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.

 Billagio wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:
You sure sound fun to play against.

Yeah, it's so little fun when you actually measure distances accurately instead of letting people have extra movement distance. Because charging from 24" away usually means that someone measured generously and took an extra half inch of movement distance to get into charge range.

Unless everything was measured accurately in the first place (ie deployment) and you moved up the full amounts and measured properly for distance. Or if your opponent is not an dill weed

The only way for it to actually work is if you have a model in each unit in a perfectly straight line away from each other. Any cause for the tape measure you be turned, at all, to get them to line up will cause extra movement. Add to this circular bases and the requirement of a model actually being brought into base to base contact for a charge to be successful, and you've got a real problem.

No one is going to be able to place models that mathematically perfect to get a turn 1 charge.

It's not about bein an unfun opponent, it's about not liking opponents cheating.

 Billagio wrote:
Or if you use stormboyz.


lol dill weed....

I'm not seeing what Stormboyz bring to the table that allows them to make a turn 1 charge that any other jump infantry doesn't.

And this is where that whole "golden rule" thing comes into play, because largely outside of internet forums, nobody is going go assume they need that measure of accuracy to make that because such accuracy is impossible given any reasonable conditions. The overwhelmingly vast majority of players will assume that two units that are have obviously and intentionally been deployed at the limit of their deployment zones and directly opposite each other will be able to be reached with a 12" move and a 12" charge.

So now we're shifting the goalposts?

It's mathematically impossible to ensure a turn 1 charge for a variety of reasons. If players want to fudge the rules slightly to let it happen, that's fine. It's, at worst, mutual cheating, since it's mutual breaking of the rules and at best, house ruling.

It's akin to me letting my friend get away with measuring his movement from the front of his models base, but moving his model up to that point to the back of his base, getting an extra 1" movement. I ignore it, because I'm just used to it. It doesn't change the fact that it's cheating.

 Vaktathi wrote:
because such accuracy is impossible given any reasonable conditions.

Exactly. The accuracy in measurement required to get a legitimate 24" turn 1 charge is beyond any real player's ability, so the inevitable conclusion is if someone does claim a turn 1 24" charge they have gained it illegitimately through either deploying too close or moving too far. And in either case their opponent is entirely justified in refusing to allow the illegitimate charge.

 -Loki- wrote:
I'm not seeing what Stormboyz bring to the table that allows them to make a turn 1 charge that any other jump infantry doesn't.

To answer this, it's because Ork Stormboyz have the Rokkit Pack wargear. Every time they move, they roll a d6. On a 1, one model dies. Regardless, the unit gets to add that die roll to the distance moved. In essence, the Stormboyz could theoretically get a first turn charge by getting an 18" movement followed by any decent charge distance, assuming the opponent is on the line or somewhere close to it.

 Locclo wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:
I'm not seeing what Stormboyz bring to the table that allows them to make a turn 1 charge that any other jump infantry doesn't.

To answer this, it's because Ork Stormboyz have the Rokkit Pack wargear. Every time they move, they roll a d6. On a 1, one model dies. Regardless, the unit gets to add that die roll to the distance moved. In essence, the Stormboyz could theoretically get a first turn charge by getting an 18" movement followed by any decent charge distance, assuming the opponent is on the line or somewhere close to it.

Exactly. They can move up to a possible 18inches every turn. They can also take a special char that lets them do a vanguard veteran type of assault out of deepstrike.

-Loki- wrote:
The only way for it to actually work is if you have a model in each unit in a perfectly straight line away from each other. Any cause for the tape measure you be turned, at all, to get them to line up will cause extra movement. Add to this circular bases and the requirement of a model actually being brought into base to base contact for a charge to be successful, and you've got a real problem.

No one is going to be able to place models that mathematically perfect to get a turn 1 charge.

-Loki- wrote:So now we're shifting the goalposts?

It's mathematically impossible to ensure a turn 1 charge for a variety of reasons. If players want to fudge the rules slightly to let it happen, that's fine. It's, at worst, mutual cheating, since it's mutual breaking of the rules and at best, house ruling.

Actually, no. It's entirely mathematically possible. It's just not easy. With some expensive measuring tools, it's not even that hard. If one player deploys on the line, and the other deploys exactly opposite him, on the line, then they're theoretically 24" apart, and all we're quibbling about is microns - that can be measured, just not with the tools most gamers have around.

Peregrine wrote:
Exactly. The accuracy in measurement required to get a legitimate 24" turn 1 charge is beyond any real player's ability, so the inevitable conclusion is if someone does claim a turn 1 24" charge they have gained it illegitimately through either deploying too close or moving too far. And in either case their opponent is entirely justified in refusing to allow the illegitimate charge.

That's quite a stretch. Your argument is fundamentally flawed because you're applying different standards for different parts of the game. Your initial premise is that deploying accurately is not a reasonable goal. Well, if deploying accurately is not a reasonable goal, given the tools we have at our disposal, then it should be just as acceptable for my guys to deploy 2mm past the 24" line as 2mm further back from the line. If your argument is that we can't be precise, then you have to accept that it's an equally valid possibility that we're slightly too close as that we're slightly too far away, and that neither are cheating, they're just the limits of our ability.

The second part of your argument is that we should apply the theoretical application of deployment to the actual position of the models on the table. But if we're applying theoretically, the rules make it theoretically possible that we did deploy accurately, and that the charge is legal.

You're applying shifting standards, and that's the only way your argument works. You demand that we cannot deploy with laser-like accuracy in step one, and then that we ignore where we actually deployed and use a theoretical distance to disallow the charge. That's a ludicrous misapplication of the rules, of common sense, and of basic sportsmanship.

Theoretically, the game allows the possibility that we did deploy legally, and that the charge is legal. Given that this actually requires both players to deploy on the line, with the second player directly across from the first, it's only possible if the first player to deploy actually puts his guys on the line. Clearly, it already requires both player's consent to make this possible. If the first player to deploy doesn't want it to be possible, he has only to deploy off the line. Likewise, if the second player doesn't want the possibility, all he has to do is deploy at an angle to the first, or likewise, off the line. So, in order for this to work, it needs both players to consciously make it possible. That said, if they both do this, why would one of them suddenly go all pedantic when it comes time to roll the charge?


Logically, it's possible. Mathematically, it is possible. It's legal within the rules. It requires both player's cooperation to set up. The only argument you have against it is to apply inconsistent standards to when we use actual distances and when we use theoretical ones. In short, denying it is the epitome of poor sportsmanship - if you're so against it, don't deploy on the line, directly across from your opponent.

That was really fun to read! (No sarcasm, I promise )...back to the topic:

I love assault, so I hate 6th edition.

I love being able to kill vehicles, so I love 6th edition.

I don't like fliers, so I hate 6th edition.

I love psychic powers, so I love 6th edition.

I'm getting into the groove of 6th edition. I feel that most of the internet has calmed down enough to get a handle on it. I'm not sure how tournament play is fairing, but my local gaming group has adjusted quite well. I still run assaulty CSM lists and manage to do okay, they just require a bit more thought put in than if I were running a gunline. And that's okay with me. Overall, i'd say it's an improvement.

 Redbeard wrote:
With some expensive measuring tools, it's not even that hard.

No such tools exist. There is no way to measure 24" so precisely that you are neither one atom-width under 24" (and therefore illegally deployed) nor one atom-width over 24" (and therefore unable to make the turn-1 charge). And even if some theoretical tool could exist to do this, it is certainly not available in a game of 40k. Therefore we know with absolute certainty that a "successful" charge at 24" was due to either illegal deployment or illegal movement.

Well, if deploying accurately is not a reasonable goal, given the tools we have at our disposal, then it should be just as acceptable for my guys to deploy 2mm past the 24" line as 2mm further back from the line.

Nonsense. Deploying 2mm over the line is cheating, therefore you are obligated to deploy in such a way that you are not 2mm over the line, even if that means deploying a full 1" behind the line. It's just like with point costs: if we're playing a 1500 point game then 1501 points is cheating and you might have to play a 1496 point list to be legal.

Obviously this can't be enforced in every case (nor would it even be relevant), but you are NOT entitled to deploy 2mm over the line and then declare a distance that depends on taking advantage of that 2mm.

Clearly, it already requires both player's consent to make this possible. If the first player to deploy doesn't want it to be possible, he has only to deploy off the line.

And here's the problem: both players consenting to be exactly 24" apart and allow a turn-1 charge with a roll of 12" for charge distance is going to be incredibly rare. The vast majority of turn-1 charges in this situation will be either:

1) The charging player says nothing and just measures 24" for a "successful" charge, which means with near certainty that the actual distance was more than 24" and the charging player was taking advantage of careless measuring to gain extra distance and do something that shouldn't have been possible.

or

2) The charging player "traps" an unaware opponent (probably a new or less competitive player) by asking to agree to count it as exactly 24" range. While not technically illegal it's certainly unethical, as the charging player is only getting that agreement by withholding important information about the situation and a fully informed player would not have agreed.

So then how do you measure your deployment zones? Couldnt you just as easily say that the deployment zones are not accuratly measured because we cant measure atom widths? Maybe if you were able to do that I would be within charge range since your deployment line is .0000001 inches closer to mine?

If both players are deployed on a line across from each other with a supposed 24 inch no mans land between then and the first player moves 12 inches, then rolls double 6s for the charge range and overwatch doesn't do anything, then he should be within 24 inches. If you measure and hes not, then he is somewhere out of range, but if you measure 12 inches from the closest model and he is in b2b contact, then he is in range, whether you like it or not. 12+12=24 every time you calculate it, and your atom width arguements are not going to really matter if the ruler says that you are in range and you didnt call them out for moving too far or whatever in the movement phase.

 Billagio wrote:
So then how do you measure your deployment zones? Couldnt you just as easily say that the deployment zones are not accuratly measured because we cant measure atom widths? Maybe if you were able to do that I would be within charge range since your deployment line is .0000001 inches closer to mine?

No matter where the failure is it's still impossible to charge 24" on turn 1 without having some kind of failure. And no matter where the failure is I have every right to say "no, that's not possible" and refuse to allow my opponent to exploit that failure to gain a major advantage.

Again, look at the point cost analogy. Let's say we're playing a 500 point game and you show up with a C:SM army containing six tactical squads. I don't care what argument you want to make, or where you made a mistake in adding up your point costs, you have an illegal army and there is nothing you can say that will get me to let you play with it. And I'm certainly not going to listen to your excuse that adding up points accurately is hard, so it's just as likely that your army will be over the point limit as it is that it will be under it.

If both players are deployed on a line across from each other with a supposed 24 inch no mans land between then

And no matter how many times people state this ridiculous assumption it is still false. It is impossible to deploy exactly 24" away without being under 24" away (and therefore deployed illegally). That kind of mathematical perfection does not exist in the real world, so every single real game of 40k has models either 24.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001" away or illegally deployed. And if you are 24.00000000000000000000000000000000000000001" away you can not charge on the first turn with a maximum range of 24".

12+12=24 every time you calculate it, and your atom width arguements are not going to really matter if the ruler says that you are in range and you didnt call them out for moving too far or whatever in the movement phase.

Nonsense. It's very easy to cheat and claim a little extra distance in the movement phase (or nudge the model a bit forward when you're measuring for shooting, etc) and it's incredibly unlikely that your opponent will catch until you do something in the shooting/assault phase that makes it obvious. But if your opponent does something that should be impossible based on that extra distance you have no obligation to say "well, I didn't catch you in time, guess I'll just have to let you get away with it".

Whatever, maybe you're right, it never really happens anyways :/

Back to the original problem though, it IS possible to first turn assault, even if we accept Peregrines argument. Just use some stormboyz and hope for good rolls

Yes, back to the original point of vehicles being ludicrously vulnerable in assaults, it is in fact possible under both theoretical and practical conditions that it should happen turn 1 (especially going 2nd), and that simply avoiding CC with vehicles is not a reasonable counter, especially as average and maximum charge distances have increased and vehicles cannot overwatch.

 Peregrine wrote:

Therefore we know with absolute certainty that a "successful" charge at 24" was due to either illegal deployment or illegal movement.

Not at all. I'm sure you think you're very clever, referring to atom widths and all, but really, you're just coming off as a jerk. There has to be an acceptable margin of error, and that margin of error has to be within the scale of what we can actually measure. You know, that's how science works too...

Nonsense. Deploying 2mm over the line is cheating, therefore you are obligated to deploy in such a way that you are not 2mm over the line, even if that means deploying a full 1" behind the line. It's just like with point costs: if we're playing a 1500 point game then 1501 points is cheating and you might have to play a 1496 point list to be legal.

Again, you're confusing two things drawing inaccurate comparisons. The margin of error for points is less than 1 point, because we can accurately measure the points in a list to within 1 point. Playing a 1501 list violates something we can measure.

Deploying 2mm over a line is probably also measurable, although it might be close, depending on the tools available. But we're not really talking about 2mm, we're talking about the atom-width that your insane argument depends on, and that you rightly state that we cannot measure. As such, someone deploying an atom's width over the line isn't cheating, because cheating is an intentional violation of the rules. What's more, even if they had intentionally deployed that atom's width too close, you don't have a tool to prove that they did.

I can certainly deploy 24" inches away from your guy, to within the margin of error that we can actually measure. If I do that, then I can charge you. You can't prove that I didn't deploy perfectly accurately, because you also don't have the tool to know that.

The way to avoid this isn't to be a dick and start talking about the width of an atom, it's to deploy your own guys a measurable distance off the line. That's really easy.

 Redbeard wrote:
Not at all. I'm sure you think you're very clever, referring to atom widths and all, but really, you're just coming off as a jerk. There has to be an acceptable margin of error, and that margin of error has to be within the scale of what we can actually measure. You know, that's how science works too...

You're right, there's an acceptable margin of error: don't claim turn-1 charges that require you to measure 24" with mathematical perfection.

I can certainly deploy 24" inches away from your guy, to within the margin of error that we can actually measure. If I do that, then I can charge you. You can't prove that I didn't deploy perfectly accurately, because you also don't have the tool to know that.

Except we don't just have the measurement of the models on the table, we have an absolute indisputable rule that models must be at least 24" away. So, we have three possible situations:

Under 24": illegal deployment.
Exactly 24": not possible.
Over 24": no charge.

So we know that IF you have deployed legally you can not charge. If you do charge we can conclude that you deployed illegally or moved illegally. Either way the charge isn't happening.

The way to avoid this isn't to be a dick and start talking about the width of an atom, it's to deploy your own guys a measurable distance off the line. That's really easy.

Did you miss the part where I explained that the most likely scenario for this to come up isn't where there's an arranged "count this as being exactly 24" away", it's where at least one player deploys in a way that guarantees that the distance between models is over 24" and the other player moves more than 24" to get the charge. Deploying 1mm behind the line to make a charge impossible doesn't stop your opponent from moving an extra inch in the movement phase and then arguing that it's "possible" to make a turn-1 charge therefore they didn't cheat.

 Billagio wrote:
Whatever, maybe you're right, it never really happens anyways :/

Back to the original problem though, it IS possible to first turn assault, even if we accept Peregrines argument. Just use some stormboyz and hope for good rolls

Its even easier when you have Infiltrating beasts and go second.

Peregrine, if one side supposedly can't prove that it's deployed exactly 24" away then the other side can't prove that it's not. It is possible, however unlikely, that a unit is deployed correctly within an atom's length. If you're going to call a first turn charge cheating you'd better be able to prove beyond a doubt that it is impossible, which you haven't.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
It is possible, however unlikely, that a unit is deployed correctly within an atom's length.

It's also possible that I could win every single lottery from now until the end of the universe with one ticket each. However, like deploying at a mathematically perfect 24" away, this "possibility" is purely theoretical and if it ever happened in reality you would be absolutely certain of some kind of fraud.

If you're going to call a first turn charge cheating you'd better be able to prove beyond a doubt that it is impossible, which you haven't.

Sorry, but people are executed under an easier standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" than I've already established.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Two wrongs do not make a right.

Exactly. So you should not be rewarded for making a "mistake" in deployment/measuring by getting a turn 1 charge you shouldn't have.


But really, I don't see why there's any controversy about that. We've established that it's impossible to get a legitimate turn 1 charge in the real world, so what you have to ask yourself is whether or not you're the kind of person who would exploit the lack of precision in measuring to gain a huge advantage for yourself.

Actually Storm Boys can get a turn 1 charge. They move 12+D6" then roll 2D6" for charge for a possible 15"-30" charge range. If your warlord gets the +1" charge trait you can go that extra inch as well.

I like 6th Ed. Even though it's going to take away my Null Zone in a few months. :(

 Peregrine wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Two wrongs do not make a right.

Exactly. So you should not be rewarded for making a "mistake" in deployment/measuring by getting a turn 1 charge you shouldn't have.


But really, I don't see why there's any controversy about that. We've established that it's impossible to get a legitimate turn 1 charge in the real world, so what you have to ask yourself is whether or not you're the kind of person who would exploit the lack of precision in measuring to gain a huge advantage for yourself.

How is it exploitative to argue that 12+12=24? You can't prove that it's a flawed deployment and yet you're going on about how it's cheating to perform a charge that is completely legitimate in the rules.

Just from a totally non competitive player you can get a charge on turn one, its not that rare.. Dawn of war your 24'' apart yes? YES. A squad of jump guys moves 12'' forward, they only need 11' of charge distance to be one inch away from the enemies base for a charge. It says in the rules 1" away, then you move into base contact after. You guys are taking this stuff way to seriously, you cant tell me you guys are actually keeping that close of an eye on your guys that ever turn your not moving an extr 1/4" or 1/2" on some guys, EVERYONE DOES ive seent it!

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How is it exploitative to argue that 12+12=24? You can't prove that it's a flawed deployment and yet you're going on about how it's cheating to perform a charge that is completely legitimate in the rules.

Because it is impossible to deploy exactly 24" away without either deploying under 24" away (illegal deployment) or over 24" away (impossible charge). Nobody has the required level of precision to do it legitimately, so anyone claiming a "successful" charge is either exploiting an illegal deployment or moving their models too far.

 Peregrine wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How is it exploitative to argue that 12+12=24? You can't prove that it's a flawed deployment and yet you're going on about how it's cheating to perform a charge that is completely legitimate in the rules.

Because it is impossible to deploy exactly 24" away without either deploying under 24" away (illegal deployment) or over 24" away (impossible charge). Nobody has the required level of precision to do it legitimately, so anyone claiming a "successful" charge is either exploiting an illegal deployment or moving their models too far.

Or the players both lucked out and placed the models exactly, down to the micron, 24" apart. It's possible, just not very likely, but the mere face that it's possible means your argument is flawed.

 Frecklesonfire wrote:
It says in the rules 1" away, then you move into base contact after.

No it doesn't. Page 22, under "failed charge": if you are outside your maximum charge range the charge fails.

you cant tell me you guys are actually keeping that close of an eye on your guys that ever turn your not moving an extr 1/4" or 1/2" on some guys, EVERYONE DOES ive seent it!

I accept that occasionally mistakes will happen in measuring movement distance. However, I do not accept that if it is known beyond any doubt that a mistake was made you should be able to claim the benefits of that mistake. And of course if you're deliberately moving an extra 1/4" you are cheating, period.

Exactly 24": not possible.

It certainly is possible of course it is.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Or the players both lucked out and placed the models exactly, down to the micron, 24" apart. It's possible, just not very likely, but the mere face that it's possible means your argument is flawed.

Down to the micron isn't enough. In fact, even down to the width of a single electron isn't enough. It is FAR more likely that I will buy a trillion consecutive winning lottery tickets than it is that you will make a legal 24" charge.

Are we really arguing about atom-widths of being over 24" or whatever?

Pretty sure theres a universal wargaming rule called "give an inch" aka, don't be a douchebag, which I believe firmly overrules micron-specific charge distances.

Theres also another rule called "my foot up your ass" which I am happy to show any player who insists on such nonsense in a game.