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.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
If people are worried about a unit shooting at their chargers with overwatch, wouldn't it make sense to soften that unit up a bit with er, shooting, before you charged it, and thus make your charge less likely to be affected by overwatch?

You do understand the issue with overwatch for assault armies isn't the volume of damage it inflicts, but the possibility that the front model or two gets picked off, making the roll for random assault distance more difficult?

And do you understand that 'softening up' a unit with shooting before assault can mean picking off front enemy models, again making the assault roll more difficult?

I'm guessing the answer is 'no' to both questions.


As others have said, it's possible that 8th addresses the issues in other ways. I'm not dusting off my sizable Tyranid army just yet, however.

I have to say, not impressed with the charge phase.
Why is overwatch still hit on 6s? Why not a hit modifier like moving with heavy weapons?
What do you mean a squad can overwatch multiple times per phase?
Why is it still 2d6 charge range? Why not double movement stat? Or at least movement + 2d6, if you are worried about them playing keep away. What's even the point of introducing a move stat if you don't even use it for something that clearly involves movement?

 Grinshanks wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Remember, not only would you need to track your movement phase, but your opponent would too. Plus with a flat double movement charge WHFB had issues with games runniing slow thanks to people skirting charges through maintaining a fixed distance between them and the charging unit that they knew was the opposing unit's charge range. Randomness actually eliminated this issue.

And much like Overwatch being something that I am hesitant about, this is a living ruleset so if changing charge rules makes the game better the community can push for it (likely movement + D6" if we use movement to deermine charge ranges) .

You know the random charge still has an upper 12" range you can just as easily skirt right?

Please explain how armies in 40k being able to skirt a guaranteed 12" was solved by making a charge likely to be less than 12"?

Well now it's a max of 13", but you have a fair point. The point I was trying to say was that a flat double movement charge distance had problems too. The best method (and the one I see the community pushing for over the course of the next year) is movement + d6".

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


Maybe 1D6 and add your Move stat for a charge, instead of 2d6?

That makes more sense to me. I would fully expect my necron warriors to have less of a charge threat range than my daemonettes.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Plus with a flat double movement charge WHFB had issues with games runniing slow thanks to people skirting charges through maintaining a fixed distance between them and the charging unit that they knew was the opposing unit's charge range. Randomness actually eliminated this issue.

and staying away 11" from a unit with 10" charge move is now different from staying away 13" to be save?

the only difference is you need always the same distance instead of adjusting it to the opponents units
much simpler and easier to keep you save from being charged that way

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Remember, not only would you need to track your movement phase, but your opponent would too. Plus with a flat double movement charge WHFB had issues with games runniing slow thanks to people skirting charges through maintaining a fixed distance between them and the charging unit that they knew was the opposing unit's charge range. Randomness actually eliminated this issue.

And much like Overwatch being something that I am hesitant about, this is a living ruleset so if changing charge rules makes the game better the community can push for it (likely movement + D6" if we use movement to deermine charge ranges) .

Oh god the arguments from that, too..."NO! That is 8.1 inches! Not 8.0!"

Requizen wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 keltikhoa wrote:
To me the 2d6 is disappointing because we went from everything moves the same distance to a move stat that allows distinction between faster and slower units..... Except when they charge then we are all the same again. Understandable but disappointing

I can see where you're coming from. The superhuman space marine charges 3 inches, whilst the average joe guard trooper could charge 12 inches.

I was never a fan of infantry footslogging across the battlefield, preferring mechanised warfare and transports for the troops so they wouldn't have to worry about charge distances.

It didn't always work, but that's how I played it.

Maybe 1D6 and add your Move stat for a charge, instead of 2d6?

Meaning that there's almost never a reason to take any unit with a slow move speed? Move + d6" doesn't really scale between units and makse slower melee units even less viable then they are already.

Besides, would you really want to see Necron Wraiths charging 18" on turn 1? No, no you would not.

...I would

 kodos wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Plus with a flat double movement charge WHFB had issues with games runniing slow thanks to people skirting charges through maintaining a fixed distance between them and the charging unit that they knew was the opposing unit's charge range. Randomness actually eliminated this issue.

and staying away 11" from a unit with 10" charge move is now different from staying away 13" to be save?

the only difference is you need always the same distance instead of adjusting it to the opponents units
much simpler and easier to keep you save from being charged that way

No, you make a choice of whether you stay just out of the average die roll for 2D6 away or further depending on options available to you and whether or not you think a counter charge would be helpful.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I have to say, not impressed with the charge phase.
Why is overwatch still hit on 6s? Why not a hit modifier like moving with heavy weapons?
What do you mean a squad can overwatch multiple times per phase?
Why is it still 2d6 charge range? Why not double movement stat? Or at least movement + 2d6, if you are worried about them playing keep away. What's even the point of introducing a move stat if you don't even use it for something that clearly involves movement?

I agree, I'm just not a fan of randomizing things that don't need to be randomized. It's the same with running. Why not just make run an additional move and charge double move? This'll make super fast units get into combat at a much easier rate. If we're going to give shooting units overwatch and the the ability to fall back, CC units should be given some advantages to balance that out.

 keltikhoa wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


Maybe 1D6 and add your Move stat for a charge, instead of 2d6?

That makes more sense to me. I would fully expect my necron warriors to have less of a charge threat range than my daemonettes.

Why do you not think they won't? If daemonettes have a bigger move stat then they probably will have a larger threat range, everything I'm reading so far so to be pointing at AoS style move phase then charge phase, so your threat range is Move + 2D6.

This is the first change where I thought they've dropped the ball, the change to always move is good, but what about movement 12"+ units? Or even if say a Hormagaunt is move 8, why would the charge less than their move 50% of the time? Move +d6 makes far more sense and uses the new stats to full potential.

 kodos wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Plus with a flat double movement charge WHFB had issues with games runniing slow thanks to people skirting charges through maintaining a fixed distance between them and the charging unit that they knew was the opposing unit's charge range. Randomness actually eliminated this issue.

and staying away 11" from a unit with 10" charge move is now different from staying away 13" to be save?

the only difference is you need always the same distance instead of adjusting it to the opponents units
much simpler and easier to keep you save from being charged that way

I'm not saying that it's not an issue with the current rules, I'm saying that the double movement charge was ultimately a poor design choice that was replaced and it has no real reason to be brought back when the movement + d6" was a better mechanic to use as it helped reduce the charge skirting that WHFB saw. Can you still potentially charge skirt with that? Yes, but it's still a better mechanic than 2d6" or double movement charges.

Plus it represents charging as what it is: a second move + run to get into combat. If run distances were fixed to be a double move like they were in WHFB then I could see a double move charge, but as is, I feel this works better.

On a side note, Space Marines move 6". Non-augmented humans will likely move 5". Eldar are likely to move 7". Hormagaunts are probably going to move 8". And while I like the humble Hormagaunt, giving it a 8" move + 16" charge (if we adopt a double move) would be insane. 24" charge range would hit most armies turn 1. Likewise bikes may have a high movement value as well, which would also give them turn one charge ranges.

So, yeah, double move charging actually opens another slew of problems since charging in 40k isn't done as part of the movement phase. I for one do not want to see alpha striking being the new go to meta, and this is coming from someone who actually likes the assault phase.

Interesting the article didn't mention if you could charge after advancing but the shooting one specifically said you couldn't shoot...

probably as it is now that you can't advance (run) and then charge


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Plus with a flat double movement charge WHFB had issues with games runniing slow thanks to people skirting charges through maintaining a fixed distance between them and the charging unit that they knew was the opposing unit's charge range. Randomness actually eliminated this issue.

and staying away 11" from a unit with 10" charge move is now different from staying away 13" to be save?

the only difference is you need always the same distance instead of adjusting it to the opponents units
much simpler and easier to keep you save from being charged that way

On a side note, Space Marines move 6". Non-augmented humans will likely move 5". Eldar are likely to move 7". Hormagaunts are probably going to move 8". And while I like the humble Hormagaunt, giving it a 8" move + 16" charge (if we adopt a double move) would be insane. 24" charge range would hit most armies turn 1. Likewise bikes may have a high movement value as well, which would also give them turn one charge ranges.

wouldn't be so sure on guard moving 5", terminators have 5" move i'd expect guard will be 6" too.

Was no mention of +1 attack on the charge. Does that mean the only benefit to charging now is going first unless some other rule supersedes it?

Mixed feelings on this update. Dislike the random charge distances, at least given such a gaping range. Dislike multiple Overwatches (shouldn't it just be one Overwatch per Overwatching model?). Do like the POTENTIAL of a 10-12" charge (even tho I'd still prefer a static distance bonus). Do like the 1" combat range.

Maybe a better "random" charge mechanic would be 2D6 and discard the lowest die roll and add 3"? I dunno, I'm not a game designer. But while I have mixed feelings on the new Charge Phase, I'm still holding overall judgment til final rules are released. I'm too out of touch w/ 6th-7th Ed that I'm not sure how these changes/non-changes really affect units and gameplay, so I'm still gonna hold out til it's all released and I get a better understanding.

Few people thinking you get to move even if you don't make contact, why?

n the current Warhammer 40,000, you need to reach base contact. In the new edition, though, you only need to come within 1″ of an enemy, which in practice means that compared to the current charge range, you get an extra inch.

Sounds to me that you do have to make 'contact' to charge? Sounds AoS style again to me, in that failed charge = no move. You already moved in the move phase.

 Latro_ wrote:
wouldn't be so sure on guard moving 5", terminators have 5" move i'd expect guard will be 6" too.

Guard aren't three meter tall posthuman supermen in power armour. Being a touch slower when walking would be appropriate. I'd be more surprised if they moved 6" to be honest.

So some random thoughts on possible rules we might see:
- If the attack strength is double or more the target's toughness the attack will do Mortal Wounds instead of normal wounds

- Attack strength might play into rend values (-1 to save if S>T for example)

- Consolidating into combat (as potentially hinted by the congaline comment on FB)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

puree wrote:
Few people thinking you get to move even if you don't make contact, why?

n the current Warhammer 40,000, you need to reach base contact. In the new edition, though, you only need to come within 1″ of an enemy, which in practice means that compared to the current charge range, you get an extra inch.

Sounds to me that you do have to make 'contact' to charge? Sounds AoS style again to me, in that failed charge = no move. You already moved in the move phase.

Because of this line:

The basic mechanics of this phase are very similar to how they work now. You can select any unit within 12″ as the target of your charge, and your units will move towards them 2D6″.

Since it doesn't say you move only if you succeed the charge the assumption is you always move.

Because of this line:

The basic mechanics of this phase are very similar to how they work now. You can select any unit within 12″ as the target of your charge, and your units will move towards them 2D6″.

Since it doesn't say you move only if you succeed the charge the assumption is you always move.

puree wrote:

Because of this line:

The basic mechanics of this phase are very similar to how they work now. You can select any unit within 12″ as the target of your charge, and your units will move towards them 2D6″.

Since it doesn't say you move only if you succeed the charge the assumption is you always move.

So taking a teaser line out of context, and ignoring the other line that still has the words 'need' in it. Why?

Nothing about not being 'engaged in combat if not in 1"' is overruled by the "you charge, move the distance you roll". This don't have to be contradictory rules, just look at the old WHFB for an example of this being used.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Nothing about not being 'engaged in combat if not in 1"' is overruled by the "you charge, move the distance you roll". This don't have to be contradictory rules, just look at the old WHFB for an example of this being used.

I'd be more tempted to look at what they replaced WFB with. Bear in mind you have already moved, at least from the last edition of WHFB I played you charged OR move, so a failed charge still gave you some move. Not the same sequencing here.

Looks like more FAQing will be done soon according to Foley:

#new40k fans, thanks for all the questions. There are so many that @AndySmillie and I will be doing another FAQ soon... stay tuned!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

puree wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Nothing about not being 'engaged in combat if not in 1"' is overruled by the "you charge, move the distance you roll". This don't have to be contradictory rules, just look at the old WHFB for an example of this being used.

I'd be more tempted to look at what they replaced WFB with.

Because GW has never cribbed off their old stuff for inspiration of mechanics, rules or concepts?

I'm going to dodge all the rampant speculation on if H2H is going to be good or not and just wait for the full rules before passing judgement. However, I play Orks, and though I'd love to be able to run them as a CC army, it's been so long since I could, that I just don't care anymore.

Hell, it's been so long since I could play them without getting tabled immediately, that I don't care about anything much anymore, so any improvement will be a big [MOD EDIT - Language! - Alpharius] deal to me.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Guard aren't three meter tall posthuman supermen in power armour. Being a touch slower when walking would be appropriate. I'd be more surprised if they moved 6" to be honest.

I'd be disappointed and I have a guard army amongst others. A complete reboot of the rules and the addition of a movement stat is exactly the time I'd expect for them to differentiate IG from SOB from SM from Terminators from Numarines (and those are just the "humans"). Keeping the normal human with sandals movement the same as a steroid supersoldier whose already impressive physique is additionally augmented by power armor is for me beyond surprising and fully into disappointing territory. Now's the time to differentiate orks from various humans from eldar from space marines. I don't expect RPG levels of granularity but movement should definitely be included in that spectrum IMO. Having a one size fits all charge also defeats that purpose although obviously I'd have to see the final unit rules to see if they differentiate them further there as standard. For instance, I could see orks having substandard movement like 4-5" (they're lazy, easily distracted, and lumbering typically) but the full charge value. Tau could be the opposite (shorter charge due to an inherent social look before you leap trend but full movement value) . With the marine statline staying mostly the same, I don't see GW rocking the boat like that though. :(

 warboss wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Guard aren't three meter tall posthuman supermen in power armour. Being a touch slower when walking would be appropriate. I'd be more surprised if they moved 6" to be honest.

I'd be disappointed and I have a guard army amongst others. A complete reboot of the rules and the addition of a movement stat is exactly the time I'd expect for them to differentiate IG from SOB from SM from Terminators from Numarines. Keeping the normal human with sandals movement the same as a steroid supersoldier whose already impressive physique is additionally augmented by power armor is for me beyond surprising and fully into disappointing territory. Now's the time to differentiate orks from humans from eldar from space marines. I don't expect RPG levels of granularity but movement should definitely be included in that spectrum IMO.

Sisters wear power armour that doesn't add to their physical abilities, only reinforces them, so I'd expect them and their normal human-sized frames to move 5" as well. Now on the flipside, Assassins will likely move 7" (or more) as some of them they are faster than even Astartes.

I really hope that absolutely nothing in the game allows an army to influence the flat 6 they need in Overwatch to hit.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Maybe 1D6 and add your Move stat for a charge, instead of 2d6?

Strange minds think alike!

 Future War Cultist wrote:
And I always thought that charging should be your movement plus a d6. Exactly like running...because it is running.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Grinshanks wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Remember, not only would you need to track your movement phase, but your opponent would too. Plus with a flat double movement charge WHFB had issues with games runniing slow thanks to people skirting charges through maintaining a fixed distance between them and the charging unit that they knew was the opposing unit's charge range. Randomness actually eliminated this issue.

And much like Overwatch being something that I am hesitant about, this is a living ruleset so if changing charge rules makes the game better the community can push for it (likely movement + D6" if we use movement to deermine charge ranges) .

You know the random charge still has an upper 12" range you can just as easily skirt right?

Please explain how armies in 40k being able to skirt a guaranteed 12" was solved by making a charge likely to be less than 12"?

Well now it's a max of 13", but you have a fair point. The point I was trying to say was that a flat double movement charge distance had problems too. The best method (and the one I see the community pushing for over the course of the next year) is movement + d6".

Says the target unit has to be within 12" just as before. 11" makes the charge. They just very slightly increased the odds of a auto success on charge rolls.

CC has been buffed in this edition based on these five elements that have been confirmed or hinted at by the designers.

1. No longer removing closest models as casualties mean Overwatch less damaging to charges.

2. Effectively adding an extra inch of charge ranges.

3. Still being able to move charging models even of they fail to engage enemy.

4. Charging units strike first (barring unforeseen special unit rules).

5. Being able to consolidate into another combat.

All of these are HUGE for the maligned assault armies of 40K. I just hope the hinted at rules come to fruition.

v0iddrgn wrote:
CC has been buffed in this edition based on these five elements that have been confirmed or hinted at by the designers.

1. No longer removing closest models as casualties mean Overwatch less damaging to charges.

2. Effectively adding an extra inch of charge ranges.

3. Still being able to move charging models even of they fail to engage enemy.

4. Charging units strike first (barring unforeseen special unit rules).

5. Being able to consolidate into another combat.

All of these are HUGE for the maligned assault armies of 40K. I just hope the hinted at rules come to fruition.

When you put it like this, things are looking up!

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
I really hope that absolutely nothing in the game allows an army to influence the flat 6 they need in Overwatch to hit.

Because a grot should overwatch the same as a vindicar assassin, right? I hope the exact opposite. They should have made overwatch a function of your normal ballistic skill with a penalty to overwatch (and repriced units accordingly). Just having it be a flat one size fits the galaxy 6 is just plain lazy rules writing.