I absolutely hate rolling dice to see how far a unit can charge and if it can make it into combat, and if they dont make it, the charge 'fails'. I also hate rolling for running too, but the charging just makes no sense to me. I was teaching a friend how to play recently, and the subject came up and i couldnt justify it. I am not sure when this rule first came in (I missed 4th and 5th editions), but it makes me wonder what the heck Tyranids are doing since it seems to me they can get close but not close enough, and have to endure another round of getting shot at.

Is this a popular rule on here? And if it isn't, anyone want to offer their homemade rules they use in it's place?

Why? My orks love it! Potential 12 inch range, while deamons can have a 6+d6 with a 10p uppgrade.
As for nids Fleeet! Reroll dat charge distance!

I like it ,more failed charges is always good and overwatch procs what ever you make it in to melee range or not.

It actually adds realism to the game. How many units have the clumsy guy who trips while carrying full kit or in an urban setting hafta run through piles of trash or cans or in rural settings run through high weeds and slippery mud. likewise the guy who is just a maniac who is in better shape than anyone else who is able to run farther faster.

It also forces players to pay closer attention to the game and not be so lazy in their movement which in turn, causes them to pay closer attention to the rest of the game.
Almost all assaults would actually be initiated from an average of 3-4 inches. In past editions, players would just push a model within the unit to within 6 inches and call it close enough because they were guaranteed a successful charge. Now that there is an off chance they may not make it, they complain that they have to actually measure and move their models which takes a few more seconds of their time.

Likewise, it assists assaulty armies like orks and bugs because it gives them the chance to make assaults they might not otherwise have been able to make before.

Since overwatch is a joke (except for flamer template weapons if you have masses of them in the unit) so is not really an issue (negating tau as we ALL agree they are broken).

Random charge range is fine. The main issue is removing casualties from the front.

Clumsy Imperial Guard? Sure.

Clumsy Space Marine? I thought that was genetically engineered out of them...

pejota wrote:
Clumsy Imperial Guard? Sure.

Clumsy Space Marine? I thought that was genetically engineered out of them...

Say it another way, the overwatch simply pinned you down and had to take tactical cover.

Ok I could see that maybe in the scale of EPIC 40k, but not in 28mm gaming. I mean, we're talking a max distance of like 20 feet or so. I know 40k is a bit abstract, but I still see models as they are in place with other objects on the board. If I always move 6 inches in the movement phase, then I expect something more consistent when charging.

Maybe 1d6 + 6 or something, that than 2d6.

I agree, I dislike rolling for charge distance, both in 40k and in Fantasy.

 phatonic wrote:
Why? My orks love it! Potential 12 inch range, while deamons can have a 6+d6 with a 10p uppgrade.
As for nids Fleeet! Reroll dat charge distance!

I reliably make 9" charges all the time with my genestealers.

6th edition just made sure that units that are great at combat see combat, many people are miffed because units that are only good at combat, are even more mediocre at it.

Sure, fluffwise, marines should be miles above where they are in combat, but for game balance, no, they're meant to be the baseline for most other stats, good at everything, great at nothing. (Tac Marines)

Now you don't try charging as a plan unless you come equipped for it ie. assault vehicles, beasts, calvary, swarms, jump infantry, FMCs, MCs, Fleet, and in some cases bikes...and so on.

Its like much of 6th; they replaced tactical decision making with random rolls and random tables.

Its cinematic and helps you forge a narrative better!

I'm really not a fan if that wasn't obvious

The 2d6 roll with the highest probability is 7", longer than the static 6" charge range. Besides, when the chance is there for a 12" charge, you take that chance. If the roll fails nothing is lost but if it passes than you just successfully engaged an enemy from twice the distance of the old range.

Random charge range rules do not "forge a narrative."

Random charge ranges are a holdover from horse & musket miniature games that simulate a horse's reluctance to charge home against a wall of pointy things.

An heroic SM or instinctive 'Nid, etc., would know in the 41st millennium whether or not they were in range to charge something, and are highly motivated to do so.

Its just more dice rolls in a game of dice rolls.

And if we must endure it, the unit should at least move the distance on the dice instead of just standing there holding their codpieces.

Cheers.

Grim Dark wrote:
And if we must endure it, the unit should at least move the distance on the dice instead of just standing there holding their codpieces.

Cheers.

This is the only point against random charge range rules that I have agreed with.

There is no reason to be left standing in the open when your unit obviously forwent shooting or running for the sole purpose of charging/moving towards an enemy.

The real problem comes from fleet units. These also tend to be low armored and supposedly fast moving. 6th nerfed them hard. The theoretical max charge range is the same (running in 5th + 6" charge), however the practical distance to cover is greater.

That, and in 5th, a failed run roll could be mitigated by not committing to the charge. A roll of 2 or 3 when you needed 4 or 5 meant you could run towards cover. Now a failed charge just means your opponent got to shoot you for free, and now you have a unit exposed because you had to get into position to charge.

Then there is also the guaranteed charge that was nerfed. It doesn't really matter if I "could" make a 10" charge now where I couldn't before, because the likelyhood of making that charge is so low. Before, I could make a 6" charge any time I wanted, now I have a 30% chance of failure for a 6" charge.

It doesn't really matter that you have the same chance to roll a 12 as a 2, since a 12 will always be a success, whereas a 2-4 will almost always be a failure.

To all the people saying assault was brainless before, they are wrong. Positioning has always mattered for assault. What does that make shooting take? They literally sit in cover a whole game, do no moving, and point at things until they die. That's brainless.

Also, where is the shooting equivalent? Why don't they have to roll to see if they can even see their target? The battlefield is a chaotic place after all, with smoke and dust flying all over the place.

Random charge OR casualties from the front would be fine. It is the combination of the two that hurts most.

Personally, I would prefer just casualties from the front. It fixes wound allocation shenanigans and lets anti infantry guns do their job better. Overwatch could still keep you out of charge range too.

And maybe that would finally shut up all the players saying my Tau are OP.

Grim Dark wrote:
Random charge range rules do not "forge a narrative."

Random charge ranges are a holdover from horse & musket miniature games that simulate a horse's reluctance to charge home against a wall of pointy things.

An heroic SM or instinctive 'Nid, etc., would know in the 41st millennium whether or not they were in range to charge something, and are highly motivated to do so.

Its just more dice rolls in a game of dice rolls.

And if we must endure it, the unit should at least move the distance on the dice instead of just standing there holding their codpieces.

Cheers.

Exalted. My sentiments exactly.

 Orblivion wrote:
The 2d6 roll with the highest probability is 7", longer than the static 6" charge range.

I'm aware of the range, that's not my gripe with it. My gripe is with the fact it's random. Obviously there is always going to be randomness in a table top wargame, otherwise it'd play more like chess. However I don't like seeing that randomness for charges. The average might be 7", but you 42% change of failing a 7" charge, or a 28* chance of failing a 6" charge, or a 17% chance of failing a 5" charge, or an 8% chance of failing a 4" charge.... these are not "fun" things to me.

Most assaults are initiated from 3-4 inches unless you are super lazy and dont move your models far enough. so unless you are SUPER unlucky (think the guy tripping oer his own shoelaces), your GONNA make it.
If your lazy and just push one model to be within 6 inches and leave the rest of the unit strung out (as players could do and did in past editions), the enemy might get really lucky and take out that front guy you bothered to move making the roll needed higher.
It comes down to
first off skill,
then not being too lazy to move your models. If you just push them to within 6 inches instead of actually measuring and moving them to within 1 inch, there is the odd chance you roll snakeeyes. If you had moved your full distance, you would made it even on snake eyes.
Pay attention and dont be lazy, you'll get into more assaults and win more games.

I can see the models moving the distance rolled if they failed their charge, it would actually make sense.. Of course, they would be pinned (even fearless units) otherwise, you would have units declaring assaults from 40 inches away to abuse that extra free move.

Would you bring back run-then-assault (for fleet units) or would you just set the assault distance to 6"? Would fleet still enable re-roll on run (hidden question: would fleet mean gak to models who don't want to assault?)

Grim Dark wrote:
Random charge range rules do not "forge a narrative."

Random charge ranges are a holdover from horse & musket miniature games that simulate a horse's reluctance to charge home against a wall of pointy things.

An heroic SM or instinctive 'Nid, etc., would know in the 41st millennium whether or not they were in range to charge something, and are highly motivated to do so.

Its just more dice rolls in a game of dice rolls.

And if we must endure it, the unit should at least move the distance on the dice instead of just standing there holding their codpieces.

Cheers.

So what you're actually saying is "take a pinning test prior to charging"

In a game with pre-measuring the random charge length is needed otherwise everyone would stay 1/2" outside of charge range and we would have civil war style musketline fights.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Orblivion wrote:
The 2d6 roll with the highest probability is 7", longer than the static 6" charge range.

I'm aware of the range, that's not my gripe with it. My gripe is with the fact it's random. Obviously there is always going to be randomness in a table top wargame, otherwise it'd play more like chess. However I don't like seeing that randomness for charges. The average might be 7", but you 42% change of failing a 7" charge, or a 28* chance of failing a 6" charge, or a 17% chance of failing a 5" charge, or an 8% chance of failing a 4" charge.... these are not "fun" things to me.

Personally I like the inclusion of more statistics and USRs that drastically change those probability curves.

To me it means that if Joe Schmo can't build a GK Paladin list and win during the listbuilding phase of the game.

In my experience, the better the player, the more likelihood that they play a winning assault based army. The more average the player, the less they understand the more complex mathematics and the more they need to stick to understandable probability ratios like that involved in shooting, or better yet...TL shooting...or better yet, ignores cover TL Shooting.

tremere47 wrote:
In a game with pre-measuring the random charge length is needed otherwise everyone would stay 1/2" outside of charge range and we would have civil war style musketline fights.

How so?

Units can still run to close the gap. You don't need random things to counter act player knowledge and decision making. Every space naval game I've played runs on pre-measuring, which is part of the whole tactical aspect of the movement phase where each player is trying to stay in their ideal range bands while avoiding their opponents'.

Why does 40k need more random elements?

Keep pre-measuring, eliminate random charging, remove casualties from the rear. Abstraction is key.

 ductvader wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Orblivion wrote:
The 2d6 roll with the highest probability is 7", longer than the static 6" charge range.

I'm aware of the range, that's not my gripe with it. My gripe is with the fact it's random. Obviously there is always going to be randomness in a table top wargame, otherwise it'd play more like chess. However I don't like seeing that randomness for charges. The average might be 7", but you 42% change of failing a 7" charge, or a 28* chance of failing a 6" charge, or a 17% chance of failing a 5" charge, or an 8% chance of failing a 4" charge.... these are not "fun" things to me.

Personally I like the inclusion of more statistics and USRs that drastically change those probability curves.

To me it means that if Joe Schmo can't build a GK Paladin list and win during the listbuilding phase of the game.

In my experience, the better the player, the more likelihood that they play a winning assault based army. The more average the player, the less they understand the more complex mathematics and the more they need to stick to understandable probability ratios like that involved in shooting, or better yet...TL shooting...or better yet, ignores cover TL Shooting.

And what happens when the experienced player plays a shooting army? He completely wrecks assault armies, because he doesn't have a probability to have his unit drop their guns when shooting.

If anything, I feel target priority should be brought back; if you've got a Dreadnought bearing down on you, chances are you're going to fire your Lascannon at it instead of the Rhino across the table. This'd emulate the level of discipline (or madness) required to put the greater good (no Tau pun intended) over your own survival.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If anything, I feel target priority should be brought back; if you've got a Dreadnought bearing down on you, chances are you're going to fire your Lascannon at it instead of the Rhino across the table. This'd emulate the level of discipline (or madness) required to put the greater good (no Tau pun intended) over your own survival.

This would make the new bug dataslate DANGEROUS...in a good way.

I personally think they should have included choice, 2d6 random charge OR the units initiative value in inches. My own luck when it comes to charges has been pretty random and stupid, bikes getting like 3-4 inch charges but by terminators rolling like 9-10, too damn random considering the massive difference between those two unit types.

Initiative in inches plus D6 would be pretty sweet too, might just bring back cc.

 ductvader wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If anything, I feel target priority should be brought back; if you've got a Dreadnought bearing down on you, chances are you're going to fire your Lascannon at it instead of the Rhino across the table. This'd emulate the level of discipline (or madness) required to put the greater good (no Tau pun intended) over your own survival.

This would make the new bug dataslate DANGEROUS...in a good way.

Exactly. It'd make morale matter more, which is a complaint I've often seen mentioned. It'd also allow for more stuff to be added in as "suppressive" weapons, i.e. weapons that lower leadership for the purposes of such tests.

I hate the Random Charge roll. The worst part about it, you get Overwatched whether you make the charge or not. And if you fail your charge, that means your opponent gets a full round of shooting and can charge you next round. Might as well just take that unit off the table due to one lousy dice roll.

 Mahtamori wrote:
Would you bring back run-then-assault (for fleet units) or would you just set the assault distance to 6"? Would fleet still enable re-roll on run (hidden question: would fleet mean gak to models who don't want to assault?)

Grim Dark wrote:
Random charge range rules do not "forge a narrative."

Random charge ranges are a holdover from horse & musket miniature games that simulate a horse's reluctance to charge home against a wall of pointy things.

An heroic SM or instinctive 'Nid, etc., would know in the 41st millennium whether or not they were in range to charge something, and are highly motivated to do so.

Its just more dice rolls in a game of dice rolls.

And if we must endure it, the unit should at least move the distance on the dice instead of just standing there holding their codpieces.

Cheers.

So what you're actually saying is "take a pinning test prior to charging"

I don't believe I said anything about pinning tests. (/topic)

Its been mentioned that assault units received a triple-tap because they also have to accommodate casualties from the front and Overwatch, as well as random charge ranges. It doesn't seem like shooty-type units have received anything even comparable. Perhaps players of shooty-type armies might regret these unnecessarily added layers of game mechanics if units had to pass a Ld test to shoot another unit? The "narrative" would be that by shooting them, you might attract their attention. (cue spooky narrative-generating music)

Cheers.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 ductvader wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If anything, I feel target priority should be brought back; if you've got a Dreadnought bearing down on you, chances are you're going to fire your Lascannon at it instead of the Rhino across the table. This'd emulate the level of discipline (or madness) required to put the greater good (no Tau pun intended) over your own survival.

This would make the new bug dataslate DANGEROUS...in a good way.

Exactly. It'd make morale matter more, which is a complaint I've often seen mentioned. It'd also allow for more stuff to be added in as "suppressive" weapons, i.e. weapons that lower leadership for the purposes of such tests.

I don't know how target priority used to work, But, I'd say you'd have to test for it it against the closest unit within 12". Unless you have no weapons that can hurt the target.

The old target priority rule was that you had to shoot at the closest unit unless you made a leadership test. 4th edition rule, I believe.

The 4th edition Black Templar codex imparted a -1 penalty to their roll, as they are zealots that want to purge what's near them.

 ductvader wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If anything, I feel target priority should be brought back; if you've got a Dreadnought bearing down on you, chances are you're going to fire your Lascannon at it instead of the Rhino across the table. This'd emulate the level of discipline (or madness) required to put the greater good (no Tau pun intended) over your own survival.

This would make the new bug dataslate DANGEROUS...in a good way.

I think the dataslates will prove dangerous. I don't have enough models yet to play my nids, but I see great potential in the deathleaper and stealer formations. Leaped will allow awesome mawloc shenanigans. And I see the stealer formations having potentially incredible potential for two uses. First, if you spread the units all over the table your enemy will have to many targets to deal with. They can't simply ignore your flyrants or fexes or whatever, so you should be able to use them for objective grabbing/contesting, linebreaker, or to mess up unprotected backfield. Simple target saturation will be key. Second, the units could be run cohesively, then only one unit takes overwatch while the rest slam into enemy lines unscathed.

I see great potential, and it's only the first slate.

Imnewherewheresthebathroom wrote:

 ductvader wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If anything, I feel target priority should be brought back; if you've got a Dreadnought bearing down on you, chances are you're going to fire your Lascannon at it instead of the Rhino across the table. This'd emulate the level of discipline (or madness) required to put the greater good (no Tau pun intended) over your own survival.

This would make the new bug dataslate DANGEROUS...in a good way.

I think the dataslates will prove dangerous. I don't have enough models yet to play my nids, but I see great potential in the deathleaper and stealer formations. Leaped will allow awesome mawloc shenanigans. And I see the stealer formations having potentially incredible potential for two uses. First, if you spread the units all over the table your enemy will have to many targets to deal with. They can't simply ignore your flyrants or fexes or whatever, so you should be able to use them for objective grabbing/contesting, linebreaker, or to mess up unprotected backfield. Simple target saturation will be key. Second, the units could be run cohesively, then only one unit takes overwatch while the rest slam into enemy lines unscathed.

I see great potential, and it's only the first slate.

I'm already having great success with Death's Ninjas and the Hunting pack, eventually I'll play with manufactorum stealers as well.

The key to making them work (in most games) is infiltrating/outflanking/their unique placement.

Don't just infiltrate them unless you key your army to that, the terrain allows for utter safety, or you brought some fort shenanigans.

I've been having success with the slates, swarmy, and while I don't run mawlocs, I really want to for some turn 2 stealer/mawloc action.

but....way off topic.

Grim Dark wrote:
Random charge range rules do not "forge a narrative."

Random charge ranges are a holdover from horse & musket miniature games that simulate a horse's reluctance to charge home against a wall of pointy things.

An heroic SM or instinctive 'Nid, etc., would know in the 41st millennium whether or not they were in range to charge something, and are highly motivated to do so.

Its just more dice rolls in a game of dice rolls.

And if we must endure it, the unit should at least move the distance on the dice instead of just standing there holding their codpieces.

Cheers.

Now this makes perfect sense, and affirms my belief how dumb the rule is. Charging? oops rolled a 3 instead of the needed 8. Everyone gets to stand still. I hate it.

scottagain wrote:
Random charge OR casualties from the front would be fine. It is the combination of the two that hurts most.

Personally, I would prefer just casualties from the front. It fixes wound allocation shenanigans and lets anti infantry guns do their job better. Overwatch could still keep you out of charge range too.

And maybe that would finally shut up all the players saying my Tau are OP.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. It's the layers that are added that have really nerfed CC. I am also in full agreement that, even if you fail your charge, your unit should move, not stand there drooling on themselves, yelling "Hey, c'mon, shoot us again!!"

Random charge distances are worse than Hitler.

Even in WHFB they get to add their base movement value to the roll, so you know you are going to move AT LEAST 6" (4" move, plus minimum roll on 2D6) toward the enemy. If you are around 6" away from an opponent, you can be confident that you will succeed in your charge.

The problem is that 40K implements it in an entirely random way. You are beholden to the 2D6 (plus whatever special rule your unit may or may not have regarding charge distances) to determine how far you move, meaning that your unit could end up rolling a 2 and, effectively, staying still and not moving at all (because failed charges mean your units stand around playing with themselves while your opponent re-loads his guns).

I can tolerate removing casualties from the front. I did it back in 2nd Edition, so it isn't a totally alien concept to me.

But I absolutely cannot and will not accept that totally random charge distances are anything other than GWs attempt to sell me a gunline army.

The fantasy comparison doesn't really make sense. The charge move completely replaces their normal move, so of course they are different. 40k also moves their base movement + 2d6 in a charge, it just happens over 2 phases instead of one.

JPong wrote:
The fantasy comparison doesn't really make sense. The charge move completely replaces their normal move, so of course they are different. 40k also moves their base movement + 2d6 in a charge, it just happens over 2 phases instead of one.

I still hate it though

How many of you have actually done a full 20'-30' Charge in 80lbs of full armor. I have and the Current Radom Charge System is partially realistic.
>Overwatch: Is un realistic in the fact that it is actually easy to his some guy who is charging strait at you.
>Random Charge: Partially Simple things like divots and gopher holes force you change up you speed forcing you to sometimes pull up short, especially if you have to avoid those who have fallen in front of you from the Overwatch fire.
>Initiative System: Not bad, but they come something wrong, but yes Axes are slower than Lances/Maces/Swords.
The only change I would make is the Re-Rolls of 1's.
That and allowing Lances to participate in Over Watch.

Realism has very little to do with the rules of an abstracted wargame. Streamlined, balanced rules that represent an action sufficiently are what's required. Not random dice at every turn.

 Anpu42 wrote:
How many of you have actually done a full 20'-30' Charge in 80lbs of full armor. I have and the Current Radom Charge System is partially realistic.
>Overwatch: Is un realistic in the fact that it is actually easy to his some guy who is charging strait at you.
>Random Charge: Partially Simple things like divots and gopher holes force you change up you speed forcing you to sometimes pull up short, especially if you have to avoid those who have fallen in front of you from the Overwatch fire.
>Initiative System: Not bad, but they come something wrong, but yes Axes are slower than Lances/Maces/Swords.
The only change I would make is the Re-Rolls of 1's.
That and allowing Lances to participate in Over Watch.

I believe that the armor of assault-type units in the 40k universe are usually powered armor; and naturalistic types like 'Nids are biologically and anatomically designed to do what they do. It's not like metal encased knights riding at each other carrying great lumps of wood. (I think there is a Monty Python reference in there somewhere)

If heroic Space Marines can be brought low by divots and gopher holes than I'm afraid I'm playing the wrong game and have wasted a lot of my money.

G'day.

Random charge adds another element to the game, as an ork player I like my boyz in crumpin range. 5th ed I made sure to be 6" or less, this edition I will usually get as close as possible in order to ensure I make the charge. I have shot myself out of charge range with my war bikes (removing too many casualties in the shooting phase putting me too far away :p) But I wouldn’t go as far as saying it’s the worst rule in 6th. As mentioned before I like the Idea of taking Initiative +D6 or 2D6 or something. Overall it only adds more strategy to the game which is why I play the game anyway.

There is nothing 'realistic' about terminators charging 12" and genestealers charging 2". One soldier falling down isn't going to stop a whole unit of adrenaline-fueled killers determined to slaughter their enemies in mortal combat. "Hold up guys, Joe tripped."

I think random charges are stupid, but if you must use them I like the Initiative + D6" idea or allowing the distance moved. The current combination of rules is a classic example of GW rules writing at its finest:
1) perceive a problem
2) list possible nerfs to mitigate the problem
3) employ ALL nerfs to problem
4) perceive NEW problem created by going overboard with previous changes
5) repeat list starting with #2

Units are not charging their targets in isolation. They are making rapid movement through a dangerous environment. Even if they are relentless, genetically engineered monsters, they still require a minimal amount of self preservation and can be affected by environmental conditions and the random debris and effects of the battle that is supposed to be raging around them.

The random dice roll represents all kinds of things, from random explosions nearby to the unit having to traverse terrain that is actually harder to go over than initially anticipated.

Normal unit movement is noted as being a deliberately slow pace with troops taking cover and covering each other as they advance. The dice roll made for charge distance is not a "how fast are my guys today" roll but actually represents the likeihood of a unit being able to close into combat in an effective manner. They could even be likened to a kind of leadership test, given that running into a prepared enemy is an inherently risky and scary thing to do. Similarly the to-hit, to-wound and armour rolls do note represent individual shots fired or blows struck, but represent how likely one model is to incapacitate another.

GW has made the decision to make it harder to get into CC and has implemented a range of solutions to make this a reality. This could be the final bit of the pendulum swing away from when close combat armies totally dominated gunlines and the next edition will swing back toward CC again.

And yet shooters can sit contentedly in such dangerous environments, plinking away as it suits them, safe in the knowledge they have no concerns until some random enemy CC unit makes a random die roll, or someone shoots them back.

 Flinty wrote:
Even if they are relentless, genetically engineered monsters, they still require a minimal amount of self preservation.

Tyranids, Orks, and Daemons disagree.

 Anpu42 wrote:
How many of you have actually done a full 20'-30' Charge in 80lbs of full armor. I have and the Current Radom Charge System is partially realistic.

Have you done a full 20' charge wearing powered armour as a genetically modified soldier? Have you ever been a 7 foot tall, 300 lb green ball of muscle and done a full 20' charge? Have you ever been an alien from a distant galaxy bred solely for the purpose of charging at your enemies swinging you arms, which are giant scythes by the way, and done a full 20' charge? Have you ever been the most amazingly well trained soldier in the world today (ie. your average run of the mill guardsman) and done a full 20' charge at someone?

Yeah I didn't think so Arguing realism is a bit pointless, but even if we are arguing realism, I can't picture a trained soldier looking down the field of battle and thinking "hrm, I can make that charge... oh wait, no I can't, best stand here and get shot again so I can waddle a bit closer and THEN make the charge". At most I could see someone panicking and not charging against a more fearsome foe... but that's why we have "causes fear" rules.

I think charging with init+a d6 is utterly broken that would give a flying hive tyrant a possible threat range of 28''. You can easily get him to init 10. and CSM deamon princes a 26'' threat.

Sargow wrote:
I think charging with init+a d6 is utterly broken that would give a flying hive tyrant a possible threat range of 28''. You can easily get him to init 10. and CSM deamon princes a 26'' threat.

We wouldn't combat to be viable for some units now would we?

Sargow wrote:
I think charging with init+a d6 is utterly broken that would give a flying hive tyrant a possible threat range of 28''. You can easily get him to init 10. and CSM deamon princes a 26'' threat.

Yeah, Init isn't a great measure. It would be great if we had another stat called "movement" that defined how fast something can "move".

Why GW got rid of the movement stat I will never understand. At first thought you might think it's simpler to eliminate a stat... then you think for 1.34 seconds and realise giving everyone the same movement distance simply means you have to have a bunch of exceptions to the rule for units that are faster/slower and the rules just get more convoluted and make even less sense.

I really think 40k need to have a rules overhaul. Throw all the old codices in the bin and start fresh. They did it 2nd ->3rd, they did it 5th->6th Fantasy, they can do it again. The won't, but they could, and really I think they should.
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crablezworth wrote:

Sargow wrote:
I think charging with init+a d6 is utterly broken that would give a flying hive tyrant a possible threat range of 28''. You can easily get him to init 10. and CSM deamon princes a 26'' threat.

We wouldn't combat to be viable for some units now would we?

We just don't want it to be silly. Initiative isn't a great measure of how fast someone can cover distance.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
We just don't want it to be silly. Initiative isn't a great measure of how fast someone can cover distance.

But high initiative does tend to coincide with fleet a lot doesn't it?

I like it

It is quite fun in a casual game, as it can generate some really memorable and fun moments, but in all honesty I preferred it as it was before. Imagine having to roll to see if your gun works, or to check your range. It would suck right? I understand the aim is to add realism but it really does the exact opposite. Assault marines not managing a charge against some guardsmen 3" isn't realistic, its stupid. There are already mechanics in place to respresent the difficulty of charging (such as the rules for charging through difficult/ dangerous terrain). Overwatch is fine, but when combined with 2D6" assault range it makes assault almost suicide for all but the stringest assaulters. I understand that some might say that that's how it really should be, and that it was silly how close combat is doing half the killing in a sci-fi setting, but the fact is its a galaxy where close combat is ingrained into the setting, making it more science-fantasy thatn fiction.

I agree; I think that is pretty stupid and seems to force randomness for the sake of randomness. I get that it was meant to curb the assault spam of pre-6th edition, but rolling to see if you can charge seems to take choice away from the player. Maybe it should have been something along with Snap Shot, for instance if you suffer a wound via Snap Shot it can stop your charge (and make snap shot not a 6)? That would at least make sense as you could imagine a squad breaking out of a charge under a hail of fire.

 EVIL INC wrote:
It actually adds realism to the game. How many units have the clumsy guy who trips while carrying full kit or in an urban setting hafta run through piles of trash or cans or in rural settings run through high weeds and slippery mud. likewise the guy who is just a maniac who is in better shape than anyone else who is able to run farther faster.

It also forces players to pay closer attention to the game and not be so lazy in their movement which in turn, causes them to pay closer attention to the rest of the game.
Almost all assaults would actually be initiated from an average of 3-4 inches. In past editions, players would just push a model within the unit to within 6 inches and call it close enough because they were guaranteed a successful charge. Now that there is an off chance they may not make it, they complain that they have to actually measure and move their models which takes a few more seconds of their time.

Likewise, it assists assaulty armies like orks and bugs because it gives them the chance to make assaults they might not otherwise have been able to make before.

Since overwatch is a joke (except for flamer template weapons if you have masses of them in the unit) so is not really an issue (negating tau as we ALL agree they are broken).

Whoa whoa whoa realism? Please hold on and remember what we are playing . Also if we are going serious on this, then let's do this. Daemons? They aren't going to trip when charging you. Orks? don't care if somebody trips they'll just trample that ork. SM? Yeah that'd be a blast to see a SM trip SoB, same story. Nids? Trample over that model. Also the thing is is that you state it as though some guys can run faster than others. No, its just random. Pink Horrors, guardsman, and marines are just as likely of charging 12" as 2". If we want this realism, we should add limited ammo, gun jams, reloading, exploding guns, plasma that explodes on a roll of a 1 that you then roll another 1 that causes a small blast to be placed on your model and wound all around it, etc.

And it doesn't help one pay closer attention. It just makes an assaulter more paranoid about getting even closer to the enemy before charging. Also if I'm charging why would I stop .5 inches from my enemy? Why would I then flee back to where I stood. And this edition most people just push their models to about 3-4 inches before declaring a charge. At best people will try about an 8 inch charge with fleet (for the most part). But you don't want to risk it, you'd rather run often times giving the enemy another turn to blast you off. Also this doesn't solve the fact that now shooting is just gunline it up, stand there and shoot. You don't move much, you just kinda castle up and wait and shoot and wait and shoot. Also, then I'd like to see smoke on the field so the enemy can't see me and their gun range is RANDOM.

I do however agree that overwatch (bar Tau and flamers (although I actually kinda like the flamer overwatch. It gives them a use for once) isn't that bad. I do find it silly that orks have the best overwatch in the game but a SM, Eldar's, etc has some of the worst overwatch ever and an assault unit with no guns gets charged with no "overwatch" like not even on a 6 countercharge or something. Overwatch is silly and pointless, it adds little to it and the only thing is it makes assault armies fear that one model dying and making them lose the charge. Most games though (besides tau and to some extent against heavy numbers of flamers) it will mean almost nothing. I still say it really shouldn't exist considering the game is played as though everything is happening at seconds. So if you are shooting at a unit and ambushes charge you from behind, or the sides, or a different angle bam no response time. Actually that reminds me, if this were so shooters should only be able to shoot the way they are facing not in any other direction. The problem with assault is it is dozens of punctures from the new edition. Not a single oneof them by themself would truly ruin it. Random charges? Alright I guess... Losing units from the front? Alright I guess... The problem comes down to when all of these things occur at once. Also the losing units from the front is naff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 phatonic wrote:

pejota wrote:
Clumsy Imperial Guard? Sure.

Clumsy Space Marine? I thought that was genetically engineered out of them...

Say it another way, the overwatch simply pinned you down and had to take tactical cover.

except when the tactical cover means in the middle of nowhere doing nothing right outside of cover to add

I have had a 3" Charge fail and then next turn the Ork player made a 11" Charge. The combo of the two cost me the game, but the momentary exitement was worth it.

 ductvader wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
We just don't want it to be silly. Initiative isn't a great measure of how fast someone can cover distance.

But high initiative does tend to coincide with fleet a lot doesn't it?

It does to an extent I guess, being that models who are quick on their feet also tend to be fast reacting. But then there's models that are very low Ini because they are slow to react but I think would be able to cover distances quite well (a Carnifex is only Ini2 and can be given Adrenal Glands which give it fleet but it stays Ini2). I don't imagine Ogryns would be particularly slow at covering ground but are Ini2.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Most assaults are initiated from 3-4 inches unless you are super lazy and dont move your models far enough. so unless you are SUPER unlucky (think the guy tripping oer his own shoelaces), your GONNA make it.

You keep saying that like it's a) true and b) relevant.

Most assaults are not initiated at 3-4 inches. In fact I don't think I've had a less than 6" assault in the past 2 months (wait - that's not true. My Flyrant had a 1.5" assault against the Vindicator he immobilized the turn before).

It comes down to
first off skill,

Skill at rolling higher?

then not being too lazy to move your models. If you just push them to within 6 inches instead of actually measuring and moving them to within 1 inch, there is the odd chance you roll snakeeyes. If you had moved your full distance, you would made it even on snake eyes.

I've literally never seen someone do this. Ever. Even in 5th.

I can see the models moving the distance rolled if they failed their charge, it would actually make sense.. Of course, they would be pinned (even fearless units) otherwise, you would have units declaring assaults from 40 inches away to abuse that extra free move.

No - the rules still say you have to be in charge range to declare a charge.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 ductvader wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
We just don't want it to be silly. Initiative isn't a great measure of how fast someone can cover distance.

But high initiative does tend to coincide with fleet a lot doesn't it?

It does to an extent I guess, being that models who are quick on their feet also tend to be fast reacting. But then there's models that are very low Ini because they are slow to react but I think would be able to cover distances quite well (a Carnifex is only Ini2 and can be given Adrenal Glands which give it fleet but it stays Ini2).

...and orks on the waagh.

There could be a way around it though if we/GW think instead of just rebooting an old system.

I love the new rule - simply because the odds are BETTER (than in 5th ed) if you are assaulting into terrain/cover; which most of the time - I am.

I also like how this rule works with fleet... yeah occasionally you come up short - but in 5th edition you couldn't measure, so unless it was very obvious - you sometimes came up short too.

rigeld2 wrote:
You keep saying that like it's a) true and b) relevant.

Most assaults are not initiated at 3-4 inches. In fact I don't think I've had a less than 6" assault in the past 2 months (wait - that's not true. My Flyrant had a 1.5" assault against the Vindicator he immobilized the turn before).

Yeah, even if you are charging from 4" away... that's still an 8.3% chance of failing the charge. If I'm 4" away and I fail the charge with my genetically modified super soldiers about to put the smash down on some weedy cultists, I'm not thinking "oh how cinematic, what a wonderful narrative", I'm thinking "this is frakking stupid".

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You keep saying that like it's a) true and b) relevant.

Most assaults are not initiated at 3-4 inches. In fact I don't think I've had a less than 6" assault in the past 2 months (wait - that's not true. My Flyrant had a 1.5" assault against the Vindicator he immobilized the turn before).

Yeah, even if you are charging from 4" away... that's still an 8.3% chance of failing the charge. If I'm 4" away and I fail the charge with my genetically modified super soldiers about to put the smash down on some weedy cultists, I'm not thinking "oh how cinematic, what a wonderful narrative", I'm thinking "this is frakking stupid".

It's possible to fail a charge - but I definitely failed more in 5th edition because you could not pre-measure. I have a special 6" assault template that I'd use and on many occasions I was just a hair out of range. As I stated before - if you are assaulting into Terrain/Cover, which most of the time you should be unless you play against newbs, then the odds are BETTER in 6th than in 5th.

I tried to edit my post and accidentally responded to myself instead

WayneTheGame wrote:
I agree; I think that is pretty stupid and seems to force randomness for the sake of randomness. I get that it was meant to curb the assault spam of pre-6th edition, but rolling to see if you can charge seems to take choice away from the player. Maybe it should have been something along with Snap Shot, for instance if you suffer a wound via Snap Shot it can stop your charge (and make snap shot not a 6)? That would at least make sense as you could imagine a squad breaking out of a charge under a hail of fire.

Yeah, 5th was absolutely loaded with assault units. All those rhinos, razorbacks, venoms, psyflemen, long fangs and imperial guard were really just assaulting so much because of how broken assault was in 5th. I mean, why would you take genestealers to assault, when, because of the ridiculously overpowered assault rules, you could take a vendetta to assault with?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You keep saying that like it's a) true and b) relevant.

Most assaults are not initiated at 3-4 inches. In fact I don't think I've had a less than 6" assault in the past 2 months (wait - that's not true. My Flyrant had a 1.5" assault against the Vindicator he immobilized the turn before).

Yeah, even if you are charging from 4" away... that's still an 8.3% chance of failing the charge. If I'm 4" away and I fail the charge with my genetically modified super soldiers about to put the smash down on some weedy cultists, I'm not thinking "oh how cinematic, what a wonderful narrative", I'm thinking "this is frakking stupid".

The worst I have had was when my friend (we were new) was preparing to assault my forgefiend (I'm not joking we were new). He had his DA terminators getting ready to charge 3 inches..... and they failed. I couldn't tell if it was funny, pitiful, or just depressing

 StarTrotter wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You keep saying that like it's a) true and b) relevant.

Most assaults are not initiated at 3-4 inches. In fact I don't think I've had a less than 6" assault in the past 2 months (wait - that's not true. My Flyrant had a 1.5" assault against the Vindicator he immobilized the turn before).

Yeah, even if you are charging from 4" away... that's still an 8.3% chance of failing the charge. If I'm 4" away and I fail the charge with my genetically modified super soldiers about to put the smash down on some weedy cultists, I'm not thinking "oh how cinematic, what a wonderful narrative", I'm thinking "this is frakking stupid".

The worst I have had was when my friend (we were new) was preparing to assault my forgefiend (I'm not joking we were new). He had his DA terminators getting ready to charge 3 inches..... and they failed. I couldn't tell if it was funny, pitiful, or just depressing

The Correct Answer is YES!

JPong wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
I agree; I think that is pretty stupid and seems to force randomness for the sake of randomness. I get that it was meant to curb the assault spam of pre-6th edition, but rolling to see if you can charge seems to take choice away from the player. Maybe it should have been something along with Snap Shot, for instance if you suffer a wound via Snap Shot it can stop your charge (and make snap shot not a 6)? That would at least make sense as you could imagine a squad breaking out of a charge under a hail of fire.

Yeah, 5th was absolutely loaded with assault units. All those rhinos, razorbacks, venoms, psyflemen, long fangs and imperial guard were really just assaulting so much because of how broken assault was in 5th. I mean, why would you take genestealers to assault, when, because of the ridiculously overpowered assault rules, you could take a vendetta to assault with?

I agree, assault was spammed in 3rd edition where it was truly scary. 4th edition you could still do it and it could hurt, but so too were Tau fish spam and skimmer spam (shooty) horrific sights with the meta preferring shooty. Then you got to 5th edition where the game was certainly dominated by mechanized shooty. Also wait snap shot not a 6? So you get to fire at full bs and if a single model is lost my charge fails? okay then I really wouldn't even try to play assault . Also you forget nids, orks, and daemons .

Anyways, as above mentioned, 5th was the edition of shooting and mechanized spam. The best codices were shooty leaning with decent-good counterassault (SW and GK come to mind)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You keep saying that like it's a) true and b) relevant.

Most assaults are not initiated at 3-4 inches. In fact I don't think I've had a less than 6" assault in the past 2 months (wait - that's not true. My Flyrant had a 1.5" assault against the Vindicator he immobilized the turn before).

Yeah, even if you are charging from 4" away... that's still an 8.3% chance of failing the charge. If I'm 4" away and I fail the charge with my genetically modified super soldiers about to put the smash down on some weedy cultists, I'm not thinking "oh how cinematic, what a wonderful narrative", I'm thinking "this is frakking stupid".

The worst I have had was when my friend (we were new) was preparing to assault my forgefiend (I'm not joking we were new). He had his DA terminators getting ready to charge 3 inches..... and they failed. I couldn't tell if it was funny, pitiful, or just depressing

The Correct Answer is YES!

Oh actually I have a worse one . I decided to play a Berzerker list (for fun) against an Eldar list. It was their new codex. He was a friend so we tried to be casual. Well I tried to make it to him... but his rending rolls were decemating, his artillery hammered me, his one waveserpent (thank goodness he tries to limit these) just ripped more apart. I didn't advance, I didn't make it closer. And my juggerlord with spawn? Got 3 inches away, tried to charge, overwatch killed the spawn and made him fail as he stood alone. It was the second or third most miserable 40k game I have ever played. I had managed to kill about.... 3, maybe 4 of his models? I surrendered there because his turn would come and I would promptly lose the Juggerlord and then he'd just clean me off (didn't help my oblit wasn't dropping in to help either). That was a depressing game. Luckily when I surrendered he decided to have some fun and charged me xD quickest game changer ever

JPong wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
I agree; I think that is pretty stupid and seems to force randomness for the sake of randomness. I get that it was meant to curb the assault spam of pre-6th edition, but rolling to see if you can charge seems to take choice away from the player. Maybe it should have been something along with Snap Shot, for instance if you suffer a wound via Snap Shot it can stop your charge (and make snap shot not a 6)? That would at least make sense as you could imagine a squad breaking out of a charge under a hail of fire.

Yeah, 5th was absolutely loaded with assault units. All those rhinos, razorbacks, venoms, psyflemen, long fangs and imperial guard were really just assaulting so much because of how broken assault was in 5th. I mean, why would you take genestealers to assault, when, because of the ridiculously overpowered assault rules, you could take a vendetta to assault with?

Beat me to it. 4th was the edition of Trifalcons and Fish of Fury, 5th was Long Fangs and Leafblowers, 6th seems to be the edition of Riptides and Wave Serpents. CC hasn't been stronger than shooting since 3rd edition, so the claim that CC has been "rightfully brought down" is dubious at best.

 Battlesong wrote:
I am also in full agreement that, even if you fail your charge, your unit should move, not stand there drooling on themselves, yelling "Hey, c'mon, shoot us again!!"

Yes! I was just complaining about this last night during a game. If you fail your charge roll, fine, but your unit should be able to advance the distance you rolled on the charge dice. Even being able to move the same distance laterally to account for the unit retreating from Overwatch fire would be helpful to assault units. But just standing there is a little ridiculous.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

JPong wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
I agree; I think that is pretty stupid and seems to force randomness for the sake of randomness. I get that it was meant to curb the assault spam of pre-6th edition, but rolling to see if you can charge seems to take choice away from the player. Maybe it should have been something along with Snap Shot, for instance if you suffer a wound via Snap Shot it can stop your charge (and make snap shot not a 6)? That would at least make sense as you could imagine a squad breaking out of a charge under a hail of fire.

Yeah, 5th was absolutely loaded with assault units. All those rhinos, razorbacks, venoms, psyflemen, long fangs and imperial guard were really just assaulting so much because of how broken assault was in 5th. I mean, why would you take genestealers to assault, when, because of the ridiculously overpowered assault rules, you could take a vendetta to assault with?

Beat me to it. 4th was the edition of Trifalcons and Fish of Fury, 5th was Long Fangs and Leafblowers, 6th seems to be the edition of Riptides and Wave Serpents. CC hasn't been stronger than shooting since 3rd edition, so the claim that CC has been "rightfully brought down" is dubious at best.

You've completely forgotten when every other person was playing Grey Knights or how about Cron Air?

 Crablezworth wrote:
I personally think they should have included choice, 2d6 random charge OR the units initiative value in inches. My own luck when it comes to charges has been pretty random and stupid, bikes getting like 3-4 inch charges but by terminators rolling like 9-10, too damn random considering the massive difference between those two unit types.

Initiative in inches plus D6 would be pretty sweet too, might just bring back cc.

This would be a good idea and make sense. Would screw over some armies like necrons and be totally out of place with others like huge tall ogryns with a stride twice that of a normal man stumbling along.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 ductvader wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If anything, I feel target priority should be brought back; if you've got a Dreadnought bearing down on you, chances are you're going to fire your Lascannon at it instead of the Rhino across the table. This'd emulate the level of discipline (or madness) required to put the greater good (no Tau pun intended) over your own survival.

This would make the new bug dataslate DANGEROUS...in a good way.

Exactly. It'd make morale matter more, which is a complaint I've often seen mentioned. It'd also allow for more stuff to be added in as "suppressive" weapons, i.e. weapons that lower leadership for the purposes of such tests.

It would be too easily abused. A player would just take an empty rhino and race it ahead of everything else. so that the entire enemy army would have to waste shots at it instead of the dangerous units following it. We have to take into account player's ability to find every loophole possible to abuse. Would also just not make sens in some ways. For example forcing a guard squad ith n heavy are special weapons toire its lasgus at a land raider instead of the unit f squishy henchmen next to it.


the idea of moving the distance you rolled even if you fail the charge would not be a bad idea. hoever to prevent player just randomly calling impossible assaults toget a fre 2d6move every turn, a failed charge would need to auto-pin you even if you were fearless. this would keep players honest and keep shenanigans out of it.

Overall, CC could be considered to be 'nerfed". In actuality, it was only brought in check so that inead of totally dominating the game, it was pu where it belonged. An aspect that be used to win games if used correctly through Strategy and tactics. Gone are te days of just bringing an assault army and blindly pushng them forward for the auto-win. You see this because an experienced player who stomps you into the ground with a shooty army can trade armies with you and stomp you into the ground just as easily. Were CC nerfed, that would simply not be possible.

 EVIL INC wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
I personally think they should have included choice, 2d6 random charge OR the units initiative value in inches. My own luck when it comes to charges has been pretty random and stupid, bikes getting like 3-4 inch charges but by terminators rolling like 9-10, too damn random considering the massive difference between those two unit types.

Initiative in inches plus D6 would be pretty sweet too, might just bring back cc.

This would be a good idea and make sense. Would screw over some armies like necrons and be totally out of place with others like huge tall ogryns with a stride twice that of a normal man stumbling along.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 ductvader wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If anything, I feel target priority should be brought back; if you've got a Dreadnought bearing down on you, chances are you're going to fire your Lascannon at it instead of the Rhino across the table. This'd emulate the level of discipline (or madness) required to put the greater good (no Tau pun intended) over your own survival.

This would make the new bug dataslate DANGEROUS...in a good way.

Exactly. It'd make morale matter more, which is a complaint I've often seen mentioned. It'd also allow for more stuff to be added in as "suppressive" weapons, i.e. weapons that lower leadership for the purposes of such tests.

It would be too easily abused. A player would just take an empty rhino and race it ahead of everything else. so that the entire enemy army would have to waste shots at it instead of the dangerous units following it. We have to take into account player's ability to find every loophole possible to abuse. Would also just not make sens in some ways. For example forcing a guard squad ith n heavy are special weapons toire its lasgus at a land raider instead of the unit f squishy henchmen next to it.

You know what that's called? Using tactics. Considering how fond you are of using that phrase, I'm surprised you don't like it. Plus, if you don't want to waste shots, you'll have to use some sacrificial shooting units to take out that Rhino.

 EVIL INC wrote:

Overall, CC could be considered to be 'nerfed". In actuality, it was only brought in check so that inead of totally dominating the game, it was pu where it belonged. An aspect that be used to win games if used correctly through Strategy and tactics. Gone are te days of just bringing an assault army and blindly pushng them forward for the auto-win. You see this because an experienced player who stomps you into the ground with a shooty army can trade armies with you and stomp you into the ground just as easily. Were CC nerfed, that would simply not be possible.

When did CC last dominate the game? When could you ever reliably win a game by pushing them forward for the auto-win? Because it sure wasn't in 5th edition, and assault got worse since then.

the idea of moving the distance you rolled even if you fail the charge would not be a bad idea. hoever to prevent player just randomly calling impossible assaults toget a fre 2d6move every turn, a failed charge would need to auto-pin you even if you were fearless. this would keep players honest and keep shenanigans out of it.

Or you could just say you can only declare an assault against units within 12 inches (even if you have bonuses to your charge roll). It would be simple.

1) overwatch
2) random charge roll
3) move
4) base contact? assault!

Sometimes, you trip.

It still boils down to players who used to auto-win games in previous editions simply because they had an assault army having sour grapes because now they actually have to THINK and use strategy and tactics to win.

1.Geometry. yes, it plays a part in this game just as it does in fantasy. Angles and distances mean something. Many players forget this and then compain when their lack of using it causes them to lose games. Especially when they dont even realize it.

2. model placement within units. should be self explanitory but many still dont get it and cry when their sarge with the power sword is killed from the fron rank. Well silly, put him in the middle of the squad.

3. Plain old laziness. Most assaults have always been initiated from 3-4 inches. Some claim this is not true, but to do so is a flat out lie. In past editions, the only reason assaults were initiated at 6 inches was because the players were just too lazy to move their models. They were guaranteed to reach at 6 inches so why bother moving all the models their full movement? We were all guilty of it. Even those of us who did pay closer attention and werent so lazy.
4.The list is endless but we have gone this route a million times and it always turns into a mess with one side having their heads in the sand refusing to admit they re simply wrong.

As the other person said, moving the failed roll distance would work and make sense. They would need to be pinned (even fearless units) to keep it from being abused though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Psienesis wrote:
Sometimes, you trip.

and when the guy in fron trips, the guys behind him trip over him or are at LEAST slowed down.

Sounds more like sour grapes guys bringing shooting armies because they lost an assault that one time. Does standing back and pointing at things require a lot of thinking? Does putting cheap stuff on the outside and expensive stuff on the inside of your formation require a lot of thinking?

GorillaWarfare wrote:

the idea of moving the distance you rolled even if you fail the charge would not be a bad idea. hoever to prevent player just randomly calling impossible assaults toget a fre 2d6move every turn, a failed charge would need to auto-pin you even if you were fearless. this would keep players honest and keep shenanigans out of it.

Or you could just say you can only declare an assault against units within 12 inches (even if you have bonuses to your charge roll). It would be simple.

1) overwatch
2) random charge roll
3) move
4) base contact? assault!

This wouldnt be too bad.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Battlesong wrote:
I am also in full agreement that, even if you fail your charge, your unit should move, not stand there drooling on themselves, yelling "Hey, c'mon, shoot us again!!"

Yes! I was just complaining about this last night during a game. If you fail your charge roll, fine, but your unit should be able to advance the distance you rolled on the charge dice. Even being able to move the same distance laterally to account for the unit retreating from Overwatch fire would be helpful to assault units. But just standing there is a little ridiculous.

Agreed, at least it leaves room for decisions, like if you fail a 12 inch charge but rolled like say 8 inches, you could either try and grab cover, fall back or close distance as close as possible to keep the pressure on and hope for a charge next turn.

JPong wrote:
Sounds more like sour grapes guys bringing shooting armies because they lost an assault that one time. Does standing back and pointing at things require a lot of thinking? Does putting cheap stuff on the outside and expensive stuff on the inside of your formation require a lot of thinking?

You must not have much experience in this. the simple answer is yes. Speak to anyone who has ever been in the military.
It requires just as much thought and effort as assaulting. Bringing guns back into the game so that it is actually a viable action to bring a few along is a good thing. if you want to play a pure close combat game, play a fantasy or historic game, but even then, you'll find bows and such are there. Unless you want to ban those from those games as you want to ban guns from sci fi games as well.


While i agree the unit should be able to move the distance rolled even if they fail the charge, I disagree with them moving in any other direction than at the target unit. They didnt charge to the side or charge back, they charged towards the enemy. Any other direction would be abusable and cause more trouble and arguments than just sitting still.

 EVIL INC wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
I personally think they should have included choice, 2d6 random charge OR the units initiative value in inches. My own luck when it comes to charges has been pretty random and stupid, bikes getting like 3-4 inch charges but by terminators rolling like 9-10, too damn random considering the massive difference between those two unit types.

Initiative in inches plus D6 would be pretty sweet too, might just bring back cc.

This would be a good idea and make sense. Would screw over some armies like necrons and be totally out of place with others like huge tall ogryns with a stride twice that of a normal man stumbling along.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 ductvader wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If anything, I feel target priority should be brought back; if you've got a Dreadnought bearing down on you, chances are you're going to fire your Lascannon at it instead of the Rhino across the table. This'd emulate the level of discipline (or madness) required to put the greater good (no Tau pun intended) over your own survival.

This would make the new bug dataslate DANGEROUS...in a good way.

Exactly. It'd make morale matter more, which is a complaint I've often seen mentioned. It'd also allow for more stuff to be added in as "suppressive" weapons, i.e. weapons that lower leadership for the purposes of such tests.

It would be too easily abused. A player would just take an empty rhino and race it ahead of everything else. so that the entire enemy army would have to waste shots at it instead of the dangerous units following it. We have to take into account player's ability to find every loophole possible to abuse. Would also just not make sens in some ways. For example forcing a guard squad ith n heavy are special weapons toire its lasgus at a land raider instead of the unit f squishy henchmen next to it.


the idea of moving the distance you rolled even if you fail the charge would not be a bad idea. hoever to prevent player just randomly calling impossible assaults toget a fre 2d6move every turn, a failed charge would need to auto-pin you even if you were fearless. this would keep players honest and keep shenanigans out of it.

Overall, CC could be considered to be 'nerfed". In actuality, it was only brought in check so that inead of totally dominating the game, it was pu where it belonged. An aspect that be used to win games if used correctly through Strategy and tactics. Gone are te days of just bringing an assault army and blindly pushng them forward for the auto-win. You see this because an experienced player who stomps you into the ground with a shooty army can trade armies with you and stomp you into the ground just as easily. Were CC nerfed, that would simply not be possible.

Please. Please. Tell me where this bloody CC on the level instead of dominating has come from. 3rd edition was the last edition where assault dominated! Please, just tell me where this is from. And gone are the days of assault being pushed, and long comes the reign of gunlines and shooting you off the board with little movement. Also you say CC could be considered nerfed but it isn't nerfed huh?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EVIL INC wrote:
It still boils down to players who used to auto-win games in previous editions simply because they had an assault army having sour grapes because now they actually have to THINK and use strategy and tactics to win.

1.Geometry. yes, it plays a part in this game just as it does in fantasy. Angles and distances mean something. Many players forget this and then compain when their lack of using it causes them to lose games. Especially when they dont even realize it.

2. model placement within units. should be self explanitory but many still dont get it and cry when their sarge with the power sword is killed from the fron rank. Well silly, put him in the middle of the squad.

3. Plain old laziness. Most assaults have always been initiated from 3-4 inches. Some claim this is not true, but to do so is a flat out lie. In past editions, the only reason assaults were initiated at 6 inches was because the players were just too lazy to move their models. They were guaranteed to reach at 6 inches so why bother moving all the models their full movement? We were all guilty of it. Even those of us who did pay closer attention and werent so lazy.
4.The list is endless but we have gone this route a million times and it always turns into a mess with one side having their heads in the sand refusing to admit they re simply wrong.

As the other person said, moving the failed roll distance would work and make sense. They would need to be pinned (even fearless units) to keep it from being abused though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Psienesis wrote:
Sometimes, you trip.

and when the guy in fron trips, the guys behind him trip over him or are at LEAST slowed down.

Well except orks and nids would just trample who trips, and daemons wouldn't trip because they aren't even actually entirely there, and SM probably wouldn't, and it is convenient the frong guy always trips


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EVIL INC wrote:

JPong wrote:
Sounds more like sour grapes guys bringing shooting armies because they lost an assault that one time. Does standing back and pointing at things require a lot of thinking? Does putting cheap stuff on the outside and expensive stuff on the inside of your formation require a lot of thinking?

You must not have much experience in this. the simple answer is yes. Speak to anyone who has ever been in the military.
It requires just as much thought and effort as assaulting. Bringing guns back into the game so that it is actually a viable action to bring a few along is a good thing. if you want to play a pure close combat game, play a fantasy or historic game, but even then, you'll find bows and such are there. Unless you want to ban those from those games as you want to ban guns from sci fi games as well.


While i agree the unit should be able to move the distance rolled even if they fail the charge, I disagree with them moving in any other direction than at the target unit. They didnt charge to the side or charge back, they charged towards the enemy. Any other direction would be abusable and cause more trouble and arguments than just sitting still.

Also why do we bring up real world military tactics in fantasy in space? I don't get it. In the future, why would anybody bother with assault? THey wouldn't, they would opt for guns. But it isn't realistic, we have alternate dimensions of warp magic and daemonic entities, unrealistic alien hordes that nom things, and fungal orks that grow like fungi . And guns have been the dominant style sense 4th edition so bringing guns back means 0. Also, you keep on saying PURE CLOSE COMBAT, I don't care for pure close combat. THIS IS SCI FANTASY! It's not sci fi, its not fantasy. It is fantasy in space with tons of space opera. This is a game where daemons with almost 0 shooting items fight against Tau that have almost 0 CC capabilities. Finally, he wasn't talking about in real military. In the real world, you have to think a lot. But tabletop wise what is so dramatically TG about pushing your models into cover and then shooting the enemy? There's no real brilliance. Anybody that isn't utterly new will know their target priorities and kill those first. So what makes that okay but charging across the board not okay?

 Psienesis wrote:
Sometimes, you trip.

Been there done this durring the charge of a sheild wall on a bridge battle. I was actualy resposible for taking out about a dozen combatants by knocking them off the "Bridge", on both sides.

I have also been the third guy in the middle of the pack when the guy in front went down after akknowledging an arrow shot to the head. We were prety combact, most of us within just out of weapon reach. The First guy went down and about a half dozen of us went down totaly disrupting the chage.

 StarTrotter wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
I personally think they should have included choice, 2d6 random charge OR the units initiative value in inches. My own luck when it comes to charges has been pretty random and stupid, bikes getting like 3-4 inch charges but by terminators rolling like 9-10, too damn random considering the massive difference between those two unit types.

Initiative in inches plus D6 would be pretty sweet too, might just bring back cc.

This would be a good idea and make sense. Would screw over some armies like necrons and be totally out of place with others like huge tall ogryns with a stride twice that of a normal man stumbling along.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 ductvader wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If anything, I feel target priority should be brought back; if you've got a Dreadnought bearing down on you, chances are you're going to fire your Lascannon at it instead of the Rhino across the table. This'd emulate the level of discipline (or madness) required to put the greater good (no Tau pun intended) over your own survival.

This would make the new bug dataslate DANGEROUS...in a good way.

Exactly. It'd make morale matter more, which is a complaint I've often seen mentioned. It'd also allow for more stuff to be added in as "suppressive" weapons, i.e. weapons that lower leadership for the purposes of such tests.

It would be too easily abused. A player would just take an empty rhino and race it ahead of everything else. so that the entire enemy army would have to waste shots at it instead of the dangerous units following it. We have to take into account player's ability to find every loophole possible to abuse. Would also just not make sens in some ways. For example forcing a guard squad ith n heavy are special weapons toire its lasgus at a land raider instead of the unit f squishy henchmen next to it.


the idea of moving the distance you rolled even if you fail the charge would not be a bad idea. hoever to prevent player just randomly calling impossible assaults toget a fre 2d6move every turn, a failed charge would need to auto-pin you even if you were fearless. this would keep players honest and keep shenanigans out of it.

Overall, CC could be considered to be 'nerfed". In actuality, it was only brought in check so that inead of totally dominating the game, it was pu where it belonged. An aspect that be used to win games if used correctly through Strategy and tactics. Gone are te days of just bringing an assault army and blindly pushng them forward for the auto-win. You see this because an experienced player who stomps you into the ground with a shooty army can trade armies with you and stomp you into the ground just as easily. Were CC nerfed, that would simply not be possible.

Please. Please. Tell me where this bloody CC on the level instead of dominating has come from. 3rd edition was the last edition where assault dominated! Please, just tell me where this is from. And gone are the days of assault being pushed, and long comes the reign of gunlines and shooting you off the board with little movement. Also you say CC could be considered nerfed but it isn't nerfed huh?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EVIL INC wrote:
It still boils down to players who used to auto-win games in previous editions simply because they had an assault army having sour grapes because now they actually have to THINK and use strategy and tactics to win.

1.Geometry. yes, it plays a part in this game just as it does in fantasy. Angles and distances mean something. Many players forget this and then compain when their lack of using it causes them to lose games. Especially when they dont even realize it.

2. model placement within units. should be self explanitory but many still dont get it and cry when their sarge with the power sword is killed from the fron rank. Well silly, put him in the middle of the squad.

3. Plain old laziness. Most assaults have always been initiated from 3-4 inches. Some claim this is not true, but to do so is a flat out lie. In past editions, the only reason assaults were initiated at 6 inches was because the players were just too lazy to move their models. They were guaranteed to reach at 6 inches so why bother moving all the models their full movement? We were all guilty of it. Even those of us who did pay closer attention and werent so lazy.
4.The list is endless but we have gone this route a million times and it always turns into a mess with one side having their heads in the sand refusing to admit they re simply wrong.

As the other person said, moving the failed roll distance would work and make sense. They would need to be pinned (even fearless units) to keep it from being abused though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Psienesis wrote:
Sometimes, you trip.

and when the guy in fron trips, the guys behind him trip over him or are at LEAST slowed down.

Well except orks and nids would just trample who trips, and daemons wouldn't trip because they aren't even actually entirely there, and SM probably wouldn't, and it is convenient the frong guy always trips

we can see how long the quotes get. I challenge you to prove to me that at no point at ANY time from the very first day of Rogue trader to today has close combat never been powerfull. Prove to me and i will need citations to support it, that close combat has never EVER been powerful or an option in any form of "40k" game. I know you will fail because I have been in the hobby from day one and know firsthand.

 EVIL INC wrote:
It still boils down to players who used to auto-win games in previous editions simply because they had an assault army having sour grapes because now they actually have to THINK and use strategy and tactics to win.

What previous edition?

Okay then, and please bring your evidence to the board as well. Also, I'm not saying that CC hasn't been powerful. There has always been it to some extent. 2nd edition I don't know much, but I've heard CC was an utter mess that took too much time though . 3rd edition? Yeah CC was the king pen. Also you know what, I'm sorry but I'm not going to prove you wrong. You act like being here since day one makes you some ungodly brilliant genius that automatically invalidates everything I say. And I never said CC is worthless, that it can't be powerful. I didn't mention that. But you seem to be claiming that every edition has been CC dominant. It hasn't, its been editions sense CC was the dominant force. I never said CC was worthless, in 5th edition SW and GK were awesome because they had devestating shooting but also they were great at counterassault and decent at assaulting enemies as well. But they focused on shooting as well. 6th edition? Screamerstar, Flying Circus, the old MCspam nids (although not as powerful it could work), and others can do assault or could with devastating effectiveness. What I am saying is, on average, shooting is better.

And no, I don't want CC to be better. I play CSM, SM, IG, and daemons. In all likelyhood I'll add in Orks and Eldar to my list. The only armies that I play that I am building to be assault oriented are daemons, CSM, and maybe orks (I'm tempted to make a shooty one just because of the number of rolls). My IG? It's a tank regiment. SM? It's actually a sternguard oriented army built around deepstriking and trying to kill enemy vital targets. Eldar? Mobile shooty army. My fury is at the randomness. There's just so much of it. Psyker rolls are random, terrain is random, warlord traits are random, charges are random. I'm tired of it. I'm tired of the amount of dice rolls I have to do to be "cinematic". I'm okay with some abstraction to make things more fluid, I don't like having my personal fluffy commander change every game because he seems to forget his spells and what he is good at.

I give you the same challenge. Prove to me that at NO point has cc EVER beenviable as an option. Provide citation.


of course, are you getting back into the whole "guns are bad ban their use in 40k soapbox (if you are, stop there as that is not what this thread is about and will be considered off topic spam) or are you talking about PURELY the 2d6 assault moves. the 2d6 assault move is 6th edition only and that is what we are talking about.

I've been of the inclination that the set charge range was better than the 2D6 charge range. BUT, I love the idea of overwatch. So occasionally my buds and I keep the old charge ranges and keep the overwatch and models killed must be taken from the front/closest from where the attacks are coming from. What ends up happening is either the unit makes the charge, or too many models were killed during the overwatch phase and their unit ends up coming up short on the charge, and then the charge into assault has failed.

 EVIL INC wrote:
I give you the same challenge. Prove to me that at NO point has cc EVER beenviable as an option. Provide citation.


of course, are you getting back into the whole "guns are bad ban their use in 40k soapbox (if you are, stop there as that is not what this thread is about and will be considered off topic spam) or are you talking about PURELY the 2d6 assault moves. the 2d6 assault move is 6th edition only and that is what we are talking about.

You're still dodging my question to you.

 King Pariah wrote:
I've been of the inclination that the set charge range was better than the 2D6 charge range. BUT, I love the idea of overwatch. So occasionally my buds and I keep the old charge ranges and keep the overwatch and models killed must be taken from the front/closest from where the attacks are coming from. What ends up happening is either the unit makes the charge, or too many models were killed during the overwatch phase and their unit ends up coming up short on the charge, and then the charge into assault has failed.

the problem with the set range was that it was abusable and encouraged players to be lazy and use less tactics. Overwatch is nice but not anything to rely on at all (unless your tau or are a unit of burnaboyz). it is just something that is considered cool and lets the defensive player roll some dice hoping against hope to do a lil damage. A non-lazy offensive player will ensure that it doesnt affect the assault by moving all models in the unit forward instead of just pushing one into range. almost every time a charge is failed it is because the offensive player just got lazy and did not move enough of his models forward i order to save a few seconds while if they had moved every models the full move distance, they would have a crecent around the target unit and the defensive player would almost have to be tau or burnaboys or VERY lucky on rolling a bucket of sixes to make overwatch be the reson it is failed.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
I give you the same challenge. Prove to me that at NO point has cc EVER beenviable as an option. Provide citation.


of course, are you getting back into the whole "guns are bad ban their use in 40k soapbox (if you are, stop there as that is not what this thread is about and will be considered off topic spam) or are you talking about PURELY the 2d6 assault moves. the 2d6 assault move is 6th edition only and that is what we are talking about.

You're still dodging my question to you.

i see you are dodging my question instead of answering it. Likely because you are unable to provide citation. Of course, it is also totally off topic. I did report your spam follow up post. try to remain on topic. This thread is about the 2d6 charge roll. Not which edition you prefer.

 EVIL INC wrote:
I give you the same challenge. Prove to me that at NO point has cc EVER beenviable as an option. Provide citation.


of course, are you getting back into the whole "guns are bad ban their use in 40k soapbox (if you are, stop there as that is not what this thread is about and will be considered off topic spam) or are you talking about PURELY the 2d6 assault moves. the 2d6 assault move is 6th edition only and that is what we are talking about.

When. did. I. ever. say. guns. are. bad. I DIDN'T! Seriously, I never said that. And I never said that CC has NEVER been viable. NEVER! And you keep on arguing with 0 evidence. 0, nadda, nothing. And you know what, I'm tired of this, you always get on your "CC is OP soapbox" every time we run into one another. Why is it that so many people point out that 4th and 5th, as well as 6th all favored shooting? They didn't say that assault was worthless, that it never had its uses, nor did they say there weren't devastating lists that were assault oriented. Anyways, is the rolling for charge distance naff? aye. Honestly it makes more logical sense if every unit had some extent of varying movements. That way you could represent that DE are faster than ____ without having to add in fleet to explain it. Along with that, it would make it so that super hyper fast monsters will charge 8 inches whilst terminators can charge about 4 or 5 whilst SM might charge 6 (I really dunno). I get the point of some bit of randomness, to try to keep the enemy on its toes. But I do believe it is a bad rule. Anyways, in terms of worst rule in 6th edition.... I wouldn't quite say its the worst rule in the edition. Is it irritating? Yes. Immersion breaking with many flaws? Yes. Then again, 40k really needs a rewrite from the ground up. To met at least, the worse rule in 6th edition is simply the level of random tables everything seems to have.

I've played primarily assault armies and the 3rd edition rhino-rush/sweeping advance was certainly the highlight... but when I'm honest I think the current rules are the most logical for assaulting in 40k.

Guns should be more powerful - the current system makes assaulting more difficult for MOST units - but NOT for most assault type units.

Assault type units - jumppacks can choose when to use the jumppack, get hammer of wrath and can REROLL the charge - and units with fleet can reroll the assault range, as well as the run getting there on prior turns. MC's get hammer of wrath which is usually a free auto-hit with a high Strength.

Further - what the complainers are failing to acknowledge here is: in 5th edition assaulting into terrain/cover was RANDOM. Now the odds are BETTER - and unless you play against newbs, a good deal of the time you will be assaulting into terrain/cover.

The variable assault range is not the worst part of 6th Ed. Really, it isn't.

Though I do agree that you should be able (even required?) to move the distance your charge roll generates.

Sometimes, you charge the enemy, only to find out that yes, their squad gunners *were* set and ready to receive your charge, and the hill was a *bit* more treacherous than you were expecting, and, no, those *weren't* rocks, they *were* anti-personnel mines... and your assault ends up looking like a Benny Hill show.

1) Random charge is a weakness of Shooting armies! You could start 18" away and I need to be prepared to be assaulted because it could happen. Now, not even Tau with their ZOMG broken(!!1!one!) 30" gun can get within rapid fire range without being in danger.

2) Overwatch is fine. Outside of major flukes, the overwatch kills 1-2 guys. And then it was because the target of your charge was very elite, or are only a shooting force and you just traded 1-2 models for an entire unit.

3) I'm sick of hearing about supporting fire being OP. Supporting fire requires Line of Sight, so use terrain. It means the Tau need to clump up, so use blasts. If the Tau clump, they won't have the mobility to claim objectives. It doesn't matter if in the end you only have 4 models if those 4 are claiming objectives and the enemy isn't. Play the game, not your opponent.

 EVIL INC wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
I give you the same challenge. Prove to me that at NO point has cc EVER beenviable as an option. Provide citation.


of course, are you getting back into the whole "guns are bad ban their use in 40k soapbox (if you are, stop there as that is not what this thread is about and will be considered off topic spam) or are you talking about PURELY the 2d6 assault moves. the 2d6 assault move is 6th edition only and that is what we are talking about.

You're still dodging my question to you.

i see you are dodging my question instead of answering it. Likely because you are unable to provide citation. Of course, it is also totally off topic. I did report your spam follow up post. try to remain on topic. This thread is about the 2d6 charge roll. Not which edition you prefer.

Your argument was that random charge distance is fine, because it brought down CC from being OP like it (allegedly) was in earlier editions. I'm asking you to clarify what editions that was in, which is relevant because if melee weren't OP then you've not got anything to stand on.

Your challenge wasn't even directed at me, so I'm hardly dodging anything. Even if it was it's nonsense.

 Psienesis wrote:
The variable assault range is not the worst part of 6th Ed. Really, it isn't.

Though I do agree that you should be able (even required?) to move the distance your charge roll generates.

Sometimes, you charge the enemy, only to find out that yes, their squad gunners *were* set and ready to receive your charge, and the hill was a *bit* more treacherous than you were expecting, and, no, those *weren't* rocks, they *were* anti-personnel mines... and your assault ends up looking like a Benny Hill show.

the more I think about this, the more I like it. You tried to assalt, you should move forward even if you failed which could leave you out in the open to be assaulted yourself. All part of taking that gamble. So yes, I think it should be required to move in a straight line towards the enemy you were assaulting.

Again, with the caviot that assauls are not allowed to be initiated outside of 12 inches.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
I give you the same challenge. Prove to me that at NO point has cc EVER beenviable as an option. Provide citation.


of course, are you getting back into the whole "guns are bad ban their use in 40k soapbox (if you are, stop there as that is not what this thread is about and will be considered off topic spam) or are you talking about PURELY the 2d6 assault moves. the 2d6 assault move is 6th edition only and that is what we are talking about.

You're still dodging my question to you.

i see you are dodging my question instead of answering it. Likely because you are unable to provide citation. Of course, it is also totally off topic. I did report your spam follow up post. try to remain on topic. This thread is about the 2d6 charge roll. Not which edition you prefer.

Your argument was that random charge distance is fine, because it brought down CC from being OP like it (allegedly) was in earlier editions. I'm asking you to clarify what editions that was in, which is relevant because if melee weren't OP then you've not got anything to stand on.

Your challenge wasn't even directed at me, so I'm hardly dodging anything. Even if it was it's nonsense.

Do try to stay on topic. We are disussing the 2d6 assault range. Not which edition you prefer.

Statistically a 12" charge is incredibly improbable, it would be optimal to ignore such a value. The average charge is approximately 7 inches, discounting cover. Behind cover the charge is slightly less in terms of range. I don't really know the values off of that admittedly (off the top of my head). It's more likely to be cautious at about.... 15 inches against fleet probably (in open terrain) but for most enemies the probably going to make the charge is at around 13. Of course cover can minimize this even more so.

Also it isn't 1-2 models for an entire unit. I agree that overwatch isn't really that bad. It usually won't do anything to a unit (usually). The notion is is that losing 1-2 models can be devestating. That might be an inch lost, or two, or even three. Who knows? IT can really cripple a charge. And that is what most individuals remember. Along with that, 1-2 models can sometimes matter in terms of devestation and output especially if you were already shooting them. For example, Tau firewarriors can probably kill one or two bloodletters if a full unit (I still prefer a game where a firewarrior commander shaus'o I think ended up killing my chaos lord xD and he didn't even need to pull his dagger out of his sheath ).

I'd like rolling for random charge length if you still got to move the distance rolled, whether you make it or not.

 EVIL INC wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
I give you the same challenge. Prove to me that at NO point has cc EVER beenviable as an option. Provide citation.


of course, are you getting back into the whole "guns are bad ban their use in 40k soapbox (if you are, stop there as that is not what this thread is about and will be considered off topic spam) or are you talking about PURELY the 2d6 assault moves. the 2d6 assault move is 6th edition only and that is what we are talking about.

You're still dodging my question to you.

i see you are dodging my question instead of answering it. Likely because you are unable to provide citation. Of course, it is also totally off topic. I did report your spam follow up post. try to remain on topic. This thread is about the 2d6 charge roll. Not which edition you prefer.

Your argument was that random charge distance is fine, because it brought down CC from being OP like it (allegedly) was in earlier editions. I'm asking you to clarify what editions that was in, which is relevant because if melee weren't OP then you've not got anything to stand on.

Your challenge wasn't even directed at me, so I'm hardly dodging anything. Even if it was it's nonsense.

Do try to stay on topic. We are disussing the 2d6 assault range. Not which edition you prefer.

I take it you didn't read my post then?

 EVIL INC wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
The variable assault range is not the worst part of 6th Ed. Really, it isn't.

Though I do agree that you should be able (even required?) to move the distance your charge roll generates.

Sometimes, you charge the enemy, only to find out that yes, their squad gunners *were* set and ready to receive your charge, and the hill was a *bit* more treacherous than you were expecting, and, no, those *weren't* rocks, they *were* anti-personnel mines... and your assault ends up looking like a Benny Hill show.

the more I think about this, the more I like it. You tried to assalt, you should move forward even if you failed which could leave you out in the open to be assaulted yourself. All part of taking that gamble. So yes, I think it should be required to move in a straight line towards the enemy you were assaulting.

Again, with the caviot that assauls are not allowed to be initiated outside of 12 inches.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
I give you the same challenge. Prove to me that at NO point has cc EVER beenviable as an option. Provide citation.


of course, are you getting back into the whole "guns are bad ban their use in 40k soapbox (if you are, stop there as that is not what this thread is about and will be considered off topic spam) or are you talking about PURELY the 2d6 assault moves. the 2d6 assault move is 6th edition only and that is what we are talking about.

You're still dodging my question to you.

i see you are dodging my question instead of answering it. Likely because you are unable to provide citation. Of course, it is also totally off topic. I did report your spam follow up post. try to remain on topic. This thread is about the 2d6 charge roll. Not which edition you prefer.

Your argument was that random charge distance is fine, because it brought down CC from being OP like it (allegedly) was in earlier editions. I'm asking you to clarify what editions that was in, which is relevant because if melee weren't OP then you've not got anything to stand on.

Your challenge wasn't even directed at me, so I'm hardly dodging anything. Even if it was it's nonsense.

Do try to stay on topic. We are disussing the 2d6 assault range. Not which edition you prefer.

Oh, I actually agree with you on the first part (well you and Psienesis). I think the random charge would need some form of rewrite personally. I could totally see others using it as a way to slingshot them further than the standard d6 run by planning out the statistical odds of a charge (I don't think you can charge something if it isn't within 12" range though). Then again I'd prefer if there was some like... ratio. Like a terminator had a variable range of 4+2d3 or something. It keeps it random and risky but allows for some consistency without as many OMG12inch charges on terminators. Along with that, you could then make it so that faster units wouldn't really need fleet and you could summarize it as a faster unit having a 6+2d3 and on occasion a unit might only get an extra d3. That way there is always that risk of failure, just not enough and could give a shooting army an ability to just point blank shoot you up but also a more reliable charge and would increase diversity of units!

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
It still boils down to players who used to auto-win games in previous editions simply because they had an assault army having sour grapes because now they actually have to THINK and use strategy and tactics to win.

What previous edition?

3rd edition. That was the last edition I played and I recall assault being nuts back then; everything was mechanized to close as fast as possible. I think assault troops could charge 12" (don't quote me, it's been over 10 years) or something like that. Blood Angels were nasty when 3rd just came out, all the benefits of Marines and better assault. Black Templars were one of the cheesiest forces ever when they came out in Codex: Armageddon. Of course that was also the days of the IG Armored Company and the Rhino Rush. I recall actually building my CSM with bolt pistols + CCW because assault was so much better than shooting, with a few bolter squads as firebases.

I still don't like the idea of random movement though, that seems like a cop-out and as I said before removes player choice. Oh my killer assault squad is near you? I need to randomly see if I can charge you, and if I can't you'll blow the gak out of me next turn if I get unlucky. Let's leave it up to random die roll.

No thanks.

- Edited by insaniak. Please see Dakka's Rule #1 -

Gunzhard wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You keep saying that like it's a) true and b) relevant.

Most assaults are not initiated at 3-4 inches. In fact I don't think I've had a less than 6" assault in the past 2 months (wait - that's not true. My Flyrant had a 1.5" assault against the Vindicator he immobilized the turn before).

Yeah, even if you are charging from 4" away... that's still an 8.3% chance of failing the charge. If I'm 4" away and I fail the charge with my genetically modified super soldiers about to put the smash down on some weedy cultists, I'm not thinking "oh how cinematic, what a wonderful narrative", I'm thinking "this is frakking stupid".

It's possible to fail a charge - but I definitely failed more in 5th edition because you could not pre-measure. I have a special 6" assault template that I'd use and on many occasions I was just a hair out of range. As I stated before - if you are assaulting into Terrain/Cover, which most of the time you should be unless you play against newbs, then the odds are BETTER in 6th than in 5th.

If you failed a charge because YOU failed a charge, that doesn't really bother me. I dislike failing a charge because of random chance. I also would have no problem with predefined charge distances and being able to premeasure. All these options are better than random charge distances.

EVIL INC wrote:It still boils down to players who used to auto-win games in previous editions simply because they had an assault army having sour grapes because now they actually have to THINK and use strategy and tactics to win.

Err, no. I dislike random charge distances because I dislike random charge distances. I collect 1 assaulty army, 1 pure shooty army and 1 counter-attacky army, I dislike random charge distances in all cases. I also disliked random run distances. I just hate random movement in games that are primarily about movement (unless it's a specific rule effect like Fanatics or something).

 StarTrotter wrote:

Oh, I actually agree with you on the first part (well you and Psienesis). I think the random charge would need some form of rewrite personally. I could totally see others using it as a way to slingshot them further than the standard d6 run by planning out the statistical odds of a charge (I don't think you can charge something if it isn't within 12" range though). Then again I'd prefer if there was some like... ratio. Like a terminator had a variable range of 4+2d3 or something. It keeps it random and risky but allows for some consistency without as many OMG12inch charges on terminators. Along with that, you could then make it so that faster units wouldn't really need fleet and you could summarize it as a faster unit having a 6+2d3 and on occasion a unit might only get an extra d3. That way there is always that risk of failure, just not enough and could give a shooting army an ability to just point blank shoot you up but also a more reliable charge and would increase diversity of units!

I mentioned that it could be abused to allow units on the opposite side of the board a free "slingshot move". that is why I suggested the pinned if you fail idea which someone else then came up with the easier and more common sense "only assault if your within 12"' idea.
I would have no issues with having different ratios for different units. Termys, getting a lower number possible while large creatures like ogryn getting a slightly higher possible number and a ravenor getting a higher possible number yet. I LIKE that idea. I dont think others would agree as fast as me though ased on laziness, time it takes and the addition of more numbers to remember and double check during a game.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I take it you didn't read my post then?

Yes, it was off topic. Do try to remember this thread is about the 2d6 assault roll and not which edition you prefer.

 StarTrotter wrote:
Statistically a 12" charge is incredibly improbable, it would be optimal to ignore such a value. The average charge is approximately 7 inches, discounting cover. Behind cover the charge is slightly less in terms of range. I don't really know the values off of that admittedly (off the top of my head). It's more likely to be cautious at about.... 15 inches against fleet probably (in open terrain) but for most enemies the probably going to make the charge is at around 13. Of course cover can minimize this even more so.

Also it isn't 1-2 models for an entire unit. I agree that overwatch isn't really that bad. It usually won't do anything to a unit (usually). The notion is is that losing 1-2 models can be devestating. That might be an inch lost, or two, or even three. Who knows? IT can really cripple a charge. And that is what most individuals remember. Along with that, 1-2 models can sometimes matter in terms of devestation and output especially if you were already shooting them. For example, Tau firewarriors can probably kill one or two bloodletters if a full unit (I still prefer a game where a firewarrior commander shaus'o I think ended up killing my chaos lord xD and he didn't even need to pull his dagger out of his sheath ).

a 12 inch charge IS unlikely. It is possible though where it wasnt before. heck a 6.5 inch assault is possible now where it wasnt before. so there is a random element involved but many players forget that while it is unlikely you will roll boxcars, it is just as unlikely you will roll snakeeyes (unless your me of course lol). As I have been saying all along is that a most of that "randomness" can be overcome by using tactics to stack the odds in your favor. By actually moving your full 6 inch move for all members of the squad to create a semicirle around the target unit so that you have 5 guys within 3 inches and the rest 4-5 inches away, you are stacking the odds in your favor more than the guy who just nudges a single models to be within 6 inches. The former way, your still likely to have models within 3 inches even after overwatch and only snakeeyes will mean you fail.

 Blacksails wrote:
Why are people responding to Evil? He's demonstrated time and time again he's incapable of a rational, reasonable discussion.

Reported. you might want to check rule#1 of the site. Try to keep personal and untrue assaults out of the threads.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
It still boils down to players who used to auto-win games in previous editions simply because they had an assault army having sour grapes because now they actually have to THINK and use strategy and tactics to win.

What previous edition?

3rd edition. That was the last edition I played and I recall assault being nuts back then; everything was mechanized to close as fast as possible. I think assault troops could charge 12" (don't quote me, it's been over 10 years) or something like that. Blood Angels were nasty when 3rd just came out, all the benefits of Marines and better assault. Black Templars were one of the cheesiest forces ever when they came out in Codex: Armageddon. Of course that was also the days of the IG Armored Company and the Rhino Rush. I recall actually building my CSM with bolt pistols + CCW because assault was so much better than shooting, with a few bolter squads as firebases.

I'll agree with that. As a result of that though, we also have to come to the conclusion that melee got worse in 4th, worse in 5th, and worse again in 6th when shooting was already stronger in 4th, thus disproving Evil's entire "argument".

D6+5 charge seems like a good compromise from what I'm reading.

At the worst you still get 6 inches like earlier editions.

At the best you get 11 inches so it might be worth the chance.

Pushing one guy into 6 inch range could backfire if overwatch kills him.

Just resolve what happens if you fail and you might have a fun alternative to play with your friends.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
It still boils down to players who used to auto-win games in previous editions simply because they had an assault army having sour grapes because now they actually have to THINK and use strategy and tactics to win.

What previous edition?

3rd edition. That was the last edition I played and I recall assault being nuts back then; everything was mechanized to close as fast as possible. I think assault troops could charge 12" (don't quote me, it's been over 10 years) or something like that. Blood Angels were nasty when 3rd just came out, all the benefits of Marines and better assault. Black Templars were one of the cheesiest forces ever when they came out in Codex: Armageddon. Of course that was also the days of the IG Armored Company and the Rhino Rush. I recall actually building my CSM with bolt pistols + CCW because assault was so much better than shooting, with a few bolter squads as firebases.

I'll agree with that. As a result of that though, we also have to come to the conclusion that melee got worse in 4th, worse in 5th, and worse again in 6th when shooting was already stronger in 4th, thus disproving Evil's entire "argument".

You might notice though that 3rd edition did not have the 2d6 assault roll and is therefore offtopic. Some editions CC was WAY OP, in others less so. Regardless of the extent, it has been more powerfull in every edition than this one. Even in 5th there were abusable aspects.
To keep it on topic, some players prefer earlier editions because of the lack of the 2d6 roll. Going by this criteria (the only one that is on topic in this thread), all previous editions are equal.

Note that 4th edition was released in 2004. Evil appears to be holding a grudge against melee armies from over 10 years ago. There are probably people playing the game now, that weren't even born the last time cc dominated. However, shooting has been dominating for 2 editions now.

 EVIL INC wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

Oh, I actually agree with you on the first part (well you and Psienesis). I think the random charge would need some form of rewrite personally. I could totally see others using it as a way to slingshot them further than the standard d6 run by planning out the statistical odds of a charge (I don't think you can charge something if it isn't within 12" range though). Then again I'd prefer if there was some like... ratio. Like a terminator had a variable range of 4+2d3 or something. It keeps it random and risky but allows for some consistency without as many OMG12inch charges on terminators. Along with that, you could then make it so that faster units wouldn't really need fleet and you could summarize it as a faster unit having a 6+2d3 and on occasion a unit might only get an extra d3. That way there is always that risk of failure, just not enough and could give a shooting army an ability to just point blank shoot you up but also a more reliable charge and would increase diversity of units!

I mentioned that it could be abused to allow units on the opposite side of the board a free "slingshot move". that is why I suggested the pinned if you fail idea which someone else then came up with the easier and more common sense "only assault if your within 12"' idea.
I would have no issues with having different ratios for different units. Termys, getting a lower number possible while large creatures like ogryn getting a slightly higher possible number and a ravenor getting a higher possible number yet. I LIKE that idea. I dont think others would agree as fast as me though ased on laziness, time it takes and the addition of more numbers to remember and double check during a game.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I take it you didn't read my post then?

Yes, it was off topic. Do try to remember this thread is about the 2d6 assault roll and not which edition you prefer.

 StarTrotter wrote:
Statistically a 12" charge is incredibly improbable, it would be optimal to ignore such a value. The average charge is approximately 7 inches, discounting cover. Behind cover the charge is slightly less in terms of range. I don't really know the values off of that admittedly (off the top of my head). It's more likely to be cautious at about.... 15 inches against fleet probably (in open terrain) but for most enemies the probably going to make the charge is at around 13. Of course cover can minimize this even more so.

Also it isn't 1-2 models for an entire unit. I agree that overwatch isn't really that bad. It usually won't do anything to a unit (usually). The notion is is that losing 1-2 models can be devestating. That might be an inch lost, or two, or even three. Who knows? IT can really cripple a charge. And that is what most individuals remember. Along with that, 1-2 models can sometimes matter in terms of devestation and output especially if you were already shooting them. For example, Tau firewarriors can probably kill one or two bloodletters if a full unit (I still prefer a game where a firewarrior commander shaus'o I think ended up killing my chaos lord xD and he didn't even need to pull his dagger out of his sheath ).

a 12 inch charge IS unlikely. It is possible though where it wasnt before. heck a 6.5 inch assault is possible now where it wasnt before. so there is a random element involved but many players forget that while it is unlikely you will roll boxcars, it is just as unlikely you will roll snakeeyes (unless your me of course lol). As I have been saying all along is that a most of that "randomness" can be overcome by using tactics to stack the odds in your favor. By actually moving your full 6 inch move for all members of the squad to create a semicirle around the target unit so that you have 5 guys within 3 inches and the rest 4-5 inches away, you are stacking the odds in your favor more than the guy who just nudges a single models to be within 6 inches. The former way, your still likely to have models within 3 inches even after overwatch and only snakeeyes will mean you fail.

can you even declare a charge from all the way across the board though? That's what I'm asking. I suppose its not written in yet considering nobody would do such, but yeah I suppose that you'd actually have to type in that you can't charge somebody across the map xD that would be silly. I think the anger is that... you are probably not going to try to roll boxcars. Why bother? 12" is just so improbable that you aren't going to risk that roll. So a 12" charge is almost never seen. But a 2" charge? Now that is something that you will see because people will attempt that 10" charge, that 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3 inch charge. All of these have a chance of rolling 1s. If you roll 2 6s in a charge of 4 inches, it doesn't really matter, its excess movement that means nothing to you as you aren't going to risk that 12" charge. At 7 inch charge, the 12" just means you manage to run that 7 inches. So the problem is that people observe the odds of rolling 10 inches, 11 inches, 12 inches and say its not worth the risk whilst when trying to make that 3-9 inch charge (that is much more likely) that double snakes can really mess you up. Not quite. Assault is an odd one. With models removed from the front you want to have a wave, a line of units that are as close as possible. Overtime though, you will likely lose units to shooting. Along with that, you still want to space out to minimize damage from blasts and possibly limit the number of models you lose by enemy shots. That's when losing that model can really make a difference. When you can space your units out 2" it can really be a massive loss (even if rather uncommon)

Anyways, I do actually like the have to charge part. It makes more sense for a flowing time perspective, I'd say it would kinda make overwatch meaningless because it is obviously based upon them charging you and the failing to reach could be that the shots slow you down. My biggest problem is it really varies. I could totally see Khorne just charging forth regardless whilst I could see guardsman or SM having a little retreat sequence after charging for a bit. It would be certainly interesting if one could change it up to explain how it works, maybe even a ld test involved in it (which would explain why bloodletters would be less likely to run back along with nids) perhaps even fearless individuals just charging onwards... still it might make it even more complicated and the rules are already rather bloated.

jpong, to remain on topic, ALL previous editions are equal in relation to this thread as the 2d6 assault roll did not exist in any of them. If you have 10 year old grudges or whatever you are talking about, feel free to post them in a relevant thread. we arent talking about you liking 4th edition or 3rd edition or whatever more than this, we are talking about the 2d6 assault roll only.

JPong wrote:
Note that 4th edition was released in 2004. Evil appears to be holding a grudge against melee armies from over 10 years ago. There are probably people playing the game now, that weren't even born the last time cc dominated. However, shooting has been dominating for 2 editions now.

This. The entire crux of the argument behind why random charge distances are needed, as presented by Evil, is that CC was too dominant in earlier editions. My question about 5th edition is thus on topic, because if CC can't be said to have been OP in 5th edition (and, judging from the refusal to explain how it was, it wasn't) random charge distances certainly aren't required in order to somehow "balance" melee, as was claimed.

 EVIL INC wrote:
jpong, to remain on topic, ALL previous editions are equal in relation to this thread as the 2d6 assault roll did not exist in any of them. If you have 10 year old grudges or whatever you are talking about, feel free to post them in a relevant thread. we arent talking about you liking 4th edition or 3rd edition or whatever more than this, we are talking about the 2d6 assault roll only.

You do not decide what is on-topic or not.

 StarTrotter wrote:

can you even declare a charge from all the way across the board though? That's what I'm asking. I suppose its not written in yet considering nobody would do such, but yeah I suppose that you'd actually have to type in that you can't charge somebody across the map xD that would be silly. I think the anger is that... you are probably not going to try to roll boxcars. Why bother? 12" is just so improbable that you aren't going to risk that roll. So a 12" charge is almost never seen. But a 2" charge? Now that is something that you will see because people will attempt that 10" charge, that 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3 inch charge. All of these have a chance of rolling 1s. If you roll 2 6s in a charge of 4 inches, it doesn't really matter, its excess movement that means nothing to you as you aren't going to risk that 12" charge. At 7 inch charge, the 12" just means you manage to run that 7 inches. So the problem is that people observe the odds of rolling 10 inches, 11 inches, 12 inches and say its not worth the risk whilst when trying to make that 3-9 inch charge (that is much more likely) that double snakes can really mess you up. Not quite. Assault is an odd one. With models removed from the front you want to have a wave, a line of units that are as close as possible. Overtime though, you will likely lose units to shooting. Along with that, you still want to space out to minimize damage from blasts and possibly limit the number of models you lose by enemy shots. That's when losing that model can really make a difference. When you can space your units out 2" it can really be a massive loss (even if rather uncommon)

Anyways, I do actually like the have to charge part. It makes more sense for a flowing time perspective, I'd say it would kinda make overwatch meaningless because it is obviously based upon them charging you and the failing to reach could be that the shots slow you down. My biggest problem is it really varies. I could totally see Khorne just charging forth regardless whilst I could see guardsman or SM having a little retreat sequence after charging for a bit. It would be certainly interesting if one could change it up to explain how it works, maybe even a ld test involved in it (which would explain why bloodletters would be less likely to run back along with nids) perhaps even fearless individuals just charging onwards... still it might make it even more complicated and the rules are already rather bloated.

i mentioned finding ways to prevent players from calling an assault from the other side of the table for one reason. There ARE players (you cant deny it and likely know a few lol) who would do so and claim that SAW, there is nothing to stop them and RAW, they would be right. A total jerk move but SOME players WOULD do it.
As for players not making a 7-9 inch assault attempt, that depends on the player. YOU may not others may. Some ork players try it at 12 every time. I have declared a 12 inch assault with guard on the last turn of a game in hopes of getting to grips and contest an objective. Saying you your personal anecdotal data for yourself means you wouldnt take a chance does not mean others wont. Others do and fail and others do and succeed. The optio is there for them.

 EVIL INC wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

can you even declare a charge from all the way across the board though? That's what I'm asking. I suppose its not written in yet considering nobody would do such, but yeah I suppose that you'd actually have to type in that you can't charge somebody across the map xD that would be silly. I think the anger is that... you are probably not going to try to roll boxcars. Why bother? 12" is just so improbable that you aren't going to risk that roll. So a 12" charge is almost never seen. But a 2" charge? Now that is something that you will see because people will attempt that 10" charge, that 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3 inch charge. All of these have a chance of rolling 1s. If you roll 2 6s in a charge of 4 inches, it doesn't really matter, its excess movement that means nothing to you as you aren't going to risk that 12" charge. At 7 inch charge, the 12" just means you manage to run that 7 inches. So the problem is that people observe the odds of rolling 10 inches, 11 inches, 12 inches and say its not worth the risk whilst when trying to make that 3-9 inch charge (that is much more likely) that double snakes can really mess you up. Not quite. Assault is an odd one. With models removed from the front you want to have a wave, a line of units that are as close as possible. Overtime though, you will likely lose units to shooting. Along with that, you still want to space out to minimize damage from blasts and possibly limit the number of models you lose by enemy shots. That's when losing that model can really make a difference. When you can space your units out 2" it can really be a massive loss (even if rather uncommon)

Anyways, I do actually like the have to charge part. It makes more sense for a flowing time perspective, I'd say it would kinda make overwatch meaningless because it is obviously based upon them charging you and the failing to reach could be that the shots slow you down. My biggest problem is it really varies. I could totally see Khorne just charging forth regardless whilst I could see guardsman or SM having a little retreat sequence after charging for a bit. It would be certainly interesting if one could change it up to explain how it works, maybe even a ld test involved in it (which would explain why bloodletters would be less likely to run back along with nids) perhaps even fearless individuals just charging onwards... still it might make it even more complicated and the rules are already rather bloated.

i mentioned finding ways to prevent players from calling an assault from the other side of the table for one reason. There ARE players (you cant deny it and likely know a few lol) who would do so and claim that SAW, there is nothing to stop them and RAW, they would be right. A total jerk move but SOME players WOULD do it.
As for players not making a 7-9 inch assault attempt, that depends on the player. YOU may not others may. Some ork players try it at 12 every time. I have declared a 12 inch assault with guard on the last turn of a game in hopes of getting to grips and contest an objective. Saying you your personal anecdotal data for yourself means you wouldnt take a chance does not mean others wont. Others do and fail and others do and succeed. The optio is there for them.

If only the sentence "A unit can never declare a charge against a unit that it cannot reach [...]" was included, in bold, below the heading "Declare Charge", in the Rulebook. That'd solve so many problems. Alas, it's a shame that it's not the...

What's that? It is? Well, that's just marvellous then! Carry on!

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

JPong wrote:
Note that 4th edition was released in 2004. Evil appears to be holding a grudge against melee armies from over 10 years ago. There are probably people playing the game now, that weren't even born the last time cc dominated. However, shooting has been dominating for 2 editions now.

This. The entire crux of the argument behind why random charge distances are needed, as presented by Evil, is that CC was too dominant in earlier editions. My question about 5th edition is thus on topic, because if CC can't be said to have been OP in 5th edition (and, judging from the refusal to explain how it was, it wasn't) random charge distances certainly aren't required in order to somehow "balance" melee, as was claimed.

 EVIL INC wrote:
jpong, to remain on topic, ALL previous editions are equal in relation to this thread as the 2d6 assault roll did not exist in any of them. If you have 10 year old grudges or whatever you are talking about, feel free to post them in a relevant thread. we arent talking about you liking 4th edition or 3rd edition or whatever more than this, we are talking about the 2d6 assault roll only.

You do not decide what is on-topic or not.

walrus, YOU do not decide what is on topic or not. the Mods do. They usually make the decision based on the OP, not random side rants and raves. Your side topic of liking 3rd edition more than the current one has nothing to do with a 2d6 roll for assault. Going by the OP, ALL previous editions are equal as none of them had this roll whether it be RT or 5th, they are all equal.
Just caught your last post. You've seen the 7th edition rulebook? Start a new thread and tell us what else you saw in it.


To keep it on topic, startrotter mentioned each seperate unit having different random number rolls possible. How man would be interested or support that?

 EVIL INC wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

can you even declare a charge from all the way across the board though? That's what I'm asking. I suppose its not written in yet considering nobody would do such, but yeah I suppose that you'd actually have to type in that you can't charge somebody across the map xD that would be silly. I think the anger is that... you are probably not going to try to roll boxcars. Why bother? 12" is just so improbable that you aren't going to risk that roll. So a 12" charge is almost never seen. But a 2" charge? Now that is something that you will see because people will attempt that 10" charge, that 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3 inch charge. All of these have a chance of rolling 1s. If you roll 2 6s in a charge of 4 inches, it doesn't really matter, its excess movement that means nothing to you as you aren't going to risk that 12" charge. At 7 inch charge, the 12" just means you manage to run that 7 inches. So the problem is that people observe the odds of rolling 10 inches, 11 inches, 12 inches and say its not worth the risk whilst when trying to make that 3-9 inch charge (that is much more likely) that double snakes can really mess you up. Not quite. Assault is an odd one. With models removed from the front you want to have a wave, a line of units that are as close as possible. Overtime though, you will likely lose units to shooting. Along with that, you still want to space out to minimize damage from blasts and possibly limit the number of models you lose by enemy shots. That's when losing that model can really make a difference. When you can space your units out 2" it can really be a massive loss (even if rather uncommon)

Anyways, I do actually like the have to charge part. It makes more sense for a flowing time perspective, I'd say it would kinda make overwatch meaningless because it is obviously based upon them charging you and the failing to reach could be that the shots slow you down. My biggest problem is it really varies. I could totally see Khorne just charging forth regardless whilst I could see guardsman or SM having a little retreat sequence after charging for a bit. It would be certainly interesting if one could change it up to explain how it works, maybe even a ld test involved in it (which would explain why bloodletters would be less likely to run back along with nids) perhaps even fearless individuals just charging onwards... still it might make it even more complicated and the rules are already rather bloated.

i mentioned finding ways to prevent players from calling an assault from the other side of the table for one reason. There ARE players (you cant deny it and likely know a few lol) who would do so and claim that SAW, there is nothing to stop them and RAW, they would be right. A total jerk move but SOME players WOULD do it.
As for players not making a 7-9 inch assault attempt, that depends on the player. YOU may not others may. Some ork players try it at 12 every time. I have declared a 12 inch assault with guard on the last turn of a game in hopes of getting to grips and contest an objective. Saying you your personal anecdotal data for yourself means you wouldnt take a chance does not mean others wont. Others do and fail and others do and succeed. The optio is there for them.

Yeah I just didn't think about somebody really trying to slingshot that way. Heck, later in that same post I agreed that it should be written there to make sure somebody doesn't try to exploit it . Admittedly there is likely always going to be some form of exploit ion. And I didn't say not making an attempt, I've opted for 12" charges (I'm notorious for making stupid good roles at convenient times, failing on 3+ saves, and doing great with 5+ saves ) to draw overwatch into a battered unit and even had it succeed. I average an assault range of about 8 or 9. I'll take the risks because you need to. What I mean is that, whilst some will try, it isn't usually worth trying that 12" charge. The odds are so unlikely it is usually not worth it not to mention it gives extra shots to the enemey (even if snapshots). I'm focusing on statsitical odds and statistical odds alone.

To be honest my idea there is a bit deviating. It would be better in proposed. I suppose I was just ruminating because it would be an interesting mix between giving there to be more diversity but not necessarily removing all randomeness. Just... streamlining it perhaps? The problem comes when it adds even extra by way of an entire bar for the assault of a unit.

How about this:

You measure the distance, if within 12 inches, you declare your charge. Roll your 2D6.

If you reach, great you are in CC.

If you fail, then you only move closer to the unit being assaulted by HALF of the the dice roll, rounding down.

This way you still show some movement happened, but for whatever reason something happened and prevented them from making it.

Simple enough. If I have to stomach this dumb rule, then I think this is a decent compromise...

I would say the best way to limit that is to set the maximum distance at which you can declare a charge is 24". This should encompass the best-possible roll (12) and every basic movement rate, special rule, modeling shenanigans, transport facing shenaningans, and all other related hoopla that gets you the additional 12" of movement....

... because if you are attempting to charge the enemy over much greater distance than that, then you're actually running track. Pickett tried that, and look what happened to his guys!

But based on statistics, the long odds of making it are better than the zero odds of not even having the choice arent they. a slim chance is better than no chance.

 EVIL INC wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

JPong wrote:
Note that 4th edition was released in 2004. Evil appears to be holding a grudge against melee armies from over 10 years ago. There are probably people playing the game now, that weren't even born the last time cc dominated. However, shooting has been dominating for 2 editions now.

This. The entire crux of the argument behind why random charge distances are needed, as presented by Evil, is that CC was too dominant in earlier editions. My question about 5th edition is thus on topic, because if CC can't be said to have been OP in 5th edition (and, judging from the refusal to explain how it was, it wasn't) random charge distances certainly aren't required in order to somehow "balance" melee, as was claimed.

 EVIL INC wrote:
jpong, to remain on topic, ALL previous editions are equal in relation to this thread as the 2d6 assault roll did not exist in any of them. If you have 10 year old grudges or whatever you are talking about, feel free to post them in a relevant thread. we arent talking about you liking 4th edition or 3rd edition or whatever more than this, we are talking about the 2d6 assault roll only.

You do not decide what is on-topic or not.

walrus, YOU do not decide what is on topic or not. the Mods do.

Yep, they do. Why, then, do you insist on pretending that you are one?

 EVIL INC wrote:
Your side topic of liking 3rd edition more than the current one has nothing to do with a 2d6 roll for assault. Going by the OP, ALL previous editions are equal as none of them had this roll whether it be RT or 5th, they are all equal.

So this is going to be another thread about you arguing against strawmen and ignoring what I'm saying? So be it.

Earlier in the thread, you asserted that CC was too strong in earlier editions, and thus had to be brought down a notch (justifying the existence of random charge range). I'm pointing out that this argument relies on 5th edition, being the most recent one prior to 6th edition, having CC that was too strong. If this were not the case, the existence of random charge range (which is what we're discussing) would not be justified, as it'd be an overnerf to CC. As has been pointed out, shooting was already stronger in 5th edition that melee (which doesn't mean that melee wasn't playable, only that it was already weaker), making the claim that CC is now in it's "rightful place" after being OP untrue.

 EVIL INC wrote:
But based on statistics, the long odds of making it are better than the zero odds of not even having the choice arent they. a slim chance is better than no chance.

Which is evened out by the risk of failing charges at short range.

KTG17 wrote:
How about this:

You measure the distance, if within 12 inches, you declare your charge. Roll your 2D6.

If you reach, great you are in CC.

If you fail, then you only move closer to the unit being assaulted by HALF of the the dice roll, rounding down.

This way you still show some movement happened, but for whatever reason something happened and prevented them from making it.

Simple enough. If I have to stomach this dumb rule, then I think this is a decent compromise...

I don't like it. Since I'll be hugging cover as much as possible, forcing me to leave cover because I couldn't roll a 7 is unnecessarily punitive.
Or, if I move out of cover because you somehow allowed me to try a 4" charge and I fail it, how does that make things "better"?

I don't see any reason why the movement would have to be forced forward - momentum stopped, not going to make it? Dive for cover boys!

- Edited by insaniak. Please see Dakka's rule #1. -

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Yep, they do. Why, then, do you insist on pretending that you are one?

You might stop trying and pretending to be one and let them do their job. You will find your life much easier.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


So this is going to be another thread about you arguing against strawmen and ignoring what I'm saying? So be it.

Earlier in the thread, you asserted that CC was too strong in earlier editions, and thus had to be brought down a notch (justifying the existence of random charge range). I'm pointing out that this argument relies on 5th edition, being the most recent one prior to 6th edition, having CC that was too strong. If this were not the case, the existence of random charge range (which is what we're discussing) would not be justified, as it'd be an overnerf to CC. As has been pointed out, shooting was already stronger in 5th edition that melee (which doesn't mean that melee wasn't playable, only that it was already weaker), making the claim that CC is now in it's "rightful place" after being OP untrue.

So now you are starting to build your strawmen again? YOU started asking for exact editions before this one. the simple fact is that ALL editions before this one are equal in relation to the topic of the thread as ALL of the previous editions failed to have the roll and all previous editions had CC being more powerfull than it currently is. the degree is not in question. Consider asking a pregnant woman how regnant she is. She either is or is not regardless of its the morning after or 9 months down the road, the condition is there. The same is true of this.
BTW, I reported your last post and pongs before it If you are unable to interact with other members in a civil or polite fashion feel free to use the ignore button. If you are just unable to refute a truth they put forth and get frustrated, making use of that button is also an option.

rigeld2 wrote:

KTG17 wrote:
How about this:

You measure the distance, if within 12 inches, you declare your charge. Roll your 2D6.

If you reach, great you are in CC.

If you fail, then you only move closer to the unit being assaulted by HALF of the the dice roll, rounding down.

This way you still show some movement happened, but for whatever reason something happened and prevented them from making it.

Simple enough. If I have to stomach this dumb rule, then I think this is a decent compromise...

I don't like it. Since I'll be hugging cover as much as possible, forcing me to leave cover because I couldn't roll a 7 is unnecessarily punitive.
Or, if I move out of cover because you somehow allowed me to try a 4" charge and I fail it, how does that make things "better"?

I don't see any reason why the movement would have to be forced forward - momentum stopped, not going to make it? Dive for cover boys!

Well I am thinking that the charge is a move towards the enemy unit, not a dive for cover. So in the process of charging, come up with whatever narative you want, the charge broke down DURING the advance. I'm not considering that cover is nearby, nor would I want to go down that road - thats just introducing more arguements about what is reachable for an entire squad.

My proposal gives those who hate the rule that requires the unit that failed the charge to be forced to stand still, yet still holds those who fail some kind of accountability for failing.

Now I dont even like the failing part, but its there. I am trying to deal with it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EVIL INC wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Yep, they do. Why, then, do you insist on pretending that you are one?

You might stop trying and pretending to be one and let them do their job. You will find your life much easier.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


So this is going to be another thread about you arguing against strawmen and ignoring what I'm saying? So be it.

Earlier in the thread, you asserted that CC was too strong in earlier editions, and thus had to be brought down a notch (justifying the existence of random charge range). I'm pointing out that this argument relies on 5th edition, being the most recent one prior to 6th edition, having CC that was too strong. If this were not the case, the existence of random charge range (which is what we're discussing) would not be justified, as it'd be an overnerf to CC. As has been pointed out, shooting was already stronger in 5th edition that melee (which doesn't mean that melee wasn't playable, only that it was already weaker), making the claim that CC is now in it's "rightful place" after being OP untrue.

So now you are starting to build your strawmen again? YOU started asking for exact editions before this one. the simple fact is that ALL editions before this one are equal in relation to the topic of the thread as ALL of the previous editions failed to have the roll and all previous editions had CC being more powerfull than it currently is. the degree is not in question. Consider asking a pregnant woman how regnant she is. She either is or is not regardless of its the morning after or 9 months down the road, the condition is there. The same is true of this.
BTW, I reported your last post and pongs before it If you are unable to interact with other members in a civil or polite fashion feel free to use the ignore button. If you are just unable to refute a truth they put forth and get frustrated, making use of that button is also an option.

HEY WALRUS AND EVIL! STOP ARGUING BETWEEN YOURSELVES AND TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK OF MY RULE AMMENDMENT!

So the child is guilty of the crimes of their great grandfather, but not the crimes of their father or grandfather?

Beacause at one time over 10 years ago, you lost to CC, it is therefore at all times overpowered? Shooting has been dominant since 4th. This is fact. This is counter to your argument that assault was and always has been until 6th, stronger than shooting. And now it is balanced despite making approximately 0 noteful appearances in anything remotely competitive.

I agree that straight towards the enemy the full distance is the way to go. The "diving for cover"" wouldnt happen till after they moved the full distance so it would not be a factore and they may indeed try it on their next movement phase if they so desire. Sorry that walrus keeps trying to instigate some sort of argument. It's some sort of agenda he has had against the current edition he has and jumps his soapbox into any thread he can regardless of the actual topic.

JPong wrote:
So the child is guilty of the crimes of their great grandfather, but not the crimes of their father or grandfather?

Beacause at one time over 10 years ago, you lost to CC, it is therefore at all times overpowered? Shooting has been dominant since 4th. This is fact. This is counter to your argument that assault was and always has been until 6th, stronger than shooting. And now it is balanced despite making approximately 0 noteful appearances in anything remotely competitive.

You might be in the wrong thread here buddy. We are talking about the random 2d6 assault roll, not your father or grandfather and what they did. I'm sure there is a genealogy forum here somewhere.

To be fair, melee being "too strong" is a matter of opinion. Clearly 6th edition is a shooting-focused edition, but melee combat is still much stronger than it should be. Why? Because 40k is a scifi game with guns. Melee should be a rare act of desperation, or a final charge to finish off a unit that you've crippled with shooting. Dedicated melee units/armies should be almost nonexistent, and each codex should have plenty of shooting units. So, to fix this problem:

1) Charge range is 2D6 pick the highest, not 2D6 added together, with difficult terrain 1D6 and fleet 3D6 pick the highest.

2) Overwatch is done at full BS, with blast weapons able to fire as usual and template weapons inflicting 2D6 hits instead of D3.

3) Units may use ranged weapons in close combat at a -1 BS penalty, and pistols are used at full BS.

4) Units are no longer locked in combat and may leave voluntarily at any time with a normal move action.

5) Jet pack infantry may not be charged, as they are hovering above the fight and out of sword range.

6) Any model that misses an attack against a vehicle is run over and immediately removed as a casualty, and any vehicle that moved over 6" is only hit on a 6+.

7) Challenges may be declined without penalty


There should probably be more changes, but this is a pretty good start.

The problem with your rule is it further nerfs melee, because it forces them to expose themselves even further.

How?

Ok I see you mean if I started from cover, now have to leave it once I charged?

Well... kind imagine that is what happens when an ongoing charge gets disrupted.

The way I see a failed charge is that one that was UNDERWAY failed, not failed to GET UNDERWAY.

Maybe thats the problem here, different interpretations on charges.

Well for certain you guys resolved to hate this rule are ignoring some basic facts:

1) Assaulting into terrain/cover in 5th edition was RANDOM.

2) Assaulting into terrain/cover in 6th edition has BETTER odds than in 5th.

3) Now with fortifications / aegis defense lines etc you will be assaulting into cover more than ever (advantage 6th ed).

4) You CAN make long assaults now; if your unit is able to reroll (jumppack or fleet) this is a great option especially.

5) You could ALWAYS fail assaults and it did happen.

6) "Assault units" - you know, the guys that should be doing the assaulting are more distinguished in 6th edition with REROLL charges for fleet and jumppacks, choosing when to use jumppacks now, and hammer of wrath (jumppacks, MCs), etc...

 EVIL INC wrote:
the degree is not in question. Consider asking a pregnant woman how regnant she is. She either is or is not regardless of its the morning after or 9 months down the road, the condition is there. The same is true of this.

Except there's degrees of power, so your analogy is flawed. If we're comparing two levels of power (CC vs. shooting) then, unless they're both on the same level of power, there's going to be differences in degree.

Peregrine, you may think it is too strong, but you cannot argue that it is at all equal to shooting.

Now, as long as there are assault units, that can only assault, do nothing but assault, and don't even have a shooting action besides running, they need to be able to function. Currently that is not the case for the large majority of them. Genestealers are still broken. Hormagaunts are still broken. Lictors are stil broken (yes, I know these guys have a shoting attack, but it's as bad as their melee).

GW needs to decide what it wants to do with melee. Either makeit compete, or kill off units like that.

 Peregrine wrote:
To be fair, melee being "too strong" is a matter of opinion. Clearly 6th edition is a shooting-focused edition, but melee combat is still much stronger than it should be. Why? Because 40k is a scifi game with guns. Melee should be a rare act of desperation, or a final charge to finish off a unit that you've crippled with shooting. Dedicated melee units/armies should be almost nonexistent, and each codex should have plenty of shooting units. So, to fix this problem:

1) Charge range is 2D6 pick the highest, not 2D6 added together, with difficult terrain 1D6 and fleet 3D6 pick the highest.

2) Overwatch is done at full BS, with blast weapons able to fire as usual and template weapons inflicting 2D6 hits instead of D3.

3) Units may use ranged weapons in close combat at a -1 BS penalty, and pistols are used at full BS.

4) Units are no longer locked in combat and may leave voluntarily at any time with a normal move action.

5) Jet pack infantry may not be charged, as they are hovering above the fight and out of sword range.

6) Any model that misses an attack against a vehicle is run over and immediately removed as a casualty, and any vehicle that moved over 6" is only hit on a 6+.

7) Challenges may be declined without penalty


There should probably be more changes, but this is a pretty good start.

We get it. You'd love for the game to be gunline vs gunline where no one moves. Not really a helpful post in this thread however.

JPong wrote:
Peregrine, you may think it is too strong, but you cannot argue that it is at all equal to shooting.

I'm not. Shooting is better. My argument is that assault should be much weaker. The game should be 95% shooting with assault being a rare thing that you only do in exceptional circumstances.

Either makeit compete, or kill off units like that.

Exactly. Kill off the WHFB-in-space units that don't belong in the game.

(In fact, just get rid of Tyranids entirely and put demons back in the CSM codex. That alone solves most of the problems.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
We get it. You'd love for the game to be gunline vs gunline where no one moves. Not really a helpful post in this thread however.

I don't think you really understand the concept of moving and shooting. You don't need to have screaming idiots with swords to have a game with interesting movement and strategy. Gunlines are only a problem when you suck at game balance and combine overpowered static units with a complete lack of LOS-blocking terrain.

Well that and kill off a bit more than 1/2 of the DE codex, kill off most orks, and then kill off BA, GK (they don't need those weapons), and delete every single named character and HQ (except a few)

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
the degree is not in question. Consider asking a pregnant woman how regnant she is. She either is or is not regardless of its the morning after or 9 months down the road, the condition is there. The same is true of this.

Except there's degrees of power, so your analogy is flawed. If we're comparing two levels of power (CC vs. shooting) then, unless they're both on the same level of power, there's going to be differences in degree.

Really? Which edition had a "degree" of 2d6 roll for assault? I played them all from day one. how did they do the degrees? Did one edition make you roll 2d4 while another 2d20 exactly how were the different degrees of random assault rolls done? because that is what we are talking about. Either they had the random assault roll or they did not.

KTG17 wrote:
How?

Ok I see you mean if I started from cover, now have to leave it once I charged?

Well... kind imagine that is what happens when an ongoing charge gets disrupted.

The way I see a failed charge is that one that was UNDERWAY failed, not failed to GET UNDERWAY.

Maybe thats the problem here, different interpretations on charges.

It's not that I am misunderstanding you. It's that I am putting gameplay above realism. Assault is already worse than shooting. Making it even worse means you mignt as well remove it from the game.

Moving after failed charges works in fantasy because there is less shooting, and what shooting there is, is less deadly. This means you don't rely on cover nearly as much. However in 40k, there are you its that live by their cover save. And a lot of those units are assault units.

 Peregrine wrote:
I don't think you really understand the concept of moving and shooting. You don't need to have screaming idiots with swords to have a game with interesting movement and strategy. Gunlines are only a problem when you suck at game balance and combine overpowered static units with a complete lack of LOS-blocking terrain.

If I want tank battles I play historical games.

Sci Fi melee has been around forever, it's not going away, so instead of pissing in everyone else's corn flakes, how about you contribute positively to the thread?

He actually is making positive points. Just because he disgrees does not mean that it is not a positive contribution.. if everyone in the world were cloned and had the same thoughts and opinions, the world would be a lot more boring.
The problem here seems to be that people are taking it personal because they arent being agreed with. To be honest, the answers usually lie in the middle grey area or are simply issues that are PURELY opinion based so an answer for you IS correct while the answer for another is ALSO correct, to you each respectively and there is no "right" answer outside of that.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
I don't think you really understand the concept of moving and shooting. You don't need to have screaming idiots with swords to have a game with interesting movement and strategy. Gunlines are only a problem when you suck at game balance and combine overpowered static units with a complete lack of LOS-blocking terrain.

If I want tank battles I play historical games.

Sci Fi melee has been around forever, it's not going away, so instead of pissing in everyone else's corn flakes, how about you contribute positively to the thread?

And this I agree with. I just want GW to make up their mind. If they remove it, I am out. I have a lot of nids and a small amount of orks. If melee gets any worse, or removed, I will probably just quit for Warmachine. I started playing because genestealers and hormagaunts were cool. I don't even run them anymore.

 EVIL INC wrote:

 King Pariah wrote:
I've been of the inclination that the set charge range was better than the 2D6 charge range. BUT, I love the idea of overwatch. So occasionally my buds and I keep the old charge ranges and keep the overwatch and models killed must be taken from the front/closest from where the attacks are coming from. What ends up happening is either the unit makes the charge, or too many models were killed during the overwatch phase and their unit ends up coming up short on the charge, and then the charge into assault has failed.

Think you're missing the point. Against a small unit that's charging (SM Assault Marines and the like), Overwatch ends up becoming fairly effective. Against large charging units (Terma/Hormagaunt Swarm, Orks, etc.), overwatch is practically hopeless, it's a last stand of defiance and glory, it's a desperate last measure before being overwhelmed by the sheer number of bodies. THAT forges a potentially fething badass narrative.

 EVIL INC wrote:
He actually is making positive points. Just because he disgrees does not mean that it is not a positive contribution.. if everyone in the world were cloned and had the same thoughts and opinions, the world would be a lot more boring.

He's not just disagreeing - he wants assault essentially removed from the game (rendering multiple codexes absolutely irrelevant). Forgive me when I'd like my ~$3k of models to still be sort of useful (and that's a relatively small army)

The problem here seems to be that people are taking it personal because they arent being agreed with. To be honest, the answers usually lie in the middle grey area or are simply issues that are PURELY opinion based so an answer for you IS correct while the answer for another is ALSO correct, to you each respectively and there is no "right" answer outside of that.

I'm not taking it personally because people disagree with me - it happens all the time (I'm married). The only thing I've taken personally is the statement that I'm playing 40k wrong because I think assault is a good thing, and the way I play 40k shouldn't exist.

You know, the comment I replied to.

To be honest, though...

.... in most cases, the guys armed with swords lose out very, very badly to the guys armed with guns. Especially if the guys with the guns have guns that shoot a very large number of bullets in a very small number of seconds.

In a game of sci-fi warfare with eight-foot-tall dudes in massive armor packing armor-piercing explosive bullet guns, the guys running up to them to hit them with swords should be either absolutely stupid or absolutely insane. Bringing a sword to a gunfight is not usually a viable tactical option, unless you have someway (such as Droppod Assault) that allows you to mitigate most/all of the advantages of the guns.

But if you are walking up to the guys with the guns, you really should have about five times the number of guys as he does guns, because a lot of your guys with swords jut aren't going to make it if you're running towards a unit that is facing right at you.

Yes, of course, there should be options and bonuses and modifiers and what-not if you're outflanking the target of your charge or if they are busy shooting at someone else, yadda yadda... but in the event that two armies meet on an open field (or a field with hills, I don't care), the guys with the guns are going to win 99.9% of those battles. They should, they have guns. Sneak around the hills all you like, once it comes down to running at them, they're going to shoot the crap out of you.

overwatch is not really effective unless your tau or a unit of burnaboyz. Gotta agree on the narrative though, the extra morale it can give the defenders and the idea that it weakened the attackers a little bit so the next unit it assaults has it a lil easier. Lots of ways to incorporate it into a BATREP or ongoing history of your army.

rigeld2 wrote:
The only thing I've taken personally is the statement that I'm playing 40k wrong because I think assault is a good thing, and the way I play 40k shouldn't exist.

Disagreeing with you and advocating a rule change that would hurt your armies does not make a comment non-constructive. It's entirely on-topic to point out that assault is way too powerful already, and people who exploit it should just be glad that random charge distance is as generous as it is instead of complaining that they don't get to auto-win every time they get within 8" of a Tau/IG unit.

I like it a lot.

In 5th edition you could max charge 6" and my oponents would always stand behind cover so that I had to charge through cover.

An averedge of 7 is good, 6 happens very often and often you need less then 6. Now you can charge further then you could before. Most CC worth their sault usualy has a way to get fleet.

I do not understand how you try to justefy the rules from a realism perspective. They are rules, something you use to play. If you want realisem or consistent fantasy write some fac fiction. (And I do not understand how you think random charge distance in a war enviorment is the the one rule you deside to hammer down on. There are many other rules that are odd out there, they are after all rules.)

rigeld2 wrote:
Forgive me when I'd like my ~$3k of models to still be sort of useful (and that's a relatively small army)

Forgive me when I'd like my ~$3k of models to have a game that makes sense instead of one where screaming idiots with swords are an effective unit because of the broken IGOUGO turn structure and GW's complete inability to scale distances and model sizes consistently.

 Peregrine wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The only thing I've taken personally is the statement that I'm playing 40k wrong because I think assault is a good thing, and the way I play 40k shouldn't exist.

Disagreeing with you and advocating a rule change that would hurt your armies does not make a comment non-constructive. It's entirely on-topic to point out that assault is way too powerful already, and people who exploit it should just be glad that random charge distance is as generous as it is instead of complaining that they don't get to auto-win every time they get within 8" of a Tau/IG unit.

Strawman argument is a strawman. People are asking for balance not auto-wins.

 Psienesis wrote:
.... in most cases, the guys armed with swords lose out very, very badly to the guys armed with guns. Especially if the guys with the guns have guns that shoot a very large number of bullets in a very small number of seconds.

Starship Troopers. Star Wars. Aliens. Those are just the popular movies that disprove your theory.

It's a consistent enough trope that removing it would be a bad idea.

I would prefer assaults to be based on the average Initiative of the unit.

Assault = I + 1D6
Assault through Cover would be I + 2D6 take the lowest.
Fleet let's you re-roll the assault dice.

 Niiai wrote:
I do not understand how you try to justefy the rules from a realism perspective. They are rules, something you use to play.

But the rules still have make sense. You aren't playing a game of chess with 40k pieces, you're playing a game which is supposed to be a simulation of the "real" events on the battlefield. You know, so you can forge the narrative about how those things happened, imagine all the awesome stuff going on as you roll the dice, etc. When you have obviously unrealistic rules it pulls you out of that narrative and reminds you that it's just a dice game, and not even a very good dice game.

 Peregrine wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The only thing I've taken personally is the statement that I'm playing 40k wrong because I think assault is a good thing, and the way I play 40k shouldn't exist.

Disagreeing with you and advocating a rule change that would hurt your armies does not make a comment non-constructive. It's entirely on-topic to point out that assault is way too powerful already, and people who exploit it should just be glad that random charge distance is as generous as it is instead of complaining that they don't get to auto-win every time they get within 8" of a Tau/IG unit.

That's amusing - I don't auto-win when I get that close. Ever. Considering the amount of firepower a single unit can bring to bear at that range, if I don't make that charge the Tau/IG unit will auto-win. And the likelihood is against me making that charge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Forgive me when I'd like my ~$3k of models to still be sort of useful (and that's a relatively small army)

Forgive me when I'd like my ~$3k of models to have a game that makes sense instead of one where screaming idiots with swords are an effective unit because of the broken IGOUGO turn structure and GW's complete inability to scale distances and model sizes consistently.

Want to know the difference? 40k has always involved the Sci Fi CC trope. You bought into the game knowing it was there.
It's like me buying a house next to a race track and then complaining when it gets noisy.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
.... in most cases, the guys armed with swords lose out very, very badly to the guys armed with guns. Especially if the guys with the guns have guns that shoot a very large number of bullets in a very small number of seconds.

Starship Troopers. Star Wars. Aliens. Those are just the popular movies that disprove your theory.

It's a consistent enough trope that removing it would be a bad idea.

Starship Troopers has soldiers in Power Armor with chainguns mounted on their fists scything through thousands of bugs (and implies the same was done to a score of other "pacified" alien races) with reckless abandon. Have you even read the book?

Star Wars has *one* troop-type being *sometimes* effective with swords vs guns (but not swords vs AT-ST), but otherwise battles are fought and won with spaceships firing lasers thousands and thousands of meters, or large numbers of dude/ettes with laser guns shooting one another.

Aliens has a guy packing a flamer in the first one, a bunch of dudes killing a *fethload* of aliens with ranged weapons (and this fits perfectly into my "bring five times more guys than he has guns" line), and the rest of the movies is basically a bunch of unarmed civilians trying to tackle a Tyranid. This is hardly any evidence that assault is an inferior combat tactic than shooting the hell out of people.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Niiai wrote:
I do not understand how you try to justefy the rules from a realism perspective. They are rules, something you use to play.

But the rules still have make sense. You aren't playing a game of chess with 40k pieces, you're playing a game which is supposed to be a simulation of the "real" events on the battlefield. You know, so you can forge the narrative about how those things happened, imagine all the awesome stuff going on as you roll the dice, etc. When you have obviously unrealistic rules it pulls you out of that narrative and reminds you that it's just a dice game, and not even a very good dice game.

When you have fungus orks, psychic beings, zombies, demons, and immortal god-kings, you want realism?

rigeld2 wrote:
Starship Troopers. Star Wars. Aliens. Those are just the popular movies that disprove your theory.

Those are the best you can do? Starship Troopers was a blatant parody movie where everything is deliberately stupid, while the book was all about shooting (often with nukes). Star Wars has lots of guns and the only people who even attempt melee combat are a handful of superhuman warrior-monks who get gunned down effortlessly the moment they try to take on more than a symbolic leadership role on the battlefield.

And, again, it only works in 40k because the IGOUGO turn structure prevents proper action/reaction sequences while all of the distances (except infantry movement speed) are way too short for a 28mm game.

 Peregrine wrote:
To be fair, melee being "too strong" is a matter of opinion. Clearly 6th edition is a shooting-focused edition, but melee combat is still much stronger than it should be. Why? Because 40k is a scifi game with guns. Melee should be a rare act of desperation, or a final charge to finish off a unit that you've crippled with shooting. Dedicated melee units/armies should be almost nonexistent, and each codex should have plenty of shooting units. So, to fix this problem:

1) Charge range is 2D6 pick the highest, not 2D6 added together, with difficult terrain 1D6 and fleet 3D6 pick the highest.

2) Overwatch is done at full BS, with blast weapons able to fire as usual and template weapons inflicting 2D6 hits instead of D3.

3) Units may use ranged weapons in close combat at a -1 BS penalty, and pistols are used at full BS.

4) Units are no longer locked in combat and may leave voluntarily at any time with a normal move action.

5) Jet pack infantry may not be charged, as they are hovering above the fight and out of sword range.

6) Any model that misses an attack against a vehicle is run over and immediately removed as a casualty, and any vehicle that moved over 6" is only hit on a 6+.

7) Challenges may be declined without penalty


There should probably be more changes, but this is a pretty good start.

On the other hand, you'd have things like Infiltrators and Deep Strikers that ought to allow assault straight away as well. Similarly, both Power Armour and Terminator Armour ought to be much more powerful than currently on the tabletop, allowing Marines to reliably reach the lines of the enemy anyway. Further, both Orks and Tyranids have more bodies than you have bullets, which'd let them get into melee as well.

rigeld2 wrote:
When you have fungus orks, psychic beings, zombies, demons, and immortal god-kings, you want realism?

Of course I do. If the setting says "here are some fungus orks" I want the gameplay to reflect what would actually happen when my IG tank company encounters a horde of fungus orks. I don't want unrealistic rules where my gun ranges are 10% (or less) of what they should be, infantry can run at 30mph, and my troops just sit around uselessly waiting to die as the horde of orks charges at them because it isn't their turn to act.

Starship Troopers has soldiers in Power Armor with chainguns mounted on their fists scything through thousands of bugs (and implies the same was done to a score of other "pacified" alien races) with reckless abandon. Have you even read the book?

A long time ago - and you'll note I said movies. The bugs didn't "lose out" in the movie (watched it last week so it's fresh in my mind) until the brain bug was captured. Which, of course, had nothing to do with lots of guns.

Star Wars has *one* troop-type being *sometimes* effective with swords vs guns (but not swords vs AT-ST), but otherwise battles are fought and won with spaceships firing lasers thousands and thousands of meters, or large numbers of dude/ettes with laser guns shooting one another.

Episode 1, Gungans vs droids. Droids were absolutely ineffective until they closed to CC range (inside those shields). Wasn't even counting lightsabers.

Aliens has a guy packing a flamer in the first one, a bunch of dudes killing a *fethload* of aliens with ranged weapons (and this fits perfectly into my "bring five times more guys than he has guns" line), and the rest of the movies is basically a bunch of unarmed civilians trying to tackle a Tyranid. This is hardly any evidence that assault is an inferior combat tactic than shooting the hell out of people.

I brought it up to point out that CC has a place cemented in Sci Fi.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Starship Troopers. Star Wars. Aliens. Those are just the popular movies that disprove your theory.

Those are the best you can do? Starship Troopers was a blatant parody movie where everything is deliberately stupid, while the book was all about shooting (often with nukes). Star Wars has lots of guns and the only people who even attempt melee combat are a handful of superhuman warrior-monks who get gunned down effortlessly the moment they try to take on more than a symbolic leadership role on the battlefield.

No - not the best I can do. Just the most popular.

And, again, it only works in 40k because the IGOUGO turn structure prevents proper action/reaction sequences while all of the distances (except infantry movement speed) are way too short for a 28mm game.

Whatever. Have fun tilting at windmills.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
When you have fungus orks, psychic beings, zombies, demons, and immortal god-kings, you want realism?

Of course I do. If the setting says "here are some fungus orks" I want the gameplay to reflect what would actually happen when my IG tank company encounters a horde of fungus orks. I don't want unrealistic rules where my gun ranges are 10% (or less) of what they should be, infantry can run at 30mph, and my troops just sit around uselessly waiting to die as the horde of orks charges at them because it isn't their turn to act.

So you'd be fine with Nids popping up out of the ground in the middle of your formation, 10 times the numbers they (currently) field making your range advantage useless? Because that's realistic.

TBH I'm not sure I want to know the answer.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
On the other hand, you'd have things like Infiltrators and Deep Strikers that ought to allow assault straight away as well.

Sure. Full-BS overwatch and using guns in melee would fix it so that assaulting out of reserve no longer automatically wipes a unit off the table with no chance to stop it. It would be entirely reasonable to have infiltrators assault right away, and deep strikers have a chance of doing it (they'd at least have to suffer from difficult terrain as they try to regroup and charge after landing).

Similarly, both Power Armour and Terminator Armour ought to be much more powerful than currently on the tabletop, allowing Marines to reliably reach the lines of the enemy anyway.

Strongly disagree. Marine armor is just fine the way it is, and should absolutely not work like the most ridiculous marine propaganda portrays it. Marines are supposed to be an elite shooting army, not a bunch of screaming idiots with chainswords running straight at the enemy.

Further, both Orks and Tyranids have more bodies than you have bullets, which'd let them get into melee as well.

Strongly disagree. If anything those armies need to die faster. Blast weapons should do way more damage, minefields/obstacles/etc should slow a horde and inflict tons of casualties, etc. Hordes only have more bodies than you have bullets until any sensible army nukes the giant horde (it's not like you can hide a million orks) and all that remains to get into rifle range is the shattered remains that you see in a current game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
The bugs didn't "lose out" in the movie (watched it last week so it's fresh in my mind) until the brain bug was captured. Which, of course, had nothing to do with lots of guns.

Again, because Starship Troopers was a parody. It's deliberately unrealistic and full of stupidity, including a "war" that only makes sense as in-universe propaganda. Using it as an example of sensibly-portrayed melee combat makes about as much sense as bringing up examples from saturday morning cartoons.

Episode 1, Gungans vs droids. Droids were absolutely ineffective until they closed to CC range (inside those shields). Wasn't even counting lightsabers.

And guess what: the droids still used guns.

Okay then so in short just remove assault from 40k now this debate can die xD

JPong wrote:
Strawman argument is a strawman. People are asking for balance not auto-wins.

As I said, assault is already unbalanced and needs to be nerfed. If it's even close to 50/50 with shooting then it is way too powerful.

And fixed charge distance in a game where you can measure at any time means that you have guaranteed charges once you're in range (and if you aren't in range you never move into position to charge), and those charges are almost guaranteed to wipe out IG/Tau units. The actual dice rolling involved in the massacre just lets you pretend that the outcome wasn't decided the moment the first charging model moved into base contact.

 Peregrine wrote:
and those charges are almost guaranteed to wipe out IG/Tau units.

That's simply not true.

A long time ago - and you'll note I said movies. The bugs didn't "lose out" in the movie (watched it last week so it's fresh in my mind) until the brain bug was captured. Which, of course, had nothing to do with lots of guns.

Fair enough. I only watched the movie for the T&A, and I was not disappointed. I stopped paying attention when they stopped having that.

Episode 1, Gungans vs droids. Droids were absolutely ineffective until they closed to CC range (inside those shields). Wasn't even counting lightsabers.

Actually, they walked a gunline up over the Aegis and shot the hell out of the guys standing 3" back, and they brought their armor support with them.

I brought it up to point out that CC has a place cemented in Sci Fi.

I have never said it didn't, but I have said that, in a setting with high-tech guns and other long-range killing devices, it is a style of combat that should fall out of favor. 99% of the time, a swords army is going to fail against a guns army, unless they have a whole lot more guys with swords than the guys with guns have bullets.

 Gunzhard wrote:
Well for certain you guys resolved to hate this rule are ignoring some basic facts:

1) Assaulting into terrain/cover in 5th edition was RANDOM.

And I didn't like the either.

2) Assaulting into terrain/cover in 6th edition has BETTER odds than in 5th.

Don't like the fact "odds" are involved in the first place.

4) You CAN make long assaults now; if your unit is able to reroll (jumppack or fleet) this is a great option especially.

This goes back to my earlier query... why did GW decide to get rid of the movement characteristic in the first place? I know it was many years ago now, but all models had a movement characteristic. Models with a high movement could make long assaults, models without could not.

5) You could ALWAYS fail assaults and it did happen.

Failing an assault because you mispredicted the distance doesn't bother me. Failing an assault because the dice are against you always has annoyed me, regardless of 40k or fantasy and regardless of edition.

 Peregrine wrote:

JPong wrote:
Strawman argument is a strawman. People are asking for balance not auto-wins.

As I said, assault is already unbalanced and needs to be nerfed. If it's even close to 50/50 with shooting then it is way too powerful.

And fixed charge distance in a game where you can measure at any time means that you have guaranteed charges once you're in range (and if you aren't in range you never move into position to charge), and those charges are almost guaranteed to wipe out IG/Tau units. The actual dice rolling involved in the massacre just lets you pretend that the outcome wasn't decided the moment the first charging model moved into base contact.

I can estimate tabletop ranges with near laser precision. I could guess range biovores and hit every time, barring scatter. I have never missed a charge range in 5th, I even had opponents that would point out what tbey thought were charges I missed declaring, only to show them it's 1/10" out of range or something. This had never unbalanced a game in before pre-measuring.

And now your strawman argument of people complaining they want an autowin is pointed out you brush it off. Really you want an auto win every time you face a cc army.

 Psienesis wrote:
I have never said it didn't, but I have said that, in a setting with high-tech guns and other long-range killing devices, it is a style of combat that should fall out of favor. 99% of the time, a swords army is going to fail against a guns army, unless they have a whole lot more guys with swords than the guys with guns have bullets.

Except that would be horribly unbalanced in a game where assault is central to many armies and indeed central to the game itself. Gun lines shooting it out which amounts to little more than throwing dice at each other doesn't sound like a terribly entertaining game to me.

JPong wrote:
And now your strawman argument of people complaining they want an autowin is pointed out you brush it off.

The fact that you don't call it an autowin doesn't make it less of one. If an assault unit makes it into base contact with an average Tau/IG unit then it is almost certainly going to win. The only uncertainty is in whether it gets into base contact at all, and if you have fixed charge ranges with the ability to measure at any time then that uncertainty disappears.

Really you want an auto win every time you face a cc army.

No, actually I want there to be no such thing as a cc army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Except that would be horribly unbalanced in a game where assault is central to many armies and indeed central to the game itself. Gun lines shooting it out which amounts to little more than throwing dice at each other doesn't sound like a terribly entertaining game to me.

You realize that shooting can involve movement, right?

And just because a tau or guard unit lose in CC, which is by no means guaranteed, I lost 5 nob bikers in CC with tau, in 5th no less, doesn't mean you lose the game. Similar to how your shooting a unit shouldn't remove it from the table without a lot of shooting or a bit of luck.

However, you have said you want to auto-win against melee, so that makes you a hypocrite at best.

Facts. CC is inherently more risky than shooting. CC does not have a payout equal to those risks. CC has pretty much every rule in the book against it.

Why did you start playing a game where melee has been core to the game for 25 years?

Assault-based armies in a game where people have weapons with "infinite" ranges (yes, my Necron Lord can shoot a model on a table in a store located in another state) should suffer.

That is the long and the short of it, adapt or die. Now, that is not to say that an Assault Army has to pick up guns, not at all. But what they need to do is anything they can to mitigate the advantages the guns bring. This means drop-pod assaults, dedicated transports, terrain-hugging, non-dedicated transports that draw fire and eat up enemy shooting phases, or heavy, resiliant infantry that tar-pits enemy shooting, allowing your actual killers to close and strike.

But, the idea of running across what is basically open ground, into a block of 20 guys who all possess automatic weapons... that is absolutely suicidal, even in a narrative game where realism is, at best, a tertiary concern. This is, like, Charge of the Light Brigade type narrative here.

 Psienesis wrote:
Assault-based armies in a game where people have weapons with "infinite" ranges (yes, my Necron Lord can shoot a model on a table in a store located in another state) should suffer.

That is the long and the short of it, adapt or die. Now, that is not to say that an Assault Army has to pick up guns, not at all. But what they need to do is anything they can to mitigate the advantages the guns bring. This means drop-pod assaults, dedicated transports, terrain-hugging, non-dedicated transports that draw fire and eat up enemy shooting phases, or heavy, resiliant infantry that tar-pits enemy shooting, allowing your actual killers to close and strike.

But, the idea of running across what is basically open ground, into a block of 20 guys who all possess automatic weapons... that is absolutely suicidal, even in a narrative game where realism is, at best, a tertiary concern. This is, like, Charge of the Light Brigade type narrative here.

The thing is that the dedicated transports got nerfed, terrain got nerfed, outflanking got nerfed, infiltration got nerfed and, as you say, trying to walk across the battlefield is crazy. You're assuming that these things are fine, when they too took nerfs from 5th edition. I might not agree with Peregrine, but he's got internally consistent arguments. I haven't seen anyone asking for melee units to be able to charge straight across the board without having to try, we've been asking for a shot at competing. If melee is going to be part of the game, fix it, otherwise axe it, but don't half-ass it, that's not good for anyone.

Assault armies already do all that. Assault armies already don't work. And no model has infinite range to hit something on another board. You are limited to your gaming area.

Now, you want talk arbitrary restrictions. You can shoot out reserves but not assault. Casualties are always the closest model, as though every shooter has perfect aim to always know and shoot the closest guy and not put one extra round I him than required. Shooting has made armournear pointless. A guy can be infinitely better at shooting than a guy can be at melee, I dare your untrained ass to step into the ring with a well trained fighter.

All this, and melee still takes more strategic skill than shooting, and has way less payout for the risks.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
Well for certain you guys resolved to hate this rule are ignoring some basic facts:

1) Assaulting into terrain/cover in 5th edition was RANDOM.

And I didn't like the either.

2) Assaulting into terrain/cover in 6th edition has BETTER odds than in 5th.

Don't like the fact "odds" are involved in the first place.

Hmm well it's been that way since 3rd edition; you don't have to like it, but the odds are BETTER in this edition than the last several.

You also chose to ignore that the majority of assaults should happen into terrain/cover. Unless you play with no terrain and against total newbs, now more than ever with all the defense lines etc, this is the case.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

4) You CAN make long assaults now; if your unit is able to reroll (jumppack or fleet) this is a great option especially.

This goes back to my earlier query... why did GW decide to get rid of the movement characteristic in the first place? I know it was many years ago now, but all models had a movement characteristic. Models with a high movement could make long assaults, models without could not.

Yeah again for actual 'assault' type units though this is huge - with a REROLL for fleet or jumppack longer assaults are a great calculated risk - go big or go home right?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

5) You could ALWAYS fail assaults and it did happen.

Failing an assault because you mispredicted the distance doesn't bother me. Failing an assault because the dice are against you always has annoyed me, regardless of 40k or fantasy and regardless of edition.

JPong wrote:
And just because a tau or guard unit lose in CC, which is by no means guaranteed, I lost 5 nob bikers in CC with tau, in 5th no less, doesn't mean you lose the game.

No, but I'm talking about an auto-win unit vs. unit, not winning the whole game automatically. Fixed assault ranges in a game where you can measure at any time means that assault becomes "choose target unit within 6" and remove it from the table".

However, you have said you want to auto-win against melee, so that makes you a hypocrite at best.

No, I want melee mostly removed from the game. My version of 40k would only have shooting be an auto-win against melee if you use your melee units inappropriately, as a primary method of killing stuff instead of an occasional charge to finish off the last survivors of a unit you've crippled and suppressed with shooting.

CC is inherently more risky than shooting.

Not really, unless you're the kind of person who charges everything you can just for fun. Most of the time you're only charging units you know you're going to wipe out effortlessly, and your units are designed to be able to take a few casualties from the (ineffective) swings back.

And shooting doesn't have that nice little rule where you win combat, force a leadership test at a huge penalty, and have a good chance of killing the unit entirely. Shooting rarely does more than inflict the casualties as a direct result of the unit's attacks.

(Yes, ATSKNF kind of ruins this plan, but I would remove it from the game.)

Why did you start playing a game where melee has been core to the game for 25 years?

Because I like the shooting armies. And the fact that the game has obsolete mechanics from a 1980s fantasy game does not mean that it needs to continue to have those flaws.

Peregrine you would like Infinity dude... it's a 'shooty' space skirmish game.

It actually does contain CC/assault rules but I've yet to find anyone that fully understood them and most agree it's very much NOT worth doing anyway.

JPong wrote:
Assault armies already do all that. Assault armies already don't work. And no model has infinite range to hit something on another board. You are limited to your gaming area.

Citation needed. It's also a joke, referencing the fact that they list the Tachyon Arrow as Range: Infinite.

A guy can be infinitely better at shooting than a guy can be at melee, I dare your untrained ass to step into the ring with a well trained fighter.

Do I have my choice of firearms? If so, I will take that bet every time, mainly because my ass, it having spent 3 years in the US Army, is not untrained. I will kill a motherfether dead, I give not a single gak about him.

Dude who is a well-trained fighter also has to close the gap between him and me while I shoot him. This besides the fact that, when guns are involved, training doesn't mean a whole lot. Whether you're a Navy SEAL or some thirteen year old kid from a farm in central Africa, an AK will kill you just as dead... and, too, being a Navy SEAL does not make you immune to getting your ass shot off by some 13 year old farmer with an AK.

 Gunzhard wrote:
Peregrine you would like Infinity dude... it's a 'shooty' space skirmish game.

I would, if it had tanks and aircraft. 40k should aim to be Infinity with bigger armies, not WHFB in space.

I actually dont mind assault armies. I used to run chaos for goodness sake lol. (not to mention I am anxiously awaiting the tyranid swarm box to start down the road of the bugs.)
What I dont agree with is slanting the game to give them all the advantages. Currently, I would say its about 50/50 on advantages and disadvantages (yeah yeah, I know TAU but they are the broken exception to the rule)
Personaly, I wouldnt mind GW putting out a help book. Something along the lines of having sections for all the different units or even army archetypes and giving strategies and tactics garnered from tournaments, history, themselves even to help players of all sorts. I dont mean some lil phamplet either. I mean an actual book complete with maps and diagrams.. Something like that more people would be willing to read and pay attention to. As it is, its just players online and as we have seen, if it is advice coming from someone a person doesnt like, it is instantly ignored or put down in a negative way instead of actually paying attention to it and altering it to fit your specific needs.

Ranges are borked . I actually liked the old bonuses or negatives on many guns based on range and felt that longer ranges should be put in with a greater negative scale to match.

scale is borked (lets face it, II'm 6'11" and even I couldnt reach the middle of a table were scales done correctly. outside of making the huge tables, the scale overloads towards the assaulty side, no way around that.

Terrain is such that it would take forever to add in all the stuff that would normally be on a battlefield that could affect a game. This ranges from trash cans to road signs. Even around the ruined buildings, the actual rubble that came from them is missing. i like the idea of adding in something to fix this. I dont know what outside of counters , maybe cardboard shapes laid down to putthe models in to give them a 5+ or 6+ cover depending on what the marker is representing. This could help assaulty armies greatly.

I think overwatch is nerfed. I would say hit on a 5+ maybe. Flame weaons, I think that in that situation, a guy might even hit his own guys. instead of d3, make it a single 1.

Failed assaults, definately, make them move the distance toward the enemy adding in that you cant assault outside of your max charge distance.

assault ranges- I like the idea of each unit having a different max range based on what they are.

i dont know.Mst assault units have guns that are effective or in the case of orks a LOT of guns that are as effective as a smaller unit of normal guys. The pure ccw armed guys usually have fleet maybe give theunits with guns the option to Trade in their gunsfor fleet/i dont know.

Personally, I think that crying on the internet that my army got nerfed or thats overpowered just doesnt help. When it was the other way around, did you complain then? Likely not. Itis cyclic and ithappens in every game where there are updates and erratias and so forth. Do like the rest of us, did when it was our turn. Deal with it, learn to work within it to be just as effective, buy different units to go with the flow or many just started a different army and shelved their old one till it came back around.
Likewise attacking others out of this frustration doesnt help and only makes yourself look bad.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
Peregrine you would like Infinity dude... it's a 'shooty' space skirmish game.

I would, if it had tanks and aircraft. 40k should aim to be Infinity with bigger armies, not WHFB in space.

Well clearly 40k is not the game for you; your vision has NEVER been realized in any 40k edition. 1st edition perhaps being the closest but lacking in the tanks/aircraft department.

I am sorry you occassionally have to remove a unit from the table, but how is that any different than being shot off the table. At least with melee, you have some control over what's removed. And again, due to the terrible cc rules, and the risks associated with it, cc is by no means an autowin against even the weakest of cc units.

And how is moving up the board, running from cover to cover, engaging in a in no way guaranteed win combat and after being left exposed to shooting, not more risky than sitting behind an aegis defense line pointing at things until they die?

And why would you have your choice of gun? I am talking about fighting hand to hand, where a guardsman can hit the swarmlord, almost as much as he can in shooting.

This thread is built on a fallacy. The worst rules in the game are random wound allocation and soul blaze.

JPong wrote:
I am sorry you occassionally have to remove a unit from the table, but how is that any different than being shot off the table. At least with melee, you have some control over what's removed. And again, due to the terrible cc rules, and the risks associated with it, cc is by no means an autowin against even the weakest of cc units.

And how is moving up the board, running from cover to cover, engaging in a in no way guaranteed win combat and after being left exposed to shooting, not more risky than sitting behind an aegis defense line pointing at things until they die?

And why would you have your choice of gun? I am talking about fighting hand to hand, where a guardsman can hit the swarmlord, almost as much as he can in shooting.

Actually, you DO a degree of control over which models are removed. For example, if you run a unit around a building that blocks LOS to the enemy and run a dummy unit around the front, th enemy will be unable to reposition to soot at the real unt because they are forced to shoot at the more immeiate threat they can see. Likewise, model placement within the units allow you to put the ablative wound guys out front to take the hits. You can even totally hide units behind mobile terrain like rhinos and land raiders to block LOS.
Also, if you are making assaults that you are not practically gurenteed to win outside of you rolling all ones and them rolling all sixes and so forth, than your simply playing the game wring. target choice of assaults is key. Assault their shooty units. You dont run your guard infantry quad at the enemy ogryns to assault. You assault their heavy weapon squad or special weapon squad (provided it isnt full of flamers).
You also use geometry to decide which direction to attack from so that instead of assaulting from the right your left in the open, you assault from the left where you can consolidate into a building. Heck, bring your own building and block LOS to other units with a rhino and consolidate behind it.

again, not saying CC isnt weaker than it was before, but as others have said and I agree with them. that simply is not a bad thing for the overall game.

I think Fear is a pretty good contender as well

 StarTrotter wrote:
I think Fear is a pretty good contender as well

Fear would be fine if GW didn't insist on making everyone and their brother leadership 10 and some form of fearless.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Assault-based armies in a game where people have weapons with "infinite" ranges (yes, my Necron Lord can shoot a model on a table in a store located in another state) should suffer.

That is the long and the short of it, adapt or die. Now, that is not to say that an Assault Army has to pick up guns, not at all. But what they need to do is anything they can to mitigate the advantages the guns bring. This means drop-pod assaults, dedicated transports, terrain-hugging, non-dedicated transports that draw fire and eat up enemy shooting phases, or heavy, resiliant infantry that tar-pits enemy shooting, allowing your actual killers to close and strike.

But, the idea of running across what is basically open ground, into a block of 20 guys who all possess automatic weapons... that is absolutely suicidal, even in a narrative game where realism is, at best, a tertiary concern. This is, like, Charge of the Light Brigade type narrative here.

The thing is that the dedicated transports got nerfed, terrain got nerfed, outflanking got nerfed, infiltration got nerfed and, as you say, trying to walk across the battlefield is crazy. You're assuming that these things are fine, when they too took nerfs from 5th edition. I might not agree with Peregrine, but he's got internally consistent arguments. I haven't seen anyone asking for melee units to be able to charge straight across the board without having to try, we've been asking for a shot at competing. If melee is going to be part of the game, fix it, otherwise axe it, but don't half-ass it, that's not good for anyone.

Thing is, all-melee should *not* be competitive under most circumstances. It's the absolute wrong way to go about trying to win a game of space-battles-with-laser-machineguns.

Though there have been a few things mentioned earlier in the thread that I can go with, like assaulting out of vehicles, assaulting out of pods, assaulting from infiltrate, etc. These are the types of things that I have mentioned, time and time again, that an assault force is going to *need* to use to have a *chance* of winning.

And you're right, transports took a bit of a nerf. Most vehicles did. Then again, most vehicles aren't intended to drive up under fire of anti-vehicle grade weaponry and drop some people off. While I agree that the various transports should be immune, or nearly so, to the "small arms" of 40K armies (most of them, anyway), that's broadening the scope of the argument out a bit wider than is encompassed here.

And why would you have your choice of gun? I am talking about fighting hand to hand, where a guardsman can hit the swarmlord, almost as much as he can in shooting.

Because a Guardsman in melee is using his rifle, probably with a bayonet, as his CC weapon. He's not punching an Ork, he's using the tools the God-Emperor gave him. Lemme tell you, hitting someone in the face with the buttstock of a rifle stands a real good chance of crushing their skull. Stab them in the belly with your bayonet, and you can pull their small intestine out. A common soldier in hand-to-hand is hardly an untrained combatant.

What I dont agree with is slanting the game to give them all the advantages. Currently, I would say its about 50/50 on advantages and disadvantages (yeah yeah, I know TAU but they are the broken exception to the rule)
Personaly, I wouldnt mind GW putting out a help book. Something along the lines of having sections for all the different units or even army archetypes and giving strategies and tactics garnered from tournaments, history, themselves even to help players of all sorts. I dont mean some lil phamplet either. I mean an actual book complete with maps and diagrams.. Something like that more people would be willing to read and pay attention to. As it is, its just players online and as we have seen, if it is advice coming from someone a person doesnt like, it is instantly ignored or put down in a negative way instead of actually paying attention to it and altering it to fit your specific needs.

While I get what you're saying here, it bears noting that even GW does not really know how to play their own game sometimes, and often does not play the way that groups of players in other areas play.

And how is moving up the board, running from cover to cover, engaging in a in no way guaranteed win combat and after being left exposed to shooting, not more risky than sitting behind an aegis defense line pointing at things until they die?

I don't think I have ever said that this was not a risky move. OF COURSE it's a risky move! It always has been! Shoot, the reference I made earlier to the Charge of the Light Brigade is *exactly* the kind of risky move you're describing here. You know what the Light Brigade accomplished on their famed charge? Nothing! Nothing at all! They nearly all got killed and accomplished feth all. Had they attacked the right target, though, then they would have pwned face ultrahard... but, well, they didn't. Should certain things be done to give a bone to assault? Sure! Like I said, I think assaulting out of a drop-pod should be a thing. I think assaulting out of a Rhino or a CRASSUS or any other dedicated (as in, the function of this vehicle is a transport, not that your unit and only your unit must ride it) transports should be a thing, because that's the point of IFVs and such. I don't, however, think such things should be 100% bulletproof. I do think that, short of Gauss or heavy weapons, that they should be very hard to shoot to death with small-arms.

Okay so I should throw away my daemon army? Alrighty then.

But yeah guardsman punching orks xD forget my pointy end and butt I shall punch them! Oh merciful emperor may m fist slay this foul xenos scum xD

 Psienesis wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Assault-based armies in a game where people have weapons with "infinite" ranges (yes, my Necron Lord can shoot a model on a table in a store located in another state) should suffer.

That is the long and the short of it, adapt or die. Now, that is not to say that an Assault Army has to pick up guns, not at all. But what they need to do is anything they can to mitigate the advantages the guns bring. This means drop-pod assaults, dedicated transports, terrain-hugging, non-dedicated transports that draw fire and eat up enemy shooting phases, or heavy, resiliant infantry that tar-pits enemy shooting, allowing your actual killers to close and strike.

But, the idea of running across what is basically open ground, into a block of 20 guys who all possess automatic weapons... that is absolutely suicidal, even in a narrative game where realism is, at best, a tertiary concern. This is, like, Charge of the Light Brigade type narrative here.

The thing is that the dedicated transports got nerfed, terrain got nerfed, outflanking got nerfed, infiltration got nerfed and, as you say, trying to walk across the battlefield is crazy. You're assuming that these things are fine, when they too took nerfs from 5th edition. I might not agree with Peregrine, but he's got internally consistent arguments. I haven't seen anyone asking for melee units to be able to charge straight across the board without having to try, we've been asking for a shot at competing. If melee is going to be part of the game, fix it, otherwise axe it, but don't half-ass it, that's not good for anyone.

Thing is, all-melee should *not* be competitive under most circumstances. It's the absolute wrong way to go about trying to win a game of space-battles-with-laser-machineguns.

When said space-battles-with-laser-machineguns has people with armour capable of withstanding said machine guns, Demonic beings that pop up right next to people before eating them, super-human warriors teleporting through Hell to pop up next to you, and extra-galactic bugs that are too many to kill, sure it does. It's not science fiction, it's science fantasy. There's nothing preventing you from running a shooting list if that's your cup of tea, so why can't those of us that want get to play assault-centric lists without having to jump through hoops with our hands bound to our backs? Are you having less fun because we don't enjoy the game in the same way you do? I genuinely don't get it.

 Gunzhard wrote:
Further a Failed charge is a Failed charge, whether it was fate or a misjudged millimeter.

I disagree, a failed charge because you made an error is fundamentally different to a failed charge because luck was against you. If you can't guess within a millimeter, that's your fault and you should get better or make sure you aren't trying to guess ranges within a millimeter. It's not the same as having bad luck so the unit has to suffer an extra turn of fire before charging. One is a tactical error, the other is luck. Obviously the game needs some elements of luck, I just prefer it when those elements are NOT part of movement.

Even "assault units" as you say, they still have around a 15% chance of failing a charge of 7". That just annoys me. If they have a 7" charge, give them a 7" charge. If they have an 8" charge, give them an 8" charge. I think I mentioned it earlier, I don't even like the fact run moves are random.

Some of the best (IMO) games are games where movement is LIMITED, but not RANDOM, so you have to carefully weigh your options and when things go wrong, it was 100% because YOU messed up and put yourself in a bad position, not because the dice weren't falling your way that day. That's the way I likes it, I will admit not everyone likes it that way, but it's what I prefer and I think what a lot of people who like tactical games over "random chance" games prefer.

When said space-battles-with-laser-machineguns has people with armour capable of withstanding said machine guns, Demonic beings that pop up right next to people before eating them, super-human warriors teleporting through Hell to pop up next to you, and extra-galactic bugs that are too many to kill, sure it does. It's not science fiction, it's science fantasy. There's nothing preventing you from running a shooting list if that's your cup of tea, so why can't those of us that want get to play assault-centric lists without having to jump through hoops with our hands bound to our backs? Are you having less fun because we don't enjoy the game in the same way you do? I genuinely don't get it.

Except that doesn't really happen on the tabletop, obviously, because if it did then Daemons and any DS units could start the game inside the opponent's deployment zone. But they don't, so this does not mean anything. If they could, however, that would tie right back into my earlier statement about the necessity of an assault unit to mitigate or remove the very-very-VERY OBVIOUS advantages a bunch of motherfethers with guns has over you. What is written in fluff is not present on the tabletop, which is an *entirely* different conversation.

Also. SM are no longer immune to laser-machineguns. The Tau and the Eldar and the Necrons have proven that.

And do not assume my arguments are based on the army I play. Do not make that mistake, because you would be wrong, from whichever direction you approach it, you would be wrong.

Yes, it's space fantasy. Even in fantasy, mofos with bows often kill mofos with swords. It happens. Is Assault the red-headed stepchild of 6th Ed? Yes. By God, if you have actually put any of my previous posts through your eye-holes, you would know that I'm not arguing that it isn't. But what I am arguing is that Assault Armies should be on the same footing as shooty armies, because one, that has never worked out well in the past and, two, it makes neither logical nor narrative sense. Sure, SM are tough.... other races have now developed weapons that kill them in droves. How's that for advancing the time-line, eh? Xenos have upgraded their guns, imagine that, now the SM gotta upgrade their power armor. Maybe in 7th Ed.

Because, actually, yeah, if you want to play an assault-centric army in a narrative where the SM were planned to be in big armor with big guns, there should be a few hoops that need to be jumped through to make that a viable option in a game with tanks, space-lasers, artillery cannons and skulls that shoot other skulls.

I disagree, a failed charge because you made an error is fundamentally different to a failed charge because luck was against you. If you can't guess within a millimeter, that's your fault and you should get better or make sure you aren't trying to guess ranges within a millimeter. It's not the same as having bad luck so the unit has to suffer an extra turn of fire before charging. One is a tactical error, the other is luck. Obviously the game needs some elements of luck, I just prefer it when those elements are NOT part of movement.

Luck is what wins most battles for the individual soldier. It's pure luck that the guy standing next to you caught one in the face and you didn't. It's not training, gear, or any of that, it's pure dumb luck. As mentioned previously in the thread, a failed charge (due to low dice rolls) can indicate that you tripped, that the ground is not as even as it looks (it could have mole-holes), that it is strung with barbed wire or bear-traps or just loose gravel and pebbles. That it's got a slope that was steeper than expected, or not as well-packed, so the earth gave way under your feet and you did not ascend as quickly (or at all), or that someone in the unit tripped, or got shot, or otherwise fell and tangled up the guys behind him.

Okay so I should throw away my daemon army? Alrighty then.

But yeah guardsman punching orks xD forget my pointy end and butt I shall punch them! Oh merciful emperor may m fist slay this foul xenos scum xD

No, but you might want to consider some allies that shoot things. Also, when I was talking about the Guardsman using what the God-Emperor gave him, I was talking about his lasgun. With a bayonet.

JPong wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:
I think Fear is a pretty good contender as well

Fear would be fine if GW didn't insist on making everyone and their brother leadership 10 and some form of fearless.

And also only in CC


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Psienesis wrote:
You might want to consider allying it with someone who shoots things, given the current rules of the game. It's not like I can snap my fingers and make Daemons not an assault army or make assault not the worst possible choice in 6th ed.

Naw honestly I just gave up on bloodletters myself . The units need to be fast and mobile to work. You can't ds into the battlefield and immediately charge and you can't flicker in and out of reality like in fluff, and khorne units really aren't that tough for what the fluff claims so for the most part you just forget that Khorne even exists To be honest, daemons are pretty much the only army that can really do an assault army list. Its just sad that khorne for the most part isn't worth paying attention to.

 Peregrine wrote:
Because I like the shooting armies. And the fact that the game has obsolete mechanics from a 1980s fantasy game does not mean that it needs to continue to have those flaws.

Of all the flaws 40k has... that one barely registers for me. It's a game that balances melee against shooting and it's always been that and that's the way I want it to stay. If I wanted realistic wargames, I wouldn't be touching most GW games with a 40ft pole.

I like the fact my Tyranids are assault based... I like the fact my IG are shooting based... I like the fact my SW are shoot-counter-attack based.

What you call a flaw I call a fundamental draw of the game.

Sorry, that reply was to peregine, I am on my tablet where quoting large blocks of text and formatting is hard. He was the one who said it was not more risky than shooting.

A guardsman can use his melee weapons all he wants, he still should not be almost as good at hitting the swarmlord(ws 9) as he is. Though heprobably isisn't using his weapon but instead a grenade. He is effectively, untrained.

If they aren't going to fix melee, which again has been a major theme in the game for 25 years, they need to make that clear and remove it. Until tney remove it, it absolutely has to be competetive because there are whole armies where it is a central theme and GW is marketing it and selling units that don't work. Thisis what makes a competitive game.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
Further a Failed charge is a Failed charge, whether it was fate or a misjudged millimeter.

I disagree, a failed charge because you made an error is fundamentally different to a failed charge because luck was against you. If you can't guess within a millimeter, that's your fault and you should get better or make sure you aren't trying to guess ranges within a millimeter. It's not the same as having bad luck so the unit has to suffer an extra turn of fire before charging. One is a tactical error, the other is luck. Obviously the game needs some elements of luck, I just prefer it when those elements are NOT part of movement.

Even "assault units" as you say, they still have around a 15% chance of failing a charge of 7". That just annoys me. If they have a 7" charge, give them a 7" charge. If they have an 8" charge, give them an 8" charge. I think I mentioned it earlier, I don't even like the fact run moves are random.

Some of the best (IMO) games are games where movement is LIMITED, but not RANDOM, so you have to carefully weigh your options and when things go wrong, it was 100% because YOU messed up and put yourself in a bad position, not because the dice weren't falling your way that day. That's the way I likes it, I will admit not everyone likes it that way, but it's what I prefer and I think what a lot of people who like tactical games over "random chance" games prefer.

Eh I get why most folks are afraid of random stuff... but I'd argue that if you need every little detail to be absolutely controlled then you are playing chess - not a war game.

It's always the same folks that require the most controlled, standard rulebook mission, exactly 1850 point, no expansion game - that are afraid of random stuff. Uncontrollable and unexpected things happen in war - and a GOOD general can still react, think, and find a way to pull out a victory - the game shouldn't be won at the "list-building" phase. If you need everything perfectly predictable then you really cannot call yourself 'competitive' at the very least.

 Peregrine wrote:

JPong wrote:
Peregrine, you may think it is too strong, but you cannot argue that it is at all equal to shooting.

I'm not. Shooting is better. My argument is that assault should be much weaker. The game should be 95% shooting with assault being a rare thing that you only do in exceptional circumstances.

Either makeit compete, or kill off units like that.

Exactly. Kill off the WHFB-in-space units that don't belong in the game.

(In fact, just get rid of Tyranids entirely and put demons back in the CSM codex. That alone solves most of the problems.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
We get it. You'd love for the game to be gunline vs gunline where no one moves. Not really a helpful post in this thread however.

I don't think you really understand the concept of moving and shooting. You don't need to have screaming idiots with swords to have a game with interesting movement and strategy. Gunlines are only a problem when you suck at game balance and combine overpowered static units with a complete lack of LOS-blocking terrain.

How cavalier to wipe away a major part of the game that many players find enjoyable, and even perhaps is the focus for them.

Also I'd say taht wouldn't solve most of the problems. From what I know, most armies have some form of CC unit, along with that, DE are ever so slightly leaning towards CC, Nids lean towards assault quite a bit, daemons heavily prefer CC, Orks lean to a preference for CC, heck even BA have an enjoyment in CC, SW enjoy counter-assault styles of combat, and most armies have some extent of CC. Heck, look at 40k commanders! So many of them have high WS and have a pistol at best wielding a gigantic fist/sword/axe. We'd have to remove that all, take away the iconic close combat, take away S, I, WS from the stats. Then what? What do we replace the void with? And do we really destroy what others find fun about the game? To be honest I never cared for sweeping advance. I almost wish there was a way to make it so that it was either the enemy breaks free or they get stuck in combat but incur d3 2d3 blah blah blah wounds. Then again, this could easily mess the game up. The curse of having shooting and cc in a game argh! By their very natures one screws over the other

No one is asking for total control over the game. Part of a balanced ruleset would have some penalty to shooting similar to random charges. Where is it? Is it focus fire? Is it model based cover saves? Do they have to roll to see if they just don't spot the unit? No, in steady they get a free round of shooting against all assaulting units. Like being able to shoot every turn in the game, whas assaulters only have half the game to do damage.

No one is asking for total control over the game. Part of a balanced ruleset would have some penalty to shooting similar to random charges. Where is it? Is it focus fire? Is it model based cover saves? Do they have to roll to see if they just don't spot the unit? No, in steady they get a free round of shooting against all assaulting units. Like being able to shoot every turn in the game, whas assaulters only have half the game to do damage.

Nightfighting, TLOS, many shooty armies standing around in clumps, Sweeping Advance...

... oh, wait. You said "Balance Ruleset". Sorry, sorry, I thought we were talking about Warhammer 40,000 here.

JPong wrote:
No one is asking for total control over the game. Part of a balanced ruleset would have some penalty to shooting similar to random charges. Where is it? Is it focus fire? Is it model based cover saves? Do they have to roll to see if they just don't spot the unit? No, in steady they get a free round of shooting against all assaulting units. Like being able to shoot every turn in the game, whas assaulters only have half the game to do damage.

Assault IS more difficult no doubt, and probably rightfully so. But if you actually play missions (nightfight etc) and use proper terrain shooting shouldn't be gunline versus gunline. Assaulters - as in assault type units (fleet + jumppacks + MC's etc) get some advantages such as Hammer of Wrath (auto-hit not a snap-fire), get to choose when to use jump, get to REROLL charge roll.

 Gunzhard wrote:

JPong wrote:
No one is asking for total control over the game. Part of a balanced ruleset would have some penalty to shooting similar to random charges. Where is it? Is it focus fire? Is it model based cover saves? Do they have to roll to see if they just don't spot the unit? No, in steady they get a free round of shooting against all assaulting units. Like being able to shoot every turn in the game, whas assaulters only have half the game to do damage.

Assault IS more difficult no doubt, and probably rightfully so. But if you actually play missions (nightfight etc) and use proper terrain shooting shouldn't be gunline versus gunline. Assaulters - as in assault type units (fleet + jumppacks + MC's etc) get some advantages such as Hammer of Wrath (auto-hit not a snap-fire), get to choose when to use jump, get to REROLL charge roll.

Rerolling the charge roll is still worse than not having to roll to see if you get to shoot at all. That's not an advantage so much as a lessened disadvantage.

 Psienesis wrote:

No one is asking for total control over the game. Part of a balanced ruleset would have some penalty to shooting similar to random charges. Where is it? Is it focus fire? Is it model based cover saves? Do they have to roll to see if they just don't spot the unit? No, in steady they get a free round of shooting against all assaulting units. Like being able to shoot every turn in the game, whas assaulters only have half the game to do damage.

Nightfighting, TLOS, many shooty armies standing around in clumps, Sweeping Advance...

... oh, wait. You said "Balance Ruleset". Sorry, sorry, I thought we were talking about Warhammer 40,000 here.

Nightfighting that increaes cover saves, and tons of shooting armies can ignore? TLOS that is nearly impssible to take, and a wole bunch of shooty units ignore? Standing around in clumps, where those elee units do what? Sweeping advance that makes it so the assaulting unit gets shot next turn?

Demanding a balanced ruleset is all we an do.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

JPong wrote:
No one is asking for total control over the game. Part of a balanced ruleset would have some penalty to shooting similar to random charges. Where is it? Is it focus fire? Is it model based cover saves? Do they have to roll to see if they just don't spot the unit? No, in steady they get a free round of shooting against all assaulting units. Like being able to shoot every turn in the game, whas assaulters only have half the game to do damage.

Assault IS more difficult no doubt, and probably rightfully so. But if you actually play missions (nightfight etc) and use proper terrain shooting shouldn't be gunline versus gunline. Assaulters - as in assault type units (fleet + jumppacks + MC's etc) get some advantages such as Hammer of Wrath (auto-hit not a snap-fire), get to choose when to use jump, get to REROLL charge roll.

Rerolling the charge roll is still worse than not having to roll to see if you get to shoot at all. That's not an advantage so much as a lessened disadvantage.

Yeah cuz we could potentially assault 12 inches in the previous edition...

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

When said space-battles-with-laser-machineguns has people with armour capable of withstanding said machine guns, Demonic beings that pop up right next to people before eating them, super-human warriors teleporting through Hell to pop up next to you, and extra-galactic bugs that are too many to kill, sure it does. It's not science fiction, it's science fantasy. There's nothing preventing you from running a shooting list if that's your cup of tea, so why can't those of us that want get to play assault-centric lists without having to jump through hoops with our hands bound to our backs? Are you having less fun because we don't enjoy the game in the same way you do? I genuinely don't get it.

I agree with this. This being said, you have to agree that you mentioned the exceptions to the rule. I like them and they have a place. I used to play chaos and am looking forward to building bugs. I just feel that shooting SHOULD be more powerfull than close combat. heck, even the exceptions you mentioned all have shooting elements. The question is degree. i feel that we are as close to the 'sweet spot" as we have ever been in this regard. Still needs tweaking of corse with some give and take from both sides.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
Further a Failed charge is a Failed charge, whether it was fate or a misjudged millimeter.

I disagree, a failed charge because you made an error is fundamentally different to a failed charge because luck was against you. If you can't guess within a millimeter, that's your fault and you should get better or make sure you aren't trying to guess ranges within a millimeter. It's not the same as having bad luck so the unit has to suffer an extra turn of fire before charging. One is a tactical error, the other is luck. Obviously the game needs some elements of luck, I just prefer it when those elements are NOT part of movement.

Even "assault units" as you say, they still have around a 15% chance of failing a charge of 7". That just annoys me. If they have a 7" charge, give them a 7" charge. If they have an 8" charge, give them an 8" charge. I think I mentioned it earlier, I don't even like the fact run moves are random.

Some of the best (IMO) games are games where movement is LIMITED, but not RANDOM, so you have to carefully weigh your options and when things go wrong, it was 100% because YOU messed up and put yourself in a bad position, not because the dice weren't falling your way that day. That's the way I likes it, I will admit not everyone likes it that way, but it's what I prefer and I think what a lot of people who like tactical games over "random chance" games prefer.

You have to remember that even in the random games, tactics play a huge part in loading the dice in your favor. Again, we go back to the example of two players in an identical situation. Player #1 is lazy and just pushes a model to within 6 inches, has it killed leaving the next model at 8 inches and the 2nd hit from the d3 flamer kills it leaving the 3rd model 10 inches away and a 9 was rolled for the chare and so it failed. Player #2 moves the entire unit forw the full movement and encircles the target unit where there are 4 models within 3 inches. the flamer kills 2 and a 9 is rolled and the assault hit. Because of the way player #2 used tactics, the ONLY way the charge woulda failed was on snakeeyes.
So tactics play a HUGE role in both games. It is a fallacy to assume that the game with dice rolls doesnt have tactics.

 StarTrotter wrote:

JPong wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:
I think Fear is a pretty good contender as well

Fear would be fine if GW didn't insist on making everyone and their brother leadership 10 and some form of fearless.

And also only in CC


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Psienesis wrote:
You might want to consider allying it with someone who shoots things, given the current rules of the game. It's not like I can snap my fingers and make Daemons not an assault army or make assault not the worst possible choice in 6th ed.

Naw honestly I just gave up on bloodletters myself . The units need to be fast and mobile to work. You can't ds into the battlefield and immediately charge and you can't flicker in and out of reality like in fluff, and khorne units really aren't that tough for what the fluff claims so for the most part you just forget that Khorne even exists To be honest, daemons are pretty much the only army that can really do an assault army list. Its just sad that khorne for the most part isn't worth paying attention to.

Good, As I said, lear to work within the new system. Armies that dont have the flexibility of the daemons can use allies but you found a way around it without having to go that route.
we hafta remember they are also in the business of sellinmodels so you can bet that with each new edition or codex, diferent units will wax and wane in power to force us to buy new models to keep up. many havnt learned or are too stubborn lol to o this.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Because I like the shooting armies. And the fact that the game has obsolete mechanics from a 1980s fantasy game does not mean that it needs to continue to have those flaws.

Of all the flaws 40k has... that one barely registers for me. It's a game that balances melee against shooting and it's always been that and that's the way I want it to stay. If I wanted realistic wargames, I wouldn't be touching most GW games with a 40ft pole.

I like the fact my Tyranids are assault based... I like the fact my IG are shooting based... I like the fact my SW are shoot-counter-attack based.

What you call a flaw I call a fundamental draw of the game.

Agreed.

 Gunzhard wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

JPong wrote:
No one is asking for total control over the game. Part of a balanced ruleset would have some penalty to shooting similar to random charges. Where is it? Is it focus fire? Is it model based cover saves? Do they have to roll to see if they just don't spot the unit? No, in steady they get a free round of shooting against all assaulting units. Like being able to shoot every turn in the game, whas assaulters only have half the game to do damage.

Assault IS more difficult no doubt, and probably rightfully so. But if you actually play missions (nightfight etc) and use proper terrain shooting shouldn't be gunline versus gunline. Assaulters - as in assault type units (fleet + jumppacks + MC's etc) get some advantages such as Hammer of Wrath (auto-hit not a snap-fire), get to choose when to use jump, get to REROLL charge roll.

Rerolling the charge roll is still worse than not having to roll to see if you get to shoot at all. That's not an advantage so much as a lessened disadvantage.

Yeah cuz we could potentially assault 12 inches in the previous edition...

What does that have to do with what I just said?

 Gunzhard wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
Further a Failed charge is a Failed charge, whether it was fate or a misjudged millimeter.

I disagree, a failed charge because you made an error is fundamentally different to a failed charge because luck was against you. If you can't guess within a millimeter, that's your fault and you should get better or make sure you aren't trying to guess ranges within a millimeter. It's not the same as having bad luck so the unit has to suffer an extra turn of fire before charging. One is a tactical error, the other is luck. Obviously the game needs some elements of luck, I just prefer it when those elements are NOT part of movement.

Even "assault units" as you say, they still have around a 15% chance of failing a charge of 7". That just annoys me. If they have a 7" charge, give them a 7" charge. If they have an 8" charge, give them an 8" charge. I think I mentioned it earlier, I don't even like the fact run moves are random.

Some of the best (IMO) games are games where movement is LIMITED, but not RANDOM, so you have to carefully weigh your options and when things go wrong, it was 100% because YOU messed up and put yourself in a bad position, not because the dice weren't falling your way that day. That's the way I likes it, I will admit not everyone likes it that way, but it's what I prefer and I think what a lot of people who like tactical games over "random chance" games prefer.

Eh I get why most folks are afraid of random stuff... but I'd argue that if you need every little detail to be absolutely controlled then you are playing chess - not a war game.

It's always the same folks that require the most controlled, standard rulebook mission, exactly 1850 point, no expansion game - that are afraid of random stuff. Uncontrollable and unexpected things happen in war - and a GOOD general can still react, think, and find a way to pull out a victory - the game shouldn't be won at the "list-building" phase. If you need everything perfectly predictable then you really cannot call yourself 'competitive' at the very least.

I never said I don't like random, I said I don't like random in the movement phase. I'm aware it's personal preference, but it's still what I prefer.

If I lose a game because my uber soldiers couldn't defeat the enemy uber soldiers despite me weighing the odds as heavily in their favour as possible, I'm fine with that. I just don't like losing (or winning for that matter) because a unit decided that today it's only going to run 3" instead of the required 4" even though it normally likes to run 7" one 6th of the time and greater than 6" 58.3% of the time. It's not what I consider fun, I think we've beaten this dead horse long enough and at the end of the day that's what it comes down to, personal preference.

 EVIL INC wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

When said space-battles-with-laser-machineguns has people with armour capable of withstanding said machine guns, Demonic beings that pop up right next to people before eating them, super-human warriors teleporting through Hell to pop up next to you, and extra-galactic bugs that are too many to kill, sure it does. It's not science fiction, it's science fantasy. There's nothing preventing you from running a shooting list if that's your cup of tea, so why can't those of us that want get to play assault-centric lists without having to jump through hoops with our hands bound to our backs? Are you having less fun because we don't enjoy the game in the same way you do? I genuinely don't get it.

I agree with this. This being said, you have to agree that you mentioned the exceptions to the rule. I like them and they have a place. I used to play chaos and am looking forward to building bugs. I just feel that shooting SHOULD be more powerfull than close combat. heck, even the exceptions you mentioned all have shooting elements. The question is degree. i feel that we are as close to the 'sweet spot" as we have ever been in this regard. Still needs tweaking of corse with some give and take from both sides.

I'd argue that 5th edition had a better balance between shooting and melee (and before Peregrine jumps on me, assuming that one wants melee to be a major part of the game). Shooting was stronger, but melee was still alive and healthy. Then 6th edition came along and stabbed melee combat with a dull spoon repeatedly. Melee's still alive, but it's battered, bruised and bleeding. If it doesn't get medical attention, it'll die.

I agree with you that the difference is in degree, and I don't even mind if shooting's more powerful than melee, just not by the current extent.

JPong wrote:
Part of a balanced ruleset would have some penalty to shooting similar to random charges.

Why? A balanced game is one where all armies can compete, not one where shooting and melee are both equally effective strategies. The game should be balanced around lots of shooting and the occasional assault, and that means that shooting should not have the same drawbacks as melee.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
When said space-battles-with-laser-machineguns has people with armour capable of withstanding said machine guns, Demonic beings that pop up right next to people before eating them, super-human warriors teleporting through Hell to pop up next to you, and extra-galactic bugs that are too many to kill, sure it does. It's not science fiction, it's science fantasy.

No, it has nothing to do with the fluff. Melee combat only works in 40k because of two things:

1) The IGOUGO system that lets a unit move out from behind a LOS-blocking terrain feature, move 12", and start stabbing another unit while the defender has to just sit there and take it (other than ineffective overwatch fire). Add in proper reactions and assault armies have a much smaller chance of getting to a target without getting shot to death first.

2) The fact that GW can't get the scale of the game right. The models are kind of 28mm (except for vehicles), and infantry movement speeds are about right for one turn worth of movement, but weapon ranges are laughably short, vehicle movement speeds are too slow, and the arbitrary table edge prevents units from shooting while falling back and staying out of melee range. If you played 40k at true 28mm scale with no other changes assault armies would probably never even get to declare a single charge before getting tabled.

So, in short, assault armies are the same kind of unrealistic rule exploit as using spare Rhinos to block LOS to a unit so you can only see the sergeant and therefore all wounds have to go to him. It's just exploiting an awkward game mechanic to do something that doesn't make any sense fluff-wise.

Are you having less fun because we don't enjoy the game in the same way you do? I genuinely don't get it.

That's exactly it. Having my guardsmen get slaughtered in melee because their lasguns have laughably short range is annoying. You might be having fun, but don't forget that the rest of us have to put up with your ridiculous assault armies.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Niiai wrote:
I do not understand how you try to justefy the rules from a realism perspective. They are rules, something you use to play.

But the rules still have make sense. You aren't playing a game of chess with 40k pieces, you're playing a game which is supposed to be a simulation of the "real" events on the battlefield. You know, so you can forge the narrative about how those things happened, imagine all the awesome stuff going on as you roll the dice, etc. When you have obviously unrealistic rules it pulls you out of that narrative and reminds you that it's just a dice game, and not even a very good dice game.

Warhammer 40K is a turn based game, that is not very realistic. This should be your first complaint. After that the "real" argument falls flat. We are on the world of rules, not in the world of real. You might as well try to explain why Super Mario has 3 lives. (Perhaps they are 3 identical twins?) No matter what explanation you come up with they never explain the rules completely, they argue with them.

With an averedge game lasting 2 ours of optimal desions from a gods eye perspective is also a bitt odd when the 5-7 turns would take a maximum of ten minuts in "real", if even that. (2 minuts perhaps?)

If you are also explaining this with the "real" argument can you not come up with exuses as to why it would be hard to charge someone who is shooting at you on a smoke and craterfilled battlefield? Do you think it is more realistic that they always charge 6"? To make things worse you can now pre-measure, so the charging unit would not even have to consider "Do you think we would make it before our turn is over and we are stuck in the open?" Nope, they always know 100% if they will make it or if they will not make it.

If you want to complain about the rules please do so, but arguing with "real" is a bad argument. If this is what you want I would advice you playing the computer game "Arma" where you spend 7 houers slowly crawling towards the enemy trying not to sett up the alarm.

 Peregrine wrote:

Are you having less fun because we don't enjoy the game in the same way you do? I genuinely don't get it.

That's exactly it. Having my guardsmen get slaughtered in melee because their lasguns have laughably short range is annoying. You might be having fun, but don't forget that the rest of us have to put up with your ridiculous assault armies.

So then, in the manner of utilitarianism, the way the game ought to be balanced is the way that the most people will enjoy, no? I'm fairly confident in claiming that more people would like melee to be a major part than not.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Failing an assault because you mispredicted the distance doesn't bother me. Failing an assault because the dice are against you always has annoyed me, regardless of 40k or fantasy and regardless of edition.

That's the trade-off for getting to measure everything whenever you want, though. Which, to my mind, is a bigger deal than the random assault... the whole 'no measuring' thing from previous editions was a nice idea, but too easily abused since people would just come up with clever ways to get around it.

I don't have a problem with charges being random, but I would rather see a bigger minimum distance than the 2" from rolling snake eyes... Say 2D6 for the charge with a minimum of 6" (or just 6" + D6), so you can at least make some pretense of planning out the charge.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

JPong wrote:
No one is asking for total control over the game. Part of a balanced ruleset would have some penalty to shooting similar to random charges. Where is it? Is it focus fire? Is it model based cover saves? Do they have to roll to see if they just don't spot the unit? No, in steady they get a free round of shooting against all assaulting units. Like being able to shoot every turn in the game, whas assaulters only have half the game to do damage.

Assault IS more difficult no doubt, and probably rightfully so. But if you actually play missions (nightfight etc) and use proper terrain shooting shouldn't be gunline versus gunline. Assaulters - as in assault type units (fleet + jumppacks + MC's etc) get some advantages such as Hammer of Wrath (auto-hit not a snap-fire), get to choose when to use jump, get to REROLL charge roll.

Rerolling the charge roll is still worse than not having to roll to see if you get to shoot at all. That's not an advantage so much as a lessened disadvantage.

Yeah cuz we could potentially assault 12 inches in the previous edition...

What does that have to do with what I just said?

Oh I'm sorry I thought you said, "That's not an advantage so much as a lessened disadvantage"? - But you do get some advantages in this edition for being an 'assault type unit' that you NEVER got in previous 40k editions. 2nd ed had overwatch... but now you get your 'snap shot' overwatch, and some assault units get an 'auto-hit' Hammer of Wrath and a potential super long assault, and a REROLL. It's so hard to take these debates seriously when people play up the ridiculous extremes - assault IS more difficult yes, I agree... but c'mon dude.

"Play up ridiculous extremes" and "you can totes assault 12" lolz".

Sometimes things are just funny. Because bringing up assaulting 12" is absolutely a ridiculous extreme.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
Further a Failed charge is a Failed charge, whether it was fate or a misjudged millimeter.

I disagree, a failed charge because you made an error is fundamentally different to a failed charge because luck was against you. If you can't guess within a millimeter, that's your fault and you should get better or make sure you aren't trying to guess ranges within a millimeter. It's not the same as having bad luck so the unit has to suffer an extra turn of fire before charging. One is a tactical error, the other is luck. Obviously the game needs some elements of luck, I just prefer it when those elements are NOT part of movement.

Even "assault units" as you say, they still have around a 15% chance of failing a charge of 7". That just annoys me. If they have a 7" charge, give them a 7" charge. If they have an 8" charge, give them an 8" charge. I think I mentioned it earlier, I don't even like the fact run moves are random.

Some of the best (IMO) games are games where movement is LIMITED, but not RANDOM, so you have to carefully weigh your options and when things go wrong, it was 100% because YOU messed up and put yourself in a bad position, not because the dice weren't falling your way that day. That's the way I likes it, I will admit not everyone likes it that way, but it's what I prefer and I think what a lot of people who like tactical games over "random chance" games prefer.

Eh I get why most folks are afraid of random stuff... but I'd argue that if you need every little detail to be absolutely controlled then you are playing chess - not a war game.

It's always the same folks that require the most controlled, standard rulebook mission, exactly 1850 point, no expansion game - that are afraid of random stuff. Uncontrollable and unexpected things happen in war - and a GOOD general can still react, think, and find a way to pull out a victory - the game shouldn't be won at the "list-building" phase. If you need everything perfectly predictable then you really cannot call yourself 'competitive' at the very least.

I never said I don't like random, I said I don't like random in the movement phase. I'm aware it's personal preference, but it's still what I prefer.

If I lose a game because my uber soldiers couldn't defeat the enemy uber soldiers despite me weighing the odds as heavily in their favour as possible, I'm fine with that. I just don't like losing (or winning for that matter) because a unit decided that today it's only going to run 3" instead of the required 4" even though it normally likes to run 7" one 6th of the time and greater than 6" 58.3% of the time. It's not what I consider fun, I think we've beaten this dead horse long enough and at the end of the day that's what it comes down to, personal preference.

A dead horse doesn't get to re-roll the charge roll. But seriously - if it's the narrative aspect of this one random roll that bothers you, in a game with dice - you could think of it as the terrain that dictates the distance rather than your unit 'deciding to run less'; which is actually more realistic anyway despite most folks playing terrain-less games on their mom's kitchen table.

i was fond of the range modifiers for the different guns. I would say extend the range for all of them but add in the modifiers to match. THAT would give the shooting armies nerfs that would fit and be balanced.

 Gunzhard wrote:
Eh I get why most folks are afraid of random stuff... but I'd argue that if you need every little detail to be absolutely controlled then you are playing chess - not a war game.

The chess argument being kicked around is completely backwards. The words "tactics" and "lazy" are getting overused as well. And I don't think anyone has advocated a complete removal of randomness from the game.

Random charge ranges is a way for GW to insert itself into the game to determine a (random) outcome, taking a decision away from the player (that players are used to having.) Removing decision points from the player and turning them over to random dice rolls causes players to rely on luck more than tactics. The notion of a set charge range causing the game to tend towards chess is nonsensical. Chess is a game with a finite number of rules with a finite set of pieces on a finite playing field. Removing significant portions of the game (less player options), such as assaults, would cause the game to tend towards chess more.

Imagine that the shooty type players who think that there is no place for CC in scifi battles are able to band together and ban assault armies (and assaults) from 40k so that they can just line up and shoot at each other. But then perhaps the tank shooters get to thinking the infantry shooters are weighing down the game, because they take sooooooo long to do a turn. So the tank shooters ban together and ban the foot shooters. After a number of reductions, just what game are you left with?

Cheers!

rigeld2 wrote:
"Play up ridiculous extremes" and "you can totes assault 12" lolz".

Sometimes things are just funny. Because bringing up assaulting 12" is absolutely a ridiculous extreme.

Except assault 12" is ACTUALLY possible. The totally buffed, totally nerfed extremes are not even remotely based in reality.

 Gunzhard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
"Play up ridiculous extremes" and "you can totes assault 12" lolz".

Sometimes things are just funny. Because bringing up assaulting 12" is absolutely a ridiculous extreme.

Except assault 12" is ACTUALLY possible. The totally buffed, totally nerfed extremes are not even remotely based in reality.

I would know. Once the two surviving terminators rolled an 11 to get to my commander and his bodyguard (I think I was running him with a giant squad of marker drones and a drone controller at the time)... that was a jaw clenching moment.