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.

The variable assault range is not the worst part of 6th Ed. Really, it isn't.

Though I do agree that you should be able (even required?) to move the distance your charge roll generates.

Sometimes, you charge the enemy, only to find out that yes, their squad gunners *were* set and ready to receive your charge, and the hill was a *bit* more treacherous than you were expecting, and, no, those *weren't* rocks, they *were* anti-personnel mines... and your assault ends up looking like a Benny Hill show.

1) Random charge is a weakness of Shooting armies! You could start 18" away and I need to be prepared to be assaulted because it could happen. Now, not even Tau with their ZOMG broken(!!1!one!) 30" gun can get within rapid fire range without being in danger.

2) Overwatch is fine. Outside of major flukes, the overwatch kills 1-2 guys. And then it was because the target of your charge was very elite, or are only a shooting force and you just traded 1-2 models for an entire unit.

3) I'm sick of hearing about supporting fire being OP. Supporting fire requires Line of Sight, so use terrain. It means the Tau need to clump up, so use blasts. If the Tau clump, they won't have the mobility to claim objectives. It doesn't matter if in the end you only have 4 models if those 4 are claiming objectives and the enemy isn't. Play the game, not your opponent.

 EVIL INC wrote:

 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.

Your argument was that random charge distance is fine, because it brought down CC from being OP like it (allegedly) was in earlier editions. I'm asking you to clarify what editions that was in, which is relevant because if melee weren't OP then you've not got anything to stand on.

Your challenge wasn't even directed at me, so I'm hardly dodging anything. Even if it was it's nonsense.

 Psienesis wrote:
The variable assault range is not the worst part of 6th Ed. Really, it isn't.

Though I do agree that you should be able (even required?) to move the distance your charge roll generates.

Sometimes, you charge the enemy, only to find out that yes, their squad gunners *were* set and ready to receive your charge, and the hill was a *bit* more treacherous than you were expecting, and, no, those *weren't* rocks, they *were* anti-personnel mines... and your assault ends up looking like a Benny Hill show.

the more I think about this, the more I like it. You tried to assalt, you should move forward even if you failed which could leave you out in the open to be assaulted yourself. All part of taking that gamble. So yes, I think it should be required to move in a straight line towards the enemy you were assaulting.

Again, with the caviot that assauls are not allowed to be initiated outside of 12 inches.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:

 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.

Your argument was that random charge distance is fine, because it brought down CC from being OP like it (allegedly) was in earlier editions. I'm asking you to clarify what editions that was in, which is relevant because if melee weren't OP then you've not got anything to stand on.

Your challenge wasn't even directed at me, so I'm hardly dodging anything. Even if it was it's nonsense.

Do try to stay on topic. We are disussing the 2d6 assault range. Not which edition you prefer.

Statistically a 12" charge is incredibly improbable, it would be optimal to ignore such a value. The average charge is approximately 7 inches, discounting cover. Behind cover the charge is slightly less in terms of range. I don't really know the values off of that admittedly (off the top of my head). It's more likely to be cautious at about.... 15 inches against fleet probably (in open terrain) but for most enemies the probably going to make the charge is at around 13. Of course cover can minimize this even more so.

Also it isn't 1-2 models for an entire unit. I agree that overwatch isn't really that bad. It usually won't do anything to a unit (usually). The notion is is that losing 1-2 models can be devestating. That might be an inch lost, or two, or even three. Who knows? IT can really cripple a charge. And that is what most individuals remember. Along with that, 1-2 models can sometimes matter in terms of devestation and output especially if you were already shooting them. For example, Tau firewarriors can probably kill one or two bloodletters if a full unit (I still prefer a game where a firewarrior commander shaus'o I think ended up killing my chaos lord xD and he didn't even need to pull his dagger out of his sheath ).

I'd like rolling for random charge length if you still got to move the distance rolled, whether you make it or not.

 EVIL INC wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:

 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.

Your argument was that random charge distance is fine, because it brought down CC from being OP like it (allegedly) was in earlier editions. I'm asking you to clarify what editions that was in, which is relevant because if melee weren't OP then you've not got anything to stand on.

Your challenge wasn't even directed at me, so I'm hardly dodging anything. Even if it was it's nonsense.

Do try to stay on topic. We are disussing the 2d6 assault range. Not which edition you prefer.

I take it you didn't read my post then?

 EVIL INC wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
The variable assault range is not the worst part of 6th Ed. Really, it isn't.

Though I do agree that you should be able (even required?) to move the distance your charge roll generates.

Sometimes, you charge the enemy, only to find out that yes, their squad gunners *were* set and ready to receive your charge, and the hill was a *bit* more treacherous than you were expecting, and, no, those *weren't* rocks, they *were* anti-personnel mines... and your assault ends up looking like a Benny Hill show.

the more I think about this, the more I like it. You tried to assalt, you should move forward even if you failed which could leave you out in the open to be assaulted yourself. All part of taking that gamble. So yes, I think it should be required to move in a straight line towards the enemy you were assaulting.

Again, with the caviot that assauls are not allowed to be initiated outside of 12 inches.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:

 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.

Your argument was that random charge distance is fine, because it brought down CC from being OP like it (allegedly) was in earlier editions. I'm asking you to clarify what editions that was in, which is relevant because if melee weren't OP then you've not got anything to stand on.

Your challenge wasn't even directed at me, so I'm hardly dodging anything. Even if it was it's nonsense.

Do try to stay on topic. We are disussing the 2d6 assault range. Not which edition you prefer.

Oh, I actually agree with you on the first part (well you and Psienesis). I think the random charge would need some form of rewrite personally. I could totally see others using it as a way to slingshot them further than the standard d6 run by planning out the statistical odds of a charge (I don't think you can charge something if it isn't within 12" range though). Then again I'd prefer if there was some like... ratio. Like a terminator had a variable range of 4+2d3 or something. It keeps it random and risky but allows for some consistency without as many OMG12inch charges on terminators. Along with that, you could then make it so that faster units wouldn't really need fleet and you could summarize it as a faster unit having a 6+2d3 and on occasion a unit might only get an extra d3. That way there is always that risk of failure, just not enough and could give a shooting army an ability to just point blank shoot you up but also a more reliable charge and would increase diversity of units!

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 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?

3rd edition. That was the last edition I played and I recall assault being nuts back then; everything was mechanized to close as fast as possible. I think assault troops could charge 12" (don't quote me, it's been over 10 years) or something like that. Blood Angels were nasty when 3rd just came out, all the benefits of Marines and better assault. Black Templars were one of the cheesiest forces ever when they came out in Codex: Armageddon. Of course that was also the days of the IG Armored Company and the Rhino Rush. I recall actually building my CSM with bolt pistols + CCW because assault was so much better than shooting, with a few bolter squads as firebases.

I still don't like the idea of random movement though, that seems like a cop-out and as I said before removes player choice. Oh my killer assault squad is near you? I need to randomly see if I can charge you, and if I can't you'll blow the gak out of me next turn if I get unlucky. Let's leave it up to random die roll.

No thanks.

- Edited by insaniak. Please see Dakka's Rule #1 -

Gunzhard 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".

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.

If you failed a charge because YOU failed a charge, that doesn't really bother me. I dislike failing a charge because of random chance. I also would have no problem with predefined charge distances and being able to premeasure. All these options are better than random charge distances.

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.

Err, no. I dislike random charge distances because I dislike random charge distances. I collect 1 assaulty army, 1 pure shooty army and 1 counter-attacky army, I dislike random charge distances in all cases. I also disliked random run distances. I just hate random movement in games that are primarily about movement (unless it's a specific rule effect like Fanatics or something).

 StarTrotter wrote:

Oh, I actually agree with you on the first part (well you and Psienesis). I think the random charge would need some form of rewrite personally. I could totally see others using it as a way to slingshot them further than the standard d6 run by planning out the statistical odds of a charge (I don't think you can charge something if it isn't within 12" range though). Then again I'd prefer if there was some like... ratio. Like a terminator had a variable range of 4+2d3 or something. It keeps it random and risky but allows for some consistency without as many OMG12inch charges on terminators. Along with that, you could then make it so that faster units wouldn't really need fleet and you could summarize it as a faster unit having a 6+2d3 and on occasion a unit might only get an extra d3. That way there is always that risk of failure, just not enough and could give a shooting army an ability to just point blank shoot you up but also a more reliable charge and would increase diversity of units!

I mentioned that it could be abused to allow units on the opposite side of the board a free "slingshot move". that is why I suggested the pinned if you fail idea which someone else then came up with the easier and more common sense "only assault if your within 12"' idea.
I would have no issues with having different ratios for different units. Termys, getting a lower number possible while large creatures like ogryn getting a slightly higher possible number and a ravenor getting a higher possible number yet. I LIKE that idea. I dont think others would agree as fast as me though ased on laziness, time it takes and the addition of more numbers to remember and double check during a game.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I take it you didn't read my post then?

Yes, it was off topic. Do try to remember this thread is about the 2d6 assault roll and not which edition you prefer.

 StarTrotter wrote:
Statistically a 12" charge is incredibly improbable, it would be optimal to ignore such a value. The average charge is approximately 7 inches, discounting cover. Behind cover the charge is slightly less in terms of range. I don't really know the values off of that admittedly (off the top of my head). It's more likely to be cautious at about.... 15 inches against fleet probably (in open terrain) but for most enemies the probably going to make the charge is at around 13. Of course cover can minimize this even more so.

Also it isn't 1-2 models for an entire unit. I agree that overwatch isn't really that bad. It usually won't do anything to a unit (usually). The notion is is that losing 1-2 models can be devestating. That might be an inch lost, or two, or even three. Who knows? IT can really cripple a charge. And that is what most individuals remember. Along with that, 1-2 models can sometimes matter in terms of devestation and output especially if you were already shooting them. For example, Tau firewarriors can probably kill one or two bloodletters if a full unit (I still prefer a game where a firewarrior commander shaus'o I think ended up killing my chaos lord xD and he didn't even need to pull his dagger out of his sheath ).

a 12 inch charge IS unlikely. It is possible though where it wasnt before. heck a 6.5 inch assault is possible now where it wasnt before. so there is a random element involved but many players forget that while it is unlikely you will roll boxcars, it is just as unlikely you will roll snakeeyes (unless your me of course lol). As I have been saying all along is that a most of that "randomness" can be overcome by using tactics to stack the odds in your favor. By actually moving your full 6 inch move for all members of the squad to create a semicirle around the target unit so that you have 5 guys within 3 inches and the rest 4-5 inches away, you are stacking the odds in your favor more than the guy who just nudges a single models to be within 6 inches. The former way, your still likely to have models within 3 inches even after overwatch and only snakeeyes will mean you fail.

 Blacksails wrote:
Why are people responding to Evil? He's demonstrated time and time again he's incapable of a rational, reasonable discussion.

Reported. you might want to check rule#1 of the site. Try to keep personal and untrue assaults out of the threads.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 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?

3rd edition. That was the last edition I played and I recall assault being nuts back then; everything was mechanized to close as fast as possible. I think assault troops could charge 12" (don't quote me, it's been over 10 years) or something like that. Blood Angels were nasty when 3rd just came out, all the benefits of Marines and better assault. Black Templars were one of the cheesiest forces ever when they came out in Codex: Armageddon. Of course that was also the days of the IG Armored Company and the Rhino Rush. I recall actually building my CSM with bolt pistols + CCW because assault was so much better than shooting, with a few bolter squads as firebases.

I'll agree with that. As a result of that though, we also have to come to the conclusion that melee got worse in 4th, worse in 5th, and worse again in 6th when shooting was already stronger in 4th, thus disproving Evil's entire "argument".

D6+5 charge seems like a good compromise from what I'm reading.

At the worst you still get 6 inches like earlier editions.

At the best you get 11 inches so it might be worth the chance.

Pushing one guy into 6 inch range could backfire if overwatch kills him.

Just resolve what happens if you fail and you might have a fun alternative to play with your friends.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 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?

3rd edition. That was the last edition I played and I recall assault being nuts back then; everything was mechanized to close as fast as possible. I think assault troops could charge 12" (don't quote me, it's been over 10 years) or something like that. Blood Angels were nasty when 3rd just came out, all the benefits of Marines and better assault. Black Templars were one of the cheesiest forces ever when they came out in Codex: Armageddon. Of course that was also the days of the IG Armored Company and the Rhino Rush. I recall actually building my CSM with bolt pistols + CCW because assault was so much better than shooting, with a few bolter squads as firebases.

I'll agree with that. As a result of that though, we also have to come to the conclusion that melee got worse in 4th, worse in 5th, and worse again in 6th when shooting was already stronger in 4th, thus disproving Evil's entire "argument".

You might notice though that 3rd edition did not have the 2d6 assault roll and is therefore offtopic. Some editions CC was WAY OP, in others less so. Regardless of the extent, it has been more powerfull in every edition than this one. Even in 5th there were abusable aspects.
To keep it on topic, some players prefer earlier editions because of the lack of the 2d6 roll. Going by this criteria (the only one that is on topic in this thread), all previous editions are equal.

Note that 4th edition was released in 2004. Evil appears to be holding a grudge against melee armies from over 10 years ago. There are probably people playing the game now, that weren't even born the last time cc dominated. However, shooting has been dominating for 2 editions now.

 EVIL INC wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

Oh, I actually agree with you on the first part (well you and Psienesis). I think the random charge would need some form of rewrite personally. I could totally see others using it as a way to slingshot them further than the standard d6 run by planning out the statistical odds of a charge (I don't think you can charge something if it isn't within 12" range though). Then again I'd prefer if there was some like... ratio. Like a terminator had a variable range of 4+2d3 or something. It keeps it random and risky but allows for some consistency without as many OMG12inch charges on terminators. Along with that, you could then make it so that faster units wouldn't really need fleet and you could summarize it as a faster unit having a 6+2d3 and on occasion a unit might only get an extra d3. That way there is always that risk of failure, just not enough and could give a shooting army an ability to just point blank shoot you up but also a more reliable charge and would increase diversity of units!

I mentioned that it could be abused to allow units on the opposite side of the board a free "slingshot move". that is why I suggested the pinned if you fail idea which someone else then came up with the easier and more common sense "only assault if your within 12"' idea.
I would have no issues with having different ratios for different units. Termys, getting a lower number possible while large creatures like ogryn getting a slightly higher possible number and a ravenor getting a higher possible number yet. I LIKE that idea. I dont think others would agree as fast as me though ased on laziness, time it takes and the addition of more numbers to remember and double check during a game.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I take it you didn't read my post then?

Yes, it was off topic. Do try to remember this thread is about the 2d6 assault roll and not which edition you prefer.

 StarTrotter wrote:
Statistically a 12" charge is incredibly improbable, it would be optimal to ignore such a value. The average charge is approximately 7 inches, discounting cover. Behind cover the charge is slightly less in terms of range. I don't really know the values off of that admittedly (off the top of my head). It's more likely to be cautious at about.... 15 inches against fleet probably (in open terrain) but for most enemies the probably going to make the charge is at around 13. Of course cover can minimize this even more so.

Also it isn't 1-2 models for an entire unit. I agree that overwatch isn't really that bad. It usually won't do anything to a unit (usually). The notion is is that losing 1-2 models can be devestating. That might be an inch lost, or two, or even three. Who knows? IT can really cripple a charge. And that is what most individuals remember. Along with that, 1-2 models can sometimes matter in terms of devestation and output especially if you were already shooting them. For example, Tau firewarriors can probably kill one or two bloodletters if a full unit (I still prefer a game where a firewarrior commander shaus'o I think ended up killing my chaos lord xD and he didn't even need to pull his dagger out of his sheath ).

a 12 inch charge IS unlikely. It is possible though where it wasnt before. heck a 6.5 inch assault is possible now where it wasnt before. so there is a random element involved but many players forget that while it is unlikely you will roll boxcars, it is just as unlikely you will roll snakeeyes (unless your me of course lol). As I have been saying all along is that a most of that "randomness" can be overcome by using tactics to stack the odds in your favor. By actually moving your full 6 inch move for all members of the squad to create a semicirle around the target unit so that you have 5 guys within 3 inches and the rest 4-5 inches away, you are stacking the odds in your favor more than the guy who just nudges a single models to be within 6 inches. The former way, your still likely to have models within 3 inches even after overwatch and only snakeeyes will mean you fail.

can you even declare a charge from all the way across the board though? That's what I'm asking. I suppose its not written in yet considering nobody would do such, but yeah I suppose that you'd actually have to type in that you can't charge somebody across the map xD that would be silly. I think the anger is that... you are probably not going to try to roll boxcars. Why bother? 12" is just so improbable that you aren't going to risk that roll. So a 12" charge is almost never seen. But a 2" charge? Now that is something that you will see because people will attempt that 10" charge, that 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3 inch charge. All of these have a chance of rolling 1s. If you roll 2 6s in a charge of 4 inches, it doesn't really matter, its excess movement that means nothing to you as you aren't going to risk that 12" charge. At 7 inch charge, the 12" just means you manage to run that 7 inches. So the problem is that people observe the odds of rolling 10 inches, 11 inches, 12 inches and say its not worth the risk whilst when trying to make that 3-9 inch charge (that is much more likely) that double snakes can really mess you up. Not quite. Assault is an odd one. With models removed from the front you want to have a wave, a line of units that are as close as possible. Overtime though, you will likely lose units to shooting. Along with that, you still want to space out to minimize damage from blasts and possibly limit the number of models you lose by enemy shots. That's when losing that model can really make a difference. When you can space your units out 2" it can really be a massive loss (even if rather uncommon)

Anyways, I do actually like the have to charge part. It makes more sense for a flowing time perspective, I'd say it would kinda make overwatch meaningless because it is obviously based upon them charging you and the failing to reach could be that the shots slow you down. My biggest problem is it really varies. I could totally see Khorne just charging forth regardless whilst I could see guardsman or SM having a little retreat sequence after charging for a bit. It would be certainly interesting if one could change it up to explain how it works, maybe even a ld test involved in it (which would explain why bloodletters would be less likely to run back along with nids) perhaps even fearless individuals just charging onwards... still it might make it even more complicated and the rules are already rather bloated.

jpong, to remain on topic, ALL previous editions are equal in relation to this thread as the 2d6 assault roll did not exist in any of them. If you have 10 year old grudges or whatever you are talking about, feel free to post them in a relevant thread. we arent talking about you liking 4th edition or 3rd edition or whatever more than this, we are talking about the 2d6 assault roll only.

JPong wrote:
Note that 4th edition was released in 2004. Evil appears to be holding a grudge against melee armies from over 10 years ago. There are probably people playing the game now, that weren't even born the last time cc dominated. However, shooting has been dominating for 2 editions now.

This. The entire crux of the argument behind why random charge distances are needed, as presented by Evil, is that CC was too dominant in earlier editions. My question about 5th edition is thus on topic, because if CC can't be said to have been OP in 5th edition (and, judging from the refusal to explain how it was, it wasn't) random charge distances certainly aren't required in order to somehow "balance" melee, as was claimed.

 EVIL INC wrote:
jpong, to remain on topic, ALL previous editions are equal in relation to this thread as the 2d6 assault roll did not exist in any of them. If you have 10 year old grudges or whatever you are talking about, feel free to post them in a relevant thread. we arent talking about you liking 4th edition or 3rd edition or whatever more than this, we are talking about the 2d6 assault roll only.

You do not decide what is on-topic or not.

 StarTrotter wrote:

can you even declare a charge from all the way across the board though? That's what I'm asking. I suppose its not written in yet considering nobody would do such, but yeah I suppose that you'd actually have to type in that you can't charge somebody across the map xD that would be silly. I think the anger is that... you are probably not going to try to roll boxcars. Why bother? 12" is just so improbable that you aren't going to risk that roll. So a 12" charge is almost never seen. But a 2" charge? Now that is something that you will see because people will attempt that 10" charge, that 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3 inch charge. All of these have a chance of rolling 1s. If you roll 2 6s in a charge of 4 inches, it doesn't really matter, its excess movement that means nothing to you as you aren't going to risk that 12" charge. At 7 inch charge, the 12" just means you manage to run that 7 inches. So the problem is that people observe the odds of rolling 10 inches, 11 inches, 12 inches and say its not worth the risk whilst when trying to make that 3-9 inch charge (that is much more likely) that double snakes can really mess you up. Not quite. Assault is an odd one. With models removed from the front you want to have a wave, a line of units that are as close as possible. Overtime though, you will likely lose units to shooting. Along with that, you still want to space out to minimize damage from blasts and possibly limit the number of models you lose by enemy shots. That's when losing that model can really make a difference. When you can space your units out 2" it can really be a massive loss (even if rather uncommon)

Anyways, I do actually like the have to charge part. It makes more sense for a flowing time perspective, I'd say it would kinda make overwatch meaningless because it is obviously based upon them charging you and the failing to reach could be that the shots slow you down. My biggest problem is it really varies. I could totally see Khorne just charging forth regardless whilst I could see guardsman or SM having a little retreat sequence after charging for a bit. It would be certainly interesting if one could change it up to explain how it works, maybe even a ld test involved in it (which would explain why bloodletters would be less likely to run back along with nids) perhaps even fearless individuals just charging onwards... still it might make it even more complicated and the rules are already rather bloated.

i mentioned finding ways to prevent players from calling an assault from the other side of the table for one reason. There ARE players (you cant deny it and likely know a few lol) who would do so and claim that SAW, there is nothing to stop them and RAW, they would be right. A total jerk move but SOME players WOULD do it.
As for players not making a 7-9 inch assault attempt, that depends on the player. YOU may not others may. Some ork players try it at 12 every time. I have declared a 12 inch assault with guard on the last turn of a game in hopes of getting to grips and contest an objective. Saying you your personal anecdotal data for yourself means you wouldnt take a chance does not mean others wont. Others do and fail and others do and succeed. The optio is there for them.

 EVIL INC wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

can you even declare a charge from all the way across the board though? That's what I'm asking. I suppose its not written in yet considering nobody would do such, but yeah I suppose that you'd actually have to type in that you can't charge somebody across the map xD that would be silly. I think the anger is that... you are probably not going to try to roll boxcars. Why bother? 12" is just so improbable that you aren't going to risk that roll. So a 12" charge is almost never seen. But a 2" charge? Now that is something that you will see because people will attempt that 10" charge, that 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3 inch charge. All of these have a chance of rolling 1s. If you roll 2 6s in a charge of 4 inches, it doesn't really matter, its excess movement that means nothing to you as you aren't going to risk that 12" charge. At 7 inch charge, the 12" just means you manage to run that 7 inches. So the problem is that people observe the odds of rolling 10 inches, 11 inches, 12 inches and say its not worth the risk whilst when trying to make that 3-9 inch charge (that is much more likely) that double snakes can really mess you up. Not quite. Assault is an odd one. With models removed from the front you want to have a wave, a line of units that are as close as possible. Overtime though, you will likely lose units to shooting. Along with that, you still want to space out to minimize damage from blasts and possibly limit the number of models you lose by enemy shots. That's when losing that model can really make a difference. When you can space your units out 2" it can really be a massive loss (even if rather uncommon)

Anyways, I do actually like the have to charge part. It makes more sense for a flowing time perspective, I'd say it would kinda make overwatch meaningless because it is obviously based upon them charging you and the failing to reach could be that the shots slow you down. My biggest problem is it really varies. I could totally see Khorne just charging forth regardless whilst I could see guardsman or SM having a little retreat sequence after charging for a bit. It would be certainly interesting if one could change it up to explain how it works, maybe even a ld test involved in it (which would explain why bloodletters would be less likely to run back along with nids) perhaps even fearless individuals just charging onwards... still it might make it even more complicated and the rules are already rather bloated.

i mentioned finding ways to prevent players from calling an assault from the other side of the table for one reason. There ARE players (you cant deny it and likely know a few lol) who would do so and claim that SAW, there is nothing to stop them and RAW, they would be right. A total jerk move but SOME players WOULD do it.
As for players not making a 7-9 inch assault attempt, that depends on the player. YOU may not others may. Some ork players try it at 12 every time. I have declared a 12 inch assault with guard on the last turn of a game in hopes of getting to grips and contest an objective. Saying you your personal anecdotal data for yourself means you wouldnt take a chance does not mean others wont. Others do and fail and others do and succeed. The optio is there for them.

If only the sentence "A unit can never declare a charge against a unit that it cannot reach [...]" was included, in bold, below the heading "Declare Charge", in the Rulebook. That'd solve so many problems. Alas, it's a shame that it's not the...

What's that? It is? Well, that's just marvellous then! Carry on!

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

JPong wrote:
Note that 4th edition was released in 2004. Evil appears to be holding a grudge against melee armies from over 10 years ago. There are probably people playing the game now, that weren't even born the last time cc dominated. However, shooting has been dominating for 2 editions now.

This. The entire crux of the argument behind why random charge distances are needed, as presented by Evil, is that CC was too dominant in earlier editions. My question about 5th edition is thus on topic, because if CC can't be said to have been OP in 5th edition (and, judging from the refusal to explain how it was, it wasn't) random charge distances certainly aren't required in order to somehow "balance" melee, as was claimed.

 EVIL INC wrote:
jpong, to remain on topic, ALL previous editions are equal in relation to this thread as the 2d6 assault roll did not exist in any of them. If you have 10 year old grudges or whatever you are talking about, feel free to post them in a relevant thread. we arent talking about you liking 4th edition or 3rd edition or whatever more than this, we are talking about the 2d6 assault roll only.

You do not decide what is on-topic or not.

walrus, YOU do not decide what is on topic or not. the Mods do. They usually make the decision based on the OP, not random side rants and raves. Your side topic of liking 3rd edition more than the current one has nothing to do with a 2d6 roll for assault. Going by the OP, ALL previous editions are equal as none of them had this roll whether it be RT or 5th, they are all equal.
Just caught your last post. You've seen the 7th edition rulebook? Start a new thread and tell us what else you saw in it.


To keep it on topic, startrotter mentioned each seperate unit having different random number rolls possible. How man would be interested or support that?

 EVIL INC wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

can you even declare a charge from all the way across the board though? That's what I'm asking. I suppose its not written in yet considering nobody would do such, but yeah I suppose that you'd actually have to type in that you can't charge somebody across the map xD that would be silly. I think the anger is that... you are probably not going to try to roll boxcars. Why bother? 12" is just so improbable that you aren't going to risk that roll. So a 12" charge is almost never seen. But a 2" charge? Now that is something that you will see because people will attempt that 10" charge, that 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3 inch charge. All of these have a chance of rolling 1s. If you roll 2 6s in a charge of 4 inches, it doesn't really matter, its excess movement that means nothing to you as you aren't going to risk that 12" charge. At 7 inch charge, the 12" just means you manage to run that 7 inches. So the problem is that people observe the odds of rolling 10 inches, 11 inches, 12 inches and say its not worth the risk whilst when trying to make that 3-9 inch charge (that is much more likely) that double snakes can really mess you up. Not quite. Assault is an odd one. With models removed from the front you want to have a wave, a line of units that are as close as possible. Overtime though, you will likely lose units to shooting. Along with that, you still want to space out to minimize damage from blasts and possibly limit the number of models you lose by enemy shots. That's when losing that model can really make a difference. When you can space your units out 2" it can really be a massive loss (even if rather uncommon)

Anyways, I do actually like the have to charge part. It makes more sense for a flowing time perspective, I'd say it would kinda make overwatch meaningless because it is obviously based upon them charging you and the failing to reach could be that the shots slow you down. My biggest problem is it really varies. I could totally see Khorne just charging forth regardless whilst I could see guardsman or SM having a little retreat sequence after charging for a bit. It would be certainly interesting if one could change it up to explain how it works, maybe even a ld test involved in it (which would explain why bloodletters would be less likely to run back along with nids) perhaps even fearless individuals just charging onwards... still it might make it even more complicated and the rules are already rather bloated.

i mentioned finding ways to prevent players from calling an assault from the other side of the table for one reason. There ARE players (you cant deny it and likely know a few lol) who would do so and claim that SAW, there is nothing to stop them and RAW, they would be right. A total jerk move but SOME players WOULD do it.
As for players not making a 7-9 inch assault attempt, that depends on the player. YOU may not others may. Some ork players try it at 12 every time. I have declared a 12 inch assault with guard on the last turn of a game in hopes of getting to grips and contest an objective. Saying you your personal anecdotal data for yourself means you wouldnt take a chance does not mean others wont. Others do and fail and others do and succeed. The optio is there for them.

Yeah I just didn't think about somebody really trying to slingshot that way. Heck, later in that same post I agreed that it should be written there to make sure somebody doesn't try to exploit it . Admittedly there is likely always going to be some form of exploit ion. And I didn't say not making an attempt, I've opted for 12" charges (I'm notorious for making stupid good roles at convenient times, failing on 3+ saves, and doing great with 5+ saves ) to draw overwatch into a battered unit and even had it succeed. I average an assault range of about 8 or 9. I'll take the risks because you need to. What I mean is that, whilst some will try, it isn't usually worth trying that 12" charge. The odds are so unlikely it is usually not worth it not to mention it gives extra shots to the enemey (even if snapshots). I'm focusing on statsitical odds and statistical odds alone.

To be honest my idea there is a bit deviating. It would be better in proposed. I suppose I was just ruminating because it would be an interesting mix between giving there to be more diversity but not necessarily removing all randomeness. Just... streamlining it perhaps? The problem comes when it adds even extra by way of an entire bar for the assault of a unit.

How about this:

You measure the distance, if within 12 inches, you declare your charge. Roll your 2D6.

If you reach, great you are in CC.

If you fail, then you only move closer to the unit being assaulted by HALF of the the dice roll, rounding down.

This way you still show some movement happened, but for whatever reason something happened and prevented them from making it.

Simple enough. If I have to stomach this dumb rule, then I think this is a decent compromise...

I would say the best way to limit that is to set the maximum distance at which you can declare a charge is 24". This should encompass the best-possible roll (12) and every basic movement rate, special rule, modeling shenanigans, transport facing shenaningans, and all other related hoopla that gets you the additional 12" of movement....

... because if you are attempting to charge the enemy over much greater distance than that, then you're actually running track. Pickett tried that, and look what happened to his guys!

But based on statistics, the long odds of making it are better than the zero odds of not even having the choice arent they. a slim chance is better than no chance.

 EVIL INC wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

JPong wrote:
Note that 4th edition was released in 2004. Evil appears to be holding a grudge against melee armies from over 10 years ago. There are probably people playing the game now, that weren't even born the last time cc dominated. However, shooting has been dominating for 2 editions now.

This. The entire crux of the argument behind why random charge distances are needed, as presented by Evil, is that CC was too dominant in earlier editions. My question about 5th edition is thus on topic, because if CC can't be said to have been OP in 5th edition (and, judging from the refusal to explain how it was, it wasn't) random charge distances certainly aren't required in order to somehow "balance" melee, as was claimed.

 EVIL INC wrote:
jpong, to remain on topic, ALL previous editions are equal in relation to this thread as the 2d6 assault roll did not exist in any of them. If you have 10 year old grudges or whatever you are talking about, feel free to post them in a relevant thread. we arent talking about you liking 4th edition or 3rd edition or whatever more than this, we are talking about the 2d6 assault roll only.

You do not decide what is on-topic or not.

walrus, YOU do not decide what is on topic or not. the Mods do.

Yep, they do. Why, then, do you insist on pretending that you are one?

 EVIL INC wrote:
Your side topic of liking 3rd edition more than the current one has nothing to do with a 2d6 roll for assault. Going by the OP, ALL previous editions are equal as none of them had this roll whether it be RT or 5th, they are all equal.

So this is going to be another thread about you arguing against strawmen and ignoring what I'm saying? So be it.

Earlier in the thread, you asserted that CC was too strong in earlier editions, and thus had to be brought down a notch (justifying the existence of random charge range). I'm pointing out that this argument relies on 5th edition, being the most recent one prior to 6th edition, having CC that was too strong. If this were not the case, the existence of random charge range (which is what we're discussing) would not be justified, as it'd be an overnerf to CC. As has been pointed out, shooting was already stronger in 5th edition that melee (which doesn't mean that melee wasn't playable, only that it was already weaker), making the claim that CC is now in it's "rightful place" after being OP untrue.

 EVIL INC wrote:
But based on statistics, the long odds of making it are better than the zero odds of not even having the choice arent they. a slim chance is better than no chance.

Which is evened out by the risk of failing charges at short range.

KTG17 wrote:
How about this:

You measure the distance, if within 12 inches, you declare your charge. Roll your 2D6.

If you reach, great you are in CC.

If you fail, then you only move closer to the unit being assaulted by HALF of the the dice roll, rounding down.

This way you still show some movement happened, but for whatever reason something happened and prevented them from making it.

Simple enough. If I have to stomach this dumb rule, then I think this is a decent compromise...

I don't like it. Since I'll be hugging cover as much as possible, forcing me to leave cover because I couldn't roll a 7 is unnecessarily punitive.
Or, if I move out of cover because you somehow allowed me to try a 4" charge and I fail it, how does that make things "better"?

I don't see any reason why the movement would have to be forced forward - momentum stopped, not going to make it? Dive for cover boys!

- Edited by insaniak. Please see Dakka's rule #1. -

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Yep, they do. Why, then, do you insist on pretending that you are one?

You might stop trying and pretending to be one and let them do their job. You will find your life much easier.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


So this is going to be another thread about you arguing against strawmen and ignoring what I'm saying? So be it.

Earlier in the thread, you asserted that CC was too strong in earlier editions, and thus had to be brought down a notch (justifying the existence of random charge range). I'm pointing out that this argument relies on 5th edition, being the most recent one prior to 6th edition, having CC that was too strong. If this were not the case, the existence of random charge range (which is what we're discussing) would not be justified, as it'd be an overnerf to CC. As has been pointed out, shooting was already stronger in 5th edition that melee (which doesn't mean that melee wasn't playable, only that it was already weaker), making the claim that CC is now in it's "rightful place" after being OP untrue.

So now you are starting to build your strawmen again? YOU started asking for exact editions before this one. the simple fact is that ALL editions before this one are equal in relation to the topic of the thread as ALL of the previous editions failed to have the roll and all previous editions had CC being more powerfull than it currently is. the degree is not in question. Consider asking a pregnant woman how regnant she is. She either is or is not regardless of its the morning after or 9 months down the road, the condition is there. The same is true of this.
BTW, I reported your last post and pongs before it If you are unable to interact with other members in a civil or polite fashion feel free to use the ignore button. If you are just unable to refute a truth they put forth and get frustrated, making use of that button is also an option.