share is skill. There is new risk to be managed and in a different way, but it still comes down to risk management. In the end, those with more skill will win more often than those with less.

the problem with "win more" doesn't really mean much when it's 55% vs. 45% (arbitrary numbers)

you cannot call it risk management when it's about a huge effect (wizard blowing himself up or not, charges, rolling the ward for you sniped character, etc.) that only involves 1 or 2 dice. (well you can call it that of course but you would usually come to the conclusion that it is WAY too risky and you won't be able to make any reliable estimate)

this is why I extremely dislike effects like these. charging, miscast table, character sniping (warmachines/dwellers/transmutation) roll for first turn (there should be some kind of bonus for going second, but they took away everything: table quarters/fleeing units as destroyed, etc.), etc.

R Man
26-12-2010, 10:46
This was during the height of 7th, when deathstars were the way to go. This was the first (and incidently, the only) time that I'd ran all my heroes in one unit. I knew going against fear causing units that I'd have to do a LOT of damage on the charge, so my goal was to cause as many casualties as possible right off the bat, and let instability destroy another large group, allowing me to defeat the unit in the second round.

Really? My response would be to do the opposite, to take more, smaller units rather than fewer bigger ones. That way a failed fear test would be far less damaging to my armies offense. In addition it allows for a combined charge which denies the enemy SCR thus aiding in the destruction.

Caitsidhe
26-12-2010, 11:17
What I'm talking about is the normal distribution, period. It doesn't matter if the dice are rolled together in one handful or rolled individually a thousand times in a row. The bell curve will reveal itself because probability is a reliable thing. There is no point in talking about singular events because nothing is ever singular. Think about it graphically and then my abstract song comment will make more sense.

If you just roll a die three times and get a six three times in a row this will seem very skewed and not representative of a 1 in 6 at all. The next three times you roll it the dice might be three different things or another repeat of three. In these little bites you will get things that don't look at all like a normal distribution.

Why is it all wrong? It is because you are looking at it wrong. Your sample is too small, i.e. you don't have enough distance from which to look at things to see the big picture. The greater the number of variables, the greater the distance (i.e. sample size) you need to be able to see the pattern in a reliable way. The pattern is ALWAYS there but if you are too close you can't see it, i.e. the forest for the trees.

When you play games like Warhammer it is pointless to look at rolls of the dice as singular events because their effects can't even be discerned on a game level basis, let alone in the little engagements. Moreover, since the measurements on the dice change from model to model, that is another variable that makes it easy for us to lose track and misunderstand what is going on. You simply have to have faith that in the long haul the bell curve will reveal itself.

logan054
26-12-2010, 11:59
Again, you are assigning it all to dice. Why wouldn't you credit yourself for choosing to take the Hellcannon, where you deploy it, what targets you choose to shoot (and in what order), and so on? If you really believe the game is mostly random, why do you worry about the rules at all? :)

While yes you can credit me for selecting a target its stilll all down to the dice in the case of a hellcannon, if that thing scatters you be as skilled as you like, the dice have let you down and it hasn't mattered one bit.

Gromdal
26-12-2010, 12:28
To much off topic atm.

As to those who still seem to think that improving warhammer is impossible (still cannot imagine that which is not right in front of them) think on this.

Ask yourself would the game be better without x spell (lurker, whatever)?

Can the game be vastly improved by protecting y type of unit vs x to prevent paper rock to an extreme extent?

Fixes that can be done in seconds for the better of the whole game. Imagine what could be done in days, weeks, months.

Harwammer
26-12-2010, 12:41
While yes you can credit me for selecting a target its stilll all down to the dice in the case of a hellcannon, if that thing scatters you be as skilled as you like, the dice have let you down and it hasn't mattered one bit.

A nice trick with scatter templates is to place them so you are likely to hit good secondary targets on scatter. You can even go so far as to place the centre hole 2,4,6 and 8 inches away from other high value models (as these are values the artillery dice can roll). People may roll their eyes but all you are doing is ensuring there is a possibility that the centre hole can scatter onto something good. Last game I scattered off a unit of gors with great bray shaman onto a BsB on chariot so it is worth keeping in mind.

Like wise, try to ensure your own characters are kept at a distance an odd number of inches from the centre hole. This ensures it is impossible to centre hole your own guys. I remember one game an opponent's rock lobber scattered onto his own warlord, killing it. Sure it was an unlucky streak but if my opponent had placed the template about an inch to the side there would have been no risk to his lord (beyond a str 3 hit).

logan054
26-12-2010, 13:13
A nice trick with scatter templates is to place them so you are likely to hit good secondary targets on scatter.

Yes you can certainly do that but i think it depends on you opponent army and how it is laid out.

Caitsidhe
26-12-2010, 16:29
A nice trick with scatter templates is to place them so you are likely to hit good secondary targets on scatter. You can even go so far as to place the centre hole 2,4,6 and 8 inches away from other high value models (as these are values the artillery dice can roll). People may roll their eyes but all you are doing is ensuring there is a possibility that the centre hole can scatter onto something good. Last game I scattered off a unit of gors with great bray shaman onto a BsB on chariot so it is worth keeping in mind.

Yes, exactly! Proactive. Applying skill and intellect to influence the dice rather than seeing yourself as a prisoner of them. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Skillful players learn to use the tools they are given to the maximum effect and thus will always end up winning more often (and more clearly) than those who do not.

logan054
26-12-2010, 16:38
Yes, exactly! Proactive. Applying skill and intellect to influence the dice rather than seeing yourself as a prisoner of them. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Skillful players learn to use the tools they are given to the maximum effect and thus will always end up winning more often (and more clearly) than those who do not.

Skillful players will also learn how to position units so that their prime units will no offer multiple targets due to scatter, armies with small unit counts can also spread out the army more to limit the scatter.

Caitsidhe
26-12-2010, 16:44
Skillful players will also learn how to position units so that their prime units will no offer multiple targets due to scatter, armies with small unit counts can also spread out the army more to limit the scatter.

Go ahead an make it crystal clear for us. I know you don't like me to assume. Do you feel the outcome of the games is blind luck or based on skill? Which is the primary factor in your view?

logan054
26-12-2010, 17:27
Go ahead an make it crystal clear for us. I know you don't like me to assume. Do you feel the outcome of the games is blind luck or based on skill? Which is the primary factor in your view?

Actually it has nothing to do with us, it has everything to do with yourself, i don't see anyone else flinging mud as soon as anything negative is mentioned, usually around being bad sports, bad players or whatever. Perhaps if you didn't go down this route I would have more time to actually read your posts ;)

To be crystal clear, certainly skill will have effect on the game but at the end of the day if the dice are against you they are against you, its happens, you can lay out the perfect plan and it can fall apart on a few simple dice rolls. With so many more dice rolls you have so many more areas that can fall apart because of this, sure you can put in a bit of risk management but it really depends on what you are trying to come back from. Not everything that goes wrong is down to dice and nor do I pretend tat everything that goes wrong is instantly down to dice, warhammer now is more about how much of a risk you want to take, at the end of the day taking high risks can damage an enemies plan.

Caitsidhe
26-12-2010, 17:29
Actually it has nothing to do with us, it has everything to do with yourself, i don't see anyone else flinging mud as soon as anything negative is mentioned, usually around being bad sports, bad players or whatever. Perhaps if you didn't go down this route I would have more time to actually read your posts ;)

If this were the case my posts would be pulled. The Moderators are watching, always.


To be crystal clear, certainly skill will have effect on the game but at the end of the day if the dice are against you they are against you, its happens, you can lay out the perfect plan and it can fall apart on a few simple dice rolls. With so many more dice rolls you have so many more areas that can fall apart because of this, sure you can put in a bit of risk management but it really depends on what you are trying to come back from. Not everything that goes wrong is down to dice and nor do I pretend tat everything that goes wrong is instantly down to dice, warhammer now is more about how much of a risk you want to take, at the end of the day taking high risks can damage an enemies plan.

That wasn't crystal clear. Which is the primary factor, skill or luck? I'm only asking you which you think is more important.

logan054
26-12-2010, 17:52
If this were the case my posts would be pulled. The Moderators are watching, always.

Perhaps because people like myself don't press the report post button because i like to think actually telling someone what they have done which has offended me is the correct thing to do. Perhaps I was mistaken in thinking you might have the maturity to listen to what is said, obviously i was mistaken, looking at other posts in the this topic i am not the only person you have offended.

Caitsidhe
26-12-2010, 17:59
Do you intend to answer the question or continue to avoid it? Do you, Logon054, feel that luck is the primary factor in winning/losing games or the skill of the participants?

scruffyryan
26-12-2010, 18:37
The skill of the participant is the MAJOR reason of a win/loss but luck can override it pretty hard when it falls that way.

logan054
26-12-2010, 19:32
Do you intend to answer the question or continue to avoid it? Do you, Logon054, feel that luck is the primary factor in winning/losing games or the skill of the participants?

I have answered your question.

lilloser2010
26-12-2010, 19:42
Wow, hell of a discussion going on here.

I admire caitsidhe's philosophy of seeing the big picture when it comes to gaming, and there is a lot to be said for how he promotes favorable match up's. Extensive planning and the actuation of a well thought out plan is one of the best things about any game.

I'm more like Logan though, a luck gamer. I take far too many risks when I play and I prefer to gamble in game. Variable charge distances are great!

Does luck outweigh skill? Now there's a question with no definitive answer. I suppose it depends on what view point you bring to the game.

For Caitsidhe it's skill,

For Logan, Luck.

Peace to the world, and season's greetings all.

LilLoser

logan054
26-12-2010, 21:24
Don't get me wrong I think skill is a factor in games however I have seen so many times that luck can destroy the best of plans, perhaps at times I just don't see myself as a good player and like to think i win games for other reasons.

SeaSwift
26-12-2010, 21:45
Skillful players will also learn how to position units so that their prime units will no offer multiple targets due to scatter, armies with small unit counts can also spread out the army more to limit the scatter.

So the game is more luck based because of your opponent's skill? :eyebrows: :wtf:

(God I love those smileys. I wish we had more sarcastic ones.)


Perhaps because people like myself don't press the report post button because i like to think actually telling someone what they have done which has offended me is the correct thing to do. Perhaps I was mistaken in thinking you might have the maturity to listen to what is said, obviously i was mistaken, looking at other posts in the this topic i am not the only person you have offended.

1) If you see something offensive, report it. Don't give the person a chance - that is for the mods to decide, not you.

2) I do press the report post button, so handbags away ladies - beware the mods.


I have answered your question.

Please point out where. The closest you have come to it is a vague response about not flinging mud and some sitting on the fence ("if the dice are against you..." "the perfectly laid plan..."). You have said that both play a part. Which is the one that has most effect, in your opinion?

Oh, and:


With so many more dice rolls

Patently false, and this has been repeatedly pointed out (bell-curve, probability/averages etc). With 0 dice rolls, the chance of rolling only 1s on a die is 0. With one, it is 1/6. With two, it is 1/36. With three, it is (1/3)*3. So the chance of any one roll ruining your day, and the chance of the dice ruining one of your plans is less the further up the probability tree you get. And you are less likely to get away with things that you shouldn't have.

ChrisIronBrow
26-12-2010, 21:54
Wow Logan054 I'm reminded of the Juggernaught cav thread with how it's us against the world. :P

The reason he's not "answering" is because your asking him something nonsequitor. He's talking about the impact of luck despite skill, not that luck is the most important factor in winning, that's something you guys are inventing to try to trap him into a corner.


Skill wins games, until it doesn't. Sometimes Luck beats you no matter what your actions are.

Surgency
26-12-2010, 23:42
Do you intend to answer the question or continue to avoid it? Do you, Logon054, feel that luck is the primary factor in winning/losing games or the skill of the participants?

I think what he's saying, and what several other people have alluded to, is that its a combination of luck AND skill. Skill can only take you so far, and luck can only take you so far. The winning player will be the one best able to combine skillful maneuvering, with lucky rolls.

Take my Brettonian example, from earlier. Skill told me that I need to set up a charge on the TK skellies in the center of my opponents lines, so I could break through, and destroy his back lines (SSC, LP, etc). Skill also told me that against his unit of 30 skellies my KotR (with general, and BSB) needed to kill 10 models, and suffer 8 or less unsaved wounds, in order to win combat, but that I needed to kill 10 models, and suffer no more than 2 wounds in order to get the crumbling results that I desired (enough to make him unable to outnumber me in the second round of combat). So with careful consideration, and skill, I set up a charge, with MoA positioned in such a way that my Knights couldn't be flank charged.

Luck, however, decided that the Brettonians shouldn't win. Not only did I not kill anywhere near the number of skeletons that I needed to kill (I destroyed a whopping TWO of them), but my Knights also suffered horrendous casualties in return (I failed 5 armour saves), causing me to flee at max distance. The icing on the proverbial cake, however, was when my LD9 general failed to rally his troops in the second round, and proceeded to flee again, at almost max distance, causing him to run off the table.


Skill and luck go hand in hand. Luck can save games against skillful players, and skill can save games against lucky players. To say the game is won or lost based purely on one or the other is a fallacy, you have to have both to win.

Caitsidhe
27-12-2010, 00:24
Skill and luck go hand in hand. Luck can save games against skillful players, and skill can save games against lucky players. To say the game is won or lost based purely on one or the other is a fallacy, you have to have both to win.

I wasn't asking whether or not he thought luck played a part. I was asking what he thought the primary factor in victory was... skill or luck. He never answered it in a clear, direct way. Which one has primacy. I am what you call a straight shooter. I don't dabble in rhetoric to avoid taking a stance all the while attacking the position of others. I stake out my position clearly. It is only ethical and fair. If I'm going to disagree with someone, my own position should be in black and white.

I believe that skill is the dominant factor in Warhammer just as it is in any game of tactics, strategy, and even games of chance (like poker). That is why there are professional even in contests such as those. Skill and intellect matter. I likewise find it poor sportsmanship for people to try and scapegoat the dice. It isn't true for one thing, and it diminishes the victory of your opponent for another. It is bad manners. It is tantamount to trying to steal something from them. It is losing fair and square and then refusing to admit it. It is passive aggressive nonsense. It is a spit in the eye of your opponent who fought the good fight with you. Of late I've listened to all sorts of complaints ranging from the evils of dice, the horrible changes to the game, and lamentations of model changes. All of it comes back to the same thing, people refuse to accept responsibility for their own shortcomings or strengths. We are all players of the same game. We come to the table with a knowledge of the rules and an understanding of the odds. We roll the dice and take our chances. The moment we took our place at the table the buck stops with us.

Surgency
27-12-2010, 00:45
I believe that skill is the dominant factor in Warhammer just as it is in any game of tactics, strategy, and even games of chance (like poker). That is why there are professional even in contests such as those. Skill and intellect matter. I likewise find it poor sportsmanship for people to try and scapegoat the dice. It isn't true for one thing, and it diminishes the victory of your opponent for another. It is bad manners. It is tantamount to trying to steal something from them. It is losing fair and square and then refusing to admit it. It is passive aggressive nonsense. It is a spit in the eye of your opponent who fought the good fight with you. Of late I've listened to all sorts of complaints ranging from the evils of dice, the horrible changes to the game, and lamentations of model changes. All of it comes back to the same thing, people refuse to accept responsibility for their own shortcomings or strengths. We are all players of the same game. We come to the table with a knowledge of the rules and an understanding of the odds. We roll the dice and take our chances. The moment we took our place at the table the buck stops with us.

Well, I'll have to disagree, and face the abuse for it. As I said earlier, skill and luck play equal parts in the game. You can mitigate bad luck with good skill, and you can (sometimes) mitigate bad skill with good luck. Take my example above. You're saying I did something wrong? Maybe, in hindsight, putting my 2 most important characters in the same unit was a bad idea, but the options were to make a large-ish combat unit, with a lot of killing power, or make 2 small units, that will be outnumbered much longer, with only marginal killing power. As I said before, winning combat by 10 would have ensured that my unit was NOT outnumbered in the second round, which would have enabled me to then move forward, and charge other, more vulnerable items subsequently. Or did my opponent just out-skill me in that match, when I clearly broke every bell curve, and every statistical average, in my rolling?

Let me ask you this: if you play a game, and you roll nothing but 1's that entire game, no matter how improbable, no matter the unlikelyhood of that particular outcome. Lets say hypothetically, you roll nothing but 1's (maybe a few 2's) for an ENTIRE game. You (obviously) lose that game. Did you lose because you were less skilled? Can your opponent honestly claim to out-skill you?

How about the inverse. Lets say you make all your rolls. Every attack hits, and wounds. Every magic spell is maxed. Every shot finds its mark, cannonballs are spot on, stone throwers never deviate, and your opponent doesn't make a single armour save. You're telling me you won that game on skill alone? Talk about conceited. I realize its an extreme example, but to claim that every game is won on skill alone, or to passively imply that it was skill by not admitting to luck(good or bad) is the epitome of arrogance.

When the dice slaughter you, the dice slaughter you. I'm a very skilled player. I don't say that braggingly, but I say it because its true. Some of my regular opponents are also very skilled players. Sometimes, the luck just isn't with us, and it doesn't take anything away from me when my opponent tells me that I got lucky with a dice roll, or that he'd have done better if the dice were more even. It's not passive aggressive nonsense, its not spitting in the face of your opponent, its not bad manners, and its not poor sportsmanship. Its the truth, plain and simple. Sometimes you lose because the dice don't go your way. If you (not you specifically, but the generic you) get all ******** because your opponent says he'd have done better if the dice were with him, you need to look to yourself, and your own attitudes.

Caitsidhe
27-12-2010, 01:01
Well, I'll have to disagree, and face the abuse for it. As I said earlier, skill and luck play equal parts in the game. You can mitigate bad luck with good skill, and you can (sometimes) mitigate bad skill with good luck. Take my example above. You're saying I did something wrong? Maybe, in hindsight, putting my 2 most important characters in the same unit was a bad idea, but the options were to make a large-ish combat unit, with a lot of killing power, or make 2 small units, that will be outnumbered much longer, with only marginal killing power. As I said before, winning combat by 10 would have ensured that my unit was NOT outnumbered in the second round, which would have enabled me to then move forward, and charge other, more vulnerable items subsequently. Or did my opponent just out-skill me in that match, when I clearly broke every bell curve, and every statistical average, in my rolling?


The problem is that you and I are not talking about the same thing. You are still talking about the "little picture." I am talking about the "big picture." I'm not talking about a single game. That sample is too small. You don't have enough distance. My argument is that skilled players win more than they lose. Bad players lose more than they win. Luck (good and bad) can create a ripple here and there but overall the pattern will hold intact. Cream rises to the top. I do believe that most games are NOT lost on a single roll. I tend to think something else has gone wrong before the dice hit the table. Even so, a win/loss record will not lie. A pattern will emerge.


When the dice slaughter you, the dice slaughter you. I'm a very skilled player. I don't say that braggingly, but I say it because its true.

I don't doubt you. I also suspect you know you are a skilled player from the results of your games. You know yourself. In the "big picture" you already know that you win more games than you lose. We are on the same page.


Some of my regular opponents are also very skilled players. Sometimes, the luck just isn't with us, and it doesn't take anything away from me when my opponent tells me that I got lucky with a dice roll, or that he'd have done better if the dice were more even. It's not passive aggressive nonsense, its not spitting in the face of your opponent, its not bad manners, and its not poor sportsmanship.

We will have to agree to disagree here. I find it very bad manners. I would NEVER insult you thus. If you beat me to a pulp and I clearly see that it was lottery level dice and not my own mistakes that beat me, I will still shake your hand, tell you thanks for a great game, and commend you on your success. If I know different in my heart, why would I have the need to say anything? The only reason to open my yap is to take some of your victory from you. When a game ends with a clear winner and a clear loser, there is an etiquette that is good sportsmanship. Both sides have their parts to play to be good winners and good losers. Telling your opponent that they ONLY won because of luck is not good manners. If it is true, you both already know it and nothing needs to be said.

Surgency
27-12-2010, 01:15
My argument is that skilled players win more than they lose. Bad players lose more than they win. Luck (good and bad) can create a ripple here and there but overall the pattern will hold intact

Well thats just plainly obvious lol. I may have misunderstood the points of contention between you and logan earlier, because nothing came across as being long term results. Like I said, bad luck can be marginally mitigated with good skill, but relying on the fickle whims of fate to mitigate bad skill is foolish, at best. Skill stays roughly constant, but luck is random, thats why good players win more than lucky players.



Telling your opponent that they ONLY won because of luck is not good manners. If it is true, you both already know it and nothing needs to be said.

again, I think we're talking about different things. Do you see a problem with your opponent, in the middle of a game, commenting on extreme bad luck when he hits with only 4 of 23 attacks, fails 8 3+ armour save (of 12 total), rolls boxcars for leadership, then triple 6's for a flee move? For the most part, you may be correct, telling someone that they only won because of luck could be considered poor sportsmanship. But what if it truely was purely because of luck? And what if its not just a random pick-up game, but a game against a mate of yours that you've played against every week or 2, for the last 2 years? Would you have a problem telling him that he got lucky?

ChrisIronBrow
27-12-2010, 01:24
If you beat me to a pulp and I clearly see that it was lottery level dice and not my own mistakes that beat me, I will still shake your hand, tell you thanks for a great game, and commend you on your success. If I know different in my heart, why would I have the need to say anything? The only reason to open my yap is to take some of your victory from you. When a game ends with a clear winner and a clear loser, there is an etiquette that is good sportsmanship. Both sides have their parts to play to be good winners and good losers. Telling your opponent that they ONLY won because of luck is not good manners. If it is true, you both already know it and nothing needs to be said.


So, I think we have been arguing about nothing. I don't see anyone here advocating tableside complaints about luck. I in fact refuse to do it as well, for the same reasons. What I have been seeing is a discussion of a game that has random elements, and how some people are unhappy with how random that game has now become.

Last week I was playing against a WoC with my DoC, his khorne warriors put 22 wounds on my bloodletters, I picked up the dice and rolled 18 5+ saves. Guess what, I won that on luck.

Overall a more skilled player may win more often than not, but it's gotten a lot closer to a coinflip than I'm happy with.

Caitsidhe
27-12-2010, 01:34
Well thats just plainly obvious lol. I may have misunderstood the points of contention between you and logan earlier, because nothing came across as being long term results. Like I said, bad luck can be marginally mitigated with good skill, but relying on the fickle whims of fate to mitigate bad skill is foolish, at best. Skill stays roughly constant, but luck is random, thats why good players win more than lucky players.

I think it is plainly obvious. You think it is plainly obvious. Some others... not so much. I suspected from your comments that you and I were on the same page.


Do you see a problem with your opponent, in the middle of a game, commenting on extreme bad luck when he hits with only 4 of 23 attacks, fails 8 3+ armour save (of 12 total), rolls boxcars for leadership, then triple 6's for a flee move?

What do you mean by "commenting?" I'm certainly not going to think poorly of someone letting out a groan when something like that happens. However, if the guy throws a tantrum or looks over the table at me and makes a production of how I just won because of his bad dice... yeah... it is the same bad manners as doing it at the end. Nobody likes it when they take a kick to the groin, and all of us are going to understand some exasperation. There is a line though and if it is crossed it is BAD SPORTSMANSHIP. Manners cost nothing. Myself, I try to even stifle the groans. If I can suffer in silence I do. I might even crack a joke at my own expense but keep it in good humor. The thing to remember is that it isn't your opponent's fault that you have thrown a bad handful of dice. They don't don't deserve your ire, nor should they have to watch a long production of self pity. They absolutely should NOT have to be included in your expressions of exasperation as being rewarded by your ill luck.


For the most part, you may be correct, telling someone that they only won because of luck could be considered poor sportsmanship. But what if it truely was purely because of luck?

If it was the result only of luck, you have nothing to feel bad about. You just silently chalk that loss up to it being your turn. You let your opponent have his/her day in the sun. After all, if you are a great player it stands to reason they don't get that many against you. Chances are they KNOW they got lucky too. Nothing needs to be said. If they don't know they got lucky, why should you spoil it for them? That would seem kind of petty to me.


And what if its not just a random pick-up game, but a game against a mate of yours that you've played against every week or 2, for the last 2 years? Would you have a problem telling him that he got lucky?

Ah... now this is a horse of a different color. There is a different etiquette when playing with your close friends. It is only among close, long time friends that one can insult one another in a way that is accepted and not hurtful. In private... among a very small and select group... we are lax and make fun of each other and indulge in bravado, smack talk, and so on. This is because we are the kind of friends which are closer than brothers. Even so, we would never do this to each other in public, only in those garage games among ourselves alone. Sinn Fein. However, I don't consider this specific, limited kind of etiquette relevant to the overall discussion.

Caitsidhe
27-12-2010, 01:44
So, I think we have been arguing about nothing. I don't see anyone here advocating tableside complaints about luck. I in fact refuse to do it as well, for the same reasons. What I have been seeing is a discussion of a game that has random elements, and how some people are unhappy with how random that game has now become.

For my own part, I apologize if the debate got so convoluted as to be confusing. I think the topic has ranged all over the place. To be fair, I still maintain that games should NOT be lost on a single throw of the dice, not even individual games. I think if that happens to someone a lot, they are playing in a style that invites it.

I don't think the game has gotten any more random than it was before. I think the random elements have just been put in different places. The game has an engine driven by dice, so nothing has really changed. People are just outside their comfort zone. Things will settle back down. They always do. Do I think certain things will get an errata or faq? I hope so. I am not happy with all the changes myself, but the overall product pleases me. I just don't see the point of belaboring certain elements or trying to scapegoat them for all the ills. When I lose, I lost because of me. I don't hold anyone to a standard higher than I hold myself.


Overall a more skilled player may win more often than not, but it's gotten a lot closer to a coinflip than I'm happy with.

Here is the thing... I don't think it has. It only seems that way because we are all still getting the beat of the new system. Right now the good players don't really have much advantage over the bad because we have to adapt to the new rules and shake off habits we have let get a bit ingrained. New players... and even some plain bad players.... don't have any bad habits to lose. They didn't get better. They system didn't do them any favors. We just hit a speed bump. Good players don't take too long to readjust and I have faith that within a year the same people who won all the time playing 7th Edition will be winning all the time in 8th. The same bad players will go back to their prior positions.

Bergen Beerbelly
27-12-2010, 02:34
And to totally change the subject, on the issue of some people complaining about cannons, I don't really see that big of a change.

Basically, all of the people I know who play Empire or Dwarfs have been able to guess the distance needed to shoot with a cannon so accurately that they are rarely off by more than about a 16th of an inch.

That effectively means that they got rid of a useless mechanic in favor of speeding the game up. When so many people are so good at guessing range, why bother.

SeaSwift
27-12-2010, 13:56
One of my main gripes with 8th is not balance or gameplay so much as fluff. I play High Elves, so balance isn't really my main problem (apart from Shadow Warriors and RBTs), but the fact that High Magic is now to the 8 main lores as (IMHO) Asda is to M&S - cheaper/easier to cast, but with worse spells/products.

Sparowl
27-12-2010, 14:12
Back on topic, one of my main gripes with 8th is not balance or gameplay so much as fluff. I play High Elves, so balance isn't really my main problem (apart from Shadow Warriors and RBTs), but the fact that High Magic is now to the 8 main lores as (IMHO) Asda is to M&S - cheaper/easier to cast, but with worse spells/products.

So, honest question: How do you reconcile the fact that Lizardmen are better at magic then HEs (it is a canon fact), yet don't have their own lore? And were, through 6th and 7th, handed worse lores then HEs?

I have a little trouble with the fluff and how it is handled in game also. Not just with the two races above, but with quite a few of them.

SeaSwift
27-12-2010, 14:27
So, honest question: How do you reconcile the fact that Lizardmen are better at magic then HEs (it is a canon fact), yet don't have their own lore? And were, through 6th and 7th, handed worse lores then HEs?

I don't reconcile it. But the only player I know personally who plays Lizardmen lives in another country, so I don't have to face the problem very often. ;)

Oh, and only the Slann are better at magic than the HEs, the Skink priests are generally pretty average, IIRC.


I have a little trouble with the fluff and how it is handled in game also. Not just with the two races above, but with quite a few of them.

Same. The game balance is certainly a problem too, but not as much as it was at the end of 7th. ASF feels clunky as a rule and has very little solid basis in fluff. At least Eternal Hatred for the DEs comes from somewhere.

arthurfallz
27-12-2010, 14:28
There is a way to take "luck" out of the equation. Make a chart of sequential die rolls, 1,2,3,4,5,6. Run each game based on this.

There is indeed a fine line between calling a loss "bad luck" (and I've both seen them and had them) and insulting your opponent's skill by trying to credit their victory to "luck alone". Unlike chess, where the pieces always do the same thing and always will, Warhammer is a game with dynamic variables. It can be tough sometimes to figure out what was bad luck unless you note every roll and analyze afterwards for probability, which is my suggestion.

When my friends play Exalted, the mathies often do a quick look at their roll to see how far away from the expected results and standard deviation the outcome was. The same can be done for Warhammer, and easier.

Have three colours of beads at the ready (for this, I would suggest white, red and blue, as those are the colours I have). For each roll made by you, do a quick analysis of the roll.
* If the roll is better than expected, put a blue bead in.
* If the roll is average / within the standard deviation, put a white bead in.
* If the roll was worse than expected, put a red bead in.
At the end of the game, do a count of the beads. The majority should be white, but if one colour shows more, than you can see how "lucky" or "unlucky" your rolls were. You could even go further and have your opponent do the same, invent a mechanism to weight rolls (the best would be to put in a bead for every die probably best to make an application for this in truth).

Since this is a pain to do every match, it's best to adopt the attitude that the dice will roll where they may, and look at your assumptions and shake the hand of the opposing player regardless. I do, however, think it's fair to proclaim to a player (while congratulating their good ideas) that "you got lucky on that roll", and leave it there.

logan054
27-12-2010, 14:30
There is a way to take "luck" out of the equation. Make a chart of sequential die rolls, 1,2,3,4,5,6. Run each game based on this.

There is indeed a fine line between calling a loss "bad luck" (and I've both seen them and had them) and insulting your opponent's skill by trying to credit their victory to "luck alone". Unlike chess, where the pieces always do the same thing and always will, Warhammer is a game with dynamic variables. It can be tough sometimes to figure out what was bad luck unless you note every roll and analyze afterwards for probability, which is my suggestion.

When my friends play Exalted, the mathies often do a quick look at their roll to see how far away from the expected results and standard deviation the outcome was. The same can be done for Warhammer, and easier.

Have three colours of beads at the ready (for this, I would suggest white, red and blue, as those are the colours I have). For each roll made by you, do a quick analysis of the roll.
* If the roll is better than expected, put a blue bead in.
* If the roll is average / within the standard deviation, put a white bead in.
* If the roll was worse than expected, put a red bead in.
At the end of the game, do a count of the beads. The majority should be white, but if one colour shows more, than you can see how "lucky" or "unlucky" your rolls were. You could even go further and have your opponent do the same, invent a mechanism to weight rolls (the best would be to put in a bead for every die – probably best to make an application for this in truth).

Since this is a pain to do every match, it's best to adopt the attitude that the dice will roll where they may, and look at your assumptions and shake the hand of the opposing player regardless. I do, however, think it's fair to proclaim to a player (while congratulating their good ideas) that "you got lucky on that roll", and leave it there.

Thats actually a very interesting idea,i think that could a be a very cool thing to do over tournament to see how much luck played a roll in a the actual winning of the tournament and the compare lists the top few and see how much of a impact the lists had one the luck.

SeaSwift
27-12-2010, 15:18
@ arthurfallz, that is a good idea, and one I'd like to try out soon. However, how would you deal with a case like the following?

1) You must make 3 saves at 3+

2) You roll all of them, and get exactly average - 2 saved, 1 unsaved.

3) The two saved ones were individually likely, and the last one was unlikely, so you place 2 white beads and 1 red bead.

4) The overall result of that attempt at saving seems to be, following the beads, that you were slightly unlucky, but common sense tells you that your rolls were perfectly normal.

Caitsidhe
27-12-2010, 15:29
The bead idea is a variation of something I do myself. I just have a notebook handy and make a mark in one of several columns. This is for my own interest and not something I slow down a game for or bother my opponent with. It is rather easy to calculate what the normal results of a roll should be. It is important that you include a margin of error in there before counting anything as lucky or unlucky. For example, if the statistical average Wounds for a particular series of throws should be (3) after all is said and done, I am going to put down a (2), (3), or (4) result as average. Only something outside that margin of error either way is going to get a mark.

Thus, in each turn of combat I will mark down Lucky, Average, Unlucky for each each participant. You could, of course, also track the degree further by just how much each roll was outside the normal mean, but that would also require you to go back later and likewise subtract all the positive things for the overall battle. There comes a point where it is becoming an obsession and probably not worth your time. I only track things for my own personal edification. The dice have always balanced in the end so I rarely do it anymore unless I'm just plain bored and fighting an inferior opponent and thus have all the time in the world to fill. Reading a book while we play would be obvious and rude.

Codsticker
27-12-2010, 16:33
I have removed a number of posts that were either inflammatory, trolling or off topic and edited posts that referenced deleted material for the sake of thread continuity (which was pretty nice of me as it would have been easier just to Vanish the whole thing and issue warnings). This forum is for discussion and reasonable debate, not a place to pick internet fights.

Codsticker

The Warseer Mod Squad

arthurfallz
27-12-2010, 20:08
@ arthurfallz, that is a good idea, and one I'd like to try out soon. However, how would you deal with a case like the following?

1) You must make 3 saves at 3+

2) You roll all of them, and get exactly average - 2 saved, 1 unsaved.

3) The two saved ones were individually likely, and the last one was unlikely, so you place 2 white beads and 1 red bead.

4) The overall result of that attempt at saving seems to be, following the beads, that you were slightly unlucky, but common sense tells you that your rolls were perfectly normal.

4/6 x 3 = 2, so 2 saves was the expected value. This would be a "white bead" roll. No red bead. Had you got 1 or less saves, a red bead. All 3? Blue bead.

Alternatively, you could simply pay attention to each die. Just put a red bead in for every 1,2; a white bead for each 3,4; a blue bead for each 5,6. This latter method will show you, overall, if you rolled high, medium or low overall in the game.

theorox
27-12-2010, 20:17
Hm, is this the right place for talking about probabilities? It just seems to deserve a thread of its own, as we (you) are not discussing the original subject of this thread, at all. :)

Theo

Caitsidhe
27-12-2010, 20:19
Hm, is this the right place for talking about probabilities? It just seems to deserve a thread of its own, as we (you) are not discussing the original subject of this thread, at all. :)

Theo

I agree but then again the topic of this thread is vague and general anyway. It leaves it open to anything and everything. I just as soon see this thread die and specific topic ones arise. It is easier to have a meaningful discussion when the parameters are clear.

Codsticker
27-12-2010, 22:48
Hm, is this the right place for talking about probabilities? It just seems to deserve a thread of its own, as we (you) are not discussing the original subject of this thread, at all. :)

Theo

True, but I don't feel like sifting through the last couple of pages and separating the appropriate posts and putting them in their own thread. :)


Codsticker

The Warseer Mod Squad

logan054
28-12-2010, 02:46
Thus, in each turn of combat I will mark down Lucky, Average, Unlucky for each each participant. You could, of course, also track the degree further by just how much each roll was outside the normal mean, but that would also require you to go back later and likewise subtract all the positive things for the overall battle. There comes a point where it is becoming an obsession and probably not worth your time. I only track things for my own personal edification. The dice have always balanced in the end so I rarely do it anymore unless I'm just plain bored and fighting an inferior opponent and thus have all the time in the world to fill. Reading a book while we play would be obvious and rude.

I think I would actually be tempted to track down the core of all the dice roll per player and then also record how lucky each set of rolls was just to see how the dice evened themselves out over the course of a game.

MasterSparks
28-12-2010, 10:02
The cumulative dice rolls over the course of a game usually even themselves out to some degree, in my experience. What really matters is where you get the deviations - killing 10 more Goblins than expected is not much of a boon when they were a lost cause already. Instead you can now expect to get your posterior bitten where things might be shakier and more decisive. Luck is one of the great malicious forces in the universe, that much is clear. :shifty:

logan054
28-12-2010, 11:12
Thats why it would be interesting to see how they even themselves out, if your lucky at say killing goblins but fail every attempt to dispel or caste spells has it really evened out? but yes I have had luck against me a few times :(

sulla
12-01-2011, 04:32
Thats why it would be interesting to see how they even themselves out, if your lucky at say killing goblins but fail every attempt to dispel or caste spells has it really evened out? but yes I have had luck against me a few times :(

:D It's of no consolation to me that my dice even out over the entire game if they roll high for Ld tests and low for 'to hit' rolls and power dice. :evilgrin: