Switch Theme:

Worst rule in 6th Edition - Rolling for Charge distance  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Rampaging Furioso Blood Angel Dreadnought





Boston, MA

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
 Gunzhard wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
 Gunzhard wrote:
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?

In 5th Fleet meant if I needed to roll a 4 on my run roll but rolled a 3, I could stay in cover instead of being out in the open. In 6th I have to suffer the extra penalty of charging through cover if I want to do the same thing, rendering my I6 useless.
And of course I have to suffer Overwatch for my troubles as well.


I think you're confused, go back and read your rulebooks.


The argument is making complete sense, I think you're the one who's confused. In previous editions, the fleet roll was separate from the charge distance, meaning that you could use it to get out of cover without having to charge through terrain. Further, you had the option of not committing to a charge if you rolled poorly on your fleet roll. If a unit with fleet wants to charge now, you're stuck charging through terrain AND you can't abort if you roll poorly, AND your usually flimsy fleeting unit gets shot in Overwatch.


Uhh we were talking about assaulting into terrain/cover, not out of - that part of our discussion was slyly omitted. Assaulting into cover, since 3rd edition was random with worse odds than now. If you're playing with a proper amount of terrain this is most often the case.

And in 5th when you ran, you moved immediately. So if you knew that obviously you wouldn't make the charge, you could move back, but you had to move, which could also be deadly; and again folks are conveniently forgetting that you could still easily fail charges in previous editions. In 6th ed you can simply choose not to run if you roll poorly.

Please check out my photo blog: http://atticwars40k.blogspot.com/ 
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

 Gunzhard wrote:


And in 5th when you ran, you moved immediately. So if you knew that obviously you wouldn't make the charge, you could move back, but you had to move, which could also be deadly; and again folks are conveniently forgetting that you could still easily fail charges in previous editions. In 6th ed you can simply choose not to run if you roll poorly.


You had to move UP TO the distance rolled, meaning you could move 0" if you wanted.

For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut




 Gunzhard wrote:
Uhh we were talking about assaulting into terrain/cover, not out of - that part of our discussion was slyly omitted. Assaulting into cover, since 3rd edition was random with worse odds than now. If you're playing with a proper amount of terrain this is most often the case.

And in 5th when you ran, you moved immediately. So if you knew that obviously you wouldn't make the charge, you could move back, but you had to move, which could also be deadly; and again folks are conveniently forgetting that you could still easily fail charges in previous editions. In 6th ed you can simply choose not to run if you roll poorly.
You should click on the original quote in that chain to see what I was quoting. It had absolutely nothing to do with charging into cover. It was talking about how units gained range because they can charge 7 inches instead of 6 like in 5th. Units with fleet could run then charge. That is what is being discussed. In 6th, you cannot run then charge. At all. Fleet units didn't gain any potential with the 2d6 roll. They lost out of flexibility.
   
Made in us
Rampaging Furioso Blood Angel Dreadnought





Boston, MA

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
 Gunzhard wrote:


And in 5th when you ran, you moved immediately. So if you knew that obviously you wouldn't make the charge, you could move back, but you had to move, which could also be deadly; and again folks are conveniently forgetting that you could still easily fail charges in previous editions. In 6th ed you can simply choose not to run if you roll poorly.


You had to move UP TO the distance rolled, meaning you could move 0" if you wanted.


That's not what my rulebook says... and you had to move that RANDOM run distance in 5th; not very flexible.

Don't forget that Fleet units in 6th can choose to not move, choose to move UP to that distance rolled, or they can also choose to reroll the distance. Yep they can no longer do this on the same turn they assault, but also it's not just a potential 7" assault they gained, it's a potential 12" range - with a reroll (any OR all dice). I'd say Fleet in 6th edition is more flexible.


This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2014/01/30 18:04:20


Please check out my photo blog: http://atticwars40k.blogspot.com/ 
   
Made in us
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc




The darkness between the stars

I don't quite get why a poetential 12" range is so useful. Its random and the probability of rolling it, even with one re-roll is rather unlikely. The average roll is a 3 or a 4. With 2d6, that is 7. Re-rolling a dice would average be another 3-4. It means you might roll higher, you might roll lower. It's really just playing with dice rolls. But a 12" roll doesn't mean much as few individuals will find it so useful to try to charge 12" frequently enough for it to matter. I do get what you are saying just feel like 12" is being a bit overstated.

2375
/ 1690
WIP (1875)
1300
760
WIP (350)
WIP (150) 
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut




 StarTrotter wrote:
I don't quite get why a poetential 12" range is so useful. Its random and the probability of rolling it, even with one re-roll is rather unlikely. The average roll is a 3 or a 4. With 2d6, that is 7. Re-rolling a dice would average be another 3-4. It means you might roll higher, you might roll lower. It's really just playing with dice rolls. But a 12" roll doesn't mean much as few individuals will find it so useful to try to charge 12" frequently enough for it to matter. I do get what you are saying just feel like 12" is being a bit overstated.
They are thinking of charging with fast tough units. Units that do well with this rule because a) they generally don't have fleet and couldn't do it before, and b)give feth all about overwatch because they can generally weather the storm. A flying hive tyrant is pretty good at melee, he is still better off not meleeing for the most part though.

Put that on a unit that falls over in a strong wind, and you have units that can't afford to give units extra overwatch attempts.
   
Made in us
Rampaging Furioso Blood Angel Dreadnought





Boston, MA

 StarTrotter wrote:
I don't quite get why a poetential 12" range is so useful. Its random and the probability of rolling it, even with one re-roll is rather unlikely. The average roll is a 3 or a 4. With 2d6, that is 7. Re-rolling a dice would average be another 3-4. It means you might roll higher, you might roll lower. It's really just playing with dice rolls. But a 12" roll doesn't mean much as few individuals will find it so useful to try to charge 12" frequently enough for it to matter. I do get what you are saying just feel like 12" is being a bit overstated.


Oh realistically, most of us won't even attempt the 12" charge, but especially with choice rerolls (you get to choose which dice you reroll) it IS possible... I only re-emphasized this because certain folks are continually repeating 7" as if that was your max range.

Most of the major complaints in this thread seem to be built on fallacy.

Please check out my photo blog: http://atticwars40k.blogspot.com/ 
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

 Gunzhard wrote:
 StarTrotter wrote:
I don't quite get why a poetential 12" range is so useful. Its random and the probability of rolling it, even with one re-roll is rather unlikely. The average roll is a 3 or a 4. With 2d6, that is 7. Re-rolling a dice would average be another 3-4. It means you might roll higher, you might roll lower. It's really just playing with dice rolls. But a 12" roll doesn't mean much as few individuals will find it so useful to try to charge 12" frequently enough for it to matter. I do get what you are saying just feel like 12" is being a bit overstated.


Oh realistically, most of us won't even attempt the 12" charge, but especially with choice rerolls (you get to choose which dice you reroll) it IS possible... I only re-emphasized this because certain folks are continually repeating 7" as if that was your max range.

Most of the major complaints in this thread seem to be built on fallacy.


The added extra possible range is outweighed by the fact that you can lose the game by rolling when you needed a 3" charge. You're just as likely to get completely found in the alps as you are to succeed in a 12" charge.

For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in us
Rampaging Furioso Blood Angel Dreadnought





Boston, MA

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
 Gunzhard wrote:
 StarTrotter wrote:
I don't quite get why a poetential 12" range is so useful. Its random and the probability of rolling it, even with one re-roll is rather unlikely. The average roll is a 3 or a 4. With 2d6, that is 7. Re-rolling a dice would average be another 3-4. It means you might roll higher, you might roll lower. It's really just playing with dice rolls. But a 12" roll doesn't mean much as few individuals will find it so useful to try to charge 12" frequently enough for it to matter. I do get what you are saying just feel like 12" is being a bit overstated.


Oh realistically, most of us won't even attempt the 12" charge, but especially with choice rerolls (you get to choose which dice you reroll) it IS possible... I only re-emphasized this because certain folks are continually repeating 7" as if that was your max range.

Most of the major complaints in this thread seem to be built on fallacy.


The added extra possible range is outweighed by the fact that you can lose the game by rolling when you needed a 3" charge. You're just as likely to get completely found in the alps as you are to succeed in a 12" charge.


Hah but again, if your are an actual "assaulty" type unit with Fleet or using your jumppack, you can reroll one or more dice.

And again, if you're using a proper amount of terrain, and your opponent isn't totally new to the game, most of your assaults will be into terrain/cover - in the previous editions you could still fail a 3" charge, now your odds are better.

Please check out my photo blog: http://atticwars40k.blogspot.com/ 
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut




Most units were actually sitting in vehicles, not area terrain before. It was also possible to just wreck a vehicle and make them get out. Besides, not every board is filled with area terrain in deployment zones. In fact, it's sort of worse now that gunlines can bring their own terrain with them. The aegis defense line really puts a damper on assaulting.
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

 Gunzhard wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
 Gunzhard wrote:
 StarTrotter wrote:
I don't quite get why a poetential 12" range is so useful. Its random and the probability of rolling it, even with one re-roll is rather unlikely. The average roll is a 3 or a 4. With 2d6, that is 7. Re-rolling a dice would average be another 3-4. It means you might roll higher, you might roll lower. It's really just playing with dice rolls. But a 12" roll doesn't mean much as few individuals will find it so useful to try to charge 12" frequently enough for it to matter. I do get what you are saying just feel like 12" is being a bit overstated.


Oh realistically, most of us won't even attempt the 12" charge, but especially with choice rerolls (you get to choose which dice you reroll) it IS possible... I only re-emphasized this because certain folks are continually repeating 7" as if that was your max range.

Most of the major complaints in this thread seem to be built on fallacy.


The added extra possible range is outweighed by the fact that you can lose the game by rolling when you needed a 3" charge. You're just as likely to get completely found in the alps as you are to succeed in a 12" charge.


Hah but again, if your are an actual "assaulty" type unit with Fleet or using your jumppack, you can reroll one or more dice.


What about all the assault units that DON'T have those?

 Gunzhard wrote:

And again, if you're using a proper amount of terrain, and your opponent isn't totally new to the game, most of your assaults will be into terrain/cover - in the previous editions you could still fail a 3" charge, now your odds are better.


The difference being that you could get close using transports without completely gimping yourself. Or assault from reserves/outflank. Further, far from all assaults were into terrain, even against competent players. Transports blew up, objectives were placed in the open. Yes, when charging into terrain in 6th edition you have better odds of making it, but I think you're overstating the amount of charges that went into terrain in 5th.

For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in us
Rampaging Furioso Blood Angel Dreadnought





Boston, MA

JPong wrote:
Most units were actually sitting in vehicles, not area terrain before. It was also possible to just wreck a vehicle and make them get out. Besides, not every board is filled with area terrain in deployment zones. In fact, it's sort of worse now that gunlines can bring their own terrain with them. The aegis defense line really puts a damper on assaulting.


Yeah of course there will be times you are not assaulting into cover, but as you pointed out armies can now even bring their own terrain with them, more than ever in 40k you are assaulting into cover.


Please check out my photo blog: http://atticwars40k.blogspot.com/ 
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

 Gunzhard wrote:
JPong wrote:
Most units were actually sitting in vehicles, not area terrain before. It was also possible to just wreck a vehicle and make them get out. Besides, not every board is filled with area terrain in deployment zones. In fact, it's sort of worse now that gunlines can bring their own terrain with them. The aegis defense line really puts a damper on assaulting.


Yeah of course there will be times you are not assaulting into cover, but as you pointed out armies can now even bring their own terrain with them, more than ever in 40k you are assaulting into cover.



Which is a nerf to close combat compared to 5th. Sure, you're better at assaulting into cover, but you're also having to do it far more often, while having a harder time to get close in the first place.

For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





 Gunzhard wrote:
And again, if you're using a proper amount of terrain, and your opponent isn't totally new to the game, most of your assaults will be into terrain/cover - in the previous editions you could still fail a 3" charge, now your odds are better.

In previous editions it was a 3" charge because I ran in the shooting phase.

Now it's a 6-7" inch charge, through terrain.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in us
Rampaging Furioso Blood Angel Dreadnought





Boston, MA

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
 Gunzhard wrote:
JPong wrote:
Most units were actually sitting in vehicles, not area terrain before. It was also possible to just wreck a vehicle and make them get out. Besides, not every board is filled with area terrain in deployment zones. In fact, it's sort of worse now that gunlines can bring their own terrain with them. The aegis defense line really puts a damper on assaulting.


Yeah of course there will be times you are not assaulting into cover, but as you pointed out armies can now even bring their own terrain with them, more than ever in 40k you are assaulting into cover.



Which is a nerf to close combat compared to 5th. Sure, you're better at assaulting into cover, but you're also having to do it far more often, while having a harder time to get close in the first place.


This is true, and while overwatch is just snap-shots it can also kill a few chargers... my point is the "random" charge roll is not why assault is "nerfed".

Please check out my photo blog: http://atticwars40k.blogspot.com/ 
   
Made in us
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc




The darkness between the stars

I concur it isn't really a "nerf". In some cases it improved it and in others it made it worse. On average, in open terrain the charge is 7" with a commonality of the roll being 6 7 or 8. Other things better it. It also is usually better when charging through cover. Sorry just wanted to admit to agreeing with you on this.

2375
/ 1690
WIP (1875)
1300
760
WIP (350)
WIP (150) 
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut




Except it is a nerf. It makes assault less reliable than it was. Because units weren't always sitting in cover. I played on terrain heavy boards, my friends and I had a system (1 large piece each, 2 medium pieces each and 5 small pieces each of which consisted of 3 walls or trees, or 1 small building), and eventually we agreed it was too much so we cut back and cut out the large pieces. And even then, not every charge I made in 5th was into cover. I had control with things like outflanking genestealers to attack what I wanted. Guess what I wasn't attacking unless it was something I had to kill?
   
Made in us
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc




The darkness between the stars

Oh and as others mentioned, not all assault units get fleet or jump packs. Terminator TH/SS don't, berserkers and pretty much everything but raptors don't have fleet or jump packs, Bloodletters don't, and quite a couple Nid MC don't have it if memory serves me. And I don't think many orks do either. Or ogryns for that matter. And Nurgle in general has almost 0 of that (daemon wise he is tank first but he is built to fight in cc)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
JPong wrote:
Except it is a nerf. It makes assault less reliable than it was. Because units weren't always sitting in cover. I played on terrain heavy boards, my friends and I had a system (1 large piece each, 2 medium pieces each and 5 small pieces each of which consisted of 3 walls or trees, or 1 small building), and eventually we agreed it was too much so we cut back and cut out the large pieces. And even then, not every charge I made in 5th was into cover. I had control with things like outflanking genestealers to attack what I wanted. Guess what I wasn't attacking unless it was something I had to kill?


Oh I just hate it because it is extra randomness for the sake of randomness. Also 2" charge daemonettes and 12" terminator charges wat

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/30 19:14:42


2375
/ 1690
WIP (1875)
1300
760
WIP (350)
WIP (150) 
   
Made in us
Rampaging Furioso Blood Angel Dreadnought





Boston, MA

JPong wrote:
Except it is a nerf. It makes assault less reliable than it was. Because units weren't always sitting in cover. I played on terrain heavy boards, my friends and I had a system (1 large piece each, 2 medium pieces each and 5 small pieces each of which consisted of 3 walls or trees, or 1 small building), and eventually we agreed it was too much so we cut back and cut out the large pieces. And even then, not every charge I made in 5th was into cover. I had control with things like outflanking genestealers to attack what I wanted. Guess what I wasn't attacking unless it was something I had to kill?


Hah really? Nobody ever claimed that units were always in, or not in, cover. But most of the time, especially now they will be, and in this case, assault IS more reliable now.

The outflanking "nerf" has nothing to do with random charge rolls.

Please check out my photo blog: http://atticwars40k.blogspot.com/ 
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut




 Gunzhard wrote:
JPong wrote:
Except it is a nerf. It makes assault less reliable than it was. Because units weren't always sitting in cover. I played on terrain heavy boards, my friends and I had a system (1 large piece each, 2 medium pieces each and 5 small pieces each of which consisted of 3 walls or trees, or 1 small building), and eventually we agreed it was too much so we cut back and cut out the large pieces. And even then, not every charge I made in 5th was into cover. I had control with things like outflanking genestealers to attack what I wanted. Guess what I wasn't attacking unless it was something I had to kill?


Hah really? Nobody ever claimed that units were always in, or not in, cover. But most of the time, especially now they will be, and in this case, assault IS more reliable now.

The outflanking "nerf" has nothing to do with random charge rolls.
The fact that they can take cover *now* does not make the new rule more reliable than the last. The outflanking was to point out how units before could avoid charging things in cover. Because they could choose.
   
Made in us
Rampaging Furioso Blood Angel Dreadnought





Boston, MA

JPong wrote:
 Gunzhard wrote:
JPong wrote:
Except it is a nerf. It makes assault less reliable than it was. Because units weren't always sitting in cover. I played on terrain heavy boards, my friends and I had a system (1 large piece each, 2 medium pieces each and 5 small pieces each of which consisted of 3 walls or trees, or 1 small building), and eventually we agreed it was too much so we cut back and cut out the large pieces. And even then, not every charge I made in 5th was into cover. I had control with things like outflanking genestealers to attack what I wanted. Guess what I wasn't attacking unless it was something I had to kill?


Hah really? Nobody ever claimed that units were always in, or not in, cover. But most of the time, especially now they will be, and in this case, assault IS more reliable now.

The outflanking "nerf" has nothing to do with random charge rolls.
The fact that they can take cover *now* does not make the new rule more reliable than the last. The outflanking was to point out how units before could avoid charging things in cover. Because they could choose.


You should have always been forcing your opponent to assault you in cover where possible, but yeah in this edition it's incredibly easy.

Please explain your outflank comment...

Please check out my photo blog: http://atticwars40k.blogspot.com/ 
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut




 Gunzhard wrote:
JPong wrote:
 Gunzhard wrote:
JPong wrote:
Except it is a nerf. It makes assault less reliable than it was. Because units weren't always sitting in cover. I played on terrain heavy boards, my friends and I had a system (1 large piece each, 2 medium pieces each and 5 small pieces each of which consisted of 3 walls or trees, or 1 small building), and eventually we agreed it was too much so we cut back and cut out the large pieces. And even then, not every charge I made in 5th was into cover. I had control with things like outflanking genestealers to attack what I wanted. Guess what I wasn't attacking unless it was something I had to kill?


Hah really? Nobody ever claimed that units were always in, or not in, cover. But most of the time, especially now they will be, and in this case, assault IS more reliable now.

The outflanking "nerf" has nothing to do with random charge rolls.
The fact that they can take cover *now* does not make the new rule more reliable than the last. The outflanking was to point out how units before could avoid charging things in cover. Because they could choose.


You should have always been forcing your opponent to assault you in cover where possible, but yeah in this edition it's incredibly easy.

Please explain your outflank comment...
It was hard to sit your entire flanks in cover before, there was almost always something exposed. Your front would have exposed points as well, but it was also easier to be shot at, since vehicles usually blocked your own LOS plus range limitations. Of course you always wanted to be assaulted while sitting in cover, but part of it being a game played by 2 people, is not always getting what you want.
   
Made in us
Rampaging Furioso Blood Angel Dreadnought





Boston, MA

I'm still not sure what you're trying to say... and in my experience with 5th, "area" terrain was everywhere.

Please check out my photo blog: http://atticwars40k.blogspot.com/ 
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut




 Gunzhard wrote:
I'm still not sure what you're trying to say... and in my experience with 5th, "area" terrain was everywhere.
Then my experience was vastly different than yours. We usually had about 1/3 to 50% the board covered in terrain. 25% was the recommended and we found it severely lacking. Sometimes, the craters would pile up at the end and there would actually be a lot of area terrain, but that wasn't the norm. I don't know what kind of boards you were running.
   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Et In Arcadia Ego





Canterbury

Thread closed due to too much childish behaviour.

The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: