While reading the latest 8th edition article (link below) i was dismayed to see not much had changed in regards to charging dynamics - at least not with what we currently know.

It looks like charges will still be a base 2d6 movement and either you make it or you don't. As i read it i instantly thought it's a missed opportunity when you have movement ranges in the new edition.

Personally i think 1d6+ the charging units movement is a much better, fluffier and more reliable way to do it. After browsing various sites online I've seen a lot of people saying exactly the same thing.

So i have a proposal, if a significant amount of the 40k player base would prefer something other than 2d6 if that's confirmed as all we get (no other rules to add that seriously effect it) do people think we could gather enough support on an online petition to genuinely make GW change their mind?

Considering they're selling the rules as a 'living document' with regular updates it's suddenly a possibility to actually update it.

I'm just testing the water for public opinion out of curiosity atm.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/01/new-warhammer-40000-charge-phasegw-homepage-post-4/

I'm pretty fine with the 1+2d6

How it is reading on the preview it is 2D6 but you still move either way..

So while it isn't the best result.. I don't mind, if I still move forward

If dedicated assault units get AoS style enhancements (This unit can charge 3D6) I'm fine with it.

By living rulebook I'd imagine we'll get errata, FAQs and 'codex' updates, not changes to core mechanics.
Its too late now, that would have to wait til next edition if it happened.

2d6 is too random for my tastes (even as a Tau player), Move +1d6 is either too strong (faster armies) or too weak (slower armies) and has a linear distribution (Move +1" is as likely as Move +2" is as likely as Move +3", etc.).

I'd rather have 1/2 Move +2d3, rounding up.

That gives most models (5" and 6" movement - speculative, but reasonable IMO) who charge the same mean, median, and mode as 2d6 (7), but instead of ranging from 2" to 12", it would range from 5" to 9". You might end up a bit short, but you'll always be able to engage an enemy 6" away (like the good ol' days, when everyone had set charge distances), and if you roll well, you could get a longer charge off (9" would be up to 150% or more your Move stat).

The distribution of rolls is also useful. The vast majority of the time, you're getting 6-8" charges, so its reliable, but it gives you room for riskier moves (charging something 9 to 10" away) for a potential payoff (succeeding on the charge even from that relatively far distance).

And faster Move models get to be faster on the charge, but they aren't gaining an inch in assault for every inch in move, so even a very fast model (12") is still only reaching a maximum charge distance of 12", though their average charge distance of 10" is undeniably impressive.

As for your concept of an online petition... Eh, I'm doubtful it'll have much of an effect. Also, you're talking about WH40k players and rule preferences - that's so much worse than herding cats, you need to use a logarithmic scale.

double move and no pre measure is what I enjoy more. I loved it in past editions of both wfb and 40k and X-wing proves that it can still work in modern environments.

It really should be a set amount, especially since the Move stat would make it so that it opens up the dynamic that we can have a weird mix of fast assault troops and slow assault troops requiring different skills to get maximum effectiveness.

That and I'm slightly miffed that a unit that can potentially move 7" in the movement phase would theoretically charge the same distance as a footslogger moving at 4" or 3", not to mention randomness always takes out a bit of tactical agency the player might have.

Its kinda odd how assault ranges are randomized while shooting ranges are fixed. Why not randomize both (or none) instead of one.

Even though I also dislike the 2D6 I think it's too early for such polls. We don't know the whole picture yet. Wound allocation and special rules will be very important to see if 2D6 can work or not.

I dunno. I say yes to 2d6 Charge.

Or at least, I don't want to see a guaranteed 25" move-and-charge for things like Thunderwolf Cavalry.

I also wouldn't want a fixed value, it's too easy to evade.

2d6 sounds plenty good to me.

No pre-measurement doesn't really work. So, a random charge range is ok as long as shooting is not as deadly as it is now. Another problem is that they're leaving overwatch and are even making it a bit better. Which is a damn shame.

I think the main reason i dislike it is now we have distinct differences in movement to account for fluff it only seems right it applies to charging. I'm aware there will be other rules added for certain units but as things stand my assault terminators will be moving 5" while we can expect hormgaunts to move double that - and yet we both have the same chance of making or failing a charge.

I don't like the idea of fixed values, it makes stuff too predictible, to keep it interesting i still like the idea of failing a charge once in a while.

However if i was using gaunts and failed a 4" charge i'd be pretty miffed when they moved twice that normally.

Hence 1D6 + M

Despite my initial bias towards 2d6, because that's the way it's always been, I really hate super high stakes single rolls.

I suppose I should clarify that, I don't mind clutch rolls that arise from play, such as does my commander on his last wound make his save, or does that fleeing group rally or run off the board. Clutch Rolls that do not arise as a consequence of the situation on the board drive me crazy, things like mind war, and now that I think about it charge distances. It feel like they cheapen the victory or loss because so much depends on the fall of the dice.

 koooaei wrote:
No pre-measurement doesn't really work. So, a random charge range is ok as long as shooting is not as deadly as it is now. Another problem is that they're leaving overwatch and are even making it a bit better. Which is a damn shame.

I dunno. I use Repentia, who are T3 with Shield of Faith as their only save, and I haven't had a problem with them getting into melee and chopping people up in this edition, so I imaging them being able to charge out of a transport, saving them 2 rounds of being shot at, will only make them better.

I don't feel that overwatch or shooting is "too deadly". In fact, I feel the opposite; that shooting that is supposed to be incredibly powerful and destructive, such as antitank guns, seem harmless.

 Grimgold wrote:
Despite my initial bias towards 2d6, because that's the way it's always been, I really hate super high stakes single rolls.

I suppose I should clarify that, I don't mind clutch rolls that arise from play, such as does my commander on his last wound make his save, or does that fleeing group rally or run off the board. Clutch Rolls that do not arise as a consequence of the situation on the board drive me crazy, things like mind war, and now that I think about it charge distances. It feel like they cheapen the victory or loss because so much depends on the fall of the dice.

It used to be a fixed value.

I don't like it when games come down to coin flips, either, but charging as a whole is fairly safe. I don't have a problem getting my assault units into ranges where they basically can't fail their 2d6 charges.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
No pre-measurement doesn't really work. So, a random charge range is ok as long as shooting is not as deadly as it is now. Another problem is that they're leaving overwatch and are even making it a bit better. Which is a damn shame.

I dunno. I use Repentia, who are T3 with Shield of Faith as their only save, and I haven't had a problem with them getting into melee and chopping people up in this edition, so I imaging them being able to charge out of a transport, saving them 2 rounds of being shot at, will only make them better.

You're a lucky guy - i'm having problems charging anything with meganobz riding trukks. Cause it's either msu shooting or an invisible deathstar that you don't want to charge anywayz.

Simply movement stat again would be good and take out a lot of the unneeded dice rolling.
And would leave the rule space open for some special rules like a tyranid brood leader being able to take a d6 leap with there brood after the charge move

2d6+arbitrary 3inches

 koooaei wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
No pre-measurement doesn't really work. So, a random charge range is ok as long as shooting is not as deadly as it is now. Another problem is that they're leaving overwatch and are even making it a bit better. Which is a damn shame.

I dunno. I use Repentia, who are T3 with Shield of Faith as their only save, and I haven't had a problem with them getting into melee and chopping people up in this edition, so I imaging them being able to charge out of a transport, saving them 2 rounds of being shot at, will only make them better.

You're a lucky guy - i'm having problems charging anything with meganobz riding trukks. Cause it's either msu shooting or an invisible deathstar that you don't want to charge anywayz.

I guess so. Most of the problem is getting things like Repentia into charge range without ending up dead. To this end, I field them in a big blob, and have a lot of other threats that the enemy needs to deal with.

Does anyone realize how dumb M+D6 charge would be. Anything like a bike or a jump pack would basically be able to move and charge any where from 26 to 31 inches a turn. That has greater range than a bolter.

 Venerable Ironclad wrote:
Does anyone realize how dumb M+D6 charge would be. Anything like a bike or a jump pack would basically be able to move and charge any where from 26 to 31 inches a turn. That has greater range than a bolter.

Exactly. As much as it would be fun to have Seraphim, Celestine, and Thunderwolves who can charge further than they can shoot, I think it would be bad for the game if anything could reliably make a 25" charge.

With pistols shooting in cc it can be fun to see more of those double-handflamer seraphims.

Just looked at my old Warhammer 40K Rogue Trader book... For purposes of the charge move, a model's Movement stat is doubled. Considering most models at that time had a Move of 4" or 5" that left most with an 8" or 10" range for making a charge. No pre-measuring though.

{In the best of his Darth Vader voices...} "I find the lack of this option for simply double movement in the poll disturbing!" {End voice.}

But serious though, if there can't be a fixed number depending on movement, both 2d6 flat and 1d6+Movement offer quite similar problems, although the latter mitigates these somewhat by offering a greater minimum charge distance (Move +1, as opposed to simply 2 in the case of rolling Snake-eyes). A 3" Movement Squat (hypothetically speaking) could move 3", then Charge 3", plus a maximum D6 roll of 6". That turn he moved 12" total, having quadrupled his movement for the turn. A hypothetical 7" Movement Howling Bansheecould move 7", then Charge 7", plus a maximum D6 roll of 6". That turn he moved 20" total, not even having tripled her movement for the turn. I know, she moved a total of 8" further than the Squat, absolutely, but relatively I have to call our Squat friend mr. Speedy Gonzales now.
This is further torn apart with a flat 2d6 roll. On that 1 in 36 chance of a roll of 12", Squatty will have moved 15" that turn, and Bansheela just (12+7=) 19"

 Lord Xcapobl wrote:
Just looked at my old Warhammer 40K Rogue Trader book... For purposes of the charge move, a model's Movement stat is doubled. Considering most models at that time had a Move of 4" or 5" that left most with an 8" or 10" range for making a charge. No pre-measuring though.

{In the best of his Darth Vader voices...} "I find the lack of this option for simply double movement in the poll disturbing!" {End voice.}

But serious though, if there can't be a fixed number depending on movement, both 2d6 flat and 1d6+Movement offer quite similar problems, although the latter mitigates these somewhat by offering a greater minimum charge distance (Move +1, as opposed to simply 2 in the case of rolling Snake-eyes). A 3" Movement Squat (hypothetically speaking) could move 3", then Charge 3", plus a maximum D6 roll of 6". That turn he moved 12" total, having quadrupled his movement for the turn. A hypothetical 7" Movement Howling Bansheecould move 7", then Charge 7", plus a maximum D6 roll of 6". That turn he moved 20" total, not even having tripled her movement for the turn. I know, she moved a total of 8" further than the Squat, absolutely, but relatively I have to call our Squat friend mr. Speedy Gonzales now.
This is further torn apart with a flat 2d6 roll. On that 1 in 36 chance of a roll of 12", Squatty will have moved 15" that turn, and Bansheela just (12+7=) 19"

What did you think of my proposal, then?

1/2 Move (rounded up) +2d3

For Move 5 or 6, you get an average 7", ranging from 5-9", with 7" (plus the 1" bubble of engagement) happening 1/3 of the time
For 7-8, add 1", 9-10 add 1", 11-12" add 1", etc., etc.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

What did you think of my proposal, then?

1/2 Move (rounded up) +2d3

For Move 5 or 6, you get an average 7", ranging from 5-9", with 7" (plus the 1" bubble of engagement) happening 1/3 of the time

It's too stable, 80% of the time you will get 6-8"

Even 1/2 Move + 1d6 is better

Interesting, I thought that would have been a strong point, particularly with the "I don't want there to be any randomness to the movement at ALL" camp.

Edit: a strong point because it lessens (but does not remove) the risk element to assault (which, in theory and by GW hints, has substantial rewards) and prevents the sort of oddities where a gaggle of Eldar charge 2" and an Imperial Guardsman charges 12".

 Venerable Ironclad wrote:
Does anyone realize how dumb M+D6 charge would be. Anything like a bike or a jump pack would basically be able to move and charge any where from 26 to 31 inches a turn. That has greater range than a bolter.

You'd be surprised how okay I am with that. A unit with a higher movement, if movement effects running/assault, can be given a higher cost point. 2d6 is "fair", but completely arbitrary. It requires special snowfakes rules to allow better/further charges (which defeats the point of having a movement stat), and the idea that it allows for further charges is bulk because in practive getting that 12 inch charge is less likely to happen than rolling 2 when you don't need it, because when's the last time you went for a 12 inch charge except out of desperation?

Heck, it doesn't even have to be m+1d6. make it a choice between M or 2d6. make it half movement and 1d6. Make it 6+1d6. make it just 6. Anything. ANYTHING, but "2d6 FURGE DUR NURIDURVE"

Until we know what abilities given units have and how command points can effect charges, threads and polls like this are extremely premature and kinda silly

1/2 Move +2d3, rounding up ... sure in a perfect world we could probably do a scaled equation but 8th edition is keeping things simple.

Does anyone realize how dumb M+D6 charge would be. Anything like a bike or a jump pack would basically be able to move and charge any where from 26 to 31 inches a turn. That has greater range than a bolter. - Well more than half the people here prefer it so evidently not them.

The vast majority of units are going to have a movement in the 5-7" area which will make little difference. The units that get the biggest boost from D6 + M are those that are incredibly fast anyway so it's only right they can move further anyway. In 80% of situations units will charge similar distances to they would in the old system anyway, i don't see the problem if bikes make 26" movement in one turn compared to 24".

Until we know what abilities given units have and how command points can effect charges, threads and polls like this are extremely premature and kinda silly ... great opinion, you should probably avoid those with titles like this for a few months.

{In the best of his Darth Vader voices...} "I find the lack of this option for simply double movement in the poll disturbing!" {End voice.} ... I added it for you although i don't think you can vote for it!

I dunno. I use Repentia, who are T3 with Shield of Faith as their only save, and I haven't had a problem with them getting into melee - teach us wise one ... seriously though HOW?

 Lobukia wrote:
Until we know what abilities given units have and how command points can effect charges, threads and polls like this are extremely premature and kinda silly

Oh sure, I agree, this is pure speculation, moaning, and getting upset over nothing on my part they're revealing how the actual assault phase works so my fears could be completely moot by the time I wake up.

But while you might be right, I think there's still an underlining problem there: if assault needs special rules and command abilities to be viable, how's that different then now when you need special rules and psychic powers to be viable?

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
2d6 is too random for my tastes (even as a Tau player), Move +1d6 is either too strong (faster armies) or too weak (slower armies) and has a linear distribution (Move +1" is as likely as Move +2" is as likely as Move +3", etc.).

I'd rather have 1/2 Move +2d3, rounding up.

Doubtful GW would have divide calculations required to figure out charge roll. More likely would be them putting charge distance modifier into stat block so movement would be like 7/4 etc.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
2d6 is too random for my tastes (even as a Tau player), Move +1d6 is either too strong (faster armies) or too weak (slower armies) and has a linear distribution (Move +1" is as likely as Move +2" is as likely as Move +3", etc.).

I'd rather have 1/2 Move +2d3, rounding up.

That gives most models (5" and 6" movement - speculative, but reasonable IMO) who charge the same mean, median, and mode as 2d6 (7), but instead of ranging from 2" to 12", it would range from 5" to 9". You might end up a bit short, but you'll always be able to engage an enemy 6" away (like the good ol' days, when everyone had set charge distances), and if you roll well, you could get a longer charge off (9" would be up to 150% or more your Move stat).

The distribution of rolls is also useful. The vast majority of the time, you're getting 6-8" charges, so its reliable, but it gives you room for riskier moves (charging something 9 to 10" away) for a potential payoff (succeeding on the charge even from that relatively far distance).

And faster Move models get to be faster on the charge, but they aren't gaining an inch in assault for every inch in move, so even a very fast model (12") is still only reaching a maximum charge distance of 12", though their average charge distance of 10" is undeniably impressive.

As for your concept of an online petition... Eh, I'm doubtful it'll have much of an effect. Also, you're talking about WH40k players and rule preferences - that's so much worse than herding cats, you need to use a logarithmic scale.

This is superb!

Edit... Oh begger - I voted on the poll for M +1d6 when I thought it was 1/2M +1d6. Average on a 5"/6" goes down half an inch - but worth it for the reliability.

2D6 is fine - but I am pretty casual - played a couple of games on Thursday and both sides dice rolls were shocking so quite amusing.

The only other option I think is 6+D6 for all units.

M + 1D6 is huge for high move units - remember that we might have nits with base Move of 12" or higher (AOS does)

Same issue with Mx2

Might be having first turn charges at more than 36"

I'd rather have 1/2 Move +2d3, rounding up

Personally - that's two complicated.

I mean, it's too late...the rules are probably already written and printed and ready for shipping. Maybe in an Errata in a few months?

Anyway, this is the best of both worlds, imo, assuming charge is its own phase after movement, make it 3" + 2D6 and discard the lowest die roll. Possibly M + 3" + 2D6 discard lowest die roll. Or double movement + 2D6 and discard lowest die roll, etc.

Either way, just add the discard lowest die roll. It still has the random factor that GW appears to want, but it has internal balancing to reach the median w/o being too swingy as a static 2D6 (+ anything) or D6 (+ anything) would be.

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:
I mean, it's too late...the rules are probably already written and printed and ready for shipping. Maybe in an Errata in a few months?

Anyway, this is the best of both worlds, imo, assuming charge is its own phase after movement, make it 3" + 2D6 and discard the lowest die roll. Possibly M + 3" + 2D6 discard lowest die roll. Or double movement + 2D6 and discard lowest die roll, etc.

Either way, just add the discard lowest die roll. It still has the random factor that GW appears to want, but it has internal balancing to reach the median w/o being too swingy as a static 2D6 (+ anything) or D6 (+ anything) would be.

It kind of over complicates it and would cause even more of a problem with the highest movement units people are already concerened about if it were M + D6". If you're discarding lowest rolls to counter unreliability then 3 D6 discard the lowest would be much simpler, none of the 2/3d6 soloutions get overthe fact you can always roll all ones.

Any charge rule with M + X would be too strong because they said you can only charge if you are within 12″ of an enemy unit.

You can select any unit within 12″ as the target of your charge, and your units will move towards them 2D6″.

Bikes or other high movement units (if they keep their 12″ move) would have a guarenteed charge without even rolling dice.

In my opinion 2D6 is not perfect but it works rather well.

Why not make it D6+Move but you must do it at the start of your turn, like it is in Shadow War?

I prefer either your movement OR 2D6


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or D6 + movement up to 12"

If you just use the movement stat for charging, slow units might never charge because the enemy could just move out of their charge range.
2D6 add some randomness that is needed to prevent charges and successfully charge.

I assume that like AOS they will have some units with 3D6 for charge, re-rolls, minimum charge distances etc.

 Mr Morden wrote:


M + 1D6 is huge for high move units - remember that we might have nits with base Move of 12" or higher (AOS does)

Same issue with Mx2

Might be having first turn charges at more than 36"

This could be easily fixed by only allowing units to charge in a straight line if they wish to charge more than their movement stat.
it would suddenly make screening units and trying to out maneuver units a thing again. To clarify double move assault move would be instead of moving normally in the movement phase.

I wish I could charge as fast as a turbo boosting jetbike. U.Bolt eat your heart out!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
How about basically giving everyone 3d6 discard lowest?

If people are worried about charges being too unreliable you could always make it 3d6 + pick the two highest.
More chance for a decent charge but not completely removing the randomness.

Edit: Ninja'd

I keep seeing all these suggestions of move+D6, 1/2 move + 2D3, etc. But the way I see it units are charging move+2D6, your just moving in the move phase. All this talk of faster units needing their speed represented in their charges doesn't make much sense to me when their outrunning slower units it'll the move phase anyway. If Gaunts have 8" move then their still charging further than move 4" Necrons in a turn unless theres some extreme dice rolls.
I always pictured the random charge move as not a limit on how far the unit can physically move, but whether or not they make the decision in that moment to risk the charge. If it's a long way the unit might rethink it, but a short way is much more inviting.

Poly Ranger wrote:
I wish I could charge as fast as a turbo boosting jetbike. U.Bolt eat your heart out!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
How about basically giving everyone 3d6 discard lowest?

What if they just give that rule to a few units who are known for their fast charges?

I'm quite happy with 2D6, especially with it being effectively 2D6+1 which is a big boost. It just works better with premeasurement, and important chance based tests work better with multiple dice probability (not 1D6+X).
Movement stat based charging just leads to rich(high ms models) get richer poor get poorer, painting game design into a corner.
No, 2D6 is the best base to build this part of the game off of.

We still have to see how casualties from overwatch are to be resolved, and what sort of modifer rules to charging that units will have access to in their special rules.

Make it fixed. I think Azreal13 was mentioning how Dreadball has two movement stats for a normal and fast pace. I think such a system would be ideal, but given 40k's size/scale, double movement doesn't seem unreasonable to me assuming most models are 6" or less movement.

I strongly dislike random mechanics for the sake of being random, and fixed charges worked well for a few editions prior to 6th, so I'm happy with anything from fixed 6" to double movement.

I wouldn't mind movement +6", but I'd prefer a fixed number. 40k needs less dice rolling.

 Fentlegen wrote:
I keep seeing all these suggestions of move+D6, 1/2 move + 2D3, etc. But the way I see it units are charging move+2D6, your just moving in the move phase..

I totally agree this is why the 2x move isn't such a radical idea at all.

As mentioned din other threads, M + D6 is an absolutely terrible idea as it can easily be abused by units that have a natural M of 12" or more, and M + D6 was probably only thought of with 5-7" movement in mind. 6 + D6 is a much more reasonable alternative. Unless that's taken as an acceptable compromise, I'll have to stick with no change to prevent heavy abuse of extra high movement stats.

We also not considering that AOS has extras which may well need be considered in a assessment if they are included:

So some units roll 3D6 for charge range (still max 12") some have minimum charge distance - so they always charge 5 " etc
Some have re-roll one or more dice.

There are lots of ways to make dedicated / fast Assault troops work within the +2d6 system.

6" + d6 sounds nice. Not as strong as M + d6 for very fast units and not as weak for slow units.
It maintains a degree of randomness with less variance than 2d6 and has a decent minimum range.

I voted for the 1d6 + M but only because it would be consistent with my groups wishes that Initiative/Movement or whatever for hth would be a d6+M to determine who goes first.

Some randomness is always a good thing and keeps those meta gamers from laying out too much of a sure thing when calculating.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:
Make it fixed.


I wouldn't mind movement +6", but I'd prefer a fixed number. 40k needs less dice rolling.

See the extreme fun of 2nd edition was the pure randomness of a dice game! We don't play chess we play a tactic game that always has a chance to blow up in your face. The best moments of game play are those out of the ordinary events that you talk about for years. Why... cause of dice rolling.

I don't want the game dumbed down too much and then it becomes just mathematics.

C'mon man, we haven't even seen the full rules yet. While I agree that I'd rather not have the 2d6" charge range, we don't really have enough knowledge or practice with this set to say whether or not that's a bad thing. 1 inch extra to your charges is a big deal, and while I hate "infinite overwatch", it just means you can't bait an overwatch and really should try to lock in with the closest unit first (not the furthest).

We don't really know. Once we do know, then I'll be happy to complain, but until then let's see how it goes!

 Venerable Ironclad wrote:
Does anyone realize how dumb M+D6 charge would be. Anything like a bike or a jump pack would basically be able to move and charge any where from 26 to 31 inches a turn. That has greater range than a bolter.

Bikes and jump infantry are fast.

That's the whole point.

"Jets can fly! Does anyone realize how dumb flying from Chicago to LA would be when I have to ride in mom's minivan?"

 PimpMasterGeneral wrote:
Any charge rule with M + X would be too strong because they said you can only charge if you are within 12″ of an enemy unit.

You can select any unit within 12″ as the target of your charge, and your units will move towards them 2D6″.

Bikes or other high movement units (if they keep their 12″ move) would have a guarenteed charge without even rolling dice.

In my opinion 2D6 is not perfect but it works rather well.

but can you imagine your bikers going full throttle accrose the battlefield with the enemy in their grasp .....and....puttputtputt, after racing super fast and hard over the battlefield they roll 3" on the dice. Why would the entire bike squad suddenly drop to low gear and throttle down????? Perhaps a Mommy cat and kittens were crossing the path and they slowed down not to run them over before engaging those cultist.

Just a super low result on 2d6 would sour a lot of people. Unless you got your minimum move as a charge no matter what you rolled.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Venerable Ironclad wrote:
Does anyone realize how dumb M+D6 charge would be. Anything like a bike or a jump pack would basically be able to move and charge any where from 26 to 31 inches a turn. That has greater range than a bolter.

Exactly. As much as it would be fun to have Seraphim, Celestine, and Thunderwolves who can charge further than they can shoot, I think it would be bad for the game if anything could reliably make a 25" charge.

In 2nd edition games you could pop combat drugs and get well over 24" on some models. Overwatch was the answer.

It was often seen that some bikes could go 35 " and shoot or drive by. None of those maneuvers ruined the game.

You could take a bike with super charged engines and Fast Speed go over 40", jump off, take a str 10 hit. then pop combat drugs and charge like 24".

With the threat of an enemy monster piece up in your face everygame, it forced you to take a balanced army. YOU needed to have some hth answer if you were an all shooty force.
There is nothing I like less to play against than an all hth or all shooty army. Like Chess an all pawn or all rook enemy piece set up would be extremely boring.

The Force organization chart is a tiny start in making a balanced army. I think their focus needs more in that regard.

 kronk wrote:

 Venerable Ironclad wrote:
Does anyone realize how dumb M+D6 charge would be. Anything like a bike or a jump pack would basically be able to move and charge any where from 26 to 31 inches a turn. That has greater range than a bolter.

Bikes and jump infantry are fast.

That's the whole point.

"Jets can fly! Does anyone realize how dumb flying from Chicago to LA would be when I have to ride in mom's minivan?"

One thing being fast. Another being able to reliably bypass basic weapons from ever getting to shoot at you.

Sure have that fast units then. Provided we increase weapon ranges for realistic ranges(so bolter like 100") and increase board size.

 kronk wrote:

 Venerable Ironclad wrote:
Does anyone realize how dumb M+D6 charge would be. Anything like a bike or a jump pack would basically be able to move and charge any where from 26 to 31 inches a turn. That has greater range than a bolter.

Bikes and jump infantry are fast.

That's the whole point.

"Jets can fly! Does anyone realize how dumb flying from Chicago to LA would be when I have to ride in mom's minivan?"

You're not thinking like a game designer and that's where your point falls down.

Fast units are already factored with a representative advantage in the movement phase, and there's a typical wargame mini-meta established there with slogger infantry(slowest but cheapest), purchasable transports that offer speed and protection, and effectively augmented infantry(jumppacks/bikes) often as a kind of halfway point.

You're wanting to introduce a new blanket extra advantage to one of those types of unit in the charge phase for (reasons?) This actually limits the design/player choice because you're creating a sort of 'Eldar Scatterbike' thing where it's pointless to take anything assault orientated that doesn't move minimum 10" in the movement phase; you're also introducing a wider gulf in battlefield options available to 'fast' armies and 'slow' armies - rich get richer, poor get poorer, this means you'd have to alter the system design in other places to get balance, which might mesys up various army concepts in other ways, perhaps even removing some from viabilty all together

The better way to design the system is a simple equitable mechanic like example flat 6"(invariable) or 2D6 (variable) across the board, and then introduce special rules to individual units to represent their capabilities, increased player options and/or flavour. Example, bloodlusted Khorne Beserkers or drugged up DE Wyches get +D6 (3D6) charges, Rough Riders get M+D6, fanatical Black Templars add 2 to charges, and so on.

I expect bikes will charge 3D6" inches, max 12"

AOS style.

 PimpMasterGeneral wrote:
If you just use the movement stat for charging, slow units might never charge because the enemy could just move out of their charge range.
2D6 add some randomness that is needed to prevent charges and successfully charge.

It should not really be a issue, If GW is looking to balance things out it serves a lot to give much needed variety in units without much rules.

If missions are well designed to make a strong front line in the game it should give even slow units there place to shine.

I am really torn on this.

On the one hand, D6+M makes totally sense. It incorporates the new M stat and also removes the need for 'faster' models to need a "Fleet" mechanic to represent that they are better at moving.
Less rules = more fluid game play. Or at least it should

But on the other hand, 2D6 charge is more fair as it gives all melee units the same distance.
What if Orks only get a 5"M and Nids have a 7-8" moves.
D6+M charges would give a noticeable advantange to the Nids.
Remember that we can still move in the movement phase, so models that have higher M stats will get a double bonus if charges are D6+M.
2D6 charge range may be a good deal more random, but it makes melee units more balanced compared to other melee units.

D6+M would have been cool, but I am ok with 2D6" charges

-

2D6 sounds fine to me, especially as the charging unit attacks first.

Kataklysmic wrote:
While reading the latest 8th edition article (link below) i was dismayed to see not much had changed in regards to charging dynamics - at least not with what we currently know.

It looks like charges will still be a base 2d6 movement and either you make it or you don't. As i read it i instantly thought it's a missed opportunity when you have movement ranges in the new edition.

Personally i think 1d6+ the charging units movement is a much better, fluffier and more reliable way to do it. After browsing various sites online I've seen a lot of people saying exactly the same thing.

So i have a proposal, if a significant amount of the 40k player base would prefer something other than 2d6 if that's confirmed as all we get (no other rules to add that seriously effect it) do people think we could gather enough support on an online petition to genuinely make GW change their mind?

Considering they're selling the rules as a 'living document' with regular updates it's suddenly a possibility to actually update it.

I'm just testing the water for public opinion out of curiosity atm.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/01/new-warhammer-40000-charge-phasegw-homepage-post-4/

Yea, you aren't gonna win here if what poll says is true.

 admironheart wrote:


See the extreme fun of 2nd edition was the pure randomness of a dice game! We don't play chess we play a tactic game that always has a chance to blow up in your face. The best moments of game play are those out of the ordinary events that you talk about for years. Why... cause of dice rolling.

I don't want the game dumbed down too much and then it becomes just mathematics.

Different strokes and all that, but I can assure you that random =/= tactical.

The random elements inherent to most wargames (shooting and damage resolution to some capacity through hit/wound/save rolls primarily, and leadership generally) are already good enough to represent the nuances and vagaries of combat. In order to be tactical, you need to have some measure of control over the events unfolding on the table. Taken to an extreme, a game where your models moved a random amount in a random direction and shot a random range with a random weapon at a random unit would be just about the least tactical exercise you could come up with. Likewise, the idea isn't to turn 40k into chess with fixed armies and movement restrictions, its to mitigate unnecessary random dice rolling that adds zero tactical depth.

Currently, if I move a unit exactly 3" from an enemy unit and want to charge them, I'm more or less guaranteed to get there...except if I flip snake eyes. Now I eat overwatch, then the next round of shooting, then maybe a counter assault. All because I failed a charge roll that I otherwise planned almost perfectly. In prior editions (and most other games) actions like that would be fixed, so that I correctly maneuver into a position, I get the reward of doing more damage. BFG has boarding and teleport attacks (similar to close combat in 40k) and those values are fixed. Not a single person ever has ever played it and legitimately thought "Gee, this would be better if I had to make a D6 roll to determine the range of my teleport attack". Its a waste of time and offers no tactical depth.

A fixed number allows for actual planning in movement (which is by and large the most important and tactical part of most wargames, 40k excluded because of the way terrain is commonly used and the size of the board vs model count and weapon ranges/modifiers) while a random roll either rewards people by declaring a crazy 10"+ charge and rolling box cars, or failing some sub 6" charge because of gak luck.

Let's be clear though, random can be fun. In the right cases, with the right people, playing a game based more on random chance than tactical decision making can be fun and enjoyable. I don't doubt at all that 2nd was a riot. But in today's day and age where we're flooded with dozens of wargames, GW has to decide if it's going to be more tactical, and more fluff and loosy-goosy. If its the former, make charging less random or entirely fixed. If its the latter, keep 2D6".

I would rather it be M+1d6. 2 - 12 inches is too unpredictable.

Other aspects of the game are based on odds, and you always know what your chances are of pulling them off. If I have a 2+ to hit roll, odds are pretty good something gets hit, if it's 5+, then I would need a lot of them to do some damage.

The charge range is too unpredictable for me. I play assault style armies and don't like the idea that the odds of making anything over 7 inches vary that wildly. With the introduction of movement stats, I don't like the idea that every unit is going to charge the same range - it doesn't make sense.

Random IS tactical. Go play a few games of Blood Bowl and come back once you've seen games can be built entirely around risk management. Understanding the risks of failing an action based on dice, knowing the probabilities of success and making the decision to take the risk or not are good skills, and I'm glad charging involves that type of skill in what otherwise otherwise would devolve into a point-and-click game.

 KommissarKiln wrote:
Random IS tactical.

Okay cool i'm gonna roll 10 dice, i want you to tell me the results beforehand ... what are your tactics?

Kataklysmic wrote:

 KommissarKiln wrote:
Random IS tactical.

Okay cool i'm gonna roll 10 dice, i want you to tell me the results beforehand ... what are your tactics?

Yahtzee!

 techsoldaten wrote:
I would rather it be M+1d6. 2 - 12 inches is too unpredictable.

Other aspects of the game are based on odds, and you always know what your chances are of pulling them off. If I have a 2+ to hit roll, odds are pretty good something gets hit, if it's 5+, then I would need a lot of them to do some damage.

The charge range is too unpredictable for me. I play assault style armies and don't like the idea that the odds of making anything over 7 inches vary that wildly. With the introduction of movement stats, I don't like the idea that every unit is going to charge the same range - it doesn't make sense.

Think about the results of two dice added together. There isn't an equal chance of getting any number between 2 and 12 - it's far more likely to end up with a number in the middle.

Does it change your thinking on this subject when, instead of saying "I have to roll a 7 to make this charge", you could instead say "I've got about a 60% chance of making this charge"? A six inch charge on 2d6 is (almost) a 75% chance of success. Does that feel a bit less unpredictable?

2d6 is definitely more the realm of Warmahordes, but 40k players do the same probability maths for stuff like Leadership checks and Armour penetration for melta weapons... and charge ranges.

lol the people picking 2d6 are clearly gunline armies

2D6 makes it very obvious that dedicated assault units will be able to mess with this to increase their chances of a successful charge while non-dedicated assault units will need to think twice before assaulting in. This is how it should be. The people against this rule are looking at it in a vacuum and not thinking logically. Most of the rules are tweaks or copied from AoS, so logically this means they will also copy the individual unit special rules so assault units will be buffed on their own sheets.

Any unit that isn't meant to charge will risk the 2D6, while assault troops will get 3D6 or min charge distance or some other boost to their charge. M+1D6 is stupidly strong for fast units. Not every unit in the game should be able to make a charge reliably but those that should, will.

Current charge is fine, which has already been improved in huge ways.

You don't want Jump Infantry / Bikes being able to move + charge for 30 inches.

The possibility for counter play is what makes a game like this fun. A longer charge range removes that counter play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:
lol the people picking 2d6 are clearly gunline armies

or we play armies that rely on slower units like terminators. why would i vote for a nerf to my melee capability, which is what you're advocating here?


There should be parity between charging units. You do not have parity in move distances, but you do in charge distances. This makes slow units viable, and fast units not even more broken then they've already been.

Where is the meh ether or option?

or combo option where some units can get movement + xd6

i think certain units should get it

i think other units shouldnt.

also what happend to ram/tank shock.

Kataklysmic wrote:

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:
I mean, it's too late...the rules are probably already written and printed and ready for shipping. Maybe in an Errata in a few months?

Anyway, this is the best of both worlds, imo, assuming charge is its own phase after movement, make it 3" + 2D6 and discard the lowest die roll. Possibly M + 3" + 2D6 discard lowest die roll. Or double movement + 2D6 and discard lowest die roll, etc.

Either way, just add the discard lowest die roll. It still has the random factor that GW appears to want, but it has internal balancing to reach the median w/o being too swingy as a static 2D6 (+ anything) or D6 (+ anything) would be.

It kind of over complicates it and would cause even more of a problem with the highest movement units people are already concerened about if it were M + D6". If you're discarding lowest rolls to counter unreliability then 3 D6 discard the lowest would be much simpler, none of the 2/3d6 soloutions get overthe fact you can always roll all ones.

agreed. I was actually thinking of 3D6 discard lowest. But I still feel a unit's M should at least be taken into some consideration (why would Termis' charge distance potential be same as a Harleys?). Regardless, it'd still mitigate the randomness/wide swing potential by at least some %. Sure you can roll all 1's, but it's not as likely as just the 17% from a single D6.

Kataklysmic wrote:

 KommissarKiln wrote:
Random IS tactical.

Okay cool i'm gonna roll 10 dice, i want you to tell me the results beforehand ... what are your tactics?

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Kataklysmic wrote:

 KommissarKiln wrote:
Random IS tactical.

Okay cool i'm gonna roll 10 dice, i want you to tell me the results beforehand ... what are your tactics?

Yahtzee!

How about you read and respond to the full argument, or try what I suggested, before flooding the thread with straw man arguments and gakposting?

I am not completely against 2d6 charge as I quite enjoy the randomness and tension when you're trying to make a 10+" charge. I have seen people try and make long charges out of desperation but I sometimes like to go for a long charge if there are potentially big pay offs. I mean I couldn't say how many times I've failed a 3 or 4" charge so will sometimes go for long ones on the off chance I'll make it. It entertains me at least.

Either way I would just like a mechanic where even if I fail a charge I still get to move. It seems rather odd to me that when failing a charge of say 7 or 8 by a single inch my guys don't move at all...

How you fix that I'm not sure. Maybe charges are guaranteed at half move range and anything over that is 2d6 and then if you fail a charge you just move that half movement value?

Its true that random does not equal tactics but it is still a load of tactical decision making which comes from how the other rules interact with the random factor. If you know its random you would put much more thought into positioning and movement phases.

For example in 7th you know that failing a charge means you stumped. You have to take into account overwatch, difficult terrain, effects of charging through terrain and positioning of your opponents other units as a threat of counter charging.

If you abolish random charge ranges then it becomes solely a tactical process where you can win the game in listbuilding and the deployment phase but more mobile units get far more of an upper hand then they already have.

I support 2d6+1 which is effectively what the new rules are. It balances

 Nithaniel wrote:
Its true that random does not equal tactics but it is still a load of tactical decision making which comes from how the other rules interact with the random factor. If you know its random you would put much more thought into positioning and movement phases.

For example in 7th you know that failing a charge means you stumped. You have to take into account overwatch, difficult terrain, effects of charging through terrain and positioning of your opponents other units as a threat of counter charging.

If you abolish random charge ranges then it becomes solely a tactical process where you can win the game in listbuilding and the deployment phase but more mobile units get far more of an upper hand then they already have.

I support 2d6+1 which is effectively what the new rules are. It balances

even if its random you generally can tell what the averages should be. there is decision making in numbers games otherwise craps wouldnt be a thing.

 Desubot wrote:
Where is the meh ether or option?

I second this. It's all just an abstraction of how models are moving around. Do the methods really matter? Or the experience had on the tabletop?

 Formosa wrote:
lol the people picking 2d6 are clearly gunline armies

I'm Sisters, Space Wolves, and Imperial Guard. Only one of those is a gunline army.

While yes, being able to have Seraphim and Celestine cross the noman's land for a turn 1 assault on their jetpacks would be cool, I think it would be terrible for the game and for game balance.

The game would be about seeing who wins the initiative roll.

I think 1d6 + Move is probably a better mechanic, however, I could take or leave it at the end of the day. We've played with 2d6 charge distance for all of 6th and 7th Ed. There are so many other changes to 8th that I love, that random charge distance remaining is not a deal breaker.

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Where is the meh ether or option?

I second this. It's all just an abstraction of how models are moving around. Do the methods really matter? Or the experience had on the tabletop?

Well that depends on whether or not you're basing your enjoyment on the methods.

I'd be willing to bet a lot of the consternation surrounding this change comes from the same crowd that would fight over astroturf vs grass. They can argue all they want that it changes everything or changes nothing, and they could even be right - but in the end, people will still just keep playing baseball.

Just to throw this out there, but what if some units (like bikes) have more than a 12" move?
Eldar jetbikes, for example, could easily have 18"M stat (but no more turboboosting).

So Shining Spears would have guaranteed charges under a M+D6" system.

2D6 charges are better for the game.

 Galef wrote:
Just to throw this out there, but what if some units (like bikes) have more than a 12" move?
Eldar jetbikes, for example, could easily have 18"M stat (but no more turboboosting).

So Shining Spears would have guaranteed charges under a M+D6" system.

2D6 charges are better for the game.

M+D6 doesn't cap charge distance at 12. M+D6 means that you'd have a 19-24 charge range.

And double movement means a 36" charge range, if you add in the 18" move, that's 54" of charge. more than 4 feet. People don't even know what they're asking for, it's crazy.

 Formosa wrote:
lol the people picking 2d6 are clearly gunline armies

This is nonsense.

Charge range should be a straight d6" roll.

1" to 6", plus being within 1". That'd work.

That'd be fair.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Just to throw this out there, but what if some units (like bikes) have more than a 12" move?
Eldar jetbikes, for example, could easily have 18"M stat (but no more turboboosting).

So Shining Spears would have guaranteed charges under a M+D6" system.

2D6 charges are better for the game.

M+D6 doesn't cap charge distance at 12. M+D6 means that you'd have a 19-24 charge range.

And double movement means a 36" charge range, if you add in the 18" move, that's 54" of charge. more than 4 feet. People don't even know what they're asking for, it's crazy.

Just think about it. 1st turn charges against the army in the table at your side.
Rohirrim style!

 Jambles wrote:

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Where is the meh ether or option?

I second this. It's all just an abstraction of how models are moving around. Do the methods really matter? Or the experience had on the tabletop?

Well that depends on whether or not you're basing your enjoyment on the methods.

I'd be willing to bet a lot of the consternation surrounding this change comes from the same crowd that would fight over astroturf vs grass. They can argue all they want that it changes everything or changes nothing, and they could even be right - but in the end, people will still just keep playing baseball.

Oh! Good analogy! I will use that one in the future. Thanks!

 Galas wrote:
Just think about it. 1st turn charges against the army in the table at your side.
Rohirrim style!

My favorite scene in the whole trilogy! Charge!

But seriously, 2d6 is what it currently is in 6th edition, 2d6 is what is used in Age of Sigmar, and there are plenty of opportunities for speculating the math and statisctics behind it. Does anyone remember in 5th edition how Charges were set at 6 inches? I do, because Cavalry had 12 inch charges after their 6 inch move. Yes, that's right: TWELVE INCHES. No rolling, just moving them in. It was a trick you got to do against each player one time, but by golly in those days were my Rough Riders glorious on the charge... Felling many Tactical Marines and Terminators and trampling them beneath the hooves of the Imperial Guard's finest steeds. If you put in fixed charge distances, this could happen again to you!

If I HAD to choose, I would stick with 2d6 charges. Of all the things I have issues with in 40K 7th edition, the random charge range is NOT one of them

 Formosa wrote:
lol the people picking 2d6 are clearly gunline armies

I play drop pod marines... but I'm not a moron... I know that "good for the game" is better than "good for me now". Really wish more players thought of balance and a good game first and advocating for broken self serving mechanics a distance third.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
6+D6 might have been a more attractive option.... just sayin

 Talamare wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

What did you think of my proposal, then?

1/2 Move (rounded up) +2d3

For Move 5 or 6, you get an average 7", ranging from 5-9", with 7" (plus the 1" bubble of engagement) happening 1/3 of the time

It's too stable, 80% of the time you will get 6-8"

This. Due to the fact that this still uses multiple dice, the Bell Curve in probability calculations causes the middle total results to appear more. For example:

2d6, versus 1d12.
The chance of rolling 12 is 50% on both accounts. It happens, or it happens not.

The statistical probability, however, differs by far. As the 1d12 has twelve sides, and we should assume the die to be balanced, one in every twelve rolls should, statistically, be a result of 12. Rolling 12 on 2d6 means both sides must roll a result of '6'. Thats one in six probability, and another one in six probability. As such, there is but a one in thirtysix probability, three times as less compared to rolling a 1d12, of rolling 12 on 2d6.

To continue the example, rolling 11 on 1d12 also statistically happens once every twelve rolls. Rolling 12 on 2d6 requires either a fuve and a six, or a six and a five. Twice in thirtysix. This is because you need to take into account the fact that what you roll on one die, affects the possible matching result of the other die. Rolling 10 on 2d6 in a bell curve is even more probable. If the first die is a '6', the next must be a '4', If the first die results in a '5', the other must be a '5', and if the first die shows '4', the next must be '6'.

As such, there are 36 different outcomes when rolling 2d6. Rolling a total of 7 is the most probable. through a 1 and a 6, a 2 and a 5, a 3 and a 4, a 4 and a 3, a 5 and a 2, and finally a 6 and a 1. So out of those 36 outcomes 6 possible combinations give a total of 7. Other total numbers are less likely.

2d3, as Talamere mentioned, is too stable, as there are only 9 outcomes:

1+1 (2)
1+2 (3)
1+3 (4)
2+1 (3)
2+2 (4)
2+3 (5)
3+1 (4)
3+2 (5)
3+3 (6)

Of which but one give a total result of 2, only two give a total result of 3, three give a total of 4, only two combinations allow for a total of 5, and again, only one attains the total of 6. The more combinations on the dice allow for a certain total result, the more probable it is you roll that total outcome.

 Formosa wrote:
lol the people picking 2d6 are clearly gunline armies

orks, assault oriented marines, and mixed elder here.. I want 2d6 because it somewhat equalizes armies, could be a 2 could be a 12 likely a 7 and plan accordingly.

Just curious, to all those people saying it should just be D6, 2D6, etc (i.e. no double M or M + x, etc), why do you think charges should be completely random? What justification, whether mechanically (purely random determiners are good for the phase) or fluffly (dudes trip over rocks while charging)?

Sincere question, I truly don't understand the support of a 100% random charge range (not counting the 1" melee range) w/ no static addition or purely static mechanic (like, I believe, literally every other skirmish/wargame besides GW games has?).

2d6 was the only thing keeping people awake during the assault phase in the past 2 editions and while GW has made an effort to make close combat NOT the worst phase of the game, I think it needs all the gimmicks it can get to make it interesting.

You don't know what the movement is for any unit yet outside a few. How can you say Movement +D6 is a better idea?

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:
Just curious, to all those people saying it should just be D6, 2D6, etc (i.e. no double M or M + x, etc), why do you think charges should be completely random? What justification, whether mechanically (purely random determiners are good for the phase) or fluffly (dudes trip over rocks while charging)?

Sincere question, I truly don't understand the support of a 100% random charge range (not counting the 1" melee range) w/ no static addition or purely static mechanic (like, I believe, literally every other skirmish/wargame besides GW games has?).

Speaking of 8th only and the changes that are to come, I believe 2D6 keeps all units equal at the start of balancing. After that, you begin to identify which units are "assault" units and grant them bonuses to charging, such as rerolls, additional dice, or minimum distance charges, or something else unique to that unit. With these changes you have a system where a Guardsman with a lasgun charging is a risk, while a Berzerker with a chainaxe and pistol charging is far less risky. There is nothing wrong with 2D6 charge distance for all units when the dedicated assault units get bonuses to mitigate the risk (just look at AoS if you want examples).

Not everything needs the ability to charge reliably and I am glad GW understands this.

2D6 is fine. Charging units are not going to be going from a standing start so those fast units will be getting to charge sooner then the slower ones anyway.

Also (and this might change) when they gave the overview of movement the new version of running is only at the expense of shooting so a pure assault unit is going M + D6 + 2D6.

You also need to take into account momentum and stamina. Fast creatures only normally keep their speed for a short time and then slow to a crawl. A cheetah goes flat out for a few minutes tops then needs a rest, a husky runs for hours. So your Hormagaunt has gone charging across the battle field and may have burned up to much of its reserves where as the Terminator just keeps plodding on building speed as he goes.

We also don't know if some units will get buffs/nurfs for this like jump packs being 3D6 and Oblitorators gets on D6 or 2 D3.

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:
Just curious, to all those people saying it should just be D6, 2D6, etc (i.e. no double M or M + x, etc), why do you think charges should be completely random? What justification, whether mechanically (purely random determiners are good for the phase) or fluffly (dudes trip over rocks while charging)?

Sincere question, I truly don't understand the support of a 100% random charge range (not counting the 1" melee range) w/ no static addition or purely static mechanic (like, I believe, literally every other skirmish/wargame besides GW games has?).

If you go based off M the rich get richer and movement across the field gets insane (and I play bikes... a lot... It'd be bad). If its double M, then rapid fire becomes pointless... just sit at 13" and charge..

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:
Just curious, to all those people saying it should just be D6, 2D6, etc (i.e. no double M or M + x, etc), why do you think charges should be completely random? What justification, whether mechanically (purely random determiners are good for the phase) or fluffly (dudes trip over rocks while charging)?

Sincere question, I truly don't understand the support of a 100% random charge range (not counting the 1" melee range) w/ no static addition or purely static mechanic (like, I believe, literally every other skirmish/wargame besides GW games has?).

So, first off, I'm explicitly voicing opposition to a M+D6, or M+anything mechanic. I don't think a 25" minimum move+charge range is good for the game in any way, because if you can guarantee a turn one assault across the no man's land, especially with charging units striking first, the game will become about who can roll higher to go first.

Remember, it's not just the 2D6 you moved during the charge phase, it's also the distance you moved in your movement phase. So it's really a M+2d6 threat range. If you had a M+D6 move in the charge phase, it would be a 2M+D6 threat range. You can do the math for yourself on this

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
So, first off, I'm explicitly voicing opposition to a M+D6, or M+anything mechanic. I don't think a 25" minimum move+charge range is good for the game in any way, because if you can guarantee a turn one assault across the no man's land, especially with charging units striking first, the game will become about who can roll higher to go first.

Remember, it's not just the 2D6 you moved during the charge phase, it's also the distance you moved in your movement phase. So it's really a M+2d6 threat range. If you had a M+D6 move in the charge phase, it would be a 2M+D6 threat range. You can do the math for yourself on this

A good point.

Another thing to consider against this is the longest Movement ranges will likely be limited from being able to Charge in the first place. Think how much Charging a Dark Eldar Raider, Storm Raven, or Swooping Hive Tyrant do while moving so fast.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:
Just curious, to all those people saying it should just be D6, 2D6, etc (i.e. no double M or M + x, etc), why do you think charges should be completely random? What justification, whether mechanically (purely random determiners are good for the phase) or fluffly (dudes trip over rocks while charging)?

Sincere question, I truly don't understand the support of a 100% random charge range (not counting the 1" melee range) w/ no static addition or purely static mechanic (like, I believe, literally every other skirmish/wargame besides GW games has?).

So, first off, I'm explicitly voicing opposition to a M+D6, or M+anything mechanic. I don't think a 25" minimum move+charge range is good for the game in any way, because if you can guarantee a turn one assault across the no man's land, especially with charging units striking first, the game will become about who can roll higher to go first.

Remember, it's not just the 2D6 you moved during the charge phase, it's also the distance you moved in your movement phase. So it's really a M+2d6 threat range. If you had a M+D6 move in the charge phase, it would be a 2M+D6 threat range. You can do the math for yourself on this

Yeah, i get that the charge phase is just a proxy extension of the movement phase in this case. But I meant more so just in a vacuum. It actually makes me think even more of the phase order here. If we go by what GW has revealed in order, it's Movement -> Psychic -> Shooting -> Charge -> Fight? I suppose random charges AFTER all those phases makes more sense than say if you had to declare charge during movement.

Anyway, I get you still get the advantage of M, before other phases. And I get there are other factors that can give CC-oriented units bonuses to make up for a short charge. But I still think a fast unit should see the benefit of that speed during a charge. Maybe it'll translate better once the full rules are out and games start getting played.

Random, because the ground isn't actually nice and flat. It may be rough or bumpy and uneven, and people might slip or trip. Random captures those vagaries where the guy falls flat on his face.

And d6, because it's stupid that the far future is full of idiots who want to get closer to the enemies guns... better they get cut down at range.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
So, first off, I'm explicitly voicing opposition to a M+D6, or M+anything mechanic. I don't think a 25" minimum move+charge range is good for the game in any way, because if you can guarantee a turn one assault across the no man's land, especially with charging units striking first, the game will become about who can roll higher to go first.

Remember, it's not just the 2D6 you moved during the charge phase, it's also the distance you moved in your movement phase. So it's really a M+2d6 threat range. If you had a M+D6 move in the charge phase, it would be a 2M+D6 threat range. You can do the math for yourself on this

A good point.

Another thing to consider against this is the longest Movement ranges will likely be limited from being able to Charge in the first place. Think how much Charging a Dark Eldar Raider, Storm Raven, or Swooping Hive Tyrant do while moving so fast.

Okay, I just looked at Shadow War Armageddon.

Seraphim [and other jump troops] have 8" move speed.

So, with M+D6 charge range, jump troops reach 18"-23", avg 20.5", which isn't nearly as bad. It's about what it is for them now [14"-24", avg 19"], and more reliable. With the 2d6 charge range and movement stat, we get 11"-21", avg. 16"

Regular Eldar get 5" or 6", which puts them to 9"-19", avg. 14", or 14"-19", avg. 16.5" with M+D6 for charging.

Regular Marines get 4", which puts them to 7"-17", avg. 12", but 9"-15", avg. 11.5" with M+D6 for charging.


Note the magnification effect M+D6 has on threat range between, Eldar, Marines, and Jump Marines. This places a fairly hard limit on how fast a thing can be at all.

Assuming that 8th edition doesn't really add much we aren't aware of, I would like a more reliable assault distance like Move+d6. However, I can totally understand with players that don't want first turn charges. Without few, very tricky/point pricey exceptions I am with them.

I couldn't find it in a quick look of the rules, but can anyone tell me if the assaulting unit has to have line of sight before charging and or must charge in a straight line? I would assume so, but that might be applying different rules to 40K. If 40K doesn't have this, it really should which could help a little turn one charges well at least for the active player of the bottom of the turn. I also like these rules as it incentivizes a ranged army player to want to add more LOS blocking terrain, and I am all about getting more terrain on the table help or hurt me. In addition, with the change to the assaulting unit attacking first, I would like to see an exception to this for charging through terrain to include assaulting higher ground (like 3-4 inches up) which would see both sides attacking simultaneously (ala Bolt Action and the like). Although, it still won't help those units with poor close quarters combat abilities without heaps of luck.

Something that could also help but isn't possible with IGOUGO games is having everything start off the table. I really like games that do this as it makes getting to the game faster and essentially adds 2 feet to the width of the table.

Ultimately, even as an assault-ish army player, I am pretty okay with 2d6 charges. I am always going to try on a 7" or less and am willing to try for up to 9" when desperate. Plus, I go a bunch of transports to ferry them across the battlefield in any event.

My preference is to move charging back into the Movement phase (ala 2nd Edition), and have it as a flat double Movement.

Simple, removes the ridiculously huge random variable, and also removes the complaint about assault units getting to shoot and fight close combat in the same turn.

Personally, I'd prefer something like: 2D6" charge, but if the result is bad, you can swap the value rolled for your Move stat, in exchange for some kind of penalty.

I love how this thread was started as a 'EVERYONE THINKS 2D6 IS TARRIBAD... '

but almost 50% of the poll is people not minding 2d6 charge


did lol

2d6 for an important moment like whether or not 15 death company get to swing at all is dumb.

I was really hoping for SW:A's phase order on this. Move or double move to run/charge, shoot (the melee guys with pistols could shoot here,) fight.

The issue with random charge range is that it sometimes ends games on a stupid roll. Sometimes 15 death company trip over a rock and get obliterated next turn without doing any damage, sometimes they hop out from behind a wall 12" away and all turn into Usain Bolt and crash into your lines, and you take massive losses from a single roll going weird.

Something as important as "does this melee murder squad get to swing at all?" needs to have a more stable and sane method of determination. I'm all for going back to set charge range, or reducing the random in some way like making minimums based on move or something. I don't care what, just not wild 2d6.

The charge distance should be 6+d6 or you could make it 3d6 and keep the maximum distance you can move 12 inches. You end up with the same max distance, there's still randomness, yet there is some reliability now. Bikes potentially charging 2 inches is unacceptable and a bad game mechanic.

I love how all of these people are so adamantly for 2d6 charge ranges because the units they really want to use won't benefit the most from them. Such a selfish reason, yet ignoring the fact that your assault unit will still be better off then before with some insurance and guaranteed distance on your charge range.

Now that pistols have been given a distinct use in combat, there's no reason to retain the arbitrary distinction between movement and charges. They could easily just have a charge move take place in the movement phase as a run, doubling the range of movement.

We need random charge range just as much as we need random shooting range. And if we have one, we should have the other.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:
Just curious, to all those people saying it should just be D6, 2D6, etc (i.e. no double M or M + x, etc), why do you think charges should be completely random? What justification, whether mechanically (purely random determiners are good for the phase) or fluffly (dudes trip over rocks while charging)?

Sincere question, I truly don't understand the support of a 100% random charge range (not counting the 1" melee range) w/ no static addition or purely static mechanic (like, I believe, literally every other skirmish/wargame besides GW games has?).

So, first off, I'm explicitly voicing opposition to a M+D6, or M+anything mechanic. I don't think a 25" minimum move+charge range is good for the game in any way, because if you can guarantee a turn one assault across the no man's land, especially with charging units striking first, the game will become about who can roll higher to go first.

Remember, it's not just the 2D6 you moved during the charge phase, it's also the distance you moved in your movement phase. So it's really a M+2d6 threat range. If you had a M+D6 move in the charge phase, it would be a 2M+D6 threat range. You can do the math for yourself on this

Doesn't have to be this way.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fafnir wrote:
Now that pistols have been given a distinct use in combat, there's no reason to retain the arbitrary distinction between movement and charges. They could easily just have a charge move take place in the movement phase as a run, doubling the range of movement.

We need random charge range just as much as we need random shooting range. And if we have one, we should have the other.

This.
Declare charges in movement phase, 2x movement taking terrain into account - done.
Some units might get a bonus, or a Waagh bonus, or another unit/army specific modification, but as a base this works.

fine with 2d6 plus 1" plus whatever bonuses dedicated assault units are going to get, plus whatever variable pile in distances we'll get. like it said in the assault phase article, a 3 inch pile in that can be used to pull in units that you did not charge, denying them overwatch is amazing. combine that with most likely variable pile in distances a la AOS and assault will be fun.

GodDamUser wrote:
I love how this thread was started as a 'EVERYONE THINKS 2D6 IS TARRIBAD... '

but almost 50% of the poll is people not minding 2d6 charge


did lol

fifty percent of the people responding probably never played 2nd edition,
or for that matter ever used any mechanic other than 2d6 random charge distance.
Confirmation bias - we see what we know and we think that it is right...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cheebs wrote:
fine with 2d6 plus 1" plus whatever bonuses dedicated assault units are going to get, plus whatever variable pile in distances we'll get. like it said in the assault phase article, a 3 inch pile in that can be used to pull in units that you did not charge, denying them overwatch is amazing. combine that with most likely variable pile in distances a la AOS and assault will be fun.

Everything and everyone in a swirling vortex of 1" bubbles in the center, huh?
Yeah, sounds like a card game, "War".

Used to be that unit coherency mitigated templates.
Now, everyone will be measuring units to keep them 4.34" away from their other units so that they can't get dragged into a mess in the middle of the table.

 jeff white wrote:

fifty percent of the people responding probably never played 2nd edition,
or for that matter ever used any mechanic other than 2d6 random charge distance.
Confirmation bias - we see what we know and we think that it is right...

Hell I have played since 2nd Ed.. and have been playing Tyranids every edition...

So been declaring charges before movement, at double move rate.. to having 12" charge for hormagaunts.. then 6" to having to roll 2d6 for charge range. In the end have no real issue with 2d6 charging just means that I need to think tactics on chance to fail

Declaring charges? At that rate, let's go back to declaring shooting targets, too! And using the 2-D acetate targeter against large-based models!

ScarVet101 wrote:
2D6 is fine. Charging units are not going to be going from a standing start so those fast units will be getting to charge sooner then the slower ones anyway.

Also (and this might change) when they gave the overview of movement the new version of running is only at the expense of shooting so a pure assault unit is going M + D6 + 2D6.

You also need to take into account momentum and stamina. Fast creatures only normally keep their speed for a short time and then slow to a crawl. A cheetah goes flat out for a few minutes tops then needs a rest, a husky runs for hours. So your Hormagaunt has gone charging across the battle field and may have burned up to much of its reserves where as the Terminator just keeps plodding on building speed as he goes.

We also don't know if some units will get buffs/nurfs for this like jump packs being 3D6 and Oblitorators gets on D6 or 2 D3.

They actually said on facebook no charging after an advance.

GodDamUser wrote:
I love how this thread was started as a 'EVERYONE THINKS 2D6 IS TARRIBAD... '

but almost 50% of the poll is people not minding 2d6 charge


did lol

Talk about a thread backfire!

As a BA and Nid player, 2D6 charge was never the problem. It was everything else about the assault phase that changed from 5th to 6th/7th. Thus far 8th seems to have fixed all them. All thats left is wound allocation...

 Fafnir wrote:
Now that pistols have been given a distinct use in combat, there's no reason to retain the arbitrary distinction between movement and charges. They could easily just have a charge move take place in the movement phase as a run, doubling the range of movement.

We need random charge range just as much as we need random shooting range. And if we have one, we should have the other.

This is stupid for reasons many other people have listed. My suggestion is to just let close combat die altogether, it's stupid in a setting where things like D-cannons and titans exist anyway.

My issue was the inability to charge from vehicles and being shot off the board before it even matters... And they fixed the first, and t he second I hope will be fixed.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
My issue was the inability to charge from vehicles and being shot off the board before it even matters... And they fixed the first, and t he second I hope will be fixed.

Well other than Tyranids the 1st one will help a lot of armies out with #2 on your list

Tyranids I hope will just get fast movement for it's gribblies, a less awful Synapse, a better Shadow in the Warp.. Actually I can just stop here and say I hope everything improves and that I can finally see things that aren't Flyrants.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Tyranids I hope will just get fast movement for it's gribblies, a less awful Synapse, a better Shadow in the Warp.. Actually I can just stop here and say I hope everything improves and that I can finally see things that aren't Flyrants.

I agree on pretty much every one of those, I love my Tyranids but they need so much help, I am really hoping they will be good next edition.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Tyranids I hope will just get fast movement for it's gribblies, a less awful Synapse, a better Shadow in the Warp.. Actually I can just stop here and say I hope everything improves and that I can finally see things that aren't Flyrants.

Me too! I hate the things!

ERJAK wrote:
They actually said on facebook no charging after an advance.

ugh, really? So the only real thing I'm getting out of that is that they just wanted to break up the the Move/charge phase into 2 opposite ends of the player turn just to add some "tactical depth" or something?

Again, I'll wait til the rules come out and some games are played, but now I dislike Charging in 8Ed even more...

 Blacksails wrote:
Currently, if I move a unit exactly 3" from an enemy unit and want to charge them, I'm more or less guaranteed to get there...except if I flip snake eyes. Now I eat overwatch, then the next round of shooting, then maybe a counter assault. All because I failed a charge roll that I otherwise planned almost perfectly. In prior editions (and most other games) actions like that would be fixed, so that I correctly maneuver into a position, I get the reward of doing more damage. BFG has boarding and teleport attacks (similar to close combat in 40k) and those values are fixed. Not a single person ever has ever played it and legitimately thought "Gee, this would be better if I had to make a D6 roll to determine the range of my teleport attack". Its a waste of time and offers no tactical depth.

A fixed number allows for actual planning in movement (which is by and large the most important and tactical part of most wargames, 40k excluded because of the way terrain is commonly used and the size of the board vs model count and weapon ranges/modifiers) while a random roll either rewards people by declaring a crazy 10"+ charge and rolling box cars, or failing some sub 6" charge because of gak luck.
.

Problems with fixed charge ranges:

a) shooty armies would get HUGE boost. They can skirt at will impunity being always at least 0.1" away from being charged maximizing their firepower. Last time I checked shooty armies don't need boost. It's also extremely unrealistic as in reality nobody can estimate distances THAT accurately in real combat situation
b) it's also extremely unrealistic. Above is one reason and also in war there's never ever EVER perfect situation. Confusion with order that causes slight hesitation. Troopers get momentary freeze from fear. Somebody trips over bush etc(no battlefield is all even and clear terrain even if board looks like one) forcing delay. Troopers dont' have such a god view and god command as players and miniatures.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:
lol the people picking 2d6 are clearly gunline armies

or we play armies that rely on slower units like terminators. why would i vote for a nerf to my melee capability, which is what you're advocating here?


There should be parity between charging units. You do not have parity in move distances, but you do in charge distances. This makes slow units viable, and fast units not even more broken then they've already been.

Or are worried people want fixed ranges and are themselves playing assault armies seeing fixed range charges would favour shooty armies.

Or are playing like me combo. Neither gunline, neither assault but mix of both.

2D6 charge is the best mechanic for this phase of the game, bar none. It helps simulate the various issues faced by troops slogging it through a battlefield, adds tactical depth, as it provides unforeseen circumstances with which to deal, is fast, clear, concise and avoids pedantry regarding miniscule movements and measurements.

It's nice to see that it has infact been proven, in real time, that GW has listened to it's customers. As the poll shows the 2D6 option, is in fact, the most popular.

 Marmatag wrote:

M+D6 doesn't cap charge distance at 12. M+D6 means that you'd have a 19-24 charge range.

Except you can't pick charge against unit beyond 12" so it kinda does....Sure your stragglers will get into combat very quick but that's it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:
Sincere question, I truly don't understand the support of a 100% random charge range (not counting the 1" melee range) w/ no static addition or purely static mechanic (like, I believe, literally every other skirmish/wargame besides GW games has?).

Plenty games have uncertain movements. Even non-GW's have system where unit does not neccessarily do ANYTHING if you fluke command roll etc. Neccessary thing to simulate fog of war and prevent god-view of players making for unrealistic game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
My preference is to move charging back into the Movement phase (ala 2nd Edition), and have it as a flat double Movement.

Simple, removes the ridiculously huge random variable, and also removes the complaint about assault units getting to shoot and fight close combat in the same turn.

Aaah yes huge nerfbat to assault armies. Just what 40k needs!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeff white wrote:
Declare charges in movement phase, 2x movement taking terrain into account - done.
Some units might get a bonus, or a Waagh bonus, or another unit/army specific modification, but as a base this works.

Sure if you want to nerf assault armies into oblivion

Funny. We have spent now couple editions reading "shooting is too powerfull" yet what I read now? "NERF ASSAULT ARMIES!"

tneva82 wrote:

a) shooty armies would get HUGE boost. They can skirt at will impunity being always at least 0.1" away from being charged maximizing their firepower. .

Which is eadily fixed by not allowing units to fire at full effect while moving, and/or by making sure that assault units can move faster than shooty units.

A unit can also only back up so far before the Edge of the table becomes an issue...

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
They actually said on facebook no charging after an advance.

ugh, really? So the only real thing I'm getting out of that is that they just wanted to break up the the Move/charge phase into 2 opposite ends of the player turn just to add some "tactical depth" or something?

Again, I'll wait til the rules come out and some games are played, but now I dislike Charging in 8Ed even more...

Move, shoot, charge. Remove shoot from the middle and while that would speed up it would also be pretty big nerf to assault armies. What would you give them in return?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

a) shooty armies would get HUGE boost. They can skirt at will impunity being always at least 0.1" away from being charged maximizing their firepower. .

Which is eadily fixed by not allowing units to fire at full effect while moving, and/or by making sure that assault units can move faster than shooty units.

A unit can also only back up so far before the Edge of the table becomes an issue...

So now you are talking about changing other aspects of 8th ed. It's not as easy as "change this rule". You then need to rework most of game from the ground up again.

And as it is assault armies would run out of models before edge of table becomes issue...

 insaniak wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

a) shooty armies would get HUGE boost. They can skirt at will impunity being always at least 0.1" away from being charged maximizing their firepower. .

Which is eadily fixed by not allowing units to fire at full effect while moving, and/or by making sure that assault units can move faster than shooty units.

A unit can also only back up so far before the Edge of the table becomes an issue...

Altho they are taking it in the opposite direction
Heavy Guns can now move with minimal penalty

Too much of the lore is pretty mixed up for speed to be a consistent thing.
Terminators, for example, are often a slow moving assault unit.
Bikers, Jetbikers, Open Top Vehicles are all highly mobile and can be pretty shooty.

Besides, there is only so much shooting a unit can take before it dies.

 Hollow wrote:
It's nice to see that it has infact been proven, in real time, that GW has listened to it's customers. As the poll shows the 2D6 option, is in fact, the most popular.

lol, the rules have already been made, irrespective of this poll.

Surely GW will listen to this "unbiased" poll!

tneva82 wrote:
Plenty games have uncertain movements. Even non-GW's have system where unit does not neccessarily do ANYTHING if you fluke command roll etc. Neccessary thing to simulate fog of war and prevent god-view of players making for unrealistic game.

I mean, could you name one/some? I've played/read a lot of systems and I can't think of any that is 100% random charging. Granted, I've never read an Osprey book (which I know publishes a lot), I know there's a lot of obscure games out there, and my memory is at time spotty. But...yeah, just off the top of my head, the games listed in my sig, BMG, WoK, WMH, BA, Saga...I don't think any of them lack a double M or M+x charge mechanic.

tneva82 wrote:

So now you are talking about changing other aspects of 8th ed. It's not as easy as "change this rule". You then need to rework most of game from the ground up again..

Well, yes. I was suggesting my preference. I have zero expectation that GW are going to change the 8th edition asault rules sure to a few complaints on forums.

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:
lol, the rules have already been made, irrespective of this poll.

The rules were made with GW's ear against the chest of the Warhammer community (So they say) listening to it's beating heart. They did not come away with "The community hate 2D6 charges" did they? As evidenced by the rules that were created. This poll is just a small signifier that they have read the pulse of the community well.

ERJAK wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Now that pistols have been given a distinct use in combat, there's no reason to retain the arbitrary distinction between movement and charges. They could easily just have a charge move take place in the movement phase as a run, doubling the range of movement.

We need random charge range just as much as we need random shooting range. And if we have one, we should have the other.

This is stupid for reasons many other people have listed. My suggestion is to just let close combat die altogether, it's stupid in a setting where things like D-cannons and titans exist anyway.

You're talking about a setting where crazy guys in giant robot chairs walk around making people take trial by drinking massive jugs of holy water to the point of choking. The fact that we play 40k at all is pretty stupid. Might was well get rid of the entire 40k setting, because every meaningful battle should be fought in space.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire concept and identity of the sci-fantasy universe that is Warhammer 40k.

Orbital bombardment with a skip filled with dice. Crush the table, the figures and your opponent. It's the only way to be sure.

 Hollow wrote:
This poll is just a small signifier that they have read the pulse of the community well.

I'm not sure that a poll where more than half of the respondents have voted for another option really suggests an overwhelming community support for the 2D6...

Why not move + d6 with a universal rule that charge distance can not exceed 12 inches?

You'd cut down on a lot of rolling for fast units, fast units wouldn't be charging 2 inches, infantry would still get a reliable charge with some unpredictability, it seems like the best way to go for me.

I love 2D6 charges and I am glad they are staying.

Combat specialists will often get rules on their dataslate to give them an edge too, such as a 3D6 charge, or being able to re-roll the lowest dice.

Tabletop games run much smoother with pre-measuring in my opinion. But pre-measuring plus fixed charges would make the game far too cagey I think. As players would be able to sit outside of threat range at all times.

Two combat armies facing off against each other would be just as bad with one not wanting to enter threat range of the other as they could guarantee they'd be charged themselves in the following turn and lose the advantage.

Where 2D6 is advantageous over 1D6+M is that it gives a nice bell-curve of result distribution (with a 7 being the most common, followed by a 6 or 8, and so on), and it also gives a good range (from 2" to 12").

It means to be a good general you need to try and mitigate the odds as best you can (getting as many units within 7" before you charge), but you also have to be flexible and adaptable to the luck on the battlefield.

I wouldn't want it to be applied to shooting because firstly it would be a mess rules-wise. Units have mixed weapons and the variety of ranges varies greatly. If you gave every gun a variable range on its profile it would bog the game down with a whole set of new dice rolls to make every turn.

Having a difference between charging and shooting in this manner also makes shooting feel technological and reliable, whereas combat feels desperate, savage and brutal. I love this juxtaposition and it feels really evocative of the sci-fi meets dark ages setting that 40k is.

 insaniak wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
This poll is just a small signifier that they have read the pulse of the community well.

I'm not sure that a poll where more than half of the respondents have voted for another option really suggests an overwhelming community support for the 2D6...

Quite clearly it doesn't. That's why I didn't state that it does.

 Robin5t wrote:
Why not move + d6 with a universal rule that charge distance can not exceed 12 inches?

You'd cut down on a lot of rolling for fast units, fast units wouldn't be charging 2 inches, infantry would still get a reliable charge with some unpredictability, it seems like the best way to go for me.

Fast units would then have no chance of failure and you would have way too long(26"+ easily) quaranteed charge ranges.

What if a units M stat is 12? or more? They aren't capped at 10.

 Robin5t wrote:
Why not move + d6 with a universal rule that charge distance can not exceed 12 inches?
.

Because that's effectively just Move plus 1", if you want to guarantee the charge will work.

In which case you might as well just make it Move plus 1" and save the unnecessary roll.

I'm in favor of a less random charge but it should be random with how pre-measurement works. We don't know all the rules yet so it's hard to say if it's gona be op or not. But i think that 3 or 4 + d6' is good considering there's always a 1" advantage now and that you can only fail a 1" charge on snake eyes through difterrain - if it still works as a -2' modifier.

But do we know if casualties are still taken from the front?

Not yet, no.

I'm fine with the 2D6+1" we'll be getting.

Yes, it can be annoying when the charge you really, really wanted to pull off falls short, and worse, you get Overwatched in the face for your troubles.

But, that's all part of the game's challenge.

If your entire plan all along has been that one charge, and it's truly what your victory hinges upon, well more fool you.

Knowing there's potential for all but the shortest of dashes to fail, why didn't you at least try to plan for it?

If you don't like random factors in games, why are you playing a game with any dice rolls involved at all? We've all suffered from Rubber Lance Syndrome. We've all scoffed at paltry Lasguns before utterly whiffing our 2+ armour saves en masse. Sure, we hope it won't come to that - but there's always that chance.

Charge distances as a sure thing are boring, especially in games where you can freely pre-measure.

Consider this....

In 3rd, 4th, 5th and I think 6th Ed (I may be wrong on 6th) there was no pre-measuring allowed. Now, at that point fixed charge reaches are ok - it's down to player skill to eyeball whether or not you'll be within that vital 6" - and a canny player would watch his opponent's measurements to get a better idea (so for instance, if he was just out of Rapid Fire, no point going for the charge in your next turn).

But now? Now I can freely measure whatever and whenever I want. If I was facing 6" charge reach across your army, it's an absolute doddle to simply fall back to the requisite 12.1" to keep you at arms length, and safe from a solid kicking.

But with a random charge reach? Well, that's a fear for me as well as you. Ideally, I'd like to hang back around 14.1" from your dude, to account for your 6" move, and average of 7" charge - gives me the breathing space I require, and if needs be leaves you well within most Rapid Fire ranges in the current game. But even then there's a significant risk factor. If you've got any toys or abilities which add to your distance, or make your distance more reliable, then I'll have to rethink, and possibly miss out on extra shots as I constantly fall back to keep a healthy distance.

2D6+1" - it's the future, and I doubt it's going anywhere anytime soon.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

If you don't like random factors in games, why are you playing a game with any dice rolls involved at all?

Not liking this particular bit of random and not liking random factors at all are not the same thing.

But now? Now I can freely measure whatever and whenever I want. If I was facing 6" charge reach across your army, it's an absolute doddle to simply fall back to the requisite 12.1" to keep you at arms length, and safe from a solid kicking..

Which is brilliant. You're now further away from the objective, without my unit even having to strike a blow.

 Hollow wrote:
2D6 charge is the best mechanic for this phase of the game, bar none. It helps simulate the various issues faced by troops slogging it through a battlefield, adds tactical depth, as it provides unforeseen circumstances with which to deal, is fast, clear, concise and avoids pedantry regarding miniscule movements and measurements.

It's nice to see that it has infact been proven, in real time, that GW has listened to it's customers. As the poll shows the 2D6 option, is in fact, the most popular.

Popular does not equal better.
It means that the people voting are most comfortable with this choice at the moment.
Have most voting Dakkanauts played with fixed ranges? With a different style of overwatch? For years, or even once?
Until they have, popular only confirms an active bias.
Should a company serve an active bias?
Or design a game that works best as a battle field simulation?
Or design a game with lots of dice rolling that ends up a mash of units in the middle of the table after turn three?
Or something else?
Not so cut and dried...
Besides, in order to respond to their customers, they would have to first expose those customers to options and allow them to choose in good time.
IMHO, there is no reason that they couldn't have allowed for more than one rule, by design.
Why not include three different ways to play?
M x 2, M + d6, or 2d6?
Then, after a month, and a year, have a poll...
Then, we may have data reliable enough to claim success in being responsive to their customers...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

But now? Now I can freely measure whatever and whenever I want. If I was facing 6" charge reach across your army, it's an absolute doddle to simply fall back to the requisite 12.1" to keep you at arms length, and safe from a solid kicking..

Which is brilliant. You're now further away from the objective, without my unit even having to strike a blow.

Just as planned, you feel for my feint and now I control the field, a ha ha ha hA!



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I'm fine with the 2D6+1" we'll be getting.

Yes, it can be annoying when the charge you really, really wanted to pull off falls short, and worse, you get Overwatched in the face for your troubles.

But, that's all part of the game's challenge.
...

Charge distances as a sure thing are boring, especially in games where you can freely pre-measure.

Consider this....

In 3rd, 4th, 5th and I think 6th Ed (I may be wrong on 6th) there was no pre-measuring allowed. Now, at that point fixed charge reaches are ok - it's down to player skill to eyeball whether or not you'll be within that vital 6" - and a canny player would watch his opponent's measurements to get a better idea (so for instance, if he was just out of Rapid Fire, no point going for the charge in your next turn).

But now? Now I can freely measure whatever and whenever I want. If I was facing 6" charge reach across your army, it's an absolute doddle to simply fall back to the requisite 12.1" to keep you at arms length, and safe from a solid kicking.

But with a random charge reach? Well, that's a fear for me as well as you. Ideally, I'd like to hang back around 14.1" from your dude, to account for your 6" move, and average of 7" charge - gives me the breathing space I require, and if needs be leaves you well within most Rapid Fire ranges in the current game. But even then there's a significant risk factor. If you've got any toys or abilities which add to your distance, or make your distance more reliable, then I'll have to rethink, and possibly miss out on extra shots as I constantly fall back to keep a healthy distance.

2D6+1" - it's the future, and I doubt it's going anywhere anytime soon.

Premeasuring to the eighth of an inch might be the problem, after all, huh?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
This poll is just a small signifier that they have read the pulse of the community well.

I'm not sure that a poll where more than half of the respondents have voted for another option really suggests an overwhelming community support for the 2D6...

I would have to agree here...

tneva82 wrote:

Problems with fixed charge ranges:

a) shooty armies would get HUGE boost. They can skirt at will impunity being always at least 0.1" away from being charged maximizing their firepower. Last time I checked shooty armies don't need boost. It's also extremely unrealistic as in reality nobody can estimate distances THAT accurately in real combat situation
b) it's also extremely unrealistic. Above is one reason and also in war there's never ever EVER perfect situation. Confusion with order that causes slight hesitation. Troopers get momentary freeze from fear. Somebody trips over bush etc(no battlefield is all even and clear terrain even if board looks like one) forcing delay. Troopers dont' have such a god view and god command as players and miniatures.

a) Basically what Insaniak said. We had a few editions of fixed charge range. It worked fine.
b) First of all, realism doesn't matter. Its all an abstraction either way. Second, if you want to be realistic and have your troops hesitate and trip and stumble, why isn't ordinary movement random as well? They're not just strolling, they're advancing under fire and ducking and dodging and finding cover. Surely they shouldn't just move a flat distance every turn, that's be super unrealistic.

If you accept the premise that ordinary movement represents more than a simple stroll up the battlefield, than all the logic about how random charge distance represents the unknown on the battlefield should be equally applied everywhere. This isn't a simulation. A fixed (or less random) charge distance still represents all the things you talked about, its just that its been averaged to make the game more of a tactical exercise than yahtzee.

40k can't be game where you emulate everything on the battlefield in exacting detail. That's what the RPGs are for.

2D6 is simply too random and doesn't represent reality any more than any other option being tabled.

 Hollow wrote:

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:
lol, the rules have already been made, irrespective of this poll.

The rules were made with GW's ear against the chest of the Warhammer community (So they say) listening to it's beating heart. They did not come away with "The community hate 2D6 charges" did they? As evidenced by the rules that were created. This poll is just a small signifier that they have read the pulse of the community well.

Oof. Wow. Are you sure that they allowed testing to consider a different way to play?
Are you sure that the testing community had the experience with other systems, with older 40k systems, to make a good comparison as a group?
My suspicion is that the same % of respondents who prefer strategy (fixed move taking into account terrain) over randomness (2d6) in this poll might be found amongst the playtesters who were perhaps drowned out by a more vocal, younger tourney oriented MtG groomed listbuilding subset, so the pure strategy RPG and historical influence was ignored. That, or more likely, testers weren't given an option either way. 2d6 was likely carried over as it matches current GW game designer meta-bias...

 Hollow wrote:
2D6 charge is the best mechanic for this phase of the game, bar none. It helps simulate the various issues faced by troops slogging it through a battlefield, adds tactical depth, as it provides unforeseen circumstances with which to deal, is fast, clear, concise and avoids pedantry regarding miniscule movements and measurements.

It's nice to see that it has infact been proven, in real time, that GW has listened to it's customers. As the poll shows the 2D6 option, is in fact, the most popular.

How would you feel about having randomized shooting range?

I also have not pick an answer to the poll, as none of them really fit what i want.
I would rather see a flat movement again for charge, with unit rules to change that a bit.
It keeps it simple, and takes out a lot of rolling that can otherwise be used for other factors including rolls during the phase itself.
I would also hope not to see many units at all over 9.

 insaniak wrote:

But now? Now I can freely measure whatever and whenever I want. If I was facing 6" charge reach across your army, it's an absolute doddle to simply fall back to the requisite 12.1" to keep you at arms length, and safe from a solid kicking..

Which is brilliant. You're now further away from the objective, without my unit even having to strike a blow.

Probably not. If I'm that afraid of your charge, my objectives are all safe within my gunline and I've bought myself another turn of artillery bombardment. Perhaps, if I had to yield an objective, I'll come back out to take it back next turn after my artillery has taken another chunk out of your assault force and I'm confident I can take your charge.

This works out alarmingly well in the current edition, even with random charge. Fall back 6", shoot them, return forward 6", shoot them, shoot what's left of them when they charge.

tneva82 wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
My preference is to move charging back into the Movement phase (ala 2nd Edition), and have it as a flat double Movement.

Simple, removes the ridiculously huge random variable, and also removes the complaint about assault units getting to shoot and fight close combat in the same turn.

Aaah yes huge nerfbat to assault armies. Just what 40k needs!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeff white wrote:
Declare charges in movement phase, 2x movement taking terrain into account - done.
Some units might get a bonus, or a Waagh bonus, or another unit/army specific modification, but as a base this works.

Sure if you want to nerf assault armies into oblivion

Funny. We have spent now couple editions reading "shooting is too powerfull" yet what I read now? "NERF ASSAULT ARMIES!"

How are you so sure? Have you played a game this way, counting for terrain, with a different style of overwatch (that is really overwatch, and not 'reaction shots' as my friend Lord Xcapobl calls them)?
Have you played 2nd ed. Modified 2nd ed. Have you played historical mini games? Have you considered not allowing premeasuring to the tenth of an inch?
Exactly how can you be so certain without having done so in the context of the new system as a whole?

Why dosen't everyone just cool down a bit, and hold off on burning their models untill we've actually seen all of the rules, special rules, and unit stats before we freak out.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

But now? Now I can freely measure whatever and whenever I want. If I was facing 6" charge reach across your army, it's an absolute doddle to simply fall back to the requisite 12.1" to keep you at arms length, and safe from a solid kicking..

Which is brilliant. You're now further away from the objective, without my unit even having to strike a blow.

Probably not. If I'm that afraid of your charge, my objectives are all safe within my gunline and I've bought myself another turn of artillery bombardment. Perhaps, if I had to yield an objective, I'll come back out to take it back next turn after my artillery has taken another chunk out of your assault force and I'm confident I can take your charge.

Maybe, but that is a chance that you will have to take now, won't you...
Strategy is risky. Dice rolls are random.

 jeff white wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

But now? Now I can freely measure whatever and whenever I want. If I was facing 6" charge reach across your army, it's an absolute doddle to simply fall back to the requisite 12.1" to keep you at arms length, and safe from a solid kicking..

Which is brilliant. You're now further away from the objective, without my unit even having to strike a blow.

Probably not. If I'm that afraid of your charge, my objectives are all safe within my gunline and I've bought myself another turn of artillery bombardment. Perhaps, if I had to yield an objective, I'll come back out to take it back next turn after my artillery has taken another chunk out of your assault force and I'm confident I can take your charge.

Maybe, but that is a chance that you will have to take now, won't you...
Strategy is risky. Dice rolls are random.

No. It's no risk, no chance. You can't reach me, so I get to shoot you, with 3 Basilisks, a Wyvern, a Manitcore, 4 Leman Russ Tanks, and 100 guardsmen.

If I had to worry about you rolling a 8, and catching my guardsmen, that would be risky. But with a fixed charge, unless the charge is so ridiculously long you can reach my back board edge on turn two, I can just stay exactly where you can't reach me until there's not enough left of you to be a threat, then walk out and cap the points.

Some part of tactics is calculated risk. That's where die rolls come in.

As I said, I think 2d6 works really well. It's got a nice probability curve that's easy to understand and plan around, yet still has enough variance.

 Blacksails wrote:
a) Basically what Insaniak said. We had a few editions of fixed charge range. It worked fine.

We had lots of complaining about gamey aspect of it. Not to mention how hard it was for assault armies. Hardly "working fine" when it caused lots of complaining ever since 3rd ed.

And some sort of realism is needed. God view 100% reliable is too unrealistic for suspension of disbelief.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeff white wrote:
How are you so sure? Have you played a game this way, counting for terrain, with a different style of overwatch (that is really overwatch, and not 'reaction shots' as my friend Lord Xcapobl calls them)?
Have you played 2nd ed. Modified 2nd ed. Have you played historical mini games? Have you considered not allowing premeasuring to the tenth of an inch?
Exactly how can you be so certain without having done so in the context of the new system as a whole?

I have played all the editions except 1st. We currently play modified 2nd. Only reason this isn't major issue there is that assault armies tend to be so disadvantaged to begin with nobody really bothers taking them!

Premeasuring is all or nothing. You either allow premeasuring or not. And no premeasuring simply hinders new players and those with bad eyesight while allowing lots more arquments. No surprise games move to premeasuring generally.

Also I have been online like 17 years. I remember very well all the complains about gameying the static charge ranges and how shooty armies could use it to stay at safety at impunity from assaulty units. That would be even more true in 8th ed with more relaxed move&shoot rules.

FunJohn wrote:
Why dosen't everyone just cool down a bit, and hold off on burning their models untill we've actually seen all of the rules, special rules, and unit stats before we freak out.

Because the rest of the game is largely irrelevant if you've already come across one part of the game that you know is going to be a deal-breaker?

They've made Overwatch sillier. They've kept the 2D6 charge. Those two things alone are enough to tell me I'm unlikely to enjoy 8th edition much more than I enjoyed 6th.

 insaniak wrote:

FunJohn wrote:
Why dosen't everyone just cool down a bit, and hold off on burning their models untill we've actually seen all of the rules, special rules, and unit stats before we freak out.

Because the rest of the game is largely irrelevant if you've already come across one part of the game that you know is going to be a deal-breaker?

They've made Overwatch sillier. They've kept the 2D6 charge. Those two things alone are enough to tell me I'm unlikely to enjoy 8th edition much more than I enjoyed 6th.

I think tanks getting Hull Points was the worst thing to happen in that change, and they've doubled down on that part of it too.

Overwatch is fairly harmless. I don't think I've ever thought twice about charging into melee because the enemy might kill me with overwatch. Being able to assault out of transports I think will do more for assault than overwatch or random charges do against it.

And I think 2d6 charges help anyway.

Biggest issue with overwatch was when it was combined with casualties at front. If that changes overwatch is rarely going to be issue.

tneva82 wrote:
Biggest issue with overwatch was when it was combined with casualties at front. If that changes overwatch is rarely going to be issue.

Even then, I rarely lose more than one Repentia to overwatch fire. Sometimes I lose 2 or 3, but that's the exception and even then it's hardly crippling.

Having to stand around after debarking from a Rhino or getting shot while running across the no-man's land without a transport is far more problematic.

I imagine you might get different results from charging Tau gunlines compared to charging Eldar or Space Marines, or tanks, though.


Overwatch is one of those things that could disappear or stay and I probably wouldn't notice. It's the least consequential of all the changes.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Biggest issue with overwatch was when it was combined with casualties at front. If that changes overwatch is rarely going to be issue.

Even then, I rarely lose more than one Repentia to overwatch fire. Sometimes I lose 2 or 3, but that's the exception and even then it's hardly crippling.

Having to stand around after debarking from a Rhino or getting shot while running across the no-man's land without a transport is far more problematic.

I imagine you might get different results from charging Tau gunlines compared to charging Eldar or Space Marines, or tanks, though.


Overwatch is one of those things that could disappear or stay and I probably wouldn't notice. It's the least consequential of all the changes.

True but biggest impact it has is generally because it managed to kill just enough to stop assault in track. Especially with flamers that could happen tad more often. But in pure damage 6's to hit generally prevent it from being huge deal breaker. If ability to stop assault by removal from front is removed like vast majority of overwatch impact vanishes away(short of like trying to charge orks into squad of 10 flamers or something silly like that!)

But generally agreed but there's still possibility overwatch suffers huge nerf if casualty removal goes to AOS style.

The argument that 2d6 helps assault units seems asinine to me. Yes, shooting units will want to get far enough way so that they can shoot and not get attacked, but here's the thing: if you want to prevent that, then you need to nerf the shooting and moving abilities that those units have. Make rapid fire have to stand still to get the shot further than 12", make Heavy weapons stand still to fire at all. force shooting armies to stand still to do damage and that solves the problem in a way that doesn't penalizes assault.

1) Not premeasuring is, always has been, and always will be completely broken. It just doesn't work. Give it up.

2) 2D6 gives a probability curve. Note that we now effectively get 2D6+1. I'm happy with probability curves. It is, after all, a game of dice...

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
The argument that 2d6 helps assault units seems asinine to me. Yes, shooting units will want to get far enough way so that they can shoot and not get attacked, but here's the thing: if you want to prevent that, then you need to nerf the shooting and moving abilities that those units have. Make rapid fire have to stand still to get the shot further than 12", make Heavy weapons stand still to fire at all. force shooting armies to stand still to do damage and that solves the problem in a way that doesn't penalizes assault.

Didn't help in 2-6 editions and now you are talking about changing entire 8th ed to insert fixed charge ranges....

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:


Overwatch is fairly harmless. I don't think I've ever thought twice about charging into melee because the enemy might kill me with overwatch.

I should have thought twice, that time I tried to charge Flamers of Tzeentch with Grey Hunters... That didn't end well.

The issue with Overwatch isn't that it's an obstacle to charging, but simply that it's poorly implemented. 2nd edition overwatch was a tactical choice: do you forgoe your turn in the hope that a target will present itself later?

6th/7th ed Overwatch is not. It's a time-waster that rarely has any significant effect on the game, unless it's against low-armoured units where, combined with casualties from the front, it's a potential get-out-of-assault-free card with no penalty or cost to the defending unit.

And they've doubled down on that little bit of stupid by allowing it multiple times.

 insaniak wrote:
And they've doubled down on that little bit of stupid by allowing it multiple times.

And possibly nerfed it into practical oblivion. I'm going to wait to see casualty removal before judging overwatch. If it's owner chooses then overwatch becomes so weak that short of flamer wall against orks etc it's pretty much minor annoyance.

 insaniak wrote:

And they've doubled down on that little bit of stupid by allowing it multiple times.

They've also made it so that if enemy units are within a certain range of a unit, they can't shoot--whether it's Overwatch or just their Shooting Phase.

 Kanluwen wrote:

They've also made it so that if enemy units are within a certain range of a unit, they can't shoot--whether it's Overwatch or just their Shooting Phase.

I like trees.

Popular does not equal better.
It means that the people voting are most comfortable with this choice at the moment.

But this is a game, there is no objectively 'better'. What well agreed criteria is being used to judge better or worse. Whilst one can indeed argue that an unpopluar game mechanic is better, a game that is that 'good' but largely unpopular is a rather hollow 'better'. Whether a game mechanic is better is largely a matter of opinion, and therefore it is also very arguable that popular = better.

How do you know why people voted. What info helps you say whether they voted cos they are comfy vs they do think it is the better mechanic?

There may be a better mechanic, but of the mechanics presented, why do you not think the voted cos they think it is the best?

 Marmatag wrote:
Current charge is fine, which has already been improved in huge ways.

You don't want Jump Infantry / Bikes being able to move + charge for 30 inches.

The possibility for counter play is what makes a game like this fun. A longer charge range removes that counter play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:
lol the people picking 2d6 are clearly gunline armies

or we play armies that rely on slower units like terminators. why would i vote for a nerf to my melee capability, which is what you're advocating here?


There should be parity between charging units. You do not have parity in move distances, but you do in charge distances. This makes slow units viable, and fast units not even more broken then they've already been.

It worked in fantasy, for quite a long time, but that was 2d6+Move, so 1d6+Move is not a problem, at all.

 Formosa wrote:
It worked in fantasy, for quite a long time, but that was 2d6+Move, so 1d6+Move is not a problem, at all.

Umm you realize that in fantasy M+2d6 is, funny enough, same as what we have now! And in 8th ed 40k it's even better for charger with M+2d6+1...

They didn't move and then charge. They just charged. Ergo M+2d6 in fantasy is exactly what 40k has. First M, then 2d6 charge range.

M+d6" for 40k charge range would be different to fantasy. That would be 2M+d6 rather than M+2d6.

 insaniak wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

They've also made it so that if enemy units are within a certain range of a unit, they can't shoot--whether it's Overwatch or just their Shooting Phase.

I like trees.

I like forests.

Without seeing how everything will interact(infiltrators, scout moves, weird deployment mechanics like that)--I'm not comfortable saying it's great or not.
I, personally, never liked that a unit could only fire Overwatch once, even if they didn't end up in CC. It just encouraged the whole "I'm going to charge a bunch of things at one unit and try to bait the overwatch fire on this unit instead of that unit" mentality.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I, personally, never liked that a unit could only fire Overwatch once, even if they didn't end up in CC. It just encouraged the whole "I'm going to charge a bunch of things at one unit and try to bait the overwatch fire on this unit instead of that unit" mentality.

Would it have been better if charges were declared simultaneously and defender picks the one target? After all it's not like they would really be charging one at a time. That's just abstraction.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 jeff white wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

But now? Now I can freely measure whatever and whenever I want. If I was facing 6" charge reach across your army, it's an absolute doddle to simply fall back to the requisite 12.1" to keep you at arms length, and safe from a solid kicking..

Which is brilliant. You're now further away from the objective, without my unit even having to strike a blow.

Probably not. If I'm that afraid of your charge, my objectives are all safe within my gunline and I've bought myself another turn of artillery bombardment. Perhaps, if I had to yield an objective, I'll come back out to take it back next turn after my artillery has taken another chunk out of your assault force and I'm confident I can take your charge.

Maybe, but that is a chance that you will have to take now, won't you...
Strategy is risky. Dice rolls are random.

No. It's no risk, no chance. You can't reach me, so I get to shoot you, with 3 Basilisks, a Wyvern, a Manitcore, 4 Leman Russ Tanks, and 100 guardsmen.

If I had to worry about you rolling a 8, and catching my guardsmen, that would be risky. But with a fixed charge, unless the charge is so ridiculously long you can reach my back board edge on turn two, I can just stay exactly where you can't reach me until there's not enough left of you to be a threat, then walk out and cap the points.

Some part of tactics is calculated risk. That's where die rolls come in.

As I said, I think 2d6 works really well. It's got a nice probability curve that's easy to understand and plan around, yet still has enough variance.

Chance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

puree wrote:

Popular does not equal better.
It means that the people voting are most comfortable with this choice at the moment.

But this is a game, there is no objectively 'better'. What well agreed criteria is being used to judge better or worse. Whilst one can indeed argue that an unpopluar game mechanic is better, a game that is that 'good' but largely unpopular is a rather hollow 'better'. Whether a game mechanic is better is largely a matter of opinion, and therefore it is also very arguable that popular = better.

How do you know why people voted. What info helps you say whether they voted cos they are comfy vs they do think it is the better mechanic?

There may be a better mechanic, but of the mechanics presented, why do you not think the voted cos they think it is the best?

Of course they did... I think that you misunderstood me.

Definitely a lot of passion over the charge range mechanic!

Personally, I don't mind it, on account of how many things in 40k are random - I expect that risk-management, twist-of-fate aspect from the game so it doesn't rub me the wrong way. That said, I play games with fixed melee combat charging distances as well and quite like it.

Could it work in 40k? Probably - but I only wish people weren't quite as incensed about the subject It will only rub GW the wrong way, harassing them on Twitter, trying to push an agenda with obvious lies like "Everybody hates this!!1" Thought-out, reasonable arguments will get them listening, and now with the opportunity of rules updates in the future that could be a real possibility. Engagement is good but we need less Dakka drek and more Dakka discussion

 Kanluwen wrote:
I, personally, never liked that a unit could only fire Overwatch once, even if they didn't end up in CC. It just encouraged the whole "I'm going to charge a bunch of things at one unit and try to bait the overwatch fire on this unit instead of that unit" mentality.

Well, you only get to shoot once per Shooting Phase, so why would you get to shoot more in a phase which isn't dedicated to shooting?

Nice loaded poll with the supposition that 2d6" charges are bad, and I haven't seen anything by the OP to convince me that 2d6" charges are bad. Do they make any sense? Not really. About as much sense as a 10' genetically created super soldier in fission powered armor riding a motorcycle into combat. Or said 10' tall genetically created super soldier in fission powered armor running into combat without a helmet waving a chainsaw sword around, when the rest of his fellow super soldiers are shooting automatic self guided depleted uranium gyrojet weapons, Gravity Guns that warp gravity, or Lascannons.

It's a game mechanic used to replace the old fixed charge ranges because of pre-measuring. If you go back to fixed charge ranges, then I'd say get rid of pre-measuring. If you want an idea of what fixed charge ranges and pre-measuring are like, go play Warmachine/Hordes. That's the only game I've had my opponent take out a piece of paper, calculator, and then used trigonometry to prove that his charging model could get within range of one of my models. I just laughed at his face, picked up my models, and went home. Far too serious of a player for me!

There is a huge after market right now for measuring widgets in WM/H, with players using proxy bases, measuring widgets, and laser line pointers in WM/H. I've seen players plan out their entire turn using these devices on the table, and no, it looked like crap as far as I was concerned, and it's something I would hate to see come to 40K.

Looking at the poll options, are we 100% sure this isn't a Traditio poll?

 Fafnir wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
2D6 charge is the best mechanic for this phase of the game, bar none. It helps simulate the various issues faced by troops slogging it through a battlefield, adds tactical depth, as it provides unforeseen circumstances with which to deal, is fast, clear, concise and avoids pedantry regarding miniscule movements and measurements.

It's nice to see that it has infact been proven, in real time, that GW has listened to it's customers. As the poll shows the 2D6 option, is in fact, the most popular.

How would you feel about having randomized shooting range?

I remember that for 4th's Night Fighting rules and I was fine with it

Anyone for 2d6 charge range shouldn't have a problem with 3d6 pick the highest two or 3d6 capped at 12 inches. Unless of course they really want to keep melee weak as in previous edition.

Also the idea that they should add more unit specific rules aka bloat, to fix this for fast units is also a stupid idea. The best solution is to find a compromise in a universal rule for charging. So that assault is a more viable option, otherwise we will continue to see shooty armies dominate in this edition especially with the boost to overwatch and heavy weapons not snap firing.

Tetsu0 wrote:
Anyone for 2d6 charge range shouldn't have a problem with 3d6 pick the highest two or 3d6 capped at 12 inches. Unless of course they really want to keep melee weak as in previous edition.

Also the idea that they should add more unit specific rules aka bloat, to fix this for fast units is also a stupid idea. The best solution is to find a compromise in a universal rule for charging. So that assault is a more viable option, otherwise we will continue to see shooty armies dominate in this edition especially with the boost to overwatch and heavy weapons not snap firing.

I mean, I guess so, but that's math that's harder to do in my head.

And melee won't be weak with the ability to charge out of transports.

We could go back to 5th ed charge ranges, a fixed 6" charge, that was the big trade off from 5th to 6th, on average you will get a 7" charge but you could get a 2" charge or a 12" charge.

TheAvengingKnee wrote:
We could go back to 5th ed charge ranges, a fixed 6" charge, that was the big trade off from 5th to 6th, on average you will get a 7" charge but you could get a 2" charge or a 12" charge.

Ah yes. Let's nerf assault armies even more. Just what the game needs.

tneva82 wrote:

TheAvengingKnee wrote:
We could go back to 5th ed charge ranges, a fixed 6" charge, that was the big trade off from 5th to 6th, on average you will get a 7" charge but you could get a 2" charge or a 12" charge.

Ah yes. Let's nerf assault armies even more. Just what the game needs.

Ask, and you shall receive.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/03/new-warhammer-40000-morale/

 KommissarKiln wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

TheAvengingKnee wrote:
We could go back to 5th ed charge ranges, a fixed 6" charge, that was the big trade off from 5th to 6th, on average you will get a 7" charge but you could get a 2" charge or a 12" charge.

Ah yes. Let's nerf assault armies even more. Just what the game needs.

Ask, and you shall receive.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/03/new-warhammer-40000-morale/

Does this nerf assault armies?

It looks more like it nerfs horde armies. So Orks and FootGuard.

 insaniak wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
This poll is just a small signifier that they have read the pulse of the community well.

I'm not sure that a poll where more than half of the respondents have voted for another option really suggests an overwhelming community support for the 2D6...

Sorry, but that's Traditio logic.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
It looks more like it nerfs horde armies. So Orks and FootGuard.

It hurts multiple small unit armies more, I think. A small unit can be destroyed by this quite easily, where a large unit is merely hurt by it. The large unit only needs to roll once (and you can stack as many benefits as possible on that one unit, including command point rerolls), whereas you could potentially roll a LOT for morale (and thus take a lot more damage) if you use an MSU army.

 Melissia wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
It looks more like it nerfs horde armies. So Orks and FootGuard.

It hurts multiple small unit armies more, I think. A small unit can be destroyed by this quite easily, where a large unit is merely hurt by it. The large unit only needs to roll once (and you can stack as many benefits as possible on that one unit, including command point rerolls), whereas you could potentially roll a LOT for morale (and thus take a lot more damage) if you use an MSU army.

I'm fairly certain my Dominions don't care if they lose the 5th member to battleshock after loosing 4 to enemy retaliation. The 1 girl wasn't going to do anything anyway.

But a big blob of Guardsmen, could stand to lose 14 or more models from, for example, a Sisters of Battle Squad firing on them with 2 flamers, and then test battleshock and lose 11 more right then and there, reducing the squad to half strength when it would ordinarily have been only marginally inconvenienced by the dozen-odd losses.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
It looks more like it nerfs horde armies. So Orks and FootGuard.

It hurts multiple small unit armies more, I think. A small unit can be destroyed by this quite easily, where a large unit is merely hurt by it. The large unit only needs to roll once (and you can stack as many benefits as possible on that one unit, including command point rerolls), whereas you could potentially roll a LOT for morale (and thus take a lot more damage) if you use an MSU army.

I'm fairly certain my Dominions don't care if they lose the 5th member to battleshock after loosing 4 to enemy retaliation. The 1 girl wasn't going to do anything anyway.

But a big blob of Guardsmen, could stand to lose 14 or more models from, for example, a Sisters of Battle Squad firing on them with 2 flamers, and then test battleshock and lose 11 more right then and there, reducing the squad to half strength when it would ordinarily have been only marginally inconvenienced by the dozen-odd losses.

We REALLY wont know until we see what everything does. even with blob guard most of the times they used priests as a way of keep them on the table for quite a bit longer.

there will probably be characters that can heavily mitigate battle shock and its sounding like its an AOE.

also calling it now. ATSKNF is going to be taking battle tests without casualty mods.

 Desubot wrote:

also calling it now. ATSKNF is going to be taking battle tests without casualty mods.

Uch... this might just be true. But who knows they might just reflect psychology now better in the points since it is now basically secondary dmg of an attack that can be expressed in lost wounds and thus be used in point calculations.

 Desubot wrote:
We REALLY wont know until we see what everything does. even with blob guard most of the times they used priests as a way of keep them on the table for quite a bit longer.

there will probably be characters that can heavily mitigate battle shock and its sounding like its an AOE.

also calling it now. ATSKNF is going to be taking battle tests without casualty mods.

Things like Commissars, Chaplains, Synapse and Ork Mob Rule will probably have an effect (if those rules continue to exist).

Considering the impact they have, and how long they have been in the system, I'd be surprised if they are dropped all together.

ATSKNF (and the equivalent in 2nd Edition) was always more about recovering from falling back rather than ignoring initial morale.

What if ATSKNF allows marines to fall back from close combat and act in the same turn with some kind of penalty (-1 to-hit in shooting and assault since they are still disorganized). That would be more in keeping with things.

Alternatively, take a page from Epic: Armageddon and perhaps they only count every two casualties as one for the purposes of battleshock (though that basically makes their standard combat squads immune to it, so I like it less).

Either way, we have no way of knowing yet. I'm just hoping they stick to their guns and have units that modify morale rather than just straight up ignoring it. Morale is a rich space for design that has been squandered for a damn long time.

I hope they remove morale entirely. Might as well.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I hope they remove morale entirely. Might as well.

We know that's not going to happen now. Unfortunately the unique features are gone and it's just battleshock nonsense that forces everybody to have guys run away even when it makes no damn sense, like with marines or DKOK.

I guess GW thinks that people want to spend less time playing GW games lol.

 Wyzilla wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I hope they remove morale entirely. Might as well.

We know that's not going to happen now. Unfortunately the unique features are gone and it's just battleshock nonsense that forces everybody to have guys run away even when it makes no damn sense, like with marines or DKOK.

I guess GW thinks that people want to spend less time playing GW games lol.

Actually, with the article mentioning that some battle shock is due to things like CASEVAC, that is a pretty credible reason for disciplined forces to fall back piecemeal instead of all together. And of course more unique command structures will be modifying the baseline, but I have no problem imagining a marine hoisting a couple of his buddies back to the Thunderhawk while the surviving members of his combat squad cover him.

 Tamwulf wrote:
It's a game mechanic used to replace the old fixed charge ranges because of pre-measuring. If you go back to fixed charge ranges, then I'd say get rid of pre-measuring. If you want an idea of what fixed charge ranges and pre-measuring are like, go play Warmachine/Hordes. That's the only game I've had my opponent take out a piece of paper, calculator, and then used trigonometry to prove that his charging model could get within range of one of my models. I just laughed at his face, picked up my models, and went home. Far too serious of a player for me!

There is a huge after market right now for measuring widgets in WM/H, with players using proxy bases, measuring widgets, and laser line pointers in WM/H. I've seen players plan out their entire turn using these devices on the table, and no, it looked like crap as far as I was concerned, and it's something I would hate to see come to 40K.

That's a cultural aspect that is tied into the mentality of the Warmahordes players. I agree with you; it is just a bit too serious to be taken seriously. Nothing wrong with wanting to play hard and competitively, but at that point wouldn't you be better off with chess?

TheAvengingKnee wrote:
We could go back to 5th ed charge ranges, a fixed 6" charge, that was the big trade off from 5th to 6th, on average you will get a 7" charge but you could get a 2" charge or a 12" charge.

In 5th edition, Cavalry got a flat 12 inch charge after their 6 inch move. Hardly anyone remembers this, because hardly anyone took cavalry. It was always fun to pull off against an opponent, but it only ever worked the one time, then they remember. Would you prefer the 5th edition Charge mechanic? My Thunderwolf Cavalry would thank you for it

Rough Riders and Thunderwolves forever! Charge!

 Ronin_eX wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I hope they remove morale entirely. Might as well.

We know that's not going to happen now. Unfortunately the unique features are gone and it's just battleshock nonsense that forces everybody to have guys run away even when it makes no damn sense, like with marines or DKOK.

I guess GW thinks that people want to spend less time playing GW games lol.

Actually, with the article mentioning that some battle shock is due to things like CASEVAC, that is a pretty credible reason for disciplined forces to fall back piecemeal instead of all together. And of course more unique command structures will be modifying the baseline, but I have no problem imagining a marine hoisting a couple of his buddies back to the Thunderhawk while the surviving members of his combat squad cover him.

Exactly. The article mentions that the act of falling back is not just models fleeing, but it is a representation of any number of concepts. It's just an abstraction of a combat concept. I see that it could be:

- models fleeing combat
- further casualties inflicted on the squad
- models becoming casualties from prolonged damage on them (how many saves CAN a model make anyways?)
- a model taking his wounded buddy off of the battlefield
- a model stumbling over his own feet
- a model leaving the battle for a bathroom break
- a model getting bored and walking away

or any other creative reason you can think of! I know it requires using our imagination and being creative, but so does thinking about how bolters and psychic powers work, right?

Yeah no. I'm good with 2D6" charges. I got out of the game years ago when it was just a static game whose tactics always worked. I enjoy the not knowing whats going to happen aspect.

And recovering from failure is just as exciting to me as needing to have my tactics always work.

Surprisingly, it seems that most of us agree according to that poll.

I'd like the charge range to be individual like a movement stat. It makes sense to have a 2d6 charge for something like spawns but an assault marine with a jumppack should really be something like 4+d6. On one hand, it's an extra stat but It could be pretty easy cause most units per-army will have identical charge ranges and it allows for variety. And we allready have a movement stat.

So, here's what i'd do with charges:

Tactical marine (and other footslogging meq) - 5+d3
Scout - 6+d3
Assault marine and all marine bikers - 5+d6
Terminators and centurions - 4+d3
Dreads and ven dreads - 6+d3
Heavilly armored dreads - those av13 ones - 5+d3

Ork boys (and other footslogging orks), nobz - 4+d6
Grots - 4+d3
Stormboyz - 3+2d6 - and a couple explode if a 1 is rolled
Meganobz - 4+d3
Ork bikers - 5+d6
Deff dreads - 6+d3
Naughts - 5+d3
Killa kanz - 4+d3

Well, you get the idea.

 koooaei wrote:
I'd like the charge range to be individual like a movement stat. It makes sense to have a 2d6 charge for something like spawns but an assault marine with a jumppack should really be something like 4+d6, stormboyz could be 2+2d6, marines 4+d3, ork boyz 3+d6...well, you get the point.

If they follow AOS then this will sort of happen - ie some units will roll 3D6 for charge (max 12") or some will have a min charge etc

And with indeps not joining units anymore (if the rumores are correct), there's no problem with mixed squads!

Would it be a good rule if before you got to shoot you had to roll a die and 1-3 you don't get to shoot 4-6 you do? That's basically the charge rule, you're rolling to hit in order to be able to roll to hit. This is on top of close combat also being riskier than shooting because you can end up in the open and whenever you shoot a unit they don't get to immediately shoot back at you.
CC is a much riskier with no addditional reward.

Well, the reward is pretty significant. You take ground and disallow shooty non-mellee units from coming close to you. It's significant if scoring is still a thing. Simply trying to kill everything is not always a winning strategy. Not once have i seen games where a bunch of cc models won cause they hid on a point and shooty opponents were too afraid to come close.

Danny slag wrote:
Would it be a good rule if before you got to shoot you had to roll a die and 1-3 you don't get to shoot 4-6 you do? That's basically the charge rule, you're rolling to hit in order to be able to roll to hit. This is on top of close combat also being riskier than shooting because you can end up in the open and whenever you shoot a unit they don't get to immediately shoot back at you.
CC is a much riskier with no addditional reward.

I'd be okay with that if:

1. Units I shot at would be "locked in shootbat," where they couldn't move/shoot other units, and also, nothing could shoot my units which had locked the enemy units in shootbat.

2. I would get extra shots for declaring a shoot-charge. If i had rage, I would get even more! All my shots ignore cover and hit vehicle rear armor, too!

3. I could execute a sweeping shootvance, where everything in my opponents squad could be obliterated by causing merely 1 casualty. Or, in 8th edition, take a battleshoot test, wherein they lose additional D6 + lost units - Morale units just for me shooting them.

4. I could get low AP / High Minus Save Mod weaponry for very little cost. By way of, for instance, Thunder Hammer terminators with storm shields for 225 points. I could get the equivalent shooty unit with a 2+/3++, with strength 8 AP2 (or save mod -3) guns for 225 points. With a base attack of 2, all of these guys would be Assault 2, with the added benefit of gaining additional attacks when I first "lock my opponent in shootbat."

If i can have all of this, then yes, i'll roll to shoot.

Danny slag wrote:
Would it be a good rule if before you got to shoot you had to roll a die and 1-3 you don't get to shoot 4-6 you do? That's basically the charge rule, you're rolling to hit in order to be able to roll to hit. This is on top of close combat also being riskier than shooting because you can end up in the open and whenever you shoot a unit they don't get to immediately shoot back at you.
CC is a much riskier with no addditional reward.

 Vaktathi wrote:
(e.g. hitting on vehicle rear armor, Sweeping Advance, ignoring cover saves with all attacks, locking an opposing unit's actions, etc). Some of this may change, we'll see, but that has been the historical tradeoff. When we didnt have premeasuring, we had fixed assault distances, now that we do have premeasuring we have randomized distances.

That.

Tho if they gave ranged elite units firepower similar to melee elites, then that might be fine, just think of the numbers of STR8 AP2 attacks meganobs or Terminators put out