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.

A common complaint about 6th edition is the addition of random charge lengths taking the reliability out of assault armies and as too much of a nerf when combined with overwatch and other changes. Yet I do see some good in random charge lengths, so I thought of this fix for charges. I haven't fleshed this idea out the best for non-infantry, and I don't have my rulebook on me so I don't want to touch it in case I miss a detail, but I'll post the general idea for standard infantry. I also have a few ideas how these charges will interact with terrain, but I'm not sure which I favour at this point.

Charging: Infantry

Standard Charge: An infantry squad may make a standard charge with a distance of 6". After declaring what unit is being charged, the charged unit may choose to use overwatch, treating the charging models as if they were in open ground (after all, if you want to advance on the enemy position, you are likely going to have to abandon your cover to do so). After overwatch resolves, compare the shortest distance between an assaulting and a charged model. If that distance is greater than 6", the charge fails, do not move any units in the assaulting unit. Otherwise, move each model that is charging that distance towards the charged squad. You do not have to move the full distance, but each model must end the charge in base contact with a model in the charged unit if able, and if you may not place forward models such that they prevent models behind it from coming into base contact with an enemy model. A unit or model may make a standard charge if they did not run or shoot a non-assault or pistol weapon during their shooting phase. If a unit or model has relentless, they may make a standard charge even if they fired a non-assault or non pistol weapon during their shooting phase, but not if they ran. A unit or model with fleet may make a standard charge if they ran during their shooting phase, but not if they fired a non-assault or non-pistol weapon during their shooting phase.

Models making a standard charge get +1 attack during the first round of combat as a bonus for charging.

Models attempting a standard charge that would pass through difficult terrain (OPTION A): Roll 2D6 for their charge distance and drop the lowest result. (OPTION B): Roll D3 +3 for their charge distance. (OPTION C): Models can not make a standard charge through difficult terrain unless they have move through cover, fleet, or somehow ignore or automatically pass difficult terrain tests.

Models with move through cover or that somehow ignore or automatically pass difficult terrain tests may always make a standard charge of 6" through difficult terrain.

Models making a standard charge through difficult terrain strike at initiative 1 unless they have assault grenades, move through cover, or somehow ignore or automatically pass difficult terrain tests.

Desperate Charge: A desperate charge represents a unit going flat out for the opponent, trading reliability for the potential to make an unexpected and devastating charge.

An infantry squad or model may make a desperate charge instead of a standard charge during the assault phase. After declaring what unit you are charging, roll 2D6, with the result being your charge distance in inches (between 2" and 12" assuming no other modifiers). Then, charged unit may choose to use overwatch against the assaulting unit (with the distances for any non-template weapons being equal to the current distance between the assaulting and the charged squad). Overwatch shots are resolved as if the charging models were in open ground (they get no cover save, after all, they have to abandon their cover in order to advance). After resolving overwatch fire, check the distance between the move each model that is charging that distance towards the charged squad. If this distance is greater than the charge distance, the assault fails. This can represent any number of things, the squad not being able to work up the energy, being suppressed by enemy fire after seeing the first of their friends jumping out of the trench being gunned down, or perhaps even just the sergeant tripping over his own feet before he can lift himself out of cover. Not matter what the explanation, the result is the same. No not move any models in the assaulting unit. Otherwise, the assault is successful. Move each model in the assaulting unit up to the rolled charge distance towards the enemy unit. You do not have to move the full distance, but each model must end the charge in base contact with a model in the charged unit if able, and if you may not place forward models such that they prevent models behind it from coming into base contact with an enemy model.

A unit or model may only attempt a desperate charge during the assault phase if it did not run or fire a non-assault or non-pistol weapon during the shooting phase. Units or models with Relentless may make a desperate charge even if it fired a non-assault, non-pistol weapon. Units with fleet may attempt a desperate charge if they ran during the shooting phase.

Models making a desperate charge normally do not get the +1 Attack bonus for charging. They are more focused on getting their bodies across the battlefield. However, if they rolled a double on their charge distance, each model gets to make a Hammer of Wrath impact attack, representing the impact of a unit hitting the enemy lines at breakneck speeds.

Models making a desperate charge through difficult terrain (OPTION A): Do so as normal. (OPTION B): Roll 3D6, and drop the highest. Note that only the remaining die are used to determine whether the squad gets Hammer of Wrath impact attacks (so if I'm making a desperate charge through difficult terrain, and roll 3, 5, 5, I drop one of the 5's, giving me a charge distance of 8", but no impact attacks. However, if I roll 4, 4, 6, I drop the six, giving me a charge distance of 8", but with impact attacks).

Models with Move Through Cover or that somehow ignore or automatically pass difficult terrain tests may attempt a desperate assault through cover as if it were open ground.

Models attempting a desperate assault through cover strike at I1 unless they have assault grenades, Move Through Cover, or somehow ignore or automatically pass difficult terrain tests.

Models with Furious Charge may re-roll the lowest die when attempting a desperate charge. Models with Rage must attempt a desperate charge if their is an enemy unit in their line of sight within 12" of the squad. However, if their charge would fail, you still move the models the distance equal to their charge distance towards the enemy unit.

This entire idea is only roughly fleshed out, but what do you think about it. Criticism and feedback are welcome.

EDIT: Updated to clarify details about charging and overwatch (the defending models get to make their overwatch shots as though the charging squad were in open ground with a clear line of sight, no matter where they were when they declared the charge). I also added minor fluff explanations to a couple of points. Additionally, for standard charges, I prefer options B for both standard and desperate charges through cover (standard charges are D3 + 3, desperate are 3D6 drop the lowest). Additionally, I am considering removing Hammer of Wrath on a doubles for desperate charges.

RegalPhantom wrote: but what do you think about it. Criticism and feedback are welcome.

I think the game was built the way it was for a reason. To change a core mechanic smacks of arrogance or entitlement, neither of which are good reasons to change rules.

Alternatively: The game was built lazily and sloppily - as evidenced by numerous and critical interactions under which it breaks - with the idea that more random=more fun. This is a really good, and fluffy, fix that begins to put a fault back into rage, and rebuffs furious charge somewhat.

DarknessEternal wrote:

RegalPhantom wrote: but what do you think about it. Criticism and feedback are welcome.

I think the game was built the way it was for a reason. To change a core mechanic smacks of arrogance or entitlement, neither of which are good reasons to change rules.

You raise a decent point in that they probably had their reasons for introducing random charge distances into 6th edition, whatever those reasons may be. However, GW, like any other company, has to listen to the feedback about their product from their consumers and make adjustments to later releases in response to what the community says. This is not out of some idealized devotion to their customers or their product, this is about long term profit. If consumers aren't happy with a certain feature of a product, and if the next version of the product does not address this complaint, that person is more likely to purchase a product from a competitor. Additionally, just because something is presented as it is does not mean that the eventual product owners (ie, consumers) are unable to do anything about it's faults. Many video games allow for modding which can either change certain features of the game, such as the GUI or texture quality, or add entirely new ones. You can also get after market additions to your car, home, computer, and many other products. If one is unhappy with the GUI for their newest game, the default graphics card in their computer, or the current rules for assaulting enemy units, why shouldn't they be able to write the mod, buy the better part, or propose a house rule to their playgroup? I don't think it necessarily is arrogant or entitled, it's just using a product designed to give you enjoyment in the way which maximizes it.

But leaving that as an aside, from the individuals I have spoken to and what I have read online, my personal understanding of the situation is that the introduction of random charge distances into 6th has largely been received negatively. Yet at the same time, there is some good aspects to random charge distances that set it apart from fixed charged distances. So instead of making the choice arbitrarily binary (charges are either all 6" all the time or random 2D6 inches), I proposed a third method which, in theory, would allow individuals to have the best of both worlds in a balanced manner (standard charges are the same as they were in 5th, reckless charges have a chance at extra charge distance loose the extra attack that might just fail and leave you dead in the water). These are optional rules that one does not even have to propose to their playgroup, but if they like some aspects of both charge systems, it is something that they may either choose to use, or find inspiring enough to use as a "leaping off" point for their own house rules.

In short, I feel that it would be more constructive to provide an actual criticism of what is actually good or bad about this proposal, and why it is that way, instead of just bluntly dismissing any sort of change, followed by an attack on my character (an ad hominem logical fallacy).

Dang sir. You are an awesome writer bro! And well thought out too. But I'm hearing a lot of griping too y'know? The book explanation for random charge was kind of weak. What do you mean my Marines got just shy of the trench and just fell back because they 'thought better of it'!? And the Tyranids did what now? Ran in circles for a turn before charging? It is a little silly. And being a Tau guy I benefit a lot from the change.

I really dig the house rule you got going here. Few questions:
1.) Would it affect the rule and how you view it too much to drop the lowest die on a desperate charge? These guys are booking it after all. Just sounds more WAAAGH! to me that way.

2.) Do you think it would be bad to have overwatch shots fire at any point in the charge? Charging from behind a rock face would so troll. Or is the unit assumed to be in the open for overwatch shots? They are standing up and running straight at you afterall. Maybe dumb question.

3.) I get the desperate charge initiative one thing but that sounds really harsh, even for desperate charges. Would a initiative penalty of a point or two be better? Other wise even my Firewarriors will be kicking the Chaos lord in the warp jewels right before he swings that scythe. Or trying desperately anyway.

Only change I would make to charging would be to borrow the fantasy mechanic where if you don't roll high enough to make the charge you still move as far as the higher of the two dice.

I like the idea. I suggest reducing the standard charge distance from 6 inches to 4 inches however. This makes tactical maneuver more important and gives a real trade off for choosing between the two.

KnuckleWolf wrote:
I really dig the house rule you got going here. Few questions:
1.) Would it affect the rule and how you view it too much to drop the lowest die on a desperate charge? These guys are booking it after all. Just sounds more WAAAGH! to me that way.

2.) Do you think it would be bad to have overwatch shots fire at any point in the charge? Charging from behind a rock face would so troll. Or is the unit assumed to be in the open for overwatch shots? They are standing up and running straight at you afterall. Maybe dumb question.

3.) I get the desperate charge initiative one thing but that sounds really harsh, even for desperate charges. Would a initiative penalty of a point or two be better? Other wise even my Firewarriors will be kicking the Chaos lord in the warp jewels right before he swings that scythe. Or trying desperately anyway.

Thanks. In response to your questions.

1) I'm not entirely sure what you are asking, are you talking about desperate charges through open or difficult terrain? If through open terrain, I modeled the desperate charge after the current standard (2D6 charge) and honestly haven't put much thought or testing into an alternative. I also don't want to do 3D6 drop the lowest for a standard desperate charge because I want them to be... well... desperate. To me, the design philosophy behind the rule was that desperate charging was something that you did when you NEED to get into combat as soon as possible. It is a risk/reward payoff, you give up your additional attack in exchange for being able to potentially make a charge that you otherwise would, and when I was coming up with this rule I wanted to make sure that desperate charges were not the standard.

2) I perhaps should have elaborated more, but I agree with you that overwatch SHOULD treat the charging units as though they were in open ground, as you have to expose yourself to move forwards. However, I want overwatch to occur before a model moves. I will adjust that in the post.

3) Just to be clear, the initiative thing only occurs when charging against targets through terrain/cover. I believe that currently, the defending models in an assault through cover strike at I10 unless the charging unit has assault grenades (to clarify, I don't have my 6th, or even my old 5th rulebook with me, I'm referencing this off my old 4th rulebook, but I don't remember noticing that charging through cover changing from 4th, although it isn't something I was particularly focused on). I intended this to follow the current standard on charging against units in cover, and it applies to both standard and desperate charges (at least it should).

However, that being said, in retrospect, I feel that making the charging unit I1 instead of the defending I10 makes more sense for a couple of reasons. The first is that it doesn't make a bonus dependent on the unit having something, being subject to an action, and the opposing unit not having something. To me, it just seems cleaner for assault grenades to give the unit possessing them a bonus (assault through terrain at normal initiative) than for assault grenades to conditionally take away a bonus from another unit. The second is that it helps clear up the issue of multi-assaults with charging units that both do and don't have assault grenades (although if I were to do a full rewrite, I would make it so that as long as one unit that successfully charges another has assault grenades, all units that charge that squad the same turn count as having assault grenades, as the enemy will already have been flushed out into the open). The third is that it also creates fewer rules conflicts which would result in roll offs. At least referencing 4th edition, it says that units in cover strike at I10, which would create a conflict with weapons that would normally strike at I1. This change means that there are fewer conflicts, since there are few weapons that strike at a set initiative that is not 1.

Neat-o! Yeah, reading it the next day, not even I know what I was asking in number one there. Oh well. Cool man! I got it now.

wana10 wrote:Only change I would make to charging would be to borrow the fantasy mechanic where if you don't roll high enough to make the charge you still move as far as the higher of the two dice.

I considered something similar to this (if you failed, you still got to move the distance rolled), but I decided against this for a couple of reasons. The first is that if I implemented this idea, I would have to make it so that models with fleet could not make a desperate charge if they ran (it would give them a base 6" move, D6" run, and then an additional 2D6" move, which is a bit much. Also, as an aside, I consider making it so that models with fleet can no longer run and assault one of my least favourite changes from 5th to 6th, and this is coming from a player who is always on the receiving end of fleet units). I'm fine with them getting lucky if a desparate charge was succesful once in a while, but I was not a fan of letting them reliably cover 6 + 3D6 inches a turn, especially when they can currently "attempt to charge" a unit that is outside of their charge distance, and suffer no overwatch as long as they are outside of the range of that squads weapons.

The second is that, as already mentioned, I really want desperate charges to feel desperate, and I felt that if failure lead to being lightly shot at but still moving some distance, failing a charge wouldn't have the sense of defeat I was hoping it would.

The third is, in all honesty, I wanted to readjust Rage and somehow incorporate it with Desperate Charge, and giving the "move your charge distance with rage" gave the USR a nice "benefit and curse" feel to it.

PanzerLeader wrote:I like the idea. I suggest reducing the standard charge distance from 6 inches to 4 inches however. This makes tactical maneuver more important and gives a real trade off for choosing between the two.

I understand why one might want to do this, but I'm going to shy against suggesting it for two reasons. The first is that it conflicts with the standard movement of infantry models (6" move 6" standard charge has a nice cleanness to it). The second is that I still wanted standard charges to be the default option for most armies and circumstances, and if I make them too weak, there is less incentive to make a standard charge instead of a desperate one (mathematically speaking, a desperate charge has a 58% chance of yielding a charge distance greater than a standard charge, with a 4" charge that probability jumps to 83%).