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.

 jamopower wrote:

 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).

No it's not, 1D6 each result has a 16.7% chance of happening. 2D6 you have a 16.7% chance of getting a 7, but every other result has a lesser chance, thus the variability is higher.

Don't believe me? The variance of 1D6 is 3.5 (std deviation 1.9), the variance of 2D6 is 6 (std dev of 2.4).

Thus 2D6 is more variable.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 jamopower wrote:

 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).

No it's not, 1D6 each result has a 16.7% chance of happening. 2D6 you have a 16.7% chance of getting a 7, but every other result has a lesser chance, thus the variability is higher.

Don't believe me? The variance of 1D6 is 3.5 (std deviation 1.9), the variance of 2D6 is 6 (std dev of 2.4).

Thus 2D6 is more variable.

Yes, but I meant that rolling 5 orYes, you're right, but i meant that the probablity for low and high end is lower than for the middle range. Thus the dynamic is bit different as you have high chance of succeeding for the low rolls and then it gets lower bit slower, where in 2d6 already the lowest chance is quite high and then it increases faster.

BrianDavion wrote:

 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.

This. I'm not happy about the assault rules we've seen so far, but getting transports that are useful for getting into melee without costing 240+ points back would go a LOOOONG way towards mitigating the issues I have with assault. The biggest problem is getting into assault in the first place; transports could majorly help with this.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
No it's not, 1D6 each result has a 16.7% chance of happening. 2D6 you have a 16.7% chance of getting a 7, but every other result has a lesser chance, thus the variability is higher.

Don't believe me? The variance of 1D6 is 3.5 (std deviation 1.9), the variance of 2D6 is 6 (std dev of 2.4).

Thus 2D6 is more variable.

Yeah, that's a common misconception I've noticed too. It's also an odd comparison - there's no charge distance you're more likely to get with 2D6" than 6"+D6"; a 10" charge goes from 1/12 to 1/2. Sure, you miss the nice bell curve distribution, but the actual variance is quite a lot lower. I also feel like it's a more logical system as it means run and charge are the same thing - a D6 roll - and it also would follow leadership in becoming trait+D6-modifiers rather than a 2D6 test. You could even just completely miss out the charge roll entirely: let units can assault after running with D6" run and there's no need for another movement roll, you could just use the movement trait again. That's actually what I'd hoped for in the first place when they kept running random and didn't say that you couldn't assault after running. Instead, we might even have effective 3D6 variability, which I think is just insane.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

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

People were literally typing that. Maybe you didn't mean it but posts are not made in a hive mind.

At the end of the day random or not is preference. There's nothing factual about M+2d6, 2M or 2M + d6 being better or not.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Then why not something that isn't totally debilitating should you fail. The difference between rolling a 2" and rolling a 12" if vast. Game changingly vast.

Manoeuvre and positioning need to be important. Randomising such a core part of the game (HTH) in every step just seems like bad design to me.

It's not a completely random chance, like a single d6.
It's a bell curve. This means that if you need 6" to make the charge, you have a 83.33% to make it. The difference is now you also have the chance to 8.33% to make a 12" charge.

While yes, you might roll a 2 -- and god knows we have all seen it happen, but in most cases you make the charge. I've also seen that 11"-12" charge work and got some of my units stuck in when no one was expecting.

I hope this is the right thread to ask. What's GW revealing today? Close Combat?

Why do you have to be able to charge within and up to 12" and make a random roll to determine their charge length.

Get rid of the roll all together in the assault phase. You can charge as far as you can move, the only way to make it longer is through your run, or equipment (jump pack of example).

Marines would be able to move 6" and charge 6", with an additional amount for running effecting the first movement. Heck, why randomise the run, just allow units to add an additional 50% of their movement on. Marines would have a maximum area of effect in terms of charging of 15" then, which they would be forsaking their shooting for.

It seems to me that a lot of people would only be happy if they could get the assault 2nd turn and proceed to face roll the whole opposition army.

They all ready seems to be a NERF to shooting in that everything gets a save and most basic weapons seem to lack rend.

Given the whole AoS in space thing I would guess most hth weapons is where the rend is.

 labmouse42 wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Shooting has a fixed range.
Why are running/charging random?

Shooting also has a random element. There is a roll of "to-hit".

Which is also present in melee. Do you actually have a point?

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Why do you have to be able to charge within and up to 12" and make a random roll to determine their charge length.

Get rid of the roll all together in the assault phase. You can charge as far as you can move, the only way to make it longer is through your run, or equipment (jump pack of example).

Marines would be able to move 6" and charge 6", with an additional amount for running effecting the first movement. Heck, why randomise the run, just allow units to add an additional 50% of their movement on. Marines would have a maximum area of effect in terms of charging of 15" then, which they would be forsaking their shooting for.

Because that way Jump troops (with a presumed Mv of 12") would have a guaranteed threat range of 31" ?! How is that in any way sensible ?

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Why do you have to be able to charge within and up to 12" and make a random roll to determine their charge length.

Get rid of the roll all together in the assault phase. You can charge as far as you can move, the only way to make it longer is through your run, or equipment (jump pack of example).

Marines would be able to move 6" and charge 6", with an additional amount for running effecting the first movement. Heck, why randomise the run, just allow units to add an additional 50% of their movement on. Marines would have a maximum area of effect in terms of charging of 15" then, which they would be forsaking their shooting for.

Why roll to hit? Marines hit on a 3+, why not just have half their shots (rounding up) hit?

Why roll for first turn? Why not just both take the first turn

Why deploy your models? Why not just have an in depth conversation with your opponent about your respective army lists and the scenario, and agree a victor?

Why choose an army? Why not just have an exam on the merits and drawbacks of your codex, and present this certificate to your opponent prior to the game?

 insaniak wrote:

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.

Premeasuring and units that move faster than others. You try getting a charge with 5" terminators against units that move 7" or 8".

Furthermore --

2D6 is random - and offers a range of choices.

I can stand at 8", fire flamers, and know that I can be charged with a 58% chance. Or I decide that 12" is better to just rapid fire my bolters (if that is still a thing) and be charged with a 8% chance.

Risk vs reward.


M+D6 is chaotic

If my opponent has a move of 8" I have no choice to use my flamers without risk of being charged.
If my opponent moves 6" there is an 83% chance. We went from 58% to 83%. These are terrible odds to avoid being charged.

If I'm at 12" and they move 8" then it's 50/50. Slightly less risky than using flamers previously.
If they move 6" then it's 33%. Those are ok odds, but in situations where I want to prevent gambling this is not a good choice either.

No risk vs reward. It's mostly suicidal.

M+D6 removes player choice.
Double move removes player choice

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Get rid of the roll all together in the assault phase. You can charge as far as you can move, the only way to make it longer is through your run, or equipment (jump pack of example).

Marines would be able to move 6" and charge 6", with an additional amount for running effecting the first movement. Heck, why randomise the run, just allow units to add an additional 50% of their movement on. Marines would have a maximum area of effect in terms of charging of 15" then, which they would be forsaking their shooting for.

Because that would cripple foot based assault armies and even further benefit mobile assault armies.
Lets say seekers keep a 12" move. This means they would have a guaranteed threat range of 24" every turn.

Lets say orks have a 6" move. They would have a threat range of 12". Under the current system they have a threat range of the following
Threat Range.......Chance of Success
.......9...............................100
.......10..............................97.22
.......11..............................91.66
.......12..............................83.33
.......13..............................72.22
.......14..............................58.33
.......15..............................41.66
.......16..............................27.77
.......17.............................16.66
.......18...............................8.33
The current system helps slower moving assault armies (green tide orks, bloodletters, etc) . Sure, there is a 16.66% of failing that 6" charge, but I'll take that any day if it means I have a 41.66% of making that 9" charge.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I hope this is the right thread to ask. What's GW revealing today? Close Combat?

Yeah, or the Fight phase as they called it.

labmouse42 wrote:Shooting also has a random element. There is a roll of "to-hit".

Oh right, our mistake, we all forgot that the WS stat was purely decorative and that all close combat attacks hit automatically.

I mean, seriously, come on.

Future War Cultist wrote:I hope this is the right thread to ask. What's GW revealing today? Close Combat?

Well, the "fight" phase, which I'm guessing is the same thing. They've hinted it'll be very bloody - frankly, I'm very interested in how both GW and the play testers got to this stage whilst believing assault will be viable considering everything stacked against it.

MaxT wrote:Because that way Jump troops (with a presumed Mv of 12") would have a guaranteed threat range of 31" ?! How is that in any way sensible ?

Well the easy solution to that is that you wouldn't give units a 12" move in such a system? It's rather extraordinary to talk about how unbalanced something would be given that A) we don't know what their movement is going to be at the minute anyway and B) the way you'd balance a 2x Movement system is different anyway.

Why is no one talking about how you can advance THEN charge? Or how you don't have to charge the unit you shot at? These are 2 big changes.

Whilst I find the random charge range somewhat annoying, the alternatives presented here have helped to convince me that it actually is a pretty decent mechanic.

SeanDrake wrote:
It seems to me that a lot of people would only be happy if they could get the assault 2nd turn and proceed to face roll the whole opposition army..

Then you're misunderstanding the complaint.

The issue isn't the distance models can charge. It's that the distance models can charge is variable, and that variable is huge. So the fact that a marine can potentially charge 12" becomes irrelevant, because you have to work on the assumption that it might actually only be 2" instead.

If they just made the charge range 2", that would still be preferable to the current system.

 insaniak wrote:

SeanDrake wrote:
It seems to me that a lot of people would only be happy if they could get the assault 2nd turn and proceed to face roll the whole opposition army..

Then you're misunderstanding the complaint.

The issue isn't the distance models can charge. It's that the distance models can charge is variable, and that variable is huge. So the fact that a marine can potentially charge 12" becomes irrelevant, because you have to work on the assumption that it might actually only be 2" instead.

If they just made the charge range 2", that would still be preferable to the current system.

Personally I am happy with it - you make a informed choice based on the likely outcome - a short charge should work, a medium charge might work and long charge is unlikely.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Shooting has a fixed range.
Why are running/charging random?

Shooting also has a random element. There is a roll of "to-hit".

Which is also present in melee. Do you actually have a point?

With as long as you have played this game, you should know the answer to this.
Assault units can attack in both turns at full WS. Shooting units can only overwatch was BS1. This more than makes up for the needing to use WS to hit in assault -- because you get twice as many attacks.

Daedalus81 wrote:

Premeasuring and units that move faster than others. You try getting a charge with 5" terminators against units that move 7" or 8".

I don't see a problem with faster units being able to outmanoeuvre slower units. That's kinda the point of having faster units.

 insaniak wrote:

If they just made the charge range 2", that would still be preferable to the current system.

Then just pretend it is 2" if that makes you happy. It is the minimum guaranteed range after all. No one forces you to declare charge if the enemy is further than 2" away.

Bull0 wrote:Why roll to hit? Marines hit on a 3+, why not just have half their shots (rounding up) hit?

Why roll for first turn? Why not just both take the first turn

Why deploy your models? Why not just have an in depth conversation with your opponent about your respective army lists and the scenario, and agree a victor?

Why choose an army? Why not just have an exam on the merits and drawbacks of your codex, and present this certificate to your opponent prior to the game?

Spoken like someone who's never played a Euro-style board game. Or chess, frankly. I'm not entirely sure why you think winners are predetermined in a complex game if you know what your actions actually do before you've taken them, but you couldn't be further from the truth. I mean, to be blunt, I don't even know why you're comparing rolling to hit (which is also present in combat anyway) with actually getting your models to do the thing they're designed to do without a random roll, let alone the nonsense about first turns or the hyperbole at the end, but there we go. Once again - the equivalent would be always randomly testing weapon range; do you think you would actually enjoy random gun ranges?

Daedalus81 wrote:
M+D6 removes player choice.
Double move removes plater choice

I disagree. I would say that M+D6 removes choice, 2D6 removes player agency. With the former, you can accurately plan for what will happen with much higher certainty; even in your examples the player is choosing not to use certain things based on assumptions around the opponent's likely army builds. This is strategy in list building. In a 2D6 system, you really have no choice - either the dice will fail you or they won't; there's no tactical decision, your fate is just left to total chance. I do not accept that the latter is anything other than strictly inferior.

DeusExMachin on GW-Fanworld made some nice graphs to comapere different dice rolls for charge








outcome is always the same, except that aiming for 6" charge distance gives you 4 possibilities to fail on 2D6 while just 1 with 2D3*2

or, take the minimum risk, the minimum distance is 4", 6" and 7" (with the 1" melee distance) you can charge.

variation and randomness differs a lot and using 2D6 makes only sense if you want to have the most random outcome without using a D12 and/or to have less than 6" save charge range

it is not about first turn charge wit double movement, but having a more reliable number for your melee units

 labmouse42 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Shooting has a fixed range.
Why are running/charging random?

Shooting also has a random element. There is a roll of "to-hit".

Which is also present in melee. Do you actually have a point?

With as long as you have played this game, you should know the answer to this.
Assault units can attack in both turns at full WS. Shooting units can only overwatch was BS1. This more than makes up for the needing to use WS to hit in assault -- because you get twice as many attacks.

Shooting units can start shooting turn 1 and not waste a bunch of turns getting into position. There's your balancing feature for melee happening twice as often. How does this justify melee having to jump through hoops that simply aren't present for shooting?

There used to be nightfighting rules that sometimes prevented ranged units from shooting at stuff despite it being in range. There used to be morale checks if one wanted to shoot at anything that wasn't the closest unit. THOSE would be analogous to the random charge distance in that there's a "do you even get to try to attack?" moment.

 labmouse42 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Then why not something that isn't totally debilitating should you fail. The difference between rolling a 2" and rolling a 12" if vast. Game changingly vast.

Manoeuvre and positioning need to be important. Randomising such a core part of the game (HTH) in every step just seems like bad design to me.

It's not a completely random chance, like a single d6.
It's a bell curve. This means that if you need 6" to make the charge, you have a 83.33% to make it. The difference is now you also have the chance to 8.33% to make a 12" charge.

While yes, you might roll a 2 -- and god knows we have all seen it happen, but in most cases you make the charge. I've also seen that 11"-12" charge work and got some of my units stuck in when no one was expecting.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Shooting has a fixed range.
Why are running/charging random?

Shooting also has a random element. There is a roll of "to-hit".

I don't think I've ever seen more rage coming out of gunline players than with the primaris power of my Harlequins' phantasmancy discipline.

What do you mean, I'm out of range? I just roll 2d6?? My range could be 4"? What do you mean I don't get to just select another target, you've got 3 other units in range of the number I rolled!

to-hit rolls exist in every form of combat. They're not what's being complained about. What is being complained about is an entirely all-or-nothing, highly variable roll nearly wholly independent of the quality of troop you're using, which determines the success or failure of the unit. The roll doesn't determine whether you succeed, it determines whether you're even allowed to try, which is not present in shooting, when the strongest shooting armies have the same or even higher maximum damage without the need for a random roll. A full Tau gunline can do just as much damage, can table you just as quickly, as a full melee KDK army getting into combat.

I invite all these people telling assault army players to stop complaining to try a simple experiment. Play a game with the following rules, and see whether you enjoy it or not:

All weapons with a 12" range get 2d6*2" range
All weapons with 24" range get 3D6*2" range
All weapons with 36" range get 4D6*2" range
All weapons with 48" range get 5D6*2" range.

If you declare a target and you're out of range, you don't get to fire. Your army will be just as good, if not better, because of the increased maximum ranges you can get! A 12" pistol could DOUBLE its current range, and gets a 14" range on average!

 labmouse42 wrote:

Shooting also has a random element. There is a roll of "to-hit".

CC also has a to hit roll

but how would players feel if the Bolter profile would be:
S4, Range: 4D6, Damage 1

on average you get your 12" rapid fire range, so everything is exactly the same like with fixed 24" but you have more player choice and tactic.....

the_scotsman wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Then why not something that isn't totally debilitating should you fail. The difference between rolling a 2" and rolling a 12" if vast. Game changingly vast.

Manoeuvre and positioning need to be important. Randomising such a core part of the game (HTH) in every step just seems like bad design to me.

It's not a completely random chance, like a single d6.
It's a bell curve. This means that if you need 6" to make the charge, you have a 83.33% to make it. The difference is now you also have the chance to 8.33% to make a 12" charge.

While yes, you might roll a 2 -- and god knows we have all seen it happen, but in most cases you make the charge. I've also seen that 11"-12" charge work and got some of my units stuck in when no one was expecting.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Shooting has a fixed range.
Why are running/charging random?

Shooting also has a random element. There is a roll of "to-hit".

I don't think I've ever seen more rage coming out of gunline players than with the primaris power of my Harlequins' phantasmancy discipline.

What do you mean, I'm out of range? I just roll 2d6?? My range could be 4"? What do you mean I don't get to just select another target, you've got 3 other units in range of the number I rolled!

to-hit rolls exist in every form of combat. They're not what's being complained about. What is being complained about is an entirely all-or-nothing, highly variable roll nearly wholly independent of the quality of troop you're using, which determines the success or failure of the unit. The roll doesn't determine whether you succeed, it determines whether you're even allowed to try, which is not present in shooting, when the strongest shooting armies have the same or even higher maximum damage without the need for a random roll. A full Tau gunline can do just as much damage, can table you just as quickly, as a full melee KDK army getting into combat.

Thank you! The harlequin primaris power is an excellent example of something that would be similar to random charge ranges for shooting. You don't even get to try sometimes, the RNGods just fart on your army.

Eyjio wrote:

I disagree. I would say that M+D6 removes choice, 2D6 removes player agency.

I don't think any of the options presented remove choice. Some remove some of the elements of chance, leaving you with the choice of whether or not charging is a good idea.