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.

 Azreal13 wrote:


No, I want a game where I lose based on my bad decisions or win based on making good ones. Not one where I experience the wrong end of a run of dice rolls at the wrong moment.

I'm sorry, but you are literally playing the wrong game then 100%

2 D6 is not random. This has been explained countless times on this thread and others. I suggest you read those explanations.

What makes you think I'm playing it?

If the dumb gak continues to outweigh the good progress, I'll just remain not playing it as I have been since early 7th. (Which, incidentally, is one of only two editions that featured random Assault distance, and would likely be in for a shout, alongside 6th, as one of the least popular editions of the game for many.)

What makes me think you're playing it? 12k+ posts on a forum dedicated to the game. I know, silly me right?

tneva82 wrote:
Shooty armies can easily skirt around with 100% impunity while pouring fire. .

Which is easily fixed.

- Make charge ranges a fixed distance.

- Make sure that armies that rely on assault troops have 1: sufficient access to transports, outflanking, deep striking, or other methods of getting across the board faster and/or 2: sufficient toughness to withstand incoming fire and/or 3: enough numbers to ensure that there will be some of
them left by the time they make it into combat.

- Force units to choose between standing still and firing at full effect, or moving and firing at reduced effect.


We've had fixed charge distances before. With a couple of notable exceptions (Eldar and their cheesy Jetbikes) shooty armies skirting around incoming assaulters simply wasn't that big an issue, because while they were busy running away they weren't killing the incoming troops.

 Hollow wrote:
What makes me think you're playing it? 12k+ posts on a forum dedicated to the game. I know, silly me right?

Dakka isn't a 40K forum, and I've been here for years.

Set charge ranges allow for a system to be gamed. Slow the flow and result in pedantic arguments. Things should never be guaranteed in a simulation of conflict.

Luck, change, balancing the odds and thinking on ones feet are all things that 2xD6 charges impart on the game. All good things. IMO.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
What makes me think you're playing it? 12k+ posts on a forum dedicated to the game. I know, silly me right?

Dakka isn't a 40K forum, and I've been here for years.

Speaking of pedantics... now I'm starting to understand why you are so strongly in favour of set ranges.

"I think you'll find that is 5.9 inches! Failed charge! Mwahahahaa"

 Hollow wrote:
Set charge ranges allow for a system to be gamed. Slow the flow and result in pedantic arguments. Things should never be guaranteed in a simulation of conflict.

Luck, change, balancing the odds and thinking on ones feet are all things that 2xD6 charges impart on the game. All good things. IMO.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
What makes me think you're playing it? 12k+ posts on a forum dedicated to the game. I know, silly me right?

Dakka isn't a 40K forum, and I've been here for years.

Speaking of pedantics... now I'm starting to understand why you are so strongly in favour of set ranges.

"I think you'll find that is 5.9 inches! Failed charge! Mwahahahaa"

Funny how for ~15yrs, charge range for everyone (barring special case units and the rare special rule) was set at 6", and there were no complaints of 'gaming the system'.

 Hollow wrote:
Set charge ranges allow for a system to be gamed. Slow the flow and result in pedantic arguments. Things should never be guaranteed in a simulation of conflict.

Luck, change, balancing the odds and thinking on ones feet are all things that 2xD6 charges impart on the game. All good things. IMO.

I guess you have no idea how that sounds... Replace "charge" with shooting. What exactly is the difference? Set shooting ranges allow the system to be gamed also. It is after all a game?

You do realize that you can simply replace the stats of a melee weapon range from "-" to "2D6" and it would be basically the same thing as a "shooting attack". As stated, why does one kind of attack have a random range when the other doesn't? Do you really believe that a salvo from a Riptide Wing formation is weaker than a bunch of loser marines charging with chainswords?

Speaking of pedantics... now I'm starting to understand why you are so strongly in favour of set ranges.

"I think you'll find that is 5.9 inches! Failed charge! Mwahahahaa"

Sorry, I think you'll find that is 12.1 inches? Failed shooting attack? I mean come on, you act like shooting doesn't have the same differences of opinion.

 Hollow wrote:
Set charge ranges allow for a system to be gamed. Slow the flow and result in pedantic arguments. Things should never be guaranteed in a simulation of conflict.

Luck, change, balancing the odds and thinking on ones feet are all things that 2xD6 charges impart on the game. All good things. IMO.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
What makes me think you're playing it? 12k+ posts on a forum dedicated to the game. I know, silly me right?

Dakka isn't a 40K forum, and I've been here for years.

Speaking of pedantics... now I'm starting to understand why you are so strongly in favour of set ranges.

"I think you'll find that is 5.9 inches! Failed charge! Mwahahahaa"

I can't respond to this puerile nonsense without rule oneing everywhere, so that'll do me for now.

 Vryce wrote:
Funny how for ~15yrs, charge range for everyone (barring special case units and the rare special rule) was set at 6", and there were no complaints of 'gaming the system'.

I played for all of those years. (Fantasy as well, for longer) and as others have mentioned, the time it took for people to try and carefully position troops so as to try and game the system, was laborious and sucked a lot of fun out of the game. 2xD6 charge is a better system. It isn't completely random, is faster, dynamic and allows for variation.

The reason it isn't done for shooting is like saying "Why isn't everything just decided with a X2d6 roll" because that would be boring and this is a game. Different things are decided in different ways.

 Hollow wrote:
Set charge ranges allow for a system to be gamed. Slow the flow and result in pedantic arguments.

I'm not seeing how fixed charge distance would cause more arguments than the random system.

Things should never be guaranteed in a simulation of conflict.

That's an argument for everything being random. It's not an argument for some movement being random, and some other movement being a fixed distance.

You get your random effect through the actual combat resolution, or through the application of Overwatch. There is no specific need for the movement to be random... but even if there is, there is no specific need for it to be so random.

A range of a couple of inches would be enough to allow or deny a charge on random chance. A range of 10 inches is just ridiculous.








Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hollow wrote:

I played for all of those years. (Fantasy as well, for longer) and as others have mentioned, the time it took for people to try and carefully position troops so as to try and game the system, was laborious and sucked a lot of fun out of the game.

I saw no particular change in people taking time to position their models when random charge distances were introduced. Whatever system is in place, people who don't want their models assaulted will do what they can to avoid the assault.

I'll say it one more (hopefully last) time. S.L.O.W.L.Y

X2D6 Charges. Is. Not. Random! Understand?

Random implies there is an equal chance of traveling any of the distances potentially rolled on X2D6. There is not. Therefore. It. Is. Not. Random. See?

I played for all of those years. (Fantasy as well, for longer) and as others have mentioned, the time it took for people to try and carefully position troops so as to try and game the system, was laborious and sucked a lot of fun out of the game. 2xD6 charge is a better system. It isn't completely random, is faster, dynamic and allows for variation.

I question pretty much every opinion you've posted in this thread. How does a SET charge distance take MORE time vs a random charge that requires more calculation of probability? All you have to do is put your models MORE than 6" away and voila you cannot be charged!

It's fine to just say "I like random charge because I do" instead of using a bunch of factually incorrect examples to prove your point.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Robin5t wrote:
Wording of the second part is interesting. I wonder if we might see things like spear-type weapons getting a longer reach.

We already have the Custodian Guard with guardian spears which I imagine will get a longer reach.

Its a virtual certainty that there will be melee weapons ranges of 1-3". Large monsters like Greater daemons in AOS can have attack range of 2-3" for there melee weapons. So the larger Nids, and melee walker like the Ork Deff Dred, and Furioso Dreadnoughts will likely have greater reach as well. Then you have things like Grey Knight Halberds, whips, and power lances etc.

The big thing with fixed charge distances was no premeasuring, you couldn't move exactly outside charge range and "game the system" in 40k. You had to eyeball it or go off the knowledge you were out of rapid fire range

 Hollow wrote:
I'll say it one more (hopefully last) time. S.L.O.W.L.Y

X2D6 Charges. Is. Not. Random! Understand?

Random implies there is an equal chance of traveling any of the distances potentially rolled on X2D6. There is not. Therefore. It. Is. Not. Random. See?

Condescension and a complete lack of understanding is such a potent combination.

I'll say it one more (hopefully last) time. S.L.O.W.L.Y

X2D6 Charges. Is. Not. Random! Understand?

Random implies there is an equal chance of traveling any of the distances potentially rolled on X2D6. There is not. Therefore. It. Is. Not. Random. See?

You're confused on the term random. Each D6 you roll is independent of the others and IS random in terms of what result is rolled. You CANNOT predict the outcome and therefore it is random.

However, the PROBABILITY of rolling a 7 is higher because more dice results add up to that.

"Randomness is the lack of pattern or predictability in events. A random sequence of events, symbols or steps has no order and does not follow an intelligible pattern or combination. Individual random events are by definition unpredictable, but in many cases the frequency of different outcomes over a large number of events (or "trials") is predictable. For example, when throwing two dice, the outcome of any particular roll is unpredictable, but a sum of 7 will occur twice as often as 4. In this view, randomness is a measure of uncertainty of an outcome, rather than haphazardness, and applies to concepts of chance, probability, and information entropy."

You cannot predict WHICH result you will get which means, it is infact, random. The only way a charge is not random is if you conduct the same charge A LOT of times... however that leads to...

"The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the mistaken belief that, if something happens more frequently than normal during some period, it will happen less frequently in the future, or that, if something happens less frequently than normal during some period, it will happen more frequently in the future (presumably as a means of balancing nature). In situations where what is being observed is truly random (i.e., independent trials of a random process), this belief, though appealing to the human mind, is false. This fallacy can arise in many practical situations, but is most strongly associated with gambling, where such mistakes are common among players."

The gambler's fallacy is actually a huge problem among wargamers and rpg players because they tend to believe in "luck" or "bad dice" or whatever superstitious BS drives people to discount science :p

 Hollow wrote:


Random implies there is an equal chance of traveling any of the distances potentially rolled on X2D6. There is not. Therefore. It. Is. Not. Random. See?

Its gonna be a bit pedantic, but I disagree. Weighted random is still random.

https://www.mathsisfun.com/definitions/random.html

Without order. Not able to be predicted. Happening by chance.

But there will be an overall structure, such as tending to be within a certain range.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness

Individual random events are by definition unpredictable, but in many cases the frequency of different outcomes over a large number of events (or "trials") is predictable.

A thing can be random and still skewed along a distribution; that's the whole point random walk monte carlo markov chains; you machine learn against a distribution.

 Skimask Mohawk wrote:
The big thing with fixed charge distances was no premeasuring, you couldn't move exactly outside charge range and "game the system" in 40k. You had to eyeball it or go off the knowledge you were out of rapid fire range

Most players with more than a few games under their belt could estimate 8" fairly accurately, from my experience.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hollow wrote:
I'll say it one more (hopefully last) time. S.L.O.W.L.Y

X2D6 Charges. Is. Not. Random! Understand?

Random implies there is an equal chance of traveling any of the distances potentially rolled on X2D6. There is not. Therefore. It. Is. Not. Random. See?

Who was it complaining about pedantry a moment ago?


The fact that there is not an equal probability of getting any of the possible results on the die roll is a part of what makes it pointless. There's no point having a system that gives you a potential 12" charge if you're always going to play on the assumption that your charge is most likely going to be 7-8 inches. Aside from the rare outlier where you try to charge a unit a foot away because it's the last turn and you have nothing to lose, you never actually use that other 4". So it might as well not be there. If the vast majority of the time your charge is going to be 8", you might as well just make the charge range 8" and eliminate an unneccessary dice roll.

 Hollow wrote:
There is. It's called rolling to hit, rolling to would and rolling to save.

Which the assault phase also has. Wanna try again? Maybe this time go for a cogent argument.

 Kirasu wrote:

It's fine to just say "I like random charge because I do" instead of using a bunch of factually incorrect examples to prove your point.

I'm not the one saying that X2D6 is a "Random charge" it's not. That is a factually incorrect statement. I don't see how I have given any factually incorrect examples.

As for anecdotal evidence, my 20+ years experience in gaming has shown me that if you have set ranges, then a lot more time is given towards strategically placing units and trying to guestimate distances. Just ask any fantasy player how long the movement phases lasted with people squinting and trying to nudge movement rays into the perfect distance in order to try and achieve the charge. Boring.

Now, to try and expand on why I think it is entirely reasonable for charges to have a X2D6 charge and for shooting to have set distances.

Firstly. This is game with many different phases, with each phase having it's own little internal dynamics. In order for the game to be interesting, to provide some variation and for each phase to have its own merits, I think having a bit of difference between them is crucial.

As to why I think shooting is fundamentally different in terms of a projectile traversing a distance compared to a "being" traversing a particular distance. Let me give you an example.

Man A stands at point B and shoots a gun across X distance to hit a target. Across that distance, the terrain is rocky in parts, muddy in others with bullets whizzing through the air and every few meters is punctuated with an explosion or corpse. Make man A shoot 10 times and measure how long it takes for the bullet to leave his gun, traverse the distance and hit the target. I'm guessing that the time will be almost exactly the same every time. Bang, bang, bang. Fairly reliable yeah? Now... have man A try and run that distance, time him. Have him do it 10 times. I'm guessing that due to the fact that his movement would be affected by so many more variables, Including the fact that he is a being. The times would not be the same. Infact, I'm guessing they would be wildly different. (Especially that one time when his boot got stuck in the mud and he fell over)

You see. The variables in regards to distance, in being able to be traversed, by a being on the ground and a projectile flying through the air, ARE vastly different. That is why a set range for weapons makes sense and why a charge needs to have something different.

Then why not add random range and/or sight distance to the shooting phase?

That is a factually incorrect statement.

This is a factually incorrect statement. 2D6 is random. It has a set range of results, but as you cannot predict those results, only the probability of the result based upon the range of possible results, it is still random.

 Hollow wrote:

As for anecdotal evidence, my 20+ years experience in gaming has shown me that if you have set ranges, then a lot more time is given towards strategically placing units and trying to guestimate distances.

Which is eliminated by the rules allowing you to measure what you want, when you want. No more guessing ranges.

That is why a set range for weapons makes sense and why a charge needs to have something different.

But if you have set ranges, then a lot more time is given towards strategically placing units and trying to guestimate distances.

 insaniak wrote:

That is why a set range for weapons makes sense and why a charge needs to have something different.

But if you have set ranges, then a lot more time is given towards strategically placing units and trying to guestimate distances.

Yes, that's why you don't want it in every single aspect of the game. Timing. (Also because it actually makes sense in terms of what it is simulating)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
I'll say it one more (hopefully last) time. S.L.O.W.L.Y

X2D6 Charges. Is. Not. Random! Understand?

Random implies there is an equal chance of traveling any of the distances potentially rolled on X2D6. There is not. Therefore. It. Is. Not. Random. See?

Condescension and a complete lack of understanding is such a potent combination.

As is irony and an illusion of grandeur Oh dear.

K so i'm officially petitioning anyone with the ability to do so to lock every thread with the word 'charge' in any of it's posts until at least a month after 8th comes out.

 Hollow wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:

It's fine to just say "I like random charge because I do" instead of using a bunch of factually incorrect examples to prove your point.

I'm not the one saying that X2D6 is a "Random charge" it's not. That is a factually incorrect statement. I don't see how I have given any factually incorrect examples.

There are posts above from Kirasu and davou explaining random. Read them.

Your fall-back argument on incorrectly defining random has no real value on the topic being discussed, which is whether a set charge range could or should be used in 8th edition 40k and why it is better or worse that a 2D6" charge range.

Mchaagen wrote:

Your fall-back argument on incorrectly defining random has no real value on the topic being discussed, which is whether a set charge range could or should be used in 8th edition 40k and why it is better or worse that a 2D6" charge range.

Only 5/6 posts above this one I have detailed exactly why I think that X2D6 charge should be used and why I think it makes sense for it to be used. I suggest YOU read that one.

And this conversation has 0 worth now. Looking forward to the new GW post!

 Azreal13 wrote:


No, I want a game where I lose based on my bad decisions or win based on making good ones. Not one where I experience the wrong end of a run of dice rolls at the wrong moment.

I believe chess is the game your looking for.

Never mind. This thread is pointless.