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.

 EVIL INC wrote:
that is not relevent. We are talking about possible fixes or ways to alter it. As the current is already printed and 'set in stone", our fantasy rules we are creating would not be added into it. Now, if we are talking about rules we would put in a new rulebook (as we are), that rulebook would not be in existance yet so it would need to be added in.

Discussing how to change the current rules is not reinventing them from scratch.

Doesnt change a thing. Were we to add the changes we are discussing into a new edition, that caveat would still need to be added. That it may or may not be included presently is indeed irrelevant.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Doesnt change a thing. Were we to add the changes we are discussing into a new edition, that caveat would still need to be added. That it may or may not be included presently is indeed irrelevant.

We're discussing the whole thing using the current rules as a baseline to change from; assuming that the caveat wouldn't exist doesn't make any sense, because we've not actually said anything about changing it.

You are having a totally different conversation from the rest of us than. Come join what we are talking about. In the discussion the rest of us are having, that caveat would need to be added into it.

when i first read the rule of 2d6 to charge... First I was like Waaaah? Then i was like WAAAAAGGHH!

 Gunzhard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

JPong wrote:
Funny that the assault units that are really hurting, is pretty much everything with fleet. The agile and fast kind that dies to a small gust of wind.

This. Before I had the opportunity to abort the assault if I knew I couldn't make it.
Now I just have to suck it up and get shot with overwatch and a full turn of fire in the open.

I'm not sure I follow you... when you failed an assault in previous editions you still didn't move and instead got shot up the next turn. Why do people pretend they never failed assaults until this edition?

In 5th Fleet meant if I needed to roll a 4 on my run roll but rolled a 3, I could stay in cover instead of being out in the open. In 6th I have to suffer the extra penalty of charging through cover if I want to do the same thing, rendering my I6 useless.
And of course I have to suffer Overwatch for my troubles as well.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

JPong wrote:
Funny that the assault units that are really hurting, is pretty much everything with fleet. The agile and fast kind that dies to a small gust of wind.

This. Before I had the opportunity to abort the assault if I knew I couldn't make it.
Now I just have to suck it up and get shot with overwatch and a full turn of fire in the open.

I'm not sure I follow you... when you failed an assault in previous editions you still didn't move and instead got shot up the next turn. Why do people pretend they never failed assaults until this edition?

In 5th Fleet meant if I needed to roll a 4 on my run roll but rolled a 3, I could stay in cover instead of being out in the open. In 6th I have to suffer the extra penalty of charging through cover if I want to do the same thing, rendering my I6 useless.
And of course I have to suffer Overwatch for my troubles as well.

I think you're confused, go back and read your rulebooks.

 Gunzhard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

JPong wrote:
Funny that the assault units that are really hurting, is pretty much everything with fleet. The agile and fast kind that dies to a small gust of wind.

This. Before I had the opportunity to abort the assault if I knew I couldn't make it.
Now I just have to suck it up and get shot with overwatch and a full turn of fire in the open.

I'm not sure I follow you... when you failed an assault in previous editions you still didn't move and instead got shot up the next turn. Why do people pretend they never failed assaults until this edition?

In 5th Fleet meant if I needed to roll a 4 on my run roll but rolled a 3, I could stay in cover instead of being out in the open. In 6th I have to suffer the extra penalty of charging through cover if I want to do the same thing, rendering my I6 useless.
And of course I have to suffer Overwatch for my troubles as well.

I think you're confused, go back and read your rulebooks.

The argument is making complete sense, I think you're the one who's confused. In previous editions, the fleet roll was separate from the charge distance, meaning that you could use it to get out of cover without having to charge through terrain. Further, you had the option of not committing to a charge if you rolled poorly on your fleet roll. If a unit with fleet wants to charge now, you're stuck charging through terrain AND you can't abort if you roll poorly, AND your usually flimsy fleeting unit gets shot in Overwatch.

 EVIL INC wrote:
You are having a totally different conversation from the rest of us than. Come join what we are talking about. In the discussion the rest of us are having, that caveat would need to be added into it.

As you yourself are so fond of pointing out, we are discussing Random Charge Range, if it should exist and whether it should be changed. Changing that part of the rules does not change the fact that you're still not allowed to charge anything you can' reach, because we've not said anything about removing that rule. Otherwise he have to include the caveat that non-walker vehicles can't charge, that you can't fire blasts in Overwatch and a whole slew of rules that has nothing to do with what we're actually discussing.

Grim Dark wrote:
Random charge ranges are a holdover from horse & musket miniature games that simulate a horse's reluctance to charge home against a wall of pointy things.

Don't forget the trooper mounted on that horse, or the imperial guardsmen wondering whether or not its a good idea to charge those necron wraiths. I like the rule, I think of it like a leadership check to see if the guys get up and charge on in. I can assure you, its not a natural act, any failed charges IMO are those where the squad just refused to get up overcome by I'll go if you go syndrome. Where nobody goes. Think of it as a leadership check to charge, just you want to roll over rather than under, and you have a chance to get a really long charge in.

Fearless troops, IMO should be able to count the lowest dice as a 6.

Though I do take issue with the defensive fire, random charge range mechanic because defensive fire is more detrimental to models that pay for higher balistic skill, and there is no penalty to the defender for issuing defensive fire.

If defensive fire was at -2 ballistic skill, units charging a unit gone to ground were given cover saves against defensive fire, the attacker always went before the defender if the defender elected to fire rather than counter charge, and sweeping advances allowed the winner to charge another unit in that phase. I'd be pretty happy with it.

Maybe make defending units that issued defensive fire forego their initial pile in might be nice too.

 Corvaxes wrote:
Maybe make defending units that issued defensive fire forego their initial pile in might be nice too.

This would actually be a nerf to assault most of the time. If you charge my IG vets I want to lose combat and fall back so that your unit isn't locked in combat and protected from my next shooting phase. The last thing I want to do is accidentally kill a model or two and then "pass" the leadership test to stay in combat as a result. Taking away the initial pile-in move makes it easier to minimize the number of attacks I make and maximize the chances that my squad is either dead or falling back before my next shooting phase.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Corvaxes wrote:
Maybe make defending units that issued defensive fire forego their initial pile in might be nice too.

This would actually be a nerf to assault most of the time. If you charge my IG vets I want to lose combat and fall back so that your unit isn't locked in combat and protected from my next shooting phase. The last thing I want to do is accidentally kill a model or two and then "pass" the leadership test to stay in combat as a result. Taking away the initial pile-in move makes it easier to minimize the number of attacks I make and maximize the chances that my squad is either dead or falling back before my next shooting phase.

This is true. The ideal result for an assaulter is to almost wipe out what they are charging, so that they can sit safely in melee for the enemy turn, finish them off at the end of that turn and then move on and hopefully assault again.

 Gunzhard wrote:


I think you're confused, go back and read your rulebooks.

Uhm. You're the one being confused. In 6th edition theres no "run and assault in the same turn" anymore. In 5th fleet meant you can run and assault in the same turn.
This means when in 5th you did your run move and knew you needed a 4 inch run to make a charge on a unit that is 10 inches away from you. Now when in that situation you rolled a 3 you knew that run move wasnt sufficient to reach your target with your following assault move this turn and you were therefore able to use the 3" to get into cover.

Fast forward to 6th. You are 10 inches away. you roll 9 inches. You stay where you are - normally in the open and in rapid fire range etc pp.

I think that was what rigeld2 meant.

rigeld2 wrote:

In 5th Fleet meant if I needed to roll a 4 on my run roll but rolled a 3, I could stay in cover instead of being out in the open. In 6th I have to suffer the extra penalty of charging through cover if I want to do the same thing, rendering my I6 useless.
And of course I have to suffer Overwatch for my troubles as well.

So if a player is smart enough to use tactics to use cover to get close and then come out of it in the movement phase about 3/4 inches away from the enemy making sure there is no intervening objects, exactly how do they lose their initative 6? I can see thm suffering overwatch, which is aughable unless your facing tau or a template spammer unit or rolling a 2 or 3 on the assault roll.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

As you yourself are so fond of pointing out, we are discussing Random Charge Range, if it should exist and whether it should be changed. Changing that part of the rules does not change the fact that you're still not allowed to charge anything you can' reach, because we've not said anything about removing that rule. Otherwise he have to include the caveat that non-walker vehicles can't charge, that you can't fire blasts in Overwatch and a whole slew of rules that has nothing to do with what we're actually discussing.

The original thread was indeed about overwatch and I have indeed made an effort to keep you on that topic. i will try to steer you back onto it again with this post...If we are putting the changes and alterations to the 2d6 random assault roll we are discussing into implementation in a new edition of the book (impossible to put it into the current one as it has already been printed), we would need to put in the caveat that you are not allowed to charge targets you cannot reach.
As you said irrelevantly, it might be in the current book. It would also need to be put into the fantasy book we are brainstorming.

We're not brainstorming an entirely different book, we're talking about alterations to one rule, which could easily be FAQ'd into the current book, requiring no new book.

One thing I like about random charges is it gives you the potential to get into CC sooner. Once you hit the 12 inch mark, if you are willing to pay the overwatch tax you can attempt to charge. You probably wont succeed, but in past editions you would never have the chance. Then next turn you will get closer and are more likely to get the charge off. I think this is exciting.

But I still think there should be some minimum charge distance. Its just painful when you have an elite assault unit that has fought its way threw the entire game, and its the last turn and it finds itself right next to an enemy unit, so it charges, but rolls snake eyes. WHY? Its right there! And don't give me some none sense about tripping, or the chaos of battle, because it doesn't make any sense that highly trained space marines and grotz have the same chance of tripping.

 EVIL INC wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

In 5th Fleet meant if I needed to roll a 4 on my run roll but rolled a 3, I could stay in cover instead of being out in the open. In 6th I have to suffer the extra penalty of charging through cover if I want to do the same thing, rendering my I6 useless.
And of course I have to suffer Overwatch for my troubles as well.

So if a player is smart enough to use tactics to use cover to get close and then come out of it in the movement phase about 3/4 inches away from the enemy making sure there is no intervening objects, exactly how do they lose their initative 6? I can see thm suffering overwatch, which is aughable unless your facing tau or a template spammer unit or rolling a 2 or 3 on the assault roll.

I can tell you didn't actually read my post, despite quoting it.
In my post I specifically mentioned that Fleet allowed me to run out of terrain - because magic tactics kept me in cover, but it's stupid to charge through cover if you don't have to. In 5th I could decide not to leave cover and not charge. In 6th I must charge through cover meaning the I6 is near meaningless on Genestealers.

And despite your assurances, Overwatch isn't near meaningless. Tac squads aren't scary, right?
Stealers charging through cover, assuming they make the charge. 2 die to Overwatch. 2 die to Sm CC. Stealers kill 3. The next round gets better, with Stealers killing 2 and SM 1. Still likely stuck in combat, so the next round Stealers kill 1-2, SM kill 1-2.

Dedicated CC unit failing to kill a Tac squad. That's assuming taking zero shots on the way up the board - because tactically I should use the massive amount of BLOS terrain to hide until I'm less than 8" from his line. And he's tactically foolish enough to allow that.

Overwatch essentially gives a free round of unanswered CC against flimsy glass cannons like Stealers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mywik wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:


I think you're confused, go back and read your rulebooks.

Uhm. You're the one being confused. In 6th edition theres no "run and assault in the same turn" anymore. In 5th fleet meant you can run and assault in the same turn.
This means when in 5th you did your run move and knew you needed a 4 inch run to make a charge on a unit that is 10 inches away from you. Now when in that situation you rolled a 3 you knew that run move wasnt sufficient to reach your target with your following assault move this turn and you were therefore able to use the 3" to get into cover.

Fast forward to 6th. You are 10 inches away. you roll 9 inches. You stay where you are - normally in the open and in rapid fire range etc pp.

I think that was what rigeld2 meant.

Exactly. In 5th I knew I could stay in cover and still potentially assault at initiative by running out of cover and then declaring an assault. If I didn't run far enough I didn't leave cover.
In 6th I've lost that ability. Just because. And in addition, if I roll poorly I get to eat Overwatch for my troubles.

rigeld2 wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

In 5th Fleet meant if I needed to roll a 4 on my run roll but rolled a 3, I could stay in cover instead of being out in the open. In 6th I have to suffer the extra penalty of charging through cover if I want to do the same thing, rendering my I6 useless.
And of course I have to suffer Overwatch for my troubles as well.

So if a player is smart enough to use tactics to use cover to get close and then come out of it in the movement phase about 3/4 inches away from the enemy making sure there is no intervening objects, exactly how do they lose their initative 6? I can see thm suffering overwatch, which is aughable unless your facing tau or a template spammer unit or rolling a 2 or 3 on the assault roll.

I can tell you didn't actually read my post, despite quoting it.
In my post I specifically mentioned that Fleet allowed me to run out of terrain - because magic tactics kept me in cover, but it's stupid to charge through cover if you don't have to. In 5th I could decide not to leave cover and not charge. In 6th I must charge through cover meaning the I6 is near meaningless on Genestealers.

And despite your assurances, Overwatch isn't near meaningless. Tac squads aren't scary, right?
Stealers charging through cover, assuming they make the charge. 2 die to Overwatch. 2 die to Sm CC. Stealers kill 3. The next round gets better, with Stealers killing 2 and SM 1. Still likely stuck in combat, so the next round Stealers kill 1-2, SM kill 1-2.

Dedicated CC unit failing to kill a Tac squad. That's assuming taking zero shots on the way up the board - because tactically I should use the massive amount of BLOS terrain to hide until I'm less than 8" from his line. And he's tactically foolish enough to allow that.

Overwatch essentially gives a free round of unanswered CC against flimsy glass cannons like Stealers.

You just need to tactically charge with a second unit. And to stop them from dying to overwatch, tactically charge with a third unit. Because shooting armies aren't exactly bursting with units they can afford to lose, but assault armies all have infinite units in range to charge to deny overwatch on the the dangerous ones.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Corvaxes wrote:
Maybe make defending units that issued defensive fire forego their initial pile in might be nice too.

This would actually be a nerf to assault most of the time. If you charge my IG vets I want to lose combat and fall back so that your unit isn't locked in combat and protected from my next shooting phase. The last thing I want to do is accidentally kill a model or two and then "pass" the leadership test to stay in combat as a result. Taking away the initial pile-in move makes it easier to minimize the number of attacks I make and maximize the chances that my squad is either dead or falling back before my next shooting phase.

True, hadn't thought of it in that context, would it be a bad thing if the winning unit got to sweep into another assault after having won? The whole idea that you want to end your turn STILL in the combat you charged into means the sweeping advance rule is one of the biggest nerfs to assault. The ability to ride the momentum of a victory in hth into another assault that same turn would fix a lot.

 Corvaxes wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Corvaxes wrote:
Maybe make defending units that issued defensive fire forego their initial pile in might be nice too.

This would actually be a nerf to assault most of the time. If you charge my IG vets I want to lose combat and fall back so that your unit isn't locked in combat and protected from my next shooting phase. The last thing I want to do is accidentally kill a model or two and then "pass" the leadership test to stay in combat as a result. Taking away the initial pile-in move makes it easier to minimize the number of attacks I make and maximize the chances that my squad is either dead or falling back before my next shooting phase.

True, hadn't thought of it in that context, would it be a bad thing if the winning unit got to sweep into another assault after having won? The whole idea that you want to end your turn STILL in the combat you charged into means the sweeping advance rule is one of the biggest nerfs to assault. The ability to ride the momentum of a victory in hth into another assault that same turn would fix a lot.

Plus, it'd mean Tau would have to think about whether they want to stack up for maximum Overwatch, risking to get caught, or play it safe, reducing Overwatch damage.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
We're not brainstorming an entirely different book, we're talking about alterations to one rule, which could easily be FAQ'd into the current book, requiring no new book.

We are talking about alterations or changes or additions to the rules. Ones that would not make it into an FAQ. if they were to be implemented it would not be in the current edition. So as has been said, it woudld have to have that caveat added.

rigeld2 wrote:

I can tell you didn't actually read my post, despite quoting it.
In my post I specifically mentioned that Fleet allowed me to run out of terrain - because magic tactics kept me in cover, but it's stupid to charge through cover if you don't have to. In 5th I could decide not to leave cover and not charge. In 6th I must charge through cover meaning the I6 is near meaningless on Genestealers.

And despite your assurances, Overwatch isn't near meaningless. Tac squads aren't scary, right?
Stealers charging through cover, assuming they make the charge. 2 die to Overwatch. 2 die to Sm CC. Stealers kill 3. The next round gets better, with Stealers killing 2 and SM 1. Still likely stuck in combat, so the next round Stealers kill 1-2, SM kill 1-2.

Dedicated CC unit failing to kill a Tac squad. That's assuming taking zero shots on the way up the board - because tactically I should use the massive amount of BLOS terrain to hide until I'm less than 8" from his line. And he's tactically foolish enough to allow that.

Overwatch essentially gives a free round of unanswered CC against flimsy glass cannons like Stealers.

i read it. you purposely slanted your phrasing to denigrate the stance of another and used misleading words. Te example I pointed out was that you assumed that anyone in coer at the beginning of the movement phase would still be in cover at the end because they would be too stupid to move out so that they wouldnt be in cover at the beginning of the assault phase. You also made the assumption and put forth as always being so that the player would be too stupid to not use tactics to ensure that the assault would be unimpeded.
As for overwatch, it is indeed laughable (exept in terms of flame template heavy units and tau. My math may be a little off but lets see if i get this right...
a 10 man guard unit would get an average of 1 las pistal shot, 8 rapid fire las gun shots and lets say 1 rapid fire plasma gun shot.
thats 19 shots that need 6 to hit. so 1/6 of them hit, thats 3 hits on average (most players will tell you anecdoattly, its less) of those, there is a chance the plasma guy kills himself and of the 3 hits (most likely las gun, will need a 5+ to kill your average marine. You do the rest but I believe it comes to less than 3 marines dying even without their armor save. Also consider that the assaulter is not stupid or lazy and uses tactics to ensure that they are lined up about 3-4 inches from the guard models so that even losing 3 models, they would need to roll a 3 or 2 on the 2d6 to fail the charge. So no, overwatch is not the all powerfull game breaker you make it out to be. being able to assault 12 possible inches, that could be. As many ork players have pointed out throughout this thread, they love it.

JPong wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

You just need to tactically charge with a second unit. And to stop them from dying to overwatch, tactically charge with a third unit. Because shooting armies aren't exactly bursting with units they can afford to lose, but assault armies all have infinite units in range to charge to deny overwatch on the the dangerous ones.

yes, despite your sarcastic post, you are correct to a degree. You DONT just send a single unit screaming madly across the field by itself. You do ensure that the enemy have to make decisions as to how they are going to divide their fire amongst many targets. You do have to use tactics and smarts because you dont have an infinite number of squads to do this with. I've had players make the decision of assaulting first with a throwaway squad remnent in order to prevent me from overwatch shooting at amore dangerous healthy squad. This is just one of many ways that you could use tactics.

 EVIL INC wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
We're not brainstorming an entirely different book, we're talking about alterations to one rule, which could easily be FAQ'd into the current book, requiring no new book.

We are talking about alterations or changes or additions to the rules. Ones that would not make it into an FAQ. if they were to be implemented it would not be in the current edition. So as has been said, it woudld have to have that caveat added.

No, you're discussing some magic new edition. Everyone else is fine talking about changing the current one.

rigeld2 wrote:

I can tell you didn't actually read my post, despite quoting it.
In my post I specifically mentioned that Fleet allowed me to run out of terrain - because magic tactics kept me in cover, but it's stupid to charge through cover if you don't have to. In 5th I could decide not to leave cover and not charge. In 6th I must charge through cover meaning the I6 is near meaningless on Genestealers.

And despite your assurances, Overwatch isn't near meaningless. Tac squads aren't scary, right?
Stealers charging through cover, assuming they make the charge. 2 die to Overwatch. 2 die to Sm CC. Stealers kill 3. The next round gets better, with Stealers killing 2 and SM 1. Still likely stuck in combat, so the next round Stealers kill 1-2, SM kill 1-2.

Dedicated CC unit failing to kill a Tac squad. That's assuming taking zero shots on the way up the board - because tactically I should use the massive amount of BLOS terrain to hide until I'm less than 8" from his line. And he's tactically foolish enough to allow that.

Overwatch essentially gives a free round of unanswered CC against flimsy glass cannons like Stealers.

i read it. you purposely slanted your phrasing to denigrate the stance of another and used misleading words.

I did? Please quote them. Cite the insults or apologize.

Te example I pointed out was that you assumed that anyone in coer at the beginning of the movement phase would still be in cover at the end because they would be too stupid to move out so that they wouldnt be in cover at the beginning of the assault phase.

That's the only reason? Because I'm too stupid? Wow, good to know.
As a matter of fact, leaving cover is the stupid move for models with a 5+ armor save.

You also made the assumption and put forth as always being so that the player would be too stupid to not use tactics to ensure that the assault would be unimpeded.

What?

As for overwatch, it is indeed laughable (exept in terms of flame template heavy units and tau. My math may be a little off but lets see if i get this right...

So I take a normal, relevant example of what I'm talking about and show Overwatch doing 20% casualties against a unit designed explicitly for CC, and your example is a worst case scenario for Overwatch and has nothing to do with units designed for CC.

And again, you call me stupid for ever having an assault longer then 3-4 inches. Well done - excellent discussion tactic. Let's see how it works out for you. Orks brought their cover with them, or had AV14 (front) transports to shield them into the assault. Not everyone does that ya know.

yes, despite your sarcastic post, you are correct to a degree. You DONT just send a single unit screaming madly across the field by itself. You do ensure that the enemy have to make decisions as to how they are going to divide their fire amongst many targets. You do have to use tactics and smarts because you dont have an infinite number of squads to do this with. I've had players make the decision of assaulting first with a throwaway squad remnent in order to prevent me from overwatch shooting at amore dangerous healthy squad. This is just one of many ways that you could use tactics.

Yes, and I do that. And many times the throwaway unit is destroyed and I fail the 6-7 inch charge with the good unit. Meaning I just get shot the next turn.

But that's my fault for being too stupid to cheat and get 2-3 more inches of movement somehow. Damn, I forgot.

Hey I scored 3 hits on dakka, but it made all of its saves...

HAS ANYONE EXALTED MY POSTS LIKE I ASKED?!?!

Now that I think about some of the things said to justify rolling the 2d6 (like the charge failing to get underway, or troops not being inspired), maybe instead of just rolling a generic 2d6 that applies to every race, maybe it should be Leadership driven. This means no doubt some armie/units will be better at charging than others, but to me that makes sense. I think you have to be highly motivated to charge a gunline with pistols and swords, or not know any better if you are a monster or just have claws. Failing a leadership roll would force you to stay put, which makes far more sense showing that the charge couldnt get underway. Using a nearby characters leadership would show the success in inspiring the troops to charge.

I dont keep up on what leadership is for all the armies, nor how well this would benefit them, I am just throwing it out there, because to me, this seems like a good use of Leadership. I also assume Space Marines have a better leadership than Imperial Guard do, and I expect that Space Marines would require less motivation to assault in CC than Guardsmen.

And maybe you could have modifiers for things like Greater Daemons that would affect the roll. I mean, I think a Bloodthirster would be a pretty fearsome site, and not something your average trooper would want to fight in CC. Right now, you could throw anything you want at it, regardless of the success it would have, whereas I am thinking some things would just inspire too much fear for many units to even charge, let alone suffer modifiers while already in combat. So maybe the charge roll would get a -1 or something.

2d6 is probably quicker, but too generic. And doesnt do a good job to me at least, explaining why my Assault Troops with Jump Packs managed to fail in their charge while my Terminators didnt.

I think changing the charge roll to something like 2" + 2d3 would be alright. This gives a minimum charge range of 4" and a max of 8". Takes away some range from the current rule but give a more reliable range that you can charge. I really think there should be a minimum charge range.

But I will put forth the question (and anecdotal evidence that I never have seen a 11 or 12 inch charge), how many people are really trying or betting on a 12 inch charge succeeding?

I don't bet on it, but I've attempted it with Carnifexes against vehicles or things that I don't care about overwatching me.

It's worked once - and I popped that Land Raider like it was a bubble.

 FirePainter wrote:

But I will put forth the question (and anecdotal evidence that I never have seen a 11 or 12 inch charge), how many people are really trying or betting on a 12 inch charge succeeding?

Yeah I play a lot of Settlers of Catan, and learned through its mechanics how 6,7, and 8 expect to come up a lot, which makes sense when you look at what all of the combinations of dice rolls can offer. I am not a wiz at math to bother with percentiles, I just know its going to take double 6s to move 12, and that isnt going to happen much. So I feel I have to be around 7 inches to feel comfortable to attempt a charge in the current game, and its ridiculous when I roll something like a 5.

rigeld2 wrote:
I don't bet on it, but I've attempted it with Carnifexes against vehicles or things that I don't care about overwatching me.

It's worked once - and I popped that Land Raider like it was a bubble.

Okay that I can understand. charging a vehicle has no repercussions from overwatch.

I feel that a little variablility is good for charging but a 10" range is too much. A minimum charge range is needed, if you are that close you could fall over and be attacking the guys in front of you. However as it stands now I fall over and get shot to pieces because 3" is to far for my guys.

KTG17 wrote:

 FirePainter wrote:

But I will put forth the question (and anecdotal evidence that I never have seen a 11 or 12 inch charge), how many people are really trying or betting on a 12 inch charge succeeding?

Yeah I play a lot of Settlers of Catan, and learned through its mechanics how 6,7, and 8 expect to come up a lot, which makes sense when you look at what all of the combinations of dice rolls can offer. I am not a wiz at math to bother with percentiles, I just know its going to take double 6s to move 12, and that isnt going to happen much. So I feel I have to be around 7 inches to feel comfortable to attempt a charge in the current game, and its ridiculous when I roll something like a 5.

Chance of failing charge if you are more than...

2" 2.78%
3" 8.33%
4" 16.67%
5" 27.78%
6" 41.67%
7" 58.33%
8" 72.22%
9" 83.33%
10" 91.67%
11" 97.22%
12" 100.00%

So while you might say the average is 7", you still have a 42% chance of failing a charge that is anymore than 6" away, and a 28% chance of failing a charge if you are more than 5" away, almost 1 in 3 chance of failing.

Nice... How did you figure all that out?

Not too difficult, there's 1 combination that gives you 2" charge (snake eyes), 2 combinations give you 3" charge (1,2 and 2,1) increasing up to 6 combinations that give you a 7" charge. It then decreases back down from 7 until you have 1 combination that gives you a 12" charge (6,6).

Total of 36 combinations, so 1/36 of getting 2", 2/36 of 3", 3/36 of getting 4", etc. Add them up and it gives you the chance of failing a charge (the chance of failing a charge of more than 4" is 1/36 + 2/36 + 3/36 = 6/36 = 16.67%.

It sounds more complicated than it is, took like 30 seconds to do in excel, lol.

EDIT: Sorry, 6 combinations give 7".

Well, the most problematic rule is that units cannot charge when dismounting from a stationary transport.
If the transport moves in the first round, the unit cannot charge earlier than in the third round.