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.

Be reasonable; 2xM for change would make this game pointless. You'd literally be charging from out of overwatch range for almost all the guns except a few heavies.

 alanmckenzie wrote:
Not a lot of change.

To be honest, I was really hoping for a M+D6 charge range.

i like that but why did they not do it?

 Galef wrote:

Also, I hope that "failed" charges do not FORCE you to move forward. I see a lot of people in this thread saying this is good for the assault unit 'to get closer, at least". but that is actually very bad.
Being forced to be closer means enemy units can just shoot you with more guns/rapid fire, etc.
Sure they will be able to do this be falling back out of combat anyway, but at least that forfeits one of their units.
Failing a charge and still moving forward will mean giving them your unit on a silver platter.

-

I certainly hope it's voluntary too... it should be similar to 7ed run move instead.

However, if true, it'll force your opponent to deal with your unit or expect some crumping on your next turn. That, in itself, is another tactic worth thinking about.

 Galef wrote:


That would give Eldar a distinct 4" average advantage over Ork, meaning they will almost always get the charge and thus go first. This may be 'fluffy' but it isn't balanced, or fun for the Ork player who most likely relies more on assault than the Eldar.
However if both only roll 2D6", that comes out to only a 2" difference which should have as dramatic an effect.

As if the Eldar pays more that movement in points and is less resilient to small arms fire.
But that would be crazy, right?

 Galef wrote:
I
"gunline armies will be a bad idea"

Speculation: This makes me thing that units will be able to pile-in and engage further units I the same turn. So you can have a tough/fast unit hit your lines and just plow through the enemy army in 1 turn. This could be why you get unlimited Overwatch to mitigate that.

-

Mhmm, I was looking for a reason to play my Krieg list more oftern, as I have been playing my Scions more than the Kriegers, welp.

Can't wait to get my entire army get run over by a unit or two.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Galef wrote:


That would give Eldar a distinct 4" average advantage over Ork, meaning they will almost always get the charge and thus go first. This may be 'fluffy' but it isn't balanced, or fun for the Ork player who most likely relies more on assault than the Eldar.
However if both only roll 2D6", that comes out to only a 2" difference which should have as dramatic an effect.

As if the Eldar pays more that movement in points and is less resilient to small arms fire.
But that would be crazy, right?

Not as crazy, apparently, as Orks actually standing a chance against Eldar in 8th edition...

In the current edition match up scatterlaser windriders vs boyz. They'll never even sniff melee combat.

They didn't mention charging the unit you shot at.
Could this mean that obliterating a unit in the way means the next unit in range is fair game for a charge?
Dare I hope?

 Galef wrote:

Rickels wrote:
I feel like I am missing something here. Anyone else worried this is going to turn into another Tau edition?

No more restrictions on overwatch means no one is going to get close to fire warrior/suit armies. Gonna be just Tau on the Table again and that most certainly is not fun.

I read a reply by GW on their Facebook post for this. Someone had a similar concern that gunline armies would just dominiate.
GW replied by saying to wait until tomorrow when they go over the Assault phase and I am paraphrasing, but "gunline armies will be a bad idea"

Speculation: This makes me thing that units will be able to pile-in and engage further units I the same turn. So you can have a tough/fast unit hit your lines and just plow through the enemy army in 1 turn. This could be why you get unlimited Overwatch to mitigate that.

-

they have no idea what played game is, that is the problem when/if they play test they never face the things you then find when you play...cmon guys you should know GW, they are like kids play at their homes, they know just nothing of real played wh40k, so what they say is worth like a fart in the wind..

 blackmage wrote:

they have no idea what played game is, that is the problem when/if they play test they never face the things you then find when you play...cmon guys you should know GW, they are like kids play at their homes, they know just nothing of real played wh40k, so what they say is worth like a fart in the wind..

Did you miss the fact that pulled in TOs and other people to playtest this, or are you disregarding that fact?

 3orangewhips wrote:

 blackmage wrote:

they have no idea what played game is, that is the problem when/if they play test they never face the things you then find when you play...cmon guys you should know GW, they are like kids play at their homes, they know just nothing of real played wh40k, so what they say is worth like a fart in the wind..

Did you miss the fact that pulled in TOs and other people to playtest this, or are you disregarding that fact?

We dont even know what the armies will actually look like. in the context of broken 7th edition yeah these new rules look bonkers but we simply dont know whats going to happen.

 kronk wrote:
Just to pile in, this is a disappointment for me, too. M for movement phase, 2xM for charging would even work in my book.

Thundercav deploy on the line, move 12, charge 24. Hope you like playing hammer and anvil 'cause that's literally the only way that you wouldn't get charged turn 1 every single game.

This is one of the reasons why GW shouldn't listen to their fans.

I think a big thing that effects how much of change this is,is wound allocation.

If you can allocate hits to any model, not the closest first, then I really don't have a problem with this, as it strikes a nice balance of letting units that focus on shooting whittle down melee opponents before they can close in, while still letting melee units get a charge in.

The multiple overwatch thing makes sense in this context as well, as it makes suicide charging units with only one or two models in much riskier as they could very well bite the dust and still let the defenders overwatch, whereas as now you can send a single grot in a charge,knowing that there's a very good chance to prevent the target meaningfully overwatching at all.

If hit allocation stays the same, I'm less sold on the idea...

 Drasius wrote:

 kronk wrote:
Just to pile in, this is a disappointment for me, too. M for movement phase, 2xM for charging would even work in my book.

Thundercav deploy on the line, move 12, charge 24. Hope you like playing hammer and anvil 'cause that's literally the only way that you wouldn't get charged turn 1 every single game.

This is one of the reasons why GW shouldn't listen to their fans.

It's actually longer than that because you finish within 1 inch so 25" And yeah, people get so focused in on eliminating random(which is a bit of a non-starter in a dice game) that they stop thinking about the implications of not only units other than whatever favorite unit they're REALLY writing rules for, but even what COULD be made in the future.

Tying charging to the move stat(at least in all the ways suggested here) would hamstring their ability to make 'fast' units because for every additional inch of movement a model gets it actually moves 2(or 3 or 40 based on some of the suggestions put forward) inches faster.

 Drasius wrote:

 kronk wrote:
Just to pile in, this is a disappointment for me, too. M for movement phase, 2xM for charging would even work in my book.

Thundercav deploy on the line, move 12, charge 24. Hope you like playing hammer and anvil 'cause that's literally the only way that you wouldn't get charged turn 1 every single game.

This is one of the reasons why GW shouldn't listen to their fans.

They already can make first turn charges, Deathpack + Murderpack, funnily enough there's still more terrifying things than a first turn TWC assault.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 Drasius wrote:

 kronk wrote:
Just to pile in, this is a disappointment for me, too. M for movement phase, 2xM for charging would even work in my book.

Thundercav deploy on the line, move 12, charge 24. Hope you like playing hammer and anvil 'cause that's literally the only way that you wouldn't get charged turn 1 every single game.

This is one of the reasons why GW shouldn't listen to their fans.

They already can make first turn charges, Deathpack + Murderpack, funnily enough there's still more terrifying things than a first turn TWC assault.

But that's a guaranteed, completely idiot proof charge that cannot be stopped or avoided or failed in any way and that requires nothing more than the unit at hand. Oh, is the murderpack crazy? Now imagine the muder pack, except double the range it can charge and take away any chance to fail and that's what's being suggested. And not being as bad a 7th is not enough to be a complement.

People are going out of their way to try and make 8th worse than 7th and I have never had a more heartfelt understanding for why they ignored their community for all these years.

First turn assault armies are as bad to the game as shooting armies destroying the enemy army in the first turn.

If you eliminate the manouvering, use of cover, and movement of this game, it just becomes a dice fest with 0 player interaction.
I don't think if people is actually knowing what all those bufs of: charge= movementx2 or movement+1d6, etc... will mean to the game.

Put me down in the "I prefer reliability over randomness in the balance between the two" camp. Tau may not assault much (aside from the occasional Shotgun Stormsurge Stompin'), but we do tend to have a heckuva lot of jump jet battlesuits, and though getting the occasional 12" scoot-away-from-the-approaching-melee-deathball is nice to have, I really would prefer to have kept the reliable 6".

That said, randomness has its place IMO, and being forced to adapt to unfortunate evolving circumstances can make for some entertaining moments. Without randomness, my wrecked Hammerhead's Gun Drones could never in a million years have killed a 4th edition Fateweaver in CC...

My personal preference (probably going to be unpopular for some, given the slightly-more-complicated nature of rolling a d3, and consequently not-so-attractive to GW and their push towards simplification) would be to move towards something like:

Half-Move rounded up +2d3.

For your average (5" to 6") Movement stat models, you're looking at charges that, on average, are equal in speed to the current 2d6 (5 or 6 divided by 2 rounded up = 3, average of 1d3 = 2, so 3 + 2x2 = 7; compared to average of 1d6 = 3.5, so 2x3.5 = 7). But instead of the miserly minimum of 2" and the masterful maximum of 12", you end up with a much more reasonable range of 5" to 9" in which the majority of rolls will end up at 7".

Eldar (rumored to be 7") would be 6" to 10" on the charge, averaging 8". Respectable.

Take something like a hypothetical Thundercav's movement (12"), and you're seeing a minimum of 8" and a maximum of 12" for the charge, with a happy little average of 10" on the charge.

Better than they are now, but still not quite as bad as a guaranteed 24+1"/36+1" charge, nor as unreliable as a 14-24+1" charge.

Being a Tau player, I'd want something similar for my Battlesuit's Jump Jet movement, of course...



Speaking of being a Tau player, and acknowledging (for both good and ill) that there's a LOT that hasn't been revealed that can (and per GW's facebook, will) make assault more effective in 8th edition...

Man, I'm really, REALLY liking the fact that the Tau can actually pull off Kauyon-esque maneuvers now in the way they're intended. Dangle juicy targets in the front, reel them into assaulting (and thereby separating themselves from their allies), pour overwatch into the assaulting unit, and if the bait survives... withdraw back during my own turn to expose the enemy to the trap I've laid.

Do not doubt that I don't want my army to be broken (I'm rooting for the sort of assault rules that would balance well against the Tau), but it'll be nice for the Tau to finally have a way to execute their fluff tactics in game that don't involve cursing the inclusion of Defensive Grenades because the enemy assaulting unit might not wipe my bait unit out.

Do we even know that charging is separate from the movement phase in 8th? I don't really understand why they're distinct in 7th. Almost every game I play, including WFB, treats movement phases as, well, the movement phase where units move.

If charging happened in the movement phase so that charging was the only movement a unit performed we could all be happy with movement plus a d6 or doubled for a charge.

 Galas wrote:
First turn assault armies are as bad to the game as shooting armies destroying the enemy army in the first turn.

If you eliminate the manouvering, use of cover, and movement of this game, it just becomes a dice fest with 0 player interaction.
I don't think if people is actually knowing what all those bufs of: charge= movementx2 or movement+1d6, etc... will mean to the game.

Only if you put no thought into tactics before deploying.
There's a simple consideration that stops the fastest and even the meanest melee unit cold - the game is a maximum of seven turns.
A smart player sets up terrain and his/her units so any melee unit can kill a maximum of one unit per turn. How many places can a Deathstar be at once?

Audustum wrote:
Honestly, as an assault army players, I like these rules. I don't 'get' why everyone seems so bent out of shape about it. Overwatch is good (and logical). Rolling 2D6 makes sense because this is, after all, a dice game.

I'm all for it. Plus remember, you can assault out of like every transport now.

I keep hearing people say this and I keep asking them to please tell me where Warhammer community said that, because I have been following them fervently and I have read no such things. And people just keep saying its on the website, but I can't find it, so I'm assuming it is a false rumor.

I hate to bring up real life, but how many out there have charged at an apposing force in full combat gear.

I have, 65lbs of Armor, Shield and Sword. I have been in the armor and stood on the side as a Marshal. If you charge a shield wall multiple times with multiple combatants on your side (Like what happens at Wars) and try to keep cohesion you move at the movement rate of the slowest member of your squad and sometimes you have slow people, small divots caused by rodents, casualties from bow fire and even in response to your opponents defensive posture. A lot of the time it is not the same person with each 'Charge' that is the slow one. I know that I have been the one in the front waiting on the others and the one holding everyone back. Assault is about Timing and then impact.

If you all just Charge as individuals, you die in their spears, one at a time. Well trained Soldiers would make sure they work as a group, so they will move as a Unit.

 Tsol wrote:

Audustum wrote:
Honestly, as an assault army players, I like these rules. I don't 'get' why everyone seems so bent out of shape about it. Overwatch is good (and logical). Rolling 2D6 makes sense because this is, after all, a dice game.

I'm all for it. Plus remember, you can assault out of like every transport now.

I keep hearing people say this and I keep asking them to please tell me where Warhammer community said that, because I have been following them fervently and I have read no such things. And people just keep saying its on the website, but I can't find it, so I'm assuming it is a false rumor.

They showed a statline for a Dreadnought with wounds, toughness and saves instead of AV and Hull Points and underneath it confirmed that AV was gone.

...Huh. I just realized something having to do with Overwatch and Template weapons.

Template weapons now have a range. Template weapons now have a RANGE. That means they may not be able to fire in Overwatch at all if you charge from outside of 8" range.

My dream of a 9 man dual-flamer crisis suit squad hopping around and firing Overwatch after Overwatch while laughing maniacally is destroyed before it ever had a chance to live... Dang.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
They showed a statline for a Dreadnought with wounds, toughness and saves instead of AV and Hull Points and underneath it confirmed that AV was gone.

I would say it doesn't 100% confirm Vehicle AV is gone. It just confirms that Dreadnoughts have been made into normal statlines.

Tho, when you think about it... Dreadnoughts (and other Walkers) were never REALLY Vehicles. Until we see a normal Vehicle, it might not be 100% confirmed.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
...Huh. I just realized something having to do with Overwatch and Template weapons.

Template weapons now have a range. Template weapons now have a RANGE. That means they may not be able to fire in Overwatch at all if you charge from outside of 8" range.

My dream of a 9 man dual-flamer crisis suit squad hopping around and firing Overwatch after Overwatch while laughing maniacally is destroyed before it ever had a chance to live... Dang.

8 is still pretty far for a charge. Especially with difterrain giving an extra -2. It's like 1/9 chance of success.

 koooaei wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
...Huh. I just realized something having to do with Overwatch and Template weapons.

Template weapons now have a range. Template weapons now have a RANGE. That means they may not be able to fire in Overwatch at all if you charge from outside of 8" range.

My dream of a 9 man dual-flamer crisis suit squad hopping around and firing Overwatch after Overwatch while laughing maniacally is destroyed before it ever had a chance to live... Dang.

8 is still pretty far for a charge. Especially with difterrain giving an extra -2. It's like 1/9 chance of success.

True, though I'd be absolutely surprised if bespoke rules didn't include ways to make an 8" charge more reliable.

Also, as a Tau player, I was referencing Supporting Fire, which can leave the supporting Overwatch unit anywhere from an inch to 6 inches (or 12 with the right formation) away from the unit being assault.

In AoS does a victorious unit get any kind of bonus move for wiping out an enemy unit in assault?

I am wondering if the reason for the multiple over watch and the random charge distance is that units in 40k will be able to make a bonus move of some kind and rush out of one successful assault into a fresh combat. That GW are trying to balance that out.

I am scratching my head at the prohibition on moving within one inch of an enemy you aren't assaultin. Didn't we have that a couple of editions ago and it was found to be exploitable?

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

 koooaei wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
...Huh. I just realized something having to do with Overwatch and Template weapons.

Template weapons now have a range. Template weapons now have a RANGE. That means they may not be able to fire in Overwatch at all if you charge from outside of 8" range.

My dream of a 9 man dual-flamer crisis suit squad hopping around and firing Overwatch after Overwatch while laughing maniacally is destroyed before it ever had a chance to live... Dang.

8 is still pretty far for a charge. Especially with difterrain giving an extra -2. It's like 1/9 chance of success.

True, though I'd be absolutely surprised if bespoke rules didn't include ways to make an 8" charge more reliable.

Also, as a Tau player, I was referencing Supporting Fire, which can leave the supporting Overwatch unit anywhere from an inch to 6 inches (or 12 with the right formation) away from the unit being assault.

Well, if you think about it. It would need to be a 9" charge, since if you're 8" then I'm setting you on fire.

However, that then assumes I'm placing my Flamers in the front. Which means you could have just shot them before the assault regardless.

I do think it will be an interesting dilemma, but it makes sense not to want to run directly into a unit with 10 flamethrowers creating a death wall of fire.

 Galef wrote:

Rickels wrote:
I feel like I am missing something here. Anyone else worried this is going to turn into another Tau edition?

No more restrictions on overwatch means no one is going to get close to fire warrior/suit armies. Gonna be just Tau on the Table again and that most certainly is not fun.

I read a reply by GW on their Facebook post for this. Someone had a similar concern that gunline armies would just dominiate.
GW replied by saying to wait until tomorrow when they go over the Assault phase and I am paraphrasing, but "gunline armies will be a bad idea"

Speculation: This makes me thing that units will be able to pile-in and engage further units I the same turn. So you can have a tough/fast unit hit your lines and just plow through the enemy army in 1 turn. This could be why you get unlimited Overwatch to mitigate that.

-

In practice only one extra unit taken out of shooting for a turn. You kill unit, you engage another, another unit retreats exposing your unit to shooting. Shooty armies would have layered lines to minimize amount of damage you can do assuming you succeed in consolidiating into another unit(likely another random distance roll)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:
Just to pile in, this is a disappointment for me, too. M for movement phase, 2xM for charging would even work in my book.

So total of 3M if you charge for turn? Too long quaranteed move.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 Galas wrote:
First turn assault armies are as bad to the game as shooting armies destroying the enemy army in the first turn.

If you eliminate the manouvering, use of cover, and movement of this game, it just becomes a dice fest with 0 player interaction.
I don't think if people is actually knowing what all those bufs of: charge= movementx2 or movement+1d6, etc... will mean to the game.

Only if you put no thought into tactics before deploying.
There's a simple consideration that stops the fastest and even the meanest melee unit cold - the game is a maximum of seven turns.
A smart player sets up terrain and his/her units so any melee unit can kill a maximum of one unit per turn. How many places can a Deathstar be at once?

3 TWC is not much of a death star and terrain etc doesn't really matter much as protection when you charge 37" pulping down shooty army unit without effort(sure 3 TWC isn't much of a monster unit. But beats anything shooty units generally offer).

37" quaranteed charge is "bit" extreme.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 Tsol wrote:

Audustum wrote:
Honestly, as an assault army players, I like these rules. I don't 'get' why everyone seems so bent out of shape about it. Overwatch is good (and logical). Rolling 2D6 makes sense because this is, after all, a dice game.

I'm all for it. Plus remember, you can assault out of like every transport now.

I keep hearing people say this and I keep asking them to please tell me where Warhammer community said that, because I have been following them fervently and I have read no such things. And people just keep saying its on the website, but I can't find it, so I'm assuming it is a false rumor.

They showed a statline for a Dreadnought with wounds, toughness and saves instead of AV and Hull Points and underneath it confirmed that AV was gone.

I think he's referring to I'm all for it. Plus remember, you can assault out of like every transport now.

Wounds, toughness etc dont' funnily enough mean you can charge out of rhino any more than in 7th ed. Last time I checked that is not feature of having AV rather than T&W...

Correct me if i'm wrong.

But.

You can select any unit within 12″ as the target of your charge, and your units will move towards them 2D6″.

The word 'move' would appear to indicate that the models relocate even in the case of a failed charge.

This would be a Big Deal, and i'm 100% behind it.