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.

Lots of good discussion here, much to consider!

Regarding Charge Distance

The 2D6" you currently roll does have a nice bell curve to is, and 6-8" charge is most likely. There is chance for a 9"+ charge for deep striking units (I think the risk vs. reward here is a good thing). But the bigger issue is when you roll only a 2-5" charge - it's major feelsbad and I think this is where the angst sets in. People would likely be happier with fixed 6" charge rather than dealing with the unpleasantness of failing a 3" or 4" charge on occasion, for all the reasons mentioned above.

So here's a thought, what if charges are still 2D6" but anything lower than a 6 counts as having rolled a 6 (unless you have modifiers or bonuses that would push the natural roll above 6 anyway). In this way, the charge would always be 6" minimum to a max of 12", and retain the bell curve at the top end of the charge. This keeps the fun/risky part but cuts out the feelsbad part.

Regarding Deepstrike

In ProHammer (based on 5th), we made it so that you can charge out of deep striking, but you lose your bonus attacks for charging. It tones down the deep strike charge a bit, but keeps at as an option. If units can deep strike and SHOOT into critical targets at close range after dropping, it seems reasonable to me that they should be able to alternatively charge and fight. It's worked well.

I do like the older way of handling deepstrike (in theory at least) of rolling to scatter (coupled with reserve rolls on Turn 2+). It should be a risky thing because it can be so powerful. When it goes wrong and you scatter out of position, it often makes the game more interesting! We reworked deep striking in ProHammer so that you can deploy pretty much anywhere, but if you scatter onto or within 2" of enemy units the "mishap" occurs, which is that your opponent can place the unit in valid spot anywhere within 12" of the original location. Pretty exciting!

Adapting for 9th, the penalty could be that you no longer get to strike first when you charge out of deep strike, but rather in the normal order of things.

I saw a suggestion, from Some Bloke, for guaranteed charges, but with a penalty if you didn't make the charge normally. Here. That might work, with some tweaking.

 Mezmorki wrote:

So here's a thought, what if charges are still 2D6" but anything lower than a 6 counts as having rolled a 6 (unless you have modifiers or bonuses that would push the natural roll above 6 anyway). In this way, the charge would always be 6" minimum to a max of 12", and retain the bell curve at the top end of the charge. This keeps the fun/risky part but cuts out the feelsbad part.

4"+D6 is probably the closest to the current system. You can fail a 6" charge on a 1, but can't fail a 5". It gives you a slightly better chance of making a charge from Deepstrike (33% up from 28%) but largely trims the extremes without hugely affecting the main decision making zone.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I saw a suggestion, from Some Bloke, for guaranteed charges, but with a penalty if you didn't make the charge normally. Here. That might work, with some tweaking.

I quite like that idea. Could be expanded a bit too. For example, if you fail be 1-2" only, you charge but strike last. If you fail by 3" or more, you strike last and lose an attack or get a -1 to hit.

Random charges is a terrible mechanic. It is not fun. It is not tactical.

A charge should be twice a unit's movement value.

The biggest problem with charging is.......... IGOUGO!

Like everything in 40k, the problem can't be solved without rewriting the game, with implementing AA #1 on the to-do list.

Random charge range, along with many other horribly done mechanics made assault such a teeth pulling experience in 6th and 7th, and how they made if feel less awful in 8th and 9th was specifically adding a rogue's gallery of special rules and stratagems meant to "solve" this issue but still hurts armies that don't have the abilities or the spare CP to spend on said stategems. It's the clear it's not a good mechanic, and I fail to see what it's introduction was meant to solve.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Random charge range, along with many other horribly done mechanics made assault such a teeth pulling experience in 6th and 7th, and how they made if feel less awful in 8th and 9th was specifically adding a rogue's gallery of special rules and stratagems meant to "solve" this issue but still hurts armies that don't have the abilities or the spare CP to spend on said stategems. It's the clear it's not a good mechanic, and I fail to see what it's introduction was meant to solve.

+1. Typical GW: selectively adding army-specific special rules in top of a broken rule instead of fixing it or removing it. Just get rid of random charge distances. It worked fine in 3rd-5th editions.

Blastaar wrote:
Random charges is a terrible mechanic. It is not fun. It is not tactical.

A charge should be twice a unit's movement value.

The biggest problem with charging is.......... IGOUGO!

Like everything in 40k, the problem can't be solved without rewriting the game, with implementing AA #1 on the to-do list.

Pretty sure alternating activation as it is usually done (on a unit by unit basis) would actually make the current charge issues worse.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Pretty sure alternating activation as it is usually done (on a unit by unit basis) would actually make the current charge issues worse.

Not if you combine AA with out of turn order reactions and reduced movement speed for all models.

Pointed Stick wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Random charge range, along with many other horribly done mechanics made assault such a teeth pulling experience in 6th and 7th, and how they made if feel less awful in 8th and 9th was specifically adding a rogue's gallery of special rules and stratagems meant to "solve" this issue but still hurts armies that don't have the abilities or the spare CP to spend on said stategems. It's the clear it's not a good mechanic, and I fail to see what it's introduction was meant to solve.

+1. Typical GW: selectively adding army-specific special rules in top of a broken rule instead of fixing it or removing it. Just get rid of random charge distances. It worked fine in 3rd-5th editions.

Almost certainly tied to the implementation of pre-measuring. I get the logic; before, charges were uncertain because the player may have mis-judged the distance and the unit is actually out of range so they wanted to maintain that uncertainty. With pre-measuring one always knows the exact distance so fixed charge distance would always be 100% certain, 2d6 restores the element of not knowing if a charge will succeed. But I think they swung that pendulum too far. No one was misjudging distances so badly that they were declaring 9+ inch charges, or being uncertain they would make a 4" charge or not.

I’m in favour of random charge rules. But, how random is open to debate as far as I’m concerned.

Melee still remains a decent way to shift people off of objectives. And melee specialists, once up to their elbows, get to swing twice a game turn, in contrast to shooting which is only once per player turn.

Random charges absolutely add tension for both parties. I might take the risk that my opponent won’t make say, a 9” charge and lose. Depending on situations, that could cost me the game.

It also helps to cut down on “keep away” tactics. When charges were mostly a fixed 6”, one had the option to simply back up, giving ground.

But, Snake Eyes can happen on a 2D6 roll. So at the moment, and not counting any boosts, it feels a bit too random.

D6+M could be a balancing factor. That way, I can still play Keep Away to some extent, but charges can be made more reliable through cunning play.

Let’s explore with a ropey example, basing it on the aforementioned D6+M. Now this is a ropey example, so I’m not factoring in who has what M, nor who has bonuses to charge distance.

If your unit is M4? Then, including your movement in the cunningly named Movement Phase, I know that your longest charge reach is M4+D6+M4, for 14”. Your minimum is going to be 9” (stop giggling at the back). And your median is around 12” (really, grow up. Honestly.).

If I don’t much fancy a kicking, that gives me some choices to make. With pre-measuring, I’ll know the distance of course. Let’s say it’s.....11”.

The start of my turn, I can either remain exactly where I am, and trust to my shooting phase to reduce your numbers (this can mean you face a long charge distance, the unit is no longer combat effective, or is taken off the board entirely). I could also back up to create space, potentially losing out on Rapid Fire, but making your charge less likely. The amount I back up by (perhaps I’m needing to seize an objective, and don’t want to move too far lest I never be able to reach it) might also vary.

That is a simplified set of tactical decisions I’ll need to make, based on a given situation.

Likewise, you can use your more reliable charge reach to force those decisions upon me.

And where M stats can and do vary, it means I’ll need to consider such actions on a game to game basis, as your guaranteed charge reach changes along with the Max and Median distance.

Might want to cap that d6+M at d6+6 though.

I love the irony of units that can charge faster than they can move or even run/advance in the current edition.


As somebody who has gone back to playing 5th i think my position is pretty clear. standard movement and charge distances for all units for simplicity of play with variations given by immersive terrain interaction (representing moving in difficult/rough terrain) and unit type--beast/leaping/cavalry VS foot slogging infantry. tactical play becomes a thing when you don't have to rely on luck to get off a charge or otherwise interact with the mechanics of movement/running/charging.

 aphyon wrote:
I love the irony of units that can charge faster than they can move or even run/advance in the current edition.


As somebody who has gone back to playing 5th i think my position is pretty clear. standard movement and charge distances for all units for simplicity of play with variations given by immersive terrain interaction (representing moving in difficult/rough terrain) and unit type--beast/leaping/cavalry VS foot slogging infantry. tactical play becomes a thing when you don't have to rely on luck to get off a charge or otherwise interact with the mechanics of movement/running/charging.

Part of the reason I bailed on 8th WFB was because the game mechanic meant that there was a chance, however unlikely, that a Dwarf unit on foot could outcharge cavalry. There isn't a world in this multiverse where you can tell me that mechanic makes sense from ANY direction other than "Yessir, GW."

The solution is very simple: We should keep the base system (2d6), but units should have a baseline charge range and / or bonuses on top of the baseline and 2d6. Then, as a direct result, melee damage should be paired down.

Now, before all the space marine, tau, and eldar players gak their pants in rage, hear me out.

2d6 should represent your average unit attempting to charge. Any guys which fall into not broad-strokes average mobility and / or not tailor made to bumrush into the enemies teeth, should have this roll. It allows you to represent these units (which again, probably don't want to rush into melee as their first plan) firing as they advance, having to stow weapons as they attempt to charge, not being trained in mounting a charge over rough terrain, or generally not having "charge into the teeth of the enemy" as therefor being somewhat unreliable at doing it (perhaps because they need some extra prodding to get moving. This might be guardsmen, firewarriors, guardians, or tac-squads. All squads which have different reasons for being 'unreliable on the draw' in this avenue, but are still perfectly capable of rising to the occasion.

After this you should have various bonuses to charge based on a units specialization, equipment, excitement, ect.

Orks, for example, could have something like a baseline charge range of 2, with the exception of grots. So all ork units charge 2+2d6 inches. This does a good job representing how all orks being eager and excited to charge into combat - even if they have big guns - but they're more excited than they are fast or skilled. So while they're not infallible and some of them will inevitably trip, by and large they make up for some clumsiness with sheer energy. Then you certain units get additional changes. Meganoz, for example, might only have a base charge of 1 for 1+2d6, because while just as excited they're also heavy and slow. Where as the super agile (by ork standards) deffkopta may have 3 or 4 as its baseline charge.

You could even factor this into their special rules. Bring back Waaagh! and have it effect baseline charge for a turn, for example.

On the flip-side an army like Tyrands would have much more variance in their charge baselines. Slow and lumbering juggernauts like the Carnifex might have 1 or 0 as their baseline. Termagants may have 1, where as Lictors and Hormagaunts could have 4 or 6 respectively to represent their insane speed and specialization. gak, you could tie parts of this into Synapse, to help make it more interesting than "Does your unit eat itself or suffer attrition?"

This system lets you retain the important aspects of range charge ranges (basically a counter-weight to calculated kiting in a game which allows pre-measuring), while also allowing for easy methods to represent different races - and different units - having different levels of familiarity, interest, and flat-out ability to close into melee range and break skulls.

Now this does come with some marked changes. Primarily that melee armies would be getting much faster. Some units, such as jump troops, would have large and reliable threat bubbles. Where as something like the humble hormagaunt would also he far more troublesome.

I'd argue this isn't a bad thing. Modern melee is basically Shooting -2. It's just as deadly but highly contextual, subject to even more RNG, and you get the snot kicked out of you while you try to get there.

That said, melee would invariably need to be less potent. As I stated modern melee is just as lethal as shooting (which is far too lethal), but it does come with a few perks which somewhat offset its weaknesses. Primarily that shooting units generally cannot fight back, and your enemy re-engaging their ability to shoot requires them to move out of position as well as suffer other consequences. Heavily mitigating the unreliability, but also leaving in all of the killiness and tactical perks, would tilt us back in 3rd edition territory of melee-or-die.

Making it so that melee units can reliably reach melee means that armies - even melee armies - have to actually think about screening. Modern screening is just a guardsmen squad or two for bubble wrap and then call it a day. This sort of implementation would require continued awareness of enemy threat ranges and constant re-adjustment, as it would be far harder to maroon melee squads in no-man's land and then blow them away or ignore them. Coupled with some changes to lethality it would make melee armies less about mass-deleting your foe, and more about harrying them to force them out of position and keep their weapons from being fully brought to bear. Yes you'd still have super dangerous squads out there, but not as many.

It also opens the door to more interesting interactions and reasons-for-existing. Having different types of terrain effect charges different (flat negatives, roll three die discard the highest one, ect) is a good start. Defender and attacker special roles & rules, where some units specialize in attacking (mitigating or ignoring terrain problems, getting extra dangerous on the charge, or just being crazy mobile through base stats) while others might shine when taking a charge (units intercepting charges, additional defense when charged, and even more interesting charge reactions than "Do you want to overwatch before they move, or nah?").

Lastly, as with all things, this would heavily benefit from the same thing all of 40k is sorely lacking: Suppression. A way to interact with enemy units which is not only removing them from the table, but specifically and reliably impeding their ability to take actions or the effectiveness of those actions. And, of course, space marines should be effected as well.

I think reliably extending the charge range is the opposite of what we need right now.
Already a threat range of ~19" (including movement) is standard for a lot of units with many going even higher.
That's almost what shooting ranges are, 24" is standard rifle range.

Back in 5th-7th edition the maximum threat range was 18", and I'm not aware of any shenigans that extended that. Unlike the advance and charge, or charge 3d6, or similar that is very common today.
Especially if you tie long charge ranges to fast units, you just double down on their speed. IMO fast unit's greater charge speed is already accounted for in the movement phase.

I think the current 40k round sequence leaves a lot to be desired, and charges could be improved if a completely different system was adopted. But this isn't the place for that.

Instead I think a moderate charge range of ~6" should be maintained, and any randomness should be moderate. 2d6 just leaves too much variance between 2 and 12. d3s are lovely, a 5+d3 charge leaves you with approximately the same average charge range as is current, but without the extremes.
A 3+d6 would achieve the same, albeit with greater variance and greater extremes.

Those do introduce problems with deepstrike. However, if you want to maintain the chance of a successful deepstrike charge as approximately equal you could even just reduce the minimum deepstrike distance. I can't think of any major consequences of >9" (as opposed >8" perhaps) other than on charge distance.

 Mezmorki wrote:
Lots of good discussion here, much to consider!
So here's a thought, what if charges are still 2D6" but anything lower than a 6 counts as having rolled a 6 (unless you have modifiers or bonuses that would push the natural roll above 6 anyway). In this way, the charge would always be 6" minimum to a max of 12", and retain the bell curve at the top end of the charge. This keeps the fun/risky part but cuts out the feelsbad part.

A similarish rule exists in Ninth Age, where taking a Champion for a unit lets it 'set' its 2d6 roll to 4, thus letting most infantry units charge 4+4, instead of 4+2d6. Units with Swiftstride can roll an extra die and discard the lowest, but one of the more 'haha cute' bonuses is the fact that a unit charging downhill can choose to reroll its charge distance.

Mind, 9th Age has far weaker shooting compared to WHFB 8th on account of army percentage caps and not using AOE markers so there's room for random charge manipulation.

The only thing about using 2d6 minimum 6 is that it feels really awkward to ignore the die results almost half the time. Just feels a bit clunky to use a multiple die mechanic to get a bell curve when you really only want half the bell curve. At that point, something like 1d6 + 4 just seems simpler. You lose the possibility of making 11" and 12" charges, but I think I'd kind of be okay with that.

In the context of 9th edition where the board is smaller and giving ground is usually a bad idea, having the option to cede ground and kite more reliably doesn't seem so bad.

Wyldhunt wrote:
The only thing about using 2d6 minimum 6 is that it feels really awkward to ignore the die results almost half the time. Just feels a bit clunky to use a multiple die mechanic to get a bell curve when you really only want half the bell curve. At that point, something like 1d6 + 4 just seems simpler. You lose the possibility of making 11" and 12" charges, but I think I'd kind of be okay with that.

Pretty much.

That's one of the reasons I liked the idea of M+dX for charge range. You have a set number you can rely on, but it still adds some randomness to the equation. That randomness is key when you can measure the distance of a charge before hand (and that includes those carpenters who can do it by eye).

The range of that randomness should take in to account average board size. For big boards, with a low number of models a higher end range like d6 or even 2d6 makes sense. For crowded boards, either due to model numbers, lower borders, or just thick terrain options, a lower end like d3 makes more sense. Also in consideration is just what the average number for M is in relation to the map itself. 4" across a 48" field is huge, but much smaller to an average of 6", and almost tiny to 8".

Also in consideration is when that randomness is applied. Do you do all Movement, including Charging in the Movement Phase (thus cutting off ranged support that turn)? Do you use the M in the Movement Phase, then the randomness in the Assault Phase? Do you forgo any movement in the Movement Phase and dedicate it all to the Assault Phase? Do you ignore what happened in the Movement Phase and apply the full tamale of M+dX even if they did the full move before hand?

Part of that is based on what your board size is, but also in consideration is how much range your shooting provides. Warmachine is interesting because Charge Range is always M+3", requiring a minimum of 3" to gain any bonus. The average M rating is 6" for Infantry and 5" for the Robots and Beasts, plus some of the melee weapon ranges can be up to 2". The average shooting range is between 10" and 12". The average Shooting range in 40K is closer to 24". Larger charge ranges in 40K make sense because in order for melee to actually be of any use, they either have to avoid LoS on approach (cover, deep strike, etc). absorb the shots (Wounds or Saves), or be able to close fast to accomplish the job.

Those are the considerations one should be making when making Charging rules.

Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I think the entire Morale and Charge phases should be removed. You declare a Charge in the Movement phase (much like Advance, Fall Back, and Remain Stationary), and you have to pass a leadership check. If you succeed, you can move your units into engagement range; any unit within 1" of another unit in engagement range may be eligible to fight in the fight phase. If you fail, that unit cannot move at all.

The immediate effects of this are:
1. We get rid of two phases, which saves us time.
2. Melee units can just get more Move stat rather than an entire extra set of complicated movement rules.
3. Charge and Advance become different choices, because honestly, Advance+Charge through terrain is just pure, unmitigated cancer that creates massive codex inequity.
4. You cannot charge after deep striking. More game design chemotherapy.
5. Pistols become a lot more important for melee units, since charging means you cannot shoot non-pistol weapons.
6. Leadership matters a lot more. Rules like Summary Execution and And They Shall Know Some Fear now are applied to charges as well as morale checks (which should be forced by abilities rather than a once-per-turn thing).

 Suzuteo wrote:
Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I think the entire Morale and Charge phases should be removed. You declare a Charge in the Movement phase (much like Advance, Fall Back, and Remain Stationary), and you have to pass a leadership check. If you succeed, you can move your units into engagement range; any unit within 1" of another unit in engagement range may be eligible to fight in the fight phase. If you fail, that unit cannot move at all.

The immediate effects of this are:
1. We get rid of two phases, which saves us time.
2. Melee units can just get more Move stat rather than an entire extra set of complicated movement rules.
3. Charge and Advance become different choices, because honestly, Advance+Charge through terrain is just pure, unmitigated cancer that creates massive codex inequity.
4. You cannot charge after deep striking. More game design chemotherapy.
5. Pistols become a lot more important for melee units, since charging means you cannot shoot non-pistol weapons.
6. Leadership matters a lot more. Rules like Summary Execution and And They Shall Know Some Fear now are applied to charges as well as morale checks (which should be forced by abilities rather than a once-per-turn thing).

Are you sure charging out of deepstrike removal is a good idea?
Daemons would auto disagree.
And frankly shooting is FAR more devastating imo out of deepstrike.

 Suzuteo wrote:
Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I think the entire Morale and Charge phases should be removed. You declare a Charge in the Movement phase (much like Advance, Fall Back, and Remain Stationary), and you have to pass a leadership check. If you succeed, you can move your units into engagement range; any unit within 1" of another unit in engagement range may be eligible to fight in the fight phase. If you fail, that unit cannot move at all.

The immediate effects of this are:
1. We get rid of two phases, which saves us time.
2. Melee units can just get more Move stat rather than an entire extra set of complicated movement rules.
3. Charge and Advance become different choices, because honestly, Advance+Charge through terrain is just pure, unmitigated cancer that creates massive codex inequity.
4. You cannot charge after deep striking. More game design chemotherapy.
5. Pistols become a lot more important for melee units, since charging means you cannot shoot non-pistol weapons.
6. Leadership matters a lot more. Rules like Summary Execution and And They Shall Know Some Fear now are applied to charges as well as morale checks (which should be forced by abilities rather than a once-per-turn thing).

The problem with removing two phases is that there's way less creative room and messes up how strats are played.
However, declaring charges in the movement phase is not a gakky idea. But again: Restructuring of strats.

1. Why is everyone so god damn hellbent of saving time everywhere? If you don't like the ammount of time it takes to play the game: Play fewer points, of another game alltogether.
2. Yeah, because increasing movement won't get broken fast. And what designates a CC unit? I play both DG and Custodes, and neither army has any good pure CC units. What designates a "CC-unit"?
3. I agree. And if there's a strat to allow a unit to do such a thing, give that to every army and make it a once per game strat..
4. Then nobody is going to deepstrike any CC unit ever. That would nerf so many lists and relegate deepstriking to units that can shoot like there's no tomorrow. *Deepstrikes in. Stands around with knives, flails, axes and clubs in hand. Looks menacingly at enemy. Dies. Free points to the enemy."
5. Not being able to shoot non-pistol weapons if you charge is not a gak idea.
6. I don't agree at all with your version of morale. However, I do agree that it needs to matter. In all my games in 8th and 9th, I've taken about 4 morale tests. Morale nowadays just doesn't matter. At all. Change it back to how it was in 5'th.

If we are looking to ONLY change how charging works:

To you who say that charge distance should be double move distance: Is an effectively guaranteed 36" charge a good idea? Really?

And those that propose that everything should charge 4/5/6 +D6, does that REALLY include vehicles?

To those that propse no charging after deepstrike: That's how you remove every single CC deepstrike ever. Yeah, sure I'll offer my units up fpr free! Great idea!






Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yes, rolling snake eyes on a charge feels bad for YOU, but it feels amazing for your opponent. Suddenly, that unit of guardsmen defending an objective isn't guaranteed slaughtered. I even propose that rolling double ones should be an autofail, just like hitting in CC and shooting. A unit should always have a chance -no matter how small- to survive.

Reducing the amount of wasted time in a game is absolutely a good thing.
Personally, I think rolling fist fulls of dice 8 times for every shooting attack is a waste of time and adds very little to the game over a leaner attack sequence.

The game worked perfectly fine before GW started throwing around rerolls like sweets on Halloween.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Reducing the amount of wasted time in a game is absolutely a good thing.
Personally, I think rolling fist fulls of dice 8 times for every shooting attack is a waste of time and adds very little to the game over a leaner attack sequence.

The game worked perfectly fine before GW started throwing around rerolls like sweets on Halloween.

Yeah, who would ever want to roll dice in a game based on dice!

I do totally agree with that, though! Everything keeps rerolling everything all the time.

Shoot - reroll, save - reroll

It should be: Shoot - save - FNP.

Just because it's a dice based game doesn't mean the gameplay should be centered around modifying and rolling dice.
That's unfortunately exactly what 40k is right now.

You can get ridiculousness like
Shoot, reroll, exploding hits, reroll
Wound, reroll
Saves, reroll
Damage, reroll
FNP
And all of that with literal hand fulls of dice at a time, ending in maybe a few casualties.

I'm honestly looking forwards to trying out Grimdark Future.
It cuts all that crap down to "hit, save, die". So much faster and you know what? It doesn't feel any different at the end of the day.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Just because it's a dice based game doesn't mean the gameplay should be centered around modifying and rolling dice.
That's unfortunately exactly what 40k is right now.

You can get ridiculousness like
Shoot, reroll, exploding hits, reroll
Wound, reroll
Saves, reroll
Damage, reroll
FNP
And all of that with literal hand fulls of dice at a time, ending in maybe a few casualties.

I'm honestly looking forwards to trying out Grimdark Future.
It cuts all that crap down to "hit, save, die". So much faster and you know what? It doesn't feel any different at the end of the day.

Well, basically everything except basic movement is dice based...
And for me, the less dice, the less chance/risk and the less randomness, the less fun it is for me. Like deepstriking. It used to be so risk/reward. Now it's just "plopp" and they are there.

I do agree that it's WAY too many rerolls all over the shop.

Random charge distance is needed as long as pre-measuring is allowed, as otherwise it is just to easy to stay outside the threat range.

 Tyran wrote:
Random charge distance is needed as long as pre-measuring is allowed, as otherwise it is just to easy to stay outside the threat range.

Well, no. As long as advancing/run exists, it's always possible to get closer to the enemy than the enemy can move away, and if the enemy also ran to get away then I've at least caused a tactical choice, and especially with the smaller maps in 9th it's much more likely the enemy will eventually run out of space to run.

Always having a chance to fumble a charge roll, even a short ranged one, just gives shooting a "get out of trouble free" card., expecially since having the pre measuring is still a major boon even with random charge rolls.

Except that most units cannot Advance/Run and charge in the same turn, so not really.

And it isn't just the chance of failing a charge roll, but also the chance of making a long one.

Lets remember that before the random charge distance, the standard charge range was 6". Nowadays it isn't unheard of lucky charges making 10" or more, and players need to consider such possible lucky rolls when trying to stay outside threat range.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Random charge distance is needed as long as pre-measuring is allowed, as otherwise it is just to easy to stay outside the threat range.

Well, no. As long as advancing/run exists, it's always possible to get closer to the enemy than the enemy can move away, and if the enemy also ran to get away then I've at least caused a tactical choice, and especially with the smaller maps in 9th it's much more likely the enemy will eventually run out of space to run.

Always having a chance to fumble a charge roll, even a short ranged one, just gives shooting a "get out of trouble free" card., expecially since having the pre measuring is still a major boon even with random charge rolls.

I play three armies and I have not a single unit that can move then run/advance and then charge. Not even with strats.