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'm not sure why they would bother introducing a movement stat then not utilising it for the charge, but whatever. Overwatch is still here too, that's... great. Really, really great. Sigh.

So far, my already-fragile army has lost literally everything that keeps it alive and has gotten... probably a couple extra inches of movement in the movement phase to make up for it.

Not feeling the hype so far, unfortunately.

 Galas wrote:
Because if every thing related to weapon ranges and movement is fixed, then Warhammer becomes a game for architects, and to see who is better at measuring and calculating fixed distances. I don't like specifically the 2d6 for charge, but I can totally understand why they want to add randomness to the movement system of the game.

All the responses like this miss the point. Literally nobody is arguing that there shouldn't be any randomness in 40k. The argument is that assault units shouldn't have their kneecaps crippled before they can do the one thing they're actually good at. Would you be happy if the old night fighting rules were in constant effect in every so you had to roll to see if you can fire at an enemy? I very much doubt it.

At the end of the day, you have good and bad randomness. Good randomness is low variance, mitigatable with skill and good play; bad randomness is high variance, nearly impossible to mitigate and extremely impactful on the game. 2d6" charges are absolutely the latter of these - it's stripping depth out of the game whilst replacing it with a system in which 2 dice can make or break an entire game. That's just not good design, and I don't care how you justify it to yourself, it's never going to be a good idea. You're still measuring fixed distances to stay away from the enemy either way, it's just that now you're rolling a dice to see if you get screwed by charge distance or if your opponent does.

Eyjio wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Because if every thing related to weapon ranges and movement is fixed, then Warhammer becomes a game for architects, and to see who is better at measuring and calculating fixed distances. I don't like specifically the 2d6 for charge, but I can totally understand why they want to add randomness to the movement system of the game.

All the responses like his miss the point. Literally nobody is arguing that there shouldn't be any randomness in 40k. The argument is that assault units shouldn't have their kneecaps crippled before they can do the one thing they're actually good at. Would you be happy if the old night fighting rules were in constant effect in every so you had to roll to see if you can fire at an enemy? I very much doubt it.

At the end of the day, you have good and bad randomness. Good randomness is low variance, mitigatable with skill and good play; bad randomness is high variance, nearly impossible to mitigate and extremely impactful on the game. 2d6" charges are absolutely the latter of these - it's stripping depth out of the game whilst replacing it with a system in which 2 dice can make or break an entire game. That's just not good design, and I don't care how you justify it to yourself, it's never going to be a good idea. You're still measuring fixed distances to stay away from the enemy either way, it's just that now you're rolling a dice to see if you get screwed by charge distance or if your opponent does.

Emphasis mine.

It feels like we're all talking past each other here.

Only one person has been actively justifying the 2d6 assault range, and that includes neither Galas nor I, who have been advocating for randomness only insofar as they fulfill exactly the role you yourself admit is possible - "Good randomness" with low variance that fulfills its function without interfering with skill and good play.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 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.

Of course opponent can simply factor in the extra movement and force you to start your charge from 9" rather than 8" in 6th ed. Albeit means extra trouble for really short ranged weapons(flamers etc) but in practice charges don't really get much easier. More impact on board control as assault units have extra 1" push factor they push shooters away from them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Robin5t wrote:
I'm not sure why they would bother introducing a movement stat then not utilising it for the charge, but whatever. Overwatch is still here too, that's... great. Really, really great. Sigh.

That's the biggest oddity for me as well. Would seem to be sensible to have M affect charge roll somehow. But they probably didn't want to go for divide calculation for charge rolls and something like M+d6 would be pretty long static charges especially for faster units. Somebody moves 8(plus run if you can run and charge) and then 8+d6. 17-22" charge. 17" quaranteed charge distance is pretty hefty.

 Robin5t wrote:
I'm not sure why they would bother introducing a movement stat then not utilising it for the charge, but whatever. Overwatch is still here too, that's... great. Really, really great. Sigh.

So far, my already-fragile army has lost literally everything that keeps it alive and has gotten... probably a couple extra inches of movement in the movement phase to make up for it.

Not feeling the hype so far, unfortunately.

It has also gotten completely new rules of which you've seen exactly nothing so far I wouldn't worry.

so the main argument is that total charge distance should not be >24" which is not possible if M is used?

ok
solutions would be

Movement = M
Advance = M*2, no shooting or charge
Charge = M

so now all are afraid that Termis are to slow to get into CC.
Surprise, this is what Termis are about, that's why we have Land Raider and Deep Strike for them in the first place
they are not meant to run 18" across the field to charge

another possibility:
Movement = M
Advance = M+D6, no shooting or charge
Charge = M+D6 max. 12"

increase the speed of standard infantry without letting fast units going crazy

and the than you can also:
Movement = M
Advance = M*2, no shooting or charge
Charge = M*2, done in the movement phase


it is not that there are no other possibilities than 2D6 or units with M 12" charge 36".


of course 3-12" charge distance can be fun
but in combination with charging units strike first it is a bad idea

Indeed

AOS has flying units moving as much as 16" and then charging 2D6.

Whilst M +1D6 sounds like a reasonable distance we don't know the movement stats for all models. If there are models - say Beasts, FMC etc with 12"-15" move

then we get move 12", charge 12+ d6! and that's without possible units than can move, run, charge!

Could just do 6+D6 for charge I guess...

Assaulting out of the newly more durable vehicles is going to be a thing, from their FB hints a while ago. We'll find out on Transports Day, no doubt. That will somewhat change the utility of random charges.

I think peeps have to stop considering the charge in isolation, but rather the total threat range of units during their turn. Models move in the movement phase too ! Jump pack troops will likely have a move value of ~12", so a total threat range in their turn of 15" to 25" (with a very high probability of it being at least 18") before any other possible special rules or advancing is considered. A high odds threat range of 18" is plenty big enough IMO for troops like that.

I dont know if it was mentioned but in the shooting phase they gave us restrictions , cant shoot when within 1" of enemy or after advancing the same turn. They said nothing for charge phase, what if you can charge from reserves, deep strike, all transports and also after advancing now? Then i guess its shooty armies whinning time. Food for thought :p

PS: maybe they allowed fall back at will in the movement to give the shooty armies a counter measure for the above

MaxT wrote:
I think peeps have to stop considering the charge in isolation, but rather the total threat range of units during their turn. Models move in the movement phase too !

We aren't forgetting that. A basic Space Marine is going to have an assault threat range of between 9" and 19". I'm not complaining that threat range is too small, I'm complaining it's too bloody variable.

I'd be happy with a Marine's threat range of, say, 10" flat (because I prefer non-random movement) or if you are in love with random movement, something like 8+D6, or maybe 10+D3.

It's not the lack of threat range people are annoyed about, it's the variability in it.

In addition to that I'm disappointed GW kept a "charge phase", we could have had a game where models only need to move once per turn, but noooo, we have to have a separate bloody charge phase so things are still moving twice in a turn.

lonewolf81 wrote:
I dont know if it was mentioned but in the shooting phase they gave us restrictions , cant shoot when within 1" of enemy or after advancing the same turn. They said nothing for charge phase, what if you can charge from reserves, deep strike, all transports and also after advancing now? Then i guess its shooty armies whinning time. Food for thought :p

PS: maybe they allowed fall back at will in the movement to give the shooty armies a counter measure for the above

I am sad they didn't mention charging from transports etc in this preview

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

MaxT wrote:
I think peeps have to stop considering the charge in isolation, but rather the total threat range of units during their turn. Models move in the movement phase too !

We aren't forgetting that. A basic Space Marine is going to have an assault threat range of between 9" and 19". I'm not complaining that threat range is too small, I'm complaining it's too bloody variable.

Add to this the fact that the difference between a slow moving infantry and an average moving infantry is a bloody inch imposed on the same 2d6 charge distance for the two units and you get one of the uglier aspects of AoS for me.

 CoreCommander wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

MaxT wrote:
I think peeps have to stop considering the charge in isolation, but rather the total threat range of units during their turn. Models move in the movement phase too !

We aren't forgetting that. A basic Space Marine is going to have an assault threat range of between 9" and 19". I'm not complaining that threat range is too small, I'm complaining it's too bloody variable.

Add to this the fact that the difference between a slow moving infantry and an average moving infantry is a bloody inch imposed on the same 2d6 charge distance for the two units and you get one of the uglier aspects of AoS for me.

Yeah it's a terrible waste of a movement stat if you ask me. We have 10" worth of variation in charge distance which means a slow unit can fluke quite a long threat range while a fast unit can fluke a really short one

I would rather just have all the rules and start playing 8th, because without knowing the total picture it's rather hard to decide if 2d6(+1) is bad or good. Remember the endless discussions about walkers that should be vehicles but were monstrous creatures. Well guess what, GW was already introducing/testing things they were thinking about for a new version of 40k, but almost no one was thinking about that.

Back to 2d6(+1) charge. I think different M(ove) for everyone is a great thing, as Banshees simply move faster than lumbering Centurions. One could argue that this M(ove) value already influences their charge distance, because faster units moved further than slow units in their movement phase. But I would also like to see it influence charge directly, so include it in your charge. After all, Banshees will cover more distance when charging than Centurions. Half M(ove) + D6 sounds great to me, it includes the move and keeps a random factor.

The random factor is a must have for me. I'm not a competitive player and would hate to see 40k turn into a measuring match (Warmachine?) instead of a random dice game.

MorglumNecksnapper wrote:
I would rather just have all the rules and start playing 8th, because without knowing the total picture it's rather hard to decide if 2d6(+1) is bad or good.

Yeah, nah, I can be pretty confident it's bad. I mean, sure, I could think up things that are worse, but it's definitely not good. I don't need the total picture to know that level of variation in a charge distance sucks.

Given how GW have been harping on about listening to the community more, I think they dropped the ball because the 2D6 is one of the most hated points. Even people who like randomness will usually admit to 2D6 being an excessively large range (or they'll admit to playing a shooting army that is scared of getting stomped by an assault army that can actually pull off assaults consistently).

Fast moving units can get closer to the enemy before that 2d6" range, that has a big impact on randomness if you start 3" from the enemy or if you start 7" from enemy. Latter is not a range you should normally even try to charge, it's more of a last resort or added bonus, so movement stat has a big impact on the charging even if it isn't added to the roll. With stuff like 6+d6 or half move +d6, the threat range becomes so big that it can quickly shift the balance wildly in favor of assault armies. Especially as said, we don't yet know how for example the charging from transport works out. It might not be fun result to have units that could easily charge over 20" in a turn, even if it would result in less randomness.

I'll w8 until we have bespoke rules. Assault focused units could get the special rule that M is added, or a charge from deep strike , or fleet or transport bonusses.

I don't mind the basic rules being the worst and all special rules being upgrades.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also most tables are only so big. If I play a shooty army that has to stay away from the enemy and almost out of reasonable asault range I can only withdraw so far. If you try to play DE on a huge table they all of a sudden suck less in 7E because they can make full use of their movement.

tneva82 wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 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.

Of course opponent can simply factor in the extra movement and force you to start your charge from 9" rather than 8" in 6th ed. Albeit means extra trouble for really short ranged weapons(flamers etc) but in practice charges don't really get much easier. More impact on board control as assault units have extra 1" push factor they push shooters away from them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Robin5t wrote:
I'm not sure why they would bother introducing a movement stat then not utilising it for the charge, but whatever. Overwatch is still here too, that's... great. Really, really great. Sigh.

That's the biggest oddity for me as well. Would seem to be sensible to have M affect charge roll somehow. But they probably didn't want to go for divide calculation for charge rolls and something like M+d6 would be pretty long static charges especially for faster units. Somebody moves 8(plus run if you can run and charge) and then 8+d6. 17-22" charge. 17" quaranteed charge distance is pretty hefty.

Is it not that units move in the movement phase and then charge in the charge phase?

Am I misunderstanding?

Earth127 wrote:
I'll w8 until we have bespoke rules. Assault focused units could get the special rule that M is added, or a charge from deep strike , or fleet or transport bonusses.

Yeah. Good way to ensure bloat stays. Make basic rules so bad you need silly bespoke rules to help them out...

Beside the random movement discussion, did they already clarifies if unit warscroll are free on the GW website?

In my opinion the random movement values are the consecuences of the pre-measure system and I am OK with this. The only game I remember where you can pre-measure is Epic, where you always have a fixed movement system, but you need to roll for initiative and you have the chance to not moving at all.
Having a friend who is able to guess the exact distance between its own Whirlwind and my units, if you don't introduce some random factor while moving in a battlefield where average distances between enemies are 24" will cause a problem a lot worse than the infamous Rhino Rush.

Vorian wrote:
Is it not that units move in the movement phase and then charge in the charge phase?

Am I misunderstanding?

Yes but if charge range would be M+d6" then your quaranteed threat range would go from(in case of space marine) 9"(6" movement, 2" from dice, 1" from target) to 14"(6" movement, 6" in assault, 1" from dice, 1" from target). For M8 this would be from 11" to 18".

18" MINIMUM threat range is pretty damn long.

tneva82 wrote:

Vorian wrote:
Is it not that units move in the movement phase and then charge in the charge phase?

Am I misunderstanding?

Yes but if charge range would be M+d6" then your quaranteed threat range would go from(in case of space marine) 9"(6" movement, 2" from dice, 1" from target) to 14"(6" movement, 6" in assault, 1" from dice, 1" from target). For M8 this would be from 11" to 18".

18" MINIMUM threat range is pretty damn long.

It's more that people keep saying that introducing the M stat doesn't affect charges... whereas it does... because you move in your own turn beforehand.

So M 8 compared to M 6 actually has a 2 inch greater threat range. With that threat range an extra inch compared to now because you only need to be within an inch.

tneva82 wrote:

Earth127 wrote:
I'll w8 until we have bespoke rules. Assault focused units could get the special rule that M is added, or a charge from deep strike , or fleet or transport bonusses.

Yeah. Good way to ensure bloat stays. Make basic rules so bad you need silly bespoke rules to help them out...

IMHO it's not that they need to add these bespoke rules to help out the basic rules, it's so you don't have a few pages of USR's you need to refer back to as all of the extra info and flavour is on the dataslates. Plus all that extra nonsense in a giant BRB that just doesn't need to be there. With them having their own rules on the slates they can tailor each unit to be faster, or more resilient.....anything they want to do they can pop on there and it's good to go. I think someone checked it with the AoS warscrolls and there's actually more special rules now but it doesn't seem as bad as they're all on the scrolls so you don't need to wade through all the other USR's as the ones you need are right in front of you.

They could give jumppack guys a reroll to their charge range, or make it 2D6+ their move, anything is a possibility now. Hell, they could make Termies super tough, give them rerolls to save and even let them take a save against anything, I'm hoping for 3+ on 2D6 for their save but don't think it will happen!

I've been a 40k player on and off from 2nd ed and fantasy from 5th until the blew it up and was veeery sceptical of AoS when it first came out and basically decided I wouldn't play anymore, then I actually gave it a go and it's pretty bloody fun TBH! It only got better with the generals handbook adding the points back in, so I'm fine with bloat in the unit descriptions because you can get so much variation that way. I'm really looking forward to the AoSifying of 40k, I think it'll be great and look forward to dusting my old minis off and getting some games in.

Given how many suggestions of M+D6 charge ranges I see in this thread, it seems to me the issue is at least partially a matter of presenting the rule, rather than the mechanic itself. After all, units ARE charging M+2D6, it's just that assault weapon rules force the sequence to be broken up into two parts.

I don't particularly like the variance of a 2D6 roll, but at the same time, there is some elegant simplicity to it.

We need the rule for units first, as the randomness could be mitagated by unit rules.

the randomness is fine, as with more movement you can get close, so you have a better chance of scouring a charge.

Bloat is ok with rules from units, as you really do not need to remember them all, only your own units.

Vorian wrote:
It's more that people keep saying that introducing the M stat doesn't affect charges... whereas it does... because you move in your own turn beforehand.

No, we're saying that they didn't leverage the M stat like they could have and instead are relying on good ol' giant serving of randomness.

Marines threat range is from 9" to 19". I just think that's stupid. If an Eldar's threat range is 10" to 20" I still think it's stupid. If a Ravener's threat range is 14" to 24".... I still think it's stupid.

They're not going to be able to make use of a wide range of movement values to avoid having units with insane threat ranges. If instead they reduced the randomness, it'd allow for more flexibility in the stats themselves.

So yeah, M obviously has an effect on charge range, it's just variability is going to have an even larger effect (or alternatively they still give us a big spread of M values, but we end up with some insane yet unreliable threat ranges where models are going to bounding across the table right at the start of the game).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 His Master's Voice wrote:
Given how many suggestions of M+D6 charge ranges I see in this thread, it seems to me the issue is at least partially a matter of presenting the rule, rather than the mechanic itself. After all, units ARE charging M+2D6, it's just that assault weapon rules force the sequence to be broken up into two parts.

It's just an issue of perspective, we're talking about M+D6 knowing full well the model has already moved one M, thus when considering a full turn's worth of movement we are talking about a unit moving 2M+D6 as an alternative to M+2D6.

Seriously, no one is forgetting that the model has already moved that turn

 His Master's Voice wrote:
Given how many suggestions of M+D6 charge ranges I see in this thread, it seems to me the issue is at least partially a matter of presenting the rule, rather than the mechanic itself. After all, units ARE charging M+2D6, it's just that assault weapon rules force the sequence to be broken up into two parts.

I don't particularly like the variance of a 2D6 roll, but at the same time, there is some elegant simplicity to it.

2D6 is better than 1D6 as there is weighted average value (i.e. all results are not equally probable).

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Assaulting out of the newly more durable vehicles is going to be a thing, from their FB hints a while ago. We'll find out on Transports Day, no doubt. That will somewhat change the utility of random charges.

yeah, vehicles are the biiig question mark here. even if we assume vehicles can be charged out of we're missing some pretty important things. questions that need answering that come to mind.

1: SPEED of vehicles. I mean if a rhino has a base speed of 12 inches you could see rhinos moving forward 24 inches and then dislodging troops to assault 2d6 inches out of it. that's potentially insane board control for mechanized infantry.

2: can units disembark from a vehicle, and then make a move themselves, that could be pretty potent etc.


I'm not saying I think this will be the case (I'd be shocked if vehicles where faster then they are now, outside of eldar. and I suspect moving after disembarking will be something only a select few units can do) but these are things we dunno. that said, I do expect that assault armies will be reliant on a delivery mechanism. and rushing bezerkers up the board is a good way to get bezerkers killed.

Eyjio wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Because if every thing related to weapon ranges and movement is fixed, then Warhammer becomes a game for architects, and to see who is better at measuring and calculating fixed distances. I don't like specifically the 2d6 for charge, but I can totally understand why they want to add randomness to the movement system of the game.

All the responses like this miss the point. Literally nobody is arguing that there shouldn't be any randomness in 40k. The argument is that assault units shouldn't have their kneecaps crippled before they can do the one thing they're actually good at. Would you be happy if the old night fighting rules were in constant effect in every so you had to roll to see if you can fire at an enemy? I very much doubt it.

At the end of the day, you have good and bad randomness. Good randomness is low variance, mitigatable with skill and good play; bad randomness is high variance, nearly impossible to mitigate and extremely impactful on the game. 2d6" charges are absolutely the latter of these - it's stripping depth out of the game whilst replacing it with a system in which 2 dice can make or break an entire game. That's just not good design, and I don't care how you justify it to yourself, it's never going to be a good idea. You're still measuring fixed distances to stay away from the enemy either way, it's just that now you're rolling a dice to see if you get screwed by charge distance or if your opponent does.

This is one of those times when I read an opinion differing from mine and say, "Oh. That point really makes sense." Mark your calendars, everybody, someone on the Internet has been convinced of something!

One thing that definitely does not sit well with me is the M + D6 charge range. It's much more likely to favor certain units over others, like amazing for Harelequins but harmful to Orks, then all those edge cases like bikes and Wraiths would likely become way too powerful. 6 + D6 maxes out at 12" like the current 2D6, but has a greatly improved minimum distance of 7", which decreases the variance of charge rolls significantly, thus I now feel this would be a pretty decent compromise. So although I've been saved in the past by failed 4" and 5" charges, I guess it's for the best, and ought to have been pursued for the sake of balance, especially given how much more devastating it could be to fail a charge in an edition with potentially limitless overwatch.

Just don't fail your charge against a Leman Russ Punisher squadron