Posted on May 8, 2012
in 40K, Podcast, Warmachine
Tags: 40K podcast warhammer 40K warmachine
Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter to receive updates.
randomness doesn’t mean less strategy more luck. Chess has no randomness and is very tactical. Poker is very random and ALSO very tactical. Having say random charge length is another thing to consider when making a battle plan. The increased possiblity of failure could actually make things more tactical.
I don’t think it makes thing more tactical, personally. I understand what you are saying, and in Game Theory chance is an integral part of how you make decisions, however, I would argue that Chess is more Tactical in an absolute sense than Poker because there is less chance. Luck has little to nothing to do with Chess. Luck is a big part of Poker. The more control the player has over what happens th emore important his decisions are, therefore, it is more tactical. Random is fun though, just too much of it and the game becomes craps.
the difference between craps, poker and chess isn’t randomness. It’s options. in craps you bet on the outcome of two dice. in poker 5 cards further complicated by 1: not being able to see opponents cards
2: psychology of betting and raising. Chess is the most tactical because it has the most options. That’s why tactically, nothing beats real life – anything could happen.
Let’s look at specifics; charge range. If you can no longer guarantee you infantry squad will move and charge 12″, the game becomes more tactical not less. You’d have to consider charging from closer or with more units.Or shooting more before you charge in case your stuck in no man’s land.
Depending on how it done, i approve of randomness, it forces you to change your plans and think on your toes.
You make very good points. I think essentially where we are differing is in how we define tactics as a term and it’s application. I find games with definite decisions good, they appeal to the mathematical part of my brain. But as you said, nothing is crazier than real life as there are more options to consider than any game could replicate. The difference as I see it, is that I want a game to be clearly defined, with victory going to the better player, not the luckier.
Guys, this is intended as constructive criticism:
You spend a fare amount of time on the podcast talking up your store; and you should the podcast is news and it is an advertisement for your business. But the audio quality of the podcast isn’t the best, and reflects badly on the business. “If your unable to produce 15 minutes of professional sounding audio how could you produce anything professionally?”
the content is great, but the audio quality of the podcast sounds like you don’t take any pride in it.
Reecius, Great job with the foot eldar at adepticon, I was rooting for you.
I don’t think the random charge will hurt any good player; it will simply be more mathhammer like shooting is, your going to quickly figure out that (using WFB 6+2d6 charge) 92% of the time you’ll get a 10″ or better move+assault move and plan your game accordingly.
You know what frank, you’re right. The sound quality isn’t where it should be. We are a three man crew and work loooong hours. We simply haven’t had the time or resources to get the podcast where we want it to be, but that will change soon. The business has stabilized a bit and we have now a little more time and money to put into making both our podcast and videos higher quality.
And thanks for rooting for me at adepticon! Much appreciated.
If they decide charges are declared at the start of the turn and terrain isn’t a factor, then having a random charge such as fantasy 6″ + 2d6″ would actually eliminate moving models in the CC phase and speed the game up not slow it down.
Like I said in the other thread, these rumors are all grossly out of context and without any explanation so far.
Excellent point. It is all out of context now, we’ll have to wait and see the rules in entirety before passing judgment.
Personally i just hope they change some rules like Cover…
Nothing looks more boring and unappealing than blobs of vehicles practicing parallel parking during BATTLE to give each other cover.
The whole vehicle A gives vehicle B cover irks me to no end…
If i hit a vehicle (or unit) and someone claims cover in the form of another vehicle or unit and that cover save is made successfully then the model GRANTING cover -should- be hit instead.
Shooting through your own unit will not only allow your enemy to claim cover in the form of your own squad but you would also risk gunning down your own guys.
How nice would it be if “Cover/Terrain” had something like Armor Values?
A unit of Longfangs hiding in a ruin would get a cover save but successful cover saves (those hitting the ruin instead) have a chance of destroying the structure if they are strong enough, leaving the Longfangs standing in a bit of rubble. Maybe a glancing hit reduces the cover bonus by 1, and a penetrating hit destroys the cover totally.
Would also like to see Hard Cover (4+ like trenches, buildings, rocks, etc.) and Soft Cover (5+ like smoke, darkness, dense vegetation, etc.)
Well, we will see what the future brings.
We have variable cover saves; page 21 in the rule book gives you a chart for that. Don’t blame GW because you don’t use it.
Yeah, some of the abstractions in the game do make it harder to get into it as you pointed out. However, it is tough to build a system that is both realistic and fast paced. Too much realism=too many rules. Too fast=too abstract.
That was almost the most depressing information have ever heard, I really really hope they dont kill 40k… Many long days, money and set up (in the form the club and tournies) for them just to smash it…
The horror, the horror….
Your feelings are reflected by a lot of people out there. We’ll see what we get very soon, here.
Mail (will not be published) (Required)