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.

Eyjio wrote:

MaxT wrote:Because that way Jump troops (with a presumed Mv of 12") would have a guaranteed threat range of 31" ?! How is that in any way sensible ?

Well the easy solution to that is that you wouldn't give units a 12" move in such a system? It's rather extraordinary to talk about how unbalanced something would be given that A) we don't know what their movement is going to be at the minute anyway and B) the way you'd balance a 2x Movement system is different anyway.

So then you have Mv values far too close together, so any time you're not charging there's too little differentiation. Marines moving 6" on foot, and a max of 8" on a bike without breaking threat ranges. Bikes and Jump troops barely moving quicker than foot sloggers outside of charging things is way worse than abit of variation in charging.

Eyjio wrote:

Spoken like someone who's never played a Euro-style board game. Or chess, frankly. I'm not entirely sure why you think winners are predetermined in a complex game if you know what your actions actually do before you've taken them, but you couldn't be further from the truth. I mean, to be blunt, I don't even know why you're comparing rolling to hit (which is also present in combat anyway) with actually getting your models to do the thing they're designed to do without a random roll, let alone the nonsense about first turns or the hyperbole at the end, but there we go. Once again - the equivalent would be always randomly testing weapon range; do you think you would actually enjoy random gun ranges?

Mate, I *wish* I'd never played a euro-style game, I'd have way more space in my cupboard and money in the bank.

It was just a bit of lighthearted fun to make the point that random chance is employed mostly to make the game a bit more interesting and fun to play, so debating its removal from the game is a bit of a waste of time. Hence the gradual move from reasonable to exaggerated in my suggestions. You know, added it for yuks. Like dice rolls. But you're right, everyone should just play chess instead

 Bull0 wrote:

Eyjio wrote:

Spoken like someone who's never played a Euro-style board game. Or chess, frankly. I'm not entirely sure why you think winners are predetermined in a complex game if you know what your actions actually do before you've taken them, but you couldn't be further from the truth. I mean, to be blunt, I don't even know why you're comparing rolling to hit (which is also present in combat anyway) with actually getting your models to do the thing they're designed to do without a random roll, let alone the nonsense about first turns or the hyperbole at the end, but there we go. Once again - the equivalent would be always randomly testing weapon range; do you think you would actually enjoy random gun ranges?

Mate, I *wish* I'd never played a euro-style game, I'd have way more space in my cupboard and money in the bank.

It was just a bit of lighthearted fun to make the point that random chance is employed mostly to make the game a bit more interesting and fun to play, so debating its removal from the game is a bit of a waste of time. Hence the gradual move from reasonable to exaggerated in my suggestions. You know, added it for yuks. Like dice rolls. But you're right, everyone should just play chess instead

Thinking that "dice rolls are fun!" regardless of context is how we got Chaos Daemons.

 Bull0 wrote:
It was just a bit of lighthearted fun to make the point that random chance is employed mostly to make the game a bit more interesting and fun to play, so debating its removal from the game is a bit of a waste of time. Hence the gradual move from reasonable to exaggerated in my suggestions. You know, added it for yuks. Like dice rolls. But you're right, everyone should just play chess instead

Pretty much. If a game involves dice there's some variability. That can range from complete randomness (each player rolls 1 dice, highest rolls wins, GG) to close to chess levels of non-impact (say everything is predetermined except there's 1 in 100,000 chance of a move not working). 2 extremes, and wargames traditionally falls somewhere in the middle. Now exactly where along that line a person personally likes their variability, and under which specific mechanics they like their variability is simply opinion, not any factoid of "this level of variability is good, all others are bad." It's opinion. And opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one.

We can argue until we are blue in the face. Seems that GW has decided two things:

A minimum guaranteed Charge Range of 3" (due to the 1" engagement zone addition) is long enough. They could have increased it in many ways (2d6 with minimum of Move, Move +d6, d6+3, etc) but choose to make just he little adjustment with engagement zone

They like long epic charges so kept 2d6 instead of something shorter like flat Move

Musing on how stupid it is really isn't going to change things before they have even released the ruleset.

I don't really get where the panic concerning the viability of assault units and armies is coming from. As said before the probability curve of 2D6 is a bell curve. I last actively played in 5th edition (kept up to date with the rules and meta of the 6th and read the rules for the 7th) and back then very few people were complaining about the standardized 6" charge range with very few exceptions such as cavalry (which had a 6" movement to compensate). With the new 2D6 and the +1" bonus factored in, you have an around ~84% change to make that very same 6" charge. You also have a ~9% change to get a TWICE the charge range, with an exponentially increasing probability to get a charge range better than 6". Meanwhile the new minimum charge range, if you roll snake-eyes, is 3", and overall the probability to roll any charge distance below six inches is 16%. Those are goood odds and also mean that most of the time you will have a higher charge range than you did back in the 5th Edition, and that's before facturing in the extra movement some units get in the movement phase that happens prior in the same turn, and there might even be units with a special rule equivalent of the old sprint rule on top of it. People will realize that soon enough when they actually start playing a few games with the new rules (heck, or even test it out a few times with actual minis with the rules we have right now).

The big problem with the 2D6" charge in the 7th Edition is neither the randomness or even the overwatch as it is written in the rulebook itself.
The by far BIGGEST problem to cause the death of assault armies is the whole bullfeth "remove units from the front" mechanic that makes overwatch able to cancel charges in the first place, which is further escalated by the broken and overpowered overwatch buffs such as the Tau have them. Without the front model casualty removal and those crappy "x-number of units now overwatching your one assault" and other overwatch buffs the causualties are statistically insignificant when overwatch only happens from one or two units because of the 18" hit chance, unless your assault units is already falling apart to the point of those nigligible effects making your unit combat ineffective.

The good thing is that there are several factors that strongly indicate that the model removal from the front being gone:
a) The largest amount of changes so far has been based on AoS mechanics that are generally approved by the AoS community. in AoS casualty model removal is at the discretion of the unit owner, not unlike to how it was back in 40k 5th edition (at least wwhen equipment based wound spreading shenigans weren't involved).
b) We know that the playtesting has been done by very experienced tournament players and from many of the rule changes, particularly sorely needed buffs such as the pistol buff that we have been waiting for for decades, I at least feel like GW actually bothered to listen to the playtester feedback and incorporate it this time. Every single experienced tournament player will have called out the rather obvious reasons why assault armies are dead in the water in this edition. Same for the Tau overwatch boni.
c) The hints dropped by the G.W. staff member on the Warhammer community facebook, who seems to be part of the rules team as well considering the rather informed comments on not yet announced rule changes (such as the time when he/she flat-out confirmed that free daemon summoning will be gone), dropped a hint that the model removal will very likely not work as in this edition (it was a response to someone assuming that models will be removed from the front as it is handles now). If it would be otherwise there wouldn't have been any point in the staff responding in the first place (hinting that the rules are different than what they are going to be revealed to be rather soonish is pointless and harms their credibility and their new fanbase oriented NewGWtm image they want to establish, especially when pre-orders haven't even started yet).

So removal from the front and broken Tau-esque overwatch buffs are gone (I would be really surprised if either are still in) then even the new "unlimited overwatch" ability shouldn't be a big issue most of the time unless you make a habit out of declaring charges at 9"-12" of distance or declare charges against multiple units (who then all get to overwatch you unless they are already engaged).

At the very least people should wait how the casualty removal is going to work before going into "the sky is falling" mode.

 Crimson wrote:
Whilst I find the random charge range somewhat annoying, the alternatives presented here have helped to convince me that it actually is a pretty decent mechanic.

Absolutely this. Neither the M+6", M+D6 nor the 6"+D6 charge ranges that have been proposed in here would be balanced as high movement units such as jump pack users would have inane charge ranges which would likely enable turn 1 assaults (only way to prevent that with up to 31" of assault threat range being every game having both players start in the far corners or forcing deployment right along the table edge). No unit starting in the deployment zone belonging to the player going first should be able to get a turn 1 charge (or even any charges in the first turn, period, unless it's extreme cases such as enemy infiltrators or drop pods setting up shop next to your army), it would completely break armies such as Tau or IG that completely rely on shooting. Fast moving, high assault threat range units would dominate the meta while footslogging assault infantry would still be underdogs.

There is a limit to a ranged weapons ability to fire, it is called terrain. Terrain will not only block line of sight, but also grant a bonus to saves. This means that shooting will be viable in regards to getting to target a unit, but the casualties caused will actually be significantly lower.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
There is a limit to a ranged weapons ability to fire, it is called terrain. Terrain will not only block line of sight, but also grant a bonus to saves. This means that shooting will be viable in regards to getting to target a unit, but the casualties caused will actually be significantly lower.

The same terrain that hampers charges?

 alextroy wrote:
We can argue until we are blue in the face. Seems that GW has decided two things:
Musing on how stupid it is really isn't going to change things before they have even released the ruleset.

Yep. If people don't like it ... just play with house rules.
If you want to do the tournament scene with different rules, propose the rules to the ITC -- or start your own tournaments with your own house rules.

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:

Absolutely this. Neither the M+6", M+D6 nor the 6"+D6 charge ranges that have been proposed in here would be balanced as high movement units such as jump pack users would have inane charge ranges which would likely enable turn 1 assaults (only way to prevent that with up to 31"

Bikes, jump packs, and such are fast. That's the point.

There could also be a rule for no 1st turn charges and no charging from reserve. Done.

TL/DR, but here's my thoughts.

So far, so good. From the very limited selection of weapon profiles we've seen, seems light infantry aren't just there to be killed anymore. And that's a pretty massive change, especially given that cover now improves your save.

Depending on how Rend looks across the board, armies such as IG and Eldar just got a decent and much needed boost to survivability.

Tanks and MC now make me moist in my special places. I've long been an exponent of bringing parity to those unit types (even though there are now no unit types!) - and I'm very interested to see how the debilitating damage works out.

And off the back of that, I'm very much hoping we'll see a greater variety of heavy weapons on show, as with varying damage rates, shot numbers and Rend values, strikes me that previously reliable combos (such as the very old '5 man las/plas') won't be the no-brainers they were.

Don't get me wrong - I'm sure that in time the number crunchers among us will be able to demonstrate that certain combos or ratios of weapons give an edge - but it's my hope any such edge will be fairly small.

Here's to a new age, and I'm looking forward to getting my hands on it.

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:
I don't really get where the panic is coming from. As said before the probability curve of 2D6 is a bell curve. I last actively played in 5th edition (kept up to date with the rules and meta of the 6th and read the rules for the 7th) and back then very few people were complaining about the standardized 6" charge range with very few exceptions such as cavalry (which had a 6" movement to compensate). With the new 2D6 and the +1" bonus factored in, you have an around ~84% change to make that very same 6" charge. You also have a ~9% change to get a TWICE the charge range, with an exponentially increasing probability to get a charge range better than 6". Meanwhile the new minimum charge range, if you roll snake-eyes, is 3", and overall the probability to roll any charge distance below six inches is 16%. Those are goood odds and also mean that most of the time you will have a higher charge range than you did back in the 5th Edition, and that's before facturing in the extra movement some units get in the movement phase that happens prior in the same turn, and there might even be units with a special rule equivalent of the old sprint rule on top of it. People will realize that soon enough when they actually start playing a few games with the new rules (heck, or even test it out a few times with actual minis with the rules we have right now).

I wouldn't say I'm panicking. I'm just disappointed that a highly random system isn't changing when many other issues with the game seem to be fixed. It's like finding a bone shard in a perfectly cooked steak - you'll still have a great meal, but it could have been better pretty easily.

As for 6" charges, whilst you aren't wrong, the chance to fail that same roll in 5th edition was 0% because it was fixed distance. Even if you're only failing 1 in 6 times, that's enough that you'd expect it to happen at least once per game. In a system where the charging unit goes first, that could be hugely impactful on assault vs assault armies (if assault is indeed viable) - it essentially means games can be decided in one roll. I struggle to believe people will find it fun when, having dusted off their terminators, they then lose to Ork boyz because the dice fluffed at a critical moment and got hit in the face 100 times before they could react. It's that sort of situation I want to avoid - IMO, the meat of games should be decided on skill, with luck adding excitement as a spice; they shouldn't be all spice, no meat.

 kronk wrote:

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:

Absolutely this. Neither the M+6", M+D6 nor the 6"+D6 charge ranges that have been proposed in here would be balanced as high movement units such as jump pack users would have inane charge ranges which would likely enable turn 1 assaults (only way to prevent that with up to 31"

Bikes, jump packs, and such are fast. That's the point.

There could also be a rule for no 1st turn charges and no charging from reserve. Done.

Then you would have people complaining about how their fast troops would have to stop in front of enemy models and arbitrarily not being able to charge despite being in range to do so while getting shot to pieces at short range and complaining how unrealistic that all is. Those comments would flood forums.

Eyjio wrote:

I wouldn't say I'm panicking. I'm just disappointed that a highly random system isn't changing when many other issues with the game seem to be fixed. It's like finding a bone shard in a perfectly cooked steak - you'll still have a great meal, but it could have been better pretty easily.

As for 6" charges, whilst you aren't wrong, the chance to fail that same roll in 5th edition was 0% because it was fixed distance. Even if you're only failing 1 in 6 times, that's enough that you'd expect it to happen at least once per game. In a system where the charging unit goes first, that could be hugely impactful on assault vs assault armies (if assault is indeed viable) - it essentially means games can be decided in one roll. I struggle to believe people will find it fun when, having dusted off their terminators, they then lose to Ork boyz because the dice fluffed at a critical moment and got hit in the face 100 times before they could react. It's that sort of situation I want to avoid - IMO, the meat of games should be decided on skill, with luck adding excitement as a spice; they shouldn't be all spice, no meat.

Good point, but we do know that Command points will be able to change certain things such as assaults or charges (which do have their own phase now) once per phase while they last.
So if you can e.g. guarantee a successful charge or expend a point for an increase of the rolled charge range value you would have that 1 extreme instance in every game covered. Unless the player wastes his points on other buffs beforehand at his own discretion , which adds to the tactical depth of the game. Let's not give up on the steak just yet ;-).

Even with the fixed 6" range of 3rd to 5th edition, the charge range was almost always a random roll of 2d6, pick largest, because at least I charged almost every time through difficult terrain...

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:

Good point, but we do know that Command points will be able to change certain things such as assaults or charges (which do have their own phase now) once per phase while they last.
So if you can e.g. guarantee a successful charge or expend a point for an increase of the rolled charge range value you would have that 1 extreme instance in every game covered. Unless the player wastes his points on other buffs beforehand at his own discretion , which adds to the tactical depth of the game. Let's not give up on the steak just yet ;-).

This.

Remember that we are getting an inbuilt mechanic to curb the randomness.
We already know that command points will generate rerolls, i wouldn't be suprised if assault armies have command abilities related to charging.

If those mechanics works well, then the 2d6 system is better than any system that makes the movement stat count twice for threat range.

I'd be really curious to see a poll about who in this thread enjoys Blood Bowl and compare that to their opinions about the 2D6 charge range. In BB it's taken for granted that even a dedicated pro player will sometimes fall on their face and kill themselves during a simple move. Much of the gameplay is therefore about managing that risk and using your non-random moves to set up a favorable situation even if you fail. That seems relatively analogous to me regarding assault armies - if you're relying solely on a footslogger unit doing a >7" unmodified 2D6 charge as a game plan, you're doing the equivalent of a 1 dice block.

Dedicated Assault armies have the tools to modify those odds - either through fast screening units, transports, army rules to improve charge range, use of command points, coordinated assaults to tie up supporting units - so talking about 2D6 charge as the death of Assault armies doesn't make much sense to me. They just make you think about managing your risk. And if the rewards for winning assaults are good enough (which we'll see about soon) I think everything will be fine.

I also agree with the comment that the alternatives discussed for charge range just convince me that 2D6 works fine.

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:

Then you would have people complaining about how their fast troops would have to stop in front of enemy models and arbitrarily not being able to charge despite being in range to do so while getting shot to pieces at short range and complaining how unrealistic that all is. Those comments would flood forums.

You really should not put words in people's mouths. You suck at it.

Instead of running your bikes within' an inch and holding your throttle in your hand, you harry your opponent for a round, getting closer and shooting, setting up for a charge the following round. Also, bikes are pretty resilient now, and I expect them to be resilient in the new addition.

 His Master's Voice wrote:
Given how many suggestions of M+D6 charge ranges I see in this thread, it seems to me the issue is at least partially a matter of presenting the rule, rather than the mechanic itself. After all, units ARE charging M+2D6, it's just that assault weapon rules force the sequence to be broken up into two parts.

I don't particularly like the variance of a 2D6 roll, but at the same time, there is some elegant simplicity to it.

Right - an 8" move unit currently averages 15". With a range of 10"-20"

Under M+D6 it's 19.5". With a range of 17" to 22".
Mx2 it's 24" - HALF the board.

It would be almost impossible to avoid those units.

The only other idea that has merit was charge your move if you're within move. Otherwise roll 2D6. It still presents problems against very fast units, but it is more reasonable.

Leggy wrote:
Why is no one talking about how you can advance THEN charge? Or how you don't have to charge the unit you shot at? These are 2 big changes.

Because neither of these things has been confirmed.

 kronk wrote:

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:

Then you would have people complaining about how their fast troops would have to stop in front of enemy models and arbitrarily not being able to charge despite being in range to do so while getting shot to pieces at short range and complaining how unrealistic that all is. Those comments would flood forums.

You really should not put words in people's mouths. You suck at it.

Ad hominem already? *Politely points to forum rules*

 kronk wrote:
Instead of running your bikes within' an inch and holding your throttle in your hand, you harry your opponent for a round, getting closer and shooting, setting up for a charge the following round. Also, bikes are pretty resilient now, and I expect them to be resilient in the new addition.

And the jump pack troopers suffering from the same problem jump up and down in the air in front of the enemy shooting their pistols I presume? Just selectively picking one unit type and constructing a strawman (especially considering I didn't even mention bikes) to dismiss my point won't do. Nor did you adress the concern and issue of just arbitarily banning units starting the game on the board and normally moving to the enemy from assaulting them despite being in range and theeeeen them just magically being able to do so in round 2.

 KommissarKiln wrote:

Eyjio wrote:
it's stripping depth out of the game whilst replacing it with a system in which 2 dice can make or break an entire game. That's just not good design, and I don't care how you justify it to yourself, it's never going to be a good idea. You're still measuring fixed distances to stay away from the enemy either way, it's just that now you're rolling a dice to see if you get screwed by charge distance or if your opponent does.

This is one of those times when I read an opinion differing from mine and say, "Oh. That point really makes sense." Mark your calendars, everybody, someone on the Internet has been convinced of something!

It's a well reasoned argument, but i'll counter it (in my mind) - if you're losing the game on a single dice roll...you've done a lot of other things wrong.

theocracity wrote:
I'd be really curious to see a poll about who in this thread enjoys Blood Bowl and compare that to their opinions about the 2D6 charge range. In BB it's taken for granted that even a dedicated pro player will sometimes fall on their face and kill themselves during a simple move. Much of the gameplay is therefore about managing that risk and using your non-random moves to set up a favorable situation even if you fail. That seems relatively analogous to me regarding assault armies - if you're relying solely on a footslogger unit doing a >7" unmodified 2D6 charge as a game plan, you're doing the equivalent of a 1 dice block.

Dedicated Assault armies have the tools to modify those odds - either through fast screening units, transports, army rules to improve charge range, use of command points, coordinated assaults to tie up supporting units - so talking about 2D6 charge as the death of Assault armies doesn't make much sense to me. They just make you think about managing your risk. And if the rewards for winning assaults are good enough (which we'll see about soon) I think everything will be fine.

I also agree with the comment that the alternatives discussed for charge range just convince me that 2D6 works fine.

As another Blood Bowl player, this. Especially since team rerolls- excuse me, command point rerolls, are going to exist. While I'm not necessarily opposed to 6 + D6", as there is still a random element to those 8"+ from their target, plus the potential for charging through terrain. That chance of failing really does add to the risk management factor of assault.

For those who are about to jump up and yell "But KK, why should assault armies have to manage risk when shooting armies don't have to?!?1?one?!?" I say this: just hold your horses until we see exactly what happens to CC, GW seems to be dropping none too subtle hints about the potency of revised CC. I believe they will be adding some incentive to make CC worth it, making assault into a high risk/high reward play style.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 KommissarKiln wrote:

Eyjio wrote:
it's stripping depth out of the game whilst replacing it with a system in which 2 dice can make or break an entire game. That's just not good design, and I don't care how you justify it to yourself, it's never going to be a good idea. You're still measuring fixed distances to stay away from the enemy either way, it's just that now you're rolling a dice to see if you get screwed by charge distance or if your opponent does.

This is one of those times when I read an opinion differing from mine and say, "Oh. That point really makes sense." Mark your calendars, everybody, someone on the Internet has been convinced of something!

It's a well reasoned argument, but i'll counter it (in my mind) - if you're losing the game on a single dice roll...you've done a lot of other things wrong.

Pretty much this.

Random charge ranges mean you need a back up plan. That's not 'stripping out depth'. It's giving you something else to factor in.

It's absolutely no different to needing to roll to hit. Or roll to wound. Or hoping your opponent fails his Invulnerable saves, or blobbing your own.

The fewer 'sure things' in the game, the more you need to factor in the consequences of failure and plan ahead. If you fail to do so, it's not a failure of the game's design. I mean, where does that line of logic end? It starts with 'well if I always charged 6", I'd have won'. But the same can be said 'if all my weapons always rolled to hit exactly in line with statistical probability, I'd have won. If I never failed to wound, and you always failed your save, I'd have had you in turn three'. It's absolute Tommyrot and Bunkum.

 KommissarKiln wrote:


I believe they will be adding some incentive to make CC worth it, making assault into a high risk/high reward play style.

That's what I think. GW keeps implying that assault will be very deadly if you get to your target.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Pretty much this.

Random charge ranges mean you need a back up plan. That's not 'stripping out depth'. It's giving you something else to factor in.

It's absolutely no different to needing to roll to hit. Or roll to wound. Or hoping your opponent fails his Invulnerable saves, or blobbing your own.

The fewer 'sure things' in the game, the more you need to factor in the consequences of failure and plan ahead. If you fail to do so, it's not a failure of the game's design. I mean, where does that line of logic end? It starts with 'well if I always charged 6", I'd have won'. But the same can be said 'if all my weapons always rolled to hit exactly in line with statistical probability, I'd have won. If I never failed to wound, and you always failed your save, I'd have had you in turn three'. It's absolute Tommyrot and Bunkum.

Once again, combat weapons also need to hit and wound. The complaint is that this is a roll to see if your units can do the only thing they're designed to do. That's the contention. Hormagaunts don't get to have a contingency plan for failing a 4" charge - they just die. Ork boyz can't exactly go "well, we've moved to charge and fail, guess we'll walk back again now" - they just die. Meanwhile, shooting units get to keep their nice positions in cover or on objectives. It is absolutely a fault in the game's design that one type of unit has to do a special roll to see if they get to do the one thing they're good at, while shooting units have almost no restrictions. You can't just give a bunch of false equivalencies and say it's the same - it's not, you have every disadvantage of the randomness of shooting, but also have to pass one more test.

I wonder if overwatch is done from the point the target starts or if it can be done anywhere along the path that it's moving? The reason for this question is

Flamer hits everything within 8". A 9" charge is 41% chance of succeeding.

It is possible to make a 13" charge. With a 12 on the dice. Which would put you out of range of pistol overwatch.

Eyjio wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Pretty much this.

Random charge ranges mean you need a back up plan. That's not 'stripping out depth'. It's giving you something else to factor in.

It's absolutely no different to needing to roll to hit. Or roll to wound. Or hoping your opponent fails his Invulnerable saves, or blobbing your own.

The fewer 'sure things' in the game, the more you need to factor in the consequences of failure and plan ahead. If you fail to do so, it's not a failure of the game's design. I mean, where does that line of logic end? It starts with 'well if I always charged 6", I'd have won'. But the same can be said 'if all my weapons always rolled to hit exactly in line with statistical probability, I'd have won. If I never failed to wound, and you always failed your save, I'd have had you in turn three'. It's absolute Tommyrot and Bunkum.

Once again, combat weapons also need to hit and wound. The complaint is that this is a roll to see if your units can do the only thing they're designed to do. That's the contention. Hormagaunts don't get to have a contingency plan for failing a 4" charge - they just die. Ork boyz can't exactly go "well, we've moved to charge and fail, guess we'll walk back again now" - they just die. Meanwhile, shooting units get to keep their nice positions in cover or on objectives. It is absolutely a fault in the game's design that one type of unit has to do a special roll to see if they get to do the one thing they're good at, while shooting units have almost no restrictions. You can't just give a bunch of false equivalencies and say it's the same - it's not, you have every disadvantage of the randomness of shooting, but also have to pass one more test.

And sometimes a Blitzer will roll double skulls and cause a turnover, even though two dice blocks are exactly what they're supposed to do.

I think it's worth waiting till we see what the rewards of Assault are, as presumably there should be some better reward for the extra dice roll you make than just killing a single unit with shooting. If some form of consolidate into combat is back - which I think is reasonable with Overwatch and Withdraw mechanics in place - Assault could be a good way of controlling an enemy battle line.

Completely random charges as the default over ideal conditions (like open ground) are a bad game mechanic that doesn't make sense. Imagine if shooting units had to take a leadership check with increasing penalties every 3" from the target just to fire at all and they only got one chance at it as standard. They should have gone back to a constant charge distance individualized for each unit or at worst some combination of constant plus variable with increasing variability for worsening conditions like difficult terrain. It adds nothing to the game and is just randomness for randomness's sake.

 warboss wrote:
Completely random charges as the default over ideal conditions (like open ground) are a bad game mechanic that doesn't make sense. Imagine if shooting units had to take a leadership check with increasing penalties every 3" from the target just to fire at all and they only got one chance at it as standard. They should have gone back to a constant charge distance individualized for each unit or at worst some combination of constant plus variable with increasing variability for worsening conditions like difficult terrain. It adds nothing to the game and is just randomness for randomness's sake.

It's not a bad mechanic at all. You mean it's a mechanic you don't like.

the_scotsman wrote:


I don't think I've ever seen more rage coming out of gunline players than with the primaris power of my Harlequins' phantasmancy discipline.

What do you mean, I'm out of range? I just roll 2d6?? My range could be 4"? What do you mean I don't get to just select another target, you've got 3 other units in range of the number I rolled!

to-hit rolls exist in every form of combat. They're not what's being complained about. What is being complained about is an entirely all-or-nothing, highly variable roll nearly wholly independent of the quality of troop you're using, which determines the success or failure of the unit. The roll doesn't determine whether you succeed, it determines whether you're even allowed to try, which is not present in shooting, when the strongest shooting armies have the same or even higher maximum damage without the need for a random roll. A full Tau gunline can do just as much damage, can table you just as quickly, as a full melee KDK army getting into combat.

I invite all these people telling assault army players to stop complaining to try a simple experiment. Play a game with the following rules, and see whether you enjoy it or not:

All weapons with a 12" range get 2d6*2" range
All weapons with 24" range get 3D6*2" range
All weapons with 36" range get 4D6*2" range
All weapons with 48" range get 5D6*2" range.

If you declare a target and you're out of range, you don't get to fire. Your army will be just as good, if not better, because of the increased maximum ranges you can get! A 12" pistol could DOUBLE its current range, and gets a 14" range on average!

I'm not a gunline player but I still disagree with the comparison you're making. Charging has a distinct advantage over shooting and that's the movement itself. It's huge for getting to objectives and into the opponents deployment zone for scoring points. Charging is higher risk and reward and needs to be more random because of that. There is both increased damage coming from it (two rounds of combat per turn and most save and hit modifiers have not affected melee in the past although that could change) and the movement itself allowing you to win the missions.