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.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:I think the biggest problem with the rumours is that, as yet, we don't know what bonus (if any) will be provided by charging.

I thought the 1st page said +1 CR.

I think we should just wait till 8th comes out and then start bitching endlessly. This is dakka after all.

If anyone does hear any snippets about things, it is very important you ask the person telling you when they heard it.

I believe that only really recent info can be considered reliable.

theHandofGork wrote:I think we should just wait till 8th comes out and then start bitching endlessly. This is dakka after all.

There was me thinking that the 'bitching' occurs before, during and after an edition The only time 'bitching' doesn't occur is when an edition can't possibly exist i.e. we can't yet bitch about Warhammer 9th, although the second 8th comes out, bitching about what should be fixed in 9th will no doubt begin. This is dakka after all

For my part, 8th sounds crazy. I can live with crazy, it's boring that stops me playing

Flashman wrote:

theHandofGork wrote:I think we should just wait till 8th comes out and then start bitching endlessly. This is dakka after all.

There was me thinking that the 'bitching' occurs before, during and after an edition The only time 'bitching' doesn't occur is when an edition can't possibly exist i.e. we can't yet bitch about Warhammer 9th, although the second 8th comes out, bitching about what should be fixed in 9th will no doubt begin. This is dakka after all

For my part, 8th sounds crazy. I can live with crazy, it's boring that stops me playing

Man, 9th Edition Fantasy is going to just absolutely RUIN the game!

6th Edition 40K, though, is going to be the best edition of any wargame EVAR!

JOHIRA wrote:I'm not saying that random charge distances are good, but some of you are going a bit OTT in your moaning about it.

The game will not involve less skill if we switch to random charge bonuses. Being able to weigh the odds of risking a charge is no less a skill than being able to memorize every unit's move distance and guestimate that distance with your eyes on the table top. Both are skills, both are tactical decisions. An opponent who overly depends on getting a lucky charge will be just as easy to beat next edition as they are to beat now- because they won't consistently be able to get that lucky bonus and will fail their charges. You have every right to criticize the change, but don't attack the mental abilities of everyone who doesn't agree with you.

Personally, I have never been a fan of chess-type games. Being able to know exactly how far and in what way every piece can move makes a game too abstract and mathematical for me. I prefer strategic games more in the vein of Rome: Total War, where not every unit moves at exactly the same speed every time, and you have to weigh risks of success on a risky charge versus the consequences of failure. I don't know if the random charge bonus will make the game more like the TW series (unfortunately probably not) but I'm going to at least wait until I've seen all the rules in the new edition before I proclaim that the sky is falling.

Except that your wrong.

Right now, its tactical in that you have to guess and take the wager that you'll get the charge. The difference is you KNOW you have a set distance you can, and not X+ a variable. With the variable, its impossible to know if its a good tactical decision or not to charge.

Terrible change.

^Karon has got it right there^

As stated before tho.. Failing a charge wont be a "you lose the game" type of mistake if its changing to initiative order

It may be more random but its also not as decisive a bonus

Karon wrote:Except that your wrong.

Right now, its tactical in that you have to guess and take the wager that you'll get the charge. The difference is you KNOW you have a set distance you can, and not X+ a variable. With the variable, its impossible to know if its a good tactical decision or not to charge.

Terrible change.

I'm guessing that you totally and completely suck in 40k, because, a lot of 40k charges require a unit to Fleet d6" before Charging. Or deal with Difficult Ground (test on d6s, again). Not to mention units which DS before Charging like Vanguard.

And then there's the issue of "softening up" a unit with a little shooting pre-charge, which opens the risk of too many casualties being pulled from the front.

But yeah, clearly, variable charge distance is going to totally ruin WFB, a game of pseudo-historical Fantasy instead of modern precision and predictability.

Karon wrote:Except that your wrong.

Right now, its tactical in that you have to guess and take the wager that you'll get the charge. The difference is you KNOW you have a set distance you can, and not X+ a variable. With the variable, its impossible to know if its a good tactical decision or not to charge.

Terrible change.

To further emphasize this: Have you ever looked at an Orc player, and immediately thought "Damn, that player must have skill. He plays an army that can either not charge at all or move infantry as fast as heavy cavalry"? If not, why? I mean, it's not like it's much different than the random charge wherein a "good general" plans for his unit either being unable to make that charge 5" away or hinges on a (non-Waaagh! turn) 11" charge. In fact, when Orc players make 11" charges for infantry, I've never once heard "Man, you had some skill planning that out." All I hear is "Lucky git." Same for failing a 5" charge I've never heard "Man, you had some poor planning," but "Wow, that sucks."

Also, onto the "1 = Failed Charge" thing: Sorry if I implied that with my post of 1 = failure, I thought it was clear when I gave "An enemy unit 5.5" away" as the example I was referring to "Did not get a far enough charge" and not "Cannot charge at all".

EDIT: Also, I'm re-checking my math when I get home, but if I wasn't wrong than an Animosity-rolling Orc is actually a minimal loss in percentage over non-Orc armies in odds of making a successful charge - in which case I will apologize. The % they're off right now from another M4 unit making the exact same charge at 7.5"? 1% Of course, having only a 50% chance of making that charge in the first place for the standard M4 unit isn't much better.

Except your talking specifics in 40k, not every unit has to fleet D6 (the majority don't) and usually you shouldn't be charging from difficult ground anyways (or be in diff. ground in the first place)

You can't compare 40k and fantasy, we are talking a general rule that is basically making every unit have to charge through difficult ground + there M value.

Why would a 1 be failed charge? Its not a characteristic test at all.. Thats like saying if you have to roll D6 hits on a magic missile then a 1 fails too.. Totally not the case

Movement + D3 = a number not a test

Karon wrote:

JOHIRA wrote:I'm not saying that random charge distances are good, but some of you are going a bit OTT in your moaning about it.

The game will not involve less skill if we switch to random charge bonuses. Being able to weigh the odds of risking a charge is no less a skill than being able to memorize every unit's move distance and guestimate that distance with your eyes on the table top. Both are skills, both are tactical decisions. An opponent who overly depends on getting a lucky charge will be just as easy to beat next edition as they are to beat now- because they won't consistently be able to get that lucky bonus and will fail their charges. You have every right to criticize the change, but don't attack the mental abilities of everyone who doesn't agree with you.

Personally, I have never been a fan of chess-type games. Being able to know exactly how far and in what way every piece can move makes a game too abstract and mathematical for me. I prefer strategic games more in the vein of Rome: Total War, where not every unit moves at exactly the same speed every time, and you have to weigh risks of success on a risky charge versus the consequences of failure. I don't know if the random charge bonus will make the game more like the TW series (unfortunately probably not) but I'm going to at least wait until I've seen all the rules in the new edition before I proclaim that the sky is falling.

Except that your wrong.

Right now, its tactical in that you have to guess and take the wager that you'll get the charge. The difference is you KNOW you have a set distance you can, and not X+ a variable. With the variable, its impossible to know if its a good tactical decision or not to charge.

Terrible change.

I guess we must be in Bizarro-land, where having additional variables to consider makes a game less tactical.


You can't KNOW whether something is a good tactical decision before you make it. You use your knowledge of tactics to generate a decision, and that decision ends up being a good one or a bad one. Very rarely does a failed decision end up being the most tactically sound one. A failure is almost always due to some variable you failed to consider or just didn't know.

Adding more variables = more tactical considerations = a more tactical game.

If you don't like the idea of random charge distances adding to the game, don't try to make it sound like it's because it's undermining your tactical genius. If anything, if you were a decent tactician something like this wouldn't bother you so much as it would just make you rethink your approach to the game.

Oh..snap

This is going to be locked soon :( The tactical superiority of WFB has been called into question!!.. Gauntlets are about to be thrown down!

OK, now to turn the whine on it's head:

Why aren't people whining that being 8.5" away from a M4 unit isn't perfectly safe in 8E? In 7E, you could be 100% sure that they wouldn't be able to charge you. But now, there's a 33% chance that they charge 9" or 10".

And really, how often were charges in WFB right at 7.5"?

Did anybody ever charge 6.5" (50%) or less (66%)?

What about the guys who line up 2" behind the edge of the DZ, changing the separation from 24+" to 26+"?


Let's all mourn the passing of Warhammer Pitched Battles on featureless plains, and move on with life. Those of you who refuse to adapt, please PM me, and I'll give you an address you can ship your armies to.

Alternately, you can PM me your address, and I'll send GW to take away your armies!

Hey John.. If you're gonna use my WPB (Warhammer Pitched Battles) name then I want some royalties

I have done the math on Orcs and animosity, and apparently...

They do suck compared to other M4 armies when it comes to charges, at least those between 5.1" and 8". At 8.1"-10", Orcs and Goblins will actually be superior to other M4 units with a 3.3% increase in odds at 8.1-9" and a 6.5% increase in odds at 9.1-10". This doesn't help too much that at 5.1-6" the Orcs are a full 12% under other M4 infantry in terms of percentage, but technically this reduces the percentage gap at the worst by 4%.

Or, in other words: Orcs may have even more horrendous odds of charging (at times) now, but they're closer to other armies percentages now for charges 5-10" in distance and still superior at 10.1"-16".

On this one point I agree completely with you Minsc.. Animosity is a very unfair rule and should be removed for various reasons

Kirasu wrote:Animosity is a very unfair rule and should be removed for various reasons

I think we should see this revised to be far less punitive when the next O&G book comes out.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Kirasu wrote:Animosity is a very unfair rule and should be removed for various reasons

I think we should see this revised to be far less punitive when the next O&G book comes out.

If the Beastmen book's anything to go by, very likely we're going to see it swapped out with something involving a leadership test, unit size, or pretty much something that's a "Take a test, you fail nothing bad happens, you pass you get [x]". Sorta kills what makes Orcs Orcs, but it'd do a lot to increase usability and such.

This is, of course, assuming GW doesn't tell Orc players to bite the bullet and take the above "Slap on another rule" thing in addition to such.

D3 causulties is what I'm hoping. D3 causulties, and only units of 10+ models are vunerable to it. That lets you have some cav without worrying they'll splat themselves, has the flavour of animosity, and isn't crippling.

Ostrakon wrote:

Karon wrote:

JOHIRA wrote:I'm not saying that random charge distances are good, but some of you are going a bit OTT in your moaning about it.

The game will not involve less skill if we switch to random charge bonuses. Being able to weigh the odds of risking a charge is no less a skill than being able to memorize every unit's move distance and guestimate that distance with your eyes on the table top. Both are skills, both are tactical decisions. An opponent who overly depends on getting a lucky charge will be just as easy to beat next edition as they are to beat now- because they won't consistently be able to get that lucky bonus and will fail their charges. You have every right to criticize the change, but don't attack the mental abilities of everyone who doesn't agree with you.

Personally, I have never been a fan of chess-type games. Being able to know exactly how far and in what way every piece can move makes a game too abstract and mathematical for me. I prefer strategic games more in the vein of Rome: Total War, where not every unit moves at exactly the same speed every time, and you have to weigh risks of success on a risky charge versus the consequences of failure. I don't know if the random charge bonus will make the game more like the TW series (unfortunately probably not) but I'm going to at least wait until I've seen all the rules in the new edition before I proclaim that the sky is falling.

Except that your wrong.

Right now, its tactical in that you have to guess and take the wager that you'll get the charge. The difference is you KNOW you have a set distance you can, and not X+ a variable. With the variable, its impossible to know if its a good tactical decision or not to charge.

Terrible change.

I guess we must be in Bizarro-land, where having additional variables to consider makes a game less tactical.


You can't KNOW whether something is a good tactical decision before you make it. You use your knowledge of tactics to generate a decision, and that decision ends up being a good one or a bad one. Very rarely does a failed decision end up being the most tactically sound one. A failure is almost always due to some variable you failed to consider or just didn't know.

Adding more variables = more tactical considerations = a more tactical game.

If you don't like the idea of random charge distances adding to the game, don't try to make it sound like it's because it's undermining your tactical genius. If anything, if you were a decent tactician something like this wouldn't bother you so much as it would just make you rethink your approach to the game.

What?

Adding an uncontrollable variable is making the game less tactical, yes.

Adding a variable that is definite does make it more tactical.

I've already gave this example a few times.

I'm 7" away with my Gors from a Swordsmen unit, my Gors have M5.

I need to roll a TWO to get the charge.

I roll a

Is that tactical?

1 a : the science and art of disposing and maneuvering forces in combat b : the art or skill of employing available means to accomplish an end

If the game is decided by my opponent rolling better at charging, then its not tactical. Init. based combat isn't tactical either.

And how does this argument relate to WPB? Variable Charge Distance has nothing to do with only playing pitched battle.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Have not played Rome but why do the units not move the same each time? Is it because the generals are rolling dice or is it because of jealous, fickle gods?

It's because sometimes the troops are tired.
Sometimes they are running up hill.
Sometimes they are scared.
Sometimes they don't like being in the desert.
Sometimes they don't like being in the snow.
Sometimes they don't understand the general's orders.

There are a ton of variables the game takes into account. Of course, since it's a computer game, the computer can look at all those variables instantly and pop out a speed without the player even thinking about it. A good charge bonus system could reflect that in a table-top game, but it remains to be seen how well GW's system will work.

The point is, more or less randomness does not make a game more or less tactical. It just changes the skill involved in making tactical decisions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karon wrote:Right now, its tactical in that you have to guess and take the wager that you'll get the charge. The difference is you KNOW you have a set distance you can, and not X+ a variable. With the variable, its impossible to know if its a good tactical decision or not to charge.

That's not the only way to have a tactical game. Weighing the risks of the unknown can easily be part of a tactical game. In fact, it is a key element of the real-world tactics this game is supposed to simulate.

But even if you outplay your opponent, rolling that 1, when all you need is a 2, and you lose because of it, is terrible.

Variable Charge Distance takes out some tactics involved in the game.

Even if I'm 100 times more skillful than my opponent, that doesn't make me roll 1 more.

Remember, as far as we can tell charging gets you +1 CR. So in a strait unit to unit match up, that is all you are wagering on the charge distance, since you're going to be in that unit's face. Might it be that there is no "failed charge" any more - just roll and move that distance?

It will take away from the "chess" aspect of WFB. I'm good at that, but I'm not sure I'll miss it. Striking in initiative order takes away far more of that than the random charge distance does anyway.

It also allows players to be more aggressive - when two units of heavy cavalry face off, it won't be suicide to advance towards the enemy - something that has always bugged me.

I suppose I am overreacting without taking the full impact that Init. Order will have.

Yeah, I suppose charging really won't MATTER anymore, which is really dumb, and makes no sense.

Chargers strike first is one of the reasons I moved over from 40k to fantasy.

Yay for homenization of 40k and Fantasy.....

kestral: You assume that the enemy was in a race with you to get the charge. What if that "You roll a 1" suddenly means, for instance, you now have an exposed flank (which would have been cleared on the charge, and they have no intention of engaging to the front now). Say that the enemy is a shooty army, Tomb Kings even, and now they can drop two Catapult shots on your regiment's head. Say that you're facing Tzeentch, and that's all that was blocking your foe from dropping an Infernal Gateway on the unit.

Though I still think it's funniest that the people going "It's tactical!" said nothing of the sort when it happened to Orcs. When's the last time you can recall someone on DakkaDakka responding to Animosity with "It's a great rule and other armies should have it, it's a tactical addition to the game!"

Funnily enough, this is actually worse than Animosity as at least with animosity you have (had) a 83% chance of charging the enemy unit 7.5" away, as of now wherein even animosity-free armies have only a 50% chance. It blocks charges more often than Animosity does at any charge distance further than movement plus one.

Karon wrote:But even if you outplay your opponent, rolling that 1, when all you need is a 2, and you lose because of it, is terrible.

And that's a perfectly valid complaint.

Variable Charge Distance takes out some tactics involved in the game.

This is what I'm disagreeing with. It doesn't take out any tactics, it just changes them. Now when you line up that charge you'll have to take into account the chance that you will only get a 1 inch charge bonus. You'll have to weigh it against what you can gain by charging. That's a decision, and any time the player has to make a decision the player is using tactics.

You might lose a game now and then because of an unlikely roll. But by definition if that roll is unlikely, it's not going to happen very often. So your overall win/loss ratio won't change that much.

If the abomination known as random charge distance comes to pass, I wonder how it is going to affect charge reactions.

Karon wrote:

Ostrakon wrote:

Karon wrote:

JOHIRA wrote:I'm not saying that random charge distances are good, but some of you are going a bit OTT in your moaning about it.

The game will not involve less skill if we switch to random charge bonuses. Being able to weigh the odds of risking a charge is no less a skill than being able to memorize every unit's move distance and guestimate that distance with your eyes on the table top. Both are skills, both are tactical decisions. An opponent who overly depends on getting a lucky charge will be just as easy to beat next edition as they are to beat now- because they won't consistently be able to get that lucky bonus and will fail their charges. You have every right to criticize the change, but don't attack the mental abilities of everyone who doesn't agree with you.

Personally, I have never been a fan of chess-type games. Being able to know exactly how far and in what way every piece can move makes a game too abstract and mathematical for me. I prefer strategic games more in the vein of Rome: Total War, where not every unit moves at exactly the same speed every time, and you have to weigh risks of success on a risky charge versus the consequences of failure. I don't know if the random charge bonus will make the game more like the TW series (unfortunately probably not) but I'm going to at least wait until I've seen all the rules in the new edition before I proclaim that the sky is falling.

Except that your wrong.

Right now, its tactical in that you have to guess and take the wager that you'll get the charge. The difference is you KNOW you have a set distance you can, and not X+ a variable. With the variable, its impossible to know if its a good tactical decision or not to charge.

Terrible change.

I guess we must be in Bizarro-land, where having additional variables to consider makes a game less tactical.


You can't KNOW whether something is a good tactical decision before you make it. You use your knowledge of tactics to generate a decision, and that decision ends up being a good one or a bad one. Very rarely does a failed decision end up being the most tactically sound one. A failure is almost always due to some variable you failed to consider or just didn't know.

Adding more variables = more tactical considerations = a more tactical game.

If you don't like the idea of random charge distances adding to the game, don't try to make it sound like it's because it's undermining your tactical genius. If anything, if you were a decent tactician something like this wouldn't bother you so much as it would just make you rethink your approach to the game.

What?

Adding an uncontrollable variable is making the game less tactical, yes.

Adding a variable that is definite does make it more tactical.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word 'tactical.'
Adding something static that you can constantly rely on makes the game more strategic. If you can always rely on something to accomplish Task A, then there are no tactics involved. If you can always charge from whatever distance, assuming that you can correctly eyeball that distance, your tactics for the "charge the opponent ASAP" and "avoid getting charged" strategies will never change. This is not tactical at all. It's pure strategy.

However, if you're forced to take every situation you might get charged or might be able to charge, and need to figure out the chances of success or failure in each situations, you actually need to make tactical decisions.

Also, is it even confirmed that 1=autofailed charge?