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.

While reading the latest 8th edition article (link below) i was dismayed to see not much had changed in regards to charging dynamics - at least not with what we currently know.

It looks like charges will still be a base 2d6 movement and either you make it or you don't. As i read it i instantly thought it's a missed opportunity when you have movement ranges in the new edition.

Personally i think 1d6+ the charging units movement is a much better, fluffier and more reliable way to do it. After browsing various sites online I've seen a lot of people saying exactly the same thing.

So i have a proposal, if a significant amount of the 40k player base would prefer something other than 2d6 if that's confirmed as all we get (no other rules to add that seriously effect it) do people think we could gather enough support on an online petition to genuinely make GW change their mind?

Considering they're selling the rules as a 'living document' with regular updates it's suddenly a possibility to actually update it.

I'm just testing the water for public opinion out of curiosity atm.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/01/new-warhammer-40000-charge-phasegw-homepage-post-4/

I'm pretty fine with the 1+2d6

How it is reading on the preview it is 2D6 but you still move either way..

So while it isn't the best result.. I don't mind, if I still move forward

If dedicated assault units get AoS style enhancements (This unit can charge 3D6) I'm fine with it.

By living rulebook I'd imagine we'll get errata, FAQs and 'codex' updates, not changes to core mechanics.
Its too late now, that would have to wait til next edition if it happened.

2d6 is too random for my tastes (even as a Tau player), Move +1d6 is either too strong (faster armies) or too weak (slower armies) and has a linear distribution (Move +1" is as likely as Move +2" is as likely as Move +3", etc.).

I'd rather have 1/2 Move +2d3, rounding up.

That gives most models (5" and 6" movement - speculative, but reasonable IMO) who charge the same mean, median, and mode as 2d6 (7), but instead of ranging from 2" to 12", it would range from 5" to 9". You might end up a bit short, but you'll always be able to engage an enemy 6" away (like the good ol' days, when everyone had set charge distances), and if you roll well, you could get a longer charge off (9" would be up to 150% or more your Move stat).

The distribution of rolls is also useful. The vast majority of the time, you're getting 6-8" charges, so its reliable, but it gives you room for riskier moves (charging something 9 to 10" away) for a potential payoff (succeeding on the charge even from that relatively far distance).

And faster Move models get to be faster on the charge, but they aren't gaining an inch in assault for every inch in move, so even a very fast model (12") is still only reaching a maximum charge distance of 12", though their average charge distance of 10" is undeniably impressive.

As for your concept of an online petition... Eh, I'm doubtful it'll have much of an effect. Also, you're talking about WH40k players and rule preferences - that's so much worse than herding cats, you need to use a logarithmic scale.

double move and no pre measure is what I enjoy more. I loved it in past editions of both wfb and 40k and X-wing proves that it can still work in modern environments.

It really should be a set amount, especially since the Move stat would make it so that it opens up the dynamic that we can have a weird mix of fast assault troops and slow assault troops requiring different skills to get maximum effectiveness.

That and I'm slightly miffed that a unit that can potentially move 7" in the movement phase would theoretically charge the same distance as a footslogger moving at 4" or 3", not to mention randomness always takes out a bit of tactical agency the player might have.

Its kinda odd how assault ranges are randomized while shooting ranges are fixed. Why not randomize both (or none) instead of one.

Even though I also dislike the 2D6 I think it's too early for such polls. We don't know the whole picture yet. Wound allocation and special rules will be very important to see if 2D6 can work or not.

I dunno. I say yes to 2d6 Charge.

Or at least, I don't want to see a guaranteed 25" move-and-charge for things like Thunderwolf Cavalry.

I also wouldn't want a fixed value, it's too easy to evade.

2d6 sounds plenty good to me.

No pre-measurement doesn't really work. So, a random charge range is ok as long as shooting is not as deadly as it is now. Another problem is that they're leaving overwatch and are even making it a bit better. Which is a damn shame.

I think the main reason i dislike it is now we have distinct differences in movement to account for fluff it only seems right it applies to charging. I'm aware there will be other rules added for certain units but as things stand my assault terminators will be moving 5" while we can expect hormgaunts to move double that - and yet we both have the same chance of making or failing a charge.

I don't like the idea of fixed values, it makes stuff too predictible, to keep it interesting i still like the idea of failing a charge once in a while.

However if i was using gaunts and failed a 4" charge i'd be pretty miffed when they moved twice that normally.

Hence 1D6 + M

Despite my initial bias towards 2d6, because that's the way it's always been, I really hate super high stakes single rolls.

I suppose I should clarify that, I don't mind clutch rolls that arise from play, such as does my commander on his last wound make his save, or does that fleeing group rally or run off the board. Clutch Rolls that do not arise as a consequence of the situation on the board drive me crazy, things like mind war, and now that I think about it charge distances. It feel like they cheapen the victory or loss because so much depends on the fall of the dice.

 koooaei wrote:
No pre-measurement doesn't really work. So, a random charge range is ok as long as shooting is not as deadly as it is now. Another problem is that they're leaving overwatch and are even making it a bit better. Which is a damn shame.

I dunno. I use Repentia, who are T3 with Shield of Faith as their only save, and I haven't had a problem with them getting into melee and chopping people up in this edition, so I imaging them being able to charge out of a transport, saving them 2 rounds of being shot at, will only make them better.

I don't feel that overwatch or shooting is "too deadly". In fact, I feel the opposite; that shooting that is supposed to be incredibly powerful and destructive, such as antitank guns, seem harmless.

 Grimgold wrote:
Despite my initial bias towards 2d6, because that's the way it's always been, I really hate super high stakes single rolls.

I suppose I should clarify that, I don't mind clutch rolls that arise from play, such as does my commander on his last wound make his save, or does that fleeing group rally or run off the board. Clutch Rolls that do not arise as a consequence of the situation on the board drive me crazy, things like mind war, and now that I think about it charge distances. It feel like they cheapen the victory or loss because so much depends on the fall of the dice.

It used to be a fixed value.

I don't like it when games come down to coin flips, either, but charging as a whole is fairly safe. I don't have a problem getting my assault units into ranges where they basically can't fail their 2d6 charges.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
No pre-measurement doesn't really work. So, a random charge range is ok as long as shooting is not as deadly as it is now. Another problem is that they're leaving overwatch and are even making it a bit better. Which is a damn shame.

I dunno. I use Repentia, who are T3 with Shield of Faith as their only save, and I haven't had a problem with them getting into melee and chopping people up in this edition, so I imaging them being able to charge out of a transport, saving them 2 rounds of being shot at, will only make them better.

You're a lucky guy - i'm having problems charging anything with meganobz riding trukks. Cause it's either msu shooting or an invisible deathstar that you don't want to charge anywayz.

Simply movement stat again would be good and take out a lot of the unneeded dice rolling.
And would leave the rule space open for some special rules like a tyranid brood leader being able to take a d6 leap with there brood after the charge move

2d6+arbitrary 3inches

 koooaei wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
No pre-measurement doesn't really work. So, a random charge range is ok as long as shooting is not as deadly as it is now. Another problem is that they're leaving overwatch and are even making it a bit better. Which is a damn shame.

I dunno. I use Repentia, who are T3 with Shield of Faith as their only save, and I haven't had a problem with them getting into melee and chopping people up in this edition, so I imaging them being able to charge out of a transport, saving them 2 rounds of being shot at, will only make them better.

You're a lucky guy - i'm having problems charging anything with meganobz riding trukks. Cause it's either msu shooting or an invisible deathstar that you don't want to charge anywayz.

I guess so. Most of the problem is getting things like Repentia into charge range without ending up dead. To this end, I field them in a big blob, and have a lot of other threats that the enemy needs to deal with.

Does anyone realize how dumb M+D6 charge would be. Anything like a bike or a jump pack would basically be able to move and charge any where from 26 to 31 inches a turn. That has greater range than a bolter.

 Venerable Ironclad wrote:
Does anyone realize how dumb M+D6 charge would be. Anything like a bike or a jump pack would basically be able to move and charge any where from 26 to 31 inches a turn. That has greater range than a bolter.

Exactly. As much as it would be fun to have Seraphim, Celestine, and Thunderwolves who can charge further than they can shoot, I think it would be bad for the game if anything could reliably make a 25" charge.

With pistols shooting in cc it can be fun to see more of those double-handflamer seraphims.

Just looked at my old Warhammer 40K Rogue Trader book... For purposes of the charge move, a model's Movement stat is doubled. Considering most models at that time had a Move of 4" or 5" that left most with an 8" or 10" range for making a charge. No pre-measuring though.

{In the best of his Darth Vader voices...} "I find the lack of this option for simply double movement in the poll disturbing!" {End voice.}

But serious though, if there can't be a fixed number depending on movement, both 2d6 flat and 1d6+Movement offer quite similar problems, although the latter mitigates these somewhat by offering a greater minimum charge distance (Move +1, as opposed to simply 2 in the case of rolling Snake-eyes). A 3" Movement Squat (hypothetically speaking) could move 3", then Charge 3", plus a maximum D6 roll of 6". That turn he moved 12" total, having quadrupled his movement for the turn. A hypothetical 7" Movement Howling Bansheecould move 7", then Charge 7", plus a maximum D6 roll of 6". That turn he moved 20" total, not even having tripled her movement for the turn. I know, she moved a total of 8" further than the Squat, absolutely, but relatively I have to call our Squat friend mr. Speedy Gonzales now.
This is further torn apart with a flat 2d6 roll. On that 1 in 36 chance of a roll of 12", Squatty will have moved 15" that turn, and Bansheela just (12+7=) 19"

 Lord Xcapobl wrote:
Just looked at my old Warhammer 40K Rogue Trader book... For purposes of the charge move, a model's Movement stat is doubled. Considering most models at that time had a Move of 4" or 5" that left most with an 8" or 10" range for making a charge. No pre-measuring though.

{In the best of his Darth Vader voices...} "I find the lack of this option for simply double movement in the poll disturbing!" {End voice.}

But serious though, if there can't be a fixed number depending on movement, both 2d6 flat and 1d6+Movement offer quite similar problems, although the latter mitigates these somewhat by offering a greater minimum charge distance (Move +1, as opposed to simply 2 in the case of rolling Snake-eyes). A 3" Movement Squat (hypothetically speaking) could move 3", then Charge 3", plus a maximum D6 roll of 6". That turn he moved 12" total, having quadrupled his movement for the turn. A hypothetical 7" Movement Howling Bansheecould move 7", then Charge 7", plus a maximum D6 roll of 6". That turn he moved 20" total, not even having tripled her movement for the turn. I know, she moved a total of 8" further than the Squat, absolutely, but relatively I have to call our Squat friend mr. Speedy Gonzales now.
This is further torn apart with a flat 2d6 roll. On that 1 in 36 chance of a roll of 12", Squatty will have moved 15" that turn, and Bansheela just (12+7=) 19"

What did you think of my proposal, then?

1/2 Move (rounded up) +2d3

For Move 5 or 6, you get an average 7", ranging from 5-9", with 7" (plus the 1" bubble of engagement) happening 1/3 of the time
For 7-8, add 1", 9-10 add 1", 11-12" add 1", etc., etc.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

What did you think of my proposal, then?

1/2 Move (rounded up) +2d3

For Move 5 or 6, you get an average 7", ranging from 5-9", with 7" (plus the 1" bubble of engagement) happening 1/3 of the time

It's too stable, 80% of the time you will get 6-8"

Even 1/2 Move + 1d6 is better

Interesting, I thought that would have been a strong point, particularly with the "I don't want there to be any randomness to the movement at ALL" camp.

Edit: a strong point because it lessens (but does not remove) the risk element to assault (which, in theory and by GW hints, has substantial rewards) and prevents the sort of oddities where a gaggle of Eldar charge 2" and an Imperial Guardsman charges 12".

 Venerable Ironclad wrote:
Does anyone realize how dumb M+D6 charge would be. Anything like a bike or a jump pack would basically be able to move and charge any where from 26 to 31 inches a turn. That has greater range than a bolter.

You'd be surprised how okay I am with that. A unit with a higher movement, if movement effects running/assault, can be given a higher cost point. 2d6 is "fair", but completely arbitrary. It requires special snowfakes rules to allow better/further charges (which defeats the point of having a movement stat), and the idea that it allows for further charges is bulk because in practive getting that 12 inch charge is less likely to happen than rolling 2 when you don't need it, because when's the last time you went for a 12 inch charge except out of desperation?

Heck, it doesn't even have to be m+1d6. make it a choice between M or 2d6. make it half movement and 1d6. Make it 6+1d6. make it just 6. Anything. ANYTHING, but "2d6 FURGE DUR NURIDURVE"

Until we know what abilities given units have and how command points can effect charges, threads and polls like this are extremely premature and kinda silly

1/2 Move +2d3, rounding up ... sure in a perfect world we could probably do a scaled equation but 8th edition is keeping things simple.

Does anyone realize how dumb M+D6 charge would be. Anything like a bike or a jump pack would basically be able to move and charge any where from 26 to 31 inches a turn. That has greater range than a bolter. - Well more than half the people here prefer it so evidently not them.

The vast majority of units are going to have a movement in the 5-7" area which will make little difference. The units that get the biggest boost from D6 + M are those that are incredibly fast anyway so it's only right they can move further anyway. In 80% of situations units will charge similar distances to they would in the old system anyway, i don't see the problem if bikes make 26" movement in one turn compared to 24".

Until we know what abilities given units have and how command points can effect charges, threads and polls like this are extremely premature and kinda silly ... great opinion, you should probably avoid those with titles like this for a few months.

{In the best of his Darth Vader voices...} "I find the lack of this option for simply double movement in the poll disturbing!" {End voice.} ... I added it for you although i don't think you can vote for it!

I dunno. I use Repentia, who are T3 with Shield of Faith as their only save, and I haven't had a problem with them getting into melee - teach us wise one ... seriously though HOW?

 Lobukia wrote:
Until we know what abilities given units have and how command points can effect charges, threads and polls like this are extremely premature and kinda silly

Oh sure, I agree, this is pure speculation, moaning, and getting upset over nothing on my part they're revealing how the actual assault phase works so my fears could be completely moot by the time I wake up.

But while you might be right, I think there's still an underlining problem there: if assault needs special rules and command abilities to be viable, how's that different then now when you need special rules and psychic powers to be viable?