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.

One of the biggest complaints that I have heard about 6th edition and 7th edition 40k is random charge ranges. While in theory they could be giving you more distance, in practice 2D6 often screws assault armies over and does not properly punish people for making mistakes in movement. (Alliteration FTW) I have therefore come up with this proposal to change the rules for charge distances, as well as other relevant rules:

Charge Move: All units, unless otherwise specified, have a 6 inch charge move.

Charging Through Difficult Terrain: Instead of making their normal 6 inch charge move, a unit that makes a charge through difficult terrain rolls 2D6 and picks the highest to determine it's charge move. In addition, units that charge through difficult terrain are reduced to Initiative 1.

Assault Grenades: A unit equipped with assault grenades is not reduced to Initiative 1 when charging through difficult terrain.

Jump Infantry: A unit of Jump Infantry that did not use their jump packs in the movement phase may use their jump packs in the assault phase. If the unit chooses to do so, they have a 6" charge move even through difficult terrain. Furthermore, if the unit uses their jump packs in the assault phase, it may roll an additional D6 for determining their charge move (normally 6+D6 inches) and gains the Hammer of Wrath special rule. Dangerous terrain tests must be taken as normal.

Move Through Cover: A unit with the Move Through Cover special rule is not affected by difficult terrain in the movement phase, automatically passes dangerous terrain tests, and has a 6 inch charge move even through difficult terrain. In addition, a unit with this special rule is not reduced to Initiative 1 when charging through difficult terrain.

Fleet: A unit with the Fleet special rule may re-roll any dice for determining their run move. In the assault phase, a unit with this special rule has a 6 inch charge move even through difficult terrain, and may roll an additional D6 when determining the units's charge move (normally 6+D6 inches).

Skilled Rider: A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule automatically passes dangerous terrain tests, and receives +1 to its Jink cover saves (other cover saves are unaffected). In addition, the unit has a 6 inch charge move through difficult terrain and is not reduced to Initiative 1 when charging through difficult terrain.

Vehicle Disembarkation Restrictions: A unit that begins its Movement phase embarked upon a vehicle can disembark either before or after the vehicle has moved (including pivoting on the spot, etc.) so long as the vehicle has not moved more that 6 inches. After disembarking, models can manifest psychic powers, shoot (counting as having moved) or run in the Shooting phase, and charge in the Assault phase. However, if a unit disembarks from a vehicle that had moved other than to pivot on the spot in the Movement phase, the unit may only make a Disordered Charge in the subsequent Assault phase. If a unit disembarks from a destroyed vehicle during either players turn, the unit may not charge in either player's subsequent Assault phase unless the destroyed vehicle was an Assault Vehicle.

Assault Vehicle: Passengers in a vehicle with this special rule may disembark as long as the vehicle has not moved more than 12 inches (follow all other rules for disembarking), unless the vehicle arrived from Reserve that turn. In addition, units that disembark from an Assault Vehicle that moved other than to pivot on the spot in the movement phase do not make a Disordered Charge in the subsequent Assault phase.

Effects of Damage on Passengers:
-Crew Shaken/Crew Stunned/Weapon Destroyed/Immobilized At the end of a phase in which a vehicle suffered one of these results on the Vehicle Damage Table, the passengers must make a Leadership Test. If passed, the unit is unaffected and acts as normal. If failed, the unit may only fire Snap Shots any may not charge in the subsequent Assault Phase if the unit disembarks.

My overall philosophy with these proposed rules was one of standardization. I wanted to make the 6" charge the default, with all the modifiers working off that baseline. For the sake of simplicity, I wanted to make charging through difficult terrain the same as moving through difficult terrain. One of the few things that I liked about random charge ranges was the ability to charge more than 6 inches, which is why I have allowed such circumstances to occur with the right unit type and special rules. In addition, I wanted to reduce the reliance on assault grenades, as I feel this unfairly penalizes armies that have limited access to this wargear. After some feedback and more consideration, I decided to overhaul the rules for vehicle disembarkation to allow for units to charge after disembarking.

Any feedback or comments would be greatly appreciated.

Edit: Changed title.
Edit: Added skilled rider and changed disembarkation rules.
Edit: Changed wordings of vehicle damage effect and assault vehicle to improve clarity.
Edit: Changed title. On the suggestion of jade_angel, I have implemented disordered charges into the disembarking rules.

I heartily approve. Yes, there's plenty of randomness in the game, but it's almost always averaged out over a large number of die rolls -- except for charges, where one lousy roll can screw over an entire unit.

The average roll for a charge is 7" compared to it being 6". I'd rather take a half chance I get 7"+ than a standard 6" charge.

The only thing I'd want to see in that list is fleet returning to being able to assault after running, but otherwise it feels like a step in the right direction.

Meh - there is an 83.3% chance of getting 5 or higher. Plan accordingly.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:The average roll for a charge is 7" compared to it being 6". I'd rather take a half chance I get 7"+ than a standard 6" charge.

On the other hand, there is a 50% chance you roll 6 or less for your charge range. Without Fleet, assault armies are currently playing a coin toss every time they declare a charge, worse through difficult terrain.

liquidjoshi wrote:The only thing I'd want to see in that list is fleet returning to being able to assault after running, but otherwise it feels like a step in the right direction.

I feel that could lead to imbalance issues, especially with armies that have increase run moves for certain units (Tyranids, Daemons) or auto-run 6 inches (Eldar). Besides, the point of running is sacrificing shooting in order to increase mobility and put the unit in a better position. I feel running and then charging could be a bonus given to certain units and formations, but not part of the default rules.

Hmm. That's a good point about Eldar and Daemons, actually, although only Fleet units would actually still be able to charge after running. OP's ideas probably work better when you consider those units.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

On the other hand, there is a 50% chance you roll 6 or less for your charge range.

6 or less is 41.6%.

I like the concept, especially the nerf to bikes (or well no additional range). That should stay, just buff reavers please.

Seriously though I agree with Slayer-fan I prefer the chance at longer charges over guaranteed in or out of 6" range. the threat can effect your opponents actions whereas a set value only will if your in range.

How about at least extending the range to 6" PLUS 1D6", with fleet, JPs etc adding an additional D6"? Assaults are hard to pull off as is, I personally feel shortening the range would hurt more even though it would be guaranteed. Caveat- you would need to spell out no first turn assaults similar to the former fantasy version r.i.p.

6"+ 1d6

zgort wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:

On the other hand, there is a 50% chance you roll 6 or less for your charge range.

6 or less is 41.6%.

Still too much in my opinion. I know many people, including myself, have experienced the situation where a failed charge roll lost people the game. There is around a 50% chance that people will fail a 6 inch charge through difficult terrain. Random charge ranges add an unnecessary level of randomness to a phase that is already overshadowed in the game.

dominuschao wrote:I like the concept, especially the nerf to bikes (or well no additional range). That should stay, just buff reavers please.

Seriously though I agree with Slayer-fan I prefer the chance at longer charges over guaranteed in or out of 6" range. the threat can effect your opponents actions whereas a set value only will if your in range.

How about at least extending the range to 6" PLUS 1D6", with fleet, JPs etc adding an additional D6"? Assaults are hard to pull off as is, I personally feel shortening the range would hurt more even though it would be guaranteed. Caveat- you would need to spell out no first turn assaults similar to the former fantasy version r.i.p.

I don't think that extending the 6+1D6 range to everyone is a good idea. Infantry move 6", most run 6" maximum, and now charge 6". It's both easy to understand and relatively balanced; you know exactly how far your unit will charge, and your opponent knows that in order to avoid the charge they have to stay out of that bubble or hide in terrain.

The reasons why assaulting units is hard in 7th edition is that only the truly fastest infantry units can get in proper range thanks to changes to the vehicle rules. Overwatch doesn't have nearly the amount of firepower people give it credit for, except for Tau overwatch.

Hmmmm....I think I can give some love to Reavers (and other certain bikers)....

I don't like it. Orks had to eat enough nerfs, and hardly compete with some of the new codexes. Their current average assault is 8" (re-rolling 1 die). With this they would lose 2 inches.

I don't think the orks really deserve more nerfs, do you?

 JimOnMars wrote:
I don't like it. Orks had to eat enough nerfs, and hardly compete with some of the new codexes. Their current average assault is 8" (re-rolling 1 die). With this they would lose 2 inches.

I don't think the orks really deserve more nerfs, do you?

I don't think the new rules for Vehicle Disembarkation counts as a nerf...

But seriously, the Ork codex needs to be totally redesigned. Being able to charge 8 inches across flat ground clearly isn't cutting it.

The assault vehicle changes really help Orks, Dark Eldar and to a lesser extent Harlequins and Eldar, actually, and are pretty good for Space Marines, too - assault forces in a Stormraven can be pretty much anywhere, and Land Raiders become more useful.

A useful way to handle Orks, though, might be to let 'Ere We Go give them a fixed 8" charge distance subject to all the other modifications (so 8+d6 for jump, etc).

Maybe let Reavers, Skyweavers and Shining Spears just charge 12", straight up? I don't think most Bikes should get this, but what about the few non-Eldar Jetbikes?

 TheNewBlood wrote:
I don't think the new rules for Vehicle Disembarkation counts as a nerf...

The assault vehicle rule is only a minor buff. Currently our charge it is 6" (vehicle) + 6" (disembark) +D6 (run, assuming WAAAAAGH!) + 2D6 Reroll 1 (charge), for an average of 23.5". Pretty good!

Your rule would up it to 27.5. (12+6+D6+6). 4 inches is good, don't get me wrong, but subtracting 2 inches for every other ork charge is brutal, as Orks frequently get their trukks shot out from under them and never get to use the assault vehicle rule. IMHO only about 10% or ork charges are from vehicles, and so we'd lose 18 inches of charge for every 4 gained. this is a huge nerf for orks.

And to add insult to injury...your proposed rule would allow all armies to charge from a vehicle! That is a giant buff to everybody else, and orks get a nerf instead. What do you have against orks?

How do Orks /lose/ 18" on charges relative to what they can do now? They lose potentially 6", which is a nerf, though not as big a nerf as you're making it sound. Make sure you're not comparing (new rule, no Trukk) to (current rule, from a Trukk).

On everyone being able to charge from a vehicle, that's possibly a problem. I have a counter-proposal, though: If the vehicle doesn't move, anyone can disembark and charge. If it moves 6" and isn't an Assault Vehicle, you can disembark and charge but you'll be stuck at I1 that turn and count as making a disordered charge. This both shores things up for armies with few or no assault vehicles without making a Rhino into a better - if slightly slower - Trukk.

Additionally, if you combine this with some of the suggestions floating around to improve the durability of vehicles (though probably not to 5e levels), you're less likely to get the Trukk shot out from under you in the first place.

I like alot of this.
Good job so far.

jade_angel wrote:The assault vehicle changes really help Orks, Dark Eldar and to a lesser extent Harlequins and Eldar, actually, and are pretty good for Space Marines, too - assault forces in a Stormraven can be pretty much anywhere, and Land Raiders become more useful.

A useful way to handle Orks, though, might be to let 'Ere We Go give them a fixed 8" charge distance subject to all the other modifications (so 8+d6 for jump, etc).

Maybe let Reavers, Skyweavers and Shining Spears just charge 12", straight up? I don't think most Bikes should get this, but what about the few non-Eldar Jetbikes?

I don't know about Skyweavers, but Reavers and Shining Spears would already benefit from the change to Skilled Rider. The problem with letting them have a straight-up 12" charge is that they could be literally anywhere on the board and locked in combat in two turns: 12" move + 36" turbo-boost + 12" move + 12" charge= 72" threat range. That's enough to charge someone hiding in a corner in Vanguard Strike deployment. Besides, with the 6" charge, they get "only" a 66" threat range!

JimOnMars wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:
I don't think the new rules for Vehicle Disembarkation counts as a nerf...

The assault vehicle rule is only a minor buff. Currently our charge it is 6" (vehicle) + 6" (disembark) +D6 (run, assuming WAAAAAGH!) + 2D6 Reroll 1 (charge), for an average of 23.5". Pretty good!

Your rule would up it to 27.5. (12+6+D6+6). 4 inches is good, don't get me wrong, but subtracting 2 inches for every other ork charge is brutal, as Orks frequently get their trukks shot out from under them and never get to use the assault vehicle rule. IMHO only about 10% or ork charges are from vehicles, and so we'd lose 18 inches of charge for every 4 gained. this is a huge nerf for orks.

And to add insult to injury...your proposed rule would allow all armies to charge from a vehicle! That is a giant buff to everybody else, and orks get a nerf instead. What do you have against orks?

I don't have anything against Orks. Like I said, Orks need a major redesign; several threads could be filled with the amount of changes the Ork Codex needs. I'm just trying to improve things for all codexes equally.

jade_angel wrote:How do Orks /lose/ 18" on charges relative to what they can do now? They lose potentially 6", which is a nerf, though not as big a nerf as you're making it sound. Make sure you're not comparing (new rule, no Trukk) to (current rule, from a Trukk).

On everyone being able to charge from a vehicle, that's possibly a problem. I have a counter-proposal, though: If the vehicle doesn't move, anyone can disembark and charge. If it moves 6" and isn't an Assault Vehicle, you can disembark and charge but you'll be stuck at I1 that turn and count as making a disordered charge. This both shores things up for armies with few or no assault vehicles without making a Rhino into a better - if slightly slower - Trukk.

Additionally, if you combine this with some of the suggestions floating around to improve the durability of vehicles (though probably not to 5e levels), you're less likely to get the Trukk shot out from under you in the first place.

I agree that this is a good idea. I'll amend the rule to reflect this suggestion.

I don't think that extending the 6+1D6 range to everyone is a good idea. Infantry move 6", most run 6" maximum, and now charge 6". It's both easy to understand and relatively balanced; you know exactly how far your unit will charge, and your opponent knows that in order to avoid the charge they have to stay out of that bubble or hide in terrain.

The reasons why assaulting units is hard in 7th edition is that only the truly fastest infantry units can get in proper range thanks to changes to the vehicle rules. Overwatch doesn't have nearly the amount of firepower people give it credit for, except for Tau overwatch.

Hmmmm....I think I can give some love to Reavers (and other certain bikers)....

My comments on extending the assault range was more about shooting being straight better than assault in general. You may only pull off 3 assaults max a game and thats optimistic. A ranged unit will shoot you 6 times plus potential overwatch. I realize assault is potentially more devastating when it happens since I play predominantly assault based lists and have for many years, but the amount of finesse it takes is much greater. And its really infantry that suffer in assault just like in everything.
Anyway some things have changed since I posted (or I just missed them initially like assault vehicles moving 12" which is huge). I like all these changes in general although I agree orks don't see much benefit.

If your going this in depth then you may want to consider going a bit further actually. Part of the problem is how badly bikes of any variety outclass infantry and well everything bar JMC really. Removing relentless is something I woke up thinking about this morning. Ya it shafts a lot of bike based lists.. namely grav and scatter laser spam. F*cking GOOD. It doesn't effect orks or DE or any corner case units at all and balances bikes against a lot of other elements across the spectrum including terminators and jump infantry.

And since we're feeling salty lets hit ATSKNRules too. Add the old no retreat rule to the end of it at least (this is relevant btw since its an assault phase rule). That OP'd rule devalues even the almighty fearless to the point where marine players (myself included) go 'meh' when a character brings fearless to a unit. Let it have a downside.

Ahem anyway back on track heres another idea I've been tinkering with that is very similar to your rules. Allowing assaults from any vehicle, only non assault vehicles force Disordered Charges. This would remove the +1 attack and the initiative bonus for Red Thirst.

Edit- lastly I really dig your rules in general and especially the changes to skilled rider and move through cover. Good stuff man.

Edit x 2: just missed where Jade Angel proposed something similar to what I was messing with. init 1 is not necessary though IMO. Disordered is enough. Also on ork vehicles/walkers of 4 hp or greater I'm suggesting adding invincible behemoth here locally and making all explodes damage strength value equal to the number of starting hull points (not my idea I nicked it btw).

jade_angel wrote:
How do Orks /lose/ 18" on charges relative to what they can do now?

I just meant losing 2 inches in each of 9 charges, compared to the gain of 4 in the 1 charge from the truck that magically didn't get shot.

I think the negative impact on the greenskins would be lessened if Ere' We Go was accounted for in the main rules instead of having no effect.

Not a bad setup, OP, but how does this grab you?

Charge works exactly as it does now, but you have the option to take an automatic 6" instead of rolling 2d6". You still take a -2" penalty when charging through terrain.

It lets you retain the ability to try a longer, riskier charge, but it eliminates the chance of you failing a short-range charge.

Assaulting after disembarking as per 5th edition rules is completely reasonable in my eyes.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Not a bad setup, OP, but how does this grab you?

Charge works exactly as it does now, but you have the option to take an automatic 6" instead of rolling 2d6". You still take a -2" penalty when charging through terrain.

It lets you retain the ability to try a longer, riskier charge, but it eliminates the chance of you failing a short-range charge.

Assaulting after disembarking as per 5th edition rules is completely reasonable in my eyes.

That is an interesting idea, but there's one problem: there are a lot of rules that interact in terms of movement; not even my list covers them all. Every rule would have to be amended to reflect how it would affect either the 6" move or the 2D6 roll, or both.

There's 'another problem: why would anyone choose the 2D6 roll over the 6" charge? Why risk the roll when you have a guarantee of 6" over normal terrain and 4" over difficult? This is exactly why random charge ranges need to be eliminated: there's too much emphasis on the roll itself, rather than the positioning of the charge.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
Not a bad setup, OP, but how does this grab you?

Charge works exactly as it does now, but you have the option to take an automatic 6" instead of rolling 2d6". You still take a -2" penalty when charging through terrain.

It lets you retain the ability to try a longer, riskier charge, but it eliminates the chance of you failing a short-range charge.

Assaulting after disembarking as per 5th edition rules is completely reasonable in my eyes.

That is an interesting idea, but there's one problem: there are a lot of rules that interact in terms of movement; not even my list covers them all. Every rule would have to be amended to reflect how it would affect either the 6" move or the 2D6 roll, or both.

There's 'another problem: why would anyone choose the 2D6 roll over the 6" charge? Why risk the roll when you have a guarantee of 6" over normal terrain and 4" over difficult? This is exactly why random charge ranges need to be eliminated: there's too much emphasis on the roll itself, rather than the positioning of the charge.

The 2d6" roll is preferable when your opponent is in cover and more than 4" away (as the automatic 6" with a -2" penalty from difficult terrain wouldn't reach them). It would also be preferable to any unit that would much rather assault that unit that's, say, 9" away rather than sitting around getting shot at for an extra turn. Ork boyz who want to use their formation to get hammer of wrath for making a 10" charge would also enjoy the 2d6" charge.The automatic 6" is really only preferable when it's guaranteed to reach the enemy, and that's kind of the point. No "feel bad" moments when you roll snake eyes on a 3" charge. To many players, if you've gotten that close to an enemy unit, you probably deserve to be able to assault it. Especially in an edition that already favors shooting. The auto 6" keeps you from having infuriating failed minimum distance rolls. The 2d6" makes it possible to pull off a longer ranged charge.

As for rules needing to be rewritten, I'm having trouble thinking of any where this would be the case. Fleet, for instance, would still function as is for the 2d6" charge. You'd just also have the option to automatically make your 6" charge.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
Not a bad setup, OP, but how does this grab you?

Charge works exactly as it does now, but you have the option to take an automatic 6" instead of rolling 2d6". You still take a -2" penalty when charging through terrain.

It lets you retain the ability to try a longer, riskier charge, but it eliminates the chance of you failing a short-range charge.

Assaulting after disembarking as per 5th edition rules is completely reasonable in my eyes.

That is an interesting idea, but there's one problem: there are a lot of rules that interact in terms of movement; not even my list covers them all. Every rule would have to be amended to reflect how it would affect either the 6" move or the 2D6 roll, or both.

There's 'another problem: why would anyone choose the 2D6 roll over the 6" charge? Why risk the roll when you have a guarantee of 6" over normal terrain and 4" over difficult? This is exactly why random charge ranges need to be eliminated: there's too much emphasis on the roll itself, rather than the positioning of the charge.

The 2d6" roll is preferable when your opponent is in cover and more than 4" away (as the automatic 6" with a -2" penalty from difficult terrain wouldn't reach them). It would also be preferable to any unit that would much rather assault that unit that's, say, 9" away rather than sitting around getting shot at for an extra turn. Ork boyz who want to use their formation to get hammer of wrath for making a 10" charge would also enjoy the 2d6" charge.The automatic 6" is really only preferable when it's guaranteed to reach the enemy, and that's kind of the point. No "feel bad" moments when you roll snake eyes on a 3" charge. To many players, if you've gotten that close to an enemy unit, you probably deserve to be able to assault it. Especially in an edition that already favors shooting. The auto 6" keeps you from having infuriating failed minimum distance rolls. The 2d6" makes it possible to pull off a longer ranged charge.

As for rules needing to be rewritten, I'm having trouble thinking of any where this would be the case. Fleet, for instance, would still function as is for the 2d6" charge. You'd just also have the option to automatically make your 6" charge.

I have had instances where my Striking Scorpions have made a 10" charge. I also had a game where my opponent's Genestealers failed a 6" charge. Both of those units have Move Through Cover and Fleet. In both those instances, that charge was the decisive moment in the the game. Both of those units should have been able to pull off those charges, but thanks to random charge distances one did not.

Why should that single roll determine the game? A poster in this thread stated that the likelihood of rolling a 6 or less on 2D6 is around 40%. That's about the same as flipping a coin ten times and comparing the number of heads vs. tails. In short, the roll is too random. There is enough randomness in the to-hit and to-wound rolls in shooting and assault. Why should the entire assault be dependent on one die roll? People don't roll a die to see if they're in shooting range; they measure. The same should apply to charging into CC.

I agree that 12" charges are impressive to pull off, which is why in my proposed rules I have allow for certain units types (Jump Infantry, Beasts, Cavalry, Fleet units) to make one, with the changes to vehicle disembarking allowing for embarked units to do something similar. However, on the subject of the 2D6 rolls for charging I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree.