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.

I had an idea for handling charges in 40K and I wanted to share it and discuss it.

Infantry and Walkers Can charge up to twice their movement.
Vehicles can charge exactly up to their movement, but any units they pass through suffers D3 mortal wounds.

If the charge distance isn't enough to reach the intended target, the unit still moves. In Theory this should benefit only the best CC units.

Any thoughts?

No offense, but giving mortal wounds to vehicles is a terrible idea. Do you realize exactly how fast some vehicles can be? You could cover half an army with some of them, hit them all with d3 mortal wounds. Mortal Wounds are a terrible mechanic, and should be curbed, or removed from the game wherever possible.


Otherwise, i agree, reducing the randomness of charges is great. But we should be changing it from 2d6, to 6+d6 like it used to be.

This would very, very strongly benefit CC units.

Only units with M3 or less have a lower average charge, but the reliability means it's still an upgrade. Only M2 units would be nerfed. Everything else would be bonkersly-faster. Basic Marines now autocharge 12".

I could see "M+D6". Factors in movement, which some people want. Most charges are much more reliable, which some people want. And retains random charge distance, which some people want.

I like the idea of having more of a Tank Shock rule.

I also like "chargers move even if they fail". I think one reason they don't do it is so you can't decide, once you fail the charge, to run into cover/behind something.

Bharring wrote:
This would very, very strongly benefit CC units.

Only units with M3 or less have a lower average charge, but the reliability means it's still an upgrade. Only M2 units would be nerfed. Everything else would be bonkersly-faster. Basic Marines now autocharge 12".

I could see "M+D6". Factors in movement, which some people want. Most charges are much more reliable, which some people want. And retains random charge distance, which some people want.

I like the idea of having more of a Tank Shock rule.

I also like "chargers move even if they fail". I think one reason they don't do it is so you can't decide, once you fail the charge, to run into cover/behind something.

I too like the last one, considering "failing a charge" this days means "your guys stares at the enemy as it prepares to blast them into oblivion, accomplishing absolutly nothing". At least you can try to save them.

 iGuy91 wrote:


Otherwise, i agree, reducing the randomness of charges is great. But we should be changing it from 2d6, to 6+d6 like it used to be.

Yeah, I never really minded the d6" fleet plus 6" (or 12") charge thing from previous editions. It felt "far enough" most of the time. I wouldn't hate going back to that.

Doing Movement + (some amount) as charge distance is tricky to balance. Sure, charge = double movement means marines would charge 12", and maybe that's okay, but do you really want my shining spears to reliably have a 48" charge range without psychic support? Or even a 32" + X" (assuming 16" movement and a charge range of 16" + X")?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

strigops wrote:

Bharring wrote:
This would very, very strongly benefit CC units.

Only units with M3 or less have a lower average charge, but the reliability means it's still an upgrade. Only M2 units would be nerfed. Everything else would be bonkersly-faster. Basic Marines now autocharge 12".

I could see "M+D6". Factors in movement, which some people want. Most charges are much more reliable, which some people want. And retains random charge distance, which some people want.

I like the idea of having more of a Tank Shock rule.

I also like "chargers move even if they fail". I think one reason they don't do it is so you can't decide, once you fail the charge, to run into cover/behind something.

I too like the last one, considering "failing a charge" this days means "your guys stares at the enemy as it prepares to blast them into oblivion, accomplishing absolutly nothing". At least you can try to save them.

Here's a question: is having the ability to fail a charge good for the game? Like, is it ever more cinematic to flub a 4" charge? I know we need a way to allow some but not all deepstrikers to charge after deepstriking, but maybe that should just be a universal strat or something? So maybe charges in general become a flat 6" again, and units arriving from reserves can pay 2CP to automatically charge 9"?

@Bharring: I feel like the easiest way to do "tank shock" this edition is just to let vehicles move over models when falling back or charging (provided they can do so without landing within 1" of a non-charged enemy unit).

Wyldhunt wrote:
...Here's a question: is having the ability to fail a charge good for the game? Like, is it ever more cinematic to flub a 4" charge? I know we need a way to allow some but not all deepstrikers to charge after deepstriking, but maybe that should just be a universal strat or something? So maybe charges in general become a flat 6" again, and units arriving from reserves can pay 2CP to automatically charge 9"?...

I don't think failing a charge is particularly cinematic or exciting (it's just an "oh man screwed/saved by RNG" moment); my own rewrite project has been working from the assumption that "running" and "charging" could be handled as the same action and giving both fixed distances.

We could say that bikes don't get the rule and that it only applies to foot soldiers.

We could also change vehicle wounds to D3 non-mortal wounds instead.

 Togusa wrote:
We could say that bikes don't get the rule and that it only applies to foot soldiers.

We could also change vehicle wounds to D3 non-mortal wounds instead.

So a Venom, which has a 1/6 chance of wounding with its Bladevanes at AP-1 or a 1/2 chance of wounding with its regular attacks at AP0, does d3 wounds automatically to a Knight?

That's a pretty massive increase in effectiveness for a cheap unit.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
...Here's a question: is having the ability to fail a charge good for the game? Like, is it ever more cinematic to flub a 4" charge? I know we need a way to allow some but not all deepstrikers to charge after deepstriking, but maybe that should just be a universal strat or something? So maybe charges in general become a flat 6" again, and units arriving from reserves can pay 2CP to automatically charge 9"?...

I don't think failing a charge is particularly cinematic or exciting (it's just an "oh man screwed/saved by RNG" moment); my own rewrite project has been working from the assumption that "running" and "charging" could be handled as the same action and giving both fixed distances.

.

Failing a charge just never seems quite right. Why are vanguard vets suddenly so bad at guesstimating how far they can dash forward? Why are death company being cowed into holding still by enemy fire. If you're out in the open, it's not like you're trying to work up the bravery to break forward from cover; you're already right in front of the enemy and bereft of anything to hide behind.

So yeah. I'm not necessarily opposed to lumping charging and movement in together if it can help out with that sort of issue.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
We could say that bikes don't get the rule and that it only applies to foot soldiers.

We could also change vehicle wounds to D3 non-mortal wounds instead.

So a Venom, which has a 1/6 chance of wounding with its Bladevanes at AP-1 or a 1/2 chance of wounding with its regular attacks at AP0, does d3 wounds automatically to a Knight?

That's a pretty massive increase in effectiveness for a cheap unit.

No, this is only intended to hit infantry. Vehicles would be unaffected.

It’s still miles more effective against, say, Custodian a Guard than their normal attacks.

I'm guessing this means instead of movement? IE a deffkopta (M14) gets to move 28" in the movement phase as charge, rather than 14" + 28" (total of 42")?

I am strongly in favour of shifting the charge to the movement phase to streamline the game, and of reducing/removing random charge distances.

Not convinced of vehicles causing mortal wounds on the charge - you will see the cheapest, fastest vehicles being spammed to fly through titans.


I would go for:

double movement for a charge, in the movement phase
double movement +D6" for units which can advance and charge
move + advance D6" but this isn't a charge
move and you didn't advance
stay still

BUT THEN

Reduce movement of fast units. 12" movement is probably the highest, reserved for jetbikes. Bikers would drop to 9". Jump infantry to 8".
If a unit is supposed to be fast and shooty rather than chargy, allow it to add 3" (or so) to its movement if it does not charge.

Vehicles charging should be able to tank shock. This would be akin to older rules but where:

When a vehicle charges it must move in a straight line, and may move up to its whole charge move, ignoring infantry, bikes and cavalry units in the way. Any infantry unit which is ignored like this may perform overwatch, but if they do not destroy the vehicle then they will suffer D3 Mortal wounds. (streamlines DoG).
If the vehicle finishes this move within 1" of an enemy unit then it is in combat. If it cannot be placed then this must reduce its movement by as little as possible until it can be placed (and thus end up in combat).
If a vehicle performs a charge and ends up outside of combat, then it is treated as having advanced for the purposes of shooting.

If a vehicle charges another vehicle, The vehicle with the highest toughness takes 1 mortal wound and the vehicle with the lowest toughness takes D3 mortal wounds.
If a vehicle charges a superheavy vehicle, or vice versa, The vehicle will take an additional D3 mortal wounds. - this could mean that a tough vehicle ramming a soft superheavy results in the vehicle taking D3+1 mortal wounds and the superheavy taking D3 mortal wounds.

Monsters can choose to be treated either as an infantry unit or as a vehicle. This is the choice of their controlling player.

(monsters can either take shots at the vehicle, move out of the way, or try to stop them and take wounds for their troubles. They have the flexibility which walkers do not.)

 some bloke wrote:


I would go for:

double movement for a charge, in the movement phase
double movement +D6" for units which can advance and charge
move + advance D6" but this isn't a charge
move and you didn't advance
stay still

Depending on other changes, I could probably get behind that. Why not make normal advances double movement just like a charge though? Moving faster just because you're running towards an enemy has always felt odd, and rolling a 1 on an advance roll is kind of a feels bad moment. Would it break anything for advancing units to just go double their movement speed? I guess eldar would get a boost from it thanks to battle focus?

BUT THEN

Reduce movement of fast units. 12" movement is probably the highest, reserved for jetbikes. Bikers would drop to 9". Jump infantry to 8".
If a unit is supposed to be fast and shooty rather than chargy, allow it to add 3" (or so) to its movement if it does not charge.

I don't know about this part. If an assault marine with a jump pack moves 8", then just how slow should a marine on foot be? If they stay at 6", then the 2" of difference is going to make the units feel very samey. A pair of rockets strapped to your back will have roughly the same benefit as an energy drink and a good jogging soundtrack. If you slow normal marines down to something like 4", then crossing the table is going to become basically impossible. Gunlines will be even better as they continue to lob shots across the table and melee armies take even longer to reach them.

Plus, you'd have to differentiate various fast/slow units even less. My swooping hawks currently have a couple inches over assault marines, and jetbikes have a couple inches on that. If you lower Movement overall, do my hawks just get slowed down to assault marine speed? Assault marine +1"?

Vehicles charging should be able to tank shock. This would be akin to older rules but where:

When a vehicle charges it must move in a straight line, and may move up to its whole charge move, ignoring infantry, bikes and cavalry units in the way. Any infantry unit which is ignored like this may perform overwatch, but if they do not destroy the vehicle then they will suffer D3 Mortal wounds. (streamlines DoG).
If the vehicle finishes this move within 1" of an enemy unit then it is in combat. If it cannot be placed then this must reduce its movement by as little as possible until it can be placed (and thus end up in combat).
If a vehicle performs a charge and ends up outside of combat, then it is treated as having advanced for the purposes of shooting.

No charging around corners then? Even if you're a walker? How about skimmers?

I see what you're going for here, but it seems like the post-charge placement rules could get a little wonky. If you charge a thoroughly-screened tank, for instance, you might complete the charge only to end up back where you started and out of combat because it's physically impossible to place your tank within 1" of your charge target. If you force your opponent to move models out of the way, you bring back all of the headaches and questions that used to go along with that.

Plus, you're basically making all vehicles, even light ones, do d3 mortals per enemy unit in a straight line each turn. Vehicles would suddenly become excellent character snipers that can also inflict an average smite's worth of damage by eating a little overwatch each turn. My vypers will absolutely give up a few bolter-equivalent shots and 3 shuriken cannon shots to "smite" everything in a straight line each turn.

If a vehicle charges another vehicle, The vehicle with the highest toughness takes 1 mortal wound and the vehicle with the lowest toughness takes D3 mortal wounds.
If a vehicle charges a superheavy vehicle, or vice versa, The vehicle will take an additional D3 mortal wounds. - this could mean that a tough vehicle ramming a soft superheavy results in the vehicle taking D3+1 mortal wounds and the superheavy taking D3 mortal wounds.

Monsters can choose to be treated either as an infantry unit or as a vehicle. This is the choice of their controlling player.

I don't hate this, but I don't love it either. Rules like this, when piled together, were what bogged down previous editions. What you've presented isn't super complicated on its own, but it adds... 4(?) extra rules to remember just from that most recently quoted part alone. And I'm not sure it really adds enough to the game to be worth that extra complexity. It makes superheavies even stronger than they currently are and gives even the humblest of vehicles mortal wound generation that would have to be reflected in their costs, but it doesn't really create a lot of tactical depth or interesting decisions.

Is your mortal wound machine close enough to do a bunch of unavoidable damage to the enemy? Is the thing you're charging a superheavy? If you answered Yes and then No, charge. Every time. Absolutely.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 some bloke wrote:


I would go for:

double movement for a charge, in the movement phase
double movement +D6" for units which can advance and charge
move + advance D6" but this isn't a charge
move and you didn't advance
stay still

Depending on other changes, I could probably get behind that. Why not make normal advances double movement just like a charge though? Moving faster just because you're running towards an enemy has always felt odd, and rolling a 1 on an advance roll is kind of a feels bad moment. Would it break anything for advancing units to just go double their movement speed? I guess eldar would get a boost from it thanks to battle focus?

I could agree with that. it would streamline the play, and make it less random, so tactics could be played out to completion without relying on a lucky roll. Units which can advance and charge would still be +D6" though, as tripling their move would be ludicrous (deffkilla wartrike would have a 42" charge!!!)

BUT THEN

Reduce movement of fast units. 12" movement is probably the highest, reserved for jetbikes. Bikers would drop to 9". Jump infantry to 8".
If a unit is supposed to be fast and shooty rather than chargy, allow it to add 3" (or so) to its movement if it does not charge.

I don't know about this part. If an assault marine with a jump pack moves 8", then just how slow should a marine on foot be? If they stay at 6", then the 2" of difference is going to make the units feel very samey. A pair of rockets strapped to your back will have roughly the same benefit as an energy drink and a good jogging soundtrack. If you slow normal marines down to something like 4", then crossing the table is going to become basically impossible. Gunlines will be even better as they continue to lob shots across the table and melee armies take even longer to reach them.

Plus, you'd have to differentiate various fast/slow units even less. My swooping hawks currently have a couple inches over assault marines, and jetbikes have a couple inches on that. If you lower Movement overall, do my hawks just get slowed down to assault marine speed? Assault marine +1"?

Ok, the general gist for this one is that doubling movement speeds as they are would give some units an exceptionally long charge. A Deffkilla wartrike has a movement of 14", and then can advance a guaranteed 6" in one turn per game, and then can also charge whilst advancing (which I've covered as still being there), for a guaranteed 34" charge in one turn, and then 29-34" charges for the rest of the game.

I have 2 work-arounds to put forward to combat this:

1: Give units a general movement and then a rule that adds distance to their move. This would be, for assault marines as an example: Movement 6, and "Jump Packs" which would state that when the unit moves, it may move an additional 6".

This means they move 6+6", and advance/charge 12+6".

2: Give units separate Move and Charge statistics, which are added together when you charge/advance. for Assault marines, this would be M12 and C6.

My original suggestion would put assault marines at M9, where their general combat speed is 3" faster than marines, but their advance/charge speed is a whopping 6" faster than marines. The aim was to actually slow down units somewhat, so that the speed comparison would go infantry<jump infantry><vehicles><Bikes><Jetbikes><fliers. Presently it's more like infantry><jump infantry=vehicles=bikes<jetbikes<fliers.

Jump marines should have the advantage over vehicles in that they can ignore terrain, but they should be slower in the open. Transports would see more use if they were the fastest way to get infantry from A to B. The charge-in-movement-phase route also prevents deepstrike charges, which I think is a good thing.

Vehicles charging should be able to tank shock. This would be akin to older rules but where:

When a vehicle charges it must move in a straight line, and may move up to its whole charge move, ignoring infantry, bikes and cavalry units in the way. Any infantry unit which is ignored like this may perform overwatch, but if they do not destroy the vehicle then they will suffer D3 Mortal wounds. (streamlines DoG).
If the vehicle finishes this move within 1" of an enemy unit then it is in combat. If it cannot be placed then this must reduce its movement by as little as possible until it can be placed (and thus end up in combat).
If a vehicle performs a charge and ends up outside of combat, then it is treated as having advanced for the purposes of shooting.

No charging around corners then? Even if you're a walker? How about skimmers?

I see what you're going for here, but it seems like the post-charge placement rules could get a little wonky. If you charge a thoroughly-screened tank, for instance, you might complete the charge only to end up back where you started and out of combat because it's physically impossible to place your tank within 1" of your charge target. If you force your opponent to move models out of the way, you bring back all of the headaches and questions that used to go along with that.

Plus, you're basically making all vehicles, even light ones, do d3 mortals per enemy unit in a straight line each turn. Vehicles would suddenly become excellent character snipers that can also inflict an average smite's worth of damage by eating a little overwatch each turn. My vypers will absolutely give up a few bolter-equivalent shots and 3 shuriken cannon shots to "smite" everything in a straight line each turn.

Walkers would need to be lumped in with monsters, really. My intention was for boxy-vehicles rather than dextrous ones.

Yes, screening your tank to prevent a combat is a valid option, and yes, moving models out of the way is something to avoid at all costs.

I think that you've missed the fact that units can simply allow the vehicle to pass them by without overwatching and thus not incur any mortal wounds. If you have a unit with a missile launcher or a lascannon, it might be worth losing 1-3 guardsmen under the treads to fire an overwatch shot at that tank (I have also considered giving +1 to hit tanks and the like in overwatch to make this a worthwhile decision). Perhaps making these wounds instead of mortal wounds would be a better mechanic.

If you cannot move past a unit then you will end up in combat with the unit - the only way you could charge and not end in combat is if you either move right through them, or they are all too far away to make it. Vehicles will forgo the "declare a charge target" step, as they simply target things in their way. I would like to see this ability on walkers and monsters too, as they should reasonably be able to plough through infantry to get to things behind, if there is space for them to do so.

Thinking on it, declaring a target might become a moot point, really, as it is only needed in this age of random charges. With set charges, you could simply move into combat, then resolve overwatch with any units which have been charged. Remove the inability to fight characters who heroically intervene and declaring targets is no longer necessary.

If a vehicle charges another vehicle, The vehicle with the highest toughness takes 1 mortal wound and the vehicle with the lowest toughness takes D3 mortal wounds.
If a vehicle charges a superheavy vehicle, or vice versa, The vehicle will take an additional D3 mortal wounds. - this could mean that a tough vehicle ramming a soft superheavy results in the vehicle taking D3+1 mortal wounds and the superheavy taking D3 mortal wounds.

Monsters can choose to be treated either as an infantry unit or as a vehicle. This is the choice of their controlling player.

I don't hate this, but I don't love it either. Rules like this, when piled together, were what bogged down previous editions. What you've presented isn't super complicated on its own, but it adds... 4(?) extra rules to remember just from that most recently quoted part alone. And I'm not sure it really adds enough to the game to be worth that extra complexity. It makes superheavies even stronger than they currently are and gives even the humblest of vehicles mortal wound generation that would have to be reflected in their costs, but it doesn't really create a lot of tactical depth or interesting decisions.

Is your mortal wound machine close enough to do a bunch of unavoidable damage to the enemy? Is the thing you're charging a superheavy? If you answered Yes and then No, charge. Every time. Absolutely.

Not necessarily. You're forgetting that in this design, you cannot shoot and charge. So yes, your leman russ might be able to do D3 wounds on an enemy vehicle, but to do so it cannot fire any of its guns. Worth it?

Alternately, a Battlewagon can plough right through enemy infantry, coming clean out the other side, and still fire as if it advanced. If no-one overwatches, no one gets hurt. it can't fire heavy weapons, and hits on 6's with assault weapons, and has achieved a (theoretically) better position. I would make the deffrolla cause damage when it does so, but that just makes sense!

Alternately, a landspeeder sees a baneblade with 1 wound left, and heroically kamikazes into it, killing it but taking 2D3 mortal wounds for the effort (plus the potential explosion).

It would be an element of the game, but certainly not a no-brainer.


Yes, some things will need recosting to reflect that they are currently priced to move-shoot-charge, so will only be able to move-shoot or charge, and will need tweaking. Though the utility of both options is still there, and a space marine remains a more flexible unit than a hormagaunt.>

Wyldhunt wrote:

Here's a question: is having the ability to fail a charge good for the game? Like, is it ever more cinematic to flub a 4" charge? I know we need a way to allow some but not all deepstrikers to charge after deepstriking, but maybe that should just be a universal strat or something? So maybe charges in general become a flat 6" again, and units arriving from reserves can pay 2CP to automatically charge 9"?

@Bharring: I feel like the easiest way to do "tank shock" this edition is just to let vehicles move over models when falling back or charging (provided they can do so without landing within 1" of a non-charged enemy unit).

Well depends on how much you want to simulate real fights. In real world soldiers don't react with 100% accuracy and know distances within 1mm.

I think a minimum charge distance for units + the chance to roll 2D6 for a charge would be a good start. This helps with short distances but still doesn't guarantee overly long ones from the suggested M+D6".

 some bloke wrote:
I'm guessing this means instead of movement? IE a deffkopta (M14) gets to move 28" in the movement phase as charge, rather than 14" + 28" (total of 42")?

I am strongly in favour of shifting the charge to the movement phase to streamline the game, and of reducing/removing random charge distances.

Not convinced of vehicles causing mortal wounds on the charge - you will see the cheapest, fastest vehicles being spammed to fly through titans.


I would go for:

double movement for a charge, in the movement phase
double movement +D6" for units which can advance and charge
move + advance D6" but this isn't a charge
move and you didn't advance
stay still

BUT THEN

Reduce movement of fast units. 12" movement is probably the highest, reserved for jetbikes. Bikers would drop to 9". Jump infantry to 8".
If a unit is supposed to be fast and shooty rather than chargy, allow it to add 3" (or so) to its movement if it does not charge.

Vehicles charging should be able to tank shock. This would be akin to older rules but where:

When a vehicle charges it must move in a straight line, and may move up to its whole charge move, ignoring infantry, bikes and cavalry units in the way. Any infantry unit which is ignored like this may perform overwatch, but if they do not destroy the vehicle then they will suffer D3 Mortal wounds. (streamlines DoG).
If the vehicle finishes this move within 1" of an enemy unit then it is in combat. If it cannot be placed then this must reduce its movement by as little as possible until it can be placed (and thus end up in combat).
If a vehicle performs a charge and ends up outside of combat, then it is treated as having advanced for the purposes of shooting.

If a vehicle charges another vehicle, The vehicle with the highest toughness takes 1 mortal wound and the vehicle with the lowest toughness takes D3 mortal wounds.
If a vehicle charges a superheavy vehicle, or vice versa, The vehicle will take an additional D3 mortal wounds. - this could mean that a tough vehicle ramming a soft superheavy results in the vehicle taking D3+1 mortal wounds and the superheavy taking D3 mortal wounds.

Monsters can choose to be treated either as an infantry unit or as a vehicle. This is the choice of their controlling player.

(monsters can either take shots at the vehicle, move out of the way, or try to stop them and take wounds for their troubles. They have the flexibility which walkers do not.)

In my head, the idea was that you'd choose to charge instead of moving in the movement phase. So, I was thinking axe entirely the "charge" phase and do it the way its done in KT. I kind of like the M + D6 that someone suggested.

you could up it with some of the units that are dedicated to charging have extra special abilities that give them +1,+2,+3 to the die roll depending too, like Harlequins, Blood Angels Death Company, Genestealers and Khorne Deamons .

I liked the system back in 2nd ed where charges were made in the movement phase and there was no dedicated charge phase.

In the movement phase a unit could stay still, move up to its movement characteristic, run (move double the movement characteristic) and not shoot in the following shooting phase, or charge (same as run, but allowed to end the move within 1" of enemy models).

I'd go back to this, call run "advance" and apply the same consequences as advancing.

No need for randomised charge distances or declaring charging etc. - this would help give melee a boost which I think is needed.

For overwatch (which I know is a whole other discussion, and I'd personally like to see overwatched re-worked but I won't go into that) I'd allow overwatch by any unit that was charged that turn (ie an enemy unit ended their move within 1" of it) against the first unit to move within 1" of it. If a unit is already within 1" of an enemy it can't fire, the same as it is now.

The primary drawback to this would be not being able to soften up targets with shooting before melee, but I see this as a way to limit the effectiveness of shooting rather than the effectiveness of melee, so Don't really think it is a drawback. That said, I do think melee is too weak this edition with the fallback rules etc, so could do with a boost in general.

 some bloke wrote:


2: Give units separate Move and Charge statistics, which are added together when you charge/advance. for Assault marines, this would be M12 and C6.

I like this approach. It lets you set Movement and Charge distance exactly where you want it instead of having to worry about doubled movement values scaling oddly and so forth. This would also remove the need for a randomized charge distance for units with advance and charge; you could just give them a higher move or charge distance.

The charge-in-movement-phase route also prevents deepstrike charges, which I think is a good thing.

Mostly agree. Thoughts on adding a universal stratagem that lets you deepstrikewithin 1" of an enemy unit? It seems like there should be some amount of jump packers assaulting from the sky/genestealers popping up out of sewers.

I think that you've missed the fact that units can simply allow the vehicle to pass them by without overwatching and thus not incur any mortal wounds... Perhaps making these wounds instead of mortal wounds would be a better mechanic.

I totally did. My bad. I do think that non-mortal wounds would be a better approach though. A tactical marine should probably be better at surviving a fender bender than a guardsman, and mortal wounds make terminators sad.

Thinking on it, declaring a target might become a moot point, really, as it is only needed in this age of random charges. With set charges, you could simply move into combat, then resolve overwatch with any units which have been charged. Remove the inability to fight characters who heroically intervene and declaring targets is no longer necessary.

Mostly agree. I'd actually like to keep heroic intervention. It's meant to maintain the notion that characters are part of a squad in an edition where Independent Character rules don't exist. Without it, it would be pretty easy to kill everyone next to a character without that character lifting a finger.

I think I'm coming around to your proposal. There are a few fine points I'd probably disagree with you about, but I think the general idea is very workable.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

Here's a question: is having the ability to fail a charge good for the game? Like, is it ever more cinematic to flub a 4" charge? I know we need a way to allow some but not all deepstrikers to charge after deepstriking, but maybe that should just be a universal strat or something? So maybe charges in general become a flat 6" again, and units arriving from reserves can pay 2CP to automatically charge 9"?

@Bharring: I feel like the easiest way to do "tank shock" this edition is just to let vehicles move over models when falling back or charging (provided they can do so without landing within 1" of a non-charged enemy unit).

Well depends on how much you want to simulate real fights. In real world soldiers don't react with 100% accuracy and know distances within 1mm.

Realism is never high on my priority list where 40k is concerned. But even if it were, which of the following is more "realistic?"

A.) Space marines and ninja elves know they can move roughly x meters in y amount of time? Or...

B.) Space marines and ninja elves know that when they're sprinting, they can move faster than normal for some reason provided they're sprinting towards an enemy. Now, this sudden burst of speed is very unreliable. Usually the burst of speed will kick in if they're within 7 meters (7") of the enemy, but not always. Sometimes they'll be about 3 meters away from the enemy but can't seem to activate that burst of speed (roll snake eyes). Sometimes they'll move an extra 12 meters while running towards the enemy.

If we accept that the 41st millenium is a setting in which space marines run forward to punch the enemy, then it's probably fair to assume that they can reliably cover a certain amount of ground when running forward.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 some bloke wrote:


2: Give units separate Move and Charge statistics, which are added together when you charge/advance. for Assault marines, this would be M12 and C6.

I like this approach. It lets you set Movement and Charge distance exactly where you want it instead of having to worry about doubled movement values scaling oddly and so forth. This would also remove the need for a randomized charge distance for units with advance and charge; you could just give them a higher move or charge distance.

The charge-in-movement-phase route also prevents deepstrike charges, which I think is a good thing.

Mostly agree. Thoughts on adding a universal stratagem that lets you deepstrikewithin 1" of an enemy unit? It seems like there should be some amount of jump packers assaulting from the sky/genestealers popping up out of sewers.

I think that you've missed the fact that units can simply allow the vehicle to pass them by without overwatching and thus not incur any mortal wounds... Perhaps making these wounds instead of mortal wounds would be a better mechanic.

I totally did. My bad. I do think that non-mortal wounds would be a better approach though. A tactical marine should probably be better at surviving a fender bender than a guardsman, and mortal wounds make terminators sad.

Thinking on it, declaring a target might become a moot point, really, as it is only needed in this age of random charges. With set charges, you could simply move into combat, then resolve overwatch with any units which have been charged. Remove the inability to fight characters who heroically intervene and declaring targets is no longer necessary.

Mostly agree. I'd actually like to keep heroic intervention. It's meant to maintain the notion that characters are part of a squad in an edition where Independent Character rules don't exist. Without it, it would be pretty easy to kill everyone next to a character without that character lifting a finger.

I think I'm coming around to your proposal. There are a few fine points I'd probably disagree with you about, but I think the general idea is very workable.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

Here's a question: is having the ability to fail a charge good for the game? Like, is it ever more cinematic to flub a 4" charge? I know we need a way to allow some but not all deepstrikers to charge after deepstriking, but maybe that should just be a universal strat or something? So maybe charges in general become a flat 6" again, and units arriving from reserves can pay 2CP to automatically charge 9"?

@Bharring: I feel like the easiest way to do "tank shock" this edition is just to let vehicles move over models when falling back or charging (provided they can do so without landing within 1" of a non-charged enemy unit).

Well depends on how much you want to simulate real fights. In real world soldiers don't react with 100% accuracy and know distances within 1mm.

Realism is never high on my priority list where 40k is concerned. But even if it were, which of the following is more "realistic?"

A.) Space marines and ninja elves know they can move roughly x meters in y amount of time? Or...

B.) Space marines and ninja elves know that when they're sprinting, they can move faster than normal for some reason provided they're sprinting towards an enemy. Now, this sudden burst of speed is very unreliable. Usually the burst of speed will kick in if they're within 7 meters (7") of the enemy, but not always. Sometimes they'll be about 3 meters away from the enemy but can't seem to activate that burst of speed (roll snake eyes). Sometimes they'll move an extra 12 meters while running towards the enemy.

If we accept that the 41st millenium is a setting in which space marines run forward to punch the enemy, then it's probably fair to assume that they can reliably cover a certain amount of ground when running forward.

I was referring to the fact that, presently, if you don't declare a charge on a character and he heroically intervenes, you cannot attack him. I certainly want to keep heroic intervention!

The entire "cannot attack units you didn't declare charges on" thing is there because of this and piling in. We can just remove piling in, or do it after. Your charge move is your charge move, if you only got 2 models in range that's your fault for a bad charge. Piling in takes place after all attacks, and can get you in range of new units, but the new fight is in the opponents turn (if they're still there).

Falling back needs an overhaul to suit. it should not be a free option. I have 2 suggestions:

1: any unit that falls back takes 1 hit from each model in melee range, with a weapon of their choice. some units might get extra attacks at this (raveners would be a good one).

2: units have to pass a test to fall back - it's not a given that you will succeed. This could simply be a roll-off between the 2 units. I would say that you get +1 if the unit opposing you has already opposed another unit this turn, but that might get overly complex.

3: If you fall back from a unit, they get to move as well. If they end up in combat with you, then so be it. They cannot move into within 1" of an enemy unit unless they started within 1" of them (you can't get a new target).

I prefer the 3rd idea - it's simple, easy, and allows you to move into cover instead if you don't want to stay in combat, or towards a fresh target. Fast units gain the ability to hit & run effectively, whilst slow units will have to chase their foes down over and over. You could have it that you can move away and count as advancing, or advance away and cannot do anything else this turn. The second seems too clunky, and the first is passable and most likely to be implemented.