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:
"Play up ridiculous extremes" and "you can totes assault 12" lolz".

Sometimes things are just funny. Because bringing up assaulting 12" is absolutely a ridiculous extreme.

Except assault 12" is ACTUALLY possible. The totally buffed, totally nerfed extremes are not even remotely based in reality.

 Gunzhard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
"Play up ridiculous extremes" and "you can totes assault 12" lolz".

Sometimes things are just funny. Because bringing up assaulting 12" is absolutely a ridiculous extreme.

Except assault 12" is ACTUALLY possible. The totally buffed, totally nerfed extremes are not even remotely based in reality.

I would know. Once the two surviving terminators rolled an 11 to get to my commander and his bodyguard (I think I was running him with a giant squad of marker drones and a drone controller at the time)... that was a jaw clenching moment.

It feels weird to me that some people want 40k to have a balanced melee/assault aesthetic.It's like asking for a Naval Wargame's rules for ramming to be balanced with it's rules for blamming.

It's nonsense to suppose that melee and shooting are on par with one another in the future, just as it's nonsense to suppose that ramming and shooting are on par with eachother in a WWII naval wargame.

Does melee happen in 40k? Yes, just like it does today. Units sometimes do find themselves in situations where shooting is no longer practical.

Did ramming happen in World War II naval engagements? Yes, sometimes. Submarines, especially, were suspect to ramming by Allied vessels (although their pressure hulls made them considerably more dangerous foes in the ram than the Allied boats often anticipated).

The fact that both exist means there should, perhaps, be rules to account for them. But there is no reason whatsoever to believe they should be balanced alongside shooting.

There are plenty of eras in which melee was a viable tactic in land warfare and ramming the only good tactic in naval warfare, and there are plenty of wargames that cater towards those eras.

Also, a guy at the shopt I usually play at spoke with me about an idea he had he wanted to ty out. because of scheduling and a lot of overcompetative gamers, he stopped bringing his army around and I never got to try it with hi,/.... Anyways...
He mentioned calling your shots for your army before rolling dice. This was to represent everyone shooting at the same time. For example, a bug player had a unit of genestealers close by and a unit of hormagaunts coming in and a flyrant coming. Iwould have to say which units were firing at which target before rolling the dice. that meant that if the unit shooting at the genestealers didnt take it out, I couldnt switch off another unit to finish them. Likewise if I had 2 las cannon heavy weapon squads targeting a land raider and the first one killed it, the second squad's shots were either wasted or had to target the unit coming out of it. that would be another great and realistic nerf to shooting. Has anyone tried it? I have never had the chance.. If you did, how did it work?

CRAP!- Just remembered. I'm gonna hafta go get a roll or two of nickels to weight the bases of the hormagaunts when I put them together. I HATE models that fall over.

Grim Dark wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
Eh I get why most folks are afraid of random stuff... but I'd argue that if you need every little detail to be absolutely controlled then you are playing chess - not a war game.

The chess argument being kicked around is completely backwards. The words "tactics" and "lazy" are getting overused as well. And I don't think anyone has advocated a complete removal of randomness from the game.

Random charge ranges is a way for GW to insert itself into the game to determine a (random) outcome, taking a decision away from the player (that players are used to having.) Removing decision points from the player and turning them over to random dice rolls causes players to rely on luck more than tactics. The notion of a set charge range causing the game to tend towards chess is nonsensical. Chess is a game with a finite number of rules with a finite set of pieces on a finite playing field. Removing significant portions of the game (less player options), such as assaults, would cause the game to tend towards chess more.

Imagine that the shooty type players who think that there is no place for CC in scifi battles are able to band together and ban assault armies (and assaults) from 40k so that they can just line up and shoot at each other. But then perhaps the tank shooters get to thinking the infantry shooters are weighing down the game, because they take sooooooo long to do a turn. So the tank shooters ban together and ban the foot shooters. After a number of reductions, just what game are you left with?

Cheers!

Again - in 3rd edition, in 4th edition, 5th edition and again in 6th edition - charging into terrain/cover was RANDOM. In most games with proper terrain and reasonably experienced players, and all of the new terrain/defense-lines/etc you will be MOST often be charging into terrain/cover - except now your odds are better and your potential range of assault is also greater.

While I would agree the chess comparison is over the top and overused... you almost go so far as to reinforce the comparison.

The real mindjob for me though - when unexpected things - random things - happen, it requires quick thinking, adapting - 'tactics'. Winning the game at the 'army building phase' is not tactical, it doesn't make you 'competitive' or a good general. The so-called 'competitive' players that require an entirely predictable game, using the only the standard missions, strictly 1850 points, no expansions, no forgeworld, no random terrain/objectives - those are really the people I was talking about, not you specifically.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Also, a guy at the shopt I usually play at spoke with me about an idea he had he wanted to ty out. because of scheduling and a lot of overcompetative gamers, he stopped bringing his army around and I never got to try it with hi,/.... Anyways...
He mentioned calling your shots for your army before rolling dice. This was to represent everyone shooting at the same time. For example, a bug player had a unit of genestealers close by and a unit of hormagaunts coming in and a flyrant coming. Iwould have to say which units were firing at which target before rolling the dice. that meant that if the unit shooting at the genestealers didnt take it out, I couldnt switch off another unit to finish them. Likewise if I had 2 las cannon heavy weapon squads targeting a land raider and the first one killed it, the second squad's shots were either wasted or had to target the unit coming out of it. that would be another great and realistic nerf to shooting. Has anyone tried it? I have never had the chance.. If you did, how did it work?

It would be an absolute nightmare to keep track of in larger games.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It feels weird to me that some people want 40k to have a balanced melee/assault aesthetic.It's like asking for a Naval Wargame's rules for ramming to be balanced with it's rules for blamming.

It's nonsense to suppose that melee and shooting are on par with one another in the future, just as it's nonsense to suppose that ramming and shooting are on par with eachother in a WWII naval wargame.

Does melee happen in 40k? Yes, just like it does today. Units sometimes do find themselves in situations where shooting is no longer practical.

Did ramming happen in World War II naval engagements? Yes, sometimes. Submarines, especially, were suspect to ramming by Allied vessels (although their pressure hulls made them considerably more dangerous foes in the ram than the Allied boats often anticipated).

The fact that both exist means there should, perhaps, be rules to account for them. But there is no reason whatsoever to believe they should be balanced alongside shooting.

There are plenty of eras in which melee was a viable tactic in land warfare and ramming the only good tactic in naval warfare, and there are plenty of wargames that cater towards those eras.

40K is a game, not a simulation. That the game treats both ranged and assault as features of combat equally (never have I heard mention of close combat being "a last ditch tactic" or something units do out of sheer desperation or anything similar) means the rules should make both equally viable. That the Chainsword is almost as iconic a piece of wargear to 40k as a Bolter, isn't coincidence.

Gentlemen, I believe I asked your opinion on my rule amendment and barely anyone commented. Now I have to destroy dakka in its entirety.

KTG17 wrote:
Gentlemen, I believe I asked your opinion on my rule amendment and barely anyone commented. Now I have to destroy dakka in its entirety.

Your initial question - It's fine. And tyranids have a lot of Fleet and Move through cover; that's how they do it.

Crap Dakka is 9 inches away and I rolled an 8. Guess my assault isn't happening.

I'll wait for next round then.

 insaniak wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Failing an assault because you mispredicted the distance doesn't bother me. Failing an assault because the dice are against you always has annoyed me, regardless of 40k or fantasy and regardless of edition.

That's the trade-off for getting to measure everything whenever you want, though. Which, to my mind, is a bigger deal than the random assault... the whole 'no measuring' thing from previous editions was a nice idea, but too easily abused since people would just come up with clever ways to get around it.

I don't have a problem with charges being random, but I would rather see a bigger minimum distance than the 2" from rolling snake eyes... Say 2D6 for the charge with a minimum of 6" (or just 6" + D6), so you can at least make some pretense of planning out the charge.

Honestly, once guess weapons were removed, I would have been happy enough to just let people measure whatever they want. I always thought guess weapons were fun... probably just because I had some entertaining times with them. But once they were gone, I didn't really see a lot of point to not allowing people to measure because there were lots of tricks to figure it out anyway (deploy X inches from table edge, note the range when your opponent measures to check a range, etc).

 azreal13 wrote:
40K is a game, not a simulation. That the game treats both ranged and assault as features of combat equally (never have I heard mention of close combat being "a last ditch tactic" or something units do out of sheer desperation or anything similar) means the rules should make both equally viable. That the Chainsword is almost as iconic a piece of wargear to 40k as a Bolter, isn't coincidence.

Except that it doesn't treat them equally anymore. Shooting is now clearly better than assault, and obviously you haven't read many Guard novels, where close combat is used only when every other option has failed to stop or root out the heretics/xenos/traitors/daemons/whathaveyou.

Why should the rules make them equally viable just because of some symbolism? The Civil War artilleryman's sword is symbolic of his rank and posting, but that doesn't mean that commanders routinely ordered artillery crewmen into close combat because they were so equipped!

I think it is time to quickly pause to say this....

DRIVE ME CLOSER SO I MAY HIT THEM WITH MY SWORD!

Also that explains the sword but what then is the purpose of a powerfist, lightning claws, a power axe, etc. Really the only ones that look dress in manner is the sword and maul.

 Gunzhard wrote:
The real mindjob for me though - when unexpected things - random things - happen, it requires quick thinking, adapting - 'tactics'. Winning the game at the 'army building phase' is not tactical, it doesn't make you 'competitive' or a good general. The so-called 'competitive' players that require an entirely predictable game, using the only the standard missions, strictly 1850 points, no expansions, no forgeworld, no random terrain/objectives - those are really the people I was talking about, not you specifically.

Again... it's not about being random, it's about people not liking random in the movement section of the game. I can totally deal with a bunch of Genestealers getting randomly hammered in close combat by 2 freakishly lucky Guardsmen. Before and after random charges the game is still primarily about stacking the odds in your favour as best you can rather than making game ending decisions.

There's a long way between "you don't like random charge distance" and "you want the game won/lost in the army building stage". That's completely a different thing.

That's exactly why I prefer Fantasy (as a game) to 40k, I don't like seeing games won in the "army building stage" and Fantasy is far less prone to army list imbalance and tailoring, I like to see games won and lost in the MOVEMENT stage... hence why I don't like random movement (other than rare special rules like Fanatics). One of the most fun things I found about Aeronautica Imperialis was that you have limited movement options, and yet movement is THE most important thing. So when you got behind someone to shoot at them, it was you outsmarting your opponent... now if you rolled badly and missed all your shots and next turn found yourself being tailed because you overshot the guy you were just behind, oh well, that's how the dice fall, NOW you can play the "quick thinker" game and try and pull it back.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
40K is a game, not a simulation. That the game treats both ranged and assault as features of combat equally (never have I heard mention of close combat being "a last ditch tactic" or something units do out of sheer desperation or anything similar) means the rules should make both equally viable. That the Chainsword is almost as iconic a piece of wargear to 40k as a Bolter, isn't coincidence.

Except that it doesn't treat them equally anymore. Shooting is now clearly better than assault, and obviously you haven't read many Guard novels, where close combat is used only when every other option has failed to stop or root out the heretics/xenos/traitors/daemons/whathaveyou.

Why should the rules make them equally viable just because of some symbolism? The Civil War artilleryman's sword is symbolic of his rank and posting, but that doesn't mean that commanders routinely ordered artillery crewmen into close combat because they were so equipped!

Also don't penal legions do suicide charges? Anyways, there are certain other IG that charge (usually barbaric races I might add) but why would you want to charge daemons/SM/orks/etc. You would be giving up your defensive fortifications but also giving the enemy an advantage. Yes run into the berzerkers, yes run right at the bloodletters... yes run at the hormogaunts. No, feth that shoot them shoot them faster! A SM is going to charge what he thinks is better to charge and shoot what he thinks is better to be shot at. IG just don't get that level of flexibility. Also that sounds like an easy way for guardsman to experience the taste of their own artillery rounds

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Except that it doesn't treat them equally anymore. Shooting is now clearly better than assault, and obviously you haven't read many Guard novels, where close combat is used only when every other option has failed to stop or root out the heretics/xenos/traitors/daemons/whathaveyou.

Guard? If you were totally outmatched by damned near everything in hand to hand, you'd probably try and avoid it too

"Hey, look at that 300 lb green monster! CHAAARGE!!!" "Hey, look at that heavily armoured genetically modified super soldier! CHAAAARGE!!" "Hey, look at that 4 armed alien that moves faster than I can see.... CHAAAARGE!!"

It's not your "average" humans charging in to assault, they're the ones holding the flash lights trying to STOP from being assaulted by giant deadly super men and aliens.

Unless you are freakin' Commissar Yarrick who slaps around ork warbosses on his freetime.

I love random charge distances. I think they added a much-needed degree of complexity to assaults.

Against each other, shooting lists have previously required more finesse and forethought than assault lists. You have to set yourself up in the terrain, have to plan three steps ahead about how to evade the assault armies, have to target prioritize WAY more than an assault army, and in general you had to play a more complex game. Meanwhile, the assault list just had to run all their units at you chin-first, and would still usually win. 5th edition addressed some of these issues, but I think that 6th edition has completed the changes that were necessary.

Assault (random charges included) isn't broken in 6th edition. It's just more complicated. It requires some actual forethought and tactical thinking now. Y'know, like shooting lists.

What forethought, blasting the enemy before they can reach you? Kill the things actually worth killing and not shoot/charge the worthless units? also it isn't more complicated. Its more randomness. Honestly this game's rules are an absolute mess. Really the only thing that makes the game worth it is the atmosphere, models, and fluff, and that it is the most popular wargame.

Anyways, no, it isn't the worst rule in 6th edition. There are far more flaws in this book that deserve additional scorn.

Dammit rolled a 5.

KTG17 wrote:
Dammit rolled a 5.

Am I the only one getting a chuckle at this guy trolling his own thread?

What if this was all a troll intention to begin with knowing this stuff always blows up here and thus came back to troll to complete the cycle of trolling?

 StarTrotter wrote:
What if this was all a troll intention to begin with knowing this stuff always blows up here and thus came back to troll to complete the cycle of trolling?

You sir, have won the internet.

KTG17 wrote:
I absolutely hate rolling dice to see how far a unit can charge and if it can make it into combat, and if they dont make it, the charge 'fails'. I also hate rolling for running too, but the charging just makes no sense to me. I was teaching a friend how to play recently, and the subject came up and i couldnt justify it. I am not sure when this rule first came in (I missed 4th and 5th editions), but it makes me wonder what the heck Tyranids are doing since it seems to me they can get close but not close enough, and have to endure another round of getting shot at.

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

I have had this rule swing games multiple times (against me and for me). Personally I love it.

Grim Dark wrote:
Random charge ranges is a way for GW to insert itself into the game to determine a (random) outcome, taking a decision away from the player (that players are used to having.) Removing decision points from the player and turning them over to random dice rolls causes players to rely on luck more than tactics.

No, that's not how it works at all. Charge success or failure is not a player decision, and it never was. You always want the same outcome when you declare a charge: a successful charge. The only question is whether you pass or fail based on whether you're within 6", or whether you're within 2D6". In fact, the current system adds more player decisions. In 5th the only skill involved was being able to judge distances accurately (or, more likely, cheat by measuring when you shouldn't). In 6th you have to be good at risk analysis and deciding whether it's worth attempting a charge from X" away with Y% chance of success, or whether you'd be better off moving to a good defensive position and abandoning the charge. It replaces a rather boring skill (and/or cheating) with complex strategic decisions, and this is a very good thing.

Imagine that the shooty type players who think that there is no place for CC in scifi battles are able to band together and ban assault armies (and assaults) from 40k so that they can just line up and shoot at each other.

You do realize that "shooting focused" and "gunline focused" are not the same thing, right? Shooting armies can have just as much complexity in movement and strategy as assault armies, they just use to maximize their shooting potential instead of to deliver a bunch of screaming idiots with swords into melee range.

 insaniak wrote:
I don't have a problem with charges being random, but I would rather see a bigger minimum distance than the 2" from rolling snake eyes... Say 2D6 for the charge with a minimum of 6" (or just 6" + D6), so you can at least make some pretense of planning out the charge.

I strongly disagree with any change that increases charge range. Moving to 6+D6" doesn't just make charges more consistent, it significantly increases the average successful charge distance and turns random charge range into a pure benefit compared to 5th. And really, there isn't any need for a change. You're not going to fail a 3" charge very often as it is, so why complicate things?

 Peregrine wrote:
. Moving to 6+D6" doesn't just make charges more consistent, it significantly increases the average successful charge distance and turns random charge range into a pure benefit compared to 5th. And really, there isn't any need for a change.

Once upon a time, charging and running were just double your normal movement.

Of course, back then they also just happened instead of your normal movement.


However, in an edition where transports are made of tissue paper and units have to stand around for a turn after disembarking or deepstriking, assault units need some sort of guarantee of actually making it across the board.

You're not going to fail a 3" charge very often as it is, ...

You only say that because you've never seen me rolling dice... The last tournament I had two games out of five in which my Blood Claws rolled snake-eyes for charge distance.

 insaniak wrote:
You only say that because you've never seen me rolling dice... The last tournament I had two games out of five in which my Blood Claws rolled snake-eyes for charge distance.

And I'm sure it was amazingly cinematic and formed a wonderful narrative as the headstrong, foolhardy, out-for-glory sons of Russ decided "meh, we COULD advance 3 strides... but really I don't feel like charging anymore than 2 strides... we don't want to do anything too rash like charging the enemy who's about to shoot us again". Totally sounds like a Blood Claw-ish thing to do

I am fine with random charges...I just think its silly that you don't move if you don't make it.

To me, the worst rule is using multiple grenade types allowed at once....rad grenades, frag grenades, psy grenades ....all on one charge?

And you fired your gun before running in? Really?

Oh, that and re-rollable saves that are better than 4+.

 Peregrine wrote:
I strongly disagree with any change that increases charge range. Moving to 6+D6" doesn't just make charges more consistent, it significantly increases the average successful charge distance and turns random charge range into a pure benefit compared to 5th. And really, there isn't any need for a change. You're not going to fail a 3" charge very often as it is, so why complicate things?

Because it's not like shooting got any changes in 6th that are a pure benefit, oh wait.... rapid fire range after moving increased, overwatch, snapshots, etc. Why is the idea of close combat getting something that is a pure benefit so taboo?

davethepak wrote:
I am fine with random charges...I just think its silly that you don't move if you don't make it.

The thing is, under the current game structure, this would result in there never being any reason for assault units to not declare a charge... You would just charge instead of running every turn.


The answer there of course is to remove the need to 'declare' charges. Just allow units to move into contact with enemy units (whether through normal movement or runnin) and if they make contact, it was a charge.