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.

 theharrower wrote:
I'm more annoyed by the loss of an extra attack when charging. I get it, striking first is a big boon, but you are going to get shot in the face to do it. I'm not going to judge the rules in a vacuum as we don't have enough info yet, but at the moment it certainly doesn't seem like assault is on par with shooting.

Just read and re-read the article. Nothing about losing the extra attack on the charge that I can see.

What I find curious is that people say that doubling the movement creates a zone...and they'll be charged.

Yes? That's kind of the point. It's a joke that you're "adding tactical flexibility" (which is then completely compounded by errant dice rolling).

 KommissarKiln wrote:
How is the 3rd point not confirmed? The Charge Phase teaser clearly states that a charging unit moves 2D6 towards the targeted enemy unit; .

A summary of the current assault rules would say the same thing.

 insaniak wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

And I personally, not speaking for everyone, have NO idea how 2d6 charges could have possibly made it into the top 100 list of stupid bullgak things that suck in 7th.

They make it onto the list because they combine with Overwatch and casualties from the front to make assault units worse.

Backfire wrote:
Random Charge distance was pretty much necessary when pre-measuring was allowed. With fixed charge distances it is way too easy to simply maintain distance of 6.1 inches and never get caught. Of course you still can do it to with 2d6 Charge distance, by staying 12.1" away, but that also puts you out of optimal range of many Infantry weapons, so risk/reward for such is dubious.

And that would make sense if a similar random mechanic had been implemented for shooting as well. But as it is, pre-measuring allows shooty units to know exactly where they need to be in order to get their weapons in range... but for some reason assault units have to just move as close as possible and hope for the best.

In 5th edition, many of the charges were through Difficult terrain, which was random too (except shorter than now), somehow that did not incite complaints?

Uh, yes it did... It wasn't as big a complaint, certainly, but many players did dislike the random movement through terrain and would have preferred half movement or some other consistent mechanic instead.

I find the requirement to get within 1" slightly puzzling. Now charge distance is measured from base to base, now it's base to base-1 inch. Feels kinda weird, but I presume it is because of AoS style close combat?

It does at least remove the difficulty of getting into combat with models that overhang their bases.

As soon as I saw the 1" charge distance rule, I thought "hormagaunts." Those models are almost impossible to get in case to base, leading to absurdities such as turning them around so that they appear to be mooning the unit they have charged. This will work much more cleanly for haunts and many other Nid models.

2d6 is too unreliable, just Move is too reliable, and 6+1d6 seems too much of a boost (I still remember when charge distances were 6" only, and 6+1d6 was limited to Fleet models).

Personal preference: 1/2 Move (edit: rounded up, for measuring convenience) + 2d3.

For most infantry (5" and 6" Move stats), you're looking at an mean, mode, and median of 7" (like 2d6), but you essentially eliminate the possibility of gaining the lowest of the low values and the highest of the high (ranging from 5" to 9" instead of 2" to 12").

Faster infantry get a slight boost, but even a 12" move model is only slightly better than the 6+1d6" proposal that people seem to prefer, and it has a more reliable mean, median, and mode that gives us players the sort of reliability we crave.

But that's all meaningless, because the reality of 8th edition is that it remains 2d6, and no amount of wishlisting will change that.

 KommissarKiln wrote:
If you fail the charge but get super close, you're all but assured to make it into CC the next turn as long as the unit survives whatever return fire there may be.

With the new rules granting first strike to the charging unit, in the above scenario if you're close enough that a charge next turn is unavoidable, all you do by moving closer is ensure that the enemy unit charges you first. So you wind up standing around in the open for your opponent's shooting, and then wear a charge on top of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
2d6 is too unreliable, just Move is too reliable, and 6+1d6 seems too much of a boost (I still remember when charge distances were 6" only, and 6+1d6 was limited to Fleet models)..

I still remember when a charge move was just double Movement, the same as a Run.

Clean and simple. There's no need for the random here.

 insaniak wrote:

I still remember when a charge move was just double Movement, the same as a Run.

Clean and simple. There's no need for the random here.

To each their own. I like reliability, but with a hint of chaos. As others have said, the higher possible maximum gives both the attacker and the attackee risks to consider in their positioning, and I think that's grand.

But... personal preferences are personal. Who knew?

Run should be a 1/2 your movement rounded up. D6 is dumb.
Charge is fine at 2d6 (plus the extra 1 in reach). The point is that it's not meant to be reliable and creates suspense with your rolls. If you want reliable then don't try to charge more than 3in. i am certain dedicated assault units will have plenty of modifiers to this roll with crusader, fleet, cavalry, beast, jump pack, ere we go or whatever other bespoke rules they have and thus you really won't have much of an issue with dedicated units making it into combat.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
"See, what we're going to do is re-add the Movement stat to all units in 40K. We believe that this will better reflect the various types of creatures and races, and allow better representation of speed in the 40K universe.

But all'a y'all mother fethers are gonna charge 2D6" and not an inch more, ya hear?"

If they follow AoS design some units will get additional dice when charging.
Winged stormcast can roll 3d6, for example.
They also get to declare charges at 18" range instead of being limited to being within 12".
Bikes and jump-troops probably get similar treatment.

The fact that you only need to come within 1" is actually a pretty substantial buff because of the way 2d6 probability works. I whipped up this table to illustrate:



In 7th ed you only had a 41.66% chance of making a 8" charge, you now have a 58.33% chance. Only 9"+ inch charges are more likely to fail than they are to succeed.

Combine this with the possibility of more than 6" movement statistic and things are starting to look good. Except for Terminators of course, whose 5" move negates the 1" charge range buff

gungo wrote:
The point is that it's not meant to be reliable ...

Yes, but why?

Normal movement is a set distance. Weapon ranges are a set distance. Why is it just charging and running that 'need' to be a random distance?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rubenite wrote:
The fact that you only need to come within 1" is actually a pretty substantial buff because of the way 2d6 probability works.

It's not a buff at all. Regardless of whether the end goal is to contact another model's base or get to within an inch of him, the probability of rolling 8 on 2D6 remains the same.

 insaniak wrote:

gungo wrote:
The point is that it's not meant to be reliable ...

Yes, but why?

Normal movement is a set distance. Weapon ranges are a set distance. Why is it just charging and running that 'need' to be a random distance?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rubenite wrote:
The fact that you only need to come within 1" is actually a pretty substantial buff because of the way 2d6 probability works.

It's not a buff at all. Regardless of whether the end goal is to contact another model's base or get to within an inch of him, the probability of rolling 8 on 2D6 remains the same.

The reason there's a random distance rolled is because we play a game in which outcomes are determined by dice. It wouldn't be a very fun "dice" game you removed the dice from it.

 insaniak wrote:

Rubenite wrote:
The fact that you only need to come within 1" is actually a pretty substantial buff because of the way 2d6 probability works.

It's not a buff at all. Regardless of whether the end goal is to contact another model's base or get to within an inch of him, the probability of rolling 8 on 2D6 remains the same.

I think you're misinterpreting what he's saying. The chance to successfully charge a distance of at least 8" is higher if you only need to get within 1" of the target, since you only need to roll a 7+ on the 2d6 instead of the 8+ needed to get into base-to-base contact.

Unless you're seriously saying that 2d6+1 is not a buff compared to 2d6. But that'd be silly.

Rubenite wrote:
The fact that you only need to come within 1" is actually a pretty substantial buff because of the way 2d6 probability works. I whipped up this table to illustrate:

Spoiler:

In 7th ed you only had a 41.66% chance of making a 8" charge, you now have a 58.33% chance. Only 9"+ inch charges are more likely to fail than they are to succeed.

Combine this with the possibility of more than 6" movement statistic and things are starting to look good. Except for Terminators of course, whose 5" move negates the 1" charge range buff

Cool thanks for sharing! That is a significant increase in odds, in my opinion!

v0iddrgn wrote:
The reason there's a random distance rolled is because we play a game in which outcomes are determined by dice. It wouldn't be a very fun "dice" game you removed the dice from it.

Why stop at charges? Why not random weapon ranges to model the effect of wind, random movement to model uneven terrain and random number of shots to model gun jams? Why is it just charges which get screwed over? Why is it in any way desireable or fun to not know how your models move? How can you even defend this?

v0iddrgn wrote:

The reason there's a random distance rolled is because we play a game in which outcomes are determined by dice. It wouldn't be a very fun "dice" game you removed the dice from it.

Except the dice aren't involved in all sorts of things. So why randomise charging, and not regular movement? After all, normal movement happens more often, so if the objective is to maximise the 'fun' of rolling dice, that would seem more appropriate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

I think you're misinterpreting what he's saying. The chance to successfully charge a distance of at least 8" is higher if you only need to get within 1" of the target, since you only need to roll a 7+ on the 2d6 instead of the 8+ needed to get into base-to-base contact.

No, I get what he's saying. What I'm saying is that 8" is 8". You can't call something a buff because your target is closer in one example.

Eyjio wrote:

v0iddrgn wrote:
The reason there's a random distance rolled is because we play a game in which outcomes are determined by dice. It wouldn't be a very fun "dice" game you removed the dice from it.

Why stop at charges? Why not random weapon ranges to model the effect of wind, random movement to model uneven terrain and random number of shots to model gun jams? Why is it just charges which get screwed over? Why is it in any way desireable or fun to not know how your models move? How can you even defend this?

But why stop at charges in eliminating random elements, if adding risks (potential for a low roll) to balance rewards (potential for a high roll) causes desirability and fun issues? Why not set a number of hits per attacking model? Why not set a number of wounds per hit inflicted? Why should it be just damage which gets screwed over? Why is it in any way desirable or fun to not know how much damage your model does? How can you even defend that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

I think you're misinterpreting what he's saying. The chance to successfully charge a distance of at least 8" is higher if you only need to get within 1" of the target, since you only need to roll a 7+ on the 2d6 instead of the 8+ needed to get into base-to-base contact.

No, I get what he's saying. What I'm saying is that 8" is 8". You can't call something a buff because your target is closer in one example.

No, I really don't think you do.

Your unit stands 8" away from the enemy unit. To succeed on its charge, it needs to breach that 8" distance (in his table, the "Charge Distance", a separate and distinct column from "Dice Score Req", i.e. the number you'd need to roll on 2d6).

In 7th edition, that means rolling an 8, 9, 10, 11, or 12 on 2d6 (because you have to get in base-to-base contact with the target unit), which are rolled 5/36, 4/36, 3/36, 2/36, and 1/36 of the time, respectively. Adding them together, that means your success in breaching that distance is 15/36.

In 8th edition, that means rolling a 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, or 12 on 2d6 (because you only have to get within 1" of the target unit, and so only have to actually MOVE 7"), which are rolled 6/36, 5/36, 4/36, 2/36, and 1/36 of the time, respectively. Adding them together, that means your success in breaching that distance is 21/36.

If you're trying to make a stand and say that the chance of rolling an 8 on 2d6 remains the same... well, yes, but THAT ISN'T HIS POINT. His point is about the distance you need to breach to be successful, not some sort of magical change in the probability distribution of 2d6.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
But why stop at charges in eliminating random elements, if adding risks (potential for a low roll) to balance rewards (potential for a high roll) causes desirability and fun issues? Why not set a number of hits per attacking model? Why not set a number of wounds per hit inflicted? Why should it be just damage which gets screwed over? Why is it in any way desirable or fun to not know how much damage your model does? How can you even defend that?

Well that's an easy one - it's much easier to accept that combat is more random than just running forwards. If a unit fails to hit or wound, it's acceptable because all sorts of things could be going wrong - hitting thick armour, lucky wind, misfire of weapon, etc. That happens all the time in reality, and it's not too hard to imagine in game. Additionally, you're usually chucking 10+ dice, so the chance to roll around average is much more likely, and the variance per volley is manageable.

Charging, however, is literally just people running forwards. How many times have you fallen over in the past 100 runs you've done? I think I've fallen maybe once because I wasn't looking where I was going. For a unit like Wraiths to fail a 3" charge really breaks my suspension of disbelief - they can always ignore terrain and move 12", yet trip over nothing when charging sometimes, yet other times rocket boost out their ass? Makes no sense. It also strips tactical depth out of the game, because it lowers the importance of manoeuvring out of assault range. In short, it makes the game dumber, has no logical reasoning even in universe and adds way too much variance. So, it's bad, IMO, to the extent that I see nothing good about it at all.

Eyjio wrote:
Well that's an easy one - it's much easier to accept that combat is more random than just running forwards.

Try running forwards while being shot at

Eyjio wrote:

v0iddrgn wrote:
The reason there's a random distance rolled is because we play a game in which outcomes are determined by dice. It wouldn't be a very fun "dice" game you removed the dice from it.

Why stop at charges? Why not random weapon ranges to model the effect of wind, random movement to model uneven terrain and random number of shots to model gun jams? Why is it just charges which get screwed over? Why is it in any way desireable or fun to not know how your models move? How can you even defend this?

It's not hard to understand that there's a line to be drawn at where the game becomes tedious. I'm not saying keep random WL traits or Psychic powers, but having some randomness IMHO keeps things interesting.

Eyjio wrote:


Makes no sense. It also strips tactical depth out of the game, because it lowers the importance of manoeuvring out of assault range. In short, it makes the game dumber, has no logical reasoning even in universe and adds way too much variance. So, it's bad, IMO, to the extent that I see nothing good about it at all.

Agreed 100%. I'm fine with terrain slowing down units(well..not jump units of course), but in the open there should be a reliable distance you know you can reach.

They dropped the ball on this one, though there may be more surprises in bonuses for assault units.

Eyjio wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
But why stop at charges in eliminating random elements, if adding risks (potential for a low roll) to balance rewards (potential for a high roll) causes desirability and fun issues? Why not set a number of hits per attacking model? Why not set a number of wounds per hit inflicted? Why should it be just damage which gets screwed over? Why is it in any way desirable or fun to not know how much damage your model does? How can you even defend that?

Well that's an easy one - it's much easier to accept that combat is more random than just running forwards. If a unit fails to hit or wound, it's acceptable because all sorts of things could be going wrong - hitting thick armour, lucky wind, misfire of weapon, etc. That happens all the time in reality, and it's not too hard to imagine in game. Additionally, you're usually chucking 10+ dice, so the chance to roll around average is much more likely, and the variance per volley is manageable.

Charging, however, is literally just people running forwards. How many times have you fallen over in the past 100 runs you've done? I think I've fallen maybe once because I wasn't looking where I was going. For a unit like Wraiths to fail a 3" charge really breaks my suspension of disbelief - they can always ignore terrain and move 12", yet trip over nothing when charging sometimes, yet other times rocket boost out their ass? Makes no sense. It also strips tactical depth out of the game, because it lowers the importance of manoeuvring out of assault range. In short, it makes the game dumber, has no logical reasoning even in universe and adds way too much variance. So, it's bad, IMO, to the extent that I see nothing good about it at all.

I stumble over my feet walking on the sidewalk all the time, and that's when I'm talking a leisurely stroll. I'm generally paying a bit more attention when I run, and so I fall less often, but I certainly DO fall occasionally...

But I've never had to run WHILE dodging incoming weaponry in which the LEAST potent is capable of exploding limbs off bodies (Lasguns) and the most potent would atomize me before I had a chance to become a fine mist, WHILE running over the wartorn terrain of alien vistas, crumbling rubble, xenoflora, hills, and worse, WHILE setting myself up to engage in melee combat with anything from trained soldiers to 2-ton-lifting Supermen to Terminator robots to uncomprehensible bundles of talons, fangs, and drool.

Suddenly a bit less consistency (abstracted by a dice roll) in how far I make it makes a bit more sense, neh?

But you'll notice that my preference is also against the disastrous 3" charge (and the 12" what-the-hell charge), and that I prefer a tighter range.

It gives, as you so delightfully noted with your 10+ shots comment, the ability to have both reliability (averages average out) and that random, chaotic element that adds spice to the game.

 insaniak wrote:

v0iddrgn wrote:

The reason there's a random distance rolled is because we play a game in which outcomes are determined by dice. It wouldn't be a very fun "dice" game you removed the dice from it.

Except the dice aren't involved in all sorts of things. So why randomise charging, and not regular movement? After all, normal movement happens more often, so if the objective is to maximise the 'fun' of rolling dice, that would seem more appropriate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

I think you're misinterpreting what he's saying. The chance to successfully charge a distance of at least 8" is higher if you only need to get within 1" of the target, since you only need to roll a 7+ on the 2d6 instead of the 8+ needed to get into base-to-base contact.

No, I get what he's saying. What I'm saying is that 8" is 8". You can't call something a buff because your target is closer in one example.

OK, so what was the point of that? 8" is 8" sure but 2D6 is not 2D6+1

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

Suddenly a bit less consistency (abstracted by a dice roll) in how far I make it makes a bit more sense, neh?

Sure. Which is a good reason to have all movement randomised, or to assume that this difficulty is accounted for in the abstraction of the ruleset and not randomise movement at all. It makes no sense for a unit moving towards an enemy who is shooting at them to have a set movement rate in one instance and a random one in another, determined solely on whether or not they intend to poke said enemy in the face with a stick.

Charge phase??

Charge phase?????

God damnit GW, I thought you were moving all the movement in to, ya know, the movement phase and making the movement characteristic meaningful instead of this 2D6 charge range junk.

Bah humbug. Disappointed.

 Ghaz wrote:

Eyjio wrote:
Well that's an easy one - it's much easier to accept that combat is more random than just running forwards.

Try running forwards while being shot at

But walking forward while being shot doesn't require random movement? Being shot at, is being shot at, whether you're crawling, walking, jogging or running. Why suddenly make it random when you're running forwards into CC?

 Red Corsair wrote:

OK, so what was the point of that? 8" is 8" sure but 2D6 is not 2D6+1

There is no '+1'. An 8" charge is still an 8" charge.

A 7" charge is easier to roll than an 8" charge in the current edition as well. You can't declare it a 'boost' just because it's in a new ruleset. It's not a boost. It's just a different distance.

 insaniak wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

OK, so what was the point of that? 8" is 8" sure but 2D6 is not 2D6+1

There is no '+1'. An 8" charge is still an 8" charge.

A 7" charge is easier to roll than an 8" charge in the current edition as well. You can't declare it a 'boost' just because it's in a new ruleset. It's not a boost. It's just a different distance.

OK nice try mate, but your dodging is pretty desperate here. I absolutely CAN and WILL declare it a boost because, you know, it literally is a net gain of 1" over 7th.

 insaniak wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

Suddenly a bit less consistency (abstracted by a dice roll) in how far I make it makes a bit more sense, neh?

Sure. Which is a good reason to have all movement randomised, or to assume that this difficulty is accounted for in the abstraction of the ruleset and not randomise movement at all. It makes no sense for a unit moving towards an enemy who is shooting at them to have a set movement rate in one instance and a random one in another, determined solely on whether or not they intend to poke said enemy in the face with a stick.

You could make all the ranges in the game randomised if you really wanted. Movement distance, charge distance, weapon ranges. In reality all that stuff is going to depend on the specific circumstances. You can even randomise whether a unit actually spots another unit. There's a whole heap of things that could be randomised to account for troops responding to orders rather than omnipotent god controlling the actions of every individual on the battlefield.

But at that point you're going over in to the realm of battle simulation rather than war game IMO, in a war game I think you want to keep some level of control in the hands of the players so players can feel like omnipotent gods controlling their troops rather than ineffectual generals barking orders in to a phone and hoping they get to the right person at the right time.

 Vryce wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Eyjio wrote:
Well that's an easy one - it's much easier to accept that combat is more random than just running forwards.

Try running forwards while being shot at

But walking forward while being shot doesn't require random movement? Being shot at, is being shot at, whether you're crawling, walking, jogging or running. Why suddenly make it random when you're running forwards into CC?

It's not a casual stroll in the park. It's cautious, deliberate movement forward making use of cover and planning your next move as you go similar to that used by most militaries today when engaging the enemy. It gives you a more consistent movement rate than trying to run while every enemy fires at you and you have to stop between dashes to decide your next move.