One of the big changes from 5th to 6th 40k was changing assault from 6" (12" for cavalry), to a 2d6" roll; this change was very similar to the one for WHFB from 7th to 8th edition.

Other than a few token special powers that grant specialty bonuses on a random charge distance, the end result was to add another step just for random's sake.

What is everyone's take here? Should charge distances be random in the core rules, or not?

Random charges aren't fundamentally the problem; I never had an issue with how it was implemented in 6th-7th 40k or in WHFB. The problem in 8th/9th is that damage gets inflated so much faster than defensive stats, so now failing a charge is pretty much a guaranteed death sentence for the unit. Couple that with ever-inflating move distances/charge bonuses and the shrunken table, and movement is becoming vastly less interactive.

In short: The problem isn't that charge distance is random, it's that the game is too killy and movement has to be incredibly fast to let melee armies exist in the game at all.

Previous editions I might agree that random charges are bad, I feel this edition's push towards being objective based make the movement-bonus of charging often at least as, if not more important, than the lethality. If the lethality is at least partially random, the charge length being random also feels appropriate. Also, they've removed a lot of the costs of fail charges, meaning that you still get a lot of chances at the long-bombs that help make up for the failed short charges.

The issue with static charge distances is that it encourages kiting, particularly in a premeasure system. It requires a strong incentive for players to fight over the middle in melee to keep players from being able to place there models with no threat of retaliation. A 1" threat advantage in a static movement system is dramatically larger than in one with a randomizer of some sort. I've generally been in favor of static values, but in recent years I've found that games just can't fully handle the amount of advantage that gives to faster models.

Oh wait you guys are serious.

Units should have a minimum distance without the need to roll to make a successful charge. I doubt Flayed Ones are just as unenthused to get into melee as Warriors or even Immortals are.

I would propose a minimum charge distance and the chance to roll. If you fail the roll, you make the move but you're to be given penalties of various sorts.

I think a semi-random distance would be the best system.
Perhaps 3+d6 or something.

But it's an excellent point that the increasing lethality has meant GW has started to throw more and more buffs to charge distances.
Advance and charge, reroll charge, +6 to charge, etc.

Random charge has always shown me frustrating and unenjoyable experiences from 6-8th ed.

I would personally want a charge distance of M+D6" That way the units that want to get in combat will. The units that aren't intended for combat will be incentivised to stay back and wait to counter charge at best.

I think the current random charge system is rubbish. It doesn't reflect the lore depiction of how those units fight, it's not realistic in any significant way.. it just feels half-arsed tbh

M + a random distance would already be a much better solution. Or you could come up with all sorts of other systems, like developing some modifiers to charge distance based on if the defending unit fires overwatch, has suppressive weaponry such as grenades and/ or flamers, occupies a terrain piece with the "defensible" terrain trait etc.. Some CC specialist units could even have some keywords which give them an edge when charging, or some units could have a keyword which gives them an edge being charged against.. I could think up lots of ideas for a more interesting system.

No beating around the bush about it, the current system = fail

All in all, I'm not sure I like the current CC combat rules implementation. Its too much like shooting without evaluating LOS or measuring ranges, not a big fan. Preferably the melee and shooting mechanics should be both unique to better reflect the way they work IRL. I think what could really spice things would be tying Morale rules & faction psychology with CC effectiveness somehow. Take something like boxing or ultimate fighting as an example - there's always a big psychological aspect to fighting so close to your opponent, projecting dominance over your opponent by your speed/strenght/attitude/energy and all that, which is entirely absent from 40K CC representation.

The problem with M+d6 is that jump troops or bikers could have truly epic charge ranges.
A flat 6+d6 would be better, but 4+d6 would produce a reliable range more similar to current charges.

Random charge distances add some more decision making in the assault phase beyond
Am I in range? -> Yes -> Charge
--------------------> No -> Don't Charge

The main problem with them is the same as which affects most of their rules design - GW are just incapable of keeping the system they come up with streamlined and simple.

Do I want to risk this 3" charge?
- snake eyes.
Is not a fun decision to make though.
And it's not a decision that ranged weapons ever have to deal with.

I think SOME randomness is okay, but having it be the same whether you're a 4" move shooty Cataphractii or a 16" move Harlequin Biker is a little... Dumb.

Not sure how exactly to fix, though.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Do I want to risk this 3" charge?
- snake eyes.
Is not a fun decision to make though.
And it's not a decision that ranged weapons ever have to deal with.

This.

I voted "neutral" because while I'm not a fan of random charges, I'm not sure how I'd replace them. Specifically, how do you determine whether or not a deepstriking unit can make it into combat the turn it arrives from reserves without a random charge? A flat charge range means you either auto pass or auto fail. I guess you could add a d6 roll that determines how close to the enemy you're allowed to arrive...
1 = more than 12" away
2-5 = more than 9" away
6 = more than 1" away.

Or something.

I usually don't have an issue with someone completing a long charge. It gives them a little surge of excitement, and I'm not going to complain about good dice rolls resulting in good positions in a dice game. But rolling snake eyes for a stupid short charge always feels bad. That makes me lean towards the X + d6" approach as it ensures you'll never fail an especially short charge. The only thing is that x+d6" almost feels like a specific enough range that the randomization is superfluous. Still, this is probably my preferred pitch so far.

Edit:
I just don't like that random charges feel kind of unfluffy. Some editions, the rules give me the impression that random charges are meant to represent the squad coordinating well enough to cover the ground between themselves and their target. Which means that my space marines rolling 2" when I needed 4" represents adeptus astartes having a three stooges moment and failing to run a couple of feet towards the enemy. Like, oops. My shining spears just sped across half the the battlefield, but I guess they misjudged how hard that 3" charge was going to be. No combat for me. Have fun deleting my melee unit before it does anything.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Specifically, how do you determine whether or not a deepstriking unit can make it into combat the turn it arrives from reserves without a random charge?

Don't allow charges from reserves. Like the previous seven editions.


You could always have something like charge 2D6, or your move value, whichever is highest (jump units charge on foot); which gets rid of some of the extreme results.

IMHO the way to fix Random Charge distances and minimum charge distances is to move Charging to the Movement Phase. Then Charge distance can be your Move + d6 + Charge Modifiers, while Advance is your Move + d6 + Advance Modifiers.

Overwatch would still happen at the declaration of Charge like it does now. Change the Shooting rules so that units that Charge can shoot Assault Weapons and/or Pistol at units they charged (successful or unsuccessful) whether or not they are in Engagement Range.

It might take a little bit longer to get into Close Combat, but the variables go down and you get to ditch the entire Charge phase of the game including that second unit move. Points adjustments would need to be made to account for how much longer it takes to get into close combat.

No. Random charge distances are part of what makes infantry way too fast in 40k, which enables alpha strike and de-values transport vehicles.

The frustratingly wide variability of a 2D6" charge distance means that many units--especially dedicated close combat troops--inevitably gain special rules that reduce this variability in some way. So in practice you wind up with a lot of units that have an average 9 or 10" charge distance, up from guaranteed 6" in prior editions.

The way to preserve sami-randomness here is to reduce the variability by doing Move + D6. But this is frankly way too fast, so it would have to be more like Move/2 + D6. And in this case, what's the point? Too complicated. Just go back to fixed charge distances. These days probably using the unit's Move value would make sense.

Why is it that a unit that charges can potentially move more than twice its regular movement in an extra phase? Charging and advancing should be consolidated into one action and charging should simply be getting within 1" of an enemy at the end of a unit's movement. Units with special rules could still shoot while engaged at, at an appropriate penalty if they advanced, or any unit could use their pistols which would make them actually useful on an assault unit.

Up to three times as much for some units, in fact.

6" move + up to 6" advance + rule that lets you advance and charge + up to 12" charge = 24+ movement!

This can be further enhanced with extra consolidation movement before and after combat begins Potentially that unit of foot troopers can hoof it 30" in one turn, and that's before adding in strategems to move twice.

Double unit specific movement. Use terrain mods. Add or subtract bonuses or penalties. Done.

 alextroy wrote:
IMHO the way to fix Random Charge distances and minimum charge distances is to move Charging to the Movement Phase. Then Charge distance can be your Move + d6 + Charge Modifiers, while Advance is your Move + d6 + Advance Modifiers.

Overwatch would still happen at the declaration of Charge like it does now. Change the Shooting rules so that units that Charge can shoot Assault Weapons and/or Pistol at units they charged (successful or unsuccessful) whether or not they are in Engagement Range.

It might take a little bit longer to get into Close Combat, but the variables go down and you get to ditch the entire Charge phase of the game including that second unit move. Points adjustments would need to be made to account for how much longer it takes to get into close combat.

I can get behind this. Gives pistols a greater niche, and assault weapons can usually do with another leg up. My question is then about coming in from reserves. Would it be fair to say that such units can charge with just the d6+mod, or should they get movement or half movement? Would the minimum distance from enemy units stay 9"? I always thought that was a bit much.

Lord Damocles wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
Specifically, how do you determine whether or not a deepstriking unit can make it into combat the turn it arrives from reserves without a random charge?

Don't allow charges from reserves. Like the previous seven editions.

Wasn't charging out of outflank a thing back in the olden days? It's been a while. I kind of like allowing units to charge from reserves in some fashion. It's rather awkward for one of the myriad of deepstriking melee units to pop up and then just sit around waiting to be shot at for a turn. Especially if they're a squishy unit like genestealers or kommandos. It wouldn't be the worst thing ever if charging out of reserves went away, but it would lower the value of a lot of already meh melee units.

alextroy wrote:IMHO the way to fix Random Charge distances and minimum charge distances is to move Charging to the Movement Phase. Then Charge distance can be your Move + d6 + Charge Modifiers, while Advance is your Move + d6 + Advance Modifiers.

Overwatch would still happen at the declaration of Charge like it does now. Change the Shooting rules so that units that Charge can shoot Assault Weapons and/or Pistol at units they charged (successful or unsuccessful) whether or not they are in Engagement Range.

It might take a little bit longer to get into Close Combat, but the variables go down and you get to ditch the entire Charge phase of the game including that second unit move. Points adjustments would need to be made to account for how much longer it takes to get into close combat.

I like the general shape of that idea. The biggest change (and possible problem) I see this causing is that it prevents the rest of my army from shooting at the thing I charged. So dark reapers and dire avengers can't soften up a target before I send in the howling banshees. Ditto devastators and tacticals that want to support their vanguard pals.

jeff white wrote:Double unit specific movement. Use terrain mods. Add or subtract bonuses or penalties. Done.

As in charge range = double your movement? That would mean units like shining spears would have a 32" charge range without any buffs.

This is a problem that is only a problem because GW don't put enough thought into the rules for many dedicated melee units, which in 8th and 9th just become dead weight if they fail their charge for reasons.

Flayed Ones for example. Described as shambling horrors until they see their targets, then they spring on them with lightning speed. Still 5 inch move with a 2d6 charge. Great

Cynista wrote:
This is a problem that is only a problem because GW don't put enough thought into the rules for many dedicated melee units, which in 8th and 9th just become dead weight if they fail their charge for reasons.

Flayed Ones for example. Described as shambling horrors until they see their targets, then they spring on them with lightning speed. Still 5 inch move with a 2d6 charge. Great

I see what you're saying, but I feel you may have chosen a bad example. Gaining 2d6" of movement (from your charge) once you get close to an enemy and having a decent number of attacks both seem like decent examples of suddenly getting faster when they see their targets.

Wyldhunt wrote:
.

jeff white wrote:Double unit specific movement. Use terrain mods. Add or subtract bonuses or penalties. Done.

As in charge range = double your movement? That would mean units like shining spears would have a 32" charge range without any buffs.

Not really. Bikes should have 8” base x 2 = 16 charge.
Base for most infantry should be 4.
Most vehicles 6 but they shouldn’t charge.

 jeff white wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
.

jeff white wrote:Double unit specific movement. Use terrain mods. Add or subtract bonuses or penalties. Done.

As in charge range = double your movement? That would mean units like shining spears would have a 32" charge range without any buffs.

Not really. Bikes should have 8” base x 2 = 16 charge.
Base for most infantry should be 4.
Most vehicles 6 but they shouldn’t charge.

Ah. So halving my army's movement and also changing the basic behavior of vehicles. Got it.

Might be better to split the move stat into walk/run for that. 2x walk rate to run/charge rather than a flat bonus puts pretty severe limitations on the move stats you can actually give things; there's a skirmish wargame called Godslayer where units had the opportunity to make a single, double, or triple move during their activation, and pretty much everything's move stat was 4, 5, or 6. Wargames that actually go with the "double walk rate to run/charge" tend to be games where move is purely based on unit type (ex. all infantry move 6, all cavalry move 12).

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Might be better to split the move stat into walk/run for that. 2x walk rate to run/charge rather than a flat bonus puts pretty severe limitations on the move stats you can actually give things; there's a skirmish wargame called Godslayer where units had the opportunity to make a single, double, or triple move during their activation, and pretty much everything's move stat was 4, 5, or 6. Wargames that actually go with the "double walk rate to run/charge" tend to be games where move is purely based on unit type (ex. all infantry move 6, all cavalry move 12).

That makes sense. It would also allow you to fine-tune some of those values. Banshees might have an unusually high advance and/or charge value compared to scorpions, for instance. And you could go back to giving skimmers especially high advance values if you were so inclined. I'm also in favor of flat advance distances rather than rolling for it. It feels gamey (and not in a good way) when a squad accidentally outpaces the aura buff of their support character because the character rolled a 1 on his advance roll.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
The problem with M+d6 is that jump troops or bikers could have truly epic charge ranges.
A flat 6+d6 would be better, but 4+d6 would produce a reliable range more similar to current charges.

So? I don't actually think that'd be unfluffy in any way. Both of those are usually in the "fast attack" army slot, would be quite fitting IMO. Much more fitting than some supposedly slow moving unit pulling off a 12" charge on top of their normal movement, or genestealer brood rolling double ones on the charge distance roll.

Another change which I'd be totally cool with would be for the charge move to happen in the movement phase. It'd become like advancing, and actually that would probably be the best way to fix it all, if I think about it now. Just give units with USR of allowing advance + charge a new USR which doubles their M when charging.

 tauist wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
The problem with M+d6 is that jump troops or bikers could have truly epic charge ranges.
A flat 6+d6 would be better, but 4+d6 would produce a reliable range more similar to current charges.

So? I don't actually think that'd be unfluffy in any way. Both of those are usually in the "fast attack" army slot, would be quite fitting IMO. Much more fitting than some supposedly slow moving unit pulling off a 12" charge on top of their normal movement, or genestealer brood rolling double ones on the charge distance roll.

Another change which I'd be totally cool with would be for the charge move to happen in the movement phase. It'd become like advancing, and actually that would probably be the best way to fix it all, if I think about it now. Just give units with USR of allowing advance + charge a new USR which doubles their M when charging.

The problem with letting people charge a unit on the other side of the table in one turn is that you're dumping "maneuver" out of the game in favour of letting people attack at full efficiency from any position. You can't be a shooty army in a game where you can get charged by a unit that was out of line of sight on the other side of the table during your previous shooting phase; positioning doesn't matter, everything is just in melee with the most efficient possible target every melee phase.

It's not unfluffy, no, but it makes for a really dull game.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 tauist wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
The problem with M+d6 is that jump troops or bikers could have truly epic charge ranges.
A flat 6+d6 would be better, but 4+d6 would produce a reliable range more similar to current charges.

So? I don't actually think that'd be unfluffy in any way. Both of those are usually in the "fast attack" army slot, would be quite fitting IMO. Much more fitting than some supposedly slow moving unit pulling off a 12" charge on top of their normal movement, or genestealer brood rolling double ones on the charge distance roll.

Another change which I'd be totally cool with would be for the charge move to happen in the movement phase. It'd become like advancing, and actually that would probably be the best way to fix it all, if I think about it now. Just give units with USR of allowing advance + charge a new USR which doubles their M when charging.

The problem with letting people charge a unit on the other side of the table in one turn is that you're dumping "maneuver" out of the game in favour of letting people attack at full efficiency from any position. You can't be a shooty army in a game where you can get charged by a unit that was out of line of sight on the other side of the table during your previous shooting phase; positioning doesn't matter, everything is just in melee with the most efficient possible target every melee phase.

It's not unfluffy, no, but it makes for a really dull game.

Ah so all of a sudden all armies would just consist of FA choices? Sorry, I'm not seeing how that would happen.

So jump packs and bikes would give unit a 13"-18" charge threat range.. hardly game breaking

And even this doesn't change the fact that the current implementation is piss-poor. I'm sure many better alternatives could be developed.

Part of the problem is it makes none-bike/jump melee infantry look woefully obsolete compared to the units that do get the extra 6+" of range for free.

I totally agree that the current implementation isn't exactly stellar, which is why I suggested a 4+d6" charge range.

Wyldhunt wrote:

Lord Damocles wrote:

alextroy wrote:IMHO the way to fix Random Charge distances and minimum charge distances is to move Charging to the Movement Phase. Then Charge distance can be your Move + d6 + Charge Modifiers, while Advance is your Move + d6 + Advance Modifiers.

Overwatch would still happen at the declaration of Charge like it does now. Change the Shooting rules so that units that Charge can shoot Assault Weapons and/or Pistol at units they charged (successful or unsuccessful) whether or not they are in Engagement Range.

It might take a little bit longer to get into Close Combat, but the variables go down and you get to ditch the entire Charge phase of the game including that second unit move. Points adjustments would need to be made to account for how much longer it takes to get into close combat.

I like the general shape of that idea. The biggest change (and possible problem) I see this causing is that it prevents the rest of my army from shooting at the thing I charged. So dark reapers and dire avengers can't soften up a target before I send in the howling banshees. Ditto devastators and tacticals that want to support their vanguard pals.

That's what prior turns are for. You don't get to to shoot the target the turn it is charged, but all the prior turns they are free game.

Someone mentioned what to do with Reinforcement chargers? I say, special rules. Some units deploy in a manner that makes a charge from Reinforcements make sense. Assault Marines landing on their opponents from on high or a Tyranid monster boring up beneath their feet get their rules adjusted to allow them to land within Engagement Range of the enemy and count as charging. Maybe add a roll to see if they "miss" their placement and land just outside of range if you don't want guaranteed charges for them. Most units will just have to get used to not charging the turn they arrived, like happened in most editions of the game.

Honestly the best compromise is something like half your movement rounded up +D6, and then add whatever modifiers as necessary.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Honestly the best compromise is something like half your movement rounded up +D6, and then add whatever modifiers as necessary.

Even simpler than that, just doing like, 4 + d6 would let keep everything else in the game the same while also leaving (relatively) long charges as a possibility and eliminating the chance of failing embarassingly short charges. Whereas half the movement on my 16" movement jetbikes +d6" would guarantee that they'd make their charges out of deepstrike unless we added/adjusted additional rules.

It just feels weird to randomize charges by 1"-6", but this small change really would be an improvement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 alextroy wrote:

That's what prior turns are for. You don't get to to shoot the target the turn it is charged, but all the prior turns they are free game.

Hmm. That changes the value of units and the shape of armies in a pretty big way though, doesn't it? Coming from a mostly aeldari viewpoint, my craftworld melee units don't really hit hard enough to warrant giving up a squad of reapers/war walkers/whatever's shooting. So saying I can either shoot a unit or charge it with banshees means that my banshees suddenly have even fewer good targets than before. Some of my drukhari units do punch hard enough to make me consider only charging a unit on a given turn, but most of them don't hit hard enough to do the job alone. So suddenly my shooting elements stop supporting my melee elements, and I'm forced to double down on melee units if I want to have a chance of clearing a threat.

I don't really want my banshees and wyches nerfed. :(

Someone mentioned what to do with Reinforcement chargers? I say, special rules. Some units deploy in a manner that makes a charge from Reinforcements make sense. Assault Marines landing on their opponents from on high or a Tyranid monster boring up beneath their feet get their rules adjusted to allow them to land within Engagement Range of the enemy and count as charging. Maybe add a roll to see if they "miss" their placement and land just outside of range if you don't want guaranteed charges for them. Most units will just have to get used to not charging the turn they arrived, like happened in most editions of the game.

I thinkt hat someone was me. I'm potentially open to this, but which units do you feel are incapable of charging out of deepstrike? My swooping hawks don't love being in melee, but they're supposed to be faster and more agile than assault marines, so they're probably able to charge from DS, right? How about my shining spears that also fly, move faster than the hawks, and want to be in melee but can only deepstrike via the webway stratagem? What if they use strategic reserves instead? How about a webway gate fortification? Can terminators assault after teleporting? Surely mandrakes and scorpions (sneaky melee assassins) can charge out of DS. Maybe ripper swarms? But they'll basically just stand around doing nothing and then get instagibbed if they DS near the enemy and don't charge.

So which units don't make the cut, and how far from their targets do they have to land?

I'd like to see a new charge stat that had a fixed and random element.

I'd also like overwatch to change to being a negative effect on the charge movement as the attacker has to sacrifice speed for dodging.

You could then make fluffy adjustments to the move (eg terminators are slow but unstoppable and banshees are swift)

Over watch hits on normal bs, but rather then taking casualties, every X number of hits slows the unit by an inch (or 2)

Banshees would have the higher speed but units like terminators would have a higher number of hits needed to slow them (same for big unit of orks/nids)

Reducing charge distance for every X hits feels kind of odd though. It means that a meltagun is pretty bad at discouraging a charge, but my 4 shot lasblaster swooping hawks are nigh unchargeable. And Tau overwatch is a thing.

But then, I'm a grouch who thinks overwatch should be removed entirely (or at least made into a special ability for units that specialize in overwatching.)

Wyldhunt wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 alextroy wrote:

That's what prior turns are for. You don't get to to shoot the target the turn it is charged, but all the prior turns they are free game.

Hmm. That changes the value of units and the shape of armies in a pretty big way though, doesn't it? Coming from a mostly aeldari viewpoint, my craftworld melee units don't really hit hard enough to warrant giving up a squad of reapers/war walkers/whatever's shooting. So saying I can either shoot a unit or charge it with banshees means that my banshees suddenly have even fewer good targets than before. Some of my drukhari units do punch hard enough to make me consider only charging a unit on a given turn, but most of them don't hit hard enough to do the job alone. So suddenly my shooting elements stop supporting my melee elements, and I'm forced to double down on melee units if I want to have a chance of clearing a threat.

I don't really want my banshees and wyches nerfed. :(

Someone mentioned what to do with Reinforcement chargers? I say, special rules. Some units deploy in a manner that makes a charge from Reinforcements make sense. Assault Marines landing on their opponents from on high or a Tyranid monster boring up beneath their feet get their rules adjusted to allow them to land within Engagement Range of the enemy and count as charging. Maybe add a roll to see if they "miss" their placement and land just outside of range if you don't want guaranteed charges for them. Most units will just have to get used to not charging the turn they arrived, like happened in most editions of the game.

I thinkt hat someone was me. I'm potentially open to this, but which units do you feel are incapable of charging out of deepstrike? My swooping hawks don't love being in melee, but they're supposed to be faster and more agile than assault marines, so they're probably able to charge from DS, right? How about my shining spears that also fly, move faster than the hawks, and want to be in melee but can only deepstrike via the webway stratagem? What if they use strategic reserves instead? How about a webway gate fortification? Can terminators assault after teleporting? Surely mandrakes and scorpions (sneaky melee assassins) can charge out of DS. Maybe ripper swarms? But they'll basically just stand around doing nothing and then get instagibbed if they DS near the enemy and don't charge.

So which units don't make the cut, and how far from their targets do they have to land?

Personally, most units would not make the cut. The only units that would are those known for charging out of nowhere.

Terminators are not famous for teleporting in and charging. They are famous for teleporting in and opening loose with their ranged weapons. Neither are Swooping Hawks or even Shining Spears famous for appearing and charging. SH are famous for dropping in with a grenade pack and a bunch of lasblaster shots. Shining Spears are famous for moving vast distances and charging, not webway assaults into melee.

Now units like mandrakes and scorpions are famous for being sneaky, so I'd expect their rule to allow them a sneaky charge, like "this unit can be deployed within X inches of a board edge or Y inches of a Dense or Obsuring terrain piece and may be setup within Engagement Range of an enemy unit. If setup with in Engagement Range, the unit is considered to have charged."

Honestly I can deal with the random charging because 2d6 is a bell curve where most results fall into the average range and only the occasional charge is exceptionally good or bad. What I really dislike is the all-or-nothing mechanism. Either the unit goes 100% of its charge distance or none of it, which makes no sense. Units that fail a charge should still move. I am happy with either fixed or random charges as long as that element is addressed.

Though the happy medium of d6+4" someone else mentioned sounds nice.

No, it was poor design for both Fantasy and 40K.

 alextroy wrote:

Personally, most units would not make the cut. The only units that would are those known for charging out of nowhere.

Terminators are not famous for teleporting in and charging. They are famous for teleporting in and opening loose with their ranged weapons. Neither are Swooping Hawks or even Shining Spears famous for appearing and charging. SH are famous for dropping in with a grenade pack and a bunch of lasblaster shots. Shining Spears are famous for moving vast distances and charging, not webway assaults into melee.

Now units like mandrakes and scorpions are famous for being sneaky, so I'd expect their rule to allow them a sneaky charge, like "this unit can be deployed within X inches of a board edge or Y inches of a Dense or Obsuring terrain piece and may be setup within Engagement Range of an enemy unit. If setup with in Engagement Range, the unit is considered to have charged."

I could get behind some version of that. Although I still feel that having your melee units deny shooting against an enemy target is a pretty huge change that would risk making melee units undesirable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Honestly I can deal with the random charging because 2d6 is a bell curve where most results fall into the average range and only the occasional charge is exceptionally good or bad. What I really dislike is the all-or-nothing mechanism. Either the unit goes 100% of its charge distance or none of it, which makes no sense. Units that fail a charge should still move. I am happy with either fixed or random charges as long as that element is addressed.

Though the happy medium of d6+4" someone else mentioned sounds nice.

The thing about moving even if you fail the charge is that it potentially screws over the player who failed the charge even more. Say you've footslogged a melee unit across the table or spent CP to deepstrike it or whatever. Failing the charge already means that the unit isn't doing damage this turn, and it means that said unit is likely to get shot at or countercharged on your opponent's turn. So if you're forced to move your charge distance after failing a charge, you might also be forced to move into range/charge range of even more enemy units, and you might be forced to leave cover to do it.

Although making it optional is another story. This might be less of a big deal now that melee is a bit better than it was last edition.

I think that failing a charge should be disadvantageous. But I agree that there would need to be balance changes associated with units still moving on a failed charge (though I'm not sure I'd want it to be the whole distance). What shape those changes could be is a discussion for another thread I'd think.

Back in the day in WFB, units charged twice their Move. If they failed their charge, they moved just their Move straight towards the target unit. Of course, this was back in the day before pre-measuring was allowed.

Once they switched to pre-measuring, Charges became Move + 2d6. Failed charges moved the higher of the two dice rolled. Today in 40K, you move your Move in the Movement Phase and don't move for failed charges at all. The downside is you moved into position to make a charge and may find yourself in a bad spot (especially if it was a short charge you failed).

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think that failing a charge should be disadvantageous.

Sincere, non-confrontational question: Why do you think failing a charge should have additional disadvantages? Failing a charge already means that you're likely within the threat range of enemy units. If the unit that failed to charge was a unit with expensive melee abilities, then it also means that part of your army has failed to contribute damage this turn. And given how melee units are often delivered, there's a good chance that the melee unit was off the table on turn 1 and thus wasn't contributing to your damage output.

So you can understand why I'm surprised that you feel failing a charge should be more of a disadvantage.

There is a strong realism/immersion aspect there, but also because I strongly feel that declaring a charge should have a penalty. It shouldn't be something a player just does because they might as well and there's no downside for trying. I also think that penalty shouldn't be overwatch, but that's another topic.

Perhaps the missing piece here is that I would not support such a change just being made to the game as it is without any other changes. The ease with which units can retreat, for example, I think is ridiculous. It should trigger a free 'melee overwatch' at the least.

Roll for charge distance, you make it you fight first as normal, you fail, you fight in normal sequence, and gain no bonuses that you would normally have gained for a successful charge. (maybe with snake eyes making you fight last instead, or some other penalty)

So always succeed, but with varying degrees of usefulness. One possibility at least.

Oooo I really like that. Would obviously need a max distance lower than 12" though. Leads me to thinking about how deep strike really loses a lot for not having the old 'be as close as you want, but scatter might screw you if you do' mechanic.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Random charges aren't fundamentally the problem; I never had an issue with how it was implemented in 6th-7th 40k or in WHFB. The problem in 8th/9th is that damage gets inflated so much faster than defensive stats, so now failing a charge is pretty much a guaranteed death sentence for the unit. Couple that with ever-inflating move distances/charge bonuses and the shrunken table, and movement is becoming vastly less interactive.

In short: The problem isn't that charge distance is random, it's that the game is too killy and movement has to be incredibly fast to let melee armies exist in the game at all.

And yet, melee has been consistently shown to be vastly superior in 9th than it has been since at least 5th, exluding 2++ rerolling invisible deathstars from 7th.

That's an interesting new idea Kcalehc.

I'm my draft ruleset, which looks very little like 8th, I've currently gone with 3+D6" charge range. I think with our measuring, some degree of randomness is required. The question is, how much?

Wyldhunt wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think that failing a charge should be disadvantageous.

Sincere, non-confrontational question: Why do you think failing a charge should have additional disadvantages? Failing a charge already means that you're likely within the threat range of enemy units. If the unit that failed to charge was a unit with expensive melee abilities, then it also means that part of your army has failed to contribute damage this turn. And given how melee units are often delivered, there's a good chance that the melee unit was off the table on turn 1 and thus wasn't contributing to your damage output.

So you can understand why I'm surprised that you feel failing a charge should be more of a disadvantage.

As long as charges provide extra movement, there must be disadvantages to declaring a charge. At first, you needed to be very close to a target to successfully charge (6") with no pre-measuring plus most weapons couldn't be fired if you wanted to charge and had to be fired at your charge target. This made it very easy for a unit to either be stuck at a disadvantaged position due to a failed charge or to have wasted firepower. When we moved to pre-measuring and 2d6 charge distance, Overwatch was added to give a disadvantage to charging. Now that Overwatch is mostly dead, it is safer than ever to declare a charge because you could roll high due to the lack of disadvantage to doing so.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Part of the problem is it makes none-bike/jump melee infantry look woefully obsolete compared to the units that do get the extra 6+" of range for free.

I totally agree that the current implementation isn't exactly stellar, which is why I suggested a 4+d6" charge range.

So why are bikes and jetbikes so slow on the charge?

Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs and people need to look at things differently. Infantry moves slowly, holds position. Mechanized Infantry is for rapid objective taking and holding. Outrider Detachments are meant for rapid hit and run engagements with the enemy.

It makes sense that an eldar shining spears can blast across the battlefield in a massive charge. Esp if you go back to the "proper" table size to bring back in maneuver to the game.

Primarily the "Fix" though isn't about charge range than it is about having a CHARGE PHASE.

GW has broken it's own game by "out of phase actions". Examples of this are assault moves in the shooting phase in previous editions and charging (movement) in the close combat phase. The solution is really quite easy.

All movement occurs in the movement phase, including compulsory moves. Compulsory moves include "out of turn actions" like fleeing or consolidation in combat.
All close combat occurs in the Combat Phase.
All shooting occurs in the shooting phase.
All Commands (CP) must be spent in the Command Phase. Yes, in advance of actual actions. No more I play my trap card BS. Plan ahead.

Part of making this all work requires no more or "limited" random movement. Which is FINE if you get to SHOOT OR CHARGE. Not both. An example of this would be you declare charges at the start of your movement phase. Use the old WHFB stuff here.

Overwatch is resolved in the Shooting Phase after the Charge move. No more, you don't shoot your flamer because the enemy STARTED too far away BS. They are running at you can you can "fire" when they are in range just fine. That was a band-aid to fix a problem better solved in other ways. Models are removed as the controlling player wishes so you have zero-chance of some trickery making the fight phase not happen. If your 5 man squad gets wiped out because of a flamer.. BRING BIGGER SQUAD NUB. The idea that a small squad gets annihilated by firepower while trying to charge an enemy makes a lot of sense. Bring more. It's not like I am not used to having 3 bike Dark Eldar Bikes getting slaughtered on charge/overwatch and having just ONE get in because reasons. I found that by making a larger bike squad my problem was solved. Or staged charges where I move the "fodder" to take the Overwatch so my killy bikes can fly in and mortal wound like mad-men they are. AKA. screw easymode. Dumb actions should hurt a lot. OP stuff should be burned on the altar.

This idea is not perfect and would need refinement. A lot would need updating. Sacred Cows would be slaughtered. Which is great. Too many people cling to OP and Broken systems as a means to WIN rather than looking for an actual fix to problems.

I actually think MORE morale phase stuff is needed. Morale is just BS atm, and it was before. We need suppression, we need "shaken" (with some fight or shooty penalty) and "broken" (flee) mechanics instead of just dead models.

But I like crunchy. I come from the days of cardboard chits next to models. Things like issuing ORDERS (loved Epic 40K).

I prefer a middle of the road approach.

Charge should be movement + D6, can never fail small charges (realistically) but also makes long charges still risky. It also has the added benefit of keeping slow moving units that can usually only move a small distance from making ridiculous charges to consolidate onto objectives.

To balance this for deep strike though, I'd make it so charges could not be re-rolled with CP.

Move+d6" charge means a jump pack unit arriving from deepstrike is succeeding the charge 100% of the time.
Even a normal 6" move unit is succeeding a 9" deepstrike charge 67% of the time.

A lot could be done if you radically changed the turn sequence to remove the charge phase entirely, and charge during movement.
There's positives and negatives to that though

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Move+d6" charge means a jump pack unit arriving from deepstrike is succeeding the charge 100% of the time.
Even a normal 6" move unit is succeeding a 9" deepstrike charge 67% of the time.

A lot could be done if you radically changed the turn sequence to remove the charge phase entirely, and charge during movement.
There's positives and negatives to that though

How about we simply don't allow charges after deep striking? Three editions at least did it that way and it was good.

Dont like the vehicles rules for destruction of...I have a rule which says you have to get rid of all the hull points before you can roll for destruction
In these rules an Ork Gorkanought can be knocked out on a single hit..

 Just Tony wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Move+d6" charge means a jump pack unit arriving from deepstrike is succeeding the charge 100% of the time.
Even a normal 6" move unit is succeeding a 9" deepstrike charge 67% of the time.

A lot could be done if you radically changed the turn sequence to remove the charge phase entirely, and charge during movement.
There's positives and negatives to that though

How about we simply don't allow charges after deep striking? Three editions at least did it that way and it was good.

Was it really that good though? I remember there being a lot of frustration around things like assault marines having to politely wait around before charging in rather than diving into the fray from off-screen. And unless I'm mistaken, assaulting from outflank was a thing. And if it wasn't, it's extra weird that assassin units like scorpions and mandrakes spend a ton of time setting up the perfect ambush just to sit around out in the open for a turn.

Not charging out of deepstrike was... fine. But I wouldn't call it an improvement over the current state of things.

Charging out of deepstrike is one of the most un-fun mechanics in the game, because it allows one player to destroy another player's unit with no chance for them to react or prepare ahead of time.

When those Assault Marines have to hide behind cover or vehicles for a turn before they spring the trap, the other player gets a chance to react beforehand. The alternative is profoundly frustrating.

Pointed Stick wrote:
Charging out of deepstrike is one of the most un-fun mechanics in the game, because it allows one player to destroy another player's unit with no chance for them to react or prepare ahead of time.

Well, other than placing screening units, hiding in transports, using stratagems that let you attack deepstriking units, or using abilities that let you heroically intervene (doesn't stop the first charging unit, granted).

But you're right about it potentially being frustrating. I wouldn't mind seeing something like intercept becoming a universal action.

That said, do you have the same problem with deepstriking shooty units? After all, they can arrive from reserves and destroy their opponent's units "with no chance for them to react." The difference is that random charges mean that there's a chance the melee unit doesn't get to make any attacks. So is your issue really with charging from reserves, or with reserves in general?

Wyldhunt wrote:
...Well, other than placing screening units...

If your army has cheap expendable units...

...hiding in transports...

Which then get charged and the charge-out-of-deepstrike unit gets to consolidate in and lock you in melee anyway...

...using stratagems that let you attack deepstriking units...

If your Codex was lucky enough to get one, and if your opponent's deepstriking only the one unit...

...or using abilities that let you heroically intervene (doesn't stop the first charging unit, granted)...

If your Codex was lucky enough to get one and your opponent was generous enough to land in the tiny 3" bubble you need to use the ability...

...That said, do you have the same problem with deepstriking shooty units? After all, they can arrive from reserves and destroy their opponent's units "with no chance for them to react." The difference is that random charges mean that there's a chance the melee unit doesn't get to make any attacks. So is your issue really with charging from reserves, or with reserves in general?

Personally my issue is with reliable no-consequence Reserves in general. Shooty deepstrike is at least as bad as charging out of deepstrike, since it lets you get short-ranged weapons to the perfect position exactly when you want them there with no chance of failure without giving your opponent any chance to interact with them.

 meatybtz wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Part of the problem is it makes none-bike/jump melee infantry look woefully obsolete compared to the units that do get the extra 6+" of range for free.

I totally agree that the current implementation isn't exactly stellar, which is why I suggested a 4+d6" charge range.

So why are bikes and jetbikes so slow on the charge?

I'm not sure I see what you mean. Bikes and jump packs may charge the same distance (4+d6") as normal infantry, but that doesn't mean they're still "fast" by virtue of moving farther. A unit that moves 12" is still going to be able to cover more max ground than a unit that moves 6". If the bikes and infantry both start off X" away from the target, the bikes will be able to get into melee more reliably by virtue of getting closer before the charge roll is made. If the enemy unit is so close that the extra speed of the bikes is irrelevant, then the speed of the bikes is, er, irrelevant.

All Commands (CP) must be spent in the Command Phase. Yes, in advance of actual actions. No more I play my trap card BS. Plan ahead.

This feels like broad change that would create more problems than it would solve. Bookkeeping, say, 4 stratagems over the course of a turn (especially your opponent's turn) sounds like a pain. It also lowers the value of a lot of strats unless you overhauled them. Do you have to pop smoke before your opponent has decided whether or not they're targeting a vehicle that can do so? Do you have to gamble on whether or not you'll kill a character in melee at the start of your turn when deciding whether or not to benefit from Feeder Tendrils? I feel like you're trying to reduce the efficiency boost created by stratgems, but there are ways to do that (just reducing the number of efficiency boosting stratagems for instance) that don't add bookkeeping or radically nerf strats in general.

I also feel that insisting all X happen in the X phase is arbitrarily limiting. JSJ was problematic once upon a time, but I'd actually like to see more of it come back in the 9th edition environment. I can understand not wanting to give units "extra" movement/shooting/etc., but you can do that without making things like overwatch, JSJ, etc. totally impossible.

Part of making this all work requires no more or "limited" random movement. Which is FINE if you get to SHOOT OR CHARGE. Not both. An example of this would be you declare charges at the start of your movement phase. Use the old WHFB stuff here.

I mean, I'm open to it. I like the idea of removing random advances in favor of a flat advance speed. But obviously making shooting/charging an either/or thing is going to nerf the snot out of units designed to do both. In a vacuum, this change basically makes non-specialized units worse, thus making them less likely to see play, thus reducing list diversity and player choice.

Overwatch is resolved in the Shooting Phase after the Charge move. No more, you don't shoot your flamer because the enemy STARTED too far away BS.
...
AKA. screw easymode. Dumb actions should hurt a lot. OP stuff should be burned on the altar.

I do like the idea of overwatching regardless of distance. I'd do it at the end of the charge phase, and only units that made it into melee are viable targets for overwatch. (So no punishing melee units for having the audacity to fail a charge). That said, you seem to be really down on melee units. It's probably not fair to call charging blood letters into fire warriors a "dumb action."

I actually think MORE morale phase stuff is needed. Morale is just BS atm, and it was before. We need suppression, we need "shaken" (with some fight or shooty penalty) and "broken" (flee) mechanics instead of just dead models.

I'd like to see morale revised but not necessarily complicated. My pitch: tag a bunch of abilities as "command" abilities. If units fail morale, they don't lose models. They just can't benefit from command abilities in the next turn. Makes morale a way to reduce your opponent's unit synergy rather than an extra form of damage. Doesn't result in weird situations like daemons freaking out and running away.

CC is usually more decisive than shooting, but shooty deepstrike is bad too.

However the real issue is how deadly deepstrike units can be today. The more deadly the unit, the bigger a buff it is to let them attack right out of deepstrike, and the more frustrating it is to be the victim of this. It's compounded by just how many units get to deep strike automatically, and how many more can be given it via strategem. It's no longer special and cool. Deep strike isn't so much "call in the reserves!" as it is "spring the trap!" All armies now have the ability to set up perfect ambushes, essentially.

For many editions IIRC the only unit that could perform the kind of deep strike everyone gets today was the Tyranid Lictor. And this special dispensation made it a terrifying unit--but it was just one model, so the Tyranid player had to choose the target wisely. So Lictors sniped vulnerable characters, backfield artillery units, etc. It was great. You couldn't deep strike a Lictor next to a full troops unit and obliterate it.

Now units with tremendous power get the Lictor's perfect ambush ability and it just sucks.

Lots of good discussion here, much to consider!

Regarding Charge Distance

The 2D6" you currently roll does have a nice bell curve to is, and 6-8" charge is most likely. There is chance for a 9"+ charge for deep striking units (I think the risk vs. reward here is a good thing). But the bigger issue is when you roll only a 2-5" charge - it's major feelsbad and I think this is where the angst sets in. People would likely be happier with fixed 6" charge rather than dealing with the unpleasantness of failing a 3" or 4" charge on occasion, for all the reasons mentioned above.

So here's a thought, what if charges are still 2D6" but anything lower than a 6 counts as having rolled a 6 (unless you have modifiers or bonuses that would push the natural roll above 6 anyway). In this way, the charge would always be 6" minimum to a max of 12", and retain the bell curve at the top end of the charge. This keeps the fun/risky part but cuts out the feelsbad part.

Regarding Deepstrike

In ProHammer (based on 5th), we made it so that you can charge out of deep striking, but you lose your bonus attacks for charging. It tones down the deep strike charge a bit, but keeps at as an option. If units can deep strike and SHOOT into critical targets at close range after dropping, it seems reasonable to me that they should be able to alternatively charge and fight. It's worked well.

I do like the older way of handling deepstrike (in theory at least) of rolling to scatter (coupled with reserve rolls on Turn 2+). It should be a risky thing because it can be so powerful. When it goes wrong and you scatter out of position, it often makes the game more interesting! We reworked deep striking in ProHammer so that you can deploy pretty much anywhere, but if you scatter onto or within 2" of enemy units the "mishap" occurs, which is that your opponent can place the unit in valid spot anywhere within 12" of the original location. Pretty exciting!

Adapting for 9th, the penalty could be that you no longer get to strike first when you charge out of deep strike, but rather in the normal order of things.

I saw a suggestion, from Some Bloke, for guaranteed charges, but with a penalty if you didn't make the charge normally. Here. That might work, with some tweaking.

 Mezmorki wrote:

So here's a thought, what if charges are still 2D6" but anything lower than a 6 counts as having rolled a 6 (unless you have modifiers or bonuses that would push the natural roll above 6 anyway). In this way, the charge would always be 6" minimum to a max of 12", and retain the bell curve at the top end of the charge. This keeps the fun/risky part but cuts out the feelsbad part.

4"+D6 is probably the closest to the current system. You can fail a 6" charge on a 1, but can't fail a 5". It gives you a slightly better chance of making a charge from Deepstrike (33% up from 28%) but largely trims the extremes without hugely affecting the main decision making zone.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I saw a suggestion, from Some Bloke, for guaranteed charges, but with a penalty if you didn't make the charge normally. Here. That might work, with some tweaking.

I quite like that idea. Could be expanded a bit too. For example, if you fail be 1-2" only, you charge but strike last. If you fail by 3" or more, you strike last and lose an attack or get a -1 to hit.

Random charges is a terrible mechanic. It is not fun. It is not tactical.

A charge should be twice a unit's movement value.

The biggest problem with charging is.......... IGOUGO!

Like everything in 40k, the problem can't be solved without rewriting the game, with implementing AA #1 on the to-do list.

Random charge range, along with many other horribly done mechanics made assault such a teeth pulling experience in 6th and 7th, and how they made if feel less awful in 8th and 9th was specifically adding a rogue's gallery of special rules and stratagems meant to "solve" this issue but still hurts armies that don't have the abilities or the spare CP to spend on said stategems. It's the clear it's not a good mechanic, and I fail to see what it's introduction was meant to solve.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Random charge range, along with many other horribly done mechanics made assault such a teeth pulling experience in 6th and 7th, and how they made if feel less awful in 8th and 9th was specifically adding a rogue's gallery of special rules and stratagems meant to "solve" this issue but still hurts armies that don't have the abilities or the spare CP to spend on said stategems. It's the clear it's not a good mechanic, and I fail to see what it's introduction was meant to solve.

+1. Typical GW: selectively adding army-specific special rules in top of a broken rule instead of fixing it or removing it. Just get rid of random charge distances. It worked fine in 3rd-5th editions.

Blastaar wrote:
Random charges is a terrible mechanic. It is not fun. It is not tactical.

A charge should be twice a unit's movement value.

The biggest problem with charging is.......... IGOUGO!

Like everything in 40k, the problem can't be solved without rewriting the game, with implementing AA #1 on the to-do list.

Pretty sure alternating activation as it is usually done (on a unit by unit basis) would actually make the current charge issues worse.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Pretty sure alternating activation as it is usually done (on a unit by unit basis) would actually make the current charge issues worse.

Not if you combine AA with out of turn order reactions and reduced movement speed for all models.

Pointed Stick wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Random charge range, along with many other horribly done mechanics made assault such a teeth pulling experience in 6th and 7th, and how they made if feel less awful in 8th and 9th was specifically adding a rogue's gallery of special rules and stratagems meant to "solve" this issue but still hurts armies that don't have the abilities or the spare CP to spend on said stategems. It's the clear it's not a good mechanic, and I fail to see what it's introduction was meant to solve.

+1. Typical GW: selectively adding army-specific special rules in top of a broken rule instead of fixing it or removing it. Just get rid of random charge distances. It worked fine in 3rd-5th editions.

Almost certainly tied to the implementation of pre-measuring. I get the logic; before, charges were uncertain because the player may have mis-judged the distance and the unit is actually out of range so they wanted to maintain that uncertainty. With pre-measuring one always knows the exact distance so fixed charge distance would always be 100% certain, 2d6 restores the element of not knowing if a charge will succeed. But I think they swung that pendulum too far. No one was misjudging distances so badly that they were declaring 9+ inch charges, or being uncertain they would make a 4" charge or not.

I’m in favour of random charge rules. But, how random is open to debate as far as I’m concerned.

Melee still remains a decent way to shift people off of objectives. And melee specialists, once up to their elbows, get to swing twice a game turn, in contrast to shooting which is only once per player turn.

Random charges absolutely add tension for both parties. I might take the risk that my opponent won’t make say, a 9” charge and lose. Depending on situations, that could cost me the game.

It also helps to cut down on “keep away” tactics. When charges were mostly a fixed 6”, one had the option to simply back up, giving ground.

But, Snake Eyes can happen on a 2D6 roll. So at the moment, and not counting any boosts, it feels a bit too random.

D6+M could be a balancing factor. That way, I can still play Keep Away to some extent, but charges can be made more reliable through cunning play.

Let’s explore with a ropey example, basing it on the aforementioned D6+M. Now this is a ropey example, so I’m not factoring in who has what M, nor who has bonuses to charge distance.

If your unit is M4? Then, including your movement in the cunningly named Movement Phase, I know that your longest charge reach is M4+D6+M4, for 14”. Your minimum is going to be 9” (stop giggling at the back). And your median is around 12” (really, grow up. Honestly.).

If I don’t much fancy a kicking, that gives me some choices to make. With pre-measuring, I’ll know the distance of course. Let’s say it’s.....11”.

The start of my turn, I can either remain exactly where I am, and trust to my shooting phase to reduce your numbers (this can mean you face a long charge distance, the unit is no longer combat effective, or is taken off the board entirely). I could also back up to create space, potentially losing out on Rapid Fire, but making your charge less likely. The amount I back up by (perhaps I’m needing to seize an objective, and don’t want to move too far lest I never be able to reach it) might also vary.

That is a simplified set of tactical decisions I’ll need to make, based on a given situation.

Likewise, you can use your more reliable charge reach to force those decisions upon me.

And where M stats can and do vary, it means I’ll need to consider such actions on a game to game basis, as your guaranteed charge reach changes along with the Max and Median distance.

Might want to cap that d6+M at d6+6 though.

I love the irony of units that can charge faster than they can move or even run/advance in the current edition.


As somebody who has gone back to playing 5th i think my position is pretty clear. standard movement and charge distances for all units for simplicity of play with variations given by immersive terrain interaction (representing moving in difficult/rough terrain) and unit type--beast/leaping/cavalry VS foot slogging infantry. tactical play becomes a thing when you don't have to rely on luck to get off a charge or otherwise interact with the mechanics of movement/running/charging.

 aphyon wrote:
I love the irony of units that can charge faster than they can move or even run/advance in the current edition.


As somebody who has gone back to playing 5th i think my position is pretty clear. standard movement and charge distances for all units for simplicity of play with variations given by immersive terrain interaction (representing moving in difficult/rough terrain) and unit type--beast/leaping/cavalry VS foot slogging infantry. tactical play becomes a thing when you don't have to rely on luck to get off a charge or otherwise interact with the mechanics of movement/running/charging.

Part of the reason I bailed on 8th WFB was because the game mechanic meant that there was a chance, however unlikely, that a Dwarf unit on foot could outcharge cavalry. There isn't a world in this multiverse where you can tell me that mechanic makes sense from ANY direction other than "Yessir, GW."

The solution is very simple: We should keep the base system (2d6), but units should have a baseline charge range and / or bonuses on top of the baseline and 2d6. Then, as a direct result, melee damage should be paired down.

Now, before all the space marine, tau, and eldar players gak their pants in rage, hear me out.

2d6 should represent your average unit attempting to charge. Any guys which fall into not broad-strokes average mobility and / or not tailor made to bumrush into the enemies teeth, should have this roll. It allows you to represent these units (which again, probably don't want to rush into melee as their first plan) firing as they advance, having to stow weapons as they attempt to charge, not being trained in mounting a charge over rough terrain, or generally not having "charge into the teeth of the enemy" as therefor being somewhat unreliable at doing it (perhaps because they need some extra prodding to get moving. This might be guardsmen, firewarriors, guardians, or tac-squads. All squads which have different reasons for being 'unreliable on the draw' in this avenue, but are still perfectly capable of rising to the occasion.

After this you should have various bonuses to charge based on a units specialization, equipment, excitement, ect.

Orks, for example, could have something like a baseline charge range of 2, with the exception of grots. So all ork units charge 2+2d6 inches. This does a good job representing how all orks being eager and excited to charge into combat - even if they have big guns - but they're more excited than they are fast or skilled. So while they're not infallible and some of them will inevitably trip, by and large they make up for some clumsiness with sheer energy. Then you certain units get additional changes. Meganoz, for example, might only have a base charge of 1 for 1+2d6, because while just as excited they're also heavy and slow. Where as the super agile (by ork standards) deffkopta may have 3 or 4 as its baseline charge.

You could even factor this into their special rules. Bring back Waaagh! and have it effect baseline charge for a turn, for example.

On the flip-side an army like Tyrands would have much more variance in their charge baselines. Slow and lumbering juggernauts like the Carnifex might have 1 or 0 as their baseline. Termagants may have 1, where as Lictors and Hormagaunts could have 4 or 6 respectively to represent their insane speed and specialization. gak, you could tie parts of this into Synapse, to help make it more interesting than "Does your unit eat itself or suffer attrition?"

This system lets you retain the important aspects of range charge ranges (basically a counter-weight to calculated kiting in a game which allows pre-measuring), while also allowing for easy methods to represent different races - and different units - having different levels of familiarity, interest, and flat-out ability to close into melee range and break skulls.

Now this does come with some marked changes. Primarily that melee armies would be getting much faster. Some units, such as jump troops, would have large and reliable threat bubbles. Where as something like the humble hormagaunt would also he far more troublesome.

I'd argue this isn't a bad thing. Modern melee is basically Shooting -2. It's just as deadly but highly contextual, subject to even more RNG, and you get the snot kicked out of you while you try to get there.

That said, melee would invariably need to be less potent. As I stated modern melee is just as lethal as shooting (which is far too lethal), but it does come with a few perks which somewhat offset its weaknesses. Primarily that shooting units generally cannot fight back, and your enemy re-engaging their ability to shoot requires them to move out of position as well as suffer other consequences. Heavily mitigating the unreliability, but also leaving in all of the killiness and tactical perks, would tilt us back in 3rd edition territory of melee-or-die.

Making it so that melee units can reliably reach melee means that armies - even melee armies - have to actually think about screening. Modern screening is just a guardsmen squad or two for bubble wrap and then call it a day. This sort of implementation would require continued awareness of enemy threat ranges and constant re-adjustment, as it would be far harder to maroon melee squads in no-man's land and then blow them away or ignore them. Coupled with some changes to lethality it would make melee armies less about mass-deleting your foe, and more about harrying them to force them out of position and keep their weapons from being fully brought to bear. Yes you'd still have super dangerous squads out there, but not as many.

It also opens the door to more interesting interactions and reasons-for-existing. Having different types of terrain effect charges different (flat negatives, roll three die discard the highest one, ect) is a good start. Defender and attacker special roles & rules, where some units specialize in attacking (mitigating or ignoring terrain problems, getting extra dangerous on the charge, or just being crazy mobile through base stats) while others might shine when taking a charge (units intercepting charges, additional defense when charged, and even more interesting charge reactions than "Do you want to overwatch before they move, or nah?").

Lastly, as with all things, this would heavily benefit from the same thing all of 40k is sorely lacking: Suppression. A way to interact with enemy units which is not only removing them from the table, but specifically and reliably impeding their ability to take actions or the effectiveness of those actions. And, of course, space marines should be effected as well.

I think reliably extending the charge range is the opposite of what we need right now.
Already a threat range of ~19" (including movement) is standard for a lot of units with many going even higher.
That's almost what shooting ranges are, 24" is standard rifle range.

Back in 5th-7th edition the maximum threat range was 18", and I'm not aware of any shenigans that extended that. Unlike the advance and charge, or charge 3d6, or similar that is very common today.
Especially if you tie long charge ranges to fast units, you just double down on their speed. IMO fast unit's greater charge speed is already accounted for in the movement phase.

I think the current 40k round sequence leaves a lot to be desired, and charges could be improved if a completely different system was adopted. But this isn't the place for that.

Instead I think a moderate charge range of ~6" should be maintained, and any randomness should be moderate. 2d6 just leaves too much variance between 2 and 12. d3s are lovely, a 5+d3 charge leaves you with approximately the same average charge range as is current, but without the extremes.
A 3+d6 would achieve the same, albeit with greater variance and greater extremes.

Those do introduce problems with deepstrike. However, if you want to maintain the chance of a successful deepstrike charge as approximately equal you could even just reduce the minimum deepstrike distance. I can't think of any major consequences of >9" (as opposed >8" perhaps) other than on charge distance.

 Mezmorki wrote:
Lots of good discussion here, much to consider!
So here's a thought, what if charges are still 2D6" but anything lower than a 6 counts as having rolled a 6 (unless you have modifiers or bonuses that would push the natural roll above 6 anyway). In this way, the charge would always be 6" minimum to a max of 12", and retain the bell curve at the top end of the charge. This keeps the fun/risky part but cuts out the feelsbad part.

A similarish rule exists in Ninth Age, where taking a Champion for a unit lets it 'set' its 2d6 roll to 4, thus letting most infantry units charge 4+4, instead of 4+2d6. Units with Swiftstride can roll an extra die and discard the lowest, but one of the more 'haha cute' bonuses is the fact that a unit charging downhill can choose to reroll its charge distance.

Mind, 9th Age has far weaker shooting compared to WHFB 8th on account of army percentage caps and not using AOE markers so there's room for random charge manipulation.

The only thing about using 2d6 minimum 6 is that it feels really awkward to ignore the die results almost half the time. Just feels a bit clunky to use a multiple die mechanic to get a bell curve when you really only want half the bell curve. At that point, something like 1d6 + 4 just seems simpler. You lose the possibility of making 11" and 12" charges, but I think I'd kind of be okay with that.

In the context of 9th edition where the board is smaller and giving ground is usually a bad idea, having the option to cede ground and kite more reliably doesn't seem so bad.

Wyldhunt wrote:
The only thing about using 2d6 minimum 6 is that it feels really awkward to ignore the die results almost half the time. Just feels a bit clunky to use a multiple die mechanic to get a bell curve when you really only want half the bell curve. At that point, something like 1d6 + 4 just seems simpler. You lose the possibility of making 11" and 12" charges, but I think I'd kind of be okay with that.

Pretty much.

That's one of the reasons I liked the idea of M+dX for charge range. You have a set number you can rely on, but it still adds some randomness to the equation. That randomness is key when you can measure the distance of a charge before hand (and that includes those carpenters who can do it by eye).

The range of that randomness should take in to account average board size. For big boards, with a low number of models a higher end range like d6 or even 2d6 makes sense. For crowded boards, either due to model numbers, lower borders, or just thick terrain options, a lower end like d3 makes more sense. Also in consideration is just what the average number for M is in relation to the map itself. 4" across a 48" field is huge, but much smaller to an average of 6", and almost tiny to 8".

Also in consideration is when that randomness is applied. Do you do all Movement, including Charging in the Movement Phase (thus cutting off ranged support that turn)? Do you use the M in the Movement Phase, then the randomness in the Assault Phase? Do you forgo any movement in the Movement Phase and dedicate it all to the Assault Phase? Do you ignore what happened in the Movement Phase and apply the full tamale of M+dX even if they did the full move before hand?

Part of that is based on what your board size is, but also in consideration is how much range your shooting provides. Warmachine is interesting because Charge Range is always M+3", requiring a minimum of 3" to gain any bonus. The average M rating is 6" for Infantry and 5" for the Robots and Beasts, plus some of the melee weapon ranges can be up to 2". The average shooting range is between 10" and 12". The average Shooting range in 40K is closer to 24". Larger charge ranges in 40K make sense because in order for melee to actually be of any use, they either have to avoid LoS on approach (cover, deep strike, etc). absorb the shots (Wounds or Saves), or be able to close fast to accomplish the job.

Those are the considerations one should be making when making Charging rules.

Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I think the entire Morale and Charge phases should be removed. You declare a Charge in the Movement phase (much like Advance, Fall Back, and Remain Stationary), and you have to pass a leadership check. If you succeed, you can move your units into engagement range; any unit within 1" of another unit in engagement range may be eligible to fight in the fight phase. If you fail, that unit cannot move at all.

The immediate effects of this are:
1. We get rid of two phases, which saves us time.
2. Melee units can just get more Move stat rather than an entire extra set of complicated movement rules.
3. Charge and Advance become different choices, because honestly, Advance+Charge through terrain is just pure, unmitigated cancer that creates massive codex inequity.
4. You cannot charge after deep striking. More game design chemotherapy.
5. Pistols become a lot more important for melee units, since charging means you cannot shoot non-pistol weapons.
6. Leadership matters a lot more. Rules like Summary Execution and And They Shall Know Some Fear now are applied to charges as well as morale checks (which should be forced by abilities rather than a once-per-turn thing).

 Suzuteo wrote:
Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I think the entire Morale and Charge phases should be removed. You declare a Charge in the Movement phase (much like Advance, Fall Back, and Remain Stationary), and you have to pass a leadership check. If you succeed, you can move your units into engagement range; any unit within 1" of another unit in engagement range may be eligible to fight in the fight phase. If you fail, that unit cannot move at all.

The immediate effects of this are:
1. We get rid of two phases, which saves us time.
2. Melee units can just get more Move stat rather than an entire extra set of complicated movement rules.
3. Charge and Advance become different choices, because honestly, Advance+Charge through terrain is just pure, unmitigated cancer that creates massive codex inequity.
4. You cannot charge after deep striking. More game design chemotherapy.
5. Pistols become a lot more important for melee units, since charging means you cannot shoot non-pistol weapons.
6. Leadership matters a lot more. Rules like Summary Execution and And They Shall Know Some Fear now are applied to charges as well as morale checks (which should be forced by abilities rather than a once-per-turn thing).

Are you sure charging out of deepstrike removal is a good idea?
Daemons would auto disagree.
And frankly shooting is FAR more devastating imo out of deepstrike.

 Suzuteo wrote:
Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I think the entire Morale and Charge phases should be removed. You declare a Charge in the Movement phase (much like Advance, Fall Back, and Remain Stationary), and you have to pass a leadership check. If you succeed, you can move your units into engagement range; any unit within 1" of another unit in engagement range may be eligible to fight in the fight phase. If you fail, that unit cannot move at all.

The immediate effects of this are:
1. We get rid of two phases, which saves us time.
2. Melee units can just get more Move stat rather than an entire extra set of complicated movement rules.
3. Charge and Advance become different choices, because honestly, Advance+Charge through terrain is just pure, unmitigated cancer that creates massive codex inequity.
4. You cannot charge after deep striking. More game design chemotherapy.
5. Pistols become a lot more important for melee units, since charging means you cannot shoot non-pistol weapons.
6. Leadership matters a lot more. Rules like Summary Execution and And They Shall Know Some Fear now are applied to charges as well as morale checks (which should be forced by abilities rather than a once-per-turn thing).

The problem with removing two phases is that there's way less creative room and messes up how strats are played.
However, declaring charges in the movement phase is not a gakky idea. But again: Restructuring of strats.

1. Why is everyone so god damn hellbent of saving time everywhere? If you don't like the ammount of time it takes to play the game: Play fewer points, of another game alltogether.
2. Yeah, because increasing movement won't get broken fast. And what designates a CC unit? I play both DG and Custodes, and neither army has any good pure CC units. What designates a "CC-unit"?
3. I agree. And if there's a strat to allow a unit to do such a thing, give that to every army and make it a once per game strat..
4. Then nobody is going to deepstrike any CC unit ever. That would nerf so many lists and relegate deepstriking to units that can shoot like there's no tomorrow. *Deepstrikes in. Stands around with knives, flails, axes and clubs in hand. Looks menacingly at enemy. Dies. Free points to the enemy."
5. Not being able to shoot non-pistol weapons if you charge is not a gak idea.
6. I don't agree at all with your version of morale. However, I do agree that it needs to matter. In all my games in 8th and 9th, I've taken about 4 morale tests. Morale nowadays just doesn't matter. At all. Change it back to how it was in 5'th.

If we are looking to ONLY change how charging works:

To you who say that charge distance should be double move distance: Is an effectively guaranteed 36" charge a good idea? Really?

And those that propose that everything should charge 4/5/6 +D6, does that REALLY include vehicles?

To those that propse no charging after deepstrike: That's how you remove every single CC deepstrike ever. Yeah, sure I'll offer my units up fpr free! Great idea!






Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yes, rolling snake eyes on a charge feels bad for YOU, but it feels amazing for your opponent. Suddenly, that unit of guardsmen defending an objective isn't guaranteed slaughtered. I even propose that rolling double ones should be an autofail, just like hitting in CC and shooting. A unit should always have a chance -no matter how small- to survive.

Reducing the amount of wasted time in a game is absolutely a good thing.
Personally, I think rolling fist fulls of dice 8 times for every shooting attack is a waste of time and adds very little to the game over a leaner attack sequence.

The game worked perfectly fine before GW started throwing around rerolls like sweets on Halloween.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Reducing the amount of wasted time in a game is absolutely a good thing.
Personally, I think rolling fist fulls of dice 8 times for every shooting attack is a waste of time and adds very little to the game over a leaner attack sequence.

The game worked perfectly fine before GW started throwing around rerolls like sweets on Halloween.

Yeah, who would ever want to roll dice in a game based on dice!

I do totally agree with that, though! Everything keeps rerolling everything all the time.

Shoot - reroll, save - reroll

It should be: Shoot - save - FNP.

Just because it's a dice based game doesn't mean the gameplay should be centered around modifying and rolling dice.
That's unfortunately exactly what 40k is right now.

You can get ridiculousness like
Shoot, reroll, exploding hits, reroll
Wound, reroll
Saves, reroll
Damage, reroll
FNP
And all of that with literal hand fulls of dice at a time, ending in maybe a few casualties.

I'm honestly looking forwards to trying out Grimdark Future.
It cuts all that crap down to "hit, save, die". So much faster and you know what? It doesn't feel any different at the end of the day.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Just because it's a dice based game doesn't mean the gameplay should be centered around modifying and rolling dice.
That's unfortunately exactly what 40k is right now.

You can get ridiculousness like
Shoot, reroll, exploding hits, reroll
Wound, reroll
Saves, reroll
Damage, reroll
FNP
And all of that with literal hand fulls of dice at a time, ending in maybe a few casualties.

I'm honestly looking forwards to trying out Grimdark Future.
It cuts all that crap down to "hit, save, die". So much faster and you know what? It doesn't feel any different at the end of the day.

Well, basically everything except basic movement is dice based...
And for me, the less dice, the less chance/risk and the less randomness, the less fun it is for me. Like deepstriking. It used to be so risk/reward. Now it's just "plopp" and they are there.

I do agree that it's WAY too many rerolls all over the shop.

Random charge distance is needed as long as pre-measuring is allowed, as otherwise it is just to easy to stay outside the threat range.

 Tyran wrote:
Random charge distance is needed as long as pre-measuring is allowed, as otherwise it is just to easy to stay outside the threat range.

Well, no. As long as advancing/run exists, it's always possible to get closer to the enemy than the enemy can move away, and if the enemy also ran to get away then I've at least caused a tactical choice, and especially with the smaller maps in 9th it's much more likely the enemy will eventually run out of space to run.

Always having a chance to fumble a charge roll, even a short ranged one, just gives shooting a "get out of trouble free" card., expecially since having the pre measuring is still a major boon even with random charge rolls.

Except that most units cannot Advance/Run and charge in the same turn, so not really.

And it isn't just the chance of failing a charge roll, but also the chance of making a long one.

Lets remember that before the random charge distance, the standard charge range was 6". Nowadays it isn't unheard of lucky charges making 10" or more, and players need to consider such possible lucky rolls when trying to stay outside threat range.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Random charge distance is needed as long as pre-measuring is allowed, as otherwise it is just to easy to stay outside the threat range.

Well, no. As long as advancing/run exists, it's always possible to get closer to the enemy than the enemy can move away, and if the enemy also ran to get away then I've at least caused a tactical choice, and especially with the smaller maps in 9th it's much more likely the enemy will eventually run out of space to run.

Always having a chance to fumble a charge roll, even a short ranged one, just gives shooting a "get out of trouble free" card., expecially since having the pre measuring is still a major boon even with random charge rolls.

I play three armies and I have not a single unit that can move then run/advance and then charge. Not even with strats.

Plus if all you do is kite...objectives are still an important factor to take into a consideration.

 Suzuteo wrote:
Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I think the entire Morale and Charge phases should be removed. You declare a Charge in the Movement phase (much like Advance, Fall Back, and Remain Stationary), and you have to pass a leadership check. If you succeed, you can move your units into engagement range; any unit within 1" of another unit in engagement range may be eligible to fight in the fight phase. If you fail, that unit cannot move at all.

The immediate effects of this are:
1. We get rid of two phases, which saves us time.
2. Melee units can just get more Move stat rather than an entire extra set of complicated movement rules.
3. Charge and Advance become different choices, because honestly, Advance+Charge through terrain is just pure, unmitigated cancer that creates massive codex inequity.
4. You cannot charge after deep striking. More game design chemotherapy.
5. Pistols become a lot more important for melee units, since charging means you cannot shoot non-pistol weapons.
6. Leadership matters a lot more. Rules like Summary Execution and And They Shall Know Some Fear now are applied to charges as well as morale checks (which should be forced by abilities rather than a once-per-turn thing).

Politely disagree with most of this. Failing a charge because of a leadership test would be as frustrating as rolling snake eyes on a charge roll and make about as little sense. Most armies in 40k are not guardsmen that have to be motivated into charging by their commanders. If space marines, melee aspect warriors, daemons, or genestealers have the opportunity to charge, they're probably taking it and doing so without much in the way of fear. Night Lords may be spooky, but a genestealer still wants to chew on them. Heck, orks are generally statted as having "bad" leadership, but they should be quite good at making charges.

Also, as discussed above, doing charges in the movement phase could work but would dramatically lower the value of units that are designed to both shoot and stab, and oddly might even turn your melee units into a liability if you have to prevent the rest of your army from shooting to use them. My shining spears would certainly be nerfed by not being allowed to shoot and stab in the same turn, and my already mediocre banshees and scorpions would suddenly be in the way of my reapers and avengers. And melee options on avengers would become even less popular than they already are. As I say, moving charges to the movement phase could be done, but it's a change that would weaken a lot of already meh units and require massive rebalancing. Something like changing charge rolls to a d6 + x mechanic are relatively limited in scope.

1. Fair point.
2. As has been mentioned before, what counts as a "melee" unit? My shining spears love to charge into melee, but they technically get more shots and probably do more damage with their shooting. And how much extra movement are you giving to a lychguard and my shining spears respectively?
3. Is it really though? I haven't seen a lot of complaints aimed at howling banshees or genestealers in a while.
4. Feels like you're kicking a lot of units while they're down. Do GSC need more nerfing? Striking scorpions? Would I be correct in guessing you're perhaps concerned about a certain subset of (probably powerarmored) units and proposing changes that would nerf a bunch of mediocre units unintentionally? Or do you have a proposal for making GSC and scorpions feel like the ambushers they're meant to be while also not allowing them to charge out of deepstrike?
5. This bit I kind of like, but I'm not sure buffing pistols addresses the detriment to shooting/stabbing teamwork described above. I'm not sure I care that my banshee and scorpsions' pistols became more relevant if their avenger, reaper, and spider buddies can't soften the target up for them before they charge.
6. Leadership would matter more, but would it matter in an enjoyable way? I'm picturing kroot and orks and hormagaunts failing charges left and right because they have worse Ld than space marines. Or else gaining enough stat boosts and special abilities to negate this disadvantage and make the change irrelevant.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:
Random charge distance is needed as long as pre-measuring is allowed, as otherwise it is just to easy to stay outside the threat range.

I feel like I've been seeing this sentiment for a long time, but it never really made much sense to me. Despite random charges, I can generally tell what turn an enemy unit is going to contact my lines. There's a small chance that the unit will flub a charge and get cheated out of doing damage for a turn, and there's a chance that they'll roll hot on a charge roll (especially if they can advance and charge) and manage to reach me a turn earlier than expected. But generally I know when they'll reach me.

Plus, pre-measuring doesn't impact everyone equally. I'm not a very good judge of distances, but there are plenty of people out there who spend all day measuring stuff (or happen to know how long the base of a given set of ruins is) and have an extremely accurate sense of how far apart two units are without breaking out a measuring tape. Making one's ability to guesstimate distances part of the gameplay was always really odd. Being a carpenter probably shouldn't give you a big advantage in 40k.

Also, if I really want to kite you, I still can. Most of my armies are mobile enough to end up more than Movement + 12" away from your melee units provided I'm okay with losing ground. But doing so means that I"m giving up objectives, and you'll still catch me after a few turns as there isn't all that much room to run and hide. Kiting is already possible and generally pretty easy, but only for a little while, and leaning into it is a good way to lose the primary.

But maybe I'm missing something. Do you really mind that I stayed out of melee with your Thunderwolves for an extra turn if doing so cost me the game?

 Kall3m0n wrote:
The problem with removing two phases is that there's way less creative room and messes up how strats are played.
However, declaring charges in the movement phase is not a gakky idea. But again: Restructuring of strats.

1. Why is everyone so god damn hellbent of saving time everywhere? If you don't like the ammount of time it takes to play the game: Play fewer points, of another game alltogether.
2. Yeah, because increasing movement won't get broken fast. And what designates a CC unit? I play both DG and Custodes, and neither army has any good pure CC units. What designates a "CC-unit"?
3. I agree. And if there's a strat to allow a unit to do such a thing, give that to every army and make it a once per game strat..
4. Then nobody is going to deepstrike any CC unit ever. That would nerf so many lists and relegate deepstriking to units that can shoot like there's no tomorrow. *Deepstrikes in. Stands around with knives, flails, axes and clubs in hand. Looks menacingly at enemy. Dies. Free points to the enemy."
5. Not being able to shoot non-pistol weapons if you charge is not a gak idea.
6. I don't agree at all with your version of morale. However, I do agree that it needs to matter. In all my games in 8th and 9th, I've taken about 4 morale tests. Morale nowadays just doesn't matter. At all. Change it back to how it was in 5'th.

If we are looking to ONLY change how charging works:

To you who say that charge distance should be double move distance: Is an effectively guaranteed 36" charge a good idea? Really?

And those that propose that everything should charge 4/5/6 +D6, does that REALLY include vehicles?

To those that propose no charging after deepstrike: That's how you remove every single CC deepstrike ever. Yeah, sure I'll offer my units up fpr free! Great idea!

I disagree. I am a game designer by profession. The 40k design space is plenty large. In fact, I would argue that it is bloated and needs pruning to make better use of things. Right now, leadership is a massively under-utilized stat, and morale and charge phases are just time-wasters.

But yes, this may require a rules reset like 8E did to 7E.

1. Because shorter, more enjoyable games are always preferable? Also, with the way Battle-forged works, it is easier to maintain game balance going up rather than down; the current game systems start to break down when you drop under 1200 points or so. So instead of arguing that people can shorten a game by reducing points, it would be better to say that they can increase it by increasing points.
2. Compared to the current design strategy of just cherry picking with armies get the ridiculous ability to move two or even three times as far as other armies?
4. Yes. Because the entire reason why charging out of deep strike is cancerous is because it is non-interactive. And if this rule were in effect, nobody would do what you suggest. People would deep strike into terrain as a way to project force into different parts of the board.
6. This is definitely a preference. I just think having to check morale every round is a time-waster. Having morale be a penalty or a triggered event would add dynamism and intentionality to an underutilized facet of the game. For example, Primaris Reivers or Sicarian Rustalkers can have an aura that reduces leadership and a rule that forces a morale check after every combat. It would be a totally different way to kill hordes that is not as arbitrary as something like Blast rules, and armies like Guard or Tau would need to prepare leadership to prevent this.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Politely disagree with most of this. Failing a charge because of a leadership test would be as frustrating as rolling snake eyes on a charge roll and make about as little sense. Most armies in 40k are not guardsmen that have to be motivated into charging by their commanders. If space marines, melee aspect warriors, daemons, or genestealers have the opportunity to charge, they're probably taking it and doing so without much in the way of fear. Night Lords may be spooky, but a genestealer still wants to chew on them. Heck, orks are generally statted as having "bad" leadership, but they should be quite good at making charges.

Also, as discussed above, doing charges in the movement phase could work but would dramatically lower the value of units that are designed to both shoot and stab, and oddly might even turn your melee units into a liability if you have to prevent the rest of your army from shooting to use them. My shining spears would certainly be nerfed by not being allowed to shoot and stab in the same turn, and my already mediocre banshees and scorpions would suddenly be in the way of my reapers and avengers. And melee options on avengers would become even less popular than they already are. As I say, moving charges to the movement phase could be done, but it's a change that would weaken a lot of already meh units and require massive rebalancing. Something like changing charge rolls to a d6 + x mechanic are relatively limited in scope.

1. Fair point.
2. As has been mentioned before, what counts as a "melee" unit? My shining spears love to charge into melee, but they technically get more shots and probably do more damage with their shooting. And how much extra movement are you giving to a lychguard and my shining spears respectively?
3. Is it really though? I haven't seen a lot of complaints aimed at howling banshees or genestealers in a while.
4. Feels like you're kicking a lot of units while they're down. Do GSC need more nerfing? Striking scorpions? Would I be correct in guessing you're perhaps concerned about a certain subset of (probably powerarmored) units and proposing changes that would nerf a bunch of mediocre units unintentionally? Or do you have a proposal for making GSC and scorpions feel like the ambushers they're meant to be while also not allowing them to charge out of deepstrike?
5. This bit I kind of like, but I'm not sure buffing pistols addresses the detriment to shooting/stabbing teamwork described above. I'm not sure I care that my banshee and scorpsions' pistols became more relevant if their avenger, reaper, and spider buddies can't soften the target up for them before they charge.
6. Leadership would matter more, but would it matter in an enjoyable way? I'm picturing kroot and orks and hormagaunts failing charges left and right because they have worse Ld than space marines. Or else gaining enough stat boosts and special abilities to negate this disadvantage and make the change irrelevant.

My goal is not to make charges less frustrating. It is also not necessarily to capture "fear" in the Leadership stat, but to honestly make Leadership reflective of that tacit realm of knowledge that differentiates a trained body of soldiers from a mob. Anyhow, the solution to those problems would be to increase the Leadership stat to reflect their relative capabilities. After all, even Space Marines sometimes face-plant in combat.

2. That is a bit out of the scope of this discussion. But a unit lacking a shooting weapon could be compensated with higher stats in Leadership, Movement, or even durability.
3. That's because the bugbear today is White Scars. And oftentimes, you just hear less about cancer because something more arbitrary and cancerous has taken its place.
4. You'd need to overhaul a ton of units.
6. Again, I am definitely not saying the existing stats would remain in place.

Being a carpenter probably shouldn't give you a big advantage in 40k.

Total aside but one my my best friends was a carpenter and builder years ago when playing 3rd edition. He played Imperial Guard and LOVED how guess range weapons actually required guessing the range. His accuracy was well within 1/2 an inch when. God damn basilisks.

I actually loved it too. Was fun.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Plus if all you do is kite...objectives are still an important factor to take into a consideration.

Kite?

Also add me to a pro guess range czmp

 Mezmorki wrote:

Being a carpenter probably shouldn't give you a big advantage in 40k.

Total aside but one my my best friends was a carpenter and builder years ago when playing 3rd edition. He played Imperial Guard and LOVED how guess range weapons actually required guessing the range. His accuracy was well within 1/2 an inch when. God damn basilisks.

I actually loved it too. Was fun.

lol I loved guess range weapons too, for the same reason. My crazy-accurate Ork Lobbas were a terror on the battlefield!

I admit it got unfair for my opponents though, so I didn't complain when they removed that particular mechanic.

Real quick, I hope none of what follows comes across as rude. I'm enjoying the discussion and not attempting to attack anyone.

 Suzuteo wrote:

My goal is not to make charges less frustrating. It is also not necessarily to capture "fear" in the Leadership stat, but to honestly make Leadership reflective of that tacit realm of knowledge that differentiates a trained body of soldiers from a mob. Anyhow, the solution to those problems would be to increase the Leadership stat to reflect their relative capabilities. After all, even Space Marines sometimes face-plant in combat.

Do they though? Like, often enough to need to reflect their faceplanting with a leadership test? Thinking over the various units in 40k, almost none of them strike me as being an untrained "mob." Anything astartes, aeldari, necron, or tau in nature either has some solid training or honed predatory instincts (kroot, drukhari beasts, etc.). Tyranids are literally designed to hunt and kill things and have the hive mind coordinating their efforts. Mechanicus soldiers are lobotimized, disciplined, and can optionally be controlled directly by their bosses to charge forward. Your average guardsman supposedly represents a highly trained human soldier comparable to a member of real-world special forces. Daemons don't seem like they need to be convinced to charge at mortals. And while orks are literally "mobs," they're also a melee army that has traditionally been especially good at charging forward. (See: 'Ere We Go and Waaagh!) So what units does that leave to flub their charges? Conscripts, cultists, and maybe some GSC units?

If your goal is to make leadership more important, then I"m not sure the charge mechanism is the best place to try and reflect it. If your goal is not to reflect the "fear" element, then it's possibly a problem that fear effects would, in fact, impact an army's ability to charge. And if you're already suggesting changing statlines to counteract the implications of your own proposed changes, it makes me concerned that those changes might not be ideal.

2. That is a bit out of the scope of this discussion. But a unit lacking a shooting weapon could be compensated with higher stats in Leadership, Movement, or even durability.
...
4. You'd need to overhaul a ton of units.
6. Again, I am definitely not saying the existing stats would remain in place.

I'm not opposed to overhauling units for the sake a good mechanic change. That said, I do sort of view it as a red flag when a proposed rule change requires overhauling a ton of units to accommodate that change. Buffing purely melee units aside, moving the charge phase into movement would still end up nerfing any unit that's supposed to shoot and stab things. I'm not sure making leadership more important warrants such a big shakeup to the game.

3. That's because the bugbear today is White Scars. And oftentimes, you just hear less about cancer because something more arbitrary and cancerous has taken its place.

Even if that's the case, charging out of deepstrike is the mechanic that conveys the "ambush" tactics that define a lot of units in the game. Mandrakes and Striking Scorpions should be good at appearing out of nowhere and then stabbing their targets to death. You don't have to use charging out of deepstrike to represent that, but it probably should be represented. So what's your preferred replacement mechanic for it? And if you don't have any suggestions right this moment, can we agree that removing such units' ability to "ambush" their targets without replacing it would not be ideal?

4. Yes. Because the entire reason why charging out of deep strike is cancerous is because it is non-interactive. And if this rule were in effect, nobody would do what you suggest. People would deep strike into terrain as a way to project force into different parts of the board.

Couple things here.
A.) I don't entirely agree that charging out of deepstrike is non-interactive. It could stand to be more interactive, but screening units, strats that let you shoot units coming in from reserves, and abilities that prevent units from deepstriking within a certain range are all options for interacting with a deepstriking threat.

B.) I'm dubious that deepstriking melee units would continue to be popular and would simply switch to landing in terrain and hiding for a turn. Looking at an army like GSC that's all about deepstriking, their units aren't generally durable enough to survive sitting around for a turn, even if they are benefitting from light cover. If a blob of acolytes lands on a flank and sits there for a turn, I'll either blast them off the table or scoot my units away from them so that they won't be charging me on the next turn either. Ditto Da Jump'ing ork units, burrowing tyranids, etc. I don't see myself taking striking scorpions or assault marines if all they're going to do is show up for one turn, shoot some pistols, and then die. I'd be more likely to just leave those units on the shelves in favor of units that don't need to wait for turn 3 to do damage.

Wyldhunt wrote:



Also, if I really want to kite you, I still can. Most of my armies are mobile enough to end up more than Movement + 12" away from your melee units provided I'm okay with losing ground.

And with fixed charge distances, you would only need to be Movement + 6" away, so you would have to give even less ground to kite. Unless you are planning to make it a fixed 12" distance, but that would probably introduce other issues.

Okay, I'll try again: what in the blue feth is kiting?

Just Tony wrote:Okay, I'll try again: what in the blue feth is kiting?

Common gaming term. Basically means, "attack the enemy while falling back and keeping enough distance to prevent him from attacking you." When you use the tactic on an enemy AI, your attacks keep them interested in you, so they follow you where you lead them. Like they're a kite that you're flying.

Tyran wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:



Also, if I really want to kite you, I still can. Most of my armies are mobile enough to end up more than Movement + 12" away from your melee units provided I'm okay with losing ground.

And with fixed charge distances, you would only need to be Movement + 6" away, so you would have to give even less ground to kite. Unless you are planning to make it a fixed 12" distance, but that would probably introduce other issues.

Fixed 12" would be too much, sure. My point was more that kiting is entirely possible as-is. And I'm not sure the extra 6" needed to be 100% safe happens to be exact distance needed to make the amount of ground given up worthwhile. Switching charge rolls to 1d6 + 4" would only give you a threat range 4" longer than flat 6" charges, but it still feels like a reasonable amount of ground to be forced to give up if you want to kite the enemy.

 Just Tony wrote:
Okay, I'll try again: what in the blue feth is kiting?

Simple, you use a faster unit, to string alone an enemy.
In gameing terms a parade exemple for a unit that prefers kiting is horse archers in total war.
Basically you bully the enemy to force him and provoke him to hunt the unit down, except the unit is too fast to do that effectively and often can't retaliate / get's ambushed..

kiting
1. A maneuver in which a player-character gets an enemy NPC to chase after them so as to lead them somewhere else (like a kite on a string). This can be used to separate groups of enemies to prevent the player from becoming overwhelmed or in team-based or cooperative games to allow the player's teammates to attack the opponent, or to lure the opponent into a trap.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Okay, I'll try again: what in the blue feth is kiting?

Simple, you use a faster unit, to string alone an enemy.
In gameing terms a parade exemple for a unit that prefers kiting is horse archers in total war.
Basically you bully the enemy to force him and provoke him to hunt the unit down, except the unit is too fast to do that effectively and often can't retaliate / get's ambushed..

kiting
1. A maneuver in which a player-character gets an enemy NPC to chase after them so as to lead them somewhere else (like a kite on a string). This can be used to separate groups of enemies to prevent the player from becoming overwhelmed or in team-based or cooperative games to allow the player's teammates to attack the opponent, or to lure the opponent into a trap.

So essentially what anyone in WFB with any tactical sense does to Frenzied troops. Didn't realize it had one of those TVTropes type names...

 Just Tony wrote:
[So essentially what anyone in WFB with any tactical sense does to Frenzied troops. Didn't realize it had one of those TVTropes type names...

The term has been around since at least the early days of World of Warcraft, if not significantly longer, and thus has been in use longer than TV Tropes has been a thing. Calling the term kiting a 'TV Tropes type name' would be like saying the same for things like tanking, aggro, DPS, and other terms common to many different forms of gaming.

 Suzuteo wrote:

 Kall3m0n wrote:
The problem with removing two phases is that there's way less creative room and messes up how strats are played.
However, declaring charges in the movement phase is not a gakky idea. But again: Restructuring of strats.

1. Why is everyone so god damn hellbent of saving time everywhere? If you don't like the ammount of time it takes to play the game: Play fewer points, of another game alltogether.
2. Yeah, because increasing movement won't get broken fast. And what designates a CC unit? I play both DG and Custodes, and neither army has any good pure CC units. What designates a "CC-unit"?
3. I agree. And if there's a strat to allow a unit to do such a thing, give that to every army and make it a once per game strat..
4. Then nobody is going to deepstrike any CC unit ever. That would nerf so many lists and relegate deepstriking to units that can shoot like there's no tomorrow. *Deepstrikes in. Stands around with knives, flails, axes and clubs in hand. Looks menacingly at enemy. Dies. Free points to the enemy."
5. Not being able to shoot non-pistol weapons if you charge is not a gak idea.
6. I don't agree at all with your version of morale. However, I do agree that it needs to matter. In all my games in 8th and 9th, I've taken about 4 morale tests. Morale nowadays just doesn't matter. At all. Change it back to how it was in 5'th.

If we are looking to ONLY change how charging works:

To you who say that charge distance should be double move distance: Is an effectively guaranteed 36" charge a good idea? Really?

And those that propose that everything should charge 4/5/6 +D6, does that REALLY include vehicles?

To those that propose no charging after deepstrike: That's how you remove every single CC deepstrike ever. Yeah, sure I'll offer my units up fpr free! Great idea!

I disagree. I am a game designer by profession. The 40k design space is plenty large. In fact, I would argue that it is bloated and needs pruning to make better use of things. Right now, leadership is a massively under-utilized stat, and morale and charge phases are just time-wasters.

But yes, this may require a rules reset like 8E did to 7E.

1. Because shorter, more enjoyable games are always preferable? Also, with the way Battle-forged works, it is easier to maintain game balance going up rather than down; the current game systems start to break down when you drop under 1200 points or so. So instead of arguing that people can shorten a game by reducing points, it would be better to say that they can increase it by increasing points.
2. Compared to the current design strategy of just cherry picking with armies get the ridiculous ability to move two or even three times as far as other armies?
4. Yes. Because the entire reason why charging out of deep strike is cancerous is because it is non-interactive. And if this rule were in effect, nobody would do what you suggest. People would deep strike into terrain as a way to project force into different parts of the board.
6. This is definitely a preference. I just think having to check morale every round is a time-waster. Having morale be a penalty or a triggered event would add dynamism and intentionality to an underutilized facet of the game. For example, Primaris Reivers or Sicarian Rustalkers can have an aura that reduces leadership and a rule that forces a morale check after every combat. It would be a totally different way to kill hordes that is not as arbitrary as something like Blast rules, and armies like Guard or Tau would need to prepare leadership to prevent this.
.

1. So to you a shorter game appears to automatically be more enjoyable? Weird (to me). For me, an enjoyable game has nothing to do with game time. I've had extremelt enjoyable games that lasted an hour, and I've had extremely enjoyable games that lasted 4-5 hours.
I do agree that balance become more of an issue the less points you play, but if your goal with the game is to play as short as possible (and therefore more enjoyable to you) then less points is a quick fix.
Well, if we want to increase play time, we can still add more points. THat has always been the case.
If you don't enjoy games that lasts more than 2 hours, set a fixed game time of 2 hours and use a chess clock. There's free chess clock apps.
I still find it odd that game time is such a huge factor to you on how you enjoy the game. Instead of what actually happens in the game.

2. Yes. Varying movement charataristics acreoss varying armies. It's one of the things that makes certain armies special, and it's one of the things that makes certain units even playable. "How come DG doesn't get any good bikes or jump infantry?" Certain armies and units should have special rules that other units and armies doesn't have. If you want homogenous armies and units, you're in the wrong game.

4. How would it be MORE interactive if I deepstrike in a unit just to have it get deleted? Oh, I see it now. You don't play an army that can utilize DS in a great way, so you want to be able to shoot your opponent's stuff before they assault your gun lines. Gotcha!

6. Yes, because checking leadership after each combat isn't time wasting... It would also be pretty dang inconsequential. You'd get 1-2 more kills than now. Maybe. However, if we'd have to take a morale after losing 25% of a unit and failing that meant the whole unit ran away and had to pass a leadership test afterwards to rally, then morale matters again. Or if sitting in a transport while it blew up caused something called "pinning"...

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
[So essentially what anyone in WFB with any tactical sense does to Frenzied troops. Didn't realize it had one of those TVTropes type names...

The term has been around since at least the early days of World of Warcraft, if not significantly longer, and thus has been in use longer than TV Tropes has been a thing. Calling the term kiting a 'TV Tropes type name' would be like saying the same for things like tanking, aggro, DPS, and other terms common to many different forms of gaming.

A term less than 1% of the populace is aware of, but would more than likely pop up on that exact site. My assessment stands.

 Just Tony wrote:
A term less than 1% of the populace is aware of, but would more than likely pop up on that exact site. My assessment stands.

There are specific industry and scientific terms with even less penetration into the mainstream would you use the same term for them?

 Just Tony wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
[So essentially what anyone in WFB with any tactical sense does to Frenzied troops. Didn't realize it had one of those TVTropes type names...

The term has been around since at least the early days of World of Warcraft, if not significantly longer, and thus has been in use longer than TV Tropes has been a thing. Calling the term kiting a 'TV Tropes type name' would be like saying the same for things like tanking, aggro, DPS, and other terms common to many different forms of gaming.

A term less than 1% of the populace is aware of, but would more than likely pop up on that exact site. My assessment stands.

The TV Tropes name is "Hit-and-Run Tactics", which is far more generic and applicable to fields outside of gaming. In case you're curious.

On topic, I think that movement in 40k has inflated far too quickly making many choices pointless. The only choices now are false. For example deployment against many armies boils down to preventing a T1 charge, in some cases you can't prevent this and instead, your choice is what to screen with and how to space that screen to avoid a pile in charge.

Random charge distances at least add an element of risk to otherwise optimal play by a fast melee focused army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The TV Tropes name is "Hit-and-Run Tactics", which is far more generic and applicable to fields outside of gaming. In case you're curious.

If you generalize things enough anything becomes a trope.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The TV Tropes name is "Hit-and-Run Tactics", which is far more generic and applicable to fields outside of gaming. In case you're curious.

If you generalize things enough anything becomes a trope.

As you will discover if you spend any time on TV Tropes.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
[So essentially what anyone in WFB with any tactical sense does to Frenzied troops. Didn't realize it had one of those TVTropes type names...

The term has been around since at least the early days of World of Warcraft, if not significantly longer, and thus has been in use longer than TV Tropes has been a thing. Calling the term kiting a 'TV Tropes type name' would be like saying the same for things like tanking, aggro, DPS, and other terms common to many different forms of gaming.

A term less than 1% of the populace is aware of, but would more than likely pop up on that exact site. My assessment stands.

The TV Tropes name is "Hit-and-Run Tactics", which is far more generic and applicable to fields outside of gaming. In case you're curious.

No. Hit-and-run is NOT the same as "kiting".
Hit-and-run is striking, then trying to get away. "*punch* run away as fast as you can"
Kiting is hitting and them MAKE SURE the enemy is actively pursuing you so you can lure them somewhere else. "*punch* jogging kinda fast, but not too fast."

 AnomanderRake wrote:
As you will discover if you spend any time on TV Tropes.

Better to spend your time on a site that doesn't try to fit everything into overly broad boxes for the sake of an easily amused or very specifically focused audience.

 Kall3m0n wrote:
...No. Hit-and-run is NOT the same as "kiting".
Hit-and-run is striking, then trying to get away. "*punch* run away as fast as you can"
Kiting is hitting and them MAKE SURE the enemy is actively pursuing you so you can lure them somewhere else. "*punch* jogging kinda fast, but not too fast."

And "hit and run tactics" have never been used to lure an opponent out of position? Hastings?

If you want to go by dictionary definition I can't find that use of "kiting" at all (it means either "fraudulently cashing stolen checks" or "flying a kite"), while "hit and run" means either "causing a road accident and then leaving" or "attacking suddenly and unexpectedly so that the attackers can leave without getting hurt". Going by TV Tropes (which was the whole point of the discussion) the "hit and run tactics" page covers the video game usage of "kiting" as well as similar tactics in other media. If you want to use your own definitions fair enough, I can't stop you, but telling me that my usage is wrong solely because it doesn't match yours seems wildly hypocritical when your usage doesn't match TV Tropes', which was the entire point.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
And "hit and run tactics" have never been used to lure an opponent out of position? Hastings?

If you want to go by dictionary definition I can't find that use of "kiting" at all (it means either "fraudulently cashing stolen checks" or "flying a kite"), while "hit and run" means either "causing a road accident and then leaving" or "attacking suddenly and unexpectedly so that the attackers can leave without getting hurt". Going by TV Tropes (which was the whole point of the discussion) the "hit and run tactics" page covers the video game usage of "kiting" as well as similar tactics in other media. If you want to use your own definitions fair enough, I can't stop you, but telling me that my usage is wrong solely because it doesn't match yours seems wildly hypocritical when your usage doesn't match TV Tropes', which was the entire point.

'Kiting' is more specific than 'hit and run tactics' and the two are never used synonymously in circles where the former term is understood. You're flatly wrong here and no amount of appeals to authority can change the specific and common usage of the term any more than you can look at a dictionary and use it to say that an AAVE term is either undefined or being used incorrectly.

Kiting means having superior range and the mobility to keep the enemy at distance, allowing its destruction without retaliation.

Hit & Run meanwhile does not necessarily imply greater range.

Ultimately kiting is a term exclusive of the gaming sphere, because games greatly simplify warfare to the point kiting is viable.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
...'Kiting' is more specific than 'hit and run tactics' and the two are never used synonymously in circles where the former term is understood. You're flatly wrong here and no amount of appeals to authority can change the specific and common usage of the term any more than you can look at a dictionary and use it to say that an AAVE term is either undefined or being used incorrectly.

...I never said "kiting = hit-and-run tactics". If you go back up to what I actually said I told Just Tony that the TV Tropes page that describes "kiting" interprets it as a subset of "hit and run tactics", therefore "kiting" is not a TV Tropes term. Telling me how you define or use the phrases "kiting" and "hit and run tactics" differently is not helpful here. I am not TV Tropes. I am not interested in going through the long and arduous process of having a long and pedantic argument with the editorial staff about whether "kiting" is sufficiently distinct from "hit and run tactics" to have its own page. If that's interesting to you, feel free and go start that wiki argument, but please don't tell me any more about it.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
...'Kiting' is more specific than 'hit and run tactics' and the two are never used synonymously in circles where the former term is understood. You're flatly wrong here and no amount of appeals to authority can change the specific and common usage of the term any more than you can look at a dictionary and use it to say that an AAVE term is either undefined or being used incorrectly.

...I never said "kiting = hit-and-run tactics". If you go back up to what I actually said I told Just Tony that the TV Tropes page that describes "kiting" interprets it as a subset of "hit and run tactics", therefore "kiting" is not a TV Tropes term. Telling me how you define or use the phrases "kiting" and "hit and run tactics" differently is not helpful here. I am not TV Tropes. I am not interested in going through the long and arduous process of having a long and pedantic argument with the editorial staff about whether "kiting" is sufficiently distinct from "hit and run tactics" to have its own page. If that's interesting to you, feel free and go start that wiki argument, but please don't tell me any more about it.

Then we know that a site defines it incorrectly. Good job.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
[So essentially what anyone in WFB with any tactical sense does to Frenzied troops. Didn't realize it had one of those TVTropes type names...

The term has been around since at least the early days of World of Warcraft, if not significantly longer, and thus has been in use longer than TV Tropes has been a thing. Calling the term kiting a 'TV Tropes type name' would be like saying the same for things like tanking, aggro, DPS, and other terms common to many different forms of gaming.

A term less than 1% of the populace is aware of, but would more than likely pop up on that exact site. My assessment stands.

The TV Tropes name is "Hit-and-Run Tactics", which is far more generic and applicable to fields outside of gaming. In case you're curious.

Unfortunately I'm not that interested in the minutiae of separations of gaming terms that don't need the separations. I was more annoyed that some MMO player walks into a conversation spouting specific jargon from that style of gaming taking it for granted that everyone has somehow become as intimately familiar with that colloquialism as they are.

 Just Tony wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
[So essentially what anyone in WFB with any tactical sense does to Frenzied troops. Didn't realize it had one of those TVTropes type names...

The term has been around since at least the early days of World of Warcraft, if not significantly longer, and thus has been in use longer than TV Tropes has been a thing. Calling the term kiting a 'TV Tropes type name' would be like saying the same for things like tanking, aggro, DPS, and other terms common to many different forms of gaming.

A term less than 1% of the populace is aware of, but would more than likely pop up on that exact site. My assessment stands.

The TV Tropes name is "Hit-and-Run Tactics", which is far more generic and applicable to fields outside of gaming. In case you're curious.

Unfortunately I'm not that interested in the minutiae of separations of gaming terms that don't need the separations. I was more annoyed that some MMO player walks into a conversation spouting specific jargon from that style of gaming taking it for granted that everyone has somehow become as intimately familiar with that colloquialism as they are.

I would also just assume that gaming people knows basic gaming jargon. I will always assume gaming people know basic gaming terms like "MMO, FPS, Kiting, Conga line/Daisy chain, tank, DPS and crit".

 Just Tony wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
[So essentially what anyone in WFB with any tactical sense does to Frenzied troops. Didn't realize it had one of those TVTropes type names...

The term has been around since at least the early days of World of Warcraft, if not significantly longer, and thus has been in use longer than TV Tropes has been a thing. Calling the term kiting a 'TV Tropes type name' would be like saying the same for things like tanking, aggro, DPS, and other terms common to many different forms of gaming.

A term less than 1% of the populace is aware of, but would more than likely pop up on that exact site. My assessment stands.

The TV Tropes name is "Hit-and-Run Tactics", which is far more generic and applicable to fields outside of gaming. In case you're curious.

Unfortunately I'm not that interested in the minutiae of separations of gaming terms that don't need the separations. I was more annoyed that some MMO player walks into a conversation spouting specific jargon from that style of gaming taking it for granted that everyone has somehow become as intimately familiar with that colloquialism as they are.

Easy there old timer.
It is a pretty common term. Most people coming into table top these days would have had a lot of exposure to computer gaming more likely than not.
Kiting - Hit the enemy while not getting hit due to range/mobility.

On topic, not sure if anyone mentioned this but I think failed charges should still move max charge distance rolled. I just think its silly my unit of blood thirsty maniacs would run head first at the enemy and then stop mid way decide "darn it boys we wont be able to get there. lets turn around and stand back where we came from". Just seems odd to me.

I would say that smaller tables have also factored into the equation. And a T1 charge is not uncommon and just means game over for a lot of armies when coupled with going 2nd. Its not great design IMO.

 Argive wrote:


Easy there old timer.
It is a pretty common term. Most people coming into table top these days would have had a lot of exposure to computer gaming more likely than not.
Kiting - Hit the enemy while not getting hit due to range/mobility.

On topic, not sure if anyone mentioned this but I think failed charges should still move max charge distance rolled. I just think its silly my unit of blood thirsty maniacs would run head first at the enemy and then stop mid way decide "darn it boys we wont be able to get there. lets turn around and stand back where we came from". Just seems odd to me.

I would say that smaller tables have also factored into the equation. And a T1 charge is not uncommon and just means game over for a lot of armies when coupled with going 2nd. Its not great design IMO.

The problem with that is that you can use it to gain A LOT of extra distance at no real disadvantage. Especially now "without" overwatch.
If I could gain an extra 5-6-7-8-9 inches by "trying" to charge a unit 12 inches away, I sure will do it! And if I make the charge, then awesome.

I too think it's a bit dumb that the models just stay completely frozen, though.
However, if your models still get to make a move forwards, it's usually to their benifit, so I think the current way is the lesser of two evils, even if it looks and feels wrong.

What about having a successful charge grant bonuses while a failed one still closes the range but inflicts penalties, each based on degree of success?

Wyldhunt wrote:

Fixed 12" would be too much, sure. My point was more that kiting is entirely possible as-is. And I'm not sure the extra 6" needed to be 100% safe happens to be exact distance needed to make the amount of ground given up worthwhile. Switching charge rolls to 1d6 + 4" would only give you a threat range 4" longer than flat 6" charges, but it still feels like a reasonable amount of ground to be forced to give up if you want to kite the enemy.

That would work, but it is an admission that randomness needs to be included somehow, even if there is a fixed element.

Moreover, while the minimum distance is increased and the maximum decreased, the probability distribution is flat while the with 2D6 it is a curve, meaning the mins and max are far more probable results.

Kall3m0n wrote:

 Argive wrote:


Easy there old timer.
It is a pretty common term. Most people coming into table top these days would have had a lot of exposure to computer gaming more likely than not.
Kiting - Hit the enemy while not getting hit due to range/mobility.

On topic, not sure if anyone mentioned this but I think failed charges should still move max charge distance rolled. I just think its silly my unit of blood thirsty maniacs would run head first at the enemy and then stop mid way decide "darn it boys we wont be able to get there. lets turn around and stand back where we came from". Just seems odd to me.

I would say that smaller tables have also factored into the equation. And a T1 charge is not uncommon and just means game over for a lot of armies when coupled with going 2nd. Its not great design IMO.

The problem with that is that you can use it to gain A LOT of extra distance at no real disadvantage. Especially now "without" overwatch.
If I could gain an extra 5-6-7-8-9 inches by "trying" to charge a unit 12 inches away, I sure will do it! And if I make the charge, then awesome.

I too think it's a bit dumb that the models just stay completely frozen, though.
However, if your models still get to make a move forwards, it's usually to their benifit, so I think the current way is the lesser of two evils, even if it looks and feels wrong.

There's also the issue that moving your failed charge distance could actually screw a melee unit over by prompting it to leave the protection of terrain, friendly auras, etc. Assuming that the charge movement was non-optional of course.

Just Tony wrote:
Unfortunately I'm not that interested in the minutiae of separations of gaming terms that don't need the separations. I was more annoyed that some MMO player walks into a conversation spouting specific jargon from that style of gaming taking it for granted that everyone has somehow become as intimately familiar with that colloquialism as they are.

It's a pretty common term. I've never been that big of an MMO player, and I've been hearing and using the term for about 15 years now in the context of video games, board games, and tabletop RPGs. No big deal that you don't know it. We all have our blind spots. No need to turn it into a thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hiseadmose wrote:
What about having a successful charge grant bonuses while a failed one still closes the range but inflicts penalties, each based on degree of success?

Sounds tricky to pull off. Some of my units are actually quite bad at doing damage but still live to get sent into melee to temporarily tie up certain units. So guaranteeing those units a charge would be a pretty big buff unless the drawbacks of failing the charge were so severe that charging in the first place becomes a bad idea. For instance, my striking scorpions generally just jump on objectives or else try to deepstrike + charge shooty units. They make that charge out of deepstrike well under half the time. So if charging suddenly means that the squad gets wiped on the charge or something, I'll just be less likely to field said scorpions at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

Fixed 12" would be too much, sure. My point was more that kiting is entirely possible as-is. And I'm not sure the extra 6" needed to be 100% safe happens to be exact distance needed to make the amount of ground given up worthwhile. Switching charge rolls to 1d6 + 4" would only give you a threat range 4" longer than flat 6" charges, but it still feels like a reasonable amount of ground to be forced to give up if you want to kite the enemy.

That would work, but it is an admission that randomness needs to be included somehow, even if there is a fixed element.

Moreover, while the minimum distance is increased and the maximum decreased, the probability distribution is flat while the with 2D6 it is a curve, meaning the mins and max are far more probable results.

Fair points. I still don't feel that kiting specifically is a huge concern or the main reason for having randomized charge rolls, but I do agree that randomized charge rolls (with a sufficiently high minimum distance) have their merits.

Hiseadmose wrote:
What about having a successful charge grant bonuses while a failed one still closes the range but inflicts penalties, each based on degree of success?

I think this idea has merit and would be very easy to implement:

A successful charge roll behaves exactly as it does now.

An unsuccessful charge roll still allows you to move the models the same as a successful roll, but in the fight phase, the unit doesn't count as charging and is treated the same as if it were already in engagement range at the start of your turn i.e. no charge bonuses, no "shock assault" for SM, unit doesn't count as charging when selecting units to fight, so fights after all chargers etc.

To further differentiate, if the charge roll is less than half the charge distance, the target gets to fire overwatch without spending CPs or using a stratagem, or possibly the charge bonuses could be given to the target rather than the charging unit?

How about this: If you fail your charge you have to move the failed charge distance. Then, at the end of the crarge phase, the unit(s) that got a failed charge declared at them get to do a counter charge against that unit? It's interactive, it punishes falied charges sometimes, both units gets into CC and the failed charge dudes still gets to move forward and gain ground.

If it was designed in from the beginning, units could have a unique defensive ability that triggers on a failed charge. Perhaps a shooty units gets free overwatch, a melee unit may act as though it had charged, or a fast unit could withdraw at the end of the fight phase at no penalty. Any of these failed charge abilities could also require a leadership test to activate, or have choice between a no leadership test anti-charge ability and a leadership test to activate. For instance, Guard might need leadership hold and fire overwatch but not to flee, while Orks would not retreat from a fight without encouragement, but can in effect counter charge at the mere opportunity.

As an addon some combination of the following:

- Maximum roll, current rules and a leadership test to get an extra +1, capitalizing on a great success

- Half or better, leadership test to gain current rule bonuses; that did not go well but we engaged and overcame.

- Less than half, defender makes a leadership test to be treated as having charged. Gave the enemy an opining, and it was exploited.

- Minimum roll, defender is treated as having charged. A botch is a botch, and now we’re in the thick of it.

In any case, this way something always happens and there is no failed to charge, only failed to get the desired outcome or it went horribly wrong after charging.

Hiseadmose wrote:
If it was designed in from the beginning, units could have a unique defensive ability that triggers on a failed charge. Perhaps a shooty units gets free overwatch, a melee unit may act as though it had charged, or a fast unit could withdraw at the end of the fight phase at no penalty. Any of these failed charge abilities could also require a leadership test to activate, or have choice between a no leadership test anti-charge ability and a leadership test to activate. For instance, Guard might need leadership hold and fire overwatch but not to flee, while Orks would not retreat from a fight without encouragement, but can in effect counter charge at the mere opportunity.

As an addon some combination of the following:

- Maximum roll, current rules and a leadership test to get an extra +1, capitalizing on a great success

- Half or better, leadership test to gain current rule bonuses; that did not go well but we engaged and overcame.

- Less than half, defender makes a leadership test to be treated as having charged. Gave the enemy an opining, and it was exploited.

- Minimum roll, defender is treated as having charged. A botch is a botch, and now we’re in the thick of it.

In any case, this way something always happens and there is no failed to charge, only failed to get the desired outcome or it went horribly wrong after charging.

That's an interesting way of handling things. I know that GW has fooled around with the attacker getting unique bonuses when rolling high enough for assault (e.x. "Hounds of Abbadon get +1 Strength in a fight round after rolling 8 or more for charge distance") but I've not seen the opposite happen. "+1 Toughness if the opponent rolls a 8 or more for charge" or other similar defensive bonuses.

As far as the "Random Charges penalize kiting/hit-and-run (or however it's called), such a discussion appears to mainly exist in the realm of a blank salt plain with no objectives. Sure, some melee units can be kited, but can you kite a melee unit when it's going for the unit holding your only objective marker?

Personally, if the charge distance is half your move it should be an auto pass.

Jarms48 wrote:
Personally, if the charge distance is half your move it should be an auto pass.

Well, that would mean autocharging out of reserves for Reavers and possibly some other units as well.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Well, that would mean autocharging out of reserves for Reavers and possibly some other units as well.

Whilst that's true, there's ways to try and mitigate that. Points would be the obvious way.

The other way is put a cap of guaranteed 6 inch. So, something with a movement of 12 or higher could make auto-charges at 6 inches and anything 7 - 12 inches would still require a roll off.

The opposite could work too. Maybe a unit with a 5 inch move could get a minimum charge of 3 inches (2.5 inches rounded up).