Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm not sure what people are complaining about. Since you can move in the movement phase and then charge in the assault phase, your charge range is effectively your Move+2d6. The movement value is already part of your charge range, it's just split into two phases.

Personally I rather have run be a flat number and charge stay 2d6 (plus the extra 1in range increase).
The reason being making that crucial charge range is more exciting then the run move which is used to just get into charge range in most cases. I feel run move should be half your movement stat rounded up. So high movement units benefit from thier higher value. Charging and assault is already much more powerful considering chargers get to always attack first and still use thier pistols and still move even if they fail the charge.

The extra 1 in range removes some variability and allows short charges to still get off with a bad roll.

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

It was a major gripe people had with the change from 7th to 8th WHFB - but that seems a life time ago and I guess isn't all that relevant.

The issue is that to get around the 2d6 charge GW has felt it necessary to bulk out special rules. Mainly because it was obvious to everyone that assault units coudn't do their jobs effectively.
So everyone gets fleet, probably a buff to go further than usual, or the ability to run and charge. Often they get some forward deployment rule to get nearer to the action.

Its like the charge into cover rules. Which then had to be countered by giving almost everything that counts assault grenades (except Incubi, because no one likes Dark Eldar).

If a rule needs to be countered by another rule almost universally it probably wasn't a good rule in the first place.

puree wrote:

 keltikhoa wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


Maybe 1D6 and add your Move stat for a charge, instead of 2d6?

That makes more sense to me. I would fully expect my necron warriors to have less of a charge threat range than my daemonettes.

Why do you not think they won't? If daemonettes have a bigger move stat then they probably will have a larger threat range, everything I'm reading so far so to be pointing at AoS style move phase then charge phase, so your threat range is Move + 2D6.

Maybe, but only if those Daemonettes better have at least 9" movement (6"+ their current 3" run bonus). Otherwise, if they just move 6" like AOS, they'll need to be able to run and then charge like they can in AOS. Being fragile and then loosing their high initiative and high weapon skill to avoid hits is going to be painful. Especially, with not having any ranged weapons. Daemons better get some AP modifying melee weapons to compensate.

To illustrate.

Let's say I have 10 havocs and 4 HBs - I only really care about the HBs. Assume they are S5 / -1 / Heavy 3 / 1 damage.

Normal shooting:
5.3 wounds

Overwatch on 6s:
1.3 wounds

Overwatch on -1:
4 wounds

Those havocs get almost a full free 'round' of shooting if it's only -1.

So either heavy bolters are the cost of :

1) An average round of shooting
or
2) An average round of shooting plus the expectation of overwatch

If it's #1 then you're vastly under-pointed the effectiveness of these weapons.
If it's #2 then you have to increase the cost enough while not tripping over yourself if these weapons don't make an overwatch shot.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
To those people saying 2D6 charges are stupid:

Consider the following. In AoS there are units (cavalry) with 14" move. We could safely assume there will be units that are as fast in 40k. Let's say charge = move x2. Do you really want units moving 14" and then charging 28"? Didn't think so. What about charge = move+1D6"? That's still a 14" move followed by a 15"-20" charge. At a minimum that's a 29" threat range, meaning these fast units can charge clear into the opponents deployment zone on turn 1.

How about charge distance = movement stat? Or even charge distance = movement stat +D3 ? Or charge distance = movement stat - 3" +d6 ? Or any of the other possible combination that makes them less random?

Charge = movement would still give even 12" move units (most likely pretty common, it's the normal cavalry movement in AoS) a 24" guaranteed threat range, which could easily give you turn one charges combined with even a small amount of added movement shenanigans from abilities, spells etc. What's more, it would mean normal infantry would move 6" and charge 6"... making for example close combat Orks on foot even more unviable. The rest of your suggestions share the same problems. Basically, by basing charges on movement, you either make fast units way too fast or slow units way too slow. The only solution is to make charges similar (if not necessarily the same) regardless of unit movement. Thus, you don't want movement stat to affect charges. That doesn't mean it needs to be completely random though, I'd be fine with for example 6"+D6".

I don't even know why they have a separate charge move phase. Just make the run 2D6" instead of D6", and the run can be your assault move. Otherwise it seems odd that one unit runs and goes M+D6", another unit charges and goes M + 2D6" with plenty of time left over to fight a combat. Do people really run that much faster when they're running towards people trying to kill them?

 warboss wrote:

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

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

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

 Mymearan wrote:
To those people saying 2D6 charges are stupid:

Consider the following. In AoS there are units (cavalry) with 14" move. We could safely assume there will be units that are as fast in 40k. Let's say charge = move x2. Do you really want units moving 14" and then charging 28"? Didn't think so. What about charge = move+1D6"? That's still a 14" move followed by a 15"-20" charge. At a minimum that's a 29" threat range, meaning these fast units can charge clear into the opponents deployment zone on turn 1.

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

There is figurately and literally a hell of alot of room between something that potentially charges 2" and a guaranteed 28". It's not an either/or binary situation of extremes. Not everything that moves fast should also charge fast and vice versa for instance. Total movement of course should be kept close watch on as well. Just for the record, the only fantasy/historical system I played with any regularity had 24"+ charges for light cav and they were brutal... but they also happened at the top of the turn and replaced normal movement. There are plenty of options available to potential rules writers if they're breaking significantly from tradition like this ruleset is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Daedalus81 wrote:
To illustrate.

Let's say I have 10 havocs and 4 HBs - I only really care about the HBs. Assume they are S5 / -1 / Heavy 3 / 1 damage.

Normal shooting:
5.3 wounds

Overwatch on 6s:
1.3 wounds

Overwatch on -1:
4 wounds

Those havocs get almost a full free 'round' of shooting if it's only -1.

So either heavy bolters are the cost of :

1) An average round of shooting
or
2) An average round of shooting plus the expectation of overwatch

If it's #1 then you're vastly under-pointed the effectiveness of these weapons.
If it's #2 then you have to increase the cost enough while not tripping over yourself if these weapons don't make an overwatch shot.

I assume this is directed at me since we chatted about it despite the lack of a quote. Could you try the numbers again at the -2 that I specifically mentioned? Also, in this current system, movement penalties and cover would also apply in overwatch as well. You don't shoot that heavy bolter on the move through a forest on overwatch as well as you would dug in over clear ground at a unit charging you. There is more nuance to the situation than your post implies.

gungo wrote:

 warboss wrote:

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

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

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

Indeed. Sniper rifles are not hip-fire weapons. Though, for reasons unknown, the Vindicare has a pistol. Now he might actually make use of it.

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

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

2. Effectively adding an extra inch of charge ranges.

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

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

5. Being able to consolidate into another combat.

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

1) We have absolutely no idea what wound resolution looks like; this is blind faith.

2) Technically correct but doesn't seem massively meaningful.

3) Not actually confirmed. This could also be a bad thing - units could start declaring 12" charges with the expectation of failing to slingshot forwards and abuse the mechanics; overwatch is rarely meaningful anyway.

4) This is actually often detrimental with random charges. Whereas if charges had been fixed, it would have been a tactical game of cat and mouse to get the charge, the randomness now means that the chaff you charge to stop an assault unit now strikes first. It's effectively a punishment for aggressively pushing forwards, which I dislike. This is pretty much only exclusively good for orks - it's good and bad for all others.

5) We have no idea if consolidation even exists, let alone whether we can consolidate into combat.

Only one of the confirmed things is actually good for assault so far. That's not ideal.

Mymearan wrote:To those people saying 2D6 charges are stupid:

Consider the following. In AoS there are units (cavalry) with 14" move. We could safely assume there will be units that are as fast in 40k. Let's say charge = move x2. Do you really want units moving 14" and then charging 28"? Didn't think so. What about charge = move+1D6"? That's still a 14" move followed by a 15"-20" charge. At a minimum that's a 29" threat range, meaning these fast units can charge clear into the opponents deployment zone on turn 1.

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

No, what I'd want is a 14" move, then a 14" charge, not a 28" charge. You know, to actually use the movement stat instead of relying on a totally random roll? Those units also might not have a 14" move in the world where charge was equal to movement, as they wouldn't need it so it's not a fair comparison. All random charges do is make getting into combat a total farce; you have a 30% chance to fail a 6" charge for goodness sake, that's ridiculously game defining! Why should people playing dedicated assault units have them penalised before they can do anything? It's like if you had to do a 2d6 ammo check every time you fired a gun. Rolled under 6? Too bad, you can't fire this turn. Does that sound fun? That's the situation assault is in. I would rather have people move a fixed distance away to prevent assaults and therefore be giving up ground in a game where you often need to control objective in the middle of the board than have this "well, who knoooows" nonsense. It's like fixing a papercut by cauterising it with a blowtorch - the situation is worse for it. There are many areas in a wargame where I'm happy to accept randomness; knowing where my units can actually go in a turn is absolutely not one of those.

I have no problem with the 2D6 charge if they restricted overwatch a bit, maybe just pistols and assault weapons? These tend to be small enough weapons to manoeuvre with in a short space of time, showing that you're firing on an advancing unit is pretty much your shooting in the shooting phase.

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

gungo wrote:

 warboss wrote:

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

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

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

I don't think Call of Duty is a suitable analogy... There's a reason why COD popularized the term "Quickscoping".

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

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

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

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
I don't even know why they have a separate charge move phase.

The mentioned in the first Q&A video that you could only spend a maximum of 1 Command Point per phase.

They may have a separate Charge phase for Command Point purposes...Allowing certain armies to benefit from special command options during the Charge Phase and during the Fight Phase to set up some effective combos.

 warboss wrote:


I assume this is directed at me since we chatted about it despite the lack of a quote. Could you try the numbers again at the -2 that I specifically mentioned? Also, in this current system, movement penalties and cover would also apply in overwatch as well. You don't shoot that heavy bolter on the move through a forest on overwatch as well as you would dug in over clear ground at a unit charging you. There is more nuance to the situation than your post implies.

Then what happens to units that hit on 5+ that get a -2? Cover is somewhat irrelevant in #New40K, because these numbers are before saves to keep it agnostic of armor types (which add yet another layer of complexity).

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

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

Not gonna lie - this one sours me a bit. I know we don't have all the information yet, so we don't have a full picture of everything, but I am greatly disappointed to see they kept 2D6 charge and Overwatch. They hint that CC is going to be more viable, yet keep two of the basic rules that made it non-viable in the first place. When they re-introduced Overwatch in 6th ed, I was hoping they kept to the way it was in 2nd, where you had to forego your shooting and set yourself up to be reactionary, but they just turned it in to an add'l shooting phase. Even worse that you can attempt it multiple times a turn if the initial charges were failed.

It doesn't kill my enthusiasm, but it does dull it a bit.

Tyel wrote:

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

It was a major gripe people had with the change from 7th to 8th WHFB - but that seems a life time ago and I guess isn't all that relevant.

All the people I know that played WFB hated that random charge distance. I'm sure at the time it was wildly disliked by forum users too.

I'm surprised GW are using anything in new40k that went into the trainwreck that was WFB8 - the ruleset that killed 20+ years of gaming history. I thought they would have learnt.

I was stoked for this new edition from the rules I was hearing but this latest info is turning my nose away again. The random charge is a pretty major part of the game. :-(

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

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

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

Well, they will definitely differ in terms of point cost - an ork loota might be weaker, but there should be more of them than space marines.

When speaking of percentage reductions, one must not forget that to lose an elite warrior hurts more than in case of a cheap expendable grunt. I.e. any killed devastator weakens its squad more as opposed to an ork 'equivalent'.

I am still positive about the new edition, today's news on charge phase only made me think how fun it will be to plan the advance of my future Waaaagh!

CC oriented armies should never just advance towards the gun line - you need feints, back-up units, softening the targets first works as well. I really like the how the overwatch rules force players to do just that.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 warboss wrote:


I assume this is directed at me since we chatted about it despite the lack of a quote. Could you try the numbers again at the -2 that I specifically mentioned? Also, in this current system, movement penalties and cover would also apply in overwatch as well. You don't shoot that heavy bolter on the move through a forest on overwatch as well as you would dug in over clear ground at a unit charging you. There is more nuance to the situation than your post implies.

Then what happens to units that hit on 5+ that get a -2? Cover is somewhat irrelevant in #New40K, because these numbers are before saves to keep it agnostic of armor types (which add yet another layer of complexity).

Then don't get overwatch unless there is some sort of positive bonus to their shooting.. you can't roll a 7 on a 6 sided die. I actually covered that when I elaborated on the idea. Whether it's an ork that is too undisciplined to maintain some semblance of aiming when faced with an incoming charge or a Tau drone whose cpu can't process the data fast enough to get off a viable shot. or a scared shitless IG conscript shaking too hard to aim.. they just lose out on overwatch in that situation. Overwatch IMO shouldn't be a 40k inalienable (pun intended) right but a scalable privilege. Units that don't get it should either reflect that in their points cost or have some sort of alternate ability based on their fluff (like counterattack for the orks... and if an ork has say a 4+ to shoot for some reason like a squig then it has to choose to either overwatch OR counterattack).

For those reading this, the above are just my own ideas that I spitballed a few years back when overwatch was introduced and I didn't like its implementation. They're not rumors nor do I have any insider knowledge at all regarding what hasn't been previewed already.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:


I was stoked for this new edition from the rules I was hearing but this latest info is turning my nose away again. The random charge is a pretty major part of the game. :-(

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

 ClockworkZion wrote:

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

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

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

 Future War Cultist wrote:
-1 to hit roll for overwatch. Simple.

That would be ridiculously broken. Why should shooting units get free attacks at all? Combat armies don't get free swings when other armies shoot at them.

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

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

2. Effectively adding an extra inch of charge ranges.

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

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

5. Being able to consolidate into another combat.

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

Were did this nonsense come from?

#5 was one of the biggest problems with 4th edition. I highly doubt they'll bring that gak back.

 JimOnMars wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
-1 to hit roll for overwatch. Simple.

That would be ridiculously broken. Why should shooting units get free attacks at all? Combat armies don't get free swings when other armies shoot at them.

I'd rather overwatch didn't exist but if must exist then that's what I would perfer it to be.

I hope that sentence makes sense.

 warboss wrote:


Then don't get overwatch unless there is some sort of positive bonus to their shooting.. you can't roll a 7 on a 6 sided die. I actually covered that when I elaborated on the idea. Whether it's an ork that is too undisciplined to maintain some semblance of aiming when faced with an incoming charge or a Tau drone whose cpu can't process the data fast enough to get off a viable shot. or a scared shitless IG conscript shaking too hard to aim.. they just lose out on overwatch in that situation. Overwatch IMO shouldn't be a 40k inalienable (pun intended) right but a scalable privilege. Units that don't get it should either reflect that in their points cost or have some sort of alternate ability based on their fluff (like counterattack for the orks... and if an ork has say a 4+ to shoot for some reason like a squig then it has to choose to either overwatch OR counterattack).

For those reading this, the above are just my own ideas that I spitballed a few years back when overwatch was introduced and I didn't like its implementation. They're not rumors nor do I have any insider knowledge at all regarding what hasn't been previewed already.

Then we're circling back to point costs.

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

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

If overwatch is not part of the cost:

Then marines have some ridiculously effective heavy bolters well beyond anyone else and more are fielded as a result.

One way or another you have to deal with the consequences. A flat 6 means the user's abilities doesn't matter in regards to the overall cost of the weapon - it cuts out a potential factor of imbalance.

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

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


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

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

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

2. Effectively adding an extra inch of charge ranges.

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

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

5. Being able to consolidate into another combat.

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

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