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 absolutely hate rolling dice to see how far a unit can charge and if it can make it into combat, and if they dont make it, the charge 'fails'. I also hate rolling for running too, but the charging just makes no sense to me. I was teaching a friend how to play recently, and the subject came up and i couldnt justify it. I am not sure when this rule first came in (I missed 4th and 5th editions), but it makes me wonder what the heck Tyranids are doing since it seems to me they can get close but not close enough, and have to endure another round of getting shot at.

Is this a popular rule on here? And if it isn't, anyone want to offer their homemade rules they use in it's place?

Why? My orks love it! Potential 12 inch range, while deamons can have a 6+d6 with a 10p uppgrade.
As for nids Fleeet! Reroll dat charge distance!

I like it ,more failed charges is always good and overwatch procs what ever you make it in to melee range or not.

It actually adds realism to the game. How many units have the clumsy guy who trips while carrying full kit or in an urban setting hafta run through piles of trash or cans or in rural settings run through high weeds and slippery mud. likewise the guy who is just a maniac who is in better shape than anyone else who is able to run farther faster.

It also forces players to pay closer attention to the game and not be so lazy in their movement which in turn, causes them to pay closer attention to the rest of the game.
Almost all assaults would actually be initiated from an average of 3-4 inches. In past editions, players would just push a model within the unit to within 6 inches and call it close enough because they were guaranteed a successful charge. Now that there is an off chance they may not make it, they complain that they have to actually measure and move their models which takes a few more seconds of their time.

Likewise, it assists assaulty armies like orks and bugs because it gives them the chance to make assaults they might not otherwise have been able to make before.

Since overwatch is a joke (except for flamer template weapons if you have masses of them in the unit) so is not really an issue (negating tau as we ALL agree they are broken).

Random charge range is fine. The main issue is removing casualties from the front.

Clumsy Imperial Guard? Sure.

Clumsy Space Marine? I thought that was genetically engineered out of them...

pejota wrote:
Clumsy Imperial Guard? Sure.

Clumsy Space Marine? I thought that was genetically engineered out of them...

Say it another way, the overwatch simply pinned you down and had to take tactical cover.

Ok I could see that maybe in the scale of EPIC 40k, but not in 28mm gaming. I mean, we're talking a max distance of like 20 feet or so. I know 40k is a bit abstract, but I still see models as they are in place with other objects on the board. If I always move 6 inches in the movement phase, then I expect something more consistent when charging.

Maybe 1d6 + 6 or something, that than 2d6.

I agree, I dislike rolling for charge distance, both in 40k and in Fantasy.

 phatonic wrote:
Why? My orks love it! Potential 12 inch range, while deamons can have a 6+d6 with a 10p uppgrade.
As for nids Fleeet! Reroll dat charge distance!

I reliably make 9" charges all the time with my genestealers.

6th edition just made sure that units that are great at combat see combat, many people are miffed because units that are only good at combat, are even more mediocre at it.

Sure, fluffwise, marines should be miles above where they are in combat, but for game balance, no, they're meant to be the baseline for most other stats, good at everything, great at nothing. (Tac Marines)

Now you don't try charging as a plan unless you come equipped for it ie. assault vehicles, beasts, calvary, swarms, jump infantry, FMCs, MCs, Fleet, and in some cases bikes...and so on.

Its like much of 6th; they replaced tactical decision making with random rolls and random tables.

Its cinematic and helps you forge a narrative better!

I'm really not a fan if that wasn't obvious

The 2d6 roll with the highest probability is 7", longer than the static 6" charge range. Besides, when the chance is there for a 12" charge, you take that chance. If the roll fails nothing is lost but if it passes than you just successfully engaged an enemy from twice the distance of the old range.

Random charge range rules do not "forge a narrative."

Random charge ranges are a holdover from horse & musket miniature games that simulate a horse's reluctance to charge home against a wall of pointy things.

An heroic SM or instinctive 'Nid, etc., would know in the 41st millennium whether or not they were in range to charge something, and are highly motivated to do so.

Its just more dice rolls in a game of dice rolls.

And if we must endure it, the unit should at least move the distance on the dice instead of just standing there holding their codpieces.

Cheers.

Grim Dark wrote:
And if we must endure it, the unit should at least move the distance on the dice instead of just standing there holding their codpieces.

Cheers.

This is the only point against random charge range rules that I have agreed with.

There is no reason to be left standing in the open when your unit obviously forwent shooting or running for the sole purpose of charging/moving towards an enemy.

The real problem comes from fleet units. These also tend to be low armored and supposedly fast moving. 6th nerfed them hard. The theoretical max charge range is the same (running in 5th + 6" charge), however the practical distance to cover is greater.

That, and in 5th, a failed run roll could be mitigated by not committing to the charge. A roll of 2 or 3 when you needed 4 or 5 meant you could run towards cover. Now a failed charge just means your opponent got to shoot you for free, and now you have a unit exposed because you had to get into position to charge.

Then there is also the guaranteed charge that was nerfed. It doesn't really matter if I "could" make a 10" charge now where I couldn't before, because the likelyhood of making that charge is so low. Before, I could make a 6" charge any time I wanted, now I have a 30% chance of failure for a 6" charge.

It doesn't really matter that you have the same chance to roll a 12 as a 2, since a 12 will always be a success, whereas a 2-4 will almost always be a failure.

To all the people saying assault was brainless before, they are wrong. Positioning has always mattered for assault. What does that make shooting take? They literally sit in cover a whole game, do no moving, and point at things until they die. That's brainless.

Also, where is the shooting equivalent? Why don't they have to roll to see if they can even see their target? The battlefield is a chaotic place after all, with smoke and dust flying all over the place.

Random charge OR casualties from the front would be fine. It is the combination of the two that hurts most.

Personally, I would prefer just casualties from the front. It fixes wound allocation shenanigans and lets anti infantry guns do their job better. Overwatch could still keep you out of charge range too.

And maybe that would finally shut up all the players saying my Tau are OP.

Grim Dark wrote:
Random charge range rules do not "forge a narrative."

Random charge ranges are a holdover from horse & musket miniature games that simulate a horse's reluctance to charge home against a wall of pointy things.

An heroic SM or instinctive 'Nid, etc., would know in the 41st millennium whether or not they were in range to charge something, and are highly motivated to do so.

Its just more dice rolls in a game of dice rolls.

And if we must endure it, the unit should at least move the distance on the dice instead of just standing there holding their codpieces.

Cheers.

Exalted. My sentiments exactly.

 Orblivion wrote:
The 2d6 roll with the highest probability is 7", longer than the static 6" charge range.

I'm aware of the range, that's not my gripe with it. My gripe is with the fact it's random. Obviously there is always going to be randomness in a table top wargame, otherwise it'd play more like chess. However I don't like seeing that randomness for charges. The average might be 7", but you 42% change of failing a 7" charge, or a 28* chance of failing a 6" charge, or a 17% chance of failing a 5" charge, or an 8% chance of failing a 4" charge.... these are not "fun" things to me.

Most assaults are initiated from 3-4 inches unless you are super lazy and dont move your models far enough. so unless you are SUPER unlucky (think the guy tripping oer his own shoelaces), your GONNA make it.
If your lazy and just push one model to be within 6 inches and leave the rest of the unit strung out (as players could do and did in past editions), the enemy might get really lucky and take out that front guy you bothered to move making the roll needed higher.
It comes down to
first off skill,
then not being too lazy to move your models. If you just push them to within 6 inches instead of actually measuring and moving them to within 1 inch, there is the odd chance you roll snakeeyes. If you had moved your full distance, you would made it even on snake eyes.
Pay attention and dont be lazy, you'll get into more assaults and win more games.

I can see the models moving the distance rolled if they failed their charge, it would actually make sense.. Of course, they would be pinned (even fearless units) otherwise, you would have units declaring assaults from 40 inches away to abuse that extra free move.

Would you bring back run-then-assault (for fleet units) or would you just set the assault distance to 6"? Would fleet still enable re-roll on run (hidden question: would fleet mean gak to models who don't want to assault?)

Grim Dark wrote:
Random charge range rules do not "forge a narrative."

Random charge ranges are a holdover from horse & musket miniature games that simulate a horse's reluctance to charge home against a wall of pointy things.

An heroic SM or instinctive 'Nid, etc., would know in the 41st millennium whether or not they were in range to charge something, and are highly motivated to do so.

Its just more dice rolls in a game of dice rolls.

And if we must endure it, the unit should at least move the distance on the dice instead of just standing there holding their codpieces.

Cheers.

So what you're actually saying is "take a pinning test prior to charging"

In a game with pre-measuring the random charge length is needed otherwise everyone would stay 1/2" outside of charge range and we would have civil war style musketline fights.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Orblivion wrote:
The 2d6 roll with the highest probability is 7", longer than the static 6" charge range.

I'm aware of the range, that's not my gripe with it. My gripe is with the fact it's random. Obviously there is always going to be randomness in a table top wargame, otherwise it'd play more like chess. However I don't like seeing that randomness for charges. The average might be 7", but you 42% change of failing a 7" charge, or a 28* chance of failing a 6" charge, or a 17% chance of failing a 5" charge, or an 8% chance of failing a 4" charge.... these are not "fun" things to me.

Personally I like the inclusion of more statistics and USRs that drastically change those probability curves.

To me it means that if Joe Schmo can't build a GK Paladin list and win during the listbuilding phase of the game.

In my experience, the better the player, the more likelihood that they play a winning assault based army. The more average the player, the less they understand the more complex mathematics and the more they need to stick to understandable probability ratios like that involved in shooting, or better yet...TL shooting...or better yet, ignores cover TL Shooting.

tremere47 wrote:
In a game with pre-measuring the random charge length is needed otherwise everyone would stay 1/2" outside of charge range and we would have civil war style musketline fights.

How so?

Units can still run to close the gap. You don't need random things to counter act player knowledge and decision making. Every space naval game I've played runs on pre-measuring, which is part of the whole tactical aspect of the movement phase where each player is trying to stay in their ideal range bands while avoiding their opponents'.

Why does 40k need more random elements?

Keep pre-measuring, eliminate random charging, remove casualties from the rear. Abstraction is key.

 ductvader wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Orblivion wrote:
The 2d6 roll with the highest probability is 7", longer than the static 6" charge range.

I'm aware of the range, that's not my gripe with it. My gripe is with the fact it's random. Obviously there is always going to be randomness in a table top wargame, otherwise it'd play more like chess. However I don't like seeing that randomness for charges. The average might be 7", but you 42% change of failing a 7" charge, or a 28* chance of failing a 6" charge, or a 17% chance of failing a 5" charge, or an 8% chance of failing a 4" charge.... these are not "fun" things to me.

Personally I like the inclusion of more statistics and USRs that drastically change those probability curves.

To me it means that if Joe Schmo can't build a GK Paladin list and win during the listbuilding phase of the game.

In my experience, the better the player, the more likelihood that they play a winning assault based army. The more average the player, the less they understand the more complex mathematics and the more they need to stick to understandable probability ratios like that involved in shooting, or better yet...TL shooting...or better yet, ignores cover TL Shooting.

And what happens when the experienced player plays a shooting army? He completely wrecks assault armies, because he doesn't have a probability to have his unit drop their guns when shooting.

If anything, I feel target priority should be brought back; if you've got a Dreadnought bearing down on you, chances are you're going to fire your Lascannon at it instead of the Rhino across the table. This'd emulate the level of discipline (or madness) required to put the greater good (no Tau pun intended) over your own survival.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If anything, I feel target priority should be brought back; if you've got a Dreadnought bearing down on you, chances are you're going to fire your Lascannon at it instead of the Rhino across the table. This'd emulate the level of discipline (or madness) required to put the greater good (no Tau pun intended) over your own survival.

This would make the new bug dataslate DANGEROUS...in a good way.

I personally think they should have included choice, 2d6 random charge OR the units initiative value in inches. My own luck when it comes to charges has been pretty random and stupid, bikes getting like 3-4 inch charges but by terminators rolling like 9-10, too damn random considering the massive difference between those two unit types.

Initiative in inches plus D6 would be pretty sweet too, might just bring back cc.

 ductvader wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If anything, I feel target priority should be brought back; if you've got a Dreadnought bearing down on you, chances are you're going to fire your Lascannon at it instead of the Rhino across the table. This'd emulate the level of discipline (or madness) required to put the greater good (no Tau pun intended) over your own survival.

This would make the new bug dataslate DANGEROUS...in a good way.

Exactly. It'd make morale matter more, which is a complaint I've often seen mentioned. It'd also allow for more stuff to be added in as "suppressive" weapons, i.e. weapons that lower leadership for the purposes of such tests.

I hate the Random Charge roll. The worst part about it, you get Overwatched whether you make the charge or not. And if you fail your charge, that means your opponent gets a full round of shooting and can charge you next round. Might as well just take that unit off the table due to one lousy dice roll.

 Mahtamori wrote:
Would you bring back run-then-assault (for fleet units) or would you just set the assault distance to 6"? Would fleet still enable re-roll on run (hidden question: would fleet mean gak to models who don't want to assault?)

Grim Dark wrote:
Random charge range rules do not "forge a narrative."

Random charge ranges are a holdover from horse & musket miniature games that simulate a horse's reluctance to charge home against a wall of pointy things.

An heroic SM or instinctive 'Nid, etc., would know in the 41st millennium whether or not they were in range to charge something, and are highly motivated to do so.

Its just more dice rolls in a game of dice rolls.

And if we must endure it, the unit should at least move the distance on the dice instead of just standing there holding their codpieces.

Cheers.

So what you're actually saying is "take a pinning test prior to charging"

I don't believe I said anything about pinning tests. (/topic)

Its been mentioned that assault units received a triple-tap because they also have to accommodate casualties from the front and Overwatch, as well as random charge ranges. It doesn't seem like shooty-type units have received anything even comparable. Perhaps players of shooty-type armies might regret these unnecessarily added layers of game mechanics if units had to pass a Ld test to shoot another unit? The "narrative" would be that by shooting them, you might attract their attention. (cue spooky narrative-generating music)

Cheers.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 ductvader wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If anything, I feel target priority should be brought back; if you've got a Dreadnought bearing down on you, chances are you're going to fire your Lascannon at it instead of the Rhino across the table. This'd emulate the level of discipline (or madness) required to put the greater good (no Tau pun intended) over your own survival.

This would make the new bug dataslate DANGEROUS...in a good way.

Exactly. It'd make morale matter more, which is a complaint I've often seen mentioned. It'd also allow for more stuff to be added in as "suppressive" weapons, i.e. weapons that lower leadership for the purposes of such tests.

I don't know how target priority used to work, But, I'd say you'd have to test for it it against the closest unit within 12". Unless you have no weapons that can hurt the target.