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.

I see a lot of people complaining about having to declare a charge, get shot by overwatch, and then having to roll to see if they can make it. I don't play any assaulty armies, really, so it's never impacted me, but two solutions occurred to me:

1) Rolling random distance before declaring charges, or
2) Charged unit only gets overwatch shots if random charge distance is enough to get into combat

In either case, a charging unit would really only fail to get into close combat if the overwatch shooting caused enough damage to prevent the closest model from being able to get into base to base contact after wound allocation. It could still happen that overwatch would cause a charge to fail, but you wouldn't get a free turn of shooting followed by another turn of shooting during your turn.

Neither of these are a huge modification of the rules, but I think they both help the assaulty armies.

Any thoughts?

Take casualties from the back of the charging unit instead of the front (after all they are moving forwards to engage the enemy, the guys at the back don't stop charging because the one at the front got blasted).

Also consider making charge distance 6 + D6" instead of 2d6".

Same potential charge range, but a lot more consistent and prohibits the incredibly dumb 2 or 3" charge that we have all had happen to us at some point.

I would also take your suggestions on board.

I think there needs to be a minimum charge distance. And I don't just mean 2" which is the minimum result, but I mean a legitimate minimum charge distance.

Maybe make it so the minimum charge distance is 6". You still roll 2d6, but any result less than 6 is automatically 6". Double 1's automatically fails the charge, even if just 2 inches away, as it'd represent something going heinously wrong when preparing for the charge.

The reason I say you still roll 2d6 instead of 6"+d6 is then the minimum would be 7". An automatically fails option like on double 1s would then also be much more common as it'd simply be 1, and that's a lot more likely to happen.

Another idea is to rework Overwatch. Make it so there's a punishment for electing to do so, either by dropping the initiative of the guys who fire overwatch to 1 in the immediate ensuing assault phase (to represent them having concentrated on firing weapons at the charging attackers so they are less ready in combat) or by making it so if they elect to fire overwatch, they must also snap fire in the next shooting phase. Both of which are simply tactical decisions.

The first option presents: Do I fire overwatch because snapfiring and killing the first guy near my squad will probably make them fail the charge but I risk my guys getting clobbered before they get to fight back?

The second option presents: I believe they will make the charge and want to do some damage to their squad in Overwatch, but risk them failing the charge and my guys were so busy firing at the charging units they now can't be as effective in their next turn?

I think that units that fire overwatch should either have their initiative reduced like you suggest or only be able to make one attack (won't effect units such as guardians or tau who only have one attack but they will probably get clobbered in the assault anyway).

As for charge distances, I still personally prefer the d6 + 6" idea myself. Reliable charge distances worked well in 5th edition, I didn't see the need for the change. If they want it to be still random, at least make it partly dependable.

 rohansoldier wrote:
Take casualties from the back of the charging unit instead of the front (after all they are moving forwards to engage the enemy, the guys at the back don't stop charging because the one at the front got blasted).

Also consider making charge distance 6 + D6" instead of 2d6".

Same potential charge range, but a lot more consistent and prohibits the incredibly dumb 2 or 3" charge that we have all had happen to us at some point.

I would also take your suggestions on board.

I might be wrong but BRB and ROP require casualties to be taken from the closest models to the unit inflicting the wounds. If I am charged and my 10 man squad fires off and hits 5, wounds 5 then the front 5 is what I expect to be removed.

Adding to my post, I feel as if the Overwatch before you actually make it into CC makes sense, you are gathering yourselves and letting loose a war cry or chant or something 40K like as you charge into my units, and they fire back in a desperate attempt to halt you. Either they hit and inflict wounds or they dont, if they do it should make it harder for your force to stay organized and make the charge...just thinking about it from a reality perspective more than a dice and measurements perspective.

But from the Dice and measuring tapes world, gak happens and sometimes you really arent meant to charge 3 inches and punch xenos in the face

 rohansoldier wrote:


As for charge distances, I still personally prefer the d6 + 6" idea myself. Reliable charge distances worked well in 5th edition, I didn't see the need for the change. If they want it to be still random, at least make it partly dependable.

That's why I suggested keep it 2d6, but make it so anything less than 6, is treated as 6. I realize it's more wordy and complicated that way, but it still gives you the same distance you can normally move in your movement phase as the reliable distance, and getting beyond that stays as rare as it currently is. At 6+d6, rolling 12" is a lot more common than it currently is, which I'm not sure I'm a fan of. Making it 6+d6 makes the average charge 9.5" as opposed to 7" like it is currently.

I don't want the averages to change. I just want the minimum to be sizable enough to matter.

a) Randomize overwatch casualties (they are firing blindly into the charging mob after all)
and/or
b) move the unit the rolled distance even if the charge fails.

You could use 3D6, discard lowest for charge distance to up the average/minimum

 SRSFACE wrote:
I think there needs to be a minimum charge distance. And I don't just mean 2" which is the minimum result, but I mean a legitimate minimum charge distance.

Maybe make it so the minimum charge distance is 6". You still roll 2d6, but any result less than 6 is automatically 6". Double 1's automatically fails the charge, even if just 2 inches away, as it'd represent something going heinously wrong when preparing for the charge.

The reason I say you still roll 2d6 instead of 6"+d6 is then the minimum would be 7". An automatically fails option like on double 1s would then also be much more common as it'd simply be 1, and that's a lot more likely to happen.

Another idea is to rework Overwatch. Make it so there's a punishment for electing to do so, either by dropping the initiative of the guys who fire overwatch to 1 in the immediate ensuing assault phase (to represent them having concentrated on firing weapons at the charging attackers so they are less ready in combat) or by making it so if they elect to fire overwatch, they must also snap fire in the next shooting phase. Both of which are simply tactical decisions.

The first option presents: Do I fire overwatch because snapfiring and killing the first guy near my squad will probably make them fail the charge but I risk my guys getting clobbered before they get to fight back?

The second option presents: I believe they will make the charge and want to do some damage to their squad in Overwatch, but risk them failing the charge and my guys were so busy firing at the charging units they now can't be as effective in their next turn?

Then they shouldnt be able to table an entire unit for loosing the battle in sweeping

milo wrote:
I see a lot of people complaining about having to declare a charge, get shot by overwatch, and then having to roll to see if they can make it. I don't play any assaulty armies, really, so it's never impacted me, but two solutions occurred to me:

1) Rolling random distance before declaring charges, or
2) Charged unit only gets overwatch shots if random charge distance is enough to get into combat

In either case, a charging unit would really only fail to get into close combat if the overwatch shooting caused enough damage to prevent the closest model from being able to get into base to base contact after wound allocation. It could still happen that overwatch would cause a charge to fail, but you wouldn't get a free turn of shooting followed by another turn of shooting during your turn.

Neither of these are a huge modification of the rules, but I think they both help the assaulty armies.

Any thoughts?

OR here's the brilliant idea, get rid of rolling for freaking distance for the charge.
2/3 of dice rolls in 40K should be removed for stupidity. It doesn't help the the game.It needlessly complicates the game without benefit. It slows the game down and reduces tactical complexity more towards Chutes and Ladders.

 Shandara wrote:
a) Randomize overwatch casualties (they are firing blindly into the charging mob after all)
and/or
b) move the unit the rolled distance even if the charge fails.

You could use 3D6, discard lowest for charge distance to up the average/minimum

Hadn't really considered A before but I like it in theory. I just think it'd be difficult to pull off in the actual game because units are rarely nice lump sums of 6 for you to roll dice to determine which random guy got whacked.

I really like B, personally. I thought that's how it was supposed to work my first game I ever played because that logically is what makes the most sense. The issue it brings up is that it'd always from a mobility standpoint be better to charge at a unit than to run. You can't run and then charge, after all, and 2d6 is better than just d6. In order for that to be the way they'd want to do things, they'd need to change how running works or change it's interactions between shooting and assault phases.

I also am not sure if I like the 3d6 thing because it's interaction with Fleet or Jump Packs would make both those USR better. Not that I'm against that as I feel both are underwhelming right now. It's just something to consider.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bishop F Gantry wrote:

Then they shouldnt be able to table an entire unit for loosing the battle in sweeping

Care to offer a reason why?

Kavik_Whitescar wrote:
[
Adding to my post, I feel as if the Overwatch before you actually make it into CC makes sense, you are gathering yourselves and letting loose a war cry or chant or something 40K like as you charge into my units, and they fire back in a desperate attempt to halt you. Either they hit and inflict wounds or they dont, if they do it should make it harder for your force to stay organized and make the charge...just thinking about it from a reality perspective more than a dice and measurements perspective.

But from the Dice and measuring tapes world, gak happens and sometimes you really arent meant to charge 3 inches and punch xenos in the face

If you wanna talk realism with battle cries I have one word for you, Necrons

D6+5 inches.

At worst it's 6 inches like previous editions.

At best it's 11 inches which makes it worth the chance.

Overwatch could still be effective if the unit was 6 or 7 inches away.

Honestly I'd love to see models have variable movements, charges, etc. Take away excessive randomness to an extent. Make it so a daemonette and genestealer live faster than a marine that moves faster than a terminator. Fleet could be a straight up boost in your charge and run as well. Or perhaps all move 6 but modifications for run/charge. If randomness is needed still, do a base speed+2d3 or d3. Personally I'd rather just see a decrease in excess randomness but I can see some randomness being the risks of the battlefield as craters hit, rocks break beneath your feet, etc.

I don't think is something which needs to be fixed. It is not broken...

I play orkses and have to say that current rules are really non-friendly to someone mellee-oriented that's not a fmc/beast or bike. That's mostly not cause of random charges but cause of 3' pile-ins and deaths of the closest. Also, cover's gone down from 4+ to 5+ and is easilly avoidable with focused fire and the ammount of cover-ignore stuff. The good example are sluggaboyz vs shootaboyz. New rules made sluggas extinct (even for wagon rushes cause it's mostly better to just shoot than go forth and suffer overwatch, than get closest chopped down and eventually strike less blows even with that +1 mellee attack).

I don't know bout random distance charges. The ammount of times i failed a charge cause of bad distance rolls ain't that great but failing 3' charges is really annoying. It's actually notisably harder to make it there now with overwatch. Every extra inch of a charge is hard espetially when you don't have fleet. But it mostly affects those who can't get closer than 5' to the enemy before trying to charge.

Over the course of many games i see that some forces are not really negatively affected by this charging system. They're FMC, JMC, beasts, cavalry and bikes. All in all, tough guyz that can move 12+. They can position themselves much easier and can't generally be avoided. While footslogas have lost so much they can't even make it there. So, that's the entire system shift towards elitist fast assaulters.

Thus, buffing charge distances won't help footslogas cause they still don't make it there. And will only buff allready annoying forces that are doing fine anywayz.

But what i think is that adding randomness to assault distances was not a good move. Assault units depend on it too much to fail just cause u're not lucky enough to roll 4'. It's like rolling every time for the distance you can shoot. After you declare who you shoot. Btw, it's a funny idea to ballance things out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/576961.page#6491025

Here's a thought. What about a unit can give up its shooting to set up overwatch. If charged, they can make a normal shooting attack at normal BS. This way if a unit wants to fire overwatch they can, but, they give up their shooting in the shooting phase, and there is no guarantee they will be charged.

I personally think the easiest solution to this would simply be to allow two types: Sprinting Charges and Long Charges.

Sprinting Charges are a gaurenteed thing, no rolling for distance, however every model in the charging unit must be within 6" of an enemy model in the unit that you want to charge. If even one model is outside of this 6" than a Sprinting Charge may not be used. However, Overwatch cannot be used against a Sprinting Charge.

A Long Charge is used if the squad does not meet the criteria for a Sprinting Charge, and works as charging/assaulting does now. Enemy units gain Overwatch against these types of charges.

Unit types don't effect Sprinting Charges, regardless of whether or not they are Jump, Jet, Beast, Monstrous, etc.

You could also roll 4d6 and divide the total in half (rounded up) to get the range. Lowers variance without feeling like a large buff.

I always had the idea of a slight change that would make it so you could charge only if you were with 12" (assuming 2d6 charge), but that if you failed the charge you could still move your models that distance if you wanted to. That would allow CC units to get a bit closer than they normally would, making it easier if they charge again next turn.

I like the idea of Units that Overwatch having an initiative penalty. Maybe not to a 1 (that's harsh to be firing with to-Hits of 6s), perhaps more like a -1 or something. I imagine that as the defending unit having to drop/holster their guns in order to pull close combat weapons to deal with the oncoming attackers. The idea of giving up shooting to only overwatch could be abused, where there would be CCs units purposely feinting melee in order to hose shooters. Yes, shooting is powerful this edition, but the fix isn't to cripple shooting to give assault a boost. However, in the case of Tau with overlapping fields of Overwatch, it doesn't fix the issue of consistently wiping out or neutering assaulters before they even close in.

Zothos wrote:
I don't think is something which needs to be fixed. It is not broken...

This. The real solution is for people to stop complaining that their unfluffy armies full of screaming idiots with swords are getting killed by guns. Random charge distance is fine the way it is. If anything it needs to be reduced a bit so you don't have the potential for those ridiculous 12" charges (after a 6-12" move). Reducing it to 2D3 would be much more appropriate.

I agree with Peregrine, random charge distance is fine the way it is.

Now we just need to fix these unfluffy gunlines. Time to introduce random gun range-distance. So like, instead of pulse rifles having a flat 30'' range, they should have 3d10. That's much more realistic and appropriate, 'cause like, who says effective range of a gun is a constant? It changes quite a bit depending on battlefield circumstances!

How about for each model you lose from overwatch, your charge range is increase by 1?

 BlaxicanX wrote:
I agree with Peregrine, random charge distance is fine the way it is.

Now we just need to fix these unfluffy gunlines. Time to introduce random gun range-distance. So like, instead of pulse rifles having a flat 30'' range, they should have 3d10. That's much more realistic and appropriate, 'cause like, who says effective range of a gun is a constant? It changes quite a bit depending on battlefield circumstances!

Amen.

It's not that assault is weak, it's that shooting is too good!

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Now we just need to fix these unfluffy gunlines. Time to introduce random gun range-distance. So like, instead of pulse rifles having a flat 30'' range, they should have 3d10. That's much more realistic and appropriate, 'cause like, who says effective range of a gun is a constant? It changes quite a bit depending on battlefield circumstances!

And while we're at it we should also let the other unit shoot back (perhaps in order of initiative), track casualties from shooting and decide who won the shooting, impose a leadership test if you lose a shooting, have a unit that shoots at another unit become locked in shooting with that unit until one of them dies or falls back out of shooting, and add a "gun them down" rule where the winner of the shooting can roll to see if they wipe the losing unit out entirely. In fact, why even have separate shooting and assault mechanics at all? Just replace them with a single "kill stuff" system that works the same no matter what you're doing, so that the only difference is whether your model has a sword or a gun.

Sounds kinda like Dust Warfare

 Peregrine wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Now we just need to fix these unfluffy gunlines. Time to introduce random gun range-distance. So like, instead of pulse rifles having a flat 30'' range, they should have 3d10. That's much more realistic and appropriate, 'cause like, who says effective range of a gun is a constant? It changes quite a bit depending on battlefield circumstances!

And while we're at it we should also let the other unit shoot back (perhaps in order of initiative), track casualties from shooting and decide who won the shooting, impose a leadership test if you lose a shooting, have a unit that shoots at another unit become locked in shooting with that unit until one of them dies or falls back out of shooting, and add a "gun them down" rule where the winner of the shooting can roll to see if they wipe the losing unit out entirely. In fact, why even have separate shooting and assault mechanics at all? Just replace them with a single "kill stuff" system that works the same no matter what you're doing, so that the only difference is whether your model has a sword or a gun.

And add in assaulting from Deep Strike.

Why should Warp Talons ripping their way into reality amidst the foe stand still and wait for that Basilisk to recalculate firing solutions and fire a shell at them before they start clawing stuff?

And shoot pistols in melee, and much much more.

 Peregrine wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Now we just need to fix these unfluffy gunlines. Time to introduce random gun range-distance. So like, instead of pulse rifles having a flat 30'' range, they should have 3d10. That's much more realistic and appropriate, 'cause like, who says effective range of a gun is a constant? It changes quite a bit depending on battlefield circumstances!

And while we're at it we should also let the other unit shoot back (perhaps in order of initiative), track casualties from shooting and decide who won the shooting, impose a leadership test if you lose a shooting, have a unit that shoots at another unit become locked in shooting with that unit until one of them dies or falls back out of shooting, and add a "gun them down" rule where the winner of the shooting can roll to see if they wipe the losing unit out entirely. In fact, why even have separate shooting and assault mechanics at all? Just replace them with a single "kill stuff" system that works the same no matter what you're doing, so that the only difference is whether your model has a sword or a gun.

Agreed entirely.

I'm glad you're such a proponent of "hurdurp realistic warfare".

That's some fun stuff.
-How to fix random charges
-Make them even worse so that noone will assault at all and increase gun distances to insure this.

yep, that'll fix the game - there will just be 2 gunlines that don't move and shoot each other to death throwing dice. Why don't you just play a roulette?

 Frazzled wrote:

milo wrote:
I see a lot of people complaining about having to declare a charge, get shot by overwatch, and then having to roll to see if they can make it. I don't play any assaulty armies, really, so it's never impacted me, but two solutions occurred to me:

1) Rolling random distance before declaring charges, or
2) Charged unit only gets overwatch shots if random charge distance is enough to get into combat

In either case, a charging unit would really only fail to get into close combat if the overwatch shooting caused enough damage to prevent the closest model from being able to get into base to base contact after wound allocation. It could still happen that overwatch would cause a charge to fail, but you wouldn't get a free turn of shooting followed by another turn of shooting during your turn.

Neither of these are a huge modification of the rules, but I think they both help the assaulty armies.

Any thoughts?

OR here's the brilliant idea, get rid of rolling for freaking distance for the charge.
2/3 of dice rolls in 40K should be removed for stupidity. It doesn't help the the game.It needlessly complicates the game without benefit. It slows the game down and reduces tactical complexity more towards Chutes and Ladders.

^This is one smart puppy!

It kills me when people realize when something is amiss but instead of the obvious solution they seek some hybridized variation of an inferior concept. Random charges don't make any more sense than random gun ranges, random movement, random skill for your war lord, random psychic powers, random unit activation or random whatever. Dice determining combat results is all the randomness required for a war game.