Switch Theme:

Should 40k *have* random charge distances?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Poll
Do you prefer random charge distances?
Yes, random charges add tension.
No, random charges are bad game design.
Neutral

View results
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut







One of the big changes from 5th to 6th 40k was changing assault from 6" (12" for cavalry), to a 2d6" roll; this change was very similar to the one for WHFB from 7th to 8th edition.

Other than a few token special powers that grant specialty bonuses on a random charge distance, the end result was to add another step just for random's sake.

What is everyone's take here? Should charge distances be random in the core rules, or not?
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







Random charges aren't fundamentally the problem; I never had an issue with how it was implemented in 6th-7th 40k or in WHFB. The problem in 8th/9th is that damage gets inflated so much faster than defensive stats, so now failing a charge is pretty much a guaranteed death sentence for the unit. Couple that with ever-inflating move distances/charge bonuses and the shrunken table, and movement is becoming vastly less interactive.

In short: The problem isn't that charge distance is random, it's that the game is too killy and movement has to be incredibly fast to let melee armies exist in the game at all.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





Previous editions I might agree that random charges are bad, I feel this edition's push towards being objective based make the movement-bonus of charging often at least as, if not more important, than the lethality. If the lethality is at least partially random, the charge length being random also feels appropriate. Also, they've removed a lot of the costs of fail charges, meaning that you still get a lot of chances at the long-bombs that help make up for the failed short charges.

 Galef wrote:
If you refuse to use rock, you will never beat scissors.
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





The issue with static charge distances is that it encourages kiting, particularly in a premeasure system. It requires a strong incentive for players to fight over the middle in melee to keep players from being able to place there models with no threat of retaliation. A 1" threat advantage in a static movement system is dramatically larger than in one with a randomizer of some sort. I've generally been in favor of static values, but in recent years I've found that games just can't fully handle the amount of advantage that gives to faster models.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Oh wait you guys are serious.

Units should have a minimum distance without the need to roll to make a successful charge. I doubt Flayed Ones are just as unenthused to get into melee as Warriors or even Immortals are.

I would propose a minimum charge distance and the chance to roll. If you fail the roll, you make the move but you're to be given penalties of various sorts.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in gb
Battleship Captain





Bristol (UK)

I think a semi-random distance would be the best system.
Perhaps 3+d6 or something.

But it's an excellent point that the increasing lethality has meant GW has started to throw more and more buffs to charge distances.
Advance and charge, reroll charge, +6 to charge, etc.
   
Made in gb
Sagitarius with a Big F'in Gun





North-East UK

Random charge has always shown me frustrating and unenjoyable experiences from 6-8th ed.

I would personally want a charge distance of M+D6" That way the units that want to get in combat will. The units that aren't intended for combat will be incentivised to stay back and wait to counter charge at best.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/12/19 14:38:26


Black Templars: WIP
Night Lords (30/40k): WIP
Red Corsairs: WIP
Iron Warriors: WIP
Orks: 6000pts
Batman Miniatures Game: Mr.Freeze, Joker
Ever wanted a better 5th ed. 40k? Take a look at 5th ed. Reforged! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/794253.page 
   
Made in fi
Buttons Should Be Brass, Not Gold!






I think the current random charge system is rubbish. It doesn't reflect the lore depiction of how those units fight, it's not realistic in any significant way.. it just feels half-arsed tbh

M + a random distance would already be a much better solution. Or you could come up with all sorts of other systems, like developing some modifiers to charge distance based on if the defending unit fires overwatch, has suppressive weaponry such as grenades and/ or flamers, occupies a terrain piece with the "defensible" terrain trait etc.. Some CC specialist units could even have some keywords which give them an edge when charging, or some units could have a keyword which gives them an edge being charged against.. I could think up lots of ideas for a more interesting system.

No beating around the bush about it, the current system = fail

All in all, I'm not sure I like the current CC combat rules implementation. Its too much like shooting without evaluating LOS or measuring ranges, not a big fan. Preferably the melee and shooting mechanics should be both unique to better reflect the way they work IRL. I think what could really spice things would be tying Morale rules & faction psychology with CC effectiveness somehow. Take something like boxing or ultimate fighting as an example - there's always a big psychological aspect to fighting so close to your opponent, projecting dominance over your opponent by your speed/strenght/attitude/energy and all that, which is entirely absent from 40K CC representation.

This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2020/12/19 15:07:30


 
   
Made in gb
Battleship Captain





Bristol (UK)

The problem with M+d6 is that jump troops or bikers could have truly epic charge ranges.
A flat 6+d6 would be better, but 4+d6 would produce a reliable range more similar to current charges.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






Random charge distances add some more decision making in the assault phase beyond
Am I in range? -> Yes -> Charge
--------------------> No -> Don't Charge

The main problem with them is the same as which affects most of their rules design - GW are just incapable of keeping the system they come up with streamlined and simple.
   
Made in gb
Battleship Captain





Bristol (UK)

Do I want to risk this 3" charge?
- snake eyes.
Is not a fun decision to make though.
And it's not a decision that ranged weapons ever have to deal with.
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

I think SOME randomness is okay, but having it be the same whether you're a 4" move shooty Cataphractii or a 16" move Harlequin Biker is a little... Dumb.

Not sure how exactly to fix, though.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 kirotheavenger wrote:
Do I want to risk this 3" charge?
- snake eyes.
Is not a fun decision to make though.
And it's not a decision that ranged weapons ever have to deal with.

This.

I voted "neutral" because while I'm not a fan of random charges, I'm not sure how I'd replace them. Specifically, how do you determine whether or not a deepstriking unit can make it into combat the turn it arrives from reserves without a random charge? A flat charge range means you either auto pass or auto fail. I guess you could add a d6 roll that determines how close to the enemy you're allowed to arrive...
1 = more than 12" away
2-5 = more than 9" away
6 = more than 1" away.

Or something.

I usually don't have an issue with someone completing a long charge. It gives them a little surge of excitement, and I'm not going to complain about good dice rolls resulting in good positions in a dice game. But rolling snake eyes for a stupid short charge always feels bad. That makes me lean towards the X + d6" approach as it ensures you'll never fail an especially short charge. The only thing is that x+d6" almost feels like a specific enough range that the randomization is superfluous. Still, this is probably my preferred pitch so far.

Edit:
I just don't like that random charges feel kind of unfluffy. Some editions, the rules give me the impression that random charges are meant to represent the squad coordinating well enough to cover the ground between themselves and their target. Which means that my space marines rolling 2" when I needed 4" represents adeptus astartes having a three stooges moment and failing to run a couple of feet towards the enemy. Like, oops. My shining spears just sped across half the the battlefield, but I guess they misjudged how hard that 3" charge was going to be. No combat for me. Have fun deleting my melee unit before it does anything.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/12/19 18:48:48



ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






Wyldhunt wrote:
Specifically, how do you determine whether or not a deepstriking unit can make it into combat the turn it arrives from reserves without a random charge?

Don't allow charges from reserves. Like the previous seven editions.


You could always have something like charge 2D6, or your move value, whichever is highest (jump units charge on foot); which gets rid of some of the extreme results.
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins





Tacoma, WA, USA

IMHO the way to fix Random Charge distances and minimum charge distances is to move Charging to the Movement Phase. Then Charge distance can be your Move + d6 + Charge Modifiers, while Advance is your Move + d6 + Advance Modifiers.

Overwatch would still happen at the declaration of Charge like it does now. Change the Shooting rules so that units that Charge can shoot Assault Weapons and/or Pistol at units they charged (successful or unsuccessful) whether or not they are in Engagement Range.

It might take a little bit longer to get into Close Combat, but the variables go down and you get to ditch the entire Charge phase of the game including that second unit move. Points adjustments would need to be made to account for how much longer it takes to get into close combat.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




New Mexico, USA

No. Random charge distances are part of what makes infantry way too fast in 40k, which enables alpha strike and de-values transport vehicles.

The frustratingly wide variability of a 2D6" charge distance means that many units--especially dedicated close combat troops--inevitably gain special rules that reduce this variability in some way. So in practice you wind up with a lot of units that have an average 9 or 10" charge distance, up from guaranteed 6" in prior editions.

The way to preserve sami-randomness here is to reduce the variability by doing Move + D6. But this is frankly way too fast, so it would have to be more like Move/2 + D6. And in this case, what's the point? Too complicated. Just go back to fixed charge distances. These days probably using the unit's Move value would make sense.
   
Made in ca
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant




Vancouver, BC

Why is it that a unit that charges can potentially move more than twice its regular movement in an extra phase? Charging and advancing should be consolidated into one action and charging should simply be getting within 1" of an enemy at the end of a unit's movement. Units with special rules could still shoot while engaged at, at an appropriate penalty if they advanced, or any unit could use their pistols which would make them actually useful on an assault unit.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




New Mexico, USA

Up to three times as much for some units, in fact.

6" move + up to 6" advance + rule that lets you advance and charge + up to 12" charge = 24+ movement!

This can be further enhanced with extra consolidation movement before and after combat begins Potentially that unit of foot troopers can hoof it 30" in one turn, and that's before adding in strategems to move twice.
   
Made in nl
Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks






your mind

Double unit specific movement. Use terrain mods. Add or subtract bonuses or penalties. Done.

   
Made in us
Focused Fire Warrior




NY

 alextroy wrote:
IMHO the way to fix Random Charge distances and minimum charge distances is to move Charging to the Movement Phase. Then Charge distance can be your Move + d6 + Charge Modifiers, while Advance is your Move + d6 + Advance Modifiers.

Overwatch would still happen at the declaration of Charge like it does now. Change the Shooting rules so that units that Charge can shoot Assault Weapons and/or Pistol at units they charged (successful or unsuccessful) whether or not they are in Engagement Range.

It might take a little bit longer to get into Close Combat, but the variables go down and you get to ditch the entire Charge phase of the game including that second unit move. Points adjustments would need to be made to account for how much longer it takes to get into close combat.


I can get behind this. Gives pistols a greater niche, and assault weapons can usually do with another leg up. My question is then about coming in from reserves. Would it be fair to say that such units can charge with just the d6+mod, or should they get movement or half movement? Would the minimum distance from enemy units stay 9"? I always thought that was a bit much.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Lord Damocles wrote:
Wyldhunt wrote:
Specifically, how do you determine whether or not a deepstriking unit can make it into combat the turn it arrives from reserves without a random charge?

Don't allow charges from reserves. Like the previous seven editions.

Wasn't charging out of outflank a thing back in the olden days? It's been a while. I kind of like allowing units to charge from reserves in some fashion. It's rather awkward for one of the myriad of deepstriking melee units to pop up and then just sit around waiting to be shot at for a turn. Especially if they're a squishy unit like genestealers or kommandos. It wouldn't be the worst thing ever if charging out of reserves went away, but it would lower the value of a lot of already meh melee units.

alextroy wrote:IMHO the way to fix Random Charge distances and minimum charge distances is to move Charging to the Movement Phase. Then Charge distance can be your Move + d6 + Charge Modifiers, while Advance is your Move + d6 + Advance Modifiers.

Overwatch would still happen at the declaration of Charge like it does now. Change the Shooting rules so that units that Charge can shoot Assault Weapons and/or Pistol at units they charged (successful or unsuccessful) whether or not they are in Engagement Range.

It might take a little bit longer to get into Close Combat, but the variables go down and you get to ditch the entire Charge phase of the game including that second unit move. Points adjustments would need to be made to account for how much longer it takes to get into close combat.

I like the general shape of that idea. The biggest change (and possible problem) I see this causing is that it prevents the rest of my army from shooting at the thing I charged. So dark reapers and dire avengers can't soften up a target before I send in the howling banshees. Ditto devastators and tacticals that want to support their vanguard pals.

jeff white wrote:Double unit specific movement. Use terrain mods. Add or subtract bonuses or penalties. Done.

As in charge range = double your movement? That would mean units like shining spears would have a 32" charge range without any buffs.


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran





This is a problem that is only a problem because GW don't put enough thought into the rules for many dedicated melee units, which in 8th and 9th just become dead weight if they fail their charge for reasons.

Flayed Ones for example. Described as shambling horrors until they see their targets, then they spring on them with lightning speed. Still 5 inch move with a 2d6 charge. Great
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Cynista wrote:
This is a problem that is only a problem because GW don't put enough thought into the rules for many dedicated melee units, which in 8th and 9th just become dead weight if they fail their charge for reasons.

Flayed Ones for example. Described as shambling horrors until they see their targets, then they spring on them with lightning speed. Still 5 inch move with a 2d6 charge. Great


I see what you're saying, but I feel you may have chosen a bad example. Gaining 2d6" of movement (from your charge) once you get close to an enemy and having a decent number of attacks both seem like decent examples of suddenly getting faster when they see their targets.


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in nl
Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks






your mind

Wyldhunt wrote:
.

jeff white wrote:Double unit specific movement. Use terrain mods. Add or subtract bonuses or penalties. Done.

As in charge range = double your movement? That would mean units like shining spears would have a 32" charge range without any buffs.


Not really. Bikes should have 8” base x 2 = 16 charge.
Base for most infantry should be 4.
Most vehicles 6 but they shouldn’t charge.


   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 jeff white wrote:
Wyldhunt wrote:
.

jeff white wrote:Double unit specific movement. Use terrain mods. Add or subtract bonuses or penalties. Done.

As in charge range = double your movement? That would mean units like shining spears would have a 32" charge range without any buffs.


Not really. Bikes should have 8” base x 2 = 16 charge.
Base for most infantry should be 4.
Most vehicles 6 but they shouldn’t charge.


Ah. So halving my army's movement and also changing the basic behavior of vehicles. Got it.


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







Might be better to split the move stat into walk/run for that. 2x walk rate to run/charge rather than a flat bonus puts pretty severe limitations on the move stats you can actually give things; there's a skirmish wargame called Godslayer where units had the opportunity to make a single, double, or triple move during their activation, and pretty much everything's move stat was 4, 5, or 6. Wargames that actually go with the "double walk rate to run/charge" tend to be games where move is purely based on unit type (ex. all infantry move 6, all cavalry move 12).

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 AnomanderRake wrote:
Might be better to split the move stat into walk/run for that. 2x walk rate to run/charge rather than a flat bonus puts pretty severe limitations on the move stats you can actually give things; there's a skirmish wargame called Godslayer where units had the opportunity to make a single, double, or triple move during their activation, and pretty much everything's move stat was 4, 5, or 6. Wargames that actually go with the "double walk rate to run/charge" tend to be games where move is purely based on unit type (ex. all infantry move 6, all cavalry move 12).


That makes sense. It would also allow you to fine-tune some of those values. Banshees might have an unusually high advance and/or charge value compared to scorpions, for instance. And you could go back to giving skimmers especially high advance values if you were so inclined. I'm also in favor of flat advance distances rather than rolling for it. It feels gamey (and not in a good way) when a squad accidentally outpaces the aura buff of their support character because the character rolled a 1 on his advance roll.


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in fi
Buttons Should Be Brass, Not Gold!






 kirotheavenger wrote:
The problem with M+d6 is that jump troops or bikers could have truly epic charge ranges.
A flat 6+d6 would be better, but 4+d6 would produce a reliable range more similar to current charges.


So? I don't actually think that'd be unfluffy in any way. Both of those are usually in the "fast attack" army slot, would be quite fitting IMO. Much more fitting than some supposedly slow moving unit pulling off a 12" charge on top of their normal movement, or genestealer brood rolling double ones on the charge distance roll.

Another change which I'd be totally cool with would be for the charge move to happen in the movement phase. It'd become like advancing, and actually that would probably be the best way to fix it all, if I think about it now. Just give units with USR of allowing advance + charge a new USR which doubles their M when charging.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/12/21 04:55:55


 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 tauist wrote:
 kirotheavenger wrote:
The problem with M+d6 is that jump troops or bikers could have truly epic charge ranges.
A flat 6+d6 would be better, but 4+d6 would produce a reliable range more similar to current charges.


So? I don't actually think that'd be unfluffy in any way. Both of those are usually in the "fast attack" army slot, would be quite fitting IMO. Much more fitting than some supposedly slow moving unit pulling off a 12" charge on top of their normal movement, or genestealer brood rolling double ones on the charge distance roll.

Another change which I'd be totally cool with would be for the charge move to happen in the movement phase. It'd become like advancing, and actually that would probably be the best way to fix it all, if I think about it now. Just give units with USR of allowing advance + charge a new USR which doubles their M when charging.


The problem with letting people charge a unit on the other side of the table in one turn is that you're dumping "maneuver" out of the game in favour of letting people attack at full efficiency from any position. You can't be a shooty army in a game where you can get charged by a unit that was out of line of sight on the other side of the table during your previous shooting phase; positioning doesn't matter, everything is just in melee with the most efficient possible target every melee phase.

It's not unfluffy, no, but it makes for a really dull game.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in fi
Buttons Should Be Brass, Not Gold!






 AnomanderRake wrote:
 tauist wrote:
 kirotheavenger wrote:
The problem with M+d6 is that jump troops or bikers could have truly epic charge ranges.
A flat 6+d6 would be better, but 4+d6 would produce a reliable range more similar to current charges.


So? I don't actually think that'd be unfluffy in any way. Both of those are usually in the "fast attack" army slot, would be quite fitting IMO. Much more fitting than some supposedly slow moving unit pulling off a 12" charge on top of their normal movement, or genestealer brood rolling double ones on the charge distance roll.

Another change which I'd be totally cool with would be for the charge move to happen in the movement phase. It'd become like advancing, and actually that would probably be the best way to fix it all, if I think about it now. Just give units with USR of allowing advance + charge a new USR which doubles their M when charging.


The problem with letting people charge a unit on the other side of the table in one turn is that you're dumping "maneuver" out of the game in favour of letting people attack at full efficiency from any position. You can't be a shooty army in a game where you can get charged by a unit that was out of line of sight on the other side of the table during your previous shooting phase; positioning doesn't matter, everything is just in melee with the most efficient possible target every melee phase.

It's not unfluffy, no, but it makes for a really dull game.


Ah so all of a sudden all armies would just consist of FA choices? Sorry, I'm not seeing how that would happen.

So jump packs and bikes would give unit a 13"-18" charge threat range.. hardly game breaking

And even this doesn't change the fact that the current implementation is piss-poor. I'm sure many better alternatives could be developed.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/12/21 08:12:24


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: