19003
Post by: EVIL INC
rigeld2 wrote: EVIL INC wrote:rigeld2 wrote:And what does this have to do with random charge range again? It's not like it would've been different with a set charge range, or a charge range that was less variable.
1. It is only a minor examp of tactics.
2. Ahh, so your new to the game. Welcome aboard. Oh, your not not new, than stop pretending that they dont exist.
The world is running low on staw because of you guys stuffing it into your battle titan sized strawman. they want you to start using hay or cornhusks.
1. It's as minor as saying "You lost because you forgot to shoot your guns." As in - bringing it up is pointless. Unless you think I should start a thread in 40k Tactics to ask if shooting my guns is a good idea?
2. Not new. Played against hundreds of players in 3rd, 5th and 6th. Literally never seen it. Not pretending at all.
How is talking about the argument you keep bringing up a straw man? Perhaps you don't understand what that is? I'm literally addressing your argument.
1. your models should have the guns attached. You dont play WYSIWYG? You may start whatever thread you like. if you think one is innappropriate, ask the mods.
2. Ahh, then you ARE pretending.
Try corkhusks and silk. maybe even hay. Come summertime, I'm sure people will be happy to donate their grass clippings from their lawns to you.
77605
Post by: KTG17
Hey guys, I need some Exalts. So please click that button for my posts.
71478
Post by: WhiteDog
The problem with the charge rule is that it can backfire. When you roll for hit and wound, statistics matter but having no luck for 5-6 roll does just goes with the flow.
When you fail a charge, the situation is completly different. Plus you only charge once a game with a unit (well most of the time) so making such a key move bound to statistics - that only works when the same number of action is repeated a certain number of time - is a bad design imo.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
EVIL INC wrote:That is a strawman of your own creation. I said no such thing and you know it.
What I DID say was that it is still a valid option to use. that while it should be valid, it should not be the end all be all of ways to win a game. That it can turn the tide of a battle I gave a plethora of examples of options. We have also given a books worth of tactics and strategies to help players ensure that units make it to assault range.
heck, I even gave examples of how I used it to win games with guard/grey knights.2 of those examples included
1. Assaulting a unit on an objective on the last turn in order to contest it and keep the enemy from getting the points for it.
2. Assaulting a dire avengersqua with a squad of acolyte henchmen and tying them up for several turns. During which I positioned a chimera between the fight and an objective. On the last turn when the dire avengers inally finished off my squad,ey were unabe to get close enough to claim the nearby ojective because i had ocked the pat with the chimera.
3. Against the bugs in my last tourney, well, needless to say, I got tabled because I was simpl unable to ring enough guns to bear n the horde rushing me.
Again, it goes back to opinion. YOU thought shooting was OP in 5th in your OPINION, I thought it did not go quite far enough in my OPINION. As this is purely an opinion based situation, neither is right or wrong as the answer will vary from person to person. You just feel the need to try to force everyone to have the same OPINION as you do. I say let people make up their own minds about which they prefer in their OPINION.
EVIL INC wrote:
the simple fact remains that a good player who uses strategy and tactics along with proper terrain placement can use a shooty army against an assaulty army and win. They can then switch or trade armies with their opponent and STILL win just as easily. .
This is you in the earlier thread, equating the power of shooting to assault. If that were not the case, the experienced player would not be able to win just as easily with the other army.
77605
Post by: KTG17
WhiteDog wrote:The problem with the charge rule is that it can backfire. When you roll for hit and wound, statistics matter but having no luck for 5-6 roll does just goes with the flow.
When you fail a charge, the situation is completly different. Plus you only charge once a game with a unit (well most of the time) so making such a key move bound to statistics - that only works when the same number of action is repeated a certain number of time - is a bad design imo.
I was wondering and was about to ask if anyone had a game where they just failed all of their charges, with an army that was dependent on CC to win, and how they felt about it.
19003
Post by: EVIL INC
KTG17 wrote:EVIL INC I am completely lost in your rebuttles. Are you in favor of the rules as they are, or are you saying that you think they need to be changed?
I'm saying that the current rules are a step in the right direction. 5th edition went a long way towards making the game the way it should be but 6th came closer yet.
The rules as they are, I think they need tweaking and some alterations.
I'm also pointing out that these opinions are just like everyone elses, opinions. We all have different ones and to each of us, our own opinion is right to us. Some of the people involved feel the need to force their opinions off onto others as being "correct" for everyone denying them the ability to think for themselves.
71874
Post by: GorillaWarfare
WhiteDog wrote:The problem with the charge rule is that it can backfire. When you roll for hit and wound, statistics matter but having no luck for 5-6 roll does just goes with the flow.
When you fail a charge, the situation is completly different. Plus you only charge once a game with a unit (well most of the time) so making such a key move bound to statistics - that only works when the same number of action is repeated a certain number of time - is a bad design imo.
I agree, failing a charge is game costing bit of bad luck. A game of 40k is on average only 6 turns. If you fail a charge not only are you a sitting duck, but you lose an entire assault phase of killing.
19003
Post by: EVIL INC
 AlmightyWalrus wrote: EVIL INC wrote:That is a strawman of your own creation. I said no such thing and you know it.
What I DID say was that it is still a valid option to use. that while it should be valid, it should not be the end all be all of ways to win a game. That it can turn the tide of a battle I gave a plethora of examples of options. We have also given a books worth of tactics and strategies to help players ensure that units make it to assault range.
heck, I even gave examples of how I used it to win games with guard/grey knights.2 of those examples included
1. Assaulting a unit on an objective on the last turn in order to contest it and keep the enemy from getting the points for it.
2. Assaulting a dire avengersqua with a squad of acolyte henchmen and tying them up for several turns. During which I positioned a chimera between the fight and an objective. On the last turn when the dire avengers inally finished off my squad,ey were unabe to get close enough to claim the nearby ojective because i had ocked the pat with the chimera.
3. Against the bugs in my last tourney, well, needless to say, I got tabled because I was simpl unable to ring enough guns to bear n the horde rushing me.
Again, it goes back to opinion. YOU thought shooting was OP in 5th in your OPINION, I thought it did not go quite far enough in my OPINION. As this is purely an opinion based situation, neither is right or wrong as the answer will vary from person to person. You just feel the need to try to force everyone to have the same OPINION as you do. I say let people make up their own minds about which they prefer in their OPINION.
EVIL INC wrote:
the simple fact remains that a good player who uses strategy and tactics along with proper terrain placement can use a shooty army against an assaulty army and win. They can then switch or trade armies with their opponent and STILL win just as easily. .
This is you in the earlier thread, equating the power of shooting to assault. If that were not the case, the experienced player would not be able to win just as easily with the other army.
This is a statement pointing out that strategy and tactics play a part in winning a game. Something you have been denying. That you quoted those two phrases and put them to mean that the two are equal in all ways proves that. Automatically Appended Next Post: GorillaWarfare wrote:WhiteDog wrote:The problem with the charge rule is that it can backfire. When you roll for hit and wound, statistics matter but having no luck for 5-6 roll does just goes with the flow.
When you fail a charge, the situation is completly different. Plus you only charge once a game with a unit (well most of the time) so making such a key move bound to statistics - that only works when the same number of action is repeated a certain number of time - is a bad design imo.
I agree, failing a charge is game costing bit of bad luck. A game of 40k is on average only 6 turns. If you fail a charge not only are you a sitting duck, but you lose an entire assault phase of killing.
Likewise when you make an assault roll of 7 inches, you are gaining an entire assault phase of killing. the clock ticks both ways.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
EVIL INC wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote: EVIL INC wrote:That is a strawman of your own creation. I said no such thing and you know it.
What I DID say was that it is still a valid option to use. that while it should be valid, it should not be the end all be all of ways to win a game. That it can turn the tide of a battle I gave a plethora of examples of options. We have also given a books worth of tactics and strategies to help players ensure that units make it to assault range.
heck, I even gave examples of how I used it to win games with guard/grey knights.2 of those examples included
1. Assaulting a unit on an objective on the last turn in order to contest it and keep the enemy from getting the points for it.
2. Assaulting a dire avengersqua with a squad of acolyte henchmen and tying them up for several turns. During which I positioned a chimera between the fight and an objective. On the last turn when the dire avengers inally finished off my squad,ey were unabe to get close enough to claim the nearby ojective because i had ocked the pat with the chimera.
3. Against the bugs in my last tourney, well, needless to say, I got tabled because I was simpl unable to ring enough guns to bear n the horde rushing me.
Again, it goes back to opinion. YOU thought shooting was OP in 5th in your OPINION, I thought it did not go quite far enough in my OPINION. As this is purely an opinion based situation, neither is right or wrong as the answer will vary from person to person. You just feel the need to try to force everyone to have the same OPINION as you do. I say let people make up their own minds about which they prefer in their OPINION.
EVIL INC wrote:
the simple fact remains that a good player who uses strategy and tactics along with proper terrain placement can use a shooty army against an assaulty army and win. They can then switch or trade armies with their opponent and STILL win just as easily. .
This is you in the earlier thread, equating the power of shooting to assault. If that were not the case, the experienced player would not be able to win just as easily with the other army.
This is a statement pointing out that strategy and tactics play a part in winning a game. Something you have been denying.
Where?
EVIL INC wrote:
EVIL INC wrote:
the simple fact remains that a good player who uses strategy and tactics along with proper terrain placement can use a shooty army against an assaulty army and win. They can then switch or trade armies with their opponent and STILL win just as easily. .
This is you in the earlier thread, equating the power of shooting to assault. If that were not the case, the experienced player would not be able to win just as easily with the other army.
This is a statement pointing out that strategy and tactics play a part in winning a game. Something you have been denying. That you quoted those two phrases and put them to mean that the two are equal in all ways proves that.
If they're not equal in power, your statement about tactics is wrong, because it means the veteran player will have to try harder to win.
71874
Post by: GorillaWarfare
Likewise when you make an assault roll of 7 inches, you are gaining an entire assault phase of killing. the clock ticks both ways.
It certainly does go both ways. It all comes down to how much wildly random elements you want in your game. I think most of us feel that 40k has plenty of randomness without having to add random charges on top. 2-12 inches to just way to random. Something like 4-8 inches might be nice.
77605
Post by: KTG17
Ok, realizing that my previous rule suggestion isnt gaining much steam, I am offering a new rule.
In this scenerio, Squad 1 wants to assult Squad 2 10 inches away.
Squad 1 rolls 100 dice.
If 35 of the dice are 5+, then Squad 1 barrels right through Squad 2 and kills all of them, with no saves.
If 56 of the dice are 4+, then they work out CC as normal.
If 70 of the dice are 3 or below, then Squad 1 goes face to face with Squad 2, but no combat actually occurs yet. They are just basically sizing each other up like a Mexican standoff. For those who dont know what Mexico is, its south of El Paso.
Regardless in any case, if 18 "1"s are rolled, then Squad 1 is completely wiped out due to a vortex grenade being dropped while being armed.
46866
Post by: JPong
GorillaWarfare wrote:Likewise when you make an assault roll of 7 inches, you are gaining an entire assault phase of killing. the clock ticks both ways.
It certainly does go both ways. It all comes down to how much wildly random elements you want in your game. I think most of us feel that 40k has plenty of randomness without having to add random charges on top. 2-12 inches to just way to random. Something like 4-8 inches might be nice.
It also doesn't go both ways for a lot of units. Pretty much everything with fleet charges the same distance as before. The difference being, before, if you made a bad run roll, you ran to cover, not stood around.
Funny that the assault units that are really hurting, is pretty much everything with fleet. The agile and fast kind that dies to a small gust of wind.
71874
Post by: GorillaWarfare
JPong wrote:GorillaWarfare wrote:Likewise when you make an assault roll of 7 inches, you are gaining an entire assault phase of killing. the clock ticks both ways.
It certainly does go both ways. It all comes down to how much wildly random elements you want in your game. I think most of us feel that 40k has plenty of randomness without having to add random charges on top. 2-12 inches to just way to random. Something like 4-8 inches might be nice.
It also doesn't go both ways for a lot of units. Pretty much everything with fleet charges the same distance as before. The difference being, before, if you made a bad run roll, you ran to cover, not stood around.
Funny that the assault units that are really hurting, is pretty much everything with fleet. The agile and fast kind that dies to a small gust of wind.
It sounds like the change to random charge roles has removed some tactical options from units with fleet, as you no longer have the decision to run for cover if it looks like things won't work out.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
JPong wrote:Funny that the assault units that are really hurting, is pretty much everything with fleet. The agile and fast kind that dies to a small gust of wind.
This. Before I had the opportunity to abort the assault if I knew I couldn't make it.
Now I just have to suck it up and get shot with overwatch and a full turn of fire in the open. Automatically Appended Next Post: GorillaWarfare wrote:It sounds like the change to random charge roles has removed some tactical options from units with fleet, as you no longer have the decision to run for cover if it looks like things won't work out.
But that can't be true as we've been assured this method is more tactical. </sarcasm>
80243
Post by: darkcloak
You want to talk about stupid, lets look at the to-hit chart for CC.
A WS 10 Character has just as much chance of hitting a WS 2 character as anything else? WTF? No, the WS 10 should need 2's past a ceratin point, otherwise what's the point in having a WS higher than 5?
The chart makes no sense, like they just went "Oh, logical number sequence! That will work fine!" and then completely forgot what the hell they were doing.
It's just stupid that a DP has the same chance to hit a measly Fire Warrior as he does to smash a tank. In fact I'd even go so far as to say that any WS that is 3 points higher than it's opponents should autohit, past a certain point. WS 5 vs WS 2? That should probably need a 2. WS 6 vs WS 2? That should autohit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean, there is a benefit to having a BS higher than 5 so why nerf CC like that? Why not add in the exact same reroll mechanic? At least that would even things up.
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
darkcloak wrote:You want to talk about stupid, lets look at the to-hit chart for CC.
A WS 10 Character has just as much chance of hitting a WS 2 character as anything else? WTF? No, the WS 10 should need 2's past a ceratin point, otherwise what's the point in having a WS higher than 5?
The chart makes no sense, like they just went "Oh, logical number sequence! That will work fine!" and then completely forgot what the hell they were doing.
It's just stupid that a DP has the same chance to hit a measly Fire Warrior as he does to smash a tank. In fact I'd even go so far as to say that any WS that is 3 points higher than it's opponents should autohit, past a certain point. WS 5 vs WS 2? That should probably need a 2. WS 6 vs WS 2? That should autohit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean, there is a benefit to having a BS higher than 5 so why nerf CC like that? Why not add in the exact same reroll mechanic? At least that would even things up.
Can't agree more - one of my pet hates that is - you get re-rolls if high Bs and screwed if high WS
Rather than Autohit if more than double WS- I would go fro re-rolls
19003
Post by: EVIL INC
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Where?
If they're not equal in power, your statement about tactics is wrong, because it means the veteran player will have to try harder to win.
Next time, try reading a post before you quote it.
You are sidestepping or avoiding the question as usual. Are you making the statement that a veteran player is NOT able to do that.
GorillaWarfare wrote:Likewise when you make an assault roll of 7 inches, you are gaining an entire assault phase of killing. the clock ticks both ways.
It certainly does go both ways. It all comes down to how much wildly random elements you want in your game. I think most of us feel that 40k has plenty of randomness without having to add random charges on top. 2-12 inches to just way to random. Something like 4-8 inches might be nice.
A new adjetive added to it now huh. "wildly'. LOL, I pointed out that you can stack the odds in your favor. When your 3 inches away, it would indeed have to be "wildly" random for you to roll snakeyes. Just as wildly random as a guardsman tripping over his shoelaces or a marine slipping in the mud.
123
Post by: Alpharius
I have to admit - I am absolutely shocked at how many alerts this thread is generating.
It is ridiculous!
So, here's the first (?) and only public warning - as per the rules of this site, stay polite and on topic.
Additionally, YMDC has some extra steps to follow - please read the sticky at the top of this forum for a reminder, if necessary.
That's it - next person to go off the rails is probably going to be taking a break from Dakka Dakka for a bit.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
(this isn't a YMDC thread, just FYI)
77605
Post by: KTG17
 Alpharius wrote:I have to admit - I am absolutely shocked at how many alerts this thread is generating.
It is ridiculous!
What do you mean? How are alerts generated?
So, here's the first (?) and only public warning - as per the rules of this site, stay polite and on topic.
Additionally, YMDC has some extra steps to follow - please read the sticky at the top of this forum for a reminder, if necessary.
That's it - next person to go off the rails is probably going to be taking a break from Dakka Dakka for a bit.
When you say off the rails... what exactly are you refering to?
Sorry kinda new and not all caught up on the terms.
81364
Post by: WrentheFaceless
I suppose the sitting still makes sense, as if you could shoot then fail an assault and still move, it would pretty much negate the need to "Run" troops if you could just shoot and fail assault and still get extra movement.
19472
Post by: Gunzhard
rigeld2 wrote:JPong wrote:Funny that the assault units that are really hurting, is pretty much everything with fleet. The agile and fast kind that dies to a small gust of wind.
This. Before I had the opportunity to abort the assault if I knew I couldn't make it.
Now I just have to suck it up and get shot with overwatch and a full turn of fire in the open.
I'm not sure I follow you... when you failed an assault in previous editions you still didn't move and instead got shot up the next turn. Why do people pretend they never failed assaults until this edition?
WhiteDog wrote:The problem with the charge rule is that it can backfire. When you roll for hit and wound, statistics matter but having no luck for 5-6 roll does just goes with the flow.
When you fail a charge, the situation is completly different. Plus you only charge once a game with a unit (well most of the time) so making such a key move bound to statistics - that only works when the same number of action is repeated a certain number of time - is a bad design imo.
Again - while I completely understand that Assaulting IS more difficult in this edition - people DID fail charges in the previous editions and it was also devastating; cue response, "Oh I didn't mind failing as long as it wasn't random.". Again - if you assaulted into cover/terrain in previous editions that was also random... some of you don't like things you cannot control / random - ok fine.
11860
Post by: Martel732
This is far from the worst rule.
61374
Post by: Madcat87
 Gunzhard wrote:[Again - while I completely understand that Assaulting IS more difficult in this edition - people DID fail charges in the previous editions and it was also devastating; cue response, "Oh I didn't mind failing as long as it wasn't random.". Again - if you assaulted into cover/terrain in previous editions that was also random... some of you don't like things you cannot control / random - ok fine.
The difference being that there was an element of control in 5th edition charges. The player had to make a choice. A guarenteed 6 inch charge through open terrain or take a risk and charge with cover and hope the dice are in your favor.
The key difference is that in 5th charging through cover there is a clear risk vs reward. The player makes the choice to charge through cover knowing the risks and finding them acceptable or not. In 6th there is no risk VS reward with charging its simply just a random distance you have to make no matter what.
To once again compare it to shooting there is no risk as to how far you can shoot, you always know your weapon will fire X inches. Even the old rules for night fighting that penalised shooting by giving random ranges was removed.
19472
Post by: Gunzhard
 Madcat87 wrote: Gunzhard wrote:Again - while I completely understand that Assaulting IS more difficult in this edition - people DID fail charges in the previous editions and it was also devastating; cue response, "Oh I didn't mind failing as long as it wasn't random.". Again - if you assaulted into cover/terrain in previous editions that was also random... some of you don't like things you cannot control / random - ok fine.
The difference being that there was an element of control in 5th edition charges. The player had to make a choice. A guarenteed 6 inch charge through open terrain or take a risk and charge with cover and hope the dice are in your favor.
The key difference is that in 5th charging through cover there is a clear risk vs reward. The player makes the choice to charge through cover knowing the risks and finding them acceptable or not. In 6th there is no risk VS reward with charging its simply just a random distance you have to make no matter what.
To once again compare it to shooting there is no risk as to how far you can shoot, you always know your weapon will fire X inches. Even the old rules for night fighting that penalised shooting by giving random ranges was removed.
Shooting has more advantages than assaulting sure - different topic. But please explain how the risk vs reward was different when "Charging through cover" in 5th edition? Since 3rd edition it's been a "random distance you have to make no matter what" - except now the odds are BETTER; am I missing something?
19003
Post by: EVIL INC
Madcat87 wrote: Gunzhard wrote:[Again - while I completely understand that Assaulting IS more difficult in this edition - people DID fail charges in the previous editions and it was also devastating; cue response, "Oh I didn't mind failing as long as it wasn't random.". Again - if you assaulted into cover/terrain in previous editions that was also random... some of you don't like things you cannot control / random - ok fine.
The difference being that there was an element of control in 5th edition charges. The player had to make a choice. A guarenteed 6 inch charge through open terrain or take a risk and charge with cover and hope the dice are in your favor.
The key difference is that in 5th charging through cover there is a clear risk vs reward. The player makes the choice to charge through cover knowing the risks and finding them acceptable or not. In 6th there is no risk VS reward with charging its simply just a random distance you have to make no matter what.
To once again compare it to shooting there is no risk as to how far you can shoot, you always know your weapon will fire X inches. Even the old rules for night fighting that penalised shooting by giving random ranges was removed.
there is an element of control in the edition as well. previously, all you had to do was nudge a single model to within 6 inches and you could not fail the charge. had you moved the entire unit to full effect, you could have had half the unit 3 inches away and the rest 4 inches away in base to base behind. However, players didnt do that because they were too lazy and they knew they didnt have to. Currently, there are players who do just that and only fail on snakeeyes and others who do not and then complain that the game is broke when they fail it.
Speak to anyone with military experience oreven wargaming experience and they will tell you that there ARE risks to sitting still and shooting. To deny it is just ludicrous.
 WrentheFaceless wrote:I suppose the sitting still makes sense, as if you could shoot then fail an assault and still move, it would pretty much negate the need to "Run" troops if you could just shoot and fail assault and still get extra movement.
I had thought about this. adding in the caveat that you were not allowed to initiate an assault outside the maximum range possible for you would prevent that. it would also mean that (like in any situation you did this), if you made the attempt and failed, you were leaving yourself wide open to being shot and assaulted in return. this failure could mean that you were at max range and just had to slow down for the gimpy ork in the rear or you were at min range and tripped over your own shoelaces.
Gunzhard, You arent missing anything. the naysayers are saying it is bad because you could roll snakeeyes and po pooing the fact that it is possible to roll a 7 or higher.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
With 11 pages I'm sure this has been said at least once but you never know:
Random charge ranges offset pre-measuring as it makes it less certain that you'll be outside of charge range unless you're more than 18" away (for most units. Naturally exceptions exist) a much bigger distance than before and harder to just play the "back up shuffle" against.
19003
Post by: EVIL INC
I actually think you are the first to point it out.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
EVIL INC wrote:
I had thought about this. adding in the caveat that you were not allowed to initiate an assault outside the maximum range possible for you would prevent that. i
This is the third time I say this in this thread: That's already the case. You're not allowed to assault a unit that you can't reach. It's right in the BRB.
19003
Post by: EVIL INC
that is not relevent. We are talking about possible fixes or ways to alter it. As the current is already printed and 'set in stone", our fantasy rules we are creating would not be added into it. Now, if we are talking about rules we would put in a new rulebook (as we are), that rulebook would not be in existance yet so it would need to be added in.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
EVIL INC wrote:that is not relevent. We are talking about possible fixes or ways to alter it. As the current is already printed and 'set in stone", our fantasy rules we are creating would not be added into it. Now, if we are talking about rules we would put in a new rulebook (as we are), that rulebook would not be in existance yet so it would need to be added in.
Discussing how to change the current rules is not reinventing them from scratch.
19003
Post by: EVIL INC
Doesnt change a thing. Were we to add the changes we are discussing into a new edition, that caveat would still need to be added. That it may or may not be included presently is indeed irrelevant.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
EVIL INC wrote:Doesnt change a thing. Were we to add the changes we are discussing into a new edition, that caveat would still need to be added. That it may or may not be included presently is indeed irrelevant.
We're discussing the whole thing using the current rules as a baseline to change from; assuming that the caveat wouldn't exist doesn't make any sense, because we've not actually said anything about changing it.
19003
Post by: EVIL INC
You are having a totally different conversation from the rest of us than. Come join what we are talking about. In the discussion the rest of us are having, that caveat would need to be added into it.
82537
Post by: Dynamous
when i first read the rule of 2d6 to charge... First I was like Waaaah? Then i was like WAAAAAGGHH!
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Gunzhard wrote:rigeld2 wrote:JPong wrote:Funny that the assault units that are really hurting, is pretty much everything with fleet. The agile and fast kind that dies to a small gust of wind.
This. Before I had the opportunity to abort the assault if I knew I couldn't make it.
Now I just have to suck it up and get shot with overwatch and a full turn of fire in the open.
I'm not sure I follow you... when you failed an assault in previous editions you still didn't move and instead got shot up the next turn. Why do people pretend they never failed assaults until this edition?
In 5th Fleet meant if I needed to roll a 4 on my run roll but rolled a 3, I could stay in cover instead of being out in the open. In 6th I have to suffer the extra penalty of charging through cover if I want to do the same thing, rendering my I6 useless.
And of course I have to suffer Overwatch for my troubles as well.
19472
Post by: Gunzhard
rigeld2 wrote: Gunzhard wrote:rigeld2 wrote:JPong wrote:Funny that the assault units that are really hurting, is pretty much everything with fleet. The agile and fast kind that dies to a small gust of wind.
This. Before I had the opportunity to abort the assault if I knew I couldn't make it.
Now I just have to suck it up and get shot with overwatch and a full turn of fire in the open.
I'm not sure I follow you... when you failed an assault in previous editions you still didn't move and instead got shot up the next turn. Why do people pretend they never failed assaults until this edition?
In 5th Fleet meant if I needed to roll a 4 on my run roll but rolled a 3, I could stay in cover instead of being out in the open. In 6th I have to suffer the extra penalty of charging through cover if I want to do the same thing, rendering my I6 useless.
And of course I have to suffer Overwatch for my troubles as well.
I think you're confused, go back and read your rulebooks.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Gunzhard wrote:rigeld2 wrote: Gunzhard wrote:rigeld2 wrote:JPong wrote:Funny that the assault units that are really hurting, is pretty much everything with fleet. The agile and fast kind that dies to a small gust of wind.
This. Before I had the opportunity to abort the assault if I knew I couldn't make it.
Now I just have to suck it up and get shot with overwatch and a full turn of fire in the open.
I'm not sure I follow you... when you failed an assault in previous editions you still didn't move and instead got shot up the next turn. Why do people pretend they never failed assaults until this edition?
In 5th Fleet meant if I needed to roll a 4 on my run roll but rolled a 3, I could stay in cover instead of being out in the open. In 6th I have to suffer the extra penalty of charging through cover if I want to do the same thing, rendering my I6 useless.
And of course I have to suffer Overwatch for my troubles as well.
I think you're confused, go back and read your rulebooks.
The argument is making complete sense, I think you're the one who's confused. In previous editions, the fleet roll was separate from the charge distance, meaning that you could use it to get out of cover without having to charge through terrain. Further, you had the option of not committing to a charge if you rolled poorly on your fleet roll. If a unit with fleet wants to charge now, you're stuck charging through terrain AND you can't abort if you roll poorly, AND your usually flimsy fleeting unit gets shot in Overwatch.
EVIL INC wrote:You are having a totally different conversation from the rest of us than. Come join what we are talking about. In the discussion the rest of us are having, that caveat would need to be added into it.
As you yourself are so fond of pointing out, we are discussing Random Charge Range, if it should exist and whether it should be changed. Changing that part of the rules does not change the fact that you're still not allowed to charge anything you can' reach, because we've not said anything about removing that rule. Otherwise he have to include the caveat that non-walker vehicles can't charge, that you can't fire blasts in Overwatch and a whole slew of rules that has nothing to do with what we're actually discussing.
82927
Post by: Corvaxes
Grim Dark wrote: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.
Don't forget the trooper mounted on that horse, or the imperial guardsmen wondering whether or not its a good idea to charge those necron wraiths. I like the rule, I think of it like a leadership check to see if the guys get up and charge on in. I can assure you, its not a natural act, any failed charges IMO are those where the squad just refused to get up overcome by I'll go if you go syndrome. Where nobody goes. Think of it as a leadership check to charge, just you want to roll over rather than under, and you have a chance to get a really long charge in.
Fearless troops, IMO should be able to count the lowest dice as a 6.
Though I do take issue with the defensive fire, random charge range mechanic because defensive fire is more detrimental to models that pay for higher balistic skill, and there is no penalty to the defender for issuing defensive fire.
If defensive fire was at -2 ballistic skill, units charging a unit gone to ground were given cover saves against defensive fire, the attacker always went before the defender if the defender elected to fire rather than counter charge, and sweeping advances allowed the winner to charge another unit in that phase. I'd be pretty happy with it.
Maybe make defending units that issued defensive fire forego their initial pile in might be nice too.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
 Corvaxes wrote:Maybe make defending units that issued defensive fire forego their initial pile in might be nice too.
This would actually be a nerf to assault most of the time. If you charge my IG vets I want to lose combat and fall back so that your unit isn't locked in combat and protected from my next shooting phase. The last thing I want to do is accidentally kill a model or two and then "pass" the leadership test to stay in combat as a result. Taking away the initial pile-in move makes it easier to minimize the number of attacks I make and maximize the chances that my squad is either dead or falling back before my next shooting phase.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
 Peregrine wrote: Corvaxes wrote:Maybe make defending units that issued defensive fire forego their initial pile in might be nice too.
This would actually be a nerf to assault most of the time. If you charge my IG vets I want to lose combat and fall back so that your unit isn't locked in combat and protected from my next shooting phase. The last thing I want to do is accidentally kill a model or two and then "pass" the leadership test to stay in combat as a result. Taking away the initial pile-in move makes it easier to minimize the number of attacks I make and maximize the chances that my squad is either dead or falling back before my next shooting phase.
This is true. The ideal result for an assaulter is to almost wipe out what they are charging, so that they can sit safely in melee for the enemy turn, finish them off at the end of that turn and then move on and hopefully assault again.
51854
Post by: Mywik
Uhm. You're the one being confused. In 6th edition theres no "run and assault in the same turn" anymore. In 5th fleet meant you can run and assault in the same turn.
This means when in 5th you did your run move and knew you needed a 4 inch run to make a charge on a unit that is 10 inches away from you. Now when in that situation you rolled a 3 you knew that run move wasnt sufficient to reach your target with your following assault move this turn and you were therefore able to use the 3" to get into cover.
Fast forward to 6th. You are 10 inches away. you roll 9 inches. You stay where you are - normally in the open and in rapid fire range etc pp.
I think that was what rigeld2 meant.
19003
Post by: EVIL INC
rigeld2 wrote:
In 5th Fleet meant if I needed to roll a 4 on my run roll but rolled a 3, I could stay in cover instead of being out in the open. In 6th I have to suffer the extra penalty of charging through cover if I want to do the same thing, rendering my I6 useless.
And of course I have to suffer Overwatch for my troubles as well.
So if a player is smart enough to use tactics to use cover to get close and then come out of it in the movement phase about 3/4 inches away from the enemy making sure there is no intervening objects, exactly how do they lose their initative 6? I can see thm suffering overwatch, which is aughable unless your facing tau or a template spammer unit or rolling a 2 or 3 on the assault roll.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
As you yourself are so fond of pointing out, we are discussing Random Charge Range, if it should exist and whether it should be changed. Changing that part of the rules does not change the fact that you're still not allowed to charge anything you can' reach, because we've not said anything about removing that rule. Otherwise he have to include the caveat that non-walker vehicles can't charge, that you can't fire blasts in Overwatch and a whole slew of rules that has nothing to do with what we're actually discussing.
The original thread was indeed about overwatch and I have indeed made an effort to keep you on that topic. i will try to steer you back onto it again with this post...If we are putting the changes and alterations to the 2d6 random assault roll we are discussing into implementation in a new edition of the book (impossible to put it into the current one as it has already been printed), we would need to put in the caveat that you are not allowed to charge targets you cannot reach.
As you said irrelevantly, it might be in the current book. It would also need to be put into the fantasy book we are brainstorming.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
We're not brainstorming an entirely different book, we're talking about alterations to one rule, which could easily be FAQ'd into the current book, requiring no new book.
71874
Post by: GorillaWarfare
One thing I like about random charges is it gives you the potential to get into CC sooner. Once you hit the 12 inch mark, if you are willing to pay the overwatch tax you can attempt to charge. You probably wont succeed, but in past editions you would never have the chance. Then next turn you will get closer and are more likely to get the charge off. I think this is exciting.
But I still think there should be some minimum charge distance. Its just painful when you have an elite assault unit that has fought its way threw the entire game, and its the last turn and it finds itself right next to an enemy unit, so it charges, but rolls snake eyes. WHY? Its right there! And don't give me some none sense about tripping, or the chaos of battle, because it doesn't make any sense that highly trained space marines and grotz have the same chance of tripping.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
EVIL INC wrote:rigeld2 wrote:
In 5th Fleet meant if I needed to roll a 4 on my run roll but rolled a 3, I could stay in cover instead of being out in the open. In 6th I have to suffer the extra penalty of charging through cover if I want to do the same thing, rendering my I6 useless.
And of course I have to suffer Overwatch for my troubles as well.
So if a player is smart enough to use tactics to use cover to get close and then come out of it in the movement phase about 3/4 inches away from the enemy making sure there is no intervening objects, exactly how do they lose their initative 6? I can see thm suffering overwatch, which is aughable unless your facing tau or a template spammer unit or rolling a 2 or 3 on the assault roll.
I can tell you didn't actually read my post, despite quoting it.
In my post I specifically mentioned that Fleet allowed me to run out of terrain - because magic tactics kept me in cover, but it's stupid to charge through cover if you don't have to. In 5th I could decide not to leave cover and not charge. In 6th I must charge through cover meaning the I6 is near meaningless on Genestealers.
And despite your assurances, Overwatch isn't near meaningless. Tac squads aren't scary, right?
Stealers charging through cover, assuming they make the charge. 2 die to Overwatch. 2 die to Sm CC. Stealers kill 3. The next round gets better, with Stealers killing 2 and SM 1. Still likely stuck in combat, so the next round Stealers kill 1-2, SM kill 1-2.
Dedicated CC unit failing to kill a Tac squad. That's assuming taking zero shots on the way up the board - because tactically I should use the massive amount of BLOS terrain to hide until I'm less than 8" from his line. And he's tactically foolish enough to allow that.
Overwatch essentially gives a free round of unanswered CC against flimsy glass cannons like Stealers. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Mywik wrote:
Uhm. You're the one being confused. In 6th edition theres no "run and assault in the same turn" anymore. In 5th fleet meant you can run and assault in the same turn.
This means when in 5th you did your run move and knew you needed a 4 inch run to make a charge on a unit that is 10 inches away from you. Now when in that situation you rolled a 3 you knew that run move wasnt sufficient to reach your target with your following assault move this turn and you were therefore able to use the 3" to get into cover.
Fast forward to 6th. You are 10 inches away. you roll 9 inches. You stay where you are - normally in the open and in rapid fire range etc pp.
I think that was what rigeld2 meant.
Exactly. In 5th I knew I could stay in cover and still potentially assault at initiative by running out of cover and then declaring an assault. If I didn't run far enough I didn't leave cover.
In 6th I've lost that ability. Just because. And in addition, if I roll poorly I get to eat Overwatch for my troubles.
46866
Post by: JPong
rigeld2 wrote: EVIL INC wrote:rigeld2 wrote:
In 5th Fleet meant if I needed to roll a 4 on my run roll but rolled a 3, I could stay in cover instead of being out in the open. In 6th I have to suffer the extra penalty of charging through cover if I want to do the same thing, rendering my I6 useless.
And of course I have to suffer Overwatch for my troubles as well.
So if a player is smart enough to use tactics to use cover to get close and then come out of it in the movement phase about 3/4 inches away from the enemy making sure there is no intervening objects, exactly how do they lose their initative 6? I can see thm suffering overwatch, which is aughable unless your facing tau or a template spammer unit or rolling a 2 or 3 on the assault roll.
I can tell you didn't actually read my post, despite quoting it.
In my post I specifically mentioned that Fleet allowed me to run out of terrain - because magic tactics kept me in cover, but it's stupid to charge through cover if you don't have to. In 5th I could decide not to leave cover and not charge. In 6th I must charge through cover meaning the I6 is near meaningless on Genestealers.
And despite your assurances, Overwatch isn't near meaningless. Tac squads aren't scary, right?
Stealers charging through cover, assuming they make the charge. 2 die to Overwatch. 2 die to Sm CC. Stealers kill 3. The next round gets better, with Stealers killing 2 and SM 1. Still likely stuck in combat, so the next round Stealers kill 1-2, SM kill 1-2.
Dedicated CC unit failing to kill a Tac squad. That's assuming taking zero shots on the way up the board - because tactically I should use the massive amount of BLOS terrain to hide until I'm less than 8" from his line. And he's tactically foolish enough to allow that.
Overwatch essentially gives a free round of unanswered CC against flimsy glass cannons like Stealers.
You just need to tactically charge with a second unit. And to stop them from dying to overwatch, tactically charge with a third unit. Because shooting armies aren't exactly bursting with units they can afford to lose, but assault armies all have infinite units in range to charge to deny overwatch on the the dangerous ones.
82927
Post by: Corvaxes
Peregrine wrote: Corvaxes wrote:Maybe make defending units that issued defensive fire forego their initial pile in might be nice too.
This would actually be a nerf to assault most of the time. If you charge my IG vets I want to lose combat and fall back so that your unit isn't locked in combat and protected from my next shooting phase. The last thing I want to do is accidentally kill a model or two and then "pass" the leadership test to stay in combat as a result. Taking away the initial pile-in move makes it easier to minimize the number of attacks I make and maximize the chances that my squad is either dead or falling back before my next shooting phase.
True, hadn't thought of it in that context, would it be a bad thing if the winning unit got to sweep into another assault after having won? The whole idea that you want to end your turn STILL in the combat you charged into means the sweeping advance rule is one of the biggest nerfs to assault. The ability to ride the momentum of a victory in hth into another assault that same turn would fix a lot.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Corvaxes wrote: Peregrine wrote: Corvaxes wrote:Maybe make defending units that issued defensive fire forego their initial pile in might be nice too.
This would actually be a nerf to assault most of the time. If you charge my IG vets I want to lose combat and fall back so that your unit isn't locked in combat and protected from my next shooting phase. The last thing I want to do is accidentally kill a model or two and then "pass" the leadership test to stay in combat as a result. Taking away the initial pile-in move makes it easier to minimize the number of attacks I make and maximize the chances that my squad is either dead or falling back before my next shooting phase.
True, hadn't thought of it in that context, would it be a bad thing if the winning unit got to sweep into another assault after having won? The whole idea that you want to end your turn STILL in the combat you charged into means the sweeping advance rule is one of the biggest nerfs to assault. The ability to ride the momentum of a victory in hth into another assault that same turn would fix a lot.
Plus, it'd mean Tau would have to think about whether they want to stack up for maximum Overwatch, risking to get caught, or play it safe, reducing Overwatch damage.
19003
Post by: EVIL INC
AlmightyWalrus wrote:We're not brainstorming an entirely different book, we're talking about alterations to one rule, which could easily be FAQ'd into the current book, requiring no new book.
We are talking about alterations or changes or additions to the rules. Ones that would not make it into an FAQ. if they were to be implemented it would not be in the current edition. So as has been said, it woudld have to have that caveat added.
rigeld2 wrote:
I can tell you didn't actually read my post, despite quoting it.
In my post I specifically mentioned that Fleet allowed me to run out of terrain - because magic tactics kept me in cover, but it's stupid to charge through cover if you don't have to. In 5th I could decide not to leave cover and not charge. In 6th I must charge through cover meaning the I6 is near meaningless on Genestealers.
And despite your assurances, Overwatch isn't near meaningless. Tac squads aren't scary, right?
Stealers charging through cover, assuming they make the charge. 2 die to Overwatch. 2 die to Sm CC. Stealers kill 3. The next round gets better, with Stealers killing 2 and SM 1. Still likely stuck in combat, so the next round Stealers kill 1-2, SM kill 1-2.
Dedicated CC unit failing to kill a Tac squad. That's assuming taking zero shots on the way up the board - because tactically I should use the massive amount of BLOS terrain to hide until I'm less than 8" from his line. And he's tactically foolish enough to allow that.
Overwatch essentially gives a free round of unanswered CC against flimsy glass cannons like Stealers.
i read it. you purposely slanted your phrasing to denigrate the stance of another and used misleading words. Te example I pointed out was that you assumed that anyone in coer at the beginning of the movement phase would still be in cover at the end because they would be too stupid to move out so that they wouldnt be in cover at the beginning of the assault phase. You also made the assumption and put forth as always being so that the player would be too stupid to not use tactics to ensure that the assault would be unimpeded.
As for overwatch, it is indeed laughable (exept in terms of flame template heavy units and tau. My math may be a little off but lets see if i get this right...
a 10 man guard unit would get an average of 1 las pistal shot, 8 rapid fire las gun shots and lets say 1 rapid fire plasma gun shot.
thats 19 shots that need 6 to hit. so 1/6 of them hit, thats 3 hits on average (most players will tell you anecdoattly, its less) of those, there is a chance the plasma guy kills himself and of the 3 hits (most likely las gun, will need a 5+ to kill your average marine. You do the rest but I believe it comes to less than 3 marines dying even without their armor save. Also consider that the assaulter is not stupid or lazy and uses tactics to ensure that they are lined up about 3-4 inches from the guard models so that even losing 3 models, they would need to roll a 3 or 2 on the 2d6 to fail the charge. So no, overwatch is not the all powerfull game breaker you make it out to be. being able to assault 12 possible inches, that could be. As many ork players have pointed out throughout this thread, they love it.
JPong wrote:rigeld2 wrote:
You just need to tactically charge with a second unit. And to stop them from dying to overwatch, tactically charge with a third unit. Because shooting armies aren't exactly bursting with units they can afford to lose, but assault armies all have infinite units in range to charge to deny overwatch on the the dangerous ones.
yes, despite your sarcastic post, you are correct to a degree. You DONT just send a single unit screaming madly across the field by itself. You do ensure that the enemy have to make decisions as to how they are going to divide their fire amongst many targets. You do have to use tactics and smarts because you dont have an infinite number of squads to do this with. I've had players make the decision of assaulting first with a throwaway squad remnent in order to prevent me from overwatch shooting at amore dangerous healthy squad. This is just one of many ways that you could use tactics.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
EVIL INC wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:We're not brainstorming an entirely different book, we're talking about alterations to one rule, which could easily be FAQ'd into the current book, requiring no new book.
We are talking about alterations or changes or additions to the rules. Ones that would not make it into an FAQ. if they were to be implemented it would not be in the current edition. So as has been said, it woudld have to have that caveat added.
No, you're discussing some magic new edition. Everyone else is fine talking about changing the current one.
rigeld2 wrote:
I can tell you didn't actually read my post, despite quoting it.
In my post I specifically mentioned that Fleet allowed me to run out of terrain - because magic tactics kept me in cover, but it's stupid to charge through cover if you don't have to. In 5th I could decide not to leave cover and not charge. In 6th I must charge through cover meaning the I6 is near meaningless on Genestealers.
And despite your assurances, Overwatch isn't near meaningless. Tac squads aren't scary, right?
Stealers charging through cover, assuming they make the charge. 2 die to Overwatch. 2 die to Sm CC. Stealers kill 3. The next round gets better, with Stealers killing 2 and SM 1. Still likely stuck in combat, so the next round Stealers kill 1-2, SM kill 1-2.
Dedicated CC unit failing to kill a Tac squad. That's assuming taking zero shots on the way up the board - because tactically I should use the massive amount of BLOS terrain to hide until I'm less than 8" from his line. And he's tactically foolish enough to allow that.
Overwatch essentially gives a free round of unanswered CC against flimsy glass cannons like Stealers.
i read it. you purposely slanted your phrasing to denigrate the stance of another and used misleading words.
I did? Please quote them. Cite the insults or apologize.
Te example I pointed out was that you assumed that anyone in coer at the beginning of the movement phase would still be in cover at the end because they would be too stupid to move out so that they wouldnt be in cover at the beginning of the assault phase.
That's the only reason? Because I'm too stupid? Wow, good to know.
As a matter of fact, leaving cover is the stupid move for models with a 5+ armor save.
You also made the assumption and put forth as always being so that the player would be too stupid to not use tactics to ensure that the assault would be unimpeded.
What?
As for overwatch, it is indeed laughable (exept in terms of flame template heavy units and tau. My math may be a little off but lets see if i get this right...
So I take a normal, relevant example of what I'm talking about and show Overwatch doing 20% casualties against a unit designed explicitly for CC, and your example is a worst case scenario for Overwatch and has nothing to do with units designed for CC.
And again, you call me stupid for ever having an assault longer then 3-4 inches. Well done - excellent discussion tactic. Let's see how it works out for you. Orks brought their cover with them, or had AV14 (front) transports to shield them into the assault. Not everyone does that ya know.
yes, despite your sarcastic post, you are correct to a degree. You DONT just send a single unit screaming madly across the field by itself. You do ensure that the enemy have to make decisions as to how they are going to divide their fire amongst many targets. You do have to use tactics and smarts because you dont have an infinite number of squads to do this with. I've had players make the decision of assaulting first with a throwaway squad remnent in order to prevent me from overwatch shooting at amore dangerous healthy squad. This is just one of many ways that you could use tactics.
Yes, and I do that. And many times the throwaway unit is destroyed and I fail the 6-7 inch charge with the good unit. Meaning I just get shot the next turn.
But that's my fault for being too stupid to cheat and get 2-3 more inches of movement somehow. Damn, I forgot.
77605
Post by: KTG17
Hey I scored 3 hits on dakka, but it made all of its saves...
HAS ANYONE EXALTED MY POSTS LIKE I ASKED?!?!
Now that I think about some of the things said to justify rolling the 2d6 (like the charge failing to get underway, or troops not being inspired), maybe instead of just rolling a generic 2d6 that applies to every race, maybe it should be Leadership driven. This means no doubt some armie/units will be better at charging than others, but to me that makes sense. I think you have to be highly motivated to charge a gunline with pistols and swords, or not know any better if you are a monster or just have claws. Failing a leadership roll would force you to stay put, which makes far more sense showing that the charge couldnt get underway. Using a nearby characters leadership would show the success in inspiring the troops to charge.
I dont keep up on what leadership is for all the armies, nor how well this would benefit them, I am just throwing it out there, because to me, this seems like a good use of Leadership. I also assume Space Marines have a better leadership than Imperial Guard do, and I expect that Space Marines would require less motivation to assault in CC than Guardsmen.
And maybe you could have modifiers for things like Greater Daemons that would affect the roll. I mean, I think a Bloodthirster would be a pretty fearsome site, and not something your average trooper would want to fight in CC. Right now, you could throw anything you want at it, regardless of the success it would have, whereas I am thinking some things would just inspire too much fear for many units to even charge, let alone suffer modifiers while already in combat. So maybe the charge roll would get a -1 or something.
2d6 is probably quicker, but too generic. And doesnt do a good job to me at least, explaining why my Assault Troops with Jump Packs managed to fail in their charge while my Terminators didnt.
58145
Post by: FirePainter
I think changing the charge roll to something like 2" + 2d3 would be alright. This gives a minimum charge range of 4" and a max of 8". Takes away some range from the current rule but give a more reliable range that you can charge. I really think there should be a minimum charge range.
But I will put forth the question (and anecdotal evidence that I never have seen a 11 or 12 inch charge), how many people are really trying or betting on a 12 inch charge succeeding?
47462
Post by: rigeld2
I don't bet on it, but I've attempted it with Carnifexes against vehicles or things that I don't care about overwatching me.
It's worked once - and I popped that Land Raider like it was a bubble.
77605
Post by: KTG17
 FirePainter wrote:
But I will put forth the question (and anecdotal evidence that I never have seen a 11 or 12 inch charge), how many people are really trying or betting on a 12 inch charge succeeding?
Yeah I play a lot of Settlers of Catan, and learned through its mechanics how 6,7, and 8 expect to come up a lot, which makes sense when you look at what all of the combinations of dice rolls can offer. I am not a wiz at math to bother with percentiles, I just know its going to take double 6s to move 12, and that isnt going to happen much. So I feel I have to be around 7 inches to feel comfortable to attempt a charge in the current game, and its ridiculous when I roll something like a 5.
58145
Post by: FirePainter
rigeld2 wrote:I don't bet on it, but I've attempted it with Carnifexes against vehicles or things that I don't care about overwatching me.
It's worked once - and I popped that Land Raider like it was a bubble.
Okay that I can understand. charging a vehicle has no repercussions from overwatch.
I feel that a little variablility is good for charging but a 10" range is too much. A minimum charge range is needed, if you are that close you could fall over and be attacking the guys in front of you. However as it stands now I fall over and get shot to pieces because 3" is to far for my guys.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
KTG17 wrote: FirePainter wrote: But I will put forth the question (and anecdotal evidence that I never have seen a 11 or 12 inch charge), how many people are really trying or betting on a 12 inch charge succeeding?
Yeah I play a lot of Settlers of Catan, and learned through its mechanics how 6,7, and 8 expect to come up a lot, which makes sense when you look at what all of the combinations of dice rolls can offer. I am not a wiz at math to bother with percentiles, I just know its going to take double 6s to move 12, and that isnt going to happen much. So I feel I have to be around 7 inches to feel comfortable to attempt a charge in the current game, and its ridiculous when I roll something like a 5.
Chance of failing charge if you are more than... 2" 2.78% 3" 8.33% 4" 16.67% 5" 27.78% 6" 41.67% 7" 58.33% 8" 72.22% 9" 83.33% 10" 91.67% 11" 97.22% 12" 100.00% So while you might say the average is 7", you still have a 42% chance of failing a charge that is anymore than 6" away, and a 28% chance of failing a charge if you are more than 5" away, almost 1 in 3 chance of failing.
77605
Post by: KTG17
Nice... How did you figure all that out?
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Not too difficult, there's 1 combination that gives you 2" charge (snake eyes), 2 combinations give you 3" charge (1,2 and 2,1) increasing up to 6 combinations that give you a 7" charge. It then decreases back down from 7 until you have 1 combination that gives you a 12" charge (6,6).
Total of 36 combinations, so 1/36 of getting 2", 2/36 of 3", 3/36 of getting 4", etc. Add them up and it gives you the chance of failing a charge (the chance of failing a charge of more than 4" is 1/36 + 2/36 + 3/36 = 6/36 = 16.67%.
It sounds more complicated than it is, took like 30 seconds to do in excel, lol.
EDIT: Sorry, 6 combinations give 7".
4139
Post by: wuestenfux
Well, the most problematic rule is that units cannot charge when dismounting from a stationary transport.
If the transport moves in the first round, the unit cannot charge earlier than in the third round.
19472
Post by: Gunzhard
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Gunzhard wrote:rigeld2 wrote: Gunzhard wrote:rigeld2 wrote:JPong wrote:Funny that the assault units that are really hurting, is pretty much everything with fleet. The agile and fast kind that dies to a small gust of wind.
This. Before I had the opportunity to abort the assault if I knew I couldn't make it.
Now I just have to suck it up and get shot with overwatch and a full turn of fire in the open.
I'm not sure I follow you... when you failed an assault in previous editions you still didn't move and instead got shot up the next turn. Why do people pretend they never failed assaults until this edition?
In 5th Fleet meant if I needed to roll a 4 on my run roll but rolled a 3, I could stay in cover instead of being out in the open. In 6th I have to suffer the extra penalty of charging through cover if I want to do the same thing, rendering my I6 useless.
And of course I have to suffer Overwatch for my troubles as well.
I think you're confused, go back and read your rulebooks.
The argument is making complete sense, I think you're the one who's confused. In previous editions, the fleet roll was separate from the charge distance, meaning that you could use it to get out of cover without having to charge through terrain. Further, you had the option of not committing to a charge if you rolled poorly on your fleet roll. If a unit with fleet wants to charge now, you're stuck charging through terrain AND you can't abort if you roll poorly, AND your usually flimsy fleeting unit gets shot in Overwatch.
Uhh we were talking about assaulting into terrain/cover, not out of - that part of our discussion was slyly omitted. Assaulting into cover, since 3rd edition was random with worse odds than now. If you're playing with a proper amount of terrain this is most often the case.
And in 5th when you ran, you moved immediately. So if you knew that obviously you wouldn't make the charge, you could move back, but you had to move, which could also be deadly; and again folks are conveniently forgetting that you could still easily fail charges in previous editions. In 6th ed you can simply choose not to run if you roll poorly.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Gunzhard wrote:
And in 5th when you ran, you moved immediately. So if you knew that obviously you wouldn't make the charge, you could move back, but you had to move, which could also be deadly; and again folks are conveniently forgetting that you could still easily fail charges in previous editions. In 6th ed you can simply choose not to run if you roll poorly.
You had to move UP TO the distance rolled, meaning you could move 0" if you wanted.
46866
Post by: JPong
Gunzhard wrote:Uhh we were talking about assaulting into terrain/cover, not out of - that part of our discussion was slyly omitted. Assaulting into cover, since 3rd edition was random with worse odds than now. If you're playing with a proper amount of terrain this is most often the case.
And in 5th when you ran, you moved immediately. So if you knew that obviously you wouldn't make the charge, you could move back, but you had to move, which could also be deadly; and again folks are conveniently forgetting that you could still easily fail charges in previous editions. In 6th ed you can simply choose not to run if you roll poorly.
You should click on the original quote in that chain to see what I was quoting. It had absolutely nothing to do with charging into cover. It was talking about how units gained range because they can charge 7 inches instead of 6 like in 5th. Units with fleet could run then charge. That is what is being discussed. In 6th, you cannot run then charge. At all. Fleet units didn't gain any potential with the 2d6 roll. They lost out of flexibility.
19472
Post by: Gunzhard
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Gunzhard wrote:
And in 5th when you ran, you moved immediately. So if you knew that obviously you wouldn't make the charge, you could move back, but you had to move, which could also be deadly; and again folks are conveniently forgetting that you could still easily fail charges in previous editions. In 6th ed you can simply choose not to run if you roll poorly.
You had to move UP TO the distance rolled, meaning you could move 0" if you wanted.
That's not what my rulebook says... and you had to move that RANDOM run distance in 5th; not very flexible.
Don't forget that Fleet units in 6th can choose to not move, choose to move UP to that distance rolled, or they can also choose to reroll the distance. Yep they can no longer do this on the same turn they assault, but also it's not just a potential 7" assault they gained, it's a potential 12" range - with a reroll (any OR all dice). I'd say Fleet in 6th edition is more flexible.
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
I don't quite get why a poetential 12" range is so useful. Its random and the probability of rolling it, even with one re-roll is rather unlikely. The average roll is a 3 or a 4. With 2d6, that is 7. Re-rolling a dice would average be another 3-4. It means you might roll higher, you might roll lower. It's really just playing with dice rolls. But a 12" roll doesn't mean much as few individuals will find it so useful to try to charge 12" frequently enough for it to matter. I do get what you are saying just feel like 12" is being a bit overstated.
46866
Post by: JPong
 StarTrotter wrote:I don't quite get why a poetential 12" range is so useful. Its random and the probability of rolling it, even with one re-roll is rather unlikely. The average roll is a 3 or a 4. With 2d6, that is 7. Re-rolling a dice would average be another 3-4. It means you might roll higher, you might roll lower. It's really just playing with dice rolls. But a 12" roll doesn't mean much as few individuals will find it so useful to try to charge 12" frequently enough for it to matter. I do get what you are saying just feel like 12" is being a bit overstated.
They are thinking of charging with fast tough units. Units that do well with this rule because a) they generally don't have fleet and couldn't do it before, and b)give feth all about overwatch because they can generally weather the storm. A flying hive tyrant is pretty good at melee, he is still better off not meleeing for the most part though.
Put that on a unit that falls over in a strong wind, and you have units that can't afford to give units extra overwatch attempts.
19472
Post by: Gunzhard
StarTrotter wrote:I don't quite get why a poetential 12" range is so useful. Its random and the probability of rolling it, even with one re-roll is rather unlikely. The average roll is a 3 or a 4. With 2d6, that is 7. Re-rolling a dice would average be another 3-4. It means you might roll higher, you might roll lower. It's really just playing with dice rolls. But a 12" roll doesn't mean much as few individuals will find it so useful to try to charge 12" frequently enough for it to matter. I do get what you are saying just feel like 12" is being a bit overstated.
Oh realistically, most of us won't even attempt the 12" charge, but especially with choice rerolls (you get to choose which dice you reroll) it IS possible... I only re-emphasized this because certain folks are continually repeating 7" as if that was your max range.
Most of the major complaints in this thread seem to be built on fallacy.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Gunzhard wrote: StarTrotter wrote:I don't quite get why a poetential 12" range is so useful. Its random and the probability of rolling it, even with one re-roll is rather unlikely. The average roll is a 3 or a 4. With 2d6, that is 7. Re-rolling a dice would average be another 3-4. It means you might roll higher, you might roll lower. It's really just playing with dice rolls. But a 12" roll doesn't mean much as few individuals will find it so useful to try to charge 12" frequently enough for it to matter. I do get what you are saying just feel like 12" is being a bit overstated.
Oh realistically, most of us won't even attempt the 12" charge, but especially with choice rerolls (you get to choose which dice you reroll) it IS possible... I only re-emphasized this because certain folks are continually repeating 7" as if that was your max range.
Most of the major complaints in this thread seem to be built on fallacy.
The added extra possible range is outweighed by the fact that you can lose the game by rolling  when you needed a 3" charge. You're just as likely to get completely found in the alps as you are to succeed in a 12" charge.
19472
Post by: Gunzhard
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Gunzhard wrote: StarTrotter wrote:I don't quite get why a poetential 12" range is so useful. Its random and the probability of rolling it, even with one re-roll is rather unlikely. The average roll is a 3 or a 4. With 2d6, that is 7. Re-rolling a dice would average be another 3-4. It means you might roll higher, you might roll lower. It's really just playing with dice rolls. But a 12" roll doesn't mean much as few individuals will find it so useful to try to charge 12" frequently enough for it to matter. I do get what you are saying just feel like 12" is being a bit overstated.
Oh realistically, most of us won't even attempt the 12" charge, but especially with choice rerolls (you get to choose which dice you reroll) it IS possible... I only re-emphasized this because certain folks are continually repeating 7" as if that was your max range.
Most of the major complaints in this thread seem to be built on fallacy.
The added extra possible range is outweighed by the fact that you can lose the game by rolling when you needed a 3" charge. You're just as likely to get completely found in the alps as you are to succeed in a 12" charge.
Hah but again, if your are an actual "assaulty" type unit with Fleet or using your jumppack, you can reroll one or more dice.
And again, if you're using a proper amount of terrain, and your opponent isn't totally new to the game, most of your assaults will be into terrain/cover - in the previous editions you could still fail a 3" charge, now your odds are better.
46866
Post by: JPong
Most units were actually sitting in vehicles, not area terrain before. It was also possible to just wreck a vehicle and make them get out. Besides, not every board is filled with area terrain in deployment zones. In fact, it's sort of worse now that gunlines can bring their own terrain with them. The aegis defense line really puts a damper on assaulting.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Gunzhard wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote: Gunzhard wrote: StarTrotter wrote:I don't quite get why a poetential 12" range is so useful. Its random and the probability of rolling it, even with one re-roll is rather unlikely. The average roll is a 3 or a 4. With 2d6, that is 7. Re-rolling a dice would average be another 3-4. It means you might roll higher, you might roll lower. It's really just playing with dice rolls. But a 12" roll doesn't mean much as few individuals will find it so useful to try to charge 12" frequently enough for it to matter. I do get what you are saying just feel like 12" is being a bit overstated.
Oh realistically, most of us won't even attempt the 12" charge, but especially with choice rerolls (you get to choose which dice you reroll) it IS possible... I only re-emphasized this because certain folks are continually repeating 7" as if that was your max range.
Most of the major complaints in this thread seem to be built on fallacy.
The added extra possible range is outweighed by the fact that you can lose the game by rolling when you needed a 3" charge. You're just as likely to get completely found in the alps as you are to succeed in a 12" charge.
Hah but again, if your are an actual "assaulty" type unit with Fleet or using your jumppack, you can reroll one or more dice.
What about all the assault units that DON'T have those?
Gunzhard wrote:
And again, if you're using a proper amount of terrain, and your opponent isn't totally new to the game, most of your assaults will be into terrain/cover - in the previous editions you could still fail a 3" charge, now your odds are better.
The difference being that you could get close using transports without completely gimping yourself. Or assault from reserves/outflank. Further, far from all assaults were into terrain, even against competent players. Transports blew up, objectives were placed in the open. Yes, when charging into terrain in 6th edition you have better odds of making it, but I think you're overstating the amount of charges that went into terrain in 5th.
19472
Post by: Gunzhard
JPong wrote:Most units were actually sitting in vehicles, not area terrain before. It was also possible to just wreck a vehicle and make them get out. Besides, not every board is filled with area terrain in deployment zones. In fact, it's sort of worse now that gunlines can bring their own terrain with them. The aegis defense line really puts a damper on assaulting.
Yeah of course there will be times you are not assaulting into cover, but as you pointed out armies can now even bring their own terrain with them, more than ever in 40k you are assaulting into cover.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Gunzhard wrote:JPong wrote:Most units were actually sitting in vehicles, not area terrain before. It was also possible to just wreck a vehicle and make them get out. Besides, not every board is filled with area terrain in deployment zones. In fact, it's sort of worse now that gunlines can bring their own terrain with them. The aegis defense line really puts a damper on assaulting.
Yeah of course there will be times you are not assaulting into cover, but as you pointed out armies can now even bring their own terrain with them, more than ever in 40k you are assaulting into cover.
Which is a nerf to close combat compared to 5th. Sure, you're better at assaulting into cover, but you're also having to do it far more often, while having a harder time to get close in the first place.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Gunzhard wrote:And again, if you're using a proper amount of terrain, and your opponent isn't totally new to the game, most of your assaults will be into terrain/cover - in the previous editions you could still fail a 3" charge, now your odds are better.
In previous editions it was a 3" charge because I ran in the shooting phase.
Now it's a 6-7" inch charge, through terrain.
19472
Post by: Gunzhard
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Gunzhard wrote:JPong wrote:Most units were actually sitting in vehicles, not area terrain before. It was also possible to just wreck a vehicle and make them get out. Besides, not every board is filled with area terrain in deployment zones. In fact, it's sort of worse now that gunlines can bring their own terrain with them. The aegis defense line really puts a damper on assaulting.
Yeah of course there will be times you are not assaulting into cover, but as you pointed out armies can now even bring their own terrain with them, more than ever in 40k you are assaulting into cover.
Which is a nerf to close combat compared to 5th. Sure, you're better at assaulting into cover, but you're also having to do it far more often, while having a harder time to get close in the first place.
This is true, and while overwatch is just snap-shots it can also kill a few chargers... my point is the "random" charge roll is not why assault is "nerfed".
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
I concur it isn't really a "nerf". In some cases it improved it and in others it made it worse. On average, in open terrain the charge is 7" with a commonality of the roll being 6 7 or 8. Other things better it. It also is usually better when charging through cover. Sorry just wanted to admit to agreeing with you on this.
46866
Post by: JPong
Except it is a nerf. It makes assault less reliable than it was. Because units weren't always sitting in cover. I played on terrain heavy boards, my friends and I had a system (1 large piece each, 2 medium pieces each and 5 small pieces each of which consisted of 3 walls or trees, or 1 small building), and eventually we agreed it was too much so we cut back and cut out the large pieces. And even then, not every charge I made in 5th was into cover. I had control with things like outflanking genestealers to attack what I wanted. Guess what I wasn't attacking unless it was something I had to kill?
72133
Post by: StarTrotter
Oh and as others mentioned, not all assault units get fleet or jump packs. Terminator TH/ SS don't, berserkers and pretty much everything but raptors don't have fleet or jump packs, Bloodletters don't, and quite a couple Nid MC don't have it if memory serves me. And I don't think many orks do either. Or ogryns for that matter. And Nurgle in general has almost 0 of that (daemon wise he is tank first but he is built to fight in cc) Automatically Appended Next Post: JPong wrote:Except it is a nerf. It makes assault less reliable than it was. Because units weren't always sitting in cover. I played on terrain heavy boards, my friends and I had a system (1 large piece each, 2 medium pieces each and 5 small pieces each of which consisted of 3 walls or trees, or 1 small building), and eventually we agreed it was too much so we cut back and cut out the large pieces. And even then, not every charge I made in 5th was into cover. I had control with things like outflanking genestealers to attack what I wanted. Guess what I wasn't attacking unless it was something I had to kill?
Oh I just hate it because it is extra randomness for the sake of randomness. Also 2" charge daemonettes and 12" terminator charges wat
19472
Post by: Gunzhard
JPong wrote:Except it is a nerf. It makes assault less reliable than it was. Because units weren't always sitting in cover. I played on terrain heavy boards, my friends and I had a system (1 large piece each, 2 medium pieces each and 5 small pieces each of which consisted of 3 walls or trees, or 1 small building), and eventually we agreed it was too much so we cut back and cut out the large pieces. And even then, not every charge I made in 5th was into cover. I had control with things like outflanking genestealers to attack what I wanted. Guess what I wasn't attacking unless it was something I had to kill?
Hah really? Nobody ever claimed that units were always in, or not in, cover. But most of the time, especially now they will be, and in this case, assault IS more reliable now.
The outflanking "nerf" has nothing to do with random charge rolls.
46866
Post by: JPong
Gunzhard wrote:JPong wrote:Except it is a nerf. It makes assault less reliable than it was. Because units weren't always sitting in cover. I played on terrain heavy boards, my friends and I had a system (1 large piece each, 2 medium pieces each and 5 small pieces each of which consisted of 3 walls or trees, or 1 small building), and eventually we agreed it was too much so we cut back and cut out the large pieces. And even then, not every charge I made in 5th was into cover. I had control with things like outflanking genestealers to attack what I wanted. Guess what I wasn't attacking unless it was something I had to kill?
Hah really? Nobody ever claimed that units were always in, or not in, cover. But most of the time, especially now they will be, and in this case, assault IS more reliable now.
The outflanking "nerf" has nothing to do with random charge rolls.
The fact that they can take cover *now* does not make the new rule more reliable than the last. The outflanking was to point out how units before could avoid charging things in cover. Because they could choose.
19472
Post by: Gunzhard
JPong wrote: Gunzhard wrote:JPong wrote:Except it is a nerf. It makes assault less reliable than it was. Because units weren't always sitting in cover. I played on terrain heavy boards, my friends and I had a system (1 large piece each, 2 medium pieces each and 5 small pieces each of which consisted of 3 walls or trees, or 1 small building), and eventually we agreed it was too much so we cut back and cut out the large pieces. And even then, not every charge I made in 5th was into cover. I had control with things like outflanking genestealers to attack what I wanted. Guess what I wasn't attacking unless it was something I had to kill?
Hah really? Nobody ever claimed that units were always in, or not in, cover. But most of the time, especially now they will be, and in this case, assault IS more reliable now.
The outflanking "nerf" has nothing to do with random charge rolls.
The fact that they can take cover *now* does not make the new rule more reliable than the last. The outflanking was to point out how units before could avoid charging things in cover. Because they could choose.
You should have always been forcing your opponent to assault you in cover where possible, but yeah in this edition it's incredibly easy.
Please explain your outflank comment...
46866
Post by: JPong
Gunzhard wrote:JPong wrote: Gunzhard wrote:JPong wrote:Except it is a nerf. It makes assault less reliable than it was. Because units weren't always sitting in cover. I played on terrain heavy boards, my friends and I had a system (1 large piece each, 2 medium pieces each and 5 small pieces each of which consisted of 3 walls or trees, or 1 small building), and eventually we agreed it was too much so we cut back and cut out the large pieces. And even then, not every charge I made in 5th was into cover. I had control with things like outflanking genestealers to attack what I wanted. Guess what I wasn't attacking unless it was something I had to kill?
Hah really? Nobody ever claimed that units were always in, or not in, cover. But most of the time, especially now they will be, and in this case, assault IS more reliable now.
The outflanking "nerf" has nothing to do with random charge rolls.
The fact that they can take cover *now* does not make the new rule more reliable than the last. The outflanking was to point out how units before could avoid charging things in cover. Because they could choose.
You should have always been forcing your opponent to assault you in cover where possible, but yeah in this edition it's incredibly easy.
Please explain your outflank comment...
It was hard to sit your entire flanks in cover before, there was almost always something exposed. Your front would have exposed points as well, but it was also easier to be shot at, since vehicles usually blocked your own LOS plus range limitations. Of course you always wanted to be assaulted while sitting in cover, but part of it being a game played by 2 people, is not always getting what you want.
19472
Post by: Gunzhard
I'm still not sure what you're trying to say... and in my experience with 5th, "area" terrain was everywhere.
46866
Post by: JPong
Gunzhard wrote:I'm still not sure what you're trying to say... and in my experience with 5th, "area" terrain was everywhere.
Then my experience was vastly different than yours. We usually had about 1/3 to 50% the board covered in terrain. 25% was the recommended and we found it severely lacking. Sometimes, the craters would pile up at the end and there would actually be a lot of area terrain, but that wasn't the norm. I don't know what kind of boards you were running.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Thread closed due to too much childish behaviour.
|
|
