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.

 Trevak Dal wrote:
You miss spelled "Champion of Chaos" there man. Chaos Space Marines somehow (Screw you Phil Kelly) got Black Templar's army rule, and they got ours.

"Crusader" fits CSM better than Templars? Pull the other one.

Grim Dark wrote:

JPong wrote:
No it doesn't, at least not on single dice rolls. Because your previous rolls have no bearing on your future rolls. Statistically, over a large sample size, you will average out. 8 rolls in 3 hours is not a large sample size.

Its unlikely that you would roll 1000 1s over the course of 1000 die rolls, but each number has an equal chance so its possible. So who cares? Sure, there should be an average of rolls. But again, who cares? How many rolls are you making? Why are you making the rolls?

MathHammer CAN be useful in how many charges you are making/failing over a particular time frame. The likelihood of making or not making a number of charges IS part of a unit's expected effectiveness.

Anecdotally, a player over several games could roll noticeably below the curve that not only doesn't enhance his game, but negatively affects it.

A random die roll has been inserted between a player's decision to charge and the resolution of the charge. There is no corresponding random die roll between a decision to fire a unit and the resolution of the firing. And yet there is still Overwatch and casualties from the front that precede the resolution of a charge to consider.

Cheers.

However, you CAN'T rely on it. You can't say, well, average roll is a 7, so I should make this 6.5" charge, given there is also a 40% chance of failure (that is quite high). It doesn't matter if you are batting 10% for rolling average, that has no effect on your next roll. Over the course of a game, you can hit 7 charge rolls assuming you charge every turn. That is not enough to statistically average out, nor do you always need to charge an average distance. If you want to actually mathhammer out the effectiveness of 2d6 charge, you would also need to average out distances required, because it is binary, you make or you don't. As far as I am aware, no one has done the statistics on average distance required. Remember, there is no middle ground here. You cannot "half" succeed. There is no benefit to rolling 12, when you only need 4. There is when shooting. There is for ranges on shooting (rapid fire).

I know there is no equivalent to shooting, which is why, if you look through my past posts in this thread, you will see me calling that out. It has no bearing the rest of your argument for mathhammering it out however.

JPong wrote:

Grim Dark wrote:

JPong wrote:
No it doesn't, at least not on single dice rolls. Because your previous rolls have no bearing on your future rolls. Statistically, over a large sample size, you will average out. 8 rolls in 3 hours is not a large sample size.

Its unlikely that you would roll 1000 1s over the course of 1000 die rolls, but each number has an equal chance so its possible. So who cares? Sure, there should be an average of rolls. But again, who cares? How many rolls are you making? Why are you making the rolls?

MathHammer CAN be useful in how many charges you are making/failing over a particular time frame. The likelihood of making or not making a number of charges IS part of a unit's expected effectiveness.

Anecdotally, a player over several games could roll noticeably below the curve that not only doesn't enhance his game, but negatively affects it.

A random die roll has been inserted between a player's decision to charge and the resolution of the charge. There is no corresponding random die roll between a decision to fire a unit and the resolution of the firing. And yet there is still Overwatch and casualties from the front that precede the resolution of a charge to consider.

Cheers.

However, you CAN'T rely on it. You can't say, well, average roll is a 7, so I should make this 6.5" charge, given there is also a 40% chance of failure (that is quite high). It doesn't matter if you are batting 10% for rolling average, that has no effect on your next roll. Over the course of a game, you can hit 7 charge rolls assuming you charge every turn. That is not enough to statistically average out, nor do you always need to charge an average distance. If you want to actually mathhammer out the effectiveness of 2d6 charge, you would also need to average out distances required, because it is binary, you make or you don't. As far as I am aware, no one has done the statistics on average distance required. Remember, there is no middle ground here. You cannot "half" succeed. There is no benefit to rolling 12, when you only need 4. There is when shooting. There is for ranges on shooting (rapid fire).

I know there is no equivalent to shooting, which is why, if you look through my past posts in this thread, you will see me calling that out. It has no bearing the rest of your argument for mathhammering it out however.

Which is why I wouldn't vociferously argue with you regarding this point. lol I would point out that there is more to Math (and MathHammer) than statistics.

Cheers.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:

You do realize that shooting was already king in 5th, yes? Further, the idea that assault was somehow easier than shooting just doesn't hold up. For every shooty player who moved to evade, there was a melee player moving to reduce that possibility; for every target priority choice a shooty player had to do, there was one for the melee player. The difference being that the deck was already stacked in favour of the shooting player.

i think, this is where we disagree. I and many others disaagree with you and others, 5th was a step in the right direction but it did not go as far as it should have.

And where's the evidence to back it up? Shooting armies were already dominating 5th edition. Long Fangs, Vendettas, Psyflemen, Leafblower lists, Venom spam, all the major lists were primarily shooting. I just don't see any supporting evidence to the claim that 5th edition wasn't already ruled by shooting.

I have the exact same experience you do. Possibly more since I have played since RT but in this case, there is no "hard evidence" to back it up as it is pure opinion. I have asked YOU for evidence and you have FAILED to provide it. Again, you could not provide it because it is pure opinion. You FEEL 5th was better and that is fine, I FEEL 6th is better and that is fine too. You have the need tojustify that your personalopinion shuld be the opinions of EVERYONE.. I just dont go in for that kind of mind control. I think that we as human beings should have differences. that is part of what makes the game fun. If we all followed your thinking, everyone would have the exat same list, exact same paint scheme and make the exact same moves during a game. That would be boring.
I disagree with you on which edition I THINK is better. My opinion is just as valid as yours.

 EVIL INC wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:

You do realize that shooting was already king in 5th, yes? Further, the idea that assault was somehow easier than shooting just doesn't hold up. For every shooty player who moved to evade, there was a melee player moving to reduce that possibility; for every target priority choice a shooty player had to do, there was one for the melee player. The difference being that the deck was already stacked in favour of the shooting player.

i think, this is where we disagree. I and many others disaagree with you and others, 5th was a step in the right direction but it did not go as far as it should have.

And where's the evidence to back it up? Shooting armies were already dominating 5th edition. Long Fangs, Vendettas, Psyflemen, Leafblower lists, Venom spam, all the major lists were primarily shooting. I just don't see any supporting evidence to the claim that 5th edition wasn't already ruled by shooting.

I have the exact same experience you do. Possibly more since I have played since RT but in this case, there is no "hard evidence" to back it up as it is pure opinion. I have asked you for evidence and you have failed to provide it. Again, you could not provide it because it is pure opinion. You FEEL 5th was better and that is fine, I FEEL 6th is better and that is fine too. You have the need tojustify that your personalopinion shuld be the opinions of EVERYONE.. I just dont go in for that kind of mind control. I think that we as human beings should have differences. that is part of what makes the game fun. If we all followed your thinking, everyone would have the exat same list, exact same paint scheme and make the exact same moves during a game. That would be boring.
I disagree with you on which edition I THINK is better. My opinion is just as valid as yours.

"No evidence" when I've cited the prevalence of Long Fangs, Vendettas, Razor-spam, Venom-spam, Psyfleman-spam, Psycannon-spam and God knows how many more shooting-centric lists that were the most common in 5th?

You're entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to claiming that I've not supported my argument when I have, because that's lying.

Grim Dark wrote:

Which is why I wouldn't vociferously argue with you regarding this point. lol I would point out that there is more to Math (and MathHammer) than statistics.

Cheers.

Huh? It's all statistics. The problem with people trying to mathhammer stuff out, is they don't take in all the variables, nor the fundamentals of probability (ie, probability only really matters when you have a large enough sample size).

11!!! Finally I am CC with dakka. Its about time.

But I failed to score any hits. Dammit.

Your point is/.... Oh, there is none.You have never YET supported your OPINION that 5th was better. YOU may have PERSONALLY felt that you liked those units. Others have different opinions. You have never not even once come close to providing any semblance of "evidence". Why? because it is purely opinion based.

You may like blueberries on your cheesecake. I prefer cherries on mine. To provide evidence that your blueberries tste better on it you mention that the blue sparkles better or the antioxidents n them work beter or that they are in season more often or are easier to get in your local grocery store. Those things dont have a thing to do with how they taste to you or how they taste to me. Your doing the same thing here. Saying words like vendetta and long fangs as though they make a difference as to which edition a person prefers.
Should I tell you that I would be just as happy playing RT because that was the edition I started playing? That I liked the mutation charts? That I prefer that to 3rd edition? Would those reasons mean that YOU would have to prefer RT over 3rd? Of course not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KTG17 wrote:
11!!! Finally I am CC with dakka. Its about time.

But I failed to score any hits. Dammit.

bring your melta bombs?

 EVIL INC wrote:
Should I tell you that I would be just as happy playing RT because that was the edition I started playing? That I liked the mutation charts? That I prefer that to 3rd edition? Would those reasons mean that YOU would have to prefer RT over 3rd? Of course not.

Ok I started out on RT too Evil INC, and while I hold lots of nostalgia for that book, it was pretty silly. Rolling for equipment? Lame. It eventually evolved more into what we know now across dozens of books and god knows how many White Dwarf articles, but it was a mess to keep track of. I had to bail. Especially after that time I had to go up against a Bloodthirster and had nothing to wound it with. I might as well had been throwing tic-tacs at it. But when the 2nd Edition set came out it was all love. I would prefer a game of 3rd edition over RT any day of the week. Ok maybe I would play that RT Battle at the Farm scenerio if someone had it all set up, had beer ready, and some Ruffles with Dean's French Onion Dip on hand, and were planning on ordering some thin crust pepperoni pizza later, but thats it. Besides that, RT is just amusing to thumb through.

So that being said I believe I proved quite well that my opinion is better than yours.

I forgot the metabombs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Look guys, I think we can all agree this is a controversial topic, so I want to see suggestions on modifying the rule as a house rule to make the game more fun and practical amongst friends! If you start talking about tourney nonsense I will just self-destruct the thread and everyone in it. I dont do tourneys and have considered paying a bum some good cash to get up on a table at a tourney, and take a big dump right in the middle of the action.

JPong wrote:

Grim Dark wrote:

Which is why I wouldn't vociferously argue with you regarding this point. lol I would point out that there is more to Math (and MathHammer) than statistics.

Cheers.

Huh? It's all statistics. The problem with people trying to mathhammer stuff out, is they don't take in all the variables, nor the fundamentals of probability (ie, probability only really matters when you have a large enough sample size).

Perhaps we have been talking at cross-purposes. I'm not just talking about the likelihood of making the dice rolls, but how many dice rolls we are having to attempt. And ultimately why, of course.

So, Math(Hammer) equals statistics plus probability plus addition plus subtraction plus why are we doing math in the first place before charging(?).

G'day.

The only thing that bugs me is that they sit still if they fail. They should still be able to move the amount they rolled.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Your point is/.... Oh, there is none.You have never YET supported your OPINION that 5th was better. YOU may have PERSONALLY felt that you liked those units. Others have different opinions. You have never not even once come close to providing any semblance of "evidence". Why? because it is purely opinion based.

He's not saying 5th was better. He's saying that 5th was a shooty edition already, and nerfing CC just makes it worse.
In other words, shooting was already better than CC in 5th. In 6th shooting is much much better than CC.

That's not opinion based.

KTG17 wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
Should I tell you that I would be just as happy playing RT because that was the edition I started playing? That I liked the mutation charts? That I prefer that to 3rd edition? Would those reasons mean that YOU would have to prefer RT over 3rd? Of course not.

Ok I started out on RT too Evil INC, and while I hold lots of nostalgia for that book, it was pretty silly. Rolling for equipment? Lame. It eventually evolved more into what we know now across dozens of books and god knows how many White Dwarf articles, but it was a mess to keep track of. I had to bail. Especially after that time I had to go up against a Bloodthirster and had nothing to wound it with. I might as well had been throwing tic-tacs at it. But when the 2nd Edition set came out it was all love. I would prefer a game of 3rd edition over RT any day of the week. Ok maybe I would play that RT Battle at the Farm scenerio if someone had it all set up, had beer ready, and some Ruffles with Dean's French Onion Dip on hand, and were planning on ordering some thin crust pepperoni pizza later, but thats it. Besides that, RT is just amusing to thumb through.

So that being said I believe I proved quite well that my opinion is better than yours.

I forgot the metabombs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Look guys, I think we can all agree this is a controversial topic, so I want to see suggestions on modifying the rule as a house rule to make the game more fun and practical amongst friends! If you start talking about tourney nonsense I will just self-destruct the thread and everyone in it. I dont do tourneys and have considered paying a bum some good cash to get up on a table at a tourney, and take a big dump right in the middle of the action.

yu proved that YOU PREFER another edition is better than RT. Does that mean that because I prefer RT over 3rd that I am wrong to have that preference? No. I am just as entitled to my preference as you are to yours. This is because it is purely opinion based.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
Your point is/.... Oh, there is none.You have never YET supported your OPINION that 5th was better. YOU may have PERSONALLY felt that you liked those units. Others have different opinions. You have never not even once come close to providing any semblance of "evidence". Why? because it is purely opinion based.

He's not saying 5th was better. He's saying that 5th was a shooty edition already, and nerfing CC just makes it worse.
In other words, shooting was already better than CC in 5th. In 6th shooting is much much better than CC.

That's not opinion based.

No, he IS saying that 5th was better based on his opinion.No one is saying that shooting wasnt better in 5th than CC, that is just a strawman argument you guys have created. What I am saying is that 5th was a step in the right direction while 6th is yet another step in the right direction. THAT is opinion based and THAT is what we are talking about. (well actually the thread is about the 2d6 charge roll but you guys took it off topic in this direction).
I actually feel that having guns in a sci fi game is a good thing. Adding swords and power fists and all is a good thing I believe however, they should be secondary to guns. As I said, that is my OPINION. walrus has a different OPINION. THAT is the root of our issue. and you guys keep tossing up the strawman that is simply not true in an confuse the issue.

Sci bloody fantasy. Guns must be in 40k. It is sci fi. Swords must be in 40k, it is fantasy. You have on several times claimed people here want guns removed. When? When has anybody said that? When has anybody stated CC should be paramount, superior to CC? He was only noting CC hasn't been OP sense 3rd edition and sense then has been the inferior choice the majority of the time. You have spoken as though CC is too powerful and now I get it, you just don't want CC to be good. You don't like it in 40k and want it to be the worse option always a near foolish suicidal action, but the way you have stated it has made it sound like it is legitimately stronger. Anyways, Random charge is dumb because it is more randomness and everything might only charge 2 inches and some maybe 12". A Bloodletters shouldn't be charging an equal distance as a terminator. Then again I'd love to see movement, running, and charge all changed up.

 StarTrotter wrote:
Sci bloody fantasy. Guns must be in 40k. It is sci fi. Swords must be in 40k, it is fantasy. Random charge is dumb because it is more randomness and everything might only charge 2 inches and some maybe 12". A Bloodletters shouldn't be charging an equal distance as a terminator. Then again I'd love to see movement, running, and charge all changed up.

Your agrreing with me on the first part. Thank you. Close combat should be a valid and powerful option if used correctly. However you should need to do put a little effort into it than just run screaming across the middle of an open field. You should have to make use of cover, infiltration and so forth. You should be packing a gun as well to shoot as you close. You should use tactics and strategy, hell even geometry in doing this. Yes, you shold alsohave to take the chance of getting shot at while you move forward.
the second part, your forgetting that tactics and strategy can be used to essentially load the dice in your favor in regards to the random assault roll. Let me refresh your memory...

You keepforgetting that the random element is not in the 'normal" movement phase (forget about difficult terrain as that is a different thread), it is in the charge. TACTICS play a part here. Take this scene from two directions...

Player 1-
Unit of guard starts turn 9" from an enemy HWS. The player decides he wants to assault the HWS to avoing getting shot down by it's HBs . He moves to models. Pushes a single sarge forward 3 inches to be within 6" from thr HWS and nudges the another guy forward an inch to keep cohernce.

Player 2- Has the exact same situation. He moves every model in the squad the full 6" so that when he is done, the HWS is facing a wall of 5 men3" away that has another 5 men in base to base immediately behind them..

Now comes the assault phase with overwatch which causes two wound (the HWS got really lucky and rolled 2 sixes). Both guard players make an average roll of 7 on the charge distance.....

Player 1-
The sarge dies as does the guy behind him keep coherency. the remaining models are still 9" away and thus fail the charge. Player 1 curses the game blaming the random dice roll instead of his own laziness and lack of tactics never even considering the fact he could have done as player #2 did . Following turn, the entire remainder of the squad is mown down by heavy bolters

Player #2-
Removes 2 random troopers as the first 5 guys are equal distance from the squad, Assaults and wipes out the HWS and consolidates into cover to get a cover save from ay possible retaliation fire. Secure in the knowledge that he has already more than made up his points on the infantry sqaud in that single assault.

 EVIL INC wrote:

KTG17 wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
Should I tell you that I would be just as happy playing RT because that was the edition I started playing? That I liked the mutation charts? That I prefer that to 3rd edition? Would those reasons mean that YOU would have to prefer RT over 3rd? Of course not.

Ok I started out on RT too Evil INC, and while I hold lots of nostalgia for that book, it was pretty silly. Rolling for equipment? Lame. It eventually evolved more into what we know now across dozens of books and god knows how many White Dwarf articles, but it was a mess to keep track of. I had to bail. Especially after that time I had to go up against a Bloodthirster and had nothing to wound it with. I might as well had been throwing tic-tacs at it. But when the 2nd Edition set came out it was all love. I would prefer a game of 3rd edition over RT any day of the week. Ok maybe I would play that RT Battle at the Farm scenerio if someone had it all set up, had beer ready, and some Ruffles with Dean's French Onion Dip on hand, and were planning on ordering some thin crust pepperoni pizza later, but thats it. Besides that, RT is just amusing to thumb through.

So that being said I believe I proved quite well that my opinion is better than yours.

I forgot the metabombs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Look guys, I think we can all agree this is a controversial topic, so I want to see suggestions on modifying the rule as a house rule to make the game more fun and practical amongst friends! If you start talking about tourney nonsense I will just self-destruct the thread and everyone in it. I dont do tourneys and have considered paying a bum some good cash to get up on a table at a tourney, and take a big dump right in the middle of the action.

yu proved that YOU PREFER another edition is better than RT. Does that mean that because I prefer RT over 3rd that I am wrong to have that preference? No. I am just as entitled to my preference as you are to yours. This is because it is purely opinion based.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
Your point is/.... Oh, there is none.You have never YET supported your OPINION that 5th was better. YOU may have PERSONALLY felt that you liked those units. Others have different opinions. You have never not even once come close to providing any semblance of "evidence". Why? because it is purely opinion based.

He's not saying 5th was better. He's saying that 5th was a shooty edition already, and nerfing CC just makes it worse.
In other words, shooting was already better than CC in 5th. In 6th shooting is much much better than CC.

That's not opinion based.

No, he IS saying that 5th was better based on his opinion.No one is saying that shooting wasnt better in 5th than CC, that is just a strawman argument you guys have created. What I am saying is that 5th was a step in the right direction while 6th is yet another step in the right direction. THAT is opinion based and THAT is what we are talking about. (well actually the thread is about the 2d6 charge roll but you guys took it off topic in this direction).
I actually feel that having guns in a sci fi game is a good thing. Adding swords and power fists and all is a good thing I believe however, they should be secondary to guns. As I said, that is my OPINION. walrus has a different OPINION. THAT is the root of our issue. and you guys keep tossing up the strawman that is simply not true in an confuse the issue.

So the last trainwreck of a thread where you argued that melee was just as strong in 6th edition as shooting wasn't you arguing that melee isn't weaker than shooting?

That is a strawman of your own creation. I said no such thing and you know it.

What I DID say was that it is still a valid option to use. that while it should be valid, it should not be the end all be all of ways to win a game. That it can turn the tide of a battle I gave a plethora of examples of options. We have also given a books worth of tactics and strategies to help players ensure that units make it to assault range.
heck, I even gave examples of how I used it to win games with guard/grey knights.2 of those examples included
1. Assaulting a unit on an objective on the last turn in order to contest it and keep the enemy from getting the points for it.
2. Assaulting a dire avengersqua with a squad of acolyte henchmen and tying them up for several turns. During which I positioned a chimera between the fight and an objective. On the last turn when the dire avengers inally finished off my squad,ey were unabe to get close enough to claim the nearby ojective because i had ocked the pat with the chimera.
3. Against the bugs in my last tourney, well, needless to say, I got tabled because I was simpl unable to ring enough guns to bear n the horde rushing me.

Again, it goes back to opinion. YOU thought shooting was OP in 5th in your OPINION, I thought it did not go quite far enough in my OPINION. As this is purely an opinion based situation, neither is right or wrong as the answer will vary from person to person. You just feel the need to try to force everyone to have the same OPINION as you do. I say let people make up their own minds about which they prefer in their OPINION.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
The only thing that bugs me is that they sit still if they fail. They should still be able to move the amount they rolled.

What about, a failed charge allows the unit to move half the rolled distance towards their charge target?

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
The only thing that bugs me is that they sit still if they fail. They should still be able to move the amount they rolled.

What about, a failed charge allows the unit to move half the rolled distance towards their charge target?

I think they should move the full distance. Be more realistic and save the math. just add the caveat that you are not allowed to initiate an assault outside of your max assault range.

 EVIL INC wrote:

Player 1-
Unit of guard starts turn 9" from an enemy HWS. The player decides he wants to assault the HWS to avoing getting shot down by it's HBs . He moves to models. Pushes a single sarge forward 3 inches to be within 6" from thr HWS and nudges the another guy forward an inch to keep cohernce.

Player 2- Has the exact same situation. He moves every model in the squad the full 6" so that when he is done, the HWS is facing a wall of 5 men3" away that has another 5 men in base to base immediately behind them..

Now comes the assault phase with overwatch which causes two wound (the HWS got really lucky and rolled 2 sixes). Both guard players make an average roll of 7 on the charge distance.....

Player 1-
The sarge dies as does the guy behind him keep coherency. the remaining models are still 9" away and thus fail the charge. Player 1 curses the game blaming the random dice roll instead of his own laziness and lack of tactics never even considering the fact he could have done as player #2 did . Following turn, the entire remainder of the squad is mown down by heavy bolters

Player #2-
Removes 2 random troopers as the first 5 guys are equal distance from the squad, Assaults and wipes out the HWS and consolidates into cover to get a cover save from ay possible retaliation fire. Secure in the knowledge that he has already more than made up his points on the infantry sqaud in that single assault.

How does this illustrate tactics? Of course I am going to move all of my units as close as possible to maximize my chance of getting the charge. This is the same type of thing people had to contend with when charging into difficult terrain in other editions. Not moving every model as close as possible is more of a 'newbie' error (not a tactical error) because either they forgot about random charge range or have not yet realized the possibility of failing a charge due to overwatch casualties.

Also, in scenario 2, you still have a 1/36 chance in failing the charge, which is infinitely higher then in any other edition.

Thats the problem. YOU may do so, I may do so. The ones complaining fall under the "Player #1" catagory.
yes, there is always the chance of rolling boxcars. Just as there is always the chance of a soldier tripping over his own shoelaces or slipping in the mud. However, since you seem to be good at math, what were the chances of making a successfull charge in previous editions if you were 6.5 inches away? I'm willing to bet that it was considerable more than infinitely lower than currently.

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
The only thing that bugs me is that they sit still if they fail. They should still be able to move the amount they rolled.

What about, a failed charge allows the unit to move half the rolled distance towards their charge target?

This is what I was suggesting! Rounded down. Slannesh Devotee has some smarts!

 EVIL INC wrote:

You keepforgetting that the random element is not in the 'normal" movement phase (forget about difficult terrain as that is a different thread), it is in the charge. TACTICS play a part here. Take this scene from two directions...

Player 1-
Unit of guard starts turn 9" from an enemy HWS. The player decides he wants to assault the HWS to avoing getting shot down by it's HBs . He moves to models. Pushes a single sarge forward 3 inches to be within 6" from thr HWS and nudges the another guy forward an inch to keep cohernce.

Player 2- Has the exact same situation. He moves every model in the squad the full 6" so that when he is done, the HWS is facing a wall of 5 men3" away that has another 5 men in base to base immediately behind them..

Now comes the assault phase with overwatch which causes two wound (the HWS got really lucky and rolled 2 sixes). Both guard players make an average roll of 7 on the charge distance.....

Player 1-
The sarge dies as does the guy behind him keep coherency. the remaining models are still 9" away and thus fail the charge. Player 1 curses the game blaming the random dice roll instead of his own laziness and lack of tactics never even considering the fact he could have done as player #2 did . Following turn, the entire remainder of the squad is mown down by heavy bolters

Player #2-
Removes 2 random troopers as the first 5 guys are equal distance from the squad, Assaults and wipes out the HWS and consolidates into cover to get a cover save from ay possible retaliation fire. Secure in the knowledge that he has already more than made up his points on the infantry sqaud in that single assault.

a) That doesn't involve tactics whatsoever.
b) Again, I've literally never seen Player 1. Ever. You can keep pretending he exists though.

And what does this have to do with random charge range again? It's not like it would've been different with a set charge range, or a charge range that was less variable.

rigeld2 wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:

You keepforgetting that the random element is not in the 'normal" movement phase (forget about difficult terrain as that is a different thread), it is in the charge. TACTICS play a part here. Take this scene from two directions...

Player 1-
Unit of guard starts turn 9" from an enemy HWS. The player decides he wants to assault the HWS to avoing getting shot down by it's HBs . He moves to models. Pushes a single sarge forward 3 inches to be within 6" from thr HWS and nudges the another guy forward an inch to keep cohernce.

Player 2- Has the exact same situation. He moves every model in the squad the full 6" so that when he is done, the HWS is facing a wall of 5 men3" away that has another 5 men in base to base immediately behind them..

Now comes the assault phase with overwatch which causes two wound (the HWS got really lucky and rolled 2 sixes). Both guard players make an average roll of 7 on the charge distance.....

Player 1-
The sarge dies as does the guy behind him keep coherency. the remaining models are still 9" away and thus fail the charge. Player 1 curses the game blaming the random dice roll instead of his own laziness and lack of tactics never even considering the fact he could have done as player #2 did . Following turn, the entire remainder of the squad is mown down by heavy bolters

Player #2-
Removes 2 random troopers as the first 5 guys are equal distance from the squad, Assaults and wipes out the HWS and consolidates into cover to get a cover save from ay possible retaliation fire. Secure in the knowledge that he has already more than made up his points on the infantry sqaud in that single assault.

a) That doesn't involve tactics whatsoever.
b) Again, I've literally never seen Player 1. Ever. You can keep pretending he exists though.

And what does this have to do with random charge range again? It's not like it would've been different with a set charge range, or a charge range that was less variable.

1. It is only a minor examp of tactics.
2. Ahh, so your new to the game. Welcome aboard. Oh, your not not new, than stop pretending that they dont exist.

The world is running low on staw because of you guys stuffing it into your battle titan sized strawman. they want you to start using hay or cornhusks.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Thats the problem. YOU may do so, I may do so. The ones complaining fall under the "Player #1" catagory.

There is no benefit to holding my models back, so I wouldn't. It is a choice, but it doesn't require much skill or experience to realize you should move all your models as far forward as possible.

I think the people that are complaining are annoyed about the fact that a 6 inch charge (something that always worked and was 'standard') now fails around 30% of the time. Suppose I make the correct tactical choice and move my models fully forward, instead of hanging back for who knows what reason, but am still 6 inches away. Why should my charge fail 30% of the time, especially when the consequence of failure are so dire?

 EVIL INC wrote:
yu proved that YOU PREFER another edition is better than RT. Does that mean that because I prefer RT over 3rd that I am wrong to have that preference? No. I am just as entitled to my preference as you are to yours. This is because it is purely opinion based.

You will find, EVIL INC, that my opinion is always the correct one, and I encourage you to align yours with mine. Keep in mind that stating to the world that in your opinion that RT is better 3rd is quite foolhardy, and you are only embarrassing yourself. Stop hanging out in the corner by yourself. Come, join us.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Forgot where I was in my CC with dakka. Anyone remember?

 EVIL INC wrote:
However, since you seem to be good at math, what were the chances of making a successfull charge in previous editions if you were 6.5 inches away? I'm willing to bet that it was considerable more than infinitely lower than currently.

I must admit, the possibility of >6 inch charges adds a bit of tension and excitement to the game, but the minimum charge range really needs to be greater than 2 inches.

 EVIL INC wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:And what does this have to do with random charge range again? It's not like it would've been different with a set charge range, or a charge range that was less variable.

1. It is only a minor examp of tactics.
2. Ahh, so your new to the game. Welcome aboard. Oh, your not not new, than stop pretending that they dont exist.

The world is running low on staw because of you guys stuffing it into your battle titan sized strawman. they want you to start using hay or cornhusks.

1. It's as minor as saying "You lost because you forgot to shoot your guns." As in - bringing it up is pointless. Unless you think I should start a thread in 40k Tactics to ask if shooting my guns is a good idea?
2. Not new. Played against hundreds of players in 3rd, 5th and 6th. Literally never seen it. Not pretending at all.

How is talking about the argument you keep bringing up a straw man? Perhaps you don't understand what that is? I'm literally addressing your argument.

GorillaWarfare wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
Thats the problem. YOU may do so, I may do so. The ones complaining fall under the "Player #1" catagory.

There is no benefit to holding my models back, so I wouldn't. It is a choice, but it doesn't require much skill or experience to realize you should move all your models as far forward as possible.

I think the people that are complaining are annoyed about the fact that a 6 inch charge (something that always worked and was 'standard') now fails around 30% of the time. Suppose I make the correct tactical choice and move my models fully forward, instead of hanging back for who knows what reason, but am still 6 inches away. Why should my charge fail 30% of the time, especially when the consequence of failure are so dire?

Again, that is the problem. Most assaults are initiated from 3-4 inches. This is provided players arent lazy and use their full move, tactical advances and so on and so forth. Players are complaining about having a slight chance of failing a charge distance that would be less distance if they werent lazy and totally ignoring the fact that they are being handed possible charge distances twice what they were before. Like handing a child a bag of jelly beans and then complaining because they arent all cherry flavored.
yes, there is a small gamble that you might fail a charge. That encourages players to use tactics to ensure they are as close as possible when they DO charge. It also allows the more risky players to take longshot gambles that were never possible before.

EVIL INC I am completely lost in your rebuttles. Are you in favor of the rules as they are, or are you saying that you think they need to be changed?