Worst rule in 6th Edition - Rolling for Charge distance

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.

**EVIL INC**

rigeld2 wrote:
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.

1. your models should have the guns attached. You dont play WYSIWYG? You may start whatever thread you like. if you think one is innappropriate, ask the mods.
2. Ahh, then you ARE pretending.

Try corkhusks and silk. maybe even hay. Come summertime, I'm sure people will be happy to donate their grass clippings from their lawns to you.

**KTG17**

Hey guys, I need some Exalts. So please click that button for my posts.

**WhiteDog**

The problem with the charge rule is that it can backfire. When you roll for hit and wound, statistics matter but having no luck for 5-6 roll does just goes with the flow.
When you fail a charge, the situation is completly different. Plus you only charge once a game with a unit (well most of the time) so making such a key move bound to statistics - that only works when the same number of action is repeated a certain number of time - is a bad design imo.

**AlmightyWalrus**

EVIL INC wrote:
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.

EVIL INC wrote:

the simple fact remains that a good player who uses strategy and tactics along with proper terrain placement can use a shooty army against an assaulty army and win. They can then switch or trade armies with their opponent and STILL win just as easily. .

This is you in the earlier thread, equating the power of shooting to assault. If that were not the case, the experienced player would not be able to win just as easily with the other army.

**KTG17**

WhiteDog wrote:
The problem with the charge rule is that it can backfire. When you roll for hit and wound, statistics matter but having no luck for 5-6 roll does just goes with the flow.
When you fail a charge, the situation is completly different. Plus you only charge once a game with a unit (well most of the time) so making such a key move bound to statistics - that only works when the same number of action is repeated a certain number of time - is a bad design imo.

I was wondering and was about to ask if anyone had a game where they just failed all of their charges, with an army that was dependent on CC to win, and how they felt about it.

**EVIL INC**

KTG17 wrote:
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?

I'm saying that the current rules are a step in the right direction. 5th edition went a long way towards making the game the way it should be but 6th came closer yet.
The rules as they are, I think they need tweaking and some alterations.
I'm also pointing out that these opinions are just like everyone elses, opinions. We all have different ones and to each of us, our own opinion is right to us. Some of the people involved feel the need to force their opinions off onto others as being "correct" for everyone denying them the ability to think for themselves.

**GorillaWarfare**

WhiteDog wrote:
The problem with the charge rule is that it can backfire. When you roll for hit and wound, statistics matter but having no luck for 5-6 roll does just goes with the flow.
When you fail a charge, the situation is completly different. Plus you only charge once a game with a unit (well most of the time) so making such a key move bound to statistics - that only works when the same number of action is repeated a certain number of time - is a bad design imo.

I agree, failing a charge is game costing bit of bad luck. A game of 40k is on average only 6 turns. If you fail a charge not only are you a sitting duck, but you lose an entire assault phase of killing.

**EVIL INC**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
EVIL INC wrote:
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.

EVIL INC wrote:

the simple fact remains that a good player who uses strategy and tactics along with proper terrain placement can use a shooty army against an assaulty army and win. They can then switch or trade armies with their opponent and STILL win just as easily. .

This is you in the earlier thread, equating the power of shooting to assault. If that were not the case, the experienced player would not be able to win just as easily with the other army.

This is a statement pointing out that strategy and tactics play a part in winning a game. Something you have been denying. That you quoted those two phrases and put them to mean that the two are equal in all ways proves that.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

GorillaWarfare wrote:
WhiteDog wrote:
The problem with the charge rule is that it can backfire. When you roll for hit and wound, statistics matter but having no luck for 5-6 roll does just goes with the flow.
When you fail a charge, the situation is completly different. Plus you only charge once a game with a unit (well most of the time) so making such a key move bound to statistics - that only works when the same number of action is repeated a certain number of time - is a bad design imo.

I agree, failing a charge is game costing bit of bad luck. A game of 40k is on average only 6 turns. If you fail a charge not only are you a sitting duck, but you lose an entire assault phase of killing.

Likewise when you make an assault roll of 7 inches, you are gaining an entire assault phase of killing. the clock ticks both ways.

**AlmightyWalrus**

EVIL INC wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
EVIL INC wrote:
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.

EVIL INC wrote:

the simple fact remains that a good player who uses strategy and tactics along with proper terrain placement can use a shooty army against an assaulty army and win. They can then switch or trade armies with their opponent and STILL win just as easily. .

This is you in the earlier thread, equating the power of shooting to assault. If that were not the case, the experienced player would not be able to win just as easily with the other army.

This is a statement pointing out that strategy and tactics play a part in winning a game. Something you have been denying.

Where?

EVIL INC wrote:

EVIL INC wrote:

the simple fact remains that a good player who uses strategy and tactics along with proper terrain placement can use a shooty army against an assaulty army and win. They can then switch or trade armies with their opponent and STILL win just as easily. .

This is you in the earlier thread, equating the power of shooting to assault. If that were not the case, the experienced player would not be able to win just as easily with the other army.

This is a statement pointing out that strategy and tactics play a part in winning a game. Something you have been denying. That you quoted those two phrases and put them to mean that the two are equal in all ways proves that.

**GorillaWarfare**

Likewise when you make an assault roll of 7 inches, you are gaining an entire assault phase of killing. the clock ticks both ways.

It certainly does go both ways. It all comes down to how much wildly random elements you want in your game. I think most of us feel that 40k has plenty of randomness without having to add random charges on top. 2-12 inches to just way to random. Something like 4-8 inches might be nice.

**KTG17**

Ok, realizing that my previous rule suggestion isnt gaining much steam, I am offering a new rule.

In this scenerio, Squad 1 wants to assult Squad 2 10 inches away.

Squad 1 rolls 100 dice.

If 35 of the dice are 5+, then Squad 1 barrels right through Squad 2 and kills all of them, with no saves.

If 56 of the dice are 4+, then they work out CC as normal.

If 70 of the dice are 3 or below, then Squad 1 goes face to face with Squad 2, but no combat actually occurs yet. They are just basically sizing each other up like a Mexican standoff. For those who dont know what Mexico is, its south of El Paso.

Regardless in any case, if 18 "1"s are rolled, then Squad 1 is completely wiped out due to a vortex grenade being dropped while being armed.

**JPong**

GorillaWarfare wrote:
Likewise when you make an assault roll of 7 inches, you are gaining an entire assault phase of killing. the clock ticks both ways.

It certainly does go both ways. It all comes down to how much wildly random elements you want in your game. I think most of us feel that 40k has plenty of randomness without having to add random charges on top. 2-12 inches to just way to random. Something like 4-8 inches might be nice.

It also doesn't go both ways for a lot of units. Pretty much everything with fleet charges the same distance as before. The difference being, before, if you made a bad run roll, you ran to cover, not stood around.

Funny that the assault units that are really hurting, is pretty much everything with fleet. The agile and fast kind that dies to a small gust of wind.

**GorillaWarfare**

JPong wrote:
GorillaWarfare wrote:
Likewise when you make an assault roll of 7 inches, you are gaining an entire assault phase of killing. the clock ticks both ways.

It certainly does go both ways. It all comes down to how much wildly random elements you want in your game. I think most of us feel that 40k has plenty of randomness without having to add random charges on top. 2-12 inches to just way to random. Something like 4-8 inches might be nice.
It also doesn't go both ways for a lot of units. Pretty much everything with fleet charges the same distance as before. The difference being, before, if you made a bad run roll, you ran to cover, not stood around.

Funny that the assault units that are really hurting, is pretty much everything with fleet. The agile and fast kind that dies to a small gust of wind.

It sounds like the change to random charge roles has removed some tactical options from units with fleet, as you no longer have the decision to run for cover if it looks like things won't work out.

**rigeld2**

JPong wrote:
Funny that the assault units that are really hurting, is pretty much everything with fleet. The agile and fast kind that dies to a small gust of wind.

This. Before I had the opportunity to abort the assault if I knew I couldn't make it.
Now I just have to suck it up and get shot with overwatch and a full turn of fire in the open.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

GorillaWarfare wrote:
It sounds like the change to random charge roles has removed some tactical options from units with fleet, as you no longer have the decision to run for cover if it looks like things won't work out.

But that can't be true as we've been assured this method is more tactical. </sarcasm>

**darkcloak**

You want to talk about stupid, lets look at the to-hit chart for CC.

A WS 10 Character has just as much chance of hitting a WS 2 character as anything else? WTF? No, the WS 10 should need 2's past a ceratin point, otherwise what's the point in having a WS higher than 5?

The chart makes no sense, like they just went "Oh, logical number sequence! That will work fine!" and then completely forgot what the hell they were doing.

It's just stupid that a DP has the same chance to hit a measly Fire Warrior as he does to smash a tank. In fact I'd even go so far as to say that any WS that is 3 points higher than it's opponents should autohit, past a certain point. WS 5 vs WS 2? That should probably need a 2. WS 6 vs WS 2? That should autohit.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean, there is a benefit to having a BS higher than 5 so why nerf CC like that? Why not add in the exact same reroll mechanic? At least that would even things up.

**Mr Morden**

darkcloak wrote:
You want to talk about stupid, lets look at the to-hit chart for CC.

A WS 10 Character has just as much chance of hitting a WS 2 character as anything else? WTF? No, the WS 10 should need 2's past a ceratin point, otherwise what's the point in having a WS higher than 5?

The chart makes no sense, like they just went "Oh, logical number sequence! That will work fine!" and then completely forgot what the hell they were doing.

It's just stupid that a DP has the same chance to hit a measly Fire Warrior as he does to smash a tank. In fact I'd even go so far as to say that any WS that is 3 points higher than it's opponents should autohit, past a certain point. WS 5 vs WS 2? That should probably need a 2. WS 6 vs WS 2? That should autohit.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean, there is a benefit to having a BS higher than 5 so why nerf CC like that? Why not add in the exact same reroll mechanic? At least that would even things up.

Can't agree more - one of my pet hates that is - you get re-rolls if high Bs and screwed if high WS

Rather than Autohit if more than double WS- I would go fro re-rolls

**EVIL INC**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Where?

If they're not equal in power, your statement about tactics is wrong, because it means the veteran player will have to try harder to win.

Next time, try reading a post before you quote it.
You are sidestepping or avoiding the question as usual. Are you making the statement that a veteran player is NOT able to do that.

GorillaWarfare wrote:
Likewise when you make an assault roll of 7 inches, you are gaining an entire assault phase of killing. the clock ticks both ways.

It certainly does go both ways. It all comes down to how much wildly random elements you want in your game. I think most of us feel that 40k has plenty of randomness without having to add random charges on top. 2-12 inches to just way to random. Something like 4-8 inches might be nice.

A new adjetive added to it now huh. "wildly'. LOL, I pointed out that you can stack the odds in your favor. When your 3 inches away, it would indeed have to be "wildly" random for you to roll snakeyes. Just as wildly random as a guardsman tripping over his shoelaces or a marine slipping in the mud.

**Alpharius**

I have to admit - I am absolutely shocked at how many alerts this thread is generating.

It is ridiculous!

So, here's the first (?) and only public warning - as per the rules of this site, stay polite and on topic.

Additionally, YMDC has some extra steps to follow - please read the sticky at the top of this forum for a reminder, if necessary.

That's it - next person to go off the rails is probably going to be taking a break from Dakka Dakka for a bit.

**rigeld2**

(this isn't a YMDC thread, just FYI)

**KTG17**

Alpharius wrote:
I have to admit - I am absolutely shocked at how many alerts this thread is generating.

It is ridiculous!

What do you mean? How are alerts generated?

So, here's the first (?) and only public warning - as per the rules of this site, stay polite and on topic.

Additionally, YMDC has some extra steps to follow - please read the sticky at the top of this forum for a reminder, if necessary.

That's it - next person to go off the rails is probably going to be taking a break from Dakka Dakka for a bit.

When you say off the rails... what exactly are you refering to?

Sorry kinda new and not all caught up on the terms.

**WrentheFaceless**

I suppose the sitting still makes sense, as if you could shoot then fail an assault and still move, it would pretty much negate the need to "Run" troops if you could just shoot and fail assault and still get extra movement.

**Gunzhard**

rigeld2 wrote:
JPong wrote:
Funny that the assault units that are really hurting, is pretty much everything with fleet. The agile and fast kind that dies to a small gust of wind.

This. Before I had the opportunity to abort the assault if I knew I couldn't make it.
Now I just have to suck it up and get shot with overwatch and a full turn of fire in the open.

I'm not sure I follow you... when you failed an assault in previous editions you still didn't move and instead got shot up the next turn. Why do people pretend they never failed assaults until this edition?

WhiteDog wrote:
The problem with the charge rule is that it can backfire. When you roll for hit and wound, statistics matter but having no luck for 5-6 roll does just goes with the flow.
When you fail a charge, the situation is completly different. Plus you only charge once a game with a unit (well most of the time) so making such a key move bound to statistics - that only works when the same number of action is repeated a certain number of time - is a bad design imo.

Again - while I completely understand that Assaulting IS more difficult in this edition - people DID fail charges in the previous editions and it was also devastating; cue response, "Oh I didn't mind failing as long as it wasn't random.". Again - if you assaulted into cover/terrain in previous editions that was also random... some of you don't like things you cannot control / random - ok fine.

**Martel732**

This is far from the worst rule.

**Madcat87**

Gunzhard wrote:
[Again - while I completely understand that Assaulting IS more difficult in this edition - people DID fail charges in the previous editions and it was also devastating; cue response, "Oh I didn't mind failing as long as it wasn't random.". Again - if you assaulted into cover/terrain in previous editions that was also random... some of you don't like things you cannot control / random - ok fine.

The difference being that there was an element of control in 5th edition charges. The player had to make a choice. A guarenteed 6 inch charge through open terrain or take a risk and charge with cover and hope the dice are in your favor.

The key difference is that in 5th charging through cover there is a clear risk vs reward. The player makes the choice to charge through cover knowing the risks and finding them acceptable or not. In 6th there is no risk VS reward with charging its simply just a random distance you have to make no matter what.

To once again compare it to shooting there is no risk as to how far you can shoot, you always know your weapon will fire X inches. Even the old rules for night fighting that penalised shooting by giving random ranges was removed.

**Gunzhard**

Madcat87 wrote:
Gunzhard wrote:
Again - while I completely understand that Assaulting IS more difficult in this edition - people DID fail charges in the previous editions and it was also devastating; cue response, "Oh I didn't mind failing as long as it wasn't random.". Again - if you assaulted into cover/terrain in previous editions that was also random... some of you don't like things you cannot control / random - ok fine.

The difference being that there was an element of control in 5th edition charges. The player had to make a choice. A guarenteed 6 inch charge through open terrain or take a risk and charge with cover and hope the dice are in your favor.

The key difference is that in 5th charging through cover there is a clear risk vs reward. The player makes the choice to charge through cover knowing the risks and finding them acceptable or not. In 6th there is no risk VS reward with charging its simply just a random distance you have to make no matter what.

To once again compare it to shooting there is no risk as to how far you can shoot, you always know your weapon will fire X inches. Even the old rules for night fighting that penalised shooting by giving random ranges was removed.

Shooting has more advantages than assaulting sure - different topic. But please explain how the risk vs reward was different when "Charging through cover" in 5th edition? Since 3rd edition it's been a "random distance you have to make no matter what" - except now the odds are BETTER; am I missing something?

**EVIL INC**

Madcat87 wrote:
Gunzhard wrote:
[Again - while I completely understand that Assaulting IS more difficult in this edition - people DID fail charges in the previous editions and it was also devastating; cue response, "Oh I didn't mind failing as long as it wasn't random.". Again - if you assaulted into cover/terrain in previous editions that was also random... some of you don't like things you cannot control / random - ok fine.

The difference being that there was an element of control in 5th edition charges. The player had to make a choice. A guarenteed 6 inch charge through open terrain or take a risk and charge with cover and hope the dice are in your favor.

The key difference is that in 5th charging through cover there is a clear risk vs reward. The player makes the choice to charge through cover knowing the risks and finding them acceptable or not. In 6th there is no risk VS reward with charging its simply just a random distance you have to make no matter what.

To once again compare it to shooting there is no risk as to how far you can shoot, you always know your weapon will fire X inches. Even the old rules for night fighting that penalised shooting by giving random ranges was removed.

there is an element of control in the edition as well. previously, all you had to do was nudge a single model to within 6 inches and you could not fail the charge. had you moved the entire unit to full effect, you could have had half the unit 3 inches away and the rest 4 inches away in base to base behind. However, players didnt do that because they were too lazy and they knew they didnt have to. Currently, there are players who do just that and only fail on snakeeyes and others who do not and then complain that the game is broke when they fail it.
Speak to anyone with military experience oreven wargaming experience and they will tell you that there ARE risks to sitting still and shooting. To deny it is just ludicrous.

WrentheFaceless wrote:
I suppose the sitting still makes sense, as if you could shoot then fail an assault and still move, it would pretty much negate the need to "Run" troops if you could just shoot and fail assault and still get extra movement.

I had thought about this. adding in the caveat that you were not allowed to initiate an assault outside the maximum range possible for you would prevent that. it would also mean that (like in any situation you did this), if you made the attempt and failed, you were leaving yourself wide open to being shot and assaulted in return. this failure could mean that you were at max range and just had to slow down for the gimpy ork in the rear or you were at min range and tripped over your own shoelaces.

Gunzhard, You arent missing anything. the naysayers are saying it is bad because you could roll snakeeyes and po pooing the fact that it is possible to roll a 7 or higher.

**ClockworkZion**

With 11 pages I'm sure this has been said at least once but you never know:

Random charge ranges offset pre-measuring as it makes it less certain that you'll be outside of charge range unless you're more than 18" away (for most units. Naturally exceptions exist) a much bigger distance than before and harder to just play the "back up shuffle" against.

**EVIL INC**

I actually think you are the first to point it out.

**AlmightyWalrus**

EVIL INC wrote:

I had thought about this. adding in the caveat that you were not allowed to initiate an assault outside the maximum range possible for you would prevent that. i

This is the third time I say this in this thread: That's already the case. You're not allowed to assault a unit that you can't reach. It's right in the BRB.

**EVIL INC**

that is not relevent. We are talking about possible fixes or ways to alter it. As the current is already printed and 'set in stone", our fantasy rules we are creating would not be added into it. Now, if we are talking about rules we would put in a new rulebook (as we are), that rulebook would not be in existance yet so it would need to be added in.