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.

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

Indeed for the love of all that is holy or unholy or indeed whatever it is that you love, let us put to rest the argument about random charge ranges. It does none of us any good and we're clearly stuck with the mechanic for at minimum a year. There will be more than enough time to rehash all of it when proposed rule changes are debated a year from now.

 warboss wrote:
Qui Gon Hollow.

Finally. Some damned respect.

Indeed. Enough about X2D6 charges. (Although it is a shame that some people who don't play the game, won't play the game, because of a system which is balanced, sensible, understandable, fun, dynamic, interesting and proven to be the best )

Now that's out of the way, let's agree to disagree on whatever position we may or may not support.
I am interested in an edition where placement and positioning are important - X-wing has plenty of that, and its a good test of skill.
Curious that we haven't seen melee weapons yet. Hmm.

 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?

-=Edit=- Removed the incredibly rude comment. Don't do this again. -Lorek

I had a big mek in mega armour attached to a squad of 3 MKs in a recent game I was faced with a IG command squad and stood next to it was a squad of IG storm troopers.

We had just disembarked and moved within 7" of the enemy my BMMA split from the MKs and declared a charge on the command squad and the MKs declared a charge on the storm troopers, the BMMA roled a 7 and the MKs rolled a 6, I wiped the comand squad in 2 rounds of CC the MKs stood still and recived a 2nd rank 3rd rank salvo and were wiped out in 1 turn.

Now due to the lore of random variable my MKs did not make the charge and got mowed down.

The world is a very random place indeed.

Clicks padlock menacingly.

Can't stay on topic? I'll move this whole thing to the OT Forum. Then you can argue if random charge distances affect the 2018 Florida governor's race.

This isn't aimed at the most recent post, but at the past few pages. Some of you are getting so het* up that you start arguing instead of discussing. Take a deep breath, relax, and think out your next post before posting it.






*I've been in the South too long.

The random charge discussion has probably exceeded its welcome here. There's a thread in 40K Discussions on it, for anyone who wants to continue that particular tangent.


In the meantime - holding for the next preview!

 Azreal13 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
No the whole game is a game and all paths to victory should be roughly equivalent. By putting a layer of random in for Assault that Shooting can simply bypass that, as it stands, isn't the case.

So you think assault is overpowered now that you want to nerf it by giving them some fixed assault range? You do realize that helps shooty armies more than assault right? Shooty armies can easily skirt around with 100% impunity while pouring fire. Assault units goes from having to endure even more shooting before finally manage to corner enemy. Assumign they haven't been blow off by then.

Now at least shooty units either have to choose do they want to maximize firepower or risk getting into combat.

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.

So let's remove all dice rolling from the game.

Problem with no dice rolling there is that then you have players god view that is unrealistic. Like it or not battles don't go as general is planned. Order miscommunications, psychological blocks, unexpected bush etc(battlefield isn't as flat and clear as board suggests. There's small brushesh, uneven ground, slight hills etc) to which soldier could trip slowing charge etc etc.

If troops are moving exactly as commander wants that a) leads to very unrealistic game b) leads to boring one where shooty armies have distinct advantage as they can skirt around. Assault armies would struggle to get into combat. Foot armies would be lucky to get into one on turn 5!



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

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

Which is easily fixed.

- Make charge ranges a fixed distance.

Fixed distances is precisely what would cause the issue...

When they can move within 0.1" optimizing fire without any fear you get that. It's also 100% unrealistic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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'.

There was...

The whole random charges vs non random charges debate is futile and leads to nothing because some people just like it while other people hate it, without a chance for consensus (personally I don't care as long as the game plays well), and with it being a preference thing with no way to prove the other side wrong... keeping that discussion going will just derail the thread completely and result in a lock. We already reached the point of posts consisting of pure hyperbole being tossed out by both sides and comments getting increasingly aggressive.

That said, I am still wondering about the possibility of some weapons having more than one 1" of range. What does that effectively mean? E.g. +2" or even +3" inches on top of the 2D6 result when charging to get into melee? Because especially with single models or low model units I don't see the deal with increased "attack range", when you are stuck in combat and get to attack the bonus seems to be rather pointless. Is it for defending units because they don't have a pile in themselves?

How do e.g. spears and other long reach weapons play out in AoS exactly? What are their benefits both in charging, the first assault phase and in multi-turn fights?

 Kirasu wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Everyone's entitled to their opinion. Forming and expressing that opinion when you know, categorically, that you're not in possession of all the information is just not a very smart thing to do.

But I said "if"! And again, if that aspect of movement and positioning is removed, the edition will be rubbish, a huge step back etc. If.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rippy wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:


I can't really begin to tackle this level of determination to be dissatisfied.

I don't care man, at all. I haven't touched 40k for at least a year, don't buy it anymore, don't even paint what I have. Age of Sigmar and the plastic, soulless artwork in codieces killed my enthusiasm for GW dead. It's a bit sad probably, or would be if I cared a slightest bit.

Anyway, if I get back to playing, I'm 100% certain it won't be with GW rules but either my own or some modified old edition and therefore I can't be dissatisfied. Also, to answer the other guy, can't be a hater either because of how indifferent I am.

It's a purely neutral comment and imo a valuable one thanks to that, you're doing yourself a disservice dismissing it with that simple assumption of bias. Better to think about the implications of further simplification of the already simplistic rules imo, only potential ofc though as I still think vehicles will have varied profiles with weaker rear and sides. Can't dumb it down that much, or can they?

Then why are you in this thread?

Why not? I spent years analysing the game and am interested in strategy games in general, especialy the topic of depth. What GW does with the ruleset is interesting no matter if I play it or not.

Also, maybe I want to reignite that spark? Not sure myself tbh. It is a terribly time consuming hobby.

And yes I'm out anyway. Wish you people that 8th turns out good and you have heaps of fun out of it.

Why do flanking maneuvers matter when there is virtually no other aspect of flanking in the game?

That's not really true. Flanking infantry in cover, you can negate their cover. The way cover worked with emphasis on heroic marines made it less important than it should have been but still, it was there. MCs indeed have no facing and that should change, one should add substantial mechanics instead of removing them.

Actualy, the way cover is supposed to work in 8th (improving the save) makes flanking more important, you always get a bonus for the latter, unless ofc it's also not longer dependent on angle ie hugging cover, you're in cover period or sth. Why improve sth (cover bonus making flanking worth it) and then ruin it (vehicles with same toughness all around).

Kirasu wrote:Why does it matter so much to flank a model with an armor value when "similar" units can't be flanked. By that logic you should give everything a facing and be weaker in the sides/rear regardless of unit type.

Yes facing on everything would be good. To avoid marking and micromanaging infantry, it would be enough to use the mentioned cover mechanics and make charges on models already in combat really devastating, facing really matters in CC and being jumped on the back by a genestealer, already fighting a genestealer should be a death sentence.

Kirasu wrote:
In the current edition of 40k there is NO flanking either because no one uses garbage vehicles, instead all you see are monstrous creatures.

That the current edition is garbage that invalidates entire unit types is no argument for removing depth. Again monstrous creatures should have facing and weaknesess (some guys who appear to have quite a rear like Carnifex or Hive Tyrant, maybe a weaker front and sides heh). Or some rule that makes MCs easier to hit except when you're in their frontal zone and within some threat range. Don't know really, not paid for that but surely one can make up sth better than plain making everything functionaly a token or a paper stand and the whole game a point and click simpleton.

Well, we've been told certain melee weapons and units have an advantage when it comes to fighting order. The two specific examples were Lash Whips and Slaaneshi Daemons.

Looking at AoS, where that mechanism has been lifted from, it seems likely Lashwhips and their ilk, rather than letting your unit strike first, may well force the attacked unit to go last.

If so, that is of course a very powerful ability, particularly for ongoing combats, as it effectively buys you 'me first, me first' for a second round of combat - particularly if weapons do end up having a range like in AoS.

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:
The whole random charges vs non random charges debate is futile and leads to nothing because some people just like it while other people hate it, without a chance for consensus (personally I don't care as long as the game plays well), and with it being a preference thing with no way to prove the other side wrong... keeping that discussion going will just derail the thread completely and result in a lock. We already reached the point of posts consisting of pure hyperbole being tossed out by both sides and comments getting increasingly aggressive.

That said, I am still wondering about the possibility of some weapons having more than one 1" of range. What does that effectively mean? E.g. +2" or even +3" inches on top of the 2D6 result when charging to get into melee? Because especially with single models or low model units I don't see the deal with increased "attack range", when you are stuck in combat and get to attack the bonus seems to be rather pointless. Is it for defending units because they don't have a pile in themselves?

How do e.g. spears and other long reach weapons play out in AoS exactly? What are their benefits both in charging, the first assault phase and in multi-turn fights?

The benefit is mostly being able to have more models strike, kinda like it was in WHFB.

 Not-not-kenny wrote:

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:
The whole random charges vs non random charges debate is futile and leads to nothing because some people just like it while other people hate it, without a chance for consensus (personally I don't care as long as the game plays well), and with it being a preference thing with no way to prove the other side wrong... keeping that discussion going will just derail the thread completely and result in a lock. We already reached the point of posts consisting of pure hyperbole being tossed out by both sides and comments getting increasingly aggressive.

That said, I am still wondering about the possibility of some weapons having more than one 1" of range. What does that effectively mean? E.g. +2" or even +3" inches on top of the 2D6 result when charging to get into melee? Because especially with single models or low model units I don't see the deal with increased "attack range", when you are stuck in combat and get to attack the bonus seems to be rather pointless. Is it for defending units because they don't have a pile in themselves?

How do e.g. spears and other long reach weapons play out in AoS exactly? What are their benefits both in charging, the first assault phase and in multi-turn fights?

The benefit is mostly being able to have more models strike, kinda like it was in WHFB.

There's also the possibility that as per AoS, units not formally engaged in combat, but within their melee range might be able to have a swing. That's dead useful if you take your time to set your formations up to benefit from it.

 Ragnar Blackmane wrote:
The whole random charges vs non random charges debate is futile and leads to nothing because some people just like it while other people hate it, without a chance for consensus (personally I don't care as long as the game plays well), and with it being a preference thing with no way to prove the other side wrong... keeping that discussion going will just derail the thread completely and result in a lock. We already reached the point of posts consisting of pure hyperbole being tossed out by both sides and comments getting increasingly aggressive.

That said, I am still wondering about the possibility of some weapons having more than one 1" of range. What does that effectively mean? E.g. +2" or even +3" inches on top of the 2D6 result when charging to get into melee? Because especially with single models or low model units I don't see the deal with increased "attack range", when you are stuck in combat and get to attack the bonus seems to be rather pointless. Is it for defending units because they don't have a pile in themselves?

How do e.g. spears and other long reach weapons play out in AoS exactly? What are their benefits both in charging, the first assault phase and in multi-turn fights?

Well obvious benefit is that you can pile in more guys into combat with less guys out of reach. Albeit doesn't help much for smaller units. Could also be used to limit number of guys opponent can bring in return and this helps smaller unit. But of course that would assume you can stand at the extent of your range but since you need to get within 1"...Without it say small unit with 3" reach weapons could park 3" from enemy, attack them and large unit, even with 3" pile in, would struggle to get into range to attack back. But as is this won't work all that well.

Yeah h2h weapon ranges would be pretty minor thing in practice. Something like 30 boyz could benefit but of course they have choppas not known for reach

In AoS, it's more useful for support.

For instance, Grots have a 1" range, and Ironguts (mighty, fighty Ironguts) have a 2" range. With a little care, I deploy an effective skirmish screen of squishy little Grots say 1" in front of my Ironguts, or even as a ring. This prevents most units being able to strike the Ironguts, but lets the Ironguts have their say, safe from Battleshock.

With the right units in the right combos, you can create incredibly nasty combat situations for your foe. Whether we'll see this in 40k remains to be seen.

 Lobukia wrote:
@Plumb...

I recommend 1page40k for a good rule set.
Also... I too took a year off. But if gave me more objectivity... not less

Thanks I'll check it, ussualy prefer making up my own rules though.

I am objective enough btw, I hate dumbing down of movement phase in all games, always praise the opposite and wouldn't say it's some extravagant, unfounded criticism.

to add to the calm

Lol at Charles. "Everyone hates it". Doesn't need more than casual browse of this forum to know that's 100% provenly false and not even close of being true.

I like the randomness of charges, but 2D6 is just too random. 6" + D6 charge would be about perfect. You could count on making that 4" charge, but pushing a 10 to 12" charge would still be uncertain.

tneva82 wrote:
Lol at Charles. "Everyone hates it". Doesn't need more than casual browse of this forum to know that's 100% provenly false and not even close of being true.

And a casual look at Everyone Banyan's post history shows us that indeed Everyone (Banyan) hates it.

Alright, I made a poll....

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/724952.page

Doh, missed the existing poll, who decided to name it that and not have good options

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/724840.page

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
In AoS, it's more useful for support.

For instance, Grots have a 1" range, and Ironguts (mighty, fighty Ironguts) have a 2" range. With a little care, I deploy an effective skirmish screen of squishy little Grots say 1" in front of my Ironguts, or even as a ring. This prevents most units being able to strike the Ironguts, but lets the Ironguts have their say, safe from Battleshock.

With the right units in the right combos, you can create incredibly nasty combat situations for your foe. Whether we'll see this in 40k remains to be seen.

Also units like protectors with their 3" range can remain far away from an enemy (as piling in is not compulsory) unit with 1" range (especially if it has been spread thin) hitting the unit with full attacks and getting just few attacks back. This has happened to me many times...

 jamopower wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
In AoS, it's more useful for support.

For instance, Grots have a 1" range, and Ironguts (mighty, fighty Ironguts) have a 2" range. With a little care, I deploy an effective skirmish screen of squishy little Grots say 1" in front of my Ironguts, or even as a ring. This prevents most units being able to strike the Ironguts, but lets the Ironguts have their say, safe from Battleshock.

With the right units in the right combos, you can create incredibly nasty combat situations for your foe. Whether we'll see this in 40k remains to be seen.

Also units like protectors with their 3" range can remain far away from an enemy (as piling in is not compulsory) unit with 1" range (especially if it has been spread thin) hitting the unit with full attacks and getting just few attacks back. This has happened to me many times...

Yeah but as it is we know already that some aspects of h2h are NOT imported from AOS. In AOS you can keep 3". In 40k you have to get within 1" to be in combat so lots of usability goes. Even at best you have at least 1 model within 1" of enemy model and somehow I doubt GW writes rule so that one model HAS to be 1" but rest could be 3" away. Would feel odd.

At first I was sure they would be bringing weapon ranges but on 2nd thought due to what we know about 8th ed rules already and that there's not really THAT much high reach weapons not sure does it really add much. I have suspicion if there's any such rules it's bespoke rules at most.

_edited because the discussion has become pointless by now. So, today's update, eh? Wonder what that'll be?

 Weazel wrote:
I like the randomness of charges, but 2D6 is just too random. 6" + D6 charge would be about perfect. You could count on making that 4" charge, but pushing a 10 to 12" charge would still be uncertain.

I'm happy with random charge. I gave up on the older GW games as the tiptoeing around to stay just outside the predictable charge range, or make sure you got the 'charge' next turn etc made them not 'feel' like wargames. Sure it was a form of tactics, but it felt more like chess than a battle. Having to make decisions based on a less predictable charge distance provides plenty of tactics but with far less gameyness IMO.

You are happy with knowing you can make a some minimum (4") charge? In the teasers so far you have a threat range of Move + 2 + 1 as a minimum, that is your move phase + 2D6 + the 1" range to the enemy model. You still have a minimum 100% threat range. So in your example you know at the start of the turn your 4" move unit can charge that unit that is 7" away. (caveat below)

If it is anything like AoS you there will also be a number of bonuses to that, in AoS banners or musicians often provide another +1", many leaders can provide bonuses, sometimes to many units. Some assault units get larger charge ranges due to 3D6 take highest 2, or other abilities. Battalion bonuses can provide bonuses etc. Then there are other move abilities, so there can be extra movement that not charge related effectively provides more threat range.

Whilst we will have to wait and see, I expect there will be a lot more to who can charge how far if you want to go that way.

caveat from above. I haven't followed close enough, but if like AoS you have to stop at 3" from an enemy in your move phase then without modifiers to the charge roll you will still fail the charge on a snake eyes. For the most part that is a non issue in AoS, as most assaulty units/armies will have a +1 or something.

At the end of the day all the dice do, be it D6 or 2D6, is force you to make decisions based on a probability. Whether you have move +some dice or just some dice you have a range of probabilities to work out and decide on what you are doing.

Move + D6 increases the chance of shorter range charges, and in a move + charge system provides a much wider guaranteed threat range for a given move stat. It might be worth considering that a M + D6 system might have resulted in a lower move rate for assault units in order to tame that, as Move + Move + d6 would have made some units be across the board far to quickly with no major chance of failure.

puree wrote:

 Weazel wrote:
I like the randomness of charges, but 2D6 is just too random. 6" + D6 charge would be about perfect. You could count on making that 4" charge, but pushing a 10 to 12" charge would still be uncertain.

I'm happy with random charge. I gave up on the older GW games as the tiptoeing around to stay just outside the predictable charge range, or make sure you got the 'charge' next turn etc made them not 'feel' like wargames. Sure it was a form of tactics, but it felt more like chess than a battle. Having to make decisions based on a less predictable charge distance provides plenty of tactics but with far less gameyness IMO.

You are happy with knowing you can make a some minimum (4") charge? In the teasers so far you have a threat range of Move + 2 + 1 as a minimum, that is your move phase + 2D6 + the 1" range to the enemy model. You still have a minimum 100% threat range. So in your example you know at the start of the turn your 4" move unit can charge that unit that is 7" away. (caveat below)

If it is anything like AoS you there will also be a number of bonuses to that, in AoS banners or musicians often provide another +1", many leaders can provide bonuses, sometimes to many units. Some assault units get larger charge ranges due to 3D6 take highest 2, or other abilities. Battalion bonuses can provide bonuses etc. Then there are other move abilities, so there can be extra movement that not charge related effectively provides more threat range.

Whilst we will have to wait and see, I expect there will be a lot more to who can charge how far if you want to go that way.

caveat from above. I haven't followed close enough, but if like AoS you have to stop at 3" from an enemy in your move phase then without modifiers to the charge roll you will still fail the charge on a snake eyes. For the most part that is a non issue in AoS, as most assaulty units/armies will have a +1 or something.

At the end of the day all the dice do, be it D6 or 2D6, is force you to make decisions based on a probability. Whether you have move +some dice or just some dice you have a range of probabilities to work out and decide on what you are doing.

Move + D6 increases the chance of shorter range charges, and in a move + charge system provides a much wider guaranteed threat range for a given move stat. It might be worth considering that a M + D6 system might have resulted in a lower move rate for assault units in order to tame that, as Move + Move + d6 would have made some units be across the board far to quickly with no major chance of failure.

Well, I've taken overwatch fire to the face and snake-eyed my charge distance too many times, lol. Call me salty.

tneva82 wrote:

 jamopower wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
In AoS, it's more useful for support.

For instance, Grots have a 1" range, and Ironguts (mighty, fighty Ironguts) have a 2" range. With a little care, I deploy an effective skirmish screen of squishy little Grots say 1" in front of my Ironguts, or even as a ring. This prevents most units being able to strike the Ironguts, but lets the Ironguts have their say, safe from Battleshock.

With the right units in the right combos, you can create incredibly nasty combat situations for your foe. Whether we'll see this in 40k remains to be seen.

Also units like protectors with their 3" range can remain far away from an enemy (as piling in is not compulsory) unit with 1" range (especially if it has been spread thin) hitting the unit with full attacks and getting just few attacks back. This has happened to me many times...

Yeah but as it is we know already that some aspects of h2h are NOT imported from AOS. In AOS you can keep 3". In 40k you have to get within 1" to be in combat so lots of usability goes. Even at best you have at least 1 model within 1" of enemy model and somehow I doubt GW writes rule so that one model HAS to be 1" but rest could be 3" away. Would feel odd.

At first I was sure they would be bringing weapon ranges but on 2nd thought due to what we know about 8th ed rules already and that there's not really THAT much high reach weapons not sure does it really add much. I have suspicion if there's any such rules it's bespoke rules at most.

Well it's not so different, as in AoS you have to finish the charge within ½", so actually you have to be even closer. That doesn't prevent you having the other guys further back and gaining substancial benefits on flanking a shorter reach unit.

That said, having the "engaged range" only in 1" would make supporting other units quite tricky. Stuff like spears on second rank wouldn't work too easily, so it might be that the range of the melee weapons doesn't have so big impact in 40k, which would be a shame as it's really nice mechanic.

I'm 50/50 on random versus set values. As in I like to have both in the mechanic, if that makes sense. Set movement plus D6 is how I'd like it. But, I can live with 2D6 charge ranges. I'm OK with it.

Did they say what was going to be on show today? It's combat weapons isn't it? This should be good. I'm really keen to see if chainswords might get an AP value. I've always felt like they should.

No, today is morale.

CC weapons are Soon™

Thanks Latro, added to OP.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

Did they say what was going to be on show today? It's combat weapons isn't it? This should be good. I'm really keen to see if chainswords might get an AP value. I've always felt like they should.

Morale.