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:

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!

Well I am thinking that the charge is a move towards the enemy unit, not a dive for cover. So in the process of charging, come up with whatever narative you want, the charge broke down DURING the advance. I'm not considering that cover is nearby, nor would I want to go down that road - thats just introducing more arguements about what is reachable for an entire squad.

My proposal gives those who hate the rule that requires the unit that failed the charge to be forced to stand still, yet still holds those who fail some kind of accountability for failing.

Now I dont even like the failing part, but its there. I am trying to deal with it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EVIL INC wrote:

 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.

HEY WALRUS AND EVIL! STOP ARGUING BETWEEN YOURSELVES AND TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK OF MY RULE AMMENDMENT!

So the child is guilty of the crimes of their great grandfather, but not the crimes of their father or grandfather?

Beacause at one time over 10 years ago, you lost to CC, it is therefore at all times overpowered? Shooting has been dominant since 4th. This is fact. This is counter to your argument that assault was and always has been until 6th, stronger than shooting. And now it is balanced despite making approximately 0 noteful appearances in anything remotely competitive.

I agree that straight towards the enemy the full distance is the way to go. The "diving for cover"" wouldnt happen till after they moved the full distance so it would not be a factore and they may indeed try it on their next movement phase if they so desire. Sorry that walrus keeps trying to instigate some sort of argument. It's some sort of agenda he has had against the current edition he has and jumps his soapbox into any thread he can regardless of the actual topic.

JPong wrote:
So the child is guilty of the crimes of their great grandfather, but not the crimes of their father or grandfather?

Beacause at one time over 10 years ago, you lost to CC, it is therefore at all times overpowered? Shooting has been dominant since 4th. This is fact. This is counter to your argument that assault was and always has been until 6th, stronger than shooting. And now it is balanced despite making approximately 0 noteful appearances in anything remotely competitive.

You might be in the wrong thread here buddy. We are talking about the random 2d6 assault roll, not your father or grandfather and what they did. I'm sure there is a genealogy forum here somewhere.

To be fair, melee being "too strong" is a matter of opinion. Clearly 6th edition is a shooting-focused edition, but melee combat is still much stronger than it should be. Why? Because 40k is a scifi game with guns. Melee should be a rare act of desperation, or a final charge to finish off a unit that you've crippled with shooting. Dedicated melee units/armies should be almost nonexistent, and each codex should have plenty of shooting units. So, to fix this problem:

1) Charge range is 2D6 pick the highest, not 2D6 added together, with difficult terrain 1D6 and fleet 3D6 pick the highest.

2) Overwatch is done at full BS, with blast weapons able to fire as usual and template weapons inflicting 2D6 hits instead of D3.

3) Units may use ranged weapons in close combat at a -1 BS penalty, and pistols are used at full BS.

4) Units are no longer locked in combat and may leave voluntarily at any time with a normal move action.

5) Jet pack infantry may not be charged, as they are hovering above the fight and out of sword range.

6) Any model that misses an attack against a vehicle is run over and immediately removed as a casualty, and any vehicle that moved over 6" is only hit on a 6+.

7) Challenges may be declined without penalty


There should probably be more changes, but this is a pretty good start.

The problem with your rule is it further nerfs melee, because it forces them to expose themselves even further.

How?

Ok I see you mean if I started from cover, now have to leave it once I charged?

Well... kind imagine that is what happens when an ongoing charge gets disrupted.

The way I see a failed charge is that one that was UNDERWAY failed, not failed to GET UNDERWAY.

Maybe thats the problem here, different interpretations on charges.

Well for certain you guys resolved to hate this rule are ignoring some basic facts:

1) Assaulting into terrain/cover in 5th edition was RANDOM.

2) Assaulting into terrain/cover in 6th edition has BETTER odds than in 5th.

3) Now with fortifications / aegis defense lines etc you will be assaulting into cover more than ever (advantage 6th ed).

4) You CAN make long assaults now; if your unit is able to reroll (jumppack or fleet) this is a great option especially.

5) You could ALWAYS fail assaults and it did happen.

6) "Assault units" - you know, the guys that should be doing the assaulting are more distinguished in 6th edition with REROLL charges for fleet and jumppacks, choosing when to use jumppacks now, and hammer of wrath (jumppacks, MCs), etc...

 EVIL INC wrote:
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.

Except there's degrees of power, so your analogy is flawed. If we're comparing two levels of power (CC vs. shooting) then, unless they're both on the same level of power, there's going to be differences in degree.

Peregrine, you may think it is too strong, but you cannot argue that it is at all equal to shooting.

Now, as long as there are assault units, that can only assault, do nothing but assault, and don't even have a shooting action besides running, they need to be able to function. Currently that is not the case for the large majority of them. Genestealers are still broken. Hormagaunts are still broken. Lictors are stil broken (yes, I know these guys have a shoting attack, but it's as bad as their melee).

GW needs to decide what it wants to do with melee. Either makeit compete, or kill off units like that.

 Peregrine wrote:
To be fair, melee being "too strong" is a matter of opinion. Clearly 6th edition is a shooting-focused edition, but melee combat is still much stronger than it should be. Why? Because 40k is a scifi game with guns. Melee should be a rare act of desperation, or a final charge to finish off a unit that you've crippled with shooting. Dedicated melee units/armies should be almost nonexistent, and each codex should have plenty of shooting units. So, to fix this problem:

1) Charge range is 2D6 pick the highest, not 2D6 added together, with difficult terrain 1D6 and fleet 3D6 pick the highest.

2) Overwatch is done at full BS, with blast weapons able to fire as usual and template weapons inflicting 2D6 hits instead of D3.

3) Units may use ranged weapons in close combat at a -1 BS penalty, and pistols are used at full BS.

4) Units are no longer locked in combat and may leave voluntarily at any time with a normal move action.

5) Jet pack infantry may not be charged, as they are hovering above the fight and out of sword range.

6) Any model that misses an attack against a vehicle is run over and immediately removed as a casualty, and any vehicle that moved over 6" is only hit on a 6+.

7) Challenges may be declined without penalty


There should probably be more changes, but this is a pretty good start.

We get it. You'd love for the game to be gunline vs gunline where no one moves. Not really a helpful post in this thread however.

JPong wrote:
Peregrine, you may think it is too strong, but you cannot argue that it is at all equal to shooting.

I'm not. Shooting is better. My argument is that assault should be much weaker. The game should be 95% shooting with assault being a rare thing that you only do in exceptional circumstances.

Either makeit compete, or kill off units like that.

Exactly. Kill off the WHFB-in-space units that don't belong in the game.

(In fact, just get rid of Tyranids entirely and put demons back in the CSM codex. That alone solves most of the problems.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
We get it. You'd love for the game to be gunline vs gunline where no one moves. Not really a helpful post in this thread however.

I don't think you really understand the concept of moving and shooting. You don't need to have screaming idiots with swords to have a game with interesting movement and strategy. Gunlines are only a problem when you suck at game balance and combine overpowered static units with a complete lack of LOS-blocking terrain.

Well that and kill off a bit more than 1/2 of the DE codex, kill off most orks, and then kill off BA, GK (they don't need those weapons), and delete every single named character and HQ (except a few)

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
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.

Except there's degrees of power, so your analogy is flawed. If we're comparing two levels of power (CC vs. shooting) then, unless they're both on the same level of power, there's going to be differences in degree.

Really? Which edition had a "degree" of 2d6 roll for assault? I played them all from day one. how did they do the degrees? Did one edition make you roll 2d4 while another 2d20 exactly how were the different degrees of random assault rolls done? because that is what we are talking about. Either they had the random assault roll or they did not.

KTG17 wrote:
How?

Ok I see you mean if I started from cover, now have to leave it once I charged?

Well... kind imagine that is what happens when an ongoing charge gets disrupted.

The way I see a failed charge is that one that was UNDERWAY failed, not failed to GET UNDERWAY.

Maybe thats the problem here, different interpretations on charges.

It's not that I am misunderstanding you. It's that I am putting gameplay above realism. Assault is already worse than shooting. Making it even worse means you mignt as well remove it from the game.

Moving after failed charges works in fantasy because there is less shooting, and what shooting there is, is less deadly. This means you don't rely on cover nearly as much. However in 40k, there are you its that live by their cover save. And a lot of those units are assault units.

 Peregrine wrote:
I don't think you really understand the concept of moving and shooting. You don't need to have screaming idiots with swords to have a game with interesting movement and strategy. Gunlines are only a problem when you suck at game balance and combine overpowered static units with a complete lack of LOS-blocking terrain.

If I want tank battles I play historical games.

Sci Fi melee has been around forever, it's not going away, so instead of pissing in everyone else's corn flakes, how about you contribute positively to the thread?

He actually is making positive points. Just because he disgrees does not mean that it is not a positive contribution.. if everyone in the world were cloned and had the same thoughts and opinions, the world would be a lot more boring.
The problem here seems to be that people are taking it personal because they arent being agreed with. To be honest, the answers usually lie in the middle grey area or are simply issues that are PURELY opinion based so an answer for you IS correct while the answer for another is ALSO correct, to you each respectively and there is no "right" answer outside of that.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
I don't think you really understand the concept of moving and shooting. You don't need to have screaming idiots with swords to have a game with interesting movement and strategy. Gunlines are only a problem when you suck at game balance and combine overpowered static units with a complete lack of LOS-blocking terrain.

If I want tank battles I play historical games.

Sci Fi melee has been around forever, it's not going away, so instead of pissing in everyone else's corn flakes, how about you contribute positively to the thread?

And this I agree with. I just want GW to make up their mind. If they remove it, I am out. I have a lot of nids and a small amount of orks. If melee gets any worse, or removed, I will probably just quit for Warmachine. I started playing because genestealers and hormagaunts were cool. I don't even run them anymore.

 EVIL INC wrote:

 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.

Think you're missing the point. Against a small unit that's charging (SM Assault Marines and the like), Overwatch ends up becoming fairly effective. Against large charging units (Terma/Hormagaunt Swarm, Orks, etc.), overwatch is practically hopeless, it's a last stand of defiance and glory, it's a desperate last measure before being overwhelmed by the sheer number of bodies. THAT forges a potentially fething badass narrative.

 EVIL INC wrote:
He actually is making positive points. Just because he disgrees does not mean that it is not a positive contribution.. if everyone in the world were cloned and had the same thoughts and opinions, the world would be a lot more boring.

He's not just disagreeing - he wants assault essentially removed from the game (rendering multiple codexes absolutely irrelevant). Forgive me when I'd like my ~$3k of models to still be sort of useful (and that's a relatively small army)

The problem here seems to be that people are taking it personal because they arent being agreed with. To be honest, the answers usually lie in the middle grey area or are simply issues that are PURELY opinion based so an answer for you IS correct while the answer for another is ALSO correct, to you each respectively and there is no "right" answer outside of that.

I'm not taking it personally because people disagree with me - it happens all the time (I'm married). The only thing I've taken personally is the statement that I'm playing 40k wrong because I think assault is a good thing, and the way I play 40k shouldn't exist.

You know, the comment I replied to.

To be honest, though...

.... in most cases, the guys armed with swords lose out very, very badly to the guys armed with guns. Especially if the guys with the guns have guns that shoot a very large number of bullets in a very small number of seconds.

In a game of sci-fi warfare with eight-foot-tall dudes in massive armor packing armor-piercing explosive bullet guns, the guys running up to them to hit them with swords should be either absolutely stupid or absolutely insane. Bringing a sword to a gunfight is not usually a viable tactical option, unless you have someway (such as Droppod Assault) that allows you to mitigate most/all of the advantages of the guns.

But if you are walking up to the guys with the guns, you really should have about five times the number of guys as he does guns, because a lot of your guys with swords jut aren't going to make it if you're running towards a unit that is facing right at you.

Yes, of course, there should be options and bonuses and modifiers and what-not if you're outflanking the target of your charge or if they are busy shooting at someone else, yadda yadda... but in the event that two armies meet on an open field (or a field with hills, I don't care), the guys with the guns are going to win 99.9% of those battles. They should, they have guns. Sneak around the hills all you like, once it comes down to running at them, they're going to shoot the crap out of you.

overwatch is not really effective unless your tau or a unit of burnaboyz. Gotta agree on the narrative though, the extra morale it can give the defenders and the idea that it weakened the attackers a little bit so the next unit it assaults has it a lil easier. Lots of ways to incorporate it into a BATREP or ongoing history of your army.

rigeld2 wrote:
The only thing I've taken personally is the statement that I'm playing 40k wrong because I think assault is a good thing, and the way I play 40k shouldn't exist.

Disagreeing with you and advocating a rule change that would hurt your armies does not make a comment non-constructive. It's entirely on-topic to point out that assault is way too powerful already, and people who exploit it should just be glad that random charge distance is as generous as it is instead of complaining that they don't get to auto-win every time they get within 8" of a Tau/IG unit.

I like it a lot.

In 5th edition you could max charge 6" and my oponents would always stand behind cover so that I had to charge through cover.

An averedge of 7 is good, 6 happens very often and often you need less then 6. Now you can charge further then you could before. Most CC worth their sault usualy has a way to get fleet.

I do not understand how you try to justefy the rules from a realism perspective. They are rules, something you use to play. If you want realisem or consistent fantasy write some fac fiction. (And I do not understand how you think random charge distance in a war enviorment is the the one rule you deside to hammer down on. There are many other rules that are odd out there, they are after all rules.)

rigeld2 wrote:
Forgive me when I'd like my ~$3k of models to still be sort of useful (and that's a relatively small army)

Forgive me when I'd like my ~$3k of models to have a game that makes sense instead of one where screaming idiots with swords are an effective unit because of the broken IGOUGO turn structure and GW's complete inability to scale distances and model sizes consistently.

 Peregrine wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The only thing I've taken personally is the statement that I'm playing 40k wrong because I think assault is a good thing, and the way I play 40k shouldn't exist.

Disagreeing with you and advocating a rule change that would hurt your armies does not make a comment non-constructive. It's entirely on-topic to point out that assault is way too powerful already, and people who exploit it should just be glad that random charge distance is as generous as it is instead of complaining that they don't get to auto-win every time they get within 8" of a Tau/IG unit.

Strawman argument is a strawman. People are asking for balance not auto-wins.

 Psienesis wrote:
.... in most cases, the guys armed with swords lose out very, very badly to the guys armed with guns. Especially if the guys with the guns have guns that shoot a very large number of bullets in a very small number of seconds.

Starship Troopers. Star Wars. Aliens. Those are just the popular movies that disprove your theory.

It's a consistent enough trope that removing it would be a bad idea.

I would prefer assaults to be based on the average Initiative of the unit.

Assault = I + 1D6
Assault through Cover would be I + 2D6 take the lowest.
Fleet let's you re-roll the assault dice.

 Niiai wrote:
I do not understand how you try to justefy the rules from a realism perspective. They are rules, something you use to play.

But the rules still have make sense. You aren't playing a game of chess with 40k pieces, you're playing a game which is supposed to be a simulation of the "real" events on the battlefield. You know, so you can forge the narrative about how those things happened, imagine all the awesome stuff going on as you roll the dice, etc. When you have obviously unrealistic rules it pulls you out of that narrative and reminds you that it's just a dice game, and not even a very good dice game.

 Peregrine wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The only thing I've taken personally is the statement that I'm playing 40k wrong because I think assault is a good thing, and the way I play 40k shouldn't exist.

Disagreeing with you and advocating a rule change that would hurt your armies does not make a comment non-constructive. It's entirely on-topic to point out that assault is way too powerful already, and people who exploit it should just be glad that random charge distance is as generous as it is instead of complaining that they don't get to auto-win every time they get within 8" of a Tau/IG unit.

That's amusing - I don't auto-win when I get that close. Ever. Considering the amount of firepower a single unit can bring to bear at that range, if I don't make that charge the Tau/IG unit will auto-win. And the likelihood is against me making that charge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Forgive me when I'd like my ~$3k of models to still be sort of useful (and that's a relatively small army)

Forgive me when I'd like my ~$3k of models to have a game that makes sense instead of one where screaming idiots with swords are an effective unit because of the broken IGOUGO turn structure and GW's complete inability to scale distances and model sizes consistently.

Want to know the difference? 40k has always involved the Sci Fi CC trope. You bought into the game knowing it was there.
It's like me buying a house next to a race track and then complaining when it gets noisy.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
.... in most cases, the guys armed with swords lose out very, very badly to the guys armed with guns. Especially if the guys with the guns have guns that shoot a very large number of bullets in a very small number of seconds.

Starship Troopers. Star Wars. Aliens. Those are just the popular movies that disprove your theory.

It's a consistent enough trope that removing it would be a bad idea.

Starship Troopers has soldiers in Power Armor with chainguns mounted on their fists scything through thousands of bugs (and implies the same was done to a score of other "pacified" alien races) with reckless abandon. Have you even read the book?

Star Wars has *one* troop-type being *sometimes* effective with swords vs guns (but not swords vs AT-ST), but otherwise battles are fought and won with spaceships firing lasers thousands and thousands of meters, or large numbers of dude/ettes with laser guns shooting one another.

Aliens has a guy packing a flamer in the first one, a bunch of dudes killing a *fethload* of aliens with ranged weapons (and this fits perfectly into my "bring five times more guys than he has guns" line), and the rest of the movies is basically a bunch of unarmed civilians trying to tackle a Tyranid. This is hardly any evidence that assault is an inferior combat tactic than shooting the hell out of people.