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.

rigeld2 wrote:
You keep saying that like it's a) true and b) relevant.

Most assaults are not initiated at 3-4 inches. In fact I don't think I've had a less than 6" assault in the past 2 months (wait - that's not true. My Flyrant had a 1.5" assault against the Vindicator he immobilized the turn before).

Yeah, even if you are charging from 4" away... that's still an 8.3% chance of failing the charge. If I'm 4" away and I fail the charge with my genetically modified super soldiers about to put the smash down on some weedy cultists, I'm not thinking "oh how cinematic, what a wonderful narrative", I'm thinking "this is frakking stupid".

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You keep saying that like it's a) true and b) relevant.

Most assaults are not initiated at 3-4 inches. In fact I don't think I've had a less than 6" assault in the past 2 months (wait - that's not true. My Flyrant had a 1.5" assault against the Vindicator he immobilized the turn before).

Yeah, even if you are charging from 4" away... that's still an 8.3% chance of failing the charge. If I'm 4" away and I fail the charge with my genetically modified super soldiers about to put the smash down on some weedy cultists, I'm not thinking "oh how cinematic, what a wonderful narrative", I'm thinking "this is frakking stupid".

It's possible to fail a charge - but I definitely failed more in 5th edition because you could not pre-measure. I have a special 6" assault template that I'd use and on many occasions I was just a hair out of range. As I stated before - if you are assaulting into Terrain/Cover, which most of the time you should be unless you play against newbs, then the odds are BETTER in 6th than in 5th.

I tried to edit my post and accidentally responded to myself instead

WayneTheGame wrote:
I agree; I think that is pretty stupid and seems to force randomness for the sake of randomness. I get that it was meant to curb the assault spam of pre-6th edition, but rolling to see if you can charge seems to take choice away from the player. Maybe it should have been something along with Snap Shot, for instance if you suffer a wound via Snap Shot it can stop your charge (and make snap shot not a 6)? That would at least make sense as you could imagine a squad breaking out of a charge under a hail of fire.

Yeah, 5th was absolutely loaded with assault units. All those rhinos, razorbacks, venoms, psyflemen, long fangs and imperial guard were really just assaulting so much because of how broken assault was in 5th. I mean, why would you take genestealers to assault, when, because of the ridiculously overpowered assault rules, you could take a vendetta to assault with?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You keep saying that like it's a) true and b) relevant.

Most assaults are not initiated at 3-4 inches. In fact I don't think I've had a less than 6" assault in the past 2 months (wait - that's not true. My Flyrant had a 1.5" assault against the Vindicator he immobilized the turn before).

Yeah, even if you are charging from 4" away... that's still an 8.3% chance of failing the charge. If I'm 4" away and I fail the charge with my genetically modified super soldiers about to put the smash down on some weedy cultists, I'm not thinking "oh how cinematic, what a wonderful narrative", I'm thinking "this is frakking stupid".

The worst I have had was when my friend (we were new) was preparing to assault my forgefiend (I'm not joking we were new). He had his DA terminators getting ready to charge 3 inches..... and they failed. I couldn't tell if it was funny, pitiful, or just depressing

 StarTrotter wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You keep saying that like it's a) true and b) relevant.

Most assaults are not initiated at 3-4 inches. In fact I don't think I've had a less than 6" assault in the past 2 months (wait - that's not true. My Flyrant had a 1.5" assault against the Vindicator he immobilized the turn before).

Yeah, even if you are charging from 4" away... that's still an 8.3% chance of failing the charge. If I'm 4" away and I fail the charge with my genetically modified super soldiers about to put the smash down on some weedy cultists, I'm not thinking "oh how cinematic, what a wonderful narrative", I'm thinking "this is frakking stupid".

The worst I have had was when my friend (we were new) was preparing to assault my forgefiend (I'm not joking we were new). He had his DA terminators getting ready to charge 3 inches..... and they failed. I couldn't tell if it was funny, pitiful, or just depressing

The Correct Answer is YES!

JPong wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
I agree; I think that is pretty stupid and seems to force randomness for the sake of randomness. I get that it was meant to curb the assault spam of pre-6th edition, but rolling to see if you can charge seems to take choice away from the player. Maybe it should have been something along with Snap Shot, for instance if you suffer a wound via Snap Shot it can stop your charge (and make snap shot not a 6)? That would at least make sense as you could imagine a squad breaking out of a charge under a hail of fire.

Yeah, 5th was absolutely loaded with assault units. All those rhinos, razorbacks, venoms, psyflemen, long fangs and imperial guard were really just assaulting so much because of how broken assault was in 5th. I mean, why would you take genestealers to assault, when, because of the ridiculously overpowered assault rules, you could take a vendetta to assault with?

I agree, assault was spammed in 3rd edition where it was truly scary. 4th edition you could still do it and it could hurt, but so too were Tau fish spam and skimmer spam (shooty) horrific sights with the meta preferring shooty. Then you got to 5th edition where the game was certainly dominated by mechanized shooty. Also wait snap shot not a 6? So you get to fire at full bs and if a single model is lost my charge fails? okay then I really wouldn't even try to play assault . Also you forget nids, orks, and daemons .

Anyways, as above mentioned, 5th was the edition of shooting and mechanized spam. The best codices were shooty leaning with decent-good counterassault (SW and GK come to mind)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You keep saying that like it's a) true and b) relevant.

Most assaults are not initiated at 3-4 inches. In fact I don't think I've had a less than 6" assault in the past 2 months (wait - that's not true. My Flyrant had a 1.5" assault against the Vindicator he immobilized the turn before).

Yeah, even if you are charging from 4" away... that's still an 8.3% chance of failing the charge. If I'm 4" away and I fail the charge with my genetically modified super soldiers about to put the smash down on some weedy cultists, I'm not thinking "oh how cinematic, what a wonderful narrative", I'm thinking "this is frakking stupid".

The worst I have had was when my friend (we were new) was preparing to assault my forgefiend (I'm not joking we were new). He had his DA terminators getting ready to charge 3 inches..... and they failed. I couldn't tell if it was funny, pitiful, or just depressing

The Correct Answer is YES!

Oh actually I have a worse one . I decided to play a Berzerker list (for fun) against an Eldar list. It was their new codex. He was a friend so we tried to be casual. Well I tried to make it to him... but his rending rolls were decemating, his artillery hammered me, his one waveserpent (thank goodness he tries to limit these) just ripped more apart. I didn't advance, I didn't make it closer. And my juggerlord with spawn? Got 3 inches away, tried to charge, overwatch killed the spawn and made him fail as he stood alone. It was the second or third most miserable 40k game I have ever played. I had managed to kill about.... 3, maybe 4 of his models? I surrendered there because his turn would come and I would promptly lose the Juggerlord and then he'd just clean me off (didn't help my oblit wasn't dropping in to help either). That was a depressing game. Luckily when I surrendered he decided to have some fun and charged me xD quickest game changer ever

JPong wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
I agree; I think that is pretty stupid and seems to force randomness for the sake of randomness. I get that it was meant to curb the assault spam of pre-6th edition, but rolling to see if you can charge seems to take choice away from the player. Maybe it should have been something along with Snap Shot, for instance if you suffer a wound via Snap Shot it can stop your charge (and make snap shot not a 6)? That would at least make sense as you could imagine a squad breaking out of a charge under a hail of fire.

Yeah, 5th was absolutely loaded with assault units. All those rhinos, razorbacks, venoms, psyflemen, long fangs and imperial guard were really just assaulting so much because of how broken assault was in 5th. I mean, why would you take genestealers to assault, when, because of the ridiculously overpowered assault rules, you could take a vendetta to assault with?

Beat me to it. 4th was the edition of Trifalcons and Fish of Fury, 5th was Long Fangs and Leafblowers, 6th seems to be the edition of Riptides and Wave Serpents. CC hasn't been stronger than shooting since 3rd edition, so the claim that CC has been "rightfully brought down" is dubious at best.

 Battlesong wrote:
I am also in full agreement that, even if you fail your charge, your unit should move, not stand there drooling on themselves, yelling "Hey, c'mon, shoot us again!!"

Yes! I was just complaining about this last night during a game. If you fail your charge roll, fine, but your unit should be able to advance the distance you rolled on the charge dice. Even being able to move the same distance laterally to account for the unit retreating from Overwatch fire would be helpful to assault units. But just standing there is a little ridiculous.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

JPong wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
I agree; I think that is pretty stupid and seems to force randomness for the sake of randomness. I get that it was meant to curb the assault spam of pre-6th edition, but rolling to see if you can charge seems to take choice away from the player. Maybe it should have been something along with Snap Shot, for instance if you suffer a wound via Snap Shot it can stop your charge (and make snap shot not a 6)? That would at least make sense as you could imagine a squad breaking out of a charge under a hail of fire.

Yeah, 5th was absolutely loaded with assault units. All those rhinos, razorbacks, venoms, psyflemen, long fangs and imperial guard were really just assaulting so much because of how broken assault was in 5th. I mean, why would you take genestealers to assault, when, because of the ridiculously overpowered assault rules, you could take a vendetta to assault with?

Beat me to it. 4th was the edition of Trifalcons and Fish of Fury, 5th was Long Fangs and Leafblowers, 6th seems to be the edition of Riptides and Wave Serpents. CC hasn't been stronger than shooting since 3rd edition, so the claim that CC has been "rightfully brought down" is dubious at best.

You've completely forgotten when every other person was playing Grey Knights or how about Cron Air?

 Crablezworth wrote:
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.

This would be a good idea and make sense. Would screw over some armies like necrons and be totally out of place with others like huge tall ogryns with a stride twice that of a normal man stumbling along.

 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.

It would be too easily abused. A player would just take an empty rhino and race it ahead of everything else. so that the entire enemy army would have to waste shots at it instead of the dangerous units following it. We have to take into account player's ability to find every loophole possible to abuse. Would also just not make sens in some ways. For example forcing a guard squad ith n heavy are special weapons toire its lasgus at a land raider instead of the unit f squishy henchmen next to it.


the idea of moving the distance you rolled even if you fail the charge would not be a bad idea. hoever to prevent player just randomly calling impossible assaults toget a fre 2d6move every turn, a failed charge would need to auto-pin you even if you were fearless. this would keep players honest and keep shenanigans out of it.

Overall, CC could be considered to be 'nerfed". In actuality, it was only brought in check so that inead of totally dominating the game, it was pu where it belonged. An aspect that be used to win games if used correctly through Strategy and tactics. Gone are te days of just bringing an assault army and blindly pushng them forward for the auto-win. You see this because an experienced player who stomps you into the ground with a shooty army can trade armies with you and stomp you into the ground just as easily. Were CC nerfed, that would simply not be possible.

 EVIL INC wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
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.

This would be a good idea and make sense. Would screw over some armies like necrons and be totally out of place with others like huge tall ogryns with a stride twice that of a normal man stumbling along.

 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.

It would be too easily abused. A player would just take an empty rhino and race it ahead of everything else. so that the entire enemy army would have to waste shots at it instead of the dangerous units following it. We have to take into account player's ability to find every loophole possible to abuse. Would also just not make sens in some ways. For example forcing a guard squad ith n heavy are special weapons toire its lasgus at a land raider instead of the unit f squishy henchmen next to it.

You know what that's called? Using tactics. Considering how fond you are of using that phrase, I'm surprised you don't like it. Plus, if you don't want to waste shots, you'll have to use some sacrificial shooting units to take out that Rhino.

 EVIL INC wrote:

Overall, CC could be considered to be 'nerfed". In actuality, it was only brought in check so that inead of totally dominating the game, it was pu where it belonged. An aspect that be used to win games if used correctly through Strategy and tactics. Gone are te days of just bringing an assault army and blindly pushng them forward for the auto-win. You see this because an experienced player who stomps you into the ground with a shooty army can trade armies with you and stomp you into the ground just as easily. Were CC nerfed, that would simply not be possible.

When did CC last dominate the game? When could you ever reliably win a game by pushing them forward for the auto-win? Because it sure wasn't in 5th edition, and assault got worse since then.

the idea of moving the distance you rolled even if you fail the charge would not be a bad idea. hoever to prevent player just randomly calling impossible assaults toget a fre 2d6move every turn, a failed charge would need to auto-pin you even if you were fearless. this would keep players honest and keep shenanigans out of it.

Or you could just say you can only declare an assault against units within 12 inches (even if you have bonuses to your charge roll). It would be simple.

1) overwatch
2) random charge roll
3) move
4) base contact? assault!

Sometimes, you trip.

It still boils down to players who used to auto-win games in previous editions simply because they had an assault army having sour grapes because now they actually have to THINK and use strategy and tactics to win.

1.Geometry. yes, it plays a part in this game just as it does in fantasy. Angles and distances mean something. Many players forget this and then compain when their lack of using it causes them to lose games. Especially when they dont even realize it.

2. model placement within units. should be self explanitory but many still dont get it and cry when their sarge with the power sword is killed from the fron rank. Well silly, put him in the middle of the squad.

3. Plain old laziness. Most assaults have always been initiated from 3-4 inches. Some claim this is not true, but to do so is a flat out lie. In past editions, the only reason assaults were initiated at 6 inches was because the players were just too lazy to move their models. They were guaranteed to reach at 6 inches so why bother moving all the models their full movement? We were all guilty of it. Even those of us who did pay closer attention and werent so lazy.
4.The list is endless but we have gone this route a million times and it always turns into a mess with one side having their heads in the sand refusing to admit they re simply wrong.

As the other person said, moving the failed roll distance would work and make sense. They would need to be pinned (even fearless units) to keep it from being abused though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Psienesis wrote:
Sometimes, you trip.

and when the guy in fron trips, the guys behind him trip over him or are at LEAST slowed down.

Sounds more like sour grapes guys bringing shooting armies because they lost an assault that one time. Does standing back and pointing at things require a lot of thinking? Does putting cheap stuff on the outside and expensive stuff on the inside of your formation require a lot of thinking?

GorillaWarfare wrote:

the idea of moving the distance you rolled even if you fail the charge would not be a bad idea. hoever to prevent player just randomly calling impossible assaults toget a fre 2d6move every turn, a failed charge would need to auto-pin you even if you were fearless. this would keep players honest and keep shenanigans out of it.

Or you could just say you can only declare an assault against units within 12 inches (even if you have bonuses to your charge roll). It would be simple.

1) overwatch
2) random charge roll
3) move
4) base contact? assault!

This wouldnt be too bad.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Battlesong wrote:
I am also in full agreement that, even if you fail your charge, your unit should move, not stand there drooling on themselves, yelling "Hey, c'mon, shoot us again!!"

Yes! I was just complaining about this last night during a game. If you fail your charge roll, fine, but your unit should be able to advance the distance you rolled on the charge dice. Even being able to move the same distance laterally to account for the unit retreating from Overwatch fire would be helpful to assault units. But just standing there is a little ridiculous.

Agreed, at least it leaves room for decisions, like if you fail a 12 inch charge but rolled like say 8 inches, you could either try and grab cover, fall back or close distance as close as possible to keep the pressure on and hope for a charge next turn.

JPong wrote:
Sounds more like sour grapes guys bringing shooting armies because they lost an assault that one time. Does standing back and pointing at things require a lot of thinking? Does putting cheap stuff on the outside and expensive stuff on the inside of your formation require a lot of thinking?

You must not have much experience in this. the simple answer is yes. Speak to anyone who has ever been in the military.
It requires just as much thought and effort as assaulting. Bringing guns back into the game so that it is actually a viable action to bring a few along is a good thing. if you want to play a pure close combat game, play a fantasy or historic game, but even then, you'll find bows and such are there. Unless you want to ban those from those games as you want to ban guns from sci fi games as well.


While i agree the unit should be able to move the distance rolled even if they fail the charge, I disagree with them moving in any other direction than at the target unit. They didnt charge to the side or charge back, they charged towards the enemy. Any other direction would be abusable and cause more trouble and arguments than just sitting still.

 EVIL INC wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
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.

This would be a good idea and make sense. Would screw over some armies like necrons and be totally out of place with others like huge tall ogryns with a stride twice that of a normal man stumbling along.

 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.

It would be too easily abused. A player would just take an empty rhino and race it ahead of everything else. so that the entire enemy army would have to waste shots at it instead of the dangerous units following it. We have to take into account player's ability to find every loophole possible to abuse. Would also just not make sens in some ways. For example forcing a guard squad ith n heavy are special weapons toire its lasgus at a land raider instead of the unit f squishy henchmen next to it.


the idea of moving the distance you rolled even if you fail the charge would not be a bad idea. hoever to prevent player just randomly calling impossible assaults toget a fre 2d6move every turn, a failed charge would need to auto-pin you even if you were fearless. this would keep players honest and keep shenanigans out of it.

Overall, CC could be considered to be 'nerfed". In actuality, it was only brought in check so that inead of totally dominating the game, it was pu where it belonged. An aspect that be used to win games if used correctly through Strategy and tactics. Gone are te days of just bringing an assault army and blindly pushng them forward for the auto-win. You see this because an experienced player who stomps you into the ground with a shooty army can trade armies with you and stomp you into the ground just as easily. Were CC nerfed, that would simply not be possible.

Please. Please. Tell me where this bloody CC on the level instead of dominating has come from. 3rd edition was the last edition where assault dominated! Please, just tell me where this is from. And gone are the days of assault being pushed, and long comes the reign of gunlines and shooting you off the board with little movement. Also you say CC could be considered nerfed but it isn't nerfed huh?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EVIL INC wrote:
It still boils down to players who used to auto-win games in previous editions simply because they had an assault army having sour grapes because now they actually have to THINK and use strategy and tactics to win.

1.Geometry. yes, it plays a part in this game just as it does in fantasy. Angles and distances mean something. Many players forget this and then compain when their lack of using it causes them to lose games. Especially when they dont even realize it.

2. model placement within units. should be self explanitory but many still dont get it and cry when their sarge with the power sword is killed from the fron rank. Well silly, put him in the middle of the squad.

3. Plain old laziness. Most assaults have always been initiated from 3-4 inches. Some claim this is not true, but to do so is a flat out lie. In past editions, the only reason assaults were initiated at 6 inches was because the players were just too lazy to move their models. They were guaranteed to reach at 6 inches so why bother moving all the models their full movement? We were all guilty of it. Even those of us who did pay closer attention and werent so lazy.
4.The list is endless but we have gone this route a million times and it always turns into a mess with one side having their heads in the sand refusing to admit they re simply wrong.

As the other person said, moving the failed roll distance would work and make sense. They would need to be pinned (even fearless units) to keep it from being abused though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Psienesis wrote:
Sometimes, you trip.

and when the guy in fron trips, the guys behind him trip over him or are at LEAST slowed down.

Well except orks and nids would just trample who trips, and daemons wouldn't trip because they aren't even actually entirely there, and SM probably wouldn't, and it is convenient the frong guy always trips


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EVIL INC wrote:

JPong wrote:
Sounds more like sour grapes guys bringing shooting armies because they lost an assault that one time. Does standing back and pointing at things require a lot of thinking? Does putting cheap stuff on the outside and expensive stuff on the inside of your formation require a lot of thinking?

You must not have much experience in this. the simple answer is yes. Speak to anyone who has ever been in the military.
It requires just as much thought and effort as assaulting. Bringing guns back into the game so that it is actually a viable action to bring a few along is a good thing. if you want to play a pure close combat game, play a fantasy or historic game, but even then, you'll find bows and such are there. Unless you want to ban those from those games as you want to ban guns from sci fi games as well.


While i agree the unit should be able to move the distance rolled even if they fail the charge, I disagree with them moving in any other direction than at the target unit. They didnt charge to the side or charge back, they charged towards the enemy. Any other direction would be abusable and cause more trouble and arguments than just sitting still.

Also why do we bring up real world military tactics in fantasy in space? I don't get it. In the future, why would anybody bother with assault? THey wouldn't, they would opt for guns. But it isn't realistic, we have alternate dimensions of warp magic and daemonic entities, unrealistic alien hordes that nom things, and fungal orks that grow like fungi . And guns have been the dominant style sense 4th edition so bringing guns back means 0. Also, you keep on saying PURE CLOSE COMBAT, I don't care for pure close combat. THIS IS SCI FANTASY! It's not sci fi, its not fantasy. It is fantasy in space with tons of space opera. This is a game where daemons with almost 0 shooting items fight against Tau that have almost 0 CC capabilities. Finally, he wasn't talking about in real military. In the real world, you have to think a lot. But tabletop wise what is so dramatically TG about pushing your models into cover and then shooting the enemy? There's no real brilliance. Anybody that isn't utterly new will know their target priorities and kill those first. So what makes that okay but charging across the board not okay?

 Psienesis wrote:
Sometimes, you trip.

Been there done this durring the charge of a sheild wall on a bridge battle. I was actualy resposible for taking out about a dozen combatants by knocking them off the "Bridge", on both sides.

I have also been the third guy in the middle of the pack when the guy in front went down after akknowledging an arrow shot to the head. We were prety combact, most of us within just out of weapon reach. The First guy went down and about a half dozen of us went down totaly disrupting the chage.

 StarTrotter wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
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.

This would be a good idea and make sense. Would screw over some armies like necrons and be totally out of place with others like huge tall ogryns with a stride twice that of a normal man stumbling along.

 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.

It would be too easily abused. A player would just take an empty rhino and race it ahead of everything else. so that the entire enemy army would have to waste shots at it instead of the dangerous units following it. We have to take into account player's ability to find every loophole possible to abuse. Would also just not make sens in some ways. For example forcing a guard squad ith n heavy are special weapons toire its lasgus at a land raider instead of the unit f squishy henchmen next to it.


the idea of moving the distance you rolled even if you fail the charge would not be a bad idea. hoever to prevent player just randomly calling impossible assaults toget a fre 2d6move every turn, a failed charge would need to auto-pin you even if you were fearless. this would keep players honest and keep shenanigans out of it.

Overall, CC could be considered to be 'nerfed". In actuality, it was only brought in check so that inead of totally dominating the game, it was pu where it belonged. An aspect that be used to win games if used correctly through Strategy and tactics. Gone are te days of just bringing an assault army and blindly pushng them forward for the auto-win. You see this because an experienced player who stomps you into the ground with a shooty army can trade armies with you and stomp you into the ground just as easily. Were CC nerfed, that would simply not be possible.

Please. Please. Tell me where this bloody CC on the level instead of dominating has come from. 3rd edition was the last edition where assault dominated! Please, just tell me where this is from. And gone are the days of assault being pushed, and long comes the reign of gunlines and shooting you off the board with little movement. Also you say CC could be considered nerfed but it isn't nerfed huh?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EVIL INC wrote:
It still boils down to players who used to auto-win games in previous editions simply because they had an assault army having sour grapes because now they actually have to THINK and use strategy and tactics to win.

1.Geometry. yes, it plays a part in this game just as it does in fantasy. Angles and distances mean something. Many players forget this and then compain when their lack of using it causes them to lose games. Especially when they dont even realize it.

2. model placement within units. should be self explanitory but many still dont get it and cry when their sarge with the power sword is killed from the fron rank. Well silly, put him in the middle of the squad.

3. Plain old laziness. Most assaults have always been initiated from 3-4 inches. Some claim this is not true, but to do so is a flat out lie. In past editions, the only reason assaults were initiated at 6 inches was because the players were just too lazy to move their models. They were guaranteed to reach at 6 inches so why bother moving all the models their full movement? We were all guilty of it. Even those of us who did pay closer attention and werent so lazy.
4.The list is endless but we have gone this route a million times and it always turns into a mess with one side having their heads in the sand refusing to admit they re simply wrong.

As the other person said, moving the failed roll distance would work and make sense. They would need to be pinned (even fearless units) to keep it from being abused though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Psienesis wrote:
Sometimes, you trip.

and when the guy in fron trips, the guys behind him trip over him or are at LEAST slowed down.

Well except orks and nids would just trample who trips, and daemons wouldn't trip because they aren't even actually entirely there, and SM probably wouldn't, and it is convenient the frong guy always trips

we can see how long the quotes get. I challenge you to prove to me that at no point at ANY time from the very first day of Rogue trader to today has close combat never been powerfull. Prove to me and i will need citations to support it, that close combat has never EVER been powerful or an option in any form of "40k" game. I know you will fail because I have been in the hobby from day one and know firsthand.

 EVIL INC wrote:
It still boils down to players who used to auto-win games in previous editions simply because they had an assault army having sour grapes because now they actually have to THINK and use strategy and tactics to win.

What previous edition?

Okay then, and please bring your evidence to the board as well. Also, I'm not saying that CC hasn't been powerful. There has always been it to some extent. 2nd edition I don't know much, but I've heard CC was an utter mess that took too much time though . 3rd edition? Yeah CC was the king pen. Also you know what, I'm sorry but I'm not going to prove you wrong. You act like being here since day one makes you some ungodly brilliant genius that automatically invalidates everything I say. And I never said CC is worthless, that it can't be powerful. I didn't mention that. But you seem to be claiming that every edition has been CC dominant. It hasn't, its been editions sense CC was the dominant force. I never said CC was worthless, in 5th edition SW and GK were awesome because they had devestating shooting but also they were great at counterassault and decent at assaulting enemies as well. But they focused on shooting as well. 6th edition? Screamerstar, Flying Circus, the old MCspam nids (although not as powerful it could work), and others can do assault or could with devastating effectiveness. What I am saying is, on average, shooting is better.

And no, I don't want CC to be better. I play CSM, SM, IG, and daemons. In all likelyhood I'll add in Orks and Eldar to my list. The only armies that I play that I am building to be assault oriented are daemons, CSM, and maybe orks (I'm tempted to make a shooty one just because of the number of rolls). My IG? It's a tank regiment. SM? It's actually a sternguard oriented army built around deepstriking and trying to kill enemy vital targets. Eldar? Mobile shooty army. My fury is at the randomness. There's just so much of it. Psyker rolls are random, terrain is random, warlord traits are random, charges are random. I'm tired of it. I'm tired of the amount of dice rolls I have to do to be "cinematic". I'm okay with some abstraction to make things more fluid, I don't like having my personal fluffy commander change every game because he seems to forget his spells and what he is good at.

I give you the same challenge. Prove to me that at NO point has cc EVER beenviable as an option. Provide citation.


of course, are you getting back into the whole "guns are bad ban their use in 40k soapbox (if you are, stop there as that is not what this thread is about and will be considered off topic spam) or are you talking about PURELY the 2d6 assault moves. the 2d6 assault move is 6th edition only and that is what we are talking about.

I've been of the inclination that the set charge range was better than the 2D6 charge range. BUT, I love the idea of overwatch. So occasionally my buds and I keep the old charge ranges and keep the overwatch and models killed must be taken from the front/closest from where the attacks are coming from. What ends up happening is either the unit makes the charge, or too many models were killed during the overwatch phase and their unit ends up coming up short on the charge, and then the charge into assault has failed.

 EVIL INC wrote:
I give you the same challenge. Prove to me that at NO point has cc EVER beenviable as an option. Provide citation.


of course, are you getting back into the whole "guns are bad ban their use in 40k soapbox (if you are, stop there as that is not what this thread is about and will be considered off topic spam) or are you talking about PURELY the 2d6 assault moves. the 2d6 assault move is 6th edition only and that is what we are talking about.

You're still dodging my question to you.

 King Pariah wrote:
I've been of the inclination that the set charge range was better than the 2D6 charge range. BUT, I love the idea of overwatch. So occasionally my buds and I keep the old charge ranges and keep the overwatch and models killed must be taken from the front/closest from where the attacks are coming from. What ends up happening is either the unit makes the charge, or too many models were killed during the overwatch phase and their unit ends up coming up short on the charge, and then the charge into assault has failed.

the problem with the set range was that it was abusable and encouraged players to be lazy and use less tactics. Overwatch is nice but not anything to rely on at all (unless your tau or are a unit of burnaboyz). it is just something that is considered cool and lets the defensive player roll some dice hoping against hope to do a lil damage. A non-lazy offensive player will ensure that it doesnt affect the assault by moving all models in the unit forward instead of just pushing one into range. almost every time a charge is failed it is because the offensive player just got lazy and did not move enough of his models forward i order to save a few seconds while if they had moved every models the full move distance, they would have a crecent around the target unit and the defensive player would almost have to be tau or burnaboys or VERY lucky on rolling a bucket of sixes to make overwatch be the reson it is failed.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
I give you the same challenge. Prove to me that at NO point has cc EVER beenviable as an option. Provide citation.


of course, are you getting back into the whole "guns are bad ban their use in 40k soapbox (if you are, stop there as that is not what this thread is about and will be considered off topic spam) or are you talking about PURELY the 2d6 assault moves. the 2d6 assault move is 6th edition only and that is what we are talking about.

You're still dodging my question to you.

i see you are dodging my question instead of answering it. Likely because you are unable to provide citation. Of course, it is also totally off topic. I did report your spam follow up post. try to remain on topic. This thread is about the 2d6 charge roll. Not which edition you prefer.

 EVIL INC wrote:
I give you the same challenge. Prove to me that at NO point has cc EVER beenviable as an option. Provide citation.


of course, are you getting back into the whole "guns are bad ban their use in 40k soapbox (if you are, stop there as that is not what this thread is about and will be considered off topic spam) or are you talking about PURELY the 2d6 assault moves. the 2d6 assault move is 6th edition only and that is what we are talking about.

When. did. I. ever. say. guns. are. bad. I DIDN'T! Seriously, I never said that. And I never said that CC has NEVER been viable. NEVER! And you keep on arguing with 0 evidence. 0, nadda, nothing. And you know what, I'm tired of this, you always get on your "CC is OP soapbox" every time we run into one another. Why is it that so many people point out that 4th and 5th, as well as 6th all favored shooting? They didn't say that assault was worthless, that it never had its uses, nor did they say there weren't devastating lists that were assault oriented. Anyways, is the rolling for charge distance naff? aye. Honestly it makes more logical sense if every unit had some extent of varying movements. That way you could represent that DE are faster than ____ without having to add in fleet to explain it. Along with that, it would make it so that super hyper fast monsters will charge 8 inches whilst terminators can charge about 4 or 5 whilst SM might charge 6 (I really dunno). I get the point of some bit of randomness, to try to keep the enemy on its toes. But I do believe it is a bad rule. Anyways, in terms of worst rule in 6th edition.... I wouldn't quite say its the worst rule in the edition. Is it irritating? Yes. Immersion breaking with many flaws? Yes. Then again, 40k really needs a rewrite from the ground up. To met at least, the worse rule in 6th edition is simply the level of random tables everything seems to have.

I've played primarily assault armies and the 3rd edition rhino-rush/sweeping advance was certainly the highlight... but when I'm honest I think the current rules are the most logical for assaulting in 40k.

Guns should be more powerful - the current system makes assaulting more difficult for MOST units - but NOT for most assault type units.

Assault type units - jumppacks can choose when to use the jumppack, get hammer of wrath and can REROLL the charge - and units with fleet can reroll the assault range, as well as the run getting there on prior turns. MC's get hammer of wrath which is usually a free auto-hit with a high Strength.

Further - what the complainers are failing to acknowledge here is: in 5th edition assaulting into terrain/cover was RANDOM. Now the odds are BETTER - and unless you play against newbs, a good deal of the time you will be assaulting into terrain/cover.