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.

Random charge length was necessary. Assault is usually decisive, far more so than shooting, and with the ability to measure at any time (a long overdue change) a fixed assault distance would have meant that you could always guarantee a charge (unless there was difficult terrain in the way). That would give powerful assault units the ability to make risk-free charges and wipe entire units off the table with no chance of failure, and that would have been very bad for the game.

Now, random charge length was also poorly executed. Having a range of 2-12" is just stupid, it should have been 3+D6" instead. That would eliminate the worst stupidity of failing a charge from 3" away, but still add enough uncertainty that a successful charge is not automatic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for 6th in general, it's underwhelming. The randomness is stupid, and there's lots of change for the sake of change, so the end result is that it isn't really any better than 5th. It isn't really much worse than 5th either though, so for me moving to 6th edition is really just a case of 'everyone else is doing it'.

Indeed, that would have made it better.

Fantasy got it right IMO, there is a guaranteed charge distance with uncertainty beyond it.

I put fine mainly because there wasn't a "meh" option.

The good:
- Better wound allocation / model removal
- More psyker spell options!
- Flier rules! No more of the awkward skimmer that flew high enough to easily be shot to death
- Decent vehicle rules. It was good to see it nerfed
- Codices have become better balanced, though CSM feels a tad bit lackluster in my personal opinion (bar certain units)

The bad:

- Close combat was heavily nerfed. Not really by one specific thing, but by multiple aspects culminating in a mess.
- Random Assault Distance. As others mentioned, I would be entirely for that 3+d6. Gives some risk, but you have some consistency. Heck, bring up the consistency one or two and drop it to d3. You still have the risk but it has some form of reliability
-Overwatch! Interesting in conception but it has several problems. For starters, it is argued that it is more realistic, when honestly it doesn't. This is a game where each marine fires at most two shots (usually) at the enemy in an entire turn and somehow IG can fire even more shots in the same turn. Where each moves forward the foe standing like numb nuts. I do admit though, it seems awesome. But then it brings up a meta problem. It is unbalanced. It heavily hurts Space Marines or any high BS unit but gives a great boon to an ork horde (tons of dakka).
-Challenges. Now please understand, by playing CSM this has heavily broken my feelings towards it. That as well as Necrons have really just killed my original interest for it.
- Allies. I find it a nice addition in concept... but I hate it in execution. It makes no sense to me. It favours Imperium of Mankind Drastically, doesn't properly balance armies that don't get as many options (Nids come to mind) and even by a fluff stand point many of the alliances don't really make much sense.
- Fortifications. I find it interesting but... the Fortress of Redemption and the landing pad just seem excessive.
-Finally, and what irritates me the most, the random everything. To me, a bit of randomness is fun. However, warlord traits (which can be worthless or extremely helpful), psyker rolls, charge rolls, and more cover the edition in an excessive amount of randomness which is honestly rather irritating to me personally. It also seems to be a way to ignore the obvious imbalance of spells and warlord traits.

 StarTrotter wrote:
- Better wound allocation / model removal

I disagree. Anyone who thinks that 6th edition's wound allocation system is an improvement has never played with barrage-sniping Basilisks or attempted to use the multi-shot barrage rules with a full unit of artillery.

 Peregrine wrote:
Now, random charge length was also poorly executed. Having a range of 2-12" is just stupid, it should have been 3+D6" instead. That would eliminate the worst stupidity of failing a charge from 3" away, but still add enough uncertainty that a successful charge is not automatic.

I would have preferred base initiative +D6. Units meant to be naturally faster and more agile would be more likely to get further even hindered by whatever may get in their way than naturally slower units, and working off base initiative means unweildy weapons wouldn't affect it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:
- Better wound allocation / model removal

I disagree. Anyone who thinks that 6th edition's wound allocation system is an improvement has never played with barrage-sniping Basilisks or attempted to use the multi-shot barrage rules with a full unit of artillery.

LoS makes it difficult to snipe stuff that isn't an upgrade. I think the directional allocation is fine.

Actually I agree with Loki on this. Although I must ask, Loki? Would that perhaps make fleet a tad too good? Units that have fleet have a tendency of having high initiatives to begin with.

 Peregrine wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:
- Better wound allocation / model removal

I disagree. Anyone who thinks that 6th edition's wound allocation system is an improvement has never played with barrage-sniping Basilisks or attempted to use the multi-shot barrage rules with a full unit of artillery.

I think this is about the only major downside of it. I much prefer it to 5E's wound allocation and its gimmickry. While it's odd that it makes barrage weapons very good snipers, and that that's an issue, I feel it's better than the situation that existed in 5E, where oftentimes *more* shooting resulted in fewer casualties, or where you'd get wounds spread around multiwound units and the like.

 StarTrotter wrote:
Actually I agree with Loki on this. Although I must ask, Loki? Would that perhaps make fleet a tad too good? Units that have fleet have a tendency of having high initiatives to begin with.

I dunno. I've seen plenty of models with high Initiative but no fleet, and plenty with low Initiative and fleet.

Also, fleet would probably have to be reworked. If charge worked off D6+something, Fleet allowing a reroll would be exactly the same as jump packs.

I love it, but dislike allies.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 McNinja wrote:
Every random roll makes me dislike the game slightly more. I Like the game, but random charge distance, rolling for warlord traits... I mean, why? How in any real context does that make sense? Your soldiers see a target, they go after it, they don't all fall and trip over their own feet after running for three seconds. The fact that a major aspect of the game is now random changed assault for the worse, so much so that they had to change rules like fleet to make it suck less.

As for rolling for warlord traits, that makes about as much sense as rolling for psychic powers. The commander has no clue what he's good at before the battle? Right. Its my army, my commander. Games-Workshop is not playing my games for me, so stop making more on tables where 99% of the rolls are useless to me. Psychic powers are even worse; a psyker has no idea what he knows. Not a single clue until the game starts. Its like he opens a book of spells, closes his eyes, and just slaps his finger on the page, and whatever it lands on is what he knows for the game.

Random charges represent a multitude of things.

The unit doesn't react together cohesively and the ensuring confusion causes the charge to fail.

They fail to correctly judge the distance between them and the target and are unable to reach it before the enemy reacts(the turn ending)

You the commander issue an order to charge and they fail to receive it.

Any number of things can result in a unit failing to accomplish this.


Its why you the commander need to make calculated decisions. have backup plans if your charge fails. How do you react when things don't go according to plan.

Because of this, having some randomness increases the tactical depth of the game. Making it just about which player can set up their certainties best is kinda lame.

Amazing that someone has the balls has to say this about a game where pre-meausuring for shooting attacks doesn't just happen, but is actively encouraged.

Every justification made here could be used to argue that a weapons range should be randomly rolled in every shooting phase. That wouldn't stop 75% of the fanbase from rioting if a firewarrior had to roll 4d6 for range though.

 -Loki- wrote:
I would have preferred base initiative +D6. Units meant to be naturally faster and more agile would be more likely to get further even hindered by whatever may get in their way than naturally slower units, and working off base initiative means unweildy weapons wouldn't affect it.

IMO that just stacks too many advantages on having high initiative. You already get to swing first and do a lot of damage before anyone can retaliate, so I think that's enough, especially since I+D6" would mean a much higher average charge range (imagine Eldar with 8-9" average charge range in addition to fleet re-rolls).

 Grey Templar wrote:
LoS makes it difficult to snipe stuff that isn't an upgrade. I think the directional allocation is fine.

But things that are upgrades (melta guns, etc) are often the thing you want to kill, and even with LoS if you're taking 5+ wounds from a Basilisk on a character there's a pretty good chance that you fail even 2+ LoS at least once and die. Meanwhile non-IC characters are pretty much auto-killed if the shot lands on target.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I think this is about the only major downside of it. I much prefer it to 5E's wound allocation and its gimmickry. While it's odd that it makes barrage weapons very good snipers, and that that's an issue, I feel it's better than the situation that existed in 5E, where oftentimes *more* shooting resulted in fewer casualties, or where you'd get wounds spread around multiwound units and the like.

The solution would be to use a modified version of 5th. For example, keep the same method of allocating wounds, but require that each type of wound be done as a separate round (resolve all bolter wounds before doing any plasma wounds). Or require that all save-ignoring wounds be spread as widely as possible, with no model getting two no-save wounds until every model in the unit has one.

Also, the 5th edition system may have had its balance issues, but at least it was quick and simple to resolve. Compare that to 6th where you have endless potential for arguments about LOS/distance ("this model is 1mm closer", "no, you moved it 1mm when you measured it", "NO YOU") and resolving a salvo from a full battery of quad guns is effectively impossible.

BlaxicanX wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 McNinja wrote:
Every random roll makes me dislike the game slightly more. I Like the game, but random charge distance, rolling for warlord traits... I mean, why? How in any real context does that make sense? Your soldiers see a target, they go after it, they don't all fall and trip over their own feet after running for three seconds. The fact that a major aspect of the game is now random changed assault for the worse, so much so that they had to change rules like fleet to make it suck less.

As for rolling for warlord traits, that makes about as much sense as rolling for psychic powers. The commander has no clue what he's good at before the battle? Right. Its my army, my commander. Games-Workshop is not playing my games for me, so stop making more on tables where 99% of the rolls are useless to me. Psychic powers are even worse; a psyker has no idea what he knows. Not a single clue until the game starts. Its like he opens a book of spells, closes his eyes, and just slaps his finger on the page, and whatever it lands on is what he knows for the game.

Random charges represent a multitude of things.

The unit doesn't react together cohesively and the ensuring confusion causes the charge to fail.

They fail to correctly judge the distance between them and the target and are unable to reach it before the enemy reacts(the turn ending)

You the commander issue an order to charge and they fail to receive it.

Any number of things can result in a unit failing to accomplish this.


Its why you the commander need to make calculated decisions. have backup plans if your charge fails. How do you react when things don't go according to plan.

Because of this, having some randomness increases the tactical depth of the game. Making it just about which player can set up their certainties best is kinda lame.

Amazing that someone has the balls has to say this about a game where pre-meausuring for shooting attacks doesn't just happen, but is actively encouraged.

Every justification made here could be used to argue that a weapons range should be randomly rolled in every shooting phase. That wouldn't stop 75% of the fanbase from rioting if a firewarrior had to roll 4d6 for range though.

A bullet doesn't change how far it goes because its firer didn't receive or misunderstood and order. All that matters is if he got on target, hence it being a flat skill test.

BlaxicanX wrote:
Amazing that someone has the balls has to say this about a game where pre-meausuring for shooting attacks doesn't just happen, but is actively encouraged.

Pre-measuring for shooting (and assault, don't forget) exists for one reason: because many people cheated and pre-measured for shooting anyway, so banning it only punished the honest players. The old system of having to estimate range and never be sure until you're committed is better in theory, but completely broken when cheating is so easy and common.

Every justification made here could be used to argue that a weapons range should be randomly rolled in every shooting phase. That wouldn't stop 75% of the fanbase from rioting if a firewarrior had to roll 4d6 for range though.

The difference is that:

1) Shooting is usually less decisive than assault. A Fire Warrior squad that has fixed 30" range will consistently inflict a few casualties every turn. A terminator death star that has fixed 6" charge range (with the ability to measure before committing to a charge) will almost always wipe its target out entirely every time it declares a charge. That makes known and fixed shooting ranges low risk/low reward, while fixed and known charge ranges would be low risk/high reward.

2) Assault has a consistent set of ranges, with virtually every unit having a charge range of 2-12" (even in 5th edition it was 6/12"), while shooting has ranges from 6" to 240". Trying to come up with a single system for random shooting ranges that can cover both short-range pistol fire and cross-table Basilisk barrages (where even the longest shot possible in a game of 40k is less than half maximum range) and still be balanced and easy to work with would be a nightmare.

As a fantasy player i would would note that we also have random charge distance, so if anything 40k have now a few rules from fantasy taken in, such as the challange system and the Look out sir.

Fantasy's random charge is a little better as you add your movement value, so there is a guaranteed charge distance(M value+2")

They should have added a fixed value to the distance.

Peregrine wrote:
Also, the 5th edition system may have had its balance issues, but at least it was quick and simple to resolve. Compare that to 6th where you have endless potential for arguments about LOS/distance ("this model is 1mm closer", "no, you moved it 1mm when you measured it", "NO YOU") and resolving a salvo from a full battery of quad guns is effectively impossible.

Ugh, I certainly never felt that way, I had way more issues with 5th's wound allocation, individually allocating each hit and rolling it in turn. Could it have been solved better? Yes, but 6E's wound allocation, as it stands, I feel is better than 5E's as it was. 5E wound allocation and resolution was perhaps the most time consuming and finicky part of the game. Always had issues with it, and it took forever to teach to new players. 6th's barrage sniping aside, can usually be diced off at worse, I haven't seen the issues with it so far, at least personally, that I did with 5th's wound allocation gimmicks.

Though truth be told, I still prefer 4E's method, minus the range limitations.

I was fairly neutral about this edition but as more codices come out I'm liking it less and less. I'm now starting to see a pattern that started with the 6th ed rule book where they are trying to take control of the game away from us.

As other people have mentioned the random tables in the rule book as well as the randomness being introduced into the army codex are really getting to me. When I have to start refering to a table at the start of each turn or keep a pen and paper beside me to make notes on what buffs my identical army list does/doesn't have this game I start to lose interest.

Allies, fortifications, flyers, the introduction of pre-measuring and the stupid charge distances lower my verdict to a "fine". Still better than "I HAZ MORE TRANSPORTAZ" 5th.

I do like 6th edition but there are both good and bad points:

Good

- Hull Points
- Overwatch
- Allies
- Warlord Traits
- Rulebook Psychic Powers
- Flyers

Bad

- Assaulting from vehicles/outflank (good luck getting Scorpions or Banshees into combat until something changes)
- Allies (the Matrix has very little background behind it when armies like Necrons and Chaos or Grey Knights can ally together)
- Random charges can be a pain (they should have a fixed distance such as Initiative + D6 or bring back different movement values for races again)
- Fortifications and Allies not being player agreement like special characters used to be

I'm not too sure I like this edition yet as I feel that it was handled poorly. It feels like some sort of odd mixture of 4th and 5th edition with random tables thrown in. While I am happy that shooting got a buff, the way it was handled invalidated a lot of units and tactics. And flier spam is just as annoying as Razorspam, as a lot of time there is not a reliable way to take a flier out.

 Grey Templar wrote:

A bullet doesn't change how far it goes because its firer didn't receive or misunderstood and order.

People don't suddenly trip and fall if they "misunderstand an order" (which is a ridiculous notion, how does one misunderstand "run toward that enemy and hit them with your sword?"), either.

Misunderstanding an order to open fire on a particular target, or aiming sloppily due to poor weather/fog of war/a jet flying low above you and disorienting you/being out of breath or needing to catch your footing after moving those 6 inches can and most certainly will affect how many shots fired from a squad will actually hit a target, though. The BS of a unit is a symbolization of the unit's actual aiming skill, the ability to point your gun at a target and shoot- it doesn't take into account battlefield conditions, though, which is why I'm noting that saying "charge distances should be random to symbolize battlefield conditions and circumstances" is incredibly silly because that same exact line of thinking can be applied to shooting or almost anything in the game.

 Peregrine wrote:

BlaxicanX wrote:
Amazing that someone has the balls has to say this about a game where pre-meausuring for shooting attacks doesn't just happen, but is actively encouraged.

Pre-measuring for shooting (and assault, don't forget) exists for one reason: because many people cheated and pre-measured for shooting anyway, so banning it only punished the honest players. The old system of having to estimate range and never be sure until you're committed is better in theory, but completely broken when cheating is so easy and common.

Every justification made here could be used to argue that a weapons range should be randomly rolled in every shooting phase. That wouldn't stop 75% of the fanbase from rioting if a firewarrior had to roll 4d6 for range though.

The difference is that:

1) Shooting is usually less decisive than assault. A Fire Warrior squad that has fixed 30" range will consistently inflict a few casualties every turn. A terminator death star that has fixed 6" charge range (with the ability to measure before committing to a charge) will almost always wipe its target out entirely every time it declares a charge. That makes known and fixed shooting ranges low risk/low reward, while fixed and known charge ranges would be low risk/high reward.

2) Assault has a consistent set of ranges, with virtually every unit having a charge range of 2-12" (even in 5th edition it was 6/12"), while shooting has ranges from 6" to 240". Trying to come up with a single system for random shooting ranges that can cover both short-range pistol fire and cross-table Basilisk barrages (where even the longest shot possible in a game of 40k is less than half maximum range) and still be balanced and easy to work with would be a nightmare.

Naturally, but I'm not discussing the game mechanics. My points are in regard to the attempts people are making in this thread to justify the random charge distance via in-universe factors, like "misunderstanding orders", gakky weather, being disoriented from an exploding/low-flying jet, etc. Every factor that could affect your ability to run across a field and hit someone with your sword would also affect your ability to shoot straight.

On the subject of game mechanics, though, I doubt that the random charge distance was implemented to "balance" assault. There was nothing wrong with it before. Assault armies were hardly overpowered or IMBA in 5th edition, when the charge distance of a unit had a concrete value.

Best edition so far.

Three qualifiers;

- I have played every single edition of the game.
- I have always played in a private setting with 4-5 close friends.
- I dislike tournaments.

BlaxicanX wrote:
People don't suddenly trip and fall if they "misunderstand an order" (which is a ridiculous notion, how does one misunderstand "run toward that enemy and hit them with your sword?"), either.

Again, it's not about literally tripping and falling. Random charge distance might, instead, represent things like suppressing fire being too heavy to get enough momentum going to make a successful charge before having to duck back into the nearest cover.

The BS of a unit is a signification of the unit's actual aiming skill- it doesn't take into account battlefield conditions, though,

Sure, it's an abstraction (and, IMO, a necessary one to keep the game moving at a decent pace), but it's an abstraction that's good enough. Shooting doesn't need random distances/modifiers because shooting is already random. Assault needs random distance because once you're allowed to measure range at any time the outcome of most/many assaults would become completely non-random (if assault terminators charge fire warriors the outcome is obvious). All you would have to do is get within move + charge range and then remove the enemy unit from the table. So random charge distance is necessary to bring an element of risk back into assault.

Well, I see it very positive after playing (and organizing) several RTTs.
There are some loopholes in there but they are not really game-changing.

 Peregrine wrote:

BlaxicanX wrote:
People don't suddenly trip and fall if they "misunderstand an order" (which is a ridiculous notion, how does one misunderstand "run toward that enemy and hit them with your sword?"), either.

Again, it's not about literally tripping and falling. Random charge distance might, instead, represent things like suppressing fire being too heavy to get enough momentum going to make a successful charge before having to duck back into the nearest cover.

... That's what overwatch and pinning are for. Literally.

Sure, it's an abstraction (and, IMO, a necessary one to keep the game moving at a decent pace), but it's an abstraction that's good enough. Shooting doesn't need random distances/modifiers because shooting is already random. Assault needs random distance because once you're allowed to measure range at any time the outcome of most/many assaults would become completely non-random (if assault terminators charge fire warriors the outcome is obvious). All you would have to do is get within move + charge range and then remove the enemy unit from the table. So random charge distance is necessary to bring an element of risk back into assault.

Again, I'm not particularly interested in the game mechanics aspect of the justification, though I really don't see how assaulting was overpowered in 5th edition, where the charge distance wasn't nearly as weird as it is in the current edition.

BlaxicanX wrote:
That's what overwatch and pinning are for. Literally.

Which would be fine, if overwatch and pinning were actually effective at stopping charges. Overwatch is limited to an occasional bonus casualty or two unless the assaulting unit is trying for a maximum-range charge with only 1-2 models in range to make it, while pinning suffers from low chance of success (most things you care about pinning have very high leadership, or are fearless) and not working at all on overwatch (when it would be most important for stopping a charge).

Again, I'm not particularly interested in the game mechanics aspect of the justification, though I really don't see how assaulting was overpowered in 5th edition, where the charge distance wasn't nearly as weird as it is in the current edition.

Because in 5th you theoretically couldn't measure and be sure of your distance to the target until you committed to a charge. There was still uncertainty in your positioning, and you had a chance of being stuck 6.001" from the target and unable to charge. But when you can measure at any time that risk of failure goes away, and a fixed 6" charge distance would mean that far too many assaults would become automatic successes (with the target being wiped out entirely).

(Yes, people constantly cheated and measured too soon, but that's why measuring at any time is now legal and charge lengths are random.)

I'm really liking it, even though the amount I get to play has dropped drastically this year. Overall, I'm loving the new additions but a couple of things I dislike are:

Barrage weapons being the best snipers in the game. That's just silly. I understand why they've done that; barrage weapons should ignore directional cover. However it's clunky and open to abuse.

Random tables. The charge ranges are fine. Peregrine has summed up exactly how I feel about them. With gaining measuring ability, they need to be random. However the psychic tables and warlord traits are annoying at the best and broken at worst.
The psychic powers are annoying because you can't plan very much. I'm sure that's the intention, but personally I don't like it. It's limited my use of psychers outside the Divination discipline.
Warlord traits have some very silly things. Outflanking is ridiculous and can massively alter the game if something like a devourer HT gets it. Not a fan of warlord traits.

I find it more positive than negative, which is good.

The main things I have taken issue with (and have now largely come to terms with) are:
- the inclusion of random charge range (its just a little too unreliable, especially for assault armies)
- The initally unbalanced nature of flyers vs lack of AA for most armies. I still think some flyers are over or under priced
- The larger fortifications are ridiculous (Aegis and Bastion are ok)
- Im still not a fan of allies. Its just an easy way to plug gaps in an army that you should need to use tactics to get around.

i find that it is very good. it is more realistic. like the hull points. i remeber in 5th i had a leman russ which took about 6 pens each game but stubbornly refused to blow up. of course the tank by that time would of fallen apart or ceased to run which hull points are all about. randomly generated pyskic powers are good more of a challenge and your opponent cant really predict what tricks your gonna get.