kestral wrote:
A space marine devastator squad has a 2+ save in cover, can move 6" (possibly more than orks and ordinary humans, though we don't know that) and still shoot at a 25% reduction in effect, can fall back from combat on their turn, and still shoot (sort of) overwatch, may not be slowed by the cover they are hiding in. Good times, good times.

An Ork Loota has a 5+ ARMOR save in cover, hits on a 6+ when moving (50% reduction in effect). They may benefit somewhat from battleshock moral rules, though we don't know for sure.

All can be balanced with careful design, of course. I'll keep an open mind.

As was said remember points (assuming things stay as they are now) a squad of 6 devastators is ~ equal to the cost of 10 Lootas. Most devastator weapons are 1 shot each vs Lootas having more shots. It also depends on they type of cover. Marines in a ruin (if say that is +2 to save) still only get a 2+, Lootas then get a 4+. Also if there are multiple to hit modifiers Lootas care less if they get -3 to hit it is still only a 50% reduction whereas marines hit on a 6+, a 75% reduction.

As you said we don't know the rules, but it is hardly clear cut even with what we know.

Consolidate into combat is very hard to balance. Also if you have consolidate into combat then fall back mechanism is kinda lame.

Daedalus81 wrote:
Then we're circling back to point costs.

If overwatch is considered part of the cost of the gun then:

A big shoota will be pointed very low (comparatively). A heavy bolter will need to be more points on guardsmen and even more on marines. So now marines have heavy bolters that cost too many points if they don't use them in overwatch and orks don't give one damn about any of it and field more big shootas as a result.

Points costs have always been a part of the discussion (at least for me) so we're not circling back to anything IMO. Only idiots would completely ignore points costs in a wargame this complex (see AOS rollout and 7th ed 40k army building efforts by the GW design team). I have no problem with what you wrote and I'd add that quality over quantity with the same weapon at different levels of effectiveness should IMO be a thing in 40k like in your example. Marines should be using their weapons in overwatch because they're a highly trained, adaptable, and disciplined with good quality and maintained equipment unlike orks... that should factor into both their rules and their cost. The only correction I'd make is that overwatch in your example is a part of the cost of both he weapon AND the model since it uses the model's statline to fire which is it's primary purpose.

I wish the charging mechanic was at least "Movement stat OR 2D6", so at least if you were your movement speed away you can guarantee getting in.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Was it ever answered if Flamers still hit automatically in Overwatch?

I fail to see how they wouldn't since they always hit automatically now wthout needing a template.

so another straight buff to Flamer weapons? Sweet. BA Tactical Squads FTW. Furioso Dreadnoughts are going to be killer if Frag Cannons stay as a Flamer type weapon.

"No change to template weapons during Overwatch" is hardly a buff, it's what we already have.

 Rippy wrote:
I wish the charging mechanic was at least "Movement stat OR 2D6", so at least if you were your movement speed away you can guarantee getting in.

I would not be against that.

I am really wondering how bikes and jump pack units are going to work in the charge phase.

 thenewgozoku wrote:
Consolidate into combat is very hard to balance. Also if you have consolidate into combat then fall back mechanism is kinda lame.

Not really, if you can overwatch the consolidation, and then fall back on your turn I think it works just fine, so long as you only consolidate on your turn, or if it is D6, then falling out of assault is a bit more difficult. If you are a low movement unit, you fall back and maybe you get caught.

 insaniak wrote:

Requizen wrote:
I mean, it's never been my favorite mechanic in the game, but I've never heard this many people whine about 2d6" charges until they were confirmed to be left in.

Really? Outside of army creation silliness, 2D6 charges are one of the more common complaints about the current system.


Disappointed that they haven't changed this for 8th... and it's another mark against the 'giving players what they have been asking for' claim.

I haven't been asking for either thing, but I prefer it not to be fixed move charges. I don't think the community has a verifiable census. As near as I can tell there are at least 3-4 competing ideas.

EDIT : removed tone

 Rippy wrote:
I wish the charging mechanic was at least "Movement stat OR 2D6", so at least if you were your movement speed away you can guarantee getting in.

I would have preferred Move +d6 for charges.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Requizen wrote:
I mean, it's never been my favorite mechanic in the game, but I've never heard this many people whine about 2d6" charges until they were confirmed to be left in.

Really? Outside of army creation silliness, 2D6 charges are one of the more common complaints about the current system.


Disappointed that they haven't changed this for 8th... and it's another mark against the 'giving players what they have been asking for' claim.

I haven't been asking for either thing, but I prefer it not to be fixed move charges. Perhaps parts of the community should stop claiming that they speak for the whole community until we have a verifiable consensus? As near as I can tell there are at least 3-4 competing ideas.

Yeah I gotta say, in my totally anecdotal and in no way exhaustive experience; no one cares about 2d6 charges at all until someone builds them up a bandwagon to ride on.

And I personally, not speaking for everyone, have NO idea how 2d6 charges could have possibly made it into the top 100 list of stupid bullgak things that suck in 7th.

Fragile wrote:

 Rippy wrote:
I wish the charging mechanic was at least "Movement stat OR 2D6", so at least if you were your movement speed away you can guarantee getting in.

I would have preferred Move +d6 for charges.

I think this would have made certain units suffer pretty badly to be honest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thanks for staying on topic dudes! Keep it clean, and take speculation to General Discussion!

Daedalus81 wrote:

I haven't been asking for either thing, but I prefer it not to be fixed move charges. Perhaps parts of the community should stop claiming that they speak for the whole community until we have a verifiable consensus? As near as I can tell there are at least 3-4 competing ideas.

Nobody has claimed to speak for the whole community, so far as I've seen.

I don't have a problem with charges being random, just with them being so random. The massive potential range difference due to the 2d6 roll makes planning charges next to impossible. It effectively means that for critical charges you need to ensure you're 2" away before you declare the charge.

In a system where units generally more 6-12", having charges as 6+D6“, or even 3+D6", would have made more sense.

I just hope shooting casualties from the front is removed. Hiding characters in the back of units and losing movement from front casualties coming off sucks. Made me sell my orks and play other armies.

Breng77 wrote:

 kestral wrote:
A space marine devastator squad has a 2+ save in cover, can move 6" (possibly more than orks and ordinary humans, though we don't know that) and still shoot at a 25% reduction in effect, can fall back from combat on their turn, and still shoot (sort of) overwatch, may not be slowed by the cover they are hiding in. Good times, good times.

An Ork Loota has a 5+ ARMOR save in cover, hits on a 6+ when moving (50% reduction in effect). They may benefit somewhat from battleshock moral rules, though we don't know for sure.

All can be balanced with careful design, of course. I'll keep an open mind.

As was said remember points (assuming things stay as they are now) a squad of 6 devastators is ~ equal to the cost of 10 Lootas. Most devastator weapons are 1 shot each vs Lootas having more shots. It also depends on they type of cover. Marines in a ruin (if say that is +2 to save) still only get a 2+, Lootas then get a 4+. Also if there are multiple to hit modifiers Lootas care less if they get -3 to hit it is still only a 50% reduction whereas marines hit on a 6+, a 75% reduction.

As you said we don't know the rules, but it is hardly clear cut even with what we know.

From what we have seen so far I think we can dismiss lootas unless deffguns get a huge buff or they will be dirt cheap. 10 lootas firing at 6 devastators will kill 1 marine while 6 devastators will kill about half the lootas. Its not even comparable.
With vehicles getting a save deffguns will be pretty useless agianst them too.

 jhnbrg wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 kestral wrote:
A space marine devastator squad has a 2+ save in cover, can move 6" (possibly more than orks and ordinary humans, though we don't know that) and still shoot at a 25% reduction in effect, can fall back from combat on their turn, and still shoot (sort of) overwatch, may not be slowed by the cover they are hiding in. Good times, good times.

An Ork Loota has a 5+ ARMOR save in cover, hits on a 6+ when moving (50% reduction in effect). They may benefit somewhat from battleshock moral rules, though we don't know for sure.

All can be balanced with careful design, of course. I'll keep an open mind.

As was said remember points (assuming things stay as they are now) a squad of 6 devastators is ~ equal to the cost of 10 Lootas. Most devastator weapons are 1 shot each vs Lootas having more shots. It also depends on they type of cover. Marines in a ruin (if say that is +2 to save) still only get a 2+, Lootas then get a 4+. Also if there are multiple to hit modifiers Lootas care less if they get -3 to hit it is still only a 50% reduction whereas marines hit on a 6+, a 75% reduction.

As you said we don't know the rules, but it is hardly clear cut even with what we know.

From what we have seen so far I think we can dismiss lootas unless deffguns get a huge buff or they will be dirt cheap. 10 lootas firing at 6 devastators will kill 1 marine while 6 devastators will kill about half the lootas. Its not even comparable.
With vehicles getting a save deffguns will be pretty useless agianst them too.

Except Lootas shoot 477D20s at 172" range and ignore line of sight.

I'm making things up for units no one's scene yet and so are you.

I can't tell if my favorite part of 8th edition is the awesome rules we keep getting sneak peaks of, or the sheer number of people in this thread speaking authoritatively on a ruleset they know only snippets of information about...

the_scotsman wrote:
-Unless some unforseen rule appears, Vehicles are much, much, much harder to kill in assault, and now get to Overwatch. Oh joy, one of the few edge cases where an assault unit was more effective than a shooting unit is gone, because we no longer hit vehicles in the rear and now they have basic saves vs assaults. Even if it got only T6 and a 4+ save, a unit of ork boyz that would previously be able to glance out a Rhino is now not going to have a prayer.

Lets assume that you have a squad of 30 boys with 3 rokkits and a nob with a PK. Your boys have a slugga and a extra choppa.
When you are moving in, your sluggas will take ~.8 wounds off the rhino. Your rokkits will take another ~.7 wounds.
Your boys will swing 84 times doing another ~4.6 wounds to the rhino.
Your PK nob will do another ~2.22 wounds to the rhino

That's 8.32 wounds done to the rhino, which is all likelyhood will be a cracked tin can.
Without having to worry about template weapons, putting 30 boys base to base in a movement tray is not a crazy idea. It greatly increases the chances of every boy being able to shoot their guns.

Note : There are a lot of assumptions in these numbers. They guess you still get the +1 attack on the charge. That you get -3 AP with a PK. That you get -2 AP with a rokkit. The STR and rokkits and PKs remain constant. The fact is we won't have real solid numbers until the edition is released, but from first glance, I think boys not be horribad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fragile wrote:
I would have preferred Move +d6 for charges.

Play Khorne daemons. Bloodletters get a banner that gives them that.

 CoreCommander wrote:

Personally, nowadays I dislike random charge lengths. I can see some of the reasons it was introduced in WFB, but it was a fix for a stagnant game. Why it carried over to AoS and new 40k when they could've mitigated the issue by introducing a new ruleset is beyond me. Warhammer in general is a game of inches right? Then why bother differentiating the unit's moves by only an inch or two when you're throwing a pretty sizeable 2d6 charge range? The difference in movement is lost in the charge range.

Random Charge distance was pretty much necessary when pre-measuring was allowed. With fixed charge distances it is way too easy to simply maintain distance of 6.1 inches and never get caught. Of course you still can do it to with 2d6 Charge distance, by staying 12.1" away, but that also puts you out of optimal range of many Infantry weapons, so risk/reward for such is dubious.
In 5th edition, many of the charges were through Difficult terrain, which was random too (except shorter than now), somehow that did not incite complaints?

I find the requirement to get within 1" slightly puzzling. Now charge distance is measured from base to base, now it's base to base-1 inch. Feels kinda weird, but I presume it is because of AoS style close combat?

 warboss wrote:

Requizen wrote:
I mean, it's never been my favorite mechanic in the game, but I've never heard this many people whine about 2d6" charges until they were confirmed to be left in.

I've consistently disliked them since their introduction. It's just randomness for randomness's sake. On the flip side, I've never seen anyone in real life praise them ever either.

Random charges increase the complexity of the decisions a player has to make regarding movement and board control.

Considering that many anti-infantry weapons are optimal < 12" (rapid fire weapons, flamers, etc.), a player with a shooty unit has a decision to make: do you go danger close to gain the full effect of your weapons, or do you stay outside in safety? Charge ranges complicate this decision because they change the risk associated with moving:

Charges being double the movement value make a static danger zone around a unit - enter the zone, will be charged.
Charges being 2D6 create a variable danger zone - the deeper into the zone, the greater the likelihood of being charged.

Because of the way the probability works on 2D6, you generate a curve about an average of 7, making the chance of moving at least 7" greater than 6" or less. This way, being within 11" of a CC unit is safer than being within 10", and so on.

The probability for M+D6 is actually flat: you have as much chance of moving a marine 7" as you do 12", which I would argue is randomness for randomness' sake more than anything.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Random charge is still a thing? Can't wait for the optimism police to try and spin that one. [MODE EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]



I still don't get where people find their faith in gw being different now. [MODE EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]


They just torched 3000$ worth of rules instead of fixing them they "started fresh"... this is gw guys, fixing one thing and breaking two others is the business model.


The nail in the coffin for me is if fire arcs for vehicles are gone. I really don't want every vehicles shooting to work like a unit in an open topped transport, that's total garbage, if the game has indeed gone that brainless route it's a bridge too far.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mymearan wrote:


Trust me, you don't want charges to involve the Movement stat in any way.

Why? What's wrong with movement stat plus 6 or d6? Hell I'd take guaranteed charge based off movement stat alone at this point, that or choice between guranteed move and random charge salad/

Lol what? You can get warnings for being impolite just for being negative to a general audience and asking rhetorical questions now?

On the topic of charging, was going 6" really so bad? It required experience when you couldnt pre-measure, but even if you could, would it really matter any more

I think it's time to take discussion of whether you like random charge distances to a new thread.

I was excited about the return of the Move mechanic, but the Move+D6" to run, and the absurd 2D6" charge is really almost enough to put me off even considering the new edition. Sad to see that stuff hang around.

strepp wrote:


Random charges increase the complexity of the decisions a player has to make regarding movement and board control.

Considering that many anti-infantry weapons are optimal < 12" (rapid fire weapons, flamers, etc.), a player with a shooty unit has a decision to make: do you go danger close to gain the full effect of your weapons, or do you stay outside in safety? Charge ranges complicate this decision because they change the risk associated with moving:

Charges being double the movement value make a static danger zone around a unit - enter the zone, will be charged.
Charges being 2D6 create a variable danger zone - the deeper into the zone, the greater the likelihood of being charged.

Because of the way the probability works on 2D6, you generate a curve about an average of 7, making the chance of moving at least 7" greater than 6" or less. This way, being within 11" of a CC unit is safer than being within 10", and so on.

The probability for M+D6 is actually flat: you have as much chance of moving a marine 7" as you do 12", which I would argue is randomness for randomness' sake more than anything.

You and I are getting married.

So a bit of speculation that I assume other people have came to with that the ap's are going to translate to the following based on weapon profiles we've been given.

4=-1
3=-2
2=-3
1=-4
D=-4

If correct that means heavy bolters and heavy flamers will be -1 to enemy saves. That kinda makes me excited because it makes them more of a "all-rounder " anti infantry weapons.

So much depends on bespoke rules and stuff we don't yet know.

Also randomness detracts from the need to balance precisely. If things behave wonky and random even the best stufff can fail and in a gmae with this many dice rolls it will eventually. Not an excuse for the balancing job GW has done but still.

Your assuming all weapons will not be re-balanced relative to others. Who says they even want a -4 anymore?

Earth127 wrote:
So much depends on bespoke rules and stuff we don't yet know.

Also randomness detracts from the need to balance precisely. If things behave wonky and random even the best stufff can fail and in a gmae with this many dice rolls it will eventually. Not an excuse for the balancing job GW has done but still.

Alot of the rules in AoS are not random wonky stuff. It's stuff like "If you have key word A, they get +1 to Stat B".

Or, if your banner bearer is alive you get +1 to charge distance.

They are all very simple bonuses. Depth comes from intentional combos and knowing when to use what bonuses when.

 Lockark wrote:
So a bit of speculation that I assume other people have came to with that the ap's are going to translate to the following based on weapon profiles we've been given.

4=-1
3=-2
2=-3
1=-4
D=-4

If correct that means heavy bolters and heavy flamers will be -1 to enemy saves. That kinda makes me excited because it makes them more of a "all-rounder " anti infantry weapons.

I think this will be pretty close, although any weapons that used to be D will probably get a strength value and do D3 or D6 Mortal Wounds instead (so not need for AP at all).
I really like the new AP system as it opens up so many possibilities.

Take Shuriken weapons for example. Currently they are all AP5 and have Bladestorm. In 8th these could just have AP -1 and be just as fluffy without having to separate out your 6s.
I'm really interested to see how weapons that had Gauss or Haywire translate into this AV-less system.

-

 Vryce wrote:

v0iddrgn wrote:
CC has been buffed in this edition based on these five elements that have been confirmed or hinted at by the designers.

1. No longer removing closest models as casualties mean Overwatch less damaging to charges.

2. Effectively adding an extra inch of charge ranges.

3. Still being able to move charging models even of they fail to engage enemy.

4. Charging units strike first (barring unforeseen special unit rules).

5. Being able to consolidate into another combat.

All of these are HUGE for the maligned assault armies of 40K. I just hope the hinted at rules come to fruition.

Um... 1 of these items have actually been confirmed. I don't know where you got the rest of that list from, but they most certainly have -not- been confirmed.

He also said hinted at.

 Skerr wrote:

3. Still being able to move charging models even of they fail to engage enemy.

Why is everyone seeing this as a BONUS for the assaulting unit. If anything it gets you in closer for more of the enemy guns to kill you?
You need to draw the enemy closer to you, not allow him to stay in his comfort zone supported by his friends.

-

ERJAK wrote:

And I personally, not speaking for everyone, have NO idea how 2d6 charges could have possibly made it into the top 100 list of stupid bullgak things that suck in 7th.

They make it onto the list because they combine with Overwatch and casualties from the front to make assault units worse.

Backfire wrote:
Random Charge distance was pretty much necessary when pre-measuring was allowed. With fixed charge distances it is way too easy to simply maintain distance of 6.1 inches and never get caught. Of course you still can do it to with 2d6 Charge distance, by staying 12.1" away, but that also puts you out of optimal range of many Infantry weapons, so risk/reward for such is dubious.

And that would make sense if a similar random mechanic had been implemented for shooting as well. But as it is, pre-measuring allows shooty units to know exactly where they need to be in order to get their weapons in range... but for some reason assault units have to just move as close as possible and hope for the best.

In 5th edition, many of the charges were through Difficult terrain, which was random too (except shorter than now), somehow that did not incite complaints?

Uh, yes it did... It wasn't as big a complaint, certainly, but many players did dislike the random movement through terrain and would have preferred half movement or some other consistent mechanic instead.

I find the requirement to get within 1" slightly puzzling. Now charge distance is measured from base to base, now it's base to base-1 inch. Feels kinda weird, but I presume it is because of AoS style close combat?

It does at least remove the difficulty of getting into combat with models that overhang their bases.

 Galef wrote:

 Skerr wrote:

3. Still being able to move charging models even of they fail to engage enemy.

Why is everyone seeing this as a BONUS for the assaulting unit. If anything it gets you in closer for more of the enemy guns to kill you?
You need to draw the enemy closer to you, not allow him to stay in his comfort zone supported by his friends.

-

It's good for more sluggish assault armies. Orks come to mind. Otherwise, if you are walking 5" and the enemy, say Marines or Eldar, can go 6 or 7", failing a charge means you can't even close the gap, as they'll simply move away for a net increase in distance of an inch or two per turn. You'll never make it into CC like that. If you fail the charge but get super close, you're all but assured to make it into CC the next turn as long as the unit survives whatever return fire there may be.

Opinions on flamers in Kill Team? (...assuming it translates well enough on release if they don't provide some kind of update.) The assault d6 seems brutal against 1W Kill Team 'units'.

I ask because I eventually want to build up to an IW CA list that has every CSM with some kind of special (mostly ranged) weapon. Assuming the quote (think it was an official quote) of all current battle-forged lists will stay battle forged, I don't need to change that plan.

"See, what we're going to do is re-add the Movement stat to all units in 40K. We believe that this will better reflect the various types of creatures and races, and allow better representation of speed in the 40K universe.

But all'a y'all mother fethers are gonna charge 2D6" and not an inch more, ya hear?"

 Galef wrote:

 Lockark wrote:
So a bit of speculation that I assume other people have came to with that the ap's are going to translate to the following based on weapon profiles we've been given.

4=-1
3=-2
2=-3
1=-4
D=-4

If correct that means heavy bolters and heavy flamers will be -1 to enemy saves. That kinda makes me excited because it makes them more of a "all-rounder " anti infantry weapons.

I think this will be pretty close, although any weapons that used to be D will probably get a strength value and do D3 or D6 Mortal Wounds instead (so not need for AP at all).
I really like the new AP system as it opens up so many possibilities.

Take Shuriken weapons for example. Currently they are all AP5 and have Bladestorm. In 8th these could just have AP -1 and be just as fluffy without having to separate out your 6s.
I'm really interested to see how weapons that had Gauss or Haywire translate into this AV-less system.

-

I think shuriken weapons would follow the pattern the bolt weapons are. Pistol and rifle being no ap, well the heavy weapon version gets -1.

I'm also assuming the heavy stubber will be ap0 also. Like. If a bolt gun is ap0 their isn't any fluff justification for shuriken rifle to be -1

It's seeing how haywire translate will be interesting. The Arc pistol for skitarii might of got a huge buff since you can shoot it in cc agiest walkers and MC's. But it's seeing how they Handel haywire before I get excited.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
"See, what we're going to do is re-add the Movement stat to all units in 40K. We believe that this will better reflect the various types of creatures and races, and allow better representation of speed in the 40K universe.

But all'a y'all mother fethers are gonna charge 2D6" and not an inch more, ya hear?"

I actually do think this, as those with higher movement can get in much closer than those with slower movement, and then charge. Those with higher movement are still in better shape for the Charge Phase.

Oh no, I bet my DG can only move 5"

 Skerr wrote:

 Vryce wrote:

v0iddrgn wrote:
CC has been buffed in this edition based on these five elements that have been confirmed or hinted at by the designers.

1. No longer removing closest models as casualties mean Overwatch less damaging to charges.

2. Effectively adding an extra inch of charge ranges.

3. Still being able to move charging models even of they fail to engage enemy.

4. Charging units strike first (barring unforeseen special unit rules).

5. Being able to consolidate into another combat.

All of these are HUGE for the maligned assault armies of 40K. I just hope the hinted at rules come to fruition.

Um... 1 of these items have actually been confirmed. I don't know where you got the rest of that list from, but they most certainly have -not- been confirmed.

He also said hinted at.

Actually, let me retract that - 2 & 4 have been confirmed. None of the rest have been confirmed, but I can see that maybe #1 was hinted at in the facebook post when Warhammer 40000 responded to that statement and said 'Who says you still have to remove models from the front'. That could still very well be the case. 3 is simply a fever dream by people who take an article on rules to be the exact wording on how charging is actually going to work, and doesn't include the full information. And there has been no information on the Fight phase at all, let alone consolidation, so 5 is pure speculation.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
"See, what we're going to do is re-add the Movement stat to all units in 40K. We believe that this will better reflect the various types of creatures and races, and allow better representation of speed in the 40K universe.

But all'a y'all mother fethers are gonna charge 2D6" and not an inch more, ya hear?"

Unless a unit's 'bespoke' rules add to Charge range. Which is possible. Something is bound to have that, right?

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
"See, what we're going to do is re-add the Movement stat to all units in 40K. We believe that this will better reflect the various types of creatures and races, and allow better representation of speed in the 40K universe.

But all'a y'all mother fethers are gonna charge 2D6" and not an inch more, ya hear?"

Unless a unit's 'bespoke' rules add to Charge range. Which is possible. Something is bound to have that, right?

I fully expect things like Jump and Bike units charging further and Skitarii to get Dunestrider (+3" to Charge and Advance moves or some such). That or Bikes and Jump Pack will just be flat out faster than their ground variants. Like movement stats of 10" or higher.

gungo wrote:

 warboss wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
I really hope that absolutely nothing in the game allows an army to influence the flat 6 they need in Overwatch to hit.

Because a grot should overwatch the same as a vindicar assassin, right? I hope the exact opposite. They should have made overwatch a function of your normal ballistic skill with a penalty to overwatch (and repriced units accordingly). Just having it be a flat one size fits the galaxy 6 is just plain lazy rules writing.

This might be a bad example because a grot uses a blunderbuss which is basically a shotgun and a vindicate uses a sniper rifle. So yes the shotgun should actually be much better in short range than the sniper rifle have you ever played call of duty?

I came out of internet retirement because of this posting. Like COD or WH40K have anything to do with real combat.... Thanks for making me blow gin and tonic out of my nose. Having read most of this thread I'll just say that no rifleman is going to over watch with a backup sidearm. That sidearm is there for when your primary weapon fails, which makes the new pistol/close range rule seem very strange.

On that note I saw the genestealer codex online one day and said.. "I'm getting back into 40K." I bought that, a Tyranid codex and about $150.00 worth of models. Two weeks later GW releases the new rules. At least they are giving me my codex money back, GW has come light years from where they used to be.

-J

 insaniak wrote:

They make it onto the list because they combine with Overwatch and casualties from the front to make assault units worse.

Is casualties from the front confirmed? I've been really REALLY REALLY hoping for an AoS or 3rd/4th ed style casualty removal, but haven't seen it specifically mentioned.

One thing I like is that Shadowars and 8th are coming out close together. One is quite detailed and could easily serve as a springboard for more "tactical games". If GW was smart they'd produce a tactician game alongside a beer and pretzels game, and that is kind of what they are doing.

That said, the heavy = -1 to hit when moving bugs me, because it makes a heavy bolter marine superior to a bolter marine in EVERY way. Even when moving heavy guy is better. Obviously you can balance that with points, but why don't chapter masters snag some heavy bolters from the guard and run nothing else?

 Kalamadea wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

They make it onto the list because they combine with Overwatch and casualties from the front to make assault units worse.

Is casualties from the front confirmed? I've been really REALLY REALLY hoping for an AoS or 3rd/4th ed style casualty removal, but haven't seen it specifically mentioned.

I don't think we have any confirmations about how to choose casualties from shooting yet.

 Kalamadea wrote:

Is casualties from the front confirmed? I've been really REALLY REALLY hoping for an AoS or 3rd/4th ed style casualty removal, but haven't seen it specifically mentioned.

We haven't had any word on how casualty removal works yet. My post was referring to 6/7th edition rules.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kestral wrote:
One thing I like is that Shadowars and 8th are coming out close together. One is quite detailed and could easily serve as a springboard for more "tactical games". If GW was smart they'd produce a tactician game alongside a beer and pretzels game, and that is kind of what they are doing.

It would have been a cleverer move if Shadow Wars used a variant of the 8th ed rules, rather than rehashed Necromunda rules. As it is, Shadow Wars' use as a springboard is somewhat dampened by the need for players to learn a completely new system if they want to migrate from it to 40K.

That's assuming that Shadow Wars even sticks around, which I don't believe has been confirmed yet.

 Genestealer Jesse wrote:


I came out of internet retirement because of this posting. Like COD or WH40K have anything to do with real combat.... Thanks for making me blow gin and tonic out of my nose. Having read most of this thread I'll just say that no rifleman is going to over watch with a backup sidearm. That sidearm is there for when your primary weapon fails, which makes the new pistol/close range rule seem very strange.

That rule exists purely because there are all those paintings of Space Marines shooting aliens in the face whilst holding their chainswords up in the air behind them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 kestral wrote:
One thing I like is that Shadowars and 8th are coming out close together. One is quite detailed and could easily serve as a springboard for more "tactical games". If GW was smart they'd produce a tactician game alongside a beer and pretzels game, and that is kind of what they are doing.

It would have been a cleverer move if Shadow Wars used a variant of the 8th ed rules, rather than rehashed Necromunda rules. As it is, Shadow Wars' use as a springboard is somewhat dampened by the need for players to learn a completely new system if they want to migrate from it to 40K.

That's assuming that Shadow Wars even sticks around, which I don't believe has been confirmed yet.

I think it's pretty clear at this point that Shadow Wars was a stop-gap release to keep people buying troop kits whilst waiting for the 8th edition rules to drop.

It's a shame too, if they'd fleshed out the factions with a few more options (some factions are REALLY lacking) and beefed up the campaign system (or at least not dumbed it down so much) it could really have been a worthy successor to Necromunda. As it is I think it will be largely forgotten about by the release of 8th edition (while the same community that has kept Necromunda alive continue to play that instead of Shadow War).

I hope close combat is a little bit simplified. The static to hit is a little bit of a step in the right direction but the whole 1 inch away thing kind of bugs me. Me and my friend house ruled that everyone in the units in combat gets to make their attacks to make it faster and simpler. I was hoping that they would move along those lines. Guess I'll have to find out tomorrow!

Hope we do get surfing assaults. Only way it's going to make up the continued jackboot to the human face that is the shooting/assault divide

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Hope we do get surfing assaults. Only way it's going to make up the continued jackboot to the human face that is the shooting/assault divide

Do you mean consolidating from one assault in to the next?

 Vryce wrote:

 Skerr wrote:

 Vryce wrote:

v0iddrgn wrote:
CC has been buffed in this edition based on these five elements that have been confirmed or hinted at by the designers.

1. No longer removing closest models as casualties mean Overwatch less damaging to charges.

2. Effectively adding an extra inch of charge ranges.

3. Still being able to move charging models even of they fail to engage enemy.

4. Charging units strike first (barring unforeseen special unit rules).

5. Being able to consolidate into another combat.

All of these are HUGE for the maligned assault armies of 40K. I just hope the hinted at rules come to fruition.

Um... 1 of these items have actually been confirmed. I don't know where you got the rest of that list from, but they most certainly have -not- been confirmed.

He also said hinted at.

Actually, let me retract that - 2 & 4 have been confirmed. None of the rest have been confirmed, but I can see that maybe #1 was hinted at in the facebook post when Warhammer 40000 responded to that statement and said 'Who says you still have to remove models from the front'. That could still very well be the case. 3 is simply a fever dream by people who take an article on rules to be the exact wording on how charging is actually going to work, and doesn't include the full information. And there has been no information on the Fight phase at all, let alone consolidation, so 5 is pure speculation.

Seems to imply that there will be something with regards to movement of models and failed assaults. If not, what else could it be?

 Rippy wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Hope we do get surfing assaults. Only way it's going to make up the continued jackboot to the human face that is the shooting/assault divide

Do you mean consolidating from one assault in to the next?

That might be what they mean by shooting units being close together is a bad thing. If a unit that wipes out a whole squad in CC can consolidate into a nearby unit, rows of conga line troops would be a terrible idea.

Yes.

A lot of people are making the argument that a random charge range is better because otherwise certain assault units will be flat out better than other assault units. But the only bonus for charging is going first in assault, which for many different armies that was already the case! Eldar and Nids generally did hit first in melee. In fact, you were guaranteed it against armies with lower Init scores! So if Eldar got to go first all the time in 8th because they could charge farther, then there's no difference to how it works now.

The problem with random charges as always been about assaulting vs shooting. that critical roll of 2 meant that unit was dead. D-E-A-D dead, because the shooting army can blow it away without penalty. I would gladly allow it if some units could assault from the other end of the table if it meant I could never again fail a 4 inch charge

Added to OP Joeyfox, thanks.

 JoeyFox wrote:

 Vryce wrote:

 Skerr wrote:

 Vryce wrote:

v0iddrgn wrote:
CC has been buffed in this edition based on these five elements that have been confirmed or hinted at by the designers.

1. No longer removing closest models as casualties mean Overwatch less damaging to charges.

2. Effectively adding an extra inch of charge ranges.

3. Still being able to move charging models even of they fail to engage enemy.

4. Charging units strike first (barring unforeseen special unit rules).

5. Being able to consolidate into another combat.

All of these are HUGE for the maligned assault armies of 40K. I just hope the hinted at rules come to fruition.

Um... 1 of these items have actually been confirmed. I don't know where you got the rest of that list from, but they most certainly have -not- been confirmed.

He also said hinted at.

Actually, let me retract that - 2 & 4 have been confirmed. None of the rest have been confirmed, but I can see that maybe #1 was hinted at in the facebook post when Warhammer 40000 responded to that statement and said 'Who says you still have to remove models from the front'. That could still very well be the case. 3 is simply a fever dream by people who take an article on rules to be the exact wording on how charging is actually going to work, and doesn't include the full information. And there has been no information on the Fight phase at all, let alone consolidation, so 5 is pure speculation.

Seems to imply that there will be something with regards to movement of models and failed assaults. If not, what else could it be?

It is possible that is the case. It's also possible that Black Templars will have a bespoke rule that lets them re-roll failed charges, or roll 3D6, pick the highest, or add 1" to their charge range for every model they kill in the shooting phase. We don't know.

Look, I get it, I want assault to be more viable - I have a GK army I'm currently building. So I want desperately for assault to be viable. But making a list of 5 items and claiming they've been confirmed or hinted at, when only two were actually confirmed and none had been hinted at specifically (we have vague responses on the WH40k fb page, nothing more), is slightly disingenuous. Personally, I would love for all of those to be true. But we should refrain as much as possible from misrepresenting what we know, and listing them as confirmed/hinted in a thread dedicated to the summary of the rules as we -know- them.

How is the 3rd point not confirmed? The Charge Phase teaser clearly states that a charging unit moves 2D6 towards the targeted enemy unit; nothing stated that failing the charge negates it. In 6th/7th, you measured distance, rolled 2D6, and either moved into B2B, or stayed exactly where you were, completely binary.

Even if this wasn't their intent, it's a very reasonable interpretation of the information we've been presented, and dismissing said interpretation as nothing more than a "fever dream" is frankly kind of rude.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Unless a unit's 'bespoke' rules add to Charge range. Which is possible. Something is bound to have that, right?

Sure, but that doesn't really change the fact that 2D6" charging is stupid. 6"+D6" would'a been a good compromise.

2D6 charges tell me they didn't quite use enough fire to kill 7th.

 insaniak wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

And I personally, not speaking for everyone, have NO idea how 2d6 charges could have possibly made it into the top 100 list of stupid bullgak things that suck in 7th.

They make it onto the list because they combine with Overwatch and casualties from the front to make assault units worse.
.

Which is a pathetically minor thing in practice and was not even in the top 10 of things holding back assault in previous editions.

(Hint: #1 is that assault has always been hideously boring data entry. Once you're in combat, the game plays itself. Maybe if assault wasn't a more tedious exercise in forgone conclusions than a Tzeentch psychic phase, it could afford to be more powerful.)

 Vryce wrote:


It is possible that is the case. It's also possible that Black Templars will have a bespoke rule that lets them re-roll failed charges, or roll 3D6, pick the highest, or add 1" to their charge range for every model they kill in the shooting phase. We don't know.

Look, I get it, I want assault to be more viable - I have a GK army I'm currently building. So I want desperately for assault to be viable. But making a list of 5 items and claiming they've been confirmed or hinted at, when only two were actually confirmed and none had been hinted at specifically (we have vague responses on the WH40k fb page, nothing more), is slightly disingenuous. Personally, I would love for all of those to be true. But we should refrain as much as possible from misrepresenting what we know, and listing them as confirmed/hinted in a thread dedicated to the summary of the rules as we -know- them.

I'm not advocating misinformation. Merely saying that there is more to be said friend, not confirming anything, though I didn't think of what you mentioned when I said "what else could it be" - so sure it may not be move the models, or some other thing. Just sharing relevant posts.

strepp wrote:
Random charges increase the complexity of the decisions a player has to make regarding movement and board control.

Considering that many anti-infantry weapons are optimal < 12" (rapid fire weapons, flamers, etc.), a player with a shooty unit has a decision to make: do you go danger close to gain the full effect of your weapons, or do you stay outside in safety? Charge ranges complicate this decision because they change the risk associated with moving:

Charges being double the movement value make a static danger zone around a unit - enter the zone, will be charged.
Charges being 2D6 create a variable danger zone - the deeper into the zone, the greater the likelihood of being charged.

Because of the way the probability works on 2D6, you generate a curve about an average of 7, making the chance of moving at least 7" greater than 6" or less. This way, being within 11" of a CC unit is safer than being within 10", and so on.

The probability for M+D6 is actually flat: you have as much chance of moving a marine 7" as you do 12", which I would argue is randomness for randomness' sake more than anything.

This. Someone that understands probability and board control. Praise the Emperor! Although I do think needing to come within an inch of a model is odd. I would prefer base to base and don't understand why the distinction here. I'd imagine there is something else we are missing.

I'm more annoyed by the loss of an extra attack when charging. I get it, striking first is a big boon, but you are going to get shot in the face to do it. I'm not going to judge the rules in a vacuum as we don't have enough info yet, but at the moment it certainly doesn't seem like assault is on par with shooting.

 KommissarKiln wrote:
How is the 3rd point not confirmed? The Charge Phase teaser clearly states that a charging unit moves 2D6 towards the targeted enemy unit; nothing stated that failing the charge negates it. In 6th/7th, you measured distance, rolled 2D6, and either moved into B2B, or stayed exactly where you were, completely binary.

Even if this wasn't their intent, it's a very reasonable interpretation of the information we've been presented, and dismissing said interpretation as nothing more than a "fever dream" is frankly kind of rude.

It's a teaser, not the actual rule. It didn't explicitly state one way or the other weather you can move your 2D6 charge range regardless of whether you make it into assault. Any suggestions to the contrary are pure speculation at this point.

 theharrower wrote:
I'm more annoyed by the loss of an extra attack when charging. I get it, striking first is a big boon, but you are going to get shot in the face to do it. I'm not going to judge the rules in a vacuum as we don't have enough info yet, but at the moment it certainly doesn't seem like assault is on par with shooting.

Just read and re-read the article. Nothing about losing the extra attack on the charge that I can see.

What I find curious is that people say that doubling the movement creates a zone...and they'll be charged.

Yes? That's kind of the point. It's a joke that you're "adding tactical flexibility" (which is then completely compounded by errant dice rolling).

 KommissarKiln wrote:
How is the 3rd point not confirmed? The Charge Phase teaser clearly states that a charging unit moves 2D6 towards the targeted enemy unit; .

A summary of the current assault rules would say the same thing.

 insaniak wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

And I personally, not speaking for everyone, have NO idea how 2d6 charges could have possibly made it into the top 100 list of stupid bullgak things that suck in 7th.

They make it onto the list because they combine with Overwatch and casualties from the front to make assault units worse.

Backfire wrote:
Random Charge distance was pretty much necessary when pre-measuring was allowed. With fixed charge distances it is way too easy to simply maintain distance of 6.1 inches and never get caught. Of course you still can do it to with 2d6 Charge distance, by staying 12.1" away, but that also puts you out of optimal range of many Infantry weapons, so risk/reward for such is dubious.

And that would make sense if a similar random mechanic had been implemented for shooting as well. But as it is, pre-measuring allows shooty units to know exactly where they need to be in order to get their weapons in range... but for some reason assault units have to just move as close as possible and hope for the best.

In 5th edition, many of the charges were through Difficult terrain, which was random too (except shorter than now), somehow that did not incite complaints?

Uh, yes it did... It wasn't as big a complaint, certainly, but many players did dislike the random movement through terrain and would have preferred half movement or some other consistent mechanic instead.

I find the requirement to get within 1" slightly puzzling. Now charge distance is measured from base to base, now it's base to base-1 inch. Feels kinda weird, but I presume it is because of AoS style close combat?

It does at least remove the difficulty of getting into combat with models that overhang their bases.

As soon as I saw the 1" charge distance rule, I thought "hormagaunts." Those models are almost impossible to get in case to base, leading to absurdities such as turning them around so that they appear to be mooning the unit they have charged. This will work much more cleanly for haunts and many other Nid models.

2d6 is too unreliable, just Move is too reliable, and 6+1d6 seems too much of a boost (I still remember when charge distances were 6" only, and 6+1d6 was limited to Fleet models).

Personal preference: 1/2 Move (edit: rounded up, for measuring convenience) + 2d3.

For most infantry (5" and 6" Move stats), you're looking at an mean, mode, and median of 7" (like 2d6), but you essentially eliminate the possibility of gaining the lowest of the low values and the highest of the high (ranging from 5" to 9" instead of 2" to 12").

Faster infantry get a slight boost, but even a 12" move model is only slightly better than the 6+1d6" proposal that people seem to prefer, and it has a more reliable mean, median, and mode that gives us players the sort of reliability we crave.

But that's all meaningless, because the reality of 8th edition is that it remains 2d6, and no amount of wishlisting will change that.

 KommissarKiln wrote:
If you fail the charge but get super close, you're all but assured to make it into CC the next turn as long as the unit survives whatever return fire there may be.

With the new rules granting first strike to the charging unit, in the above scenario if you're close enough that a charge next turn is unavoidable, all you do by moving closer is ensure that the enemy unit charges you first. So you wind up standing around in the open for your opponent's shooting, and then wear a charge on top of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
2d6 is too unreliable, just Move is too reliable, and 6+1d6 seems too much of a boost (I still remember when charge distances were 6" only, and 6+1d6 was limited to Fleet models)..

I still remember when a charge move was just double Movement, the same as a Run.

Clean and simple. There's no need for the random here.

 insaniak wrote:

I still remember when a charge move was just double Movement, the same as a Run.

Clean and simple. There's no need for the random here.

To each their own. I like reliability, but with a hint of chaos. As others have said, the higher possible maximum gives both the attacker and the attackee risks to consider in their positioning, and I think that's grand.

But... personal preferences are personal. Who knew?

Run should be a 1/2 your movement rounded up. D6 is dumb.
Charge is fine at 2d6 (plus the extra 1 in reach). The point is that it's not meant to be reliable and creates suspense with your rolls. If you want reliable then don't try to charge more than 3in. i am certain dedicated assault units will have plenty of modifiers to this roll with crusader, fleet, cavalry, beast, jump pack, ere we go or whatever other bespoke rules they have and thus you really won't have much of an issue with dedicated units making it into combat.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
"See, what we're going to do is re-add the Movement stat to all units in 40K. We believe that this will better reflect the various types of creatures and races, and allow better representation of speed in the 40K universe.

But all'a y'all mother fethers are gonna charge 2D6" and not an inch more, ya hear?"

If they follow AoS design some units will get additional dice when charging.
Winged stormcast can roll 3d6, for example.
They also get to declare charges at 18" range instead of being limited to being within 12".
Bikes and jump-troops probably get similar treatment.

The fact that you only need to come within 1" is actually a pretty substantial buff because of the way 2d6 probability works. I whipped up this table to illustrate:



In 7th ed you only had a 41.66% chance of making a 8" charge, you now have a 58.33% chance. Only 9"+ inch charges are more likely to fail than they are to succeed.

Combine this with the possibility of more than 6" movement statistic and things are starting to look good. Except for Terminators of course, whose 5" move negates the 1" charge range buff

gungo wrote:
The point is that it's not meant to be reliable ...

Yes, but why?

Normal movement is a set distance. Weapon ranges are a set distance. Why is it just charging and running that 'need' to be a random distance?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rubenite wrote:
The fact that you only need to come within 1" is actually a pretty substantial buff because of the way 2d6 probability works.

It's not a buff at all. Regardless of whether the end goal is to contact another model's base or get to within an inch of him, the probability of rolling 8 on 2D6 remains the same.

 insaniak wrote:

gungo wrote:
The point is that it's not meant to be reliable ...

Yes, but why?

Normal movement is a set distance. Weapon ranges are a set distance. Why is it just charging and running that 'need' to be a random distance?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rubenite wrote:
The fact that you only need to come within 1" is actually a pretty substantial buff because of the way 2d6 probability works.

It's not a buff at all. Regardless of whether the end goal is to contact another model's base or get to within an inch of him, the probability of rolling 8 on 2D6 remains the same.

The reason there's a random distance rolled is because we play a game in which outcomes are determined by dice. It wouldn't be a very fun "dice" game you removed the dice from it.

 insaniak wrote:

Rubenite wrote:
The fact that you only need to come within 1" is actually a pretty substantial buff because of the way 2d6 probability works.

It's not a buff at all. Regardless of whether the end goal is to contact another model's base or get to within an inch of him, the probability of rolling 8 on 2D6 remains the same.

I think you're misinterpreting what he's saying. The chance to successfully charge a distance of at least 8" is higher if you only need to get within 1" of the target, since you only need to roll a 7+ on the 2d6 instead of the 8+ needed to get into base-to-base contact.

Unless you're seriously saying that 2d6+1 is not a buff compared to 2d6. But that'd be silly.

Rubenite wrote:
The fact that you only need to come within 1" is actually a pretty substantial buff because of the way 2d6 probability works. I whipped up this table to illustrate:

Spoiler:

In 7th ed you only had a 41.66% chance of making a 8" charge, you now have a 58.33% chance. Only 9"+ inch charges are more likely to fail than they are to succeed.

Combine this with the possibility of more than 6" movement statistic and things are starting to look good. Except for Terminators of course, whose 5" move negates the 1" charge range buff

Cool thanks for sharing! That is a significant increase in odds, in my opinion!

v0iddrgn wrote:
The reason there's a random distance rolled is because we play a game in which outcomes are determined by dice. It wouldn't be a very fun "dice" game you removed the dice from it.

Why stop at charges? Why not random weapon ranges to model the effect of wind, random movement to model uneven terrain and random number of shots to model gun jams? Why is it just charges which get screwed over? Why is it in any way desireable or fun to not know how your models move? How can you even defend this?

v0iddrgn wrote:

The reason there's a random distance rolled is because we play a game in which outcomes are determined by dice. It wouldn't be a very fun "dice" game you removed the dice from it.

Except the dice aren't involved in all sorts of things. So why randomise charging, and not regular movement? After all, normal movement happens more often, so if the objective is to maximise the 'fun' of rolling dice, that would seem more appropriate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

I think you're misinterpreting what he's saying. The chance to successfully charge a distance of at least 8" is higher if you only need to get within 1" of the target, since you only need to roll a 7+ on the 2d6 instead of the 8+ needed to get into base-to-base contact.

No, I get what he's saying. What I'm saying is that 8" is 8". You can't call something a buff because your target is closer in one example.

Eyjio wrote:

v0iddrgn wrote:
The reason there's a random distance rolled is because we play a game in which outcomes are determined by dice. It wouldn't be a very fun "dice" game you removed the dice from it.

Why stop at charges? Why not random weapon ranges to model the effect of wind, random movement to model uneven terrain and random number of shots to model gun jams? Why is it just charges which get screwed over? Why is it in any way desireable or fun to not know how your models move? How can you even defend this?

But why stop at charges in eliminating random elements, if adding risks (potential for a low roll) to balance rewards (potential for a high roll) causes desirability and fun issues? Why not set a number of hits per attacking model? Why not set a number of wounds per hit inflicted? Why should it be just damage which gets screwed over? Why is it in any way desirable or fun to not know how much damage your model does? How can you even defend that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

I think you're misinterpreting what he's saying. The chance to successfully charge a distance of at least 8" is higher if you only need to get within 1" of the target, since you only need to roll a 7+ on the 2d6 instead of the 8+ needed to get into base-to-base contact.

No, I get what he's saying. What I'm saying is that 8" is 8". You can't call something a buff because your target is closer in one example.

No, I really don't think you do.

Your unit stands 8" away from the enemy unit. To succeed on its charge, it needs to breach that 8" distance (in his table, the "Charge Distance", a separate and distinct column from "Dice Score Req", i.e. the number you'd need to roll on 2d6).

In 7th edition, that means rolling an 8, 9, 10, 11, or 12 on 2d6 (because you have to get in base-to-base contact with the target unit), which are rolled 5/36, 4/36, 3/36, 2/36, and 1/36 of the time, respectively. Adding them together, that means your success in breaching that distance is 15/36.

In 8th edition, that means rolling a 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, or 12 on 2d6 (because you only have to get within 1" of the target unit, and so only have to actually MOVE 7"), which are rolled 6/36, 5/36, 4/36, 2/36, and 1/36 of the time, respectively. Adding them together, that means your success in breaching that distance is 21/36.

If you're trying to make a stand and say that the chance of rolling an 8 on 2d6 remains the same... well, yes, but THAT ISN'T HIS POINT. His point is about the distance you need to breach to be successful, not some sort of magical change in the probability distribution of 2d6.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
But why stop at charges in eliminating random elements, if adding risks (potential for a low roll) to balance rewards (potential for a high roll) causes desirability and fun issues? Why not set a number of hits per attacking model? Why not set a number of wounds per hit inflicted? Why should it be just damage which gets screwed over? Why is it in any way desirable or fun to not know how much damage your model does? How can you even defend that?

Well that's an easy one - it's much easier to accept that combat is more random than just running forwards. If a unit fails to hit or wound, it's acceptable because all sorts of things could be going wrong - hitting thick armour, lucky wind, misfire of weapon, etc. That happens all the time in reality, and it's not too hard to imagine in game. Additionally, you're usually chucking 10+ dice, so the chance to roll around average is much more likely, and the variance per volley is manageable.

Charging, however, is literally just people running forwards. How many times have you fallen over in the past 100 runs you've done? I think I've fallen maybe once because I wasn't looking where I was going. For a unit like Wraiths to fail a 3" charge really breaks my suspension of disbelief - they can always ignore terrain and move 12", yet trip over nothing when charging sometimes, yet other times rocket boost out their ass? Makes no sense. It also strips tactical depth out of the game, because it lowers the importance of manoeuvring out of assault range. In short, it makes the game dumber, has no logical reasoning even in universe and adds way too much variance. So, it's bad, IMO, to the extent that I see nothing good about it at all.

Eyjio wrote:
Well that's an easy one - it's much easier to accept that combat is more random than just running forwards.

Try running forwards while being shot at

Eyjio wrote:

v0iddrgn wrote:
The reason there's a random distance rolled is because we play a game in which outcomes are determined by dice. It wouldn't be a very fun "dice" game you removed the dice from it.

Why stop at charges? Why not random weapon ranges to model the effect of wind, random movement to model uneven terrain and random number of shots to model gun jams? Why is it just charges which get screwed over? Why is it in any way desireable or fun to not know how your models move? How can you even defend this?

It's not hard to understand that there's a line to be drawn at where the game becomes tedious. I'm not saying keep random WL traits or Psychic powers, but having some randomness IMHO keeps things interesting.

Eyjio wrote:


Makes no sense. It also strips tactical depth out of the game, because it lowers the importance of manoeuvring out of assault range. In short, it makes the game dumber, has no logical reasoning even in universe and adds way too much variance. So, it's bad, IMO, to the extent that I see nothing good about it at all.

Agreed 100%. I'm fine with terrain slowing down units(well..not jump units of course), but in the open there should be a reliable distance you know you can reach.

They dropped the ball on this one, though there may be more surprises in bonuses for assault units.

Eyjio wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
But why stop at charges in eliminating random elements, if adding risks (potential for a low roll) to balance rewards (potential for a high roll) causes desirability and fun issues? Why not set a number of hits per attacking model? Why not set a number of wounds per hit inflicted? Why should it be just damage which gets screwed over? Why is it in any way desirable or fun to not know how much damage your model does? How can you even defend that?

Well that's an easy one - it's much easier to accept that combat is more random than just running forwards. If a unit fails to hit or wound, it's acceptable because all sorts of things could be going wrong - hitting thick armour, lucky wind, misfire of weapon, etc. That happens all the time in reality, and it's not too hard to imagine in game. Additionally, you're usually chucking 10+ dice, so the chance to roll around average is much more likely, and the variance per volley is manageable.

Charging, however, is literally just people running forwards. How many times have you fallen over in the past 100 runs you've done? I think I've fallen maybe once because I wasn't looking where I was going. For a unit like Wraiths to fail a 3" charge really breaks my suspension of disbelief - they can always ignore terrain and move 12", yet trip over nothing when charging sometimes, yet other times rocket boost out their ass? Makes no sense. It also strips tactical depth out of the game, because it lowers the importance of manoeuvring out of assault range. In short, it makes the game dumber, has no logical reasoning even in universe and adds way too much variance. So, it's bad, IMO, to the extent that I see nothing good about it at all.

I stumble over my feet walking on the sidewalk all the time, and that's when I'm talking a leisurely stroll. I'm generally paying a bit more attention when I run, and so I fall less often, but I certainly DO fall occasionally...

But I've never had to run WHILE dodging incoming weaponry in which the LEAST potent is capable of exploding limbs off bodies (Lasguns) and the most potent would atomize me before I had a chance to become a fine mist, WHILE running over the wartorn terrain of alien vistas, crumbling rubble, xenoflora, hills, and worse, WHILE setting myself up to engage in melee combat with anything from trained soldiers to 2-ton-lifting Supermen to Terminator robots to uncomprehensible bundles of talons, fangs, and drool.

Suddenly a bit less consistency (abstracted by a dice roll) in how far I make it makes a bit more sense, neh?

But you'll notice that my preference is also against the disastrous 3" charge (and the 12" what-the-hell charge), and that I prefer a tighter range.

It gives, as you so delightfully noted with your 10+ shots comment, the ability to have both reliability (averages average out) and that random, chaotic element that adds spice to the game.

 insaniak wrote:

v0iddrgn wrote:

The reason there's a random distance rolled is because we play a game in which outcomes are determined by dice. It wouldn't be a very fun "dice" game you removed the dice from it.

Except the dice aren't involved in all sorts of things. So why randomise charging, and not regular movement? After all, normal movement happens more often, so if the objective is to maximise the 'fun' of rolling dice, that would seem more appropriate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

I think you're misinterpreting what he's saying. The chance to successfully charge a distance of at least 8" is higher if you only need to get within 1" of the target, since you only need to roll a 7+ on the 2d6 instead of the 8+ needed to get into base-to-base contact.

No, I get what he's saying. What I'm saying is that 8" is 8". You can't call something a buff because your target is closer in one example.

OK, so what was the point of that? 8" is 8" sure but 2D6 is not 2D6+1

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

Suddenly a bit less consistency (abstracted by a dice roll) in how far I make it makes a bit more sense, neh?

Sure. Which is a good reason to have all movement randomised, or to assume that this difficulty is accounted for in the abstraction of the ruleset and not randomise movement at all. It makes no sense for a unit moving towards an enemy who is shooting at them to have a set movement rate in one instance and a random one in another, determined solely on whether or not they intend to poke said enemy in the face with a stick.

Charge phase??

Charge phase?????

God damnit GW, I thought you were moving all the movement in to, ya know, the movement phase and making the movement characteristic meaningful instead of this 2D6 charge range junk.

Bah humbug. Disappointed.

 Ghaz wrote:

Eyjio wrote:
Well that's an easy one - it's much easier to accept that combat is more random than just running forwards.

Try running forwards while being shot at

But walking forward while being shot doesn't require random movement? Being shot at, is being shot at, whether you're crawling, walking, jogging or running. Why suddenly make it random when you're running forwards into CC?

 Red Corsair wrote:

OK, so what was the point of that? 8" is 8" sure but 2D6 is not 2D6+1

There is no '+1'. An 8" charge is still an 8" charge.

A 7" charge is easier to roll than an 8" charge in the current edition as well. You can't declare it a 'boost' just because it's in a new ruleset. It's not a boost. It's just a different distance.

 insaniak wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

OK, so what was the point of that? 8" is 8" sure but 2D6 is not 2D6+1

There is no '+1'. An 8" charge is still an 8" charge.

A 7" charge is easier to roll than an 8" charge in the current edition as well. You can't declare it a 'boost' just because it's in a new ruleset. It's not a boost. It's just a different distance.

OK nice try mate, but your dodging is pretty desperate here. I absolutely CAN and WILL declare it a boost because, you know, it literally is a net gain of 1" over 7th.

 insaniak wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

Suddenly a bit less consistency (abstracted by a dice roll) in how far I make it makes a bit more sense, neh?

Sure. Which is a good reason to have all movement randomised, or to assume that this difficulty is accounted for in the abstraction of the ruleset and not randomise movement at all. It makes no sense for a unit moving towards an enemy who is shooting at them to have a set movement rate in one instance and a random one in another, determined solely on whether or not they intend to poke said enemy in the face with a stick.

You could make all the ranges in the game randomised if you really wanted. Movement distance, charge distance, weapon ranges. In reality all that stuff is going to depend on the specific circumstances. You can even randomise whether a unit actually spots another unit. There's a whole heap of things that could be randomised to account for troops responding to orders rather than omnipotent god controlling the actions of every individual on the battlefield.

But at that point you're going over in to the realm of battle simulation rather than war game IMO, in a war game I think you want to keep some level of control in the hands of the players so players can feel like omnipotent gods controlling their troops rather than ineffectual generals barking orders in to a phone and hoping they get to the right person at the right time.

 Vryce wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Eyjio wrote:
Well that's an easy one - it's much easier to accept that combat is more random than just running forwards.

Try running forwards while being shot at

But walking forward while being shot doesn't require random movement? Being shot at, is being shot at, whether you're crawling, walking, jogging or running. Why suddenly make it random when you're running forwards into CC?

It's not a casual stroll in the park. It's cautious, deliberate movement forward making use of cover and planning your next move as you go similar to that used by most militaries today when engaging the enemy. It gives you a more consistent movement rate than trying to run while every enemy fires at you and you have to stop between dashes to decide your next move.

v0iddrgn wrote:
The reason there's a random distance rolled is because we play a game in which outcomes are determined by dice. It wouldn't be a very fun "dice" game you removed the dice from it.

That doesn't address insaniak's point at all.

Movment is fixed.
Shooting has a fixed range.
Why are running/charging random?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

v0iddrgn wrote:
The reason there's a random distance rolled is because we play a game in which outcomes are determined by dice. It wouldn't be a very fun "dice" game you removed the dice from it.

That doesn't address insaniak's point at all.

Movment is fixed.
Shooting has a fixed range.
Why are running/charging random?

Also why isn't there reverse overwatch? If someone shoots at you, you should be able to roll a d6 and see if you can make it in to range of them. Same logic applies really, if they have time to take a snap shot at you while you are running at them, you should have time to try and dive in to melee to stop being shot.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

v0iddrgn wrote:
The reason there's a random distance rolled is because we play a game in which outcomes are determined by dice. It wouldn't be a very fun "dice" game you removed the dice from it.

That doesn't address insaniak's point at all.

Movment is fixed.
Shooting has a fixed range.
Why are running/charging random?

Because if every thing related to weapon ranges and movement is fixed, then Warhammer becomes a game for architects, and to see who is better at measuring and calculating fixed distances. I don't like specifically the 2d6 for charge, but I can totally understand why they want to add randomness to the movement system of the game.

Then why not something that isn't totally debilitating should you fail. The difference between rolling a 2" and rolling a 12" if vast. Game changingly vast.

Manoeuvre and positioning need to be important. Randomising such a core part of the game (HTH) in every step just seems like bad design to me.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

v0iddrgn wrote:
The reason there's a random distance rolled is because we play a game in which outcomes are determined by dice. It wouldn't be a very fun "dice" game you removed the dice from it.

That doesn't address insaniak's point at all.

Movment is fixed.
Shooting has a fixed range.
Why are running/charging random?

Shooting has a fixed ranged, but some weapons have random numbers of attacks, and almost all weapons have you roll dice instead of adding up a fixed number of wounds.

Running and Charging, in essence, are like the rolling-to-hit and rolling-to-wound of Movement - the chaotic variables that, added to the reliable fixed element, provide a balance of reliability and chaos that some people enjoy when gaming.

I know I was guilty of it two posts ago, but let's all remember to stay on topic here guys! Let's make a thread about random charges in General Discussion, aye?

Please do not make these kinds of posts in colored texts - moderators use that to give in-thread warnings (like this one).

Thanks,

Manchu

Edit: aaaaand I'm stopping.

I have to say my enthusiasm is slipping. GW has already failed to fix two issues (in my eyes), that being random run distances, and random charge distances. Also, they've created new problems with magic infinite overwatch and retreating from combat (RIP tarpits).

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
Running and Charging, in essence, are like the rolling-to-hit and rolling-to-wound of Movement

No, they're not. Rolling to hit and rolling to wound are the rolling to hit and rolling to wound (for HTH combat that is). They're adding a further random step to the process. It's inane.

Edit - nothing to see here.

 Verviedi wrote:
I have to say my enthusiasm is slipping. GW has already failed to fix two issues (in my eyes), that being random run distances, and random charge distances. Also, they've created new problems with magic infinite overwatch and retreating from combat (RIP tarpits).

How does the ability to retreat form combat eliminate tarpits?

If he retreats instead of attacking your tarpit, he loses his shooting attack and charge. If something else doesn't kill your tarpit, you just envelop him or charge him on your turn. Still sounds rather tarpit like to me. Heck, you've even gained the advantage of being able to shoot him before you reengage in close combat.

ideally if you can get within your base movement rate of the charge target, you should be able to automatically make it in, but if its outside of that value, then you roll 2d6. This way, no more failed charges due to silly snake eyes coming up with assault marines are only 4 inches away. Also, tarpits can still tarpit, stick 50 guardsmen in the middle of the board and just be in the way. Like its been said, if they fall back, counter charge and/or shoot them to pieces., I like it, it adds tactical depth by being able to extract units as the battle changes, but at a risk.

Actually I do find it quite the comfort knowing that even if you fail the charge you at least get closer. All of a sudden eating a round of bad overwatch can still pay off. Most close combat units suffer the most from never even making it to combat, after all.

 Twoshoes23 wrote:
ideally if you can get within your base movement rate of the charge target, you should be able to automatically make it in, but if its outside of that value, then you roll 2d6.

Oh I like that idea quite a bit. Simulating charges across longer distances might not be fast enough to make it in time, whereas those who are within 'normal' movement ranges have no issue getting in.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Twoshoes23 wrote:
ideally if you can get within your base movement rate of the charge target, you should be able to automatically make it in, but if its outside of that value, then you roll 2d6.

Oh I like that idea quite a bit. Simulating charges across longer distances might not be fast enough to make it in time, whereas those who are within 'normal' movement ranges have no issue getting in.

We have a year then to spam GW social media with this to make it to 8th edition 2.0 in 2018!

(And I'm not saying this in a sarcastic way. Is actually the reason I'm not as angry or troubled as I can be with changes that I don't like, because the posibility exists to change them in perios of 1 year, instead of waiting to the next edition!)

For those not liking apparent randomness in their favorite phase of the game off of partial knowledge of the system...

...we'll have command points... which in most systems are used to remove or mitigate randomness in limited quantities and force a level of decision making into the game.

I'd wait until we know what those do before spilling your drink and cheese all over this and similar threads.

I mean, we only have a percentage of all the rules, so any moaning and groaning is kind of premature anyways. I say we all enjoy the very fact that we are getting these kind of previews in the first place!

 Lobukia wrote:
For those not liking apparent randomness in their favorite phase of the game off of partial knowledge of the system...

...we'll have command points... which in most systems are used to remove or mitigate randomness in limited quantities and force a level of decision making into the game.

I'd wait until we know what those do before spilling your drink and cheese all over this and similar threads.

I'm really looking forward to this mechanic and hearing more about it.

 Rippy wrote:
I know I was guilty of it two posts ago, but let's all remember to stay on topic here guys! Let's make a thread about random charges in General Discussion, aye?

Are you a mod? The topic is the news of the 8th edition changes, today's topic specifically about the charge phase changes. Discussing anything about 8th ed news, and especially charging is on topic.

 Skimask Mohawk wrote:

 Rippy wrote:
I know I was guilty of it two posts ago, but let's all remember to stay on topic here guys! Let's make a thread about random charges in General Discussion, aye?

are you a mod?

No but I am worried about this thread being closed down like the last one due to off topic discussion. No one has to listen to what I wrote, but it would be appreciated if people would take their discussion to the correct area.

opinions you don't agree with about the topic, aren't inherently offtopic. They're just not the specific topic you want being discussed

Discussing the release is on topic. 3 people debating what they would prefer the rules to be is off topic. It's not hard.

Still would like to see someone argue how relating distance to movement could be balanced when you have such a huge gulf of movement values (4-12" at least, and most likely it will top out at 16" like AoS), without making fast units too fast or slow units too slow. The only solution I like that avoids this issue is making charges 6+D6" regardless of movement stat.

 Mymearan wrote:
Still would like to see someone argue how relating distance to movement could be balanced when you have such a huge gulf of movement values (4-12" at least, and most likely it will top out at 16" like AoS), without making fast units too fast or slow units too slow. The only solution I like that avoids this issue is making charges 6+D6" regardless of movement stat.

If we insist on random charge distances, D6 + movement seems fine to me.

What's the point in having a movement stat if they're just going to ignore it

Personally I would have gotten rid of the "charge phase" entirely, if you want to charge, do it in the movement phase and make it 2xM or 2xM+D6.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rippy wrote:
No one has to listen to what I wrote, but it would be appreciated if people would take their discussion to the correct area.

It's best to leave the modding to the mods, report a post if you think it's too off topic, trying to mod when you don't have a mod tag under your name is just annoying.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
Still would like to see someone argue how relating distance to movement could be balanced when you have such a huge gulf of movement values (4-12" at least, and most likely it will top out at 16" like AoS), without making fast units too fast or slow units too slow. The only solution I like that avoids this issue is making charges 6+D6" regardless of movement stat.

If we insist on random charge distances, D6 + movement seems fine to me.

What's the point in having a movement stat if they're just going to ignore it

Personally I want there to be some random element to avoid people playing chicken by skirting right outside charge range to remain completely safe, which besides feeling very "gamey" and immersion breaking also slows down the game. 2D6 might be excessive though. Just a spontaneous thought, if faster units were to get some charge benefit from their high movement, how about mitigating the randomness somewhat? Something like securing a certain amount of charge range (which could still top out at 12") the faster the unit?

Rippy wrote:Discussing the release is on topic. 3 people debating what they would prefer the rules to be is off topic. It's not hard.

One of those people is an actual mod, insaniak seems to think he's on topic. Perhaps debating the merits of the rules of 8th that we know, are in fact on topic for a news thread about the new rules?

Random charges are more fine when there's not a slew of mechanisms in place to prevent getting to melee in the first place, like in 8th fantasy (though the transition was extremely badly received). Now we don't have all the information yet, but in 7th getting to assault was painful and random charges compounded that. Don't know why it can't be 6" again.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
Still would like to see someone argue how relating distance to movement could be balanced when you have such a huge gulf of movement values (4-12" at least, and most likely it will top out at 16" like AoS), without making fast units too fast or slow units too slow. The only solution I like that avoids this issue is making charges 6+D6" regardless of movement stat.

If we insist on random charge distances, D6 + movement seems fine to me.

What's the point in having a movement stat if they're just going to ignore it

Personally I would have gotten rid of the "charge phase" entirely, if you want to charge, do it in the movement phase and make it 2xM or 2xM+D6.

Watch out bro, opinions like those got Crabz banned for 2 days for being impolite

Seems to me that if they want to avoid shooting units being able to skirt out of assault range, they should make shooting ranges random and let assault have a static charge distance

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
Still would like to see someone argue how relating distance to movement could be balanced when you have such a huge gulf of movement values (4-12" at least, and most likely it will top out at 16" like AoS), without making fast units too fast or slow units too slow. The only solution I like that avoids this issue is making charges 6+D6" regardless of movement stat.

If we insist on random charge distances, D6 + movement seems fine to me.

What's the point in having a movement stat if they're just going to ignore it

Personally I would have gotten rid of the "charge phase" entirely, if you want to charge, do it in the movement phase and make it 2xM or 2xM+D6.

I guess it makes quite big difference if you are able to move 12" or 6" closer to the enemy on your movement phase.

That said, I like 2d6 charging, it puts bit of risk and reward to the charge, especially with the overwatch. And also it promotes clever playing as you're able to mitigate the influence of randomness with the positioning of your models.

 jamopower wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
Still would like to see someone argue how relating distance to movement could be balanced when you have such a huge gulf of movement values (4-12" at least, and most likely it will top out at 16" like AoS), without making fast units too fast or slow units too slow. The only solution I like that avoids this issue is making charges 6+D6" regardless of movement stat.

If we insist on random charge distances, D6 + movement seems fine to me.

What's the point in having a movement stat if they're just going to ignore it

Personally I would have gotten rid of the "charge phase" entirely, if you want to charge, do it in the movement phase and make it 2xM or 2xM+D6.

I guess it makes quite big difference if you are able to move 12" or 6" closer to the enemy on your movement phase.

It would just be like the running we used to have back in 2nd edition...

Move M, shoot.

Move 2xM, don't get to shoot.

"...you generate command points: one use only. re-roll dice, interupt chargers going first mentioned..."

Seems there's a possibility that the careful use of a command point here and there could really change the combat phase.

I'm not sure why they would bother introducing a movement stat then not utilising it for the charge, but whatever. Overwatch is still here too, that's... great. Really, really great. Sigh.

So far, my already-fragile army has lost literally everything that keeps it alive and has gotten... probably a couple extra inches of movement in the movement phase to make up for it.

Not feeling the hype so far, unfortunately.

 Galas wrote:
Because if every thing related to weapon ranges and movement is fixed, then Warhammer becomes a game for architects, and to see who is better at measuring and calculating fixed distances. I don't like specifically the 2d6 for charge, but I can totally understand why they want to add randomness to the movement system of the game.

All the responses like this miss the point. Literally nobody is arguing that there shouldn't be any randomness in 40k. The argument is that assault units shouldn't have their kneecaps crippled before they can do the one thing they're actually good at. Would you be happy if the old night fighting rules were in constant effect in every so you had to roll to see if you can fire at an enemy? I very much doubt it.

At the end of the day, you have good and bad randomness. Good randomness is low variance, mitigatable with skill and good play; bad randomness is high variance, nearly impossible to mitigate and extremely impactful on the game. 2d6" charges are absolutely the latter of these - it's stripping depth out of the game whilst replacing it with a system in which 2 dice can make or break an entire game. That's just not good design, and I don't care how you justify it to yourself, it's never going to be a good idea. You're still measuring fixed distances to stay away from the enemy either way, it's just that now you're rolling a dice to see if you get screwed by charge distance or if your opponent does.

Eyjio wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Because if every thing related to weapon ranges and movement is fixed, then Warhammer becomes a game for architects, and to see who is better at measuring and calculating fixed distances. I don't like specifically the 2d6 for charge, but I can totally understand why they want to add randomness to the movement system of the game.

All the responses like his miss the point. Literally nobody is arguing that there shouldn't be any randomness in 40k. The argument is that assault units shouldn't have their kneecaps crippled before they can do the one thing they're actually good at. Would you be happy if the old night fighting rules were in constant effect in every so you had to roll to see if you can fire at an enemy? I very much doubt it.

At the end of the day, you have good and bad randomness. Good randomness is low variance, mitigatable with skill and good play; bad randomness is high variance, nearly impossible to mitigate and extremely impactful on the game. 2d6" charges are absolutely the latter of these - it's stripping depth out of the game whilst replacing it with a system in which 2 dice can make or break an entire game. That's just not good design, and I don't care how you justify it to yourself, it's never going to be a good idea. You're still measuring fixed distances to stay away from the enemy either way, it's just that now you're rolling a dice to see if you get screwed by charge distance or if your opponent does.

Emphasis mine.

It feels like we're all talking past each other here.

Only one person has been actively justifying the 2d6 assault range, and that includes neither Galas nor I, who have been advocating for randomness only insofar as they fulfill exactly the role you yourself admit is possible - "Good randomness" with low variance that fulfills its function without interfering with skill and good play.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

OK, so what was the point of that? 8" is 8" sure but 2D6 is not 2D6+1

There is no '+1'. An 8" charge is still an 8" charge.

A 7" charge is easier to roll than an 8" charge in the current edition as well. You can't declare it a 'boost' just because it's in a new ruleset. It's not a boost. It's just a different distance.

OK nice try mate, but your dodging is pretty desperate here. I absolutely CAN and WILL declare it a boost because, you know, it literally is a net gain of 1" over 7th.

Of course opponent can simply factor in the extra movement and force you to start your charge from 9" rather than 8" in 6th ed. Albeit means extra trouble for really short ranged weapons(flamers etc) but in practice charges don't really get much easier. More impact on board control as assault units have extra 1" push factor they push shooters away from them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Robin5t wrote:
I'm not sure why they would bother introducing a movement stat then not utilising it for the charge, but whatever. Overwatch is still here too, that's... great. Really, really great. Sigh.

That's the biggest oddity for me as well. Would seem to be sensible to have M affect charge roll somehow. But they probably didn't want to go for divide calculation for charge rolls and something like M+d6 would be pretty long static charges especially for faster units. Somebody moves 8(plus run if you can run and charge) and then 8+d6. 17-22" charge. 17" quaranteed charge distance is pretty hefty.

 Robin5t wrote:
I'm not sure why they would bother introducing a movement stat then not utilising it for the charge, but whatever. Overwatch is still here too, that's... great. Really, really great. Sigh.

So far, my already-fragile army has lost literally everything that keeps it alive and has gotten... probably a couple extra inches of movement in the movement phase to make up for it.

Not feeling the hype so far, unfortunately.

It has also gotten completely new rules of which you've seen exactly nothing so far I wouldn't worry.

so the main argument is that total charge distance should not be >24" which is not possible if M is used?

ok
solutions would be

Movement = M
Advance = M*2, no shooting or charge
Charge = M

so now all are afraid that Termis are to slow to get into CC.
Surprise, this is what Termis are about, that's why we have Land Raider and Deep Strike for them in the first place
they are not meant to run 18" across the field to charge

another possibility:
Movement = M
Advance = M+D6, no shooting or charge
Charge = M+D6 max. 12"

increase the speed of standard infantry without letting fast units going crazy

and the than you can also:
Movement = M
Advance = M*2, no shooting or charge
Charge = M*2, done in the movement phase


it is not that there are no other possibilities than 2D6 or units with M 12" charge 36".


of course 3-12" charge distance can be fun
but in combination with charging units strike first it is a bad idea

Indeed

AOS has flying units moving as much as 16" and then charging 2D6.

Whilst M +1D6 sounds like a reasonable distance we don't know the movement stats for all models. If there are models - say Beasts, FMC etc with 12"-15" move

then we get move 12", charge 12+ d6! and that's without possible units than can move, run, charge!

Could just do 6+D6 for charge I guess...

Assaulting out of the newly more durable vehicles is going to be a thing, from their FB hints a while ago. We'll find out on Transports Day, no doubt. That will somewhat change the utility of random charges.

I think peeps have to stop considering the charge in isolation, but rather the total threat range of units during their turn. Models move in the movement phase too ! Jump pack troops will likely have a move value of ~12", so a total threat range in their turn of 15" to 25" (with a very high probability of it being at least 18") before any other possible special rules or advancing is considered. A high odds threat range of 18" is plenty big enough IMO for troops like that.

I dont know if it was mentioned but in the shooting phase they gave us restrictions , cant shoot when within 1" of enemy or after advancing the same turn. They said nothing for charge phase, what if you can charge from reserves, deep strike, all transports and also after advancing now? Then i guess its shooty armies whinning time. Food for thought :p

PS: maybe they allowed fall back at will in the movement to give the shooty armies a counter measure for the above

MaxT wrote:
I think peeps have to stop considering the charge in isolation, but rather the total threat range of units during their turn. Models move in the movement phase too !

We aren't forgetting that. A basic Space Marine is going to have an assault threat range of between 9" and 19". I'm not complaining that threat range is too small, I'm complaining it's too bloody variable.

I'd be happy with a Marine's threat range of, say, 10" flat (because I prefer non-random movement) or if you are in love with random movement, something like 8+D6, or maybe 10+D3.

It's not the lack of threat range people are annoyed about, it's the variability in it.

In addition to that I'm disappointed GW kept a "charge phase", we could have had a game where models only need to move once per turn, but noooo, we have to have a separate bloody charge phase so things are still moving twice in a turn.

lonewolf81 wrote:
I dont know if it was mentioned but in the shooting phase they gave us restrictions , cant shoot when within 1" of enemy or after advancing the same turn. They said nothing for charge phase, what if you can charge from reserves, deep strike, all transports and also after advancing now? Then i guess its shooty armies whinning time. Food for thought :p

PS: maybe they allowed fall back at will in the movement to give the shooty armies a counter measure for the above

I am sad they didn't mention charging from transports etc in this preview

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

MaxT wrote:
I think peeps have to stop considering the charge in isolation, but rather the total threat range of units during their turn. Models move in the movement phase too !

We aren't forgetting that. A basic Space Marine is going to have an assault threat range of between 9" and 19". I'm not complaining that threat range is too small, I'm complaining it's too bloody variable.

Add to this the fact that the difference between a slow moving infantry and an average moving infantry is a bloody inch imposed on the same 2d6 charge distance for the two units and you get one of the uglier aspects of AoS for me.

 CoreCommander wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

MaxT wrote:
I think peeps have to stop considering the charge in isolation, but rather the total threat range of units during their turn. Models move in the movement phase too !

We aren't forgetting that. A basic Space Marine is going to have an assault threat range of between 9" and 19". I'm not complaining that threat range is too small, I'm complaining it's too bloody variable.

Add to this the fact that the difference between a slow moving infantry and an average moving infantry is a bloody inch imposed on the same 2d6 charge distance for the two units and you get one of the uglier aspects of AoS for me.

Yeah it's a terrible waste of a movement stat if you ask me. We have 10" worth of variation in charge distance which means a slow unit can fluke quite a long threat range while a fast unit can fluke a really short one

I would rather just have all the rules and start playing 8th, because without knowing the total picture it's rather hard to decide if 2d6(+1) is bad or good. Remember the endless discussions about walkers that should be vehicles but were monstrous creatures. Well guess what, GW was already introducing/testing things they were thinking about for a new version of 40k, but almost no one was thinking about that.

Back to 2d6(+1) charge. I think different M(ove) for everyone is a great thing, as Banshees simply move faster than lumbering Centurions. One could argue that this M(ove) value already influences their charge distance, because faster units moved further than slow units in their movement phase. But I would also like to see it influence charge directly, so include it in your charge. After all, Banshees will cover more distance when charging than Centurions. Half M(ove) + D6 sounds great to me, it includes the move and keeps a random factor.

The random factor is a must have for me. I'm not a competitive player and would hate to see 40k turn into a measuring match (Warmachine?) instead of a random dice game.

MorglumNecksnapper wrote:
I would rather just have all the rules and start playing 8th, because without knowing the total picture it's rather hard to decide if 2d6(+1) is bad or good.

Yeah, nah, I can be pretty confident it's bad. I mean, sure, I could think up things that are worse, but it's definitely not good. I don't need the total picture to know that level of variation in a charge distance sucks.

Given how GW have been harping on about listening to the community more, I think they dropped the ball because the 2D6 is one of the most hated points. Even people who like randomness will usually admit to 2D6 being an excessively large range (or they'll admit to playing a shooting army that is scared of getting stomped by an assault army that can actually pull off assaults consistently).

Fast moving units can get closer to the enemy before that 2d6" range, that has a big impact on randomness if you start 3" from the enemy or if you start 7" from enemy. Latter is not a range you should normally even try to charge, it's more of a last resort or added bonus, so movement stat has a big impact on the charging even if it isn't added to the roll. With stuff like 6+d6 or half move +d6, the threat range becomes so big that it can quickly shift the balance wildly in favor of assault armies. Especially as said, we don't yet know how for example the charging from transport works out. It might not be fun result to have units that could easily charge over 20" in a turn, even if it would result in less randomness.

I'll w8 until we have bespoke rules. Assault focused units could get the special rule that M is added, or a charge from deep strike , or fleet or transport bonusses.

I don't mind the basic rules being the worst and all special rules being upgrades.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also most tables are only so big. If I play a shooty army that has to stay away from the enemy and almost out of reasonable asault range I can only withdraw so far. If you try to play DE on a huge table they all of a sudden suck less in 7E because they can make full use of their movement.

tneva82 wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

OK, so what was the point of that? 8" is 8" sure but 2D6 is not 2D6+1

There is no '+1'. An 8" charge is still an 8" charge.

A 7" charge is easier to roll than an 8" charge in the current edition as well. You can't declare it a 'boost' just because it's in a new ruleset. It's not a boost. It's just a different distance.

OK nice try mate, but your dodging is pretty desperate here. I absolutely CAN and WILL declare it a boost because, you know, it literally is a net gain of 1" over 7th.

Of course opponent can simply factor in the extra movement and force you to start your charge from 9" rather than 8" in 6th ed. Albeit means extra trouble for really short ranged weapons(flamers etc) but in practice charges don't really get much easier. More impact on board control as assault units have extra 1" push factor they push shooters away from them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Robin5t wrote:
I'm not sure why they would bother introducing a movement stat then not utilising it for the charge, but whatever. Overwatch is still here too, that's... great. Really, really great. Sigh.

That's the biggest oddity for me as well. Would seem to be sensible to have M affect charge roll somehow. But they probably didn't want to go for divide calculation for charge rolls and something like M+d6 would be pretty long static charges especially for faster units. Somebody moves 8(plus run if you can run and charge) and then 8+d6. 17-22" charge. 17" quaranteed charge distance is pretty hefty.

Is it not that units move in the movement phase and then charge in the charge phase?

Am I misunderstanding?

Earth127 wrote:
I'll w8 until we have bespoke rules. Assault focused units could get the special rule that M is added, or a charge from deep strike , or fleet or transport bonusses.

Yeah. Good way to ensure bloat stays. Make basic rules so bad you need silly bespoke rules to help them out...

Beside the random movement discussion, did they already clarifies if unit warscroll are free on the GW website?

In my opinion the random movement values are the consecuences of the pre-measure system and I am OK with this. The only game I remember where you can pre-measure is Epic, where you always have a fixed movement system, but you need to roll for initiative and you have the chance to not moving at all.
Having a friend who is able to guess the exact distance between its own Whirlwind and my units, if you don't introduce some random factor while moving in a battlefield where average distances between enemies are 24" will cause a problem a lot worse than the infamous Rhino Rush.

Vorian wrote:
Is it not that units move in the movement phase and then charge in the charge phase?

Am I misunderstanding?

Yes but if charge range would be M+d6" then your quaranteed threat range would go from(in case of space marine) 9"(6" movement, 2" from dice, 1" from target) to 14"(6" movement, 6" in assault, 1" from dice, 1" from target). For M8 this would be from 11" to 18".

18" MINIMUM threat range is pretty damn long.

tneva82 wrote:

Vorian wrote:
Is it not that units move in the movement phase and then charge in the charge phase?

Am I misunderstanding?

Yes but if charge range would be M+d6" then your quaranteed threat range would go from(in case of space marine) 9"(6" movement, 2" from dice, 1" from target) to 14"(6" movement, 6" in assault, 1" from dice, 1" from target). For M8 this would be from 11" to 18".

18" MINIMUM threat range is pretty damn long.

It's more that people keep saying that introducing the M stat doesn't affect charges... whereas it does... because you move in your own turn beforehand.

So M 8 compared to M 6 actually has a 2 inch greater threat range. With that threat range an extra inch compared to now because you only need to be within an inch.

tneva82 wrote:

Earth127 wrote:
I'll w8 until we have bespoke rules. Assault focused units could get the special rule that M is added, or a charge from deep strike , or fleet or transport bonusses.

Yeah. Good way to ensure bloat stays. Make basic rules so bad you need silly bespoke rules to help them out...

IMHO it's not that they need to add these bespoke rules to help out the basic rules, it's so you don't have a few pages of USR's you need to refer back to as all of the extra info and flavour is on the dataslates. Plus all that extra nonsense in a giant BRB that just doesn't need to be there. With them having their own rules on the slates they can tailor each unit to be faster, or more resilient.....anything they want to do they can pop on there and it's good to go. I think someone checked it with the AoS warscrolls and there's actually more special rules now but it doesn't seem as bad as they're all on the scrolls so you don't need to wade through all the other USR's as the ones you need are right in front of you.

They could give jumppack guys a reroll to their charge range, or make it 2D6+ their move, anything is a possibility now. Hell, they could make Termies super tough, give them rerolls to save and even let them take a save against anything, I'm hoping for 3+ on 2D6 for their save but don't think it will happen!

I've been a 40k player on and off from 2nd ed and fantasy from 5th until the blew it up and was veeery sceptical of AoS when it first came out and basically decided I wouldn't play anymore, then I actually gave it a go and it's pretty bloody fun TBH! It only got better with the generals handbook adding the points back in, so I'm fine with bloat in the unit descriptions because you can get so much variation that way. I'm really looking forward to the AoSifying of 40k, I think it'll be great and look forward to dusting my old minis off and getting some games in.

Given how many suggestions of M+D6 charge ranges I see in this thread, it seems to me the issue is at least partially a matter of presenting the rule, rather than the mechanic itself. After all, units ARE charging M+2D6, it's just that assault weapon rules force the sequence to be broken up into two parts.

I don't particularly like the variance of a 2D6 roll, but at the same time, there is some elegant simplicity to it.

We need the rule for units first, as the randomness could be mitagated by unit rules.

the randomness is fine, as with more movement you can get close, so you have a better chance of scouring a charge.

Bloat is ok with rules from units, as you really do not need to remember them all, only your own units.

Vorian wrote:
It's more that people keep saying that introducing the M stat doesn't affect charges... whereas it does... because you move in your own turn beforehand.

No, we're saying that they didn't leverage the M stat like they could have and instead are relying on good ol' giant serving of randomness.

Marines threat range is from 9" to 19". I just think that's stupid. If an Eldar's threat range is 10" to 20" I still think it's stupid. If a Ravener's threat range is 14" to 24".... I still think it's stupid.

They're not going to be able to make use of a wide range of movement values to avoid having units with insane threat ranges. If instead they reduced the randomness, it'd allow for more flexibility in the stats themselves.

So yeah, M obviously has an effect on charge range, it's just variability is going to have an even larger effect (or alternatively they still give us a big spread of M values, but we end up with some insane yet unreliable threat ranges where models are going to bounding across the table right at the start of the game).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 His Master's Voice wrote:
Given how many suggestions of M+D6 charge ranges I see in this thread, it seems to me the issue is at least partially a matter of presenting the rule, rather than the mechanic itself. After all, units ARE charging M+2D6, it's just that assault weapon rules force the sequence to be broken up into two parts.

It's just an issue of perspective, we're talking about M+D6 knowing full well the model has already moved one M, thus when considering a full turn's worth of movement we are talking about a unit moving 2M+D6 as an alternative to M+2D6.

Seriously, no one is forgetting that the model has already moved that turn

 His Master's Voice wrote:
Given how many suggestions of M+D6 charge ranges I see in this thread, it seems to me the issue is at least partially a matter of presenting the rule, rather than the mechanic itself. After all, units ARE charging M+2D6, it's just that assault weapon rules force the sequence to be broken up into two parts.

I don't particularly like the variance of a 2D6 roll, but at the same time, there is some elegant simplicity to it.

2D6 is better than 1D6 as there is weighted average value (i.e. all results are not equally probable).

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Assaulting out of the newly more durable vehicles is going to be a thing, from their FB hints a while ago. We'll find out on Transports Day, no doubt. That will somewhat change the utility of random charges.

yeah, vehicles are the biiig question mark here. even if we assume vehicles can be charged out of we're missing some pretty important things. questions that need answering that come to mind.

1: SPEED of vehicles. I mean if a rhino has a base speed of 12 inches you could see rhinos moving forward 24 inches and then dislodging troops to assault 2d6 inches out of it. that's potentially insane board control for mechanized infantry.

2: can units disembark from a vehicle, and then make a move themselves, that could be pretty potent etc.


I'm not saying I think this will be the case (I'd be shocked if vehicles where faster then they are now, outside of eldar. and I suspect moving after disembarking will be something only a select few units can do) but these are things we dunno. that said, I do expect that assault armies will be reliant on a delivery mechanism. and rushing bezerkers up the board is a good way to get bezerkers killed.

Eyjio wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Because if every thing related to weapon ranges and movement is fixed, then Warhammer becomes a game for architects, and to see who is better at measuring and calculating fixed distances. I don't like specifically the 2d6 for charge, but I can totally understand why they want to add randomness to the movement system of the game.

All the responses like this miss the point. Literally nobody is arguing that there shouldn't be any randomness in 40k. The argument is that assault units shouldn't have their kneecaps crippled before they can do the one thing they're actually good at. Would you be happy if the old night fighting rules were in constant effect in every so you had to roll to see if you can fire at an enemy? I very much doubt it.

At the end of the day, you have good and bad randomness. Good randomness is low variance, mitigatable with skill and good play; bad randomness is high variance, nearly impossible to mitigate and extremely impactful on the game. 2d6" charges are absolutely the latter of these - it's stripping depth out of the game whilst replacing it with a system in which 2 dice can make or break an entire game. That's just not good design, and I don't care how you justify it to yourself, it's never going to be a good idea. You're still measuring fixed distances to stay away from the enemy either way, it's just that now you're rolling a dice to see if you get screwed by charge distance or if your opponent does.

This is one of those times when I read an opinion differing from mine and say, "Oh. That point really makes sense." Mark your calendars, everybody, someone on the Internet has been convinced of something!

One thing that definitely does not sit well with me is the M + D6 charge range. It's much more likely to favor certain units over others, like amazing for Harelequins but harmful to Orks, then all those edge cases like bikes and Wraiths would likely become way too powerful. 6 + D6 maxes out at 12" like the current 2D6, but has a greatly improved minimum distance of 7", which decreases the variance of charge rolls significantly, thus I now feel this would be a pretty decent compromise. So although I've been saved in the past by failed 4" and 5" charges, I guess it's for the best, and ought to have been pursued for the sake of balance, especially given how much more devastating it could be to fail a charge in an edition with potentially limitless overwatch.

Just don't fail your charge against a Leman Russ Punisher squadron

 jamopower wrote:

 His Master's Voice wrote:
Given how many suggestions of M+D6 charge ranges I see in this thread, it seems to me the issue is at least partially a matter of presenting the rule, rather than the mechanic itself. After all, units ARE charging M+2D6, it's just that assault weapon rules force the sequence to be broken up into two parts.

I don't particularly like the variance of a 2D6 roll, but at the same time, there is some elegant simplicity to it.

2D6 is better than 1D6 as there is weighted average value (i.e. all results are not equally probable).

No it's not, 1D6 each result has a 16.7% chance of happening. 2D6 you have a 16.7% chance of getting a 7, but every other result has a lesser chance, thus the variability is higher.

Don't believe me? The variance of 1D6 is 3.5 (std deviation 1.9), the variance of 2D6 is 6 (std dev of 2.4).

Thus 2D6 is more variable.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 jamopower wrote:

 His Master's Voice wrote:
Given how many suggestions of M+D6 charge ranges I see in this thread, it seems to me the issue is at least partially a matter of presenting the rule, rather than the mechanic itself. After all, units ARE charging M+2D6, it's just that assault weapon rules force the sequence to be broken up into two parts.

I don't particularly like the variance of a 2D6 roll, but at the same time, there is some elegant simplicity to it.

2D6 is better than 1D6 as there is weighted average value (i.e. all results are not equally probable).

No it's not, 1D6 each result has a 16.7% chance of happening. 2D6 you have a 16.7% chance of getting a 7, but every other result has a lesser chance, thus the variability is higher.

Don't believe me? The variance of 1D6 is 3.5 (std deviation 1.9), the variance of 2D6 is 6 (std dev of 2.4).

Thus 2D6 is more variable.

Yes, but I meant that rolling 5 orYes, you're right, but i meant that the probablity for low and high end is lower than for the middle range. Thus the dynamic is bit different as you have high chance of succeeding for the low rolls and then it gets lower bit slower, where in 2d6 already the lowest chance is quite high and then it increases faster.

BrianDavion wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Assaulting out of the newly more durable vehicles is going to be a thing, from their FB hints a while ago. We'll find out on Transports Day, no doubt. That will somewhat change the utility of random charges.

yeah, vehicles are the biiig question mark here. even if we assume vehicles can be charged out of we're missing some pretty important things. questions that need answering that come to mind.

1: SPEED of vehicles. I mean if a rhino has a base speed of 12 inches you could see rhinos moving forward 24 inches and then dislodging troops to assault 2d6 inches out of it. that's potentially insane board control for mechanized infantry.

2: can units disembark from a vehicle, and then make a move themselves, that could be pretty potent etc.


I'm not saying I think this will be the case (I'd be shocked if vehicles where faster then they are now, outside of eldar. and I suspect moving after disembarking will be something only a select few units can do) but these are things we dunno. that said, I do expect that assault armies will be reliant on a delivery mechanism. and rushing bezerkers up the board is a good way to get bezerkers killed.

This. I'm not happy about the assault rules we've seen so far, but getting transports that are useful for getting into melee without costing 240+ points back would go a LOOOONG way towards mitigating the issues I have with assault. The biggest problem is getting into assault in the first place; transports could majorly help with this.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
No it's not, 1D6 each result has a 16.7% chance of happening. 2D6 you have a 16.7% chance of getting a 7, but every other result has a lesser chance, thus the variability is higher.

Don't believe me? The variance of 1D6 is 3.5 (std deviation 1.9), the variance of 2D6 is 6 (std dev of 2.4).

Thus 2D6 is more variable.

Yeah, that's a common misconception I've noticed too. It's also an odd comparison - there's no charge distance you're more likely to get with 2D6" than 6"+D6"; a 10" charge goes from 1/12 to 1/2. Sure, you miss the nice bell curve distribution, but the actual variance is quite a lot lower. I also feel like it's a more logical system as it means run and charge are the same thing - a D6 roll - and it also would follow leadership in becoming trait+D6-modifiers rather than a 2D6 test. You could even just completely miss out the charge roll entirely: let units can assault after running with D6" run and there's no need for another movement roll, you could just use the movement trait again. That's actually what I'd hoped for in the first place when they kept running random and didn't say that you couldn't assault after running. Instead, we might even have effective 3D6 variability, which I think is just insane.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Vorian wrote:
It's more that people keep saying that introducing the M stat doesn't affect charges... whereas it does... because you move in your own turn beforehand.

No, we're saying that they didn't leverage the M stat like they could have and instead are relying on good ol' giant serving of randomness.

Marines threat range is from 9" to 19". I just think that's stupid. If an Eldar's threat range is 10" to 20" I still think it's stupid. If a Ravener's threat range is 14" to 24".... I still think it's stupid.

They're not going to be able to make use of a wide range of movement values to avoid having units with insane threat ranges. If instead they reduced the randomness, it'd allow for more flexibility in the stats themselves.

So yeah, M obviously has an effect on charge range, it's just variability is going to have an even larger effect (or alternatively they still give us a big spread of M values, but we end up with some insane yet unreliable threat ranges where models are going to bounding across the table right at the start of the game).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 His Master's Voice wrote:
Given how many suggestions of M+D6 charge ranges I see in this thread, it seems to me the issue is at least partially a matter of presenting the rule, rather than the mechanic itself. After all, units ARE charging M+2D6, it's just that assault weapon rules force the sequence to be broken up into two parts.

It's just an issue of perspective, we're talking about M+D6 knowing full well the model has already moved one M, thus when considering a full turn's worth of movement we are talking about a unit moving 2M+D6 as an alternative to M+2D6.

Seriously, no one is forgetting that the model has already moved that turn

People were literally typing that. Maybe you didn't mean it but posts are not made in a hive mind.

At the end of the day random or not is preference. There's nothing factual about M+2d6, 2M or 2M + d6 being better or not.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Then why not something that isn't totally debilitating should you fail. The difference between rolling a 2" and rolling a 12" if vast. Game changingly vast.

Manoeuvre and positioning need to be important. Randomising such a core part of the game (HTH) in every step just seems like bad design to me.

It's not a completely random chance, like a single d6.
It's a bell curve. This means that if you need 6" to make the charge, you have a 83.33% to make it. The difference is now you also have the chance to 8.33% to make a 12" charge.

While yes, you might roll a 2 -- and god knows we have all seen it happen, but in most cases you make the charge. I've also seen that 11"-12" charge work and got some of my units stuck in when no one was expecting.

I hope this is the right thread to ask. What's GW revealing today? Close Combat?

Why do you have to be able to charge within and up to 12" and make a random roll to determine their charge length.

Get rid of the roll all together in the assault phase. You can charge as far as you can move, the only way to make it longer is through your run, or equipment (jump pack of example).

Marines would be able to move 6" and charge 6", with an additional amount for running effecting the first movement. Heck, why randomise the run, just allow units to add an additional 50% of their movement on. Marines would have a maximum area of effect in terms of charging of 15" then, which they would be forsaking their shooting for.

It seems to me that a lot of people would only be happy if they could get the assault 2nd turn and proceed to face roll the whole opposition army.

They all ready seems to be a NERF to shooting in that everything gets a save and most basic weapons seem to lack rend.

Given the whole AoS in space thing I would guess most hth weapons is where the rend is.

 labmouse42 wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Shooting has a fixed range.
Why are running/charging random?

Shooting also has a random element. There is a roll of "to-hit".

Which is also present in melee. Do you actually have a point?

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Why do you have to be able to charge within and up to 12" and make a random roll to determine their charge length.

Get rid of the roll all together in the assault phase. You can charge as far as you can move, the only way to make it longer is through your run, or equipment (jump pack of example).

Marines would be able to move 6" and charge 6", with an additional amount for running effecting the first movement. Heck, why randomise the run, just allow units to add an additional 50% of their movement on. Marines would have a maximum area of effect in terms of charging of 15" then, which they would be forsaking their shooting for.

Because that way Jump troops (with a presumed Mv of 12") would have a guaranteed threat range of 31" ?! How is that in any way sensible ?

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Why do you have to be able to charge within and up to 12" and make a random roll to determine their charge length.

Get rid of the roll all together in the assault phase. You can charge as far as you can move, the only way to make it longer is through your run, or equipment (jump pack of example).

Marines would be able to move 6" and charge 6", with an additional amount for running effecting the first movement. Heck, why randomise the run, just allow units to add an additional 50% of their movement on. Marines would have a maximum area of effect in terms of charging of 15" then, which they would be forsaking their shooting for.

Why roll to hit? Marines hit on a 3+, why not just have half their shots (rounding up) hit?

Why roll for first turn? Why not just both take the first turn

Why deploy your models? Why not just have an in depth conversation with your opponent about your respective army lists and the scenario, and agree a victor?

Why choose an army? Why not just have an exam on the merits and drawbacks of your codex, and present this certificate to your opponent prior to the game?

 insaniak wrote:

Except the dice aren't involved in all sorts of things. So why randomise charging, and not regular movement? After all, normal movement happens more often, so if the objective is to maximise the 'fun' of rolling dice, that would seem more appropriate.

Premeasuring and units that move faster than others. You try getting a charge with 5" terminators against units that move 7" or 8".

Furthermore --

2D6 is random - and offers a range of choices.

I can stand at 8", fire flamers, and know that I can be charged with a 58% chance. Or I decide that 12" is better to just rapid fire my bolters (if that is still a thing) and be charged with a 8% chance.

Risk vs reward.


M+D6 is chaotic

If my opponent has a move of 8" I have no choice to use my flamers without risk of being charged.
If my opponent moves 6" there is an 83% chance. We went from 58% to 83%. These are terrible odds to avoid being charged.

If I'm at 12" and they move 8" then it's 50/50. Slightly less risky than using flamers previously.
If they move 6" then it's 33%. Those are ok odds, but in situations where I want to prevent gambling this is not a good choice either.

No risk vs reward. It's mostly suicidal.

M+D6 removes player choice.
Double move removes player choice

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Get rid of the roll all together in the assault phase. You can charge as far as you can move, the only way to make it longer is through your run, or equipment (jump pack of example).

Marines would be able to move 6" and charge 6", with an additional amount for running effecting the first movement. Heck, why randomise the run, just allow units to add an additional 50% of their movement on. Marines would have a maximum area of effect in terms of charging of 15" then, which they would be forsaking their shooting for.

Because that would cripple foot based assault armies and even further benefit mobile assault armies.
Lets say seekers keep a 12" move. This means they would have a guaranteed threat range of 24" every turn.

Lets say orks have a 6" move. They would have a threat range of 12". Under the current system they have a threat range of the following
Threat Range.......Chance of Success
.......9...............................100
.......10..............................97.22
.......11..............................91.66
.......12..............................83.33
.......13..............................72.22
.......14..............................58.33
.......15..............................41.66
.......16..............................27.77
.......17.............................16.66
.......18...............................8.33
The current system helps slower moving assault armies (green tide orks, bloodletters, etc) . Sure, there is a 16.66% of failing that 6" charge, but I'll take that any day if it means I have a 41.66% of making that 9" charge.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I hope this is the right thread to ask. What's GW revealing today? Close Combat?

Yeah, or the Fight phase as they called it.

labmouse42 wrote:Shooting also has a random element. There is a roll of "to-hit".

Oh right, our mistake, we all forgot that the WS stat was purely decorative and that all close combat attacks hit automatically.

I mean, seriously, come on.

Future War Cultist wrote:I hope this is the right thread to ask. What's GW revealing today? Close Combat?

Well, the "fight" phase, which I'm guessing is the same thing. They've hinted it'll be very bloody - frankly, I'm very interested in how both GW and the play testers got to this stage whilst believing assault will be viable considering everything stacked against it.

MaxT wrote:Because that way Jump troops (with a presumed Mv of 12") would have a guaranteed threat range of 31" ?! How is that in any way sensible ?

Well the easy solution to that is that you wouldn't give units a 12" move in such a system? It's rather extraordinary to talk about how unbalanced something would be given that A) we don't know what their movement is going to be at the minute anyway and B) the way you'd balance a 2x Movement system is different anyway.

Why is no one talking about how you can advance THEN charge? Or how you don't have to charge the unit you shot at? These are 2 big changes.

Whilst I find the random charge range somewhat annoying, the alternatives presented here have helped to convince me that it actually is a pretty decent mechanic.

SeanDrake wrote:
It seems to me that a lot of people would only be happy if they could get the assault 2nd turn and proceed to face roll the whole opposition army..

Then you're misunderstanding the complaint.

The issue isn't the distance models can charge. It's that the distance models can charge is variable, and that variable is huge. So the fact that a marine can potentially charge 12" becomes irrelevant, because you have to work on the assumption that it might actually only be 2" instead.

If they just made the charge range 2", that would still be preferable to the current system.

 insaniak wrote:

SeanDrake wrote:
It seems to me that a lot of people would only be happy if they could get the assault 2nd turn and proceed to face roll the whole opposition army..

Then you're misunderstanding the complaint.

The issue isn't the distance models can charge. It's that the distance models can charge is variable, and that variable is huge. So the fact that a marine can potentially charge 12" becomes irrelevant, because you have to work on the assumption that it might actually only be 2" instead.

If they just made the charge range 2", that would still be preferable to the current system.

Personally I am happy with it - you make a informed choice based on the likely outcome - a short charge should work, a medium charge might work and long charge is unlikely.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Shooting has a fixed range.
Why are running/charging random?

Shooting also has a random element. There is a roll of "to-hit".

Which is also present in melee. Do you actually have a point?

With as long as you have played this game, you should know the answer to this.
Assault units can attack in both turns at full WS. Shooting units can only overwatch was BS1. This more than makes up for the needing to use WS to hit in assault -- because you get twice as many attacks.

Daedalus81 wrote:

Premeasuring and units that move faster than others. You try getting a charge with 5" terminators against units that move 7" or 8".

I don't see a problem with faster units being able to outmanoeuvre slower units. That's kinda the point of having faster units.

 insaniak wrote:

If they just made the charge range 2", that would still be preferable to the current system.

Then just pretend it is 2" if that makes you happy. It is the minimum guaranteed range after all. No one forces you to declare charge if the enemy is further than 2" away.

Bull0 wrote:Why roll to hit? Marines hit on a 3+, why not just have half their shots (rounding up) hit?

Why roll for first turn? Why not just both take the first turn

Why deploy your models? Why not just have an in depth conversation with your opponent about your respective army lists and the scenario, and agree a victor?

Why choose an army? Why not just have an exam on the merits and drawbacks of your codex, and present this certificate to your opponent prior to the game?

Spoken like someone who's never played a Euro-style board game. Or chess, frankly. I'm not entirely sure why you think winners are predetermined in a complex game if you know what your actions actually do before you've taken them, but you couldn't be further from the truth. I mean, to be blunt, I don't even know why you're comparing rolling to hit (which is also present in combat anyway) with actually getting your models to do the thing they're designed to do without a random roll, let alone the nonsense about first turns or the hyperbole at the end, but there we go. Once again - the equivalent would be always randomly testing weapon range; do you think you would actually enjoy random gun ranges?

Daedalus81 wrote:
M+D6 removes player choice.
Double move removes plater choice

I disagree. I would say that M+D6 removes choice, 2D6 removes player agency. With the former, you can accurately plan for what will happen with much higher certainty; even in your examples the player is choosing not to use certain things based on assumptions around the opponent's likely army builds. This is strategy in list building. In a 2D6 system, you really have no choice - either the dice will fail you or they won't; there's no tactical decision, your fate is just left to total chance. I do not accept that the latter is anything other than strictly inferior.

DeusExMachin on GW-Fanworld made some nice graphs to comapere different dice rolls for charge








outcome is always the same, except that aiming for 6" charge distance gives you 4 possibilities to fail on 2D6 while just 1 with 2D3*2

or, take the minimum risk, the minimum distance is 4", 6" and 7" (with the 1" melee distance) you can charge.

variation and randomness differs a lot and using 2D6 makes only sense if you want to have the most random outcome without using a D12 and/or to have less than 6" save charge range

it is not about first turn charge wit double movement, but having a more reliable number for your melee units

 labmouse42 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Shooting has a fixed range.
Why are running/charging random?

Shooting also has a random element. There is a roll of "to-hit".

Which is also present in melee. Do you actually have a point?

With as long as you have played this game, you should know the answer to this.
Assault units can attack in both turns at full WS. Shooting units can only overwatch was BS1. This more than makes up for the needing to use WS to hit in assault -- because you get twice as many attacks.

Shooting units can start shooting turn 1 and not waste a bunch of turns getting into position. There's your balancing feature for melee happening twice as often. How does this justify melee having to jump through hoops that simply aren't present for shooting?

There used to be nightfighting rules that sometimes prevented ranged units from shooting at stuff despite it being in range. There used to be morale checks if one wanted to shoot at anything that wasn't the closest unit. THOSE would be analogous to the random charge distance in that there's a "do you even get to try to attack?" moment.

 labmouse42 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Then why not something that isn't totally debilitating should you fail. The difference between rolling a 2" and rolling a 12" if vast. Game changingly vast.

Manoeuvre and positioning need to be important. Randomising such a core part of the game (HTH) in every step just seems like bad design to me.

It's not a completely random chance, like a single d6.
It's a bell curve. This means that if you need 6" to make the charge, you have a 83.33% to make it. The difference is now you also have the chance to 8.33% to make a 12" charge.

While yes, you might roll a 2 -- and god knows we have all seen it happen, but in most cases you make the charge. I've also seen that 11"-12" charge work and got some of my units stuck in when no one was expecting.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Shooting has a fixed range.
Why are running/charging random?

Shooting also has a random element. There is a roll of "to-hit".

I don't think I've ever seen more rage coming out of gunline players than with the primaris power of my Harlequins' phantasmancy discipline.

What do you mean, I'm out of range? I just roll 2d6?? My range could be 4"? What do you mean I don't get to just select another target, you've got 3 other units in range of the number I rolled!

to-hit rolls exist in every form of combat. They're not what's being complained about. What is being complained about is an entirely all-or-nothing, highly variable roll nearly wholly independent of the quality of troop you're using, which determines the success or failure of the unit. The roll doesn't determine whether you succeed, it determines whether you're even allowed to try, which is not present in shooting, when the strongest shooting armies have the same or even higher maximum damage without the need for a random roll. A full Tau gunline can do just as much damage, can table you just as quickly, as a full melee KDK army getting into combat.

I invite all these people telling assault army players to stop complaining to try a simple experiment. Play a game with the following rules, and see whether you enjoy it or not:

All weapons with a 12" range get 2d6*2" range
All weapons with 24" range get 3D6*2" range
All weapons with 36" range get 4D6*2" range
All weapons with 48" range get 5D6*2" range.

If you declare a target and you're out of range, you don't get to fire. Your army will be just as good, if not better, because of the increased maximum ranges you can get! A 12" pistol could DOUBLE its current range, and gets a 14" range on average!

 labmouse42 wrote:

Shooting also has a random element. There is a roll of "to-hit".

CC also has a to hit roll

but how would players feel if the Bolter profile would be:
S4, Range: 4D6, Damage 1

on average you get your 12" rapid fire range, so everything is exactly the same like with fixed 24" but you have more player choice and tactic.....

the_scotsman wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Then why not something that isn't totally debilitating should you fail. The difference between rolling a 2" and rolling a 12" if vast. Game changingly vast.

Manoeuvre and positioning need to be important. Randomising such a core part of the game (HTH) in every step just seems like bad design to me.

It's not a completely random chance, like a single d6.
It's a bell curve. This means that if you need 6" to make the charge, you have a 83.33% to make it. The difference is now you also have the chance to 8.33% to make a 12" charge.

While yes, you might roll a 2 -- and god knows we have all seen it happen, but in most cases you make the charge. I've also seen that 11"-12" charge work and got some of my units stuck in when no one was expecting.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Shooting has a fixed range.
Why are running/charging random?

Shooting also has a random element. There is a roll of "to-hit".

I don't think I've ever seen more rage coming out of gunline players than with the primaris power of my Harlequins' phantasmancy discipline.

What do you mean, I'm out of range? I just roll 2d6?? My range could be 4"? What do you mean I don't get to just select another target, you've got 3 other units in range of the number I rolled!

to-hit rolls exist in every form of combat. They're not what's being complained about. What is being complained about is an entirely all-or-nothing, highly variable roll nearly wholly independent of the quality of troop you're using, which determines the success or failure of the unit. The roll doesn't determine whether you succeed, it determines whether you're even allowed to try, which is not present in shooting, when the strongest shooting armies have the same or even higher maximum damage without the need for a random roll. A full Tau gunline can do just as much damage, can table you just as quickly, as a full melee KDK army getting into combat.

Thank you! The harlequin primaris power is an excellent example of something that would be similar to random charge ranges for shooting. You don't even get to try sometimes, the RNGods just fart on your army.

Eyjio wrote:

I disagree. I would say that M+D6 removes choice, 2D6 removes player agency.

I don't think any of the options presented remove choice. Some remove some of the elements of chance, leaving you with the choice of whether or not charging is a good idea.

Eyjio wrote:

MaxT wrote:Because that way Jump troops (with a presumed Mv of 12") would have a guaranteed threat range of 31" ?! How is that in any way sensible ?

Well the easy solution to that is that you wouldn't give units a 12" move in such a system? It's rather extraordinary to talk about how unbalanced something would be given that A) we don't know what their movement is going to be at the minute anyway and B) the way you'd balance a 2x Movement system is different anyway.

So then you have Mv values far too close together, so any time you're not charging there's too little differentiation. Marines moving 6" on foot, and a max of 8" on a bike without breaking threat ranges. Bikes and Jump troops barely moving quicker than foot sloggers outside of charging things is way worse than abit of variation in charging.

Eyjio wrote:

Spoken like someone who's never played a Euro-style board game. Or chess, frankly. I'm not entirely sure why you think winners are predetermined in a complex game if you know what your actions actually do before you've taken them, but you couldn't be further from the truth. I mean, to be blunt, I don't even know why you're comparing rolling to hit (which is also present in combat anyway) with actually getting your models to do the thing they're designed to do without a random roll, let alone the nonsense about first turns or the hyperbole at the end, but there we go. Once again - the equivalent would be always randomly testing weapon range; do you think you would actually enjoy random gun ranges?

Mate, I *wish* I'd never played a euro-style game, I'd have way more space in my cupboard and money in the bank.

It was just a bit of lighthearted fun to make the point that random chance is employed mostly to make the game a bit more interesting and fun to play, so debating its removal from the game is a bit of a waste of time. Hence the gradual move from reasonable to exaggerated in my suggestions. You know, added it for yuks. Like dice rolls. But you're right, everyone should just play chess instead

 Bull0 wrote:

Eyjio wrote:

Spoken like someone who's never played a Euro-style board game. Or chess, frankly. I'm not entirely sure why you think winners are predetermined in a complex game if you know what your actions actually do before you've taken them, but you couldn't be further from the truth. I mean, to be blunt, I don't even know why you're comparing rolling to hit (which is also present in combat anyway) with actually getting your models to do the thing they're designed to do without a random roll, let alone the nonsense about first turns or the hyperbole at the end, but there we go. Once again - the equivalent would be always randomly testing weapon range; do you think you would actually enjoy random gun ranges?

Mate, I *wish* I'd never played a euro-style game, I'd have way more space in my cupboard and money in the bank.

It was just a bit of lighthearted fun to make the point that random chance is employed mostly to make the game a bit more interesting and fun to play, so debating its removal from the game is a bit of a waste of time. Hence the gradual move from reasonable to exaggerated in my suggestions. You know, added it for yuks. Like dice rolls. But you're right, everyone should just play chess instead

Thinking that "dice rolls are fun!" regardless of context is how we got Chaos Daemons.

 Bull0 wrote:
It was just a bit of lighthearted fun to make the point that random chance is employed mostly to make the game a bit more interesting and fun to play, so debating its removal from the game is a bit of a waste of time. Hence the gradual move from reasonable to exaggerated in my suggestions. You know, added it for yuks. Like dice rolls. But you're right, everyone should just play chess instead

Pretty much. If a game involves dice there's some variability. That can range from complete randomness (each player rolls 1 dice, highest rolls wins, GG) to close to chess levels of non-impact (say everything is predetermined except there's 1 in 100,000 chance of a move not working). 2 extremes, and wargames traditionally falls somewhere in the middle. Now exactly where along that line a person personally likes their variability, and under which specific mechanics they like their variability is simply opinion, not any factoid of "this level of variability is good, all others are bad." It's opinion. And opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one.

We can argue until we are blue in the face. Seems that GW has decided two things:

A minimum guaranteed Charge Range of 3" (due to the 1" engagement zone addition) is long enough. They could have increased it in many ways (2d6 with minimum of Move, Move +d6, d6+3, etc) but choose to make just he little adjustment with engagement zone

They like long epic charges so kept 2d6 instead of something shorter like flat Move

Musing on how stupid it is really isn't going to change things before they have even released the ruleset.

I don't really get where the panic concerning the viability of assault units and armies is coming from. As said before the probability curve of 2D6 is a bell curve. I last actively played in 5th edition (kept up to date with the rules and meta of the 6th and read the rules for the 7th) and back then very few people were complaining about the standardized 6" charge range with very few exceptions such as cavalry (which had a 6" movement to compensate). With the new 2D6 and the +1" bonus factored in, you have an around ~84% change to make that very same 6" charge. You also have a ~9% change to get a TWICE the charge range, with an exponentially increasing probability to get a charge range better than 6". Meanwhile the new minimum charge range, if you roll snake-eyes, is 3", and overall the probability to roll any charge distance below six inches is 16%. Those are goood odds and also mean that most of the time you will have a higher charge range than you did back in the 5th Edition, and that's before facturing in the extra movement some units get in the movement phase that happens prior in the same turn, and there might even be units with a special rule equivalent of the old sprint rule on top of it. People will realize that soon enough when they actually start playing a few games with the new rules (heck, or even test it out a few times with actual minis with the rules we have right now).

The big problem with the 2D6" charge in the 7th Edition is neither the randomness or even the overwatch as it is written in the rulebook itself.
The by far BIGGEST problem to cause the death of assault armies is the whole bullfeth "remove units from the front" mechanic that makes overwatch able to cancel charges in the first place, which is further escalated by the broken and overpowered overwatch buffs such as the Tau have them. Without the front model casualty removal and those crappy "x-number of units now overwatching your one assault" and other overwatch buffs the causualties are statistically insignificant when overwatch only happens from one or two units because of the 18" hit chance, unless your assault units is already falling apart to the point of those nigligible effects making your unit combat ineffective.

The good thing is that there are several factors that strongly indicate that the model removal from the front being gone:
a) The largest amount of changes so far has been based on AoS mechanics that are generally approved by the AoS community. in AoS casualty model removal is at the discretion of the unit owner, not unlike to how it was back in 40k 5th edition (at least wwhen equipment based wound spreading shenigans weren't involved).
b) We know that the playtesting has been done by very experienced tournament players and from many of the rule changes, particularly sorely needed buffs such as the pistol buff that we have been waiting for for decades, I at least feel like GW actually bothered to listen to the playtester feedback and incorporate it this time. Every single experienced tournament player will have called out the rather obvious reasons why assault armies are dead in the water in this edition. Same for the Tau overwatch boni.
c) The hints dropped by the G.W. staff member on the Warhammer community facebook, who seems to be part of the rules team as well considering the rather informed comments on not yet announced rule changes (such as the time when he/she flat-out confirmed that free daemon summoning will be gone), dropped a hint that the model removal will very likely not work as in this edition (it was a response to someone assuming that models will be removed from the front as it is handles now). If it would be otherwise there wouldn't have been any point in the staff responding in the first place (hinting that the rules are different than what they are going to be revealed to be rather soonish is pointless and harms their credibility and their new fanbase oriented NewGWtm image they want to establish, especially when pre-orders haven't even started yet).

So removal from the front and broken Tau-esque overwatch buffs are gone (I would be really surprised if either are still in) then even the new "unlimited overwatch" ability shouldn't be a big issue most of the time unless you make a habit out of declaring charges at 9"-12" of distance or declare charges against multiple units (who then all get to overwatch you unless they are already engaged).

At the very least people should wait how the casualty removal is going to work before going into "the sky is falling" mode.

 Crimson wrote:
Whilst I find the random charge range somewhat annoying, the alternatives presented here have helped to convince me that it actually is a pretty decent mechanic.

Absolutely this. Neither the M+6", M+D6 nor the 6"+D6 charge ranges that have been proposed in here would be balanced as high movement units such as jump pack users would have inane charge ranges which would likely enable turn 1 assaults (only way to prevent that with up to 31" of assault threat range being every game having both players start in the far corners or forcing deployment right along the table edge). No unit starting in the deployment zone belonging to the player going first should be able to get a turn 1 charge (or even any charges in the first turn, period, unless it's extreme cases such as enemy infiltrators or drop pods setting up shop next to your army), it would completely break armies such as Tau or IG that completely rely on shooting. Fast moving, high assault threat range units would dominate the meta while footslogging assault infantry would still be underdogs.

There is a limit to a ranged weapons ability to fire, it is called terrain. Terrain will not only block line of sight, but also grant a bonus to saves. This means that shooting will be viable in regards to getting to target a unit, but the casualties caused will actually be significantly lower.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
There is a limit to a ranged weapons ability to fire, it is called terrain. Terrain will not only block line of sight, but also grant a bonus to saves. This means that shooting will be viable in regards to getting to target a unit, but the casualties caused will actually be significantly lower.

The same terrain that hampers charges?

 alextroy wrote:
We can argue until we are blue in the face. Seems that GW has decided two things:
Musing on how stupid it is really isn't going to change things before they have even released the ruleset.

Yep. If people don't like it ... just play with house rules.
If you want to do the tournament scene with different rules, propose the rules to the ITC -- or start your own tournaments with your own house rules.

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:

Absolutely this. Neither the M+6", M+D6 nor the 6"+D6 charge ranges that have been proposed in here would be balanced as high movement units such as jump pack users would have inane charge ranges which would likely enable turn 1 assaults (only way to prevent that with up to 31"

Bikes, jump packs, and such are fast. That's the point.

There could also be a rule for no 1st turn charges and no charging from reserve. Done.

TL/DR, but here's my thoughts.

So far, so good. From the very limited selection of weapon profiles we've seen, seems light infantry aren't just there to be killed anymore. And that's a pretty massive change, especially given that cover now improves your save.

Depending on how Rend looks across the board, armies such as IG and Eldar just got a decent and much needed boost to survivability.

Tanks and MC now make me moist in my special places. I've long been an exponent of bringing parity to those unit types (even though there are now no unit types!) - and I'm very interested to see how the debilitating damage works out.

And off the back of that, I'm very much hoping we'll see a greater variety of heavy weapons on show, as with varying damage rates, shot numbers and Rend values, strikes me that previously reliable combos (such as the very old '5 man las/plas') won't be the no-brainers they were.

Don't get me wrong - I'm sure that in time the number crunchers among us will be able to demonstrate that certain combos or ratios of weapons give an edge - but it's my hope any such edge will be fairly small.

Here's to a new age, and I'm looking forward to getting my hands on it.

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:
I don't really get where the panic is coming from. As said before the probability curve of 2D6 is a bell curve. I last actively played in 5th edition (kept up to date with the rules and meta of the 6th and read the rules for the 7th) and back then very few people were complaining about the standardized 6" charge range with very few exceptions such as cavalry (which had a 6" movement to compensate). With the new 2D6 and the +1" bonus factored in, you have an around ~84% change to make that very same 6" charge. You also have a ~9% change to get a TWICE the charge range, with an exponentially increasing probability to get a charge range better than 6". Meanwhile the new minimum charge range, if you roll snake-eyes, is 3", and overall the probability to roll any charge distance below six inches is 16%. Those are goood odds and also mean that most of the time you will have a higher charge range than you did back in the 5th Edition, and that's before facturing in the extra movement some units get in the movement phase that happens prior in the same turn, and there might even be units with a special rule equivalent of the old sprint rule on top of it. People will realize that soon enough when they actually start playing a few games with the new rules (heck, or even test it out a few times with actual minis with the rules we have right now).

I wouldn't say I'm panicking. I'm just disappointed that a highly random system isn't changing when many other issues with the game seem to be fixed. It's like finding a bone shard in a perfectly cooked steak - you'll still have a great meal, but it could have been better pretty easily.

As for 6" charges, whilst you aren't wrong, the chance to fail that same roll in 5th edition was 0% because it was fixed distance. Even if you're only failing 1 in 6 times, that's enough that you'd expect it to happen at least once per game. In a system where the charging unit goes first, that could be hugely impactful on assault vs assault armies (if assault is indeed viable) - it essentially means games can be decided in one roll. I struggle to believe people will find it fun when, having dusted off their terminators, they then lose to Ork boyz because the dice fluffed at a critical moment and got hit in the face 100 times before they could react. It's that sort of situation I want to avoid - IMO, the meat of games should be decided on skill, with luck adding excitement as a spice; they shouldn't be all spice, no meat.

 kronk wrote:

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:

Absolutely this. Neither the M+6", M+D6 nor the 6"+D6 charge ranges that have been proposed in here would be balanced as high movement units such as jump pack users would have inane charge ranges which would likely enable turn 1 assaults (only way to prevent that with up to 31"

Bikes, jump packs, and such are fast. That's the point.

There could also be a rule for no 1st turn charges and no charging from reserve. Done.

Then you would have people complaining about how their fast troops would have to stop in front of enemy models and arbitrarily not being able to charge despite being in range to do so while getting shot to pieces at short range and complaining how unrealistic that all is. Those comments would flood forums.

Eyjio wrote:

I wouldn't say I'm panicking. I'm just disappointed that a highly random system isn't changing when many other issues with the game seem to be fixed. It's like finding a bone shard in a perfectly cooked steak - you'll still have a great meal, but it could have been better pretty easily.

As for 6" charges, whilst you aren't wrong, the chance to fail that same roll in 5th edition was 0% because it was fixed distance. Even if you're only failing 1 in 6 times, that's enough that you'd expect it to happen at least once per game. In a system where the charging unit goes first, that could be hugely impactful on assault vs assault armies (if assault is indeed viable) - it essentially means games can be decided in one roll. I struggle to believe people will find it fun when, having dusted off their terminators, they then lose to Ork boyz because the dice fluffed at a critical moment and got hit in the face 100 times before they could react. It's that sort of situation I want to avoid - IMO, the meat of games should be decided on skill, with luck adding excitement as a spice; they shouldn't be all spice, no meat.

Good point, but we do know that Command points will be able to change certain things such as assaults or charges (which do have their own phase now) once per phase while they last.
So if you can e.g. guarantee a successful charge or expend a point for an increase of the rolled charge range value you would have that 1 extreme instance in every game covered. Unless the player wastes his points on other buffs beforehand at his own discretion , which adds to the tactical depth of the game. Let's not give up on the steak just yet ;-).

Even with the fixed 6" range of 3rd to 5th edition, the charge range was almost always a random roll of 2d6, pick largest, because at least I charged almost every time through difficult terrain...

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:

Good point, but we do know that Command points will be able to change certain things such as assaults or charges (which do have their own phase now) once per phase while they last.
So if you can e.g. guarantee a successful charge or expend a point for an increase of the rolled charge range value you would have that 1 extreme instance in every game covered. Unless the player wastes his points on other buffs beforehand at his own discretion , which adds to the tactical depth of the game. Let's not give up on the steak just yet ;-).

This.

Remember that we are getting an inbuilt mechanic to curb the randomness.
We already know that command points will generate rerolls, i wouldn't be suprised if assault armies have command abilities related to charging.

If those mechanics works well, then the 2d6 system is better than any system that makes the movement stat count twice for threat range.

I'd be really curious to see a poll about who in this thread enjoys Blood Bowl and compare that to their opinions about the 2D6 charge range. In BB it's taken for granted that even a dedicated pro player will sometimes fall on their face and kill themselves during a simple move. Much of the gameplay is therefore about managing that risk and using your non-random moves to set up a favorable situation even if you fail. That seems relatively analogous to me regarding assault armies - if you're relying solely on a footslogger unit doing a >7" unmodified 2D6 charge as a game plan, you're doing the equivalent of a 1 dice block.

Dedicated Assault armies have the tools to modify those odds - either through fast screening units, transports, army rules to improve charge range, use of command points, coordinated assaults to tie up supporting units - so talking about 2D6 charge as the death of Assault armies doesn't make much sense to me. They just make you think about managing your risk. And if the rewards for winning assaults are good enough (which we'll see about soon) I think everything will be fine.

I also agree with the comment that the alternatives discussed for charge range just convince me that 2D6 works fine.

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:

Then you would have people complaining about how their fast troops would have to stop in front of enemy models and arbitrarily not being able to charge despite being in range to do so while getting shot to pieces at short range and complaining how unrealistic that all is. Those comments would flood forums.

You really should not put words in people's mouths. You suck at it.

Instead of running your bikes within' an inch and holding your throttle in your hand, you harry your opponent for a round, getting closer and shooting, setting up for a charge the following round. Also, bikes are pretty resilient now, and I expect them to be resilient in the new addition.

 His Master's Voice wrote:
Given how many suggestions of M+D6 charge ranges I see in this thread, it seems to me the issue is at least partially a matter of presenting the rule, rather than the mechanic itself. After all, units ARE charging M+2D6, it's just that assault weapon rules force the sequence to be broken up into two parts.

I don't particularly like the variance of a 2D6 roll, but at the same time, there is some elegant simplicity to it.

Right - an 8" move unit currently averages 15". With a range of 10"-20"

Under M+D6 it's 19.5". With a range of 17" to 22".
Mx2 it's 24" - HALF the board.

It would be almost impossible to avoid those units.

The only other idea that has merit was charge your move if you're within move. Otherwise roll 2D6. It still presents problems against very fast units, but it is more reasonable.

Leggy wrote:
Why is no one talking about how you can advance THEN charge? Or how you don't have to charge the unit you shot at? These are 2 big changes.

Because neither of these things has been confirmed.

 kronk wrote:

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:

Then you would have people complaining about how their fast troops would have to stop in front of enemy models and arbitrarily not being able to charge despite being in range to do so while getting shot to pieces at short range and complaining how unrealistic that all is. Those comments would flood forums.

You really should not put words in people's mouths. You suck at it.

Ad hominem already? *Politely points to forum rules*

 kronk wrote:
Instead of running your bikes within' an inch and holding your throttle in your hand, you harry your opponent for a round, getting closer and shooting, setting up for a charge the following round. Also, bikes are pretty resilient now, and I expect them to be resilient in the new addition.

And the jump pack troopers suffering from the same problem jump up and down in the air in front of the enemy shooting their pistols I presume? Just selectively picking one unit type and constructing a strawman (especially considering I didn't even mention bikes) to dismiss my point won't do. Nor did you adress the concern and issue of just arbitarily banning units starting the game on the board and normally moving to the enemy from assaulting them despite being in range and theeeeen them just magically being able to do so in round 2.

 KommissarKiln wrote:

Eyjio wrote:
it's stripping depth out of the game whilst replacing it with a system in which 2 dice can make or break an entire game. That's just not good design, and I don't care how you justify it to yourself, it's never going to be a good idea. You're still measuring fixed distances to stay away from the enemy either way, it's just that now you're rolling a dice to see if you get screwed by charge distance or if your opponent does.

This is one of those times when I read an opinion differing from mine and say, "Oh. That point really makes sense." Mark your calendars, everybody, someone on the Internet has been convinced of something!

It's a well reasoned argument, but i'll counter it (in my mind) - if you're losing the game on a single dice roll...you've done a lot of other things wrong.

theocracity wrote:
I'd be really curious to see a poll about who in this thread enjoys Blood Bowl and compare that to their opinions about the 2D6 charge range. In BB it's taken for granted that even a dedicated pro player will sometimes fall on their face and kill themselves during a simple move. Much of the gameplay is therefore about managing that risk and using your non-random moves to set up a favorable situation even if you fail. That seems relatively analogous to me regarding assault armies - if you're relying solely on a footslogger unit doing a >7" unmodified 2D6 charge as a game plan, you're doing the equivalent of a 1 dice block.

Dedicated Assault armies have the tools to modify those odds - either through fast screening units, transports, army rules to improve charge range, use of command points, coordinated assaults to tie up supporting units - so talking about 2D6 charge as the death of Assault armies doesn't make much sense to me. They just make you think about managing your risk. And if the rewards for winning assaults are good enough (which we'll see about soon) I think everything will be fine.

I also agree with the comment that the alternatives discussed for charge range just convince me that 2D6 works fine.

As another Blood Bowl player, this. Especially since team rerolls- excuse me, command point rerolls, are going to exist. While I'm not necessarily opposed to 6 + D6", as there is still a random element to those 8"+ from their target, plus the potential for charging through terrain. That chance of failing really does add to the risk management factor of assault.

For those who are about to jump up and yell "But KK, why should assault armies have to manage risk when shooting armies don't have to?!?1?one?!?" I say this: just hold your horses until we see exactly what happens to CC, GW seems to be dropping none too subtle hints about the potency of revised CC. I believe they will be adding some incentive to make CC worth it, making assault into a high risk/high reward play style.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 KommissarKiln wrote:

Eyjio wrote:
it's stripping depth out of the game whilst replacing it with a system in which 2 dice can make or break an entire game. That's just not good design, and I don't care how you justify it to yourself, it's never going to be a good idea. You're still measuring fixed distances to stay away from the enemy either way, it's just that now you're rolling a dice to see if you get screwed by charge distance or if your opponent does.

This is one of those times when I read an opinion differing from mine and say, "Oh. That point really makes sense." Mark your calendars, everybody, someone on the Internet has been convinced of something!

It's a well reasoned argument, but i'll counter it (in my mind) - if you're losing the game on a single dice roll...you've done a lot of other things wrong.

Pretty much this.

Random charge ranges mean you need a back up plan. That's not 'stripping out depth'. It's giving you something else to factor in.

It's absolutely no different to needing to roll to hit. Or roll to wound. Or hoping your opponent fails his Invulnerable saves, or blobbing your own.

The fewer 'sure things' in the game, the more you need to factor in the consequences of failure and plan ahead. If you fail to do so, it's not a failure of the game's design. I mean, where does that line of logic end? It starts with 'well if I always charged 6", I'd have won'. But the same can be said 'if all my weapons always rolled to hit exactly in line with statistical probability, I'd have won. If I never failed to wound, and you always failed your save, I'd have had you in turn three'. It's absolute Tommyrot and Bunkum.

 KommissarKiln wrote:


I believe they will be adding some incentive to make CC worth it, making assault into a high risk/high reward play style.

That's what I think. GW keeps implying that assault will be very deadly if you get to your target.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Pretty much this.

Random charge ranges mean you need a back up plan. That's not 'stripping out depth'. It's giving you something else to factor in.

It's absolutely no different to needing to roll to hit. Or roll to wound. Or hoping your opponent fails his Invulnerable saves, or blobbing your own.

The fewer 'sure things' in the game, the more you need to factor in the consequences of failure and plan ahead. If you fail to do so, it's not a failure of the game's design. I mean, where does that line of logic end? It starts with 'well if I always charged 6", I'd have won'. But the same can be said 'if all my weapons always rolled to hit exactly in line with statistical probability, I'd have won. If I never failed to wound, and you always failed your save, I'd have had you in turn three'. It's absolute Tommyrot and Bunkum.

Once again, combat weapons also need to hit and wound. The complaint is that this is a roll to see if your units can do the only thing they're designed to do. That's the contention. Hormagaunts don't get to have a contingency plan for failing a 4" charge - they just die. Ork boyz can't exactly go "well, we've moved to charge and fail, guess we'll walk back again now" - they just die. Meanwhile, shooting units get to keep their nice positions in cover or on objectives. It is absolutely a fault in the game's design that one type of unit has to do a special roll to see if they get to do the one thing they're good at, while shooting units have almost no restrictions. You can't just give a bunch of false equivalencies and say it's the same - it's not, you have every disadvantage of the randomness of shooting, but also have to pass one more test.

I wonder if overwatch is done from the point the target starts or if it can be done anywhere along the path that it's moving? The reason for this question is

Flamer hits everything within 8". A 9" charge is 41% chance of succeeding.

It is possible to make a 13" charge. With a 12 on the dice. Which would put you out of range of pistol overwatch.

Eyjio wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Pretty much this.

Random charge ranges mean you need a back up plan. That's not 'stripping out depth'. It's giving you something else to factor in.

It's absolutely no different to needing to roll to hit. Or roll to wound. Or hoping your opponent fails his Invulnerable saves, or blobbing your own.

The fewer 'sure things' in the game, the more you need to factor in the consequences of failure and plan ahead. If you fail to do so, it's not a failure of the game's design. I mean, where does that line of logic end? It starts with 'well if I always charged 6", I'd have won'. But the same can be said 'if all my weapons always rolled to hit exactly in line with statistical probability, I'd have won. If I never failed to wound, and you always failed your save, I'd have had you in turn three'. It's absolute Tommyrot and Bunkum.

Once again, combat weapons also need to hit and wound. The complaint is that this is a roll to see if your units can do the only thing they're designed to do. That's the contention. Hormagaunts don't get to have a contingency plan for failing a 4" charge - they just die. Ork boyz can't exactly go "well, we've moved to charge and fail, guess we'll walk back again now" - they just die. Meanwhile, shooting units get to keep their nice positions in cover or on objectives. It is absolutely a fault in the game's design that one type of unit has to do a special roll to see if they get to do the one thing they're good at, while shooting units have almost no restrictions. You can't just give a bunch of false equivalencies and say it's the same - it's not, you have every disadvantage of the randomness of shooting, but also have to pass one more test.

And sometimes a Blitzer will roll double skulls and cause a turnover, even though two dice blocks are exactly what they're supposed to do.

I think it's worth waiting till we see what the rewards of Assault are, as presumably there should be some better reward for the extra dice roll you make than just killing a single unit with shooting. If some form of consolidate into combat is back - which I think is reasonable with Overwatch and Withdraw mechanics in place - Assault could be a good way of controlling an enemy battle line.

Completely random charges as the default over ideal conditions (like open ground) are a bad game mechanic that doesn't make sense. Imagine if shooting units had to take a leadership check with increasing penalties every 3" from the target just to fire at all and they only got one chance at it as standard. They should have gone back to a constant charge distance individualized for each unit or at worst some combination of constant plus variable with increasing variability for worsening conditions like difficult terrain. It adds nothing to the game and is just randomness for randomness's sake.

 warboss wrote:
Completely random charges as the default over ideal conditions (like open ground) are a bad game mechanic that doesn't make sense. Imagine if shooting units had to take a leadership check with increasing penalties every 3" from the target just to fire at all and they only got one chance at it as standard. They should have gone back to a constant charge distance individualized for each unit or at worst some combination of constant plus variable with increasing variability for worsening conditions like difficult terrain. It adds nothing to the game and is just randomness for randomness's sake.

It's not a bad mechanic at all. You mean it's a mechanic you don't like.

the_scotsman wrote:


I don't think I've ever seen more rage coming out of gunline players than with the primaris power of my Harlequins' phantasmancy discipline.

What do you mean, I'm out of range? I just roll 2d6?? My range could be 4"? What do you mean I don't get to just select another target, you've got 3 other units in range of the number I rolled!

to-hit rolls exist in every form of combat. They're not what's being complained about. What is being complained about is an entirely all-or-nothing, highly variable roll nearly wholly independent of the quality of troop you're using, which determines the success or failure of the unit. The roll doesn't determine whether you succeed, it determines whether you're even allowed to try, which is not present in shooting, when the strongest shooting armies have the same or even higher maximum damage without the need for a random roll. A full Tau gunline can do just as much damage, can table you just as quickly, as a full melee KDK army getting into combat.

I invite all these people telling assault army players to stop complaining to try a simple experiment. Play a game with the following rules, and see whether you enjoy it or not:

All weapons with a 12" range get 2d6*2" range
All weapons with 24" range get 3D6*2" range
All weapons with 36" range get 4D6*2" range
All weapons with 48" range get 5D6*2" range.

If you declare a target and you're out of range, you don't get to fire. Your army will be just as good, if not better, because of the increased maximum ranges you can get! A 12" pistol could DOUBLE its current range, and gets a 14" range on average!

I'm not a gunline player but I still disagree with the comparison you're making. Charging has a distinct advantage over shooting and that's the movement itself. It's huge for getting to objectives and into the opponents deployment zone for scoring points. Charging is higher risk and reward and needs to be more random because of that. There is both increased damage coming from it (two rounds of combat per turn and most save and hit modifiers have not affected melee in the past although that could change) and the movement itself allowing you to win the missions.

Some randomness to charges has to be in the game. I wish they would have gone with M+1d6 but they didn't.

If you always make it M*2 or M and you have pre-measurement in the game. You will have a recipe for making shooting armies way to powerful. Image Tau with a line of firewarriors in front of a pile of Riptides behind them. They can let you get close, pre-measure the distance to a charge. Back up to 1.5" further then you can charge. Shoot you, let you move and back up again, rinse and repeat for a game.

News should be up in roughly ten minutes, hold on to your horses or closest xenos breed available!

Vorian wrote:

 warboss wrote:
Completely random charges as the default over ideal conditions (like open ground) are a bad game mechanic that doesn't make sense. Imagine if shooting units had to take a leadership check with increasing penalties every 3" from the target just to fire at all and they only got one chance at it as standard. They should have gone back to a constant charge distance individualized for each unit or at worst some combination of constant plus variable with increasing variability for worsening conditions like difficult terrain. It adds nothing to the game and is just randomness for randomness's sake.

It's not a bad mechanic at all. You mean it's a mechanic you don't like.

He gave a clearly defined reason for calling it bad, that has more substance than simple statements as to whether or not an opinion is an opinion.

It's up. GW just slapped you guys good.

For the lazy.
Will highlight some interesting bits

This is part of the new Warhammer 40,000 with some of the biggest changes. We’ve already seen in our article on unit profiles that Initiative has gone. Instead, the priority for striking is based on the previous phase, with those units that completed a charge swinging first.

There’s a definite emphasis on making charging into combat effective – these units have gotten all the way across the battlefield, they’ve braved enemy fire and overwatch, and now they’ve finally made it into combat – they will at the very least get to swing.

Units that activate gain a free 3″ move towards the closest enemy. This can be used to get within 1″ of other enemy units, if you’re cunning, dragging more foes into the melee and preventing them from shooting next turn, even if you didn’t charge them directly (giving them no chance to overwatch). Enemy gun lines will need to be careful about how they position their supporting units, so as to avoid getting dragged into the fight too.

Following chargers, players take it in turns to activate units across the board to fight – this can get quite tactical, as both players need to choose the combats where dealing maximum damage will be important to them, while trying to limit enemy retaliation on their valuable or fragile models.

There are a few units that can interrupt this sequence to attack out of turn too – Tyranids with lash whips and Slaaneshi Daemons, for example – and it can also be influenced by Stratagems (more on these soon) if your army is Battle-forged, all of which add a nuanced level of tactical depth to the phase.

Players will have much more influence over the outcome of combat now, rather than purely the stats of the models involved, both in their own and in the opponent’s turns (though we still wouldn’t expect Guardsmen to triumph over a unit of Khorne Berzerkers any time soon – fix bayonets!).

Another thing we have seen is that hit rolls are now fixed. This has the effect of making dedicated combat units generally hit on a 3+, while models representing the most competent warriors of the 41st Millennium (Guilliman, the Swarmlord, Ghazghkull Thraka, to name but a few) will now hit on 2+!

Close combat weapons (which we’ll look at in more detail in future) also gain new rules – some will slice through armour easily, while others will hit with enough force to cause deal multiple wounds that can cripple or kill even powerful enemy models.

Across the board, these changes lead to combats that are more deadly than ever. Generals who successfully coordinate a battlefield-wide charge will be rewarded with a phase of utter carnage, while their opponent will have to work hard to minimise taking damage, and carefully consider their retaliatory options.

Expect combats to be hard-fought, bloody, and tactical – just as they should be.

We’ll be back tomorrow with some new details on morale – and after we’ve seen the damage that shooting, psychic powers and combat can do – can you blame anyone for running away?

Youn wrote:

It is possible to make a 13" charge. With a 12 on the dice. Which would put you out of range of pistol overwatch.

As far as I understood the rules as they were mentioned in the article, you need to be within 12" to declare a charge against a unit. You do effectively get an extra inch for your minimum charge range, but only within 12 inches from the target.

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:

Youn wrote:

It is possible to make a 13" charge. With a 12 on the dice. Which would put you out of range of pistol overwatch.

As far as I understood the rules as they were mentioned in the article, you need to be within 12" to declare a charge against a unit. You do effectively get an extra inch for your minimum charge range, but only within 12 inches from the target.

That is correct.

The basic mechanics of this phase are very similar to how they work now. You can select any unit within 12″ as the target of your charge, and your units will move towards them 2D6″.

3" pile in sounds good, especially when it's used to prevent overwatch and further shooting. Otherwise not much new.

Youn wrote:
Some randomness to charges has to be in the game. I wish they would have gone with M+1d6 but they didn't.

If you always make it M*2 or M and you have pre-measurement in the game. You will have a recipe for making shooting armies way to powerful. Image Tau with a line of firewarriors in front of a pile of Riptides n them. They can let you get close, pre-measure the distance to a charge. Back up to 1.5" further then you can charge. Shoot you, let you move and back up again, rinse and repeat for a game.

I agree but i think that is a case of two wrongs (imo) not making a right. Premeasuring slows down the game and I'm not a fan if it either frankly. I'd personally be fine with removing it in the charge phase or even entirely to a lesser extent if that meant that completely random charges went with it. A semi random charge with no premeasuring is enough dramatic tension and randomness on top of three sequential random rolls to cause casualties.

Hmm almost no new information. The only real thing I see there not covered before is that you won't want units to stand within 2 inches of one another.

 Seneca wrote:
3" pile in sounds good, especially when it's used to prevent overwatch and further shooting. Otherwise not much new.

Yup - I believe that's how AoS works as well.

I knew speculating about consolidation was a stretch seeing as how it's not in AoS, so I'm not too disappointed, even though I think it would make sense.

Does this mean that if you assault a unit, and some models are not within 1", then they can still overwatch? Or did I read that wrong?

Edit: I did read it wdong, wow you can assault other units that aren't currently in assault with the pile in move!!

So close combat attacks are only made on your turn (short of special abilities). That renders things like Unwieldy pointless since your attacks all occur on your turn. While this means you aren't going to be wiping out units on your opponent a turn and it halves the amount attacks you are going to make over the period of the game, I am okay with it.

The ability to make a free 3" move basically means all charge distances have a 6" minimum (snakeeyes+3"+1" you need to be within in order to attack). So that is actually pretty good.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
So close combat attacks are only made on your turn (short of special abilities). That renders things like Unwieldy pointless since your attacks all occur on your turn. While this means you aren't going to be wiping out units on your opponent a turn and it halves the amount attacks you are going to make over the period of the game, I am okay with it.

The ability to make a free 3" move basically means all charge distances have a 6" minimum (snakeeyes+3"+1" you need to be within in order to attack). So that is actually pretty good.

No I believe you both strike still in each other's turn, just whoever made the assault gets to hit first?

Then after first turn, you take it in turns choosing who hits first. Alternate activation of units.