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.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
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.

Doubtful GW would have divide calculations required to figure out charge roll. More likely would be them putting charge distance modifier into stat block so movement would be like 7/4 etc.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
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.

This is superb!

Edit... Oh begger - I voted on the poll for M +1d6 when I thought it was 1/2M +1d6. Average on a 5"/6" goes down half an inch - but worth it for the reliability.

2D6 is fine - but I am pretty casual - played a couple of games on Thursday and both sides dice rolls were shocking so quite amusing.

The only other option I think is 6+D6 for all units.

M + 1D6 is huge for high move units - remember that we might have nits with base Move of 12" or higher (AOS does)

Same issue with Mx2

Might be having first turn charges at more than 36"

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

Personally - that's two complicated.

I mean, it's too late...the rules are probably already written and printed and ready for shipping. Maybe in an Errata in a few months?

Anyway, this is the best of both worlds, imo, assuming charge is its own phase after movement, make it 3" + 2D6 and discard the lowest die roll. Possibly M + 3" + 2D6 discard lowest die roll. Or double movement + 2D6 and discard lowest die roll, etc.

Either way, just add the discard lowest die roll. It still has the random factor that GW appears to want, but it has internal balancing to reach the median w/o being too swingy as a static 2D6 (+ anything) or D6 (+ anything) would be.

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:
I mean, it's too late...the rules are probably already written and printed and ready for shipping. Maybe in an Errata in a few months?

Anyway, this is the best of both worlds, imo, assuming charge is its own phase after movement, make it 3" + 2D6 and discard the lowest die roll. Possibly M + 3" + 2D6 discard lowest die roll. Or double movement + 2D6 and discard lowest die roll, etc.

Either way, just add the discard lowest die roll. It still has the random factor that GW appears to want, but it has internal balancing to reach the median w/o being too swingy as a static 2D6 (+ anything) or D6 (+ anything) would be.

It kind of over complicates it and would cause even more of a problem with the highest movement units people are already concerened about if it were M + D6". If you're discarding lowest rolls to counter unreliability then 3 D6 discard the lowest would be much simpler, none of the 2/3d6 soloutions get overthe fact you can always roll all ones.

Any charge rule with M + X would be too strong because they said you can only charge if you are within 12″ of an enemy unit.

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

Bikes or other high movement units (if they keep their 12″ move) would have a guarenteed charge without even rolling dice.

In my opinion 2D6 is not perfect but it works rather well.

Why not make it D6+Move but you must do it at the start of your turn, like it is in Shadow War?

I prefer either your movement OR 2D6


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or D6 + movement up to 12"

If you just use the movement stat for charging, slow units might never charge because the enemy could just move out of their charge range.
2D6 add some randomness that is needed to prevent charges and successfully charge.

I assume that like AOS they will have some units with 3D6 for charge, re-rolls, minimum charge distances etc.

 Mr Morden wrote:


M + 1D6 is huge for high move units - remember that we might have nits with base Move of 12" or higher (AOS does)

Same issue with Mx2

Might be having first turn charges at more than 36"

This could be easily fixed by only allowing units to charge in a straight line if they wish to charge more than their movement stat.
it would suddenly make screening units and trying to out maneuver units a thing again. To clarify double move assault move would be instead of moving normally in the movement phase.

I wish I could charge as fast as a turbo boosting jetbike. U.Bolt eat your heart out!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
How about basically giving everyone 3d6 discard lowest?

If people are worried about charges being too unreliable you could always make it 3d6 + pick the two highest.
More chance for a decent charge but not completely removing the randomness.

Edit: Ninja'd

I keep seeing all these suggestions of move+D6, 1/2 move + 2D3, etc. But the way I see it units are charging move+2D6, your just moving in the move phase. All this talk of faster units needing their speed represented in their charges doesn't make much sense to me when their outrunning slower units it'll the move phase anyway. If Gaunts have 8" move then their still charging further than move 4" Necrons in a turn unless theres some extreme dice rolls.
I always pictured the random charge move as not a limit on how far the unit can physically move, but whether or not they make the decision in that moment to risk the charge. If it's a long way the unit might rethink it, but a short way is much more inviting.

Poly Ranger wrote:
I wish I could charge as fast as a turbo boosting jetbike. U.Bolt eat your heart out!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
How about basically giving everyone 3d6 discard lowest?

What if they just give that rule to a few units who are known for their fast charges?

I'm quite happy with 2D6, especially with it being effectively 2D6+1 which is a big boost. It just works better with premeasurement, and important chance based tests work better with multiple dice probability (not 1D6+X).
Movement stat based charging just leads to rich(high ms models) get richer poor get poorer, painting game design into a corner.
No, 2D6 is the best base to build this part of the game off of.

We still have to see how casualties from overwatch are to be resolved, and what sort of modifer rules to charging that units will have access to in their special rules.

Make it fixed. I think Azreal13 was mentioning how Dreadball has two movement stats for a normal and fast pace. I think such a system would be ideal, but given 40k's size/scale, double movement doesn't seem unreasonable to me assuming most models are 6" or less movement.

I strongly dislike random mechanics for the sake of being random, and fixed charges worked well for a few editions prior to 6th, so I'm happy with anything from fixed 6" to double movement.

I wouldn't mind movement +6", but I'd prefer a fixed number. 40k needs less dice rolling.

 Fentlegen wrote:
I keep seeing all these suggestions of move+D6, 1/2 move + 2D3, etc. But the way I see it units are charging move+2D6, your just moving in the move phase..

I totally agree this is why the 2x move isn't such a radical idea at all.

As mentioned din other threads, M + D6 is an absolutely terrible idea as it can easily be abused by units that have a natural M of 12" or more, and M + D6 was probably only thought of with 5-7" movement in mind. 6 + D6 is a much more reasonable alternative. Unless that's taken as an acceptable compromise, I'll have to stick with no change to prevent heavy abuse of extra high movement stats.

We also not considering that AOS has extras which may well need be considered in a assessment if they are included:

So some units roll 3D6 for charge range (still max 12") some have minimum charge distance - so they always charge 5 " etc
Some have re-roll one or more dice.

There are lots of ways to make dedicated / fast Assault troops work within the +2d6 system.

6" + d6 sounds nice. Not as strong as M + d6 for very fast units and not as weak for slow units.
It maintains a degree of randomness with less variance than 2d6 and has a decent minimum range.

I voted for the 1d6 + M but only because it would be consistent with my groups wishes that Initiative/Movement or whatever for hth would be a d6+M to determine who goes first.

Some randomness is always a good thing and keeps those meta gamers from laying out too much of a sure thing when calculating.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:
Make it fixed.


I wouldn't mind movement +6", but I'd prefer a fixed number. 40k needs less dice rolling.

See the extreme fun of 2nd edition was the pure randomness of a dice game! We don't play chess we play a tactic game that always has a chance to blow up in your face. The best moments of game play are those out of the ordinary events that you talk about for years. Why... cause of dice rolling.

I don't want the game dumbed down too much and then it becomes just mathematics.

C'mon man, we haven't even seen the full rules yet. While I agree that I'd rather not have the 2d6" charge range, we don't really have enough knowledge or practice with this set to say whether or not that's a bad thing. 1 inch extra to your charges is a big deal, and while I hate "infinite overwatch", it just means you can't bait an overwatch and really should try to lock in with the closest unit first (not the furthest).

We don't really know. Once we do know, then I'll be happy to complain, but until then let's see how it goes!

 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.

Bikes and jump infantry are fast.

That's the whole point.

"Jets can fly! Does anyone realize how dumb flying from Chicago to LA would be when I have to ride in mom's minivan?"

 PimpMasterGeneral wrote:
Any charge rule with M + X would be too strong because they said you can only charge if you are within 12″ of an enemy unit.

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

Bikes or other high movement units (if they keep their 12″ move) would have a guarenteed charge without even rolling dice.

In my opinion 2D6 is not perfect but it works rather well.

but can you imagine your bikers going full throttle accrose the battlefield with the enemy in their grasp .....and....puttputtputt, after racing super fast and hard over the battlefield they roll 3" on the dice. Why would the entire bike squad suddenly drop to low gear and throttle down????? Perhaps a Mommy cat and kittens were crossing the path and they slowed down not to run them over before engaging those cultist.

Just a super low result on 2d6 would sour a lot of people. Unless you got your minimum move as a charge no matter what you rolled.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 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.

In 2nd edition games you could pop combat drugs and get well over 24" on some models. Overwatch was the answer.

It was often seen that some bikes could go 35 " and shoot or drive by. None of those maneuvers ruined the game.

You could take a bike with super charged engines and Fast Speed go over 40", jump off, take a str 10 hit. then pop combat drugs and charge like 24".

With the threat of an enemy monster piece up in your face everygame, it forced you to take a balanced army. YOU needed to have some hth answer if you were an all shooty force.
There is nothing I like less to play against than an all hth or all shooty army. Like Chess an all pawn or all rook enemy piece set up would be extremely boring.

The Force organization chart is a tiny start in making a balanced army. I think their focus needs more in that regard.

 kronk wrote:

 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.

Bikes and jump infantry are fast.

That's the whole point.

"Jets can fly! Does anyone realize how dumb flying from Chicago to LA would be when I have to ride in mom's minivan?"

One thing being fast. Another being able to reliably bypass basic weapons from ever getting to shoot at you.

Sure have that fast units then. Provided we increase weapon ranges for realistic ranges(so bolter like 100") and increase board size.

 kronk wrote:

 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.

Bikes and jump infantry are fast.

That's the whole point.

"Jets can fly! Does anyone realize how dumb flying from Chicago to LA would be when I have to ride in mom's minivan?"

You're not thinking like a game designer and that's where your point falls down.

Fast units are already factored with a representative advantage in the movement phase, and there's a typical wargame mini-meta established there with slogger infantry(slowest but cheapest), purchasable transports that offer speed and protection, and effectively augmented infantry(jumppacks/bikes) often as a kind of halfway point.

You're wanting to introduce a new blanket extra advantage to one of those types of unit in the charge phase for (reasons?) This actually limits the design/player choice because you're creating a sort of 'Eldar Scatterbike' thing where it's pointless to take anything assault orientated that doesn't move minimum 10" in the movement phase; you're also introducing a wider gulf in battlefield options available to 'fast' armies and 'slow' armies - rich get richer, poor get poorer, this means you'd have to alter the system design in other places to get balance, which might mesys up various army concepts in other ways, perhaps even removing some from viabilty all together

The better way to design the system is a simple equitable mechanic like example flat 6"(invariable) or 2D6 (variable) across the board, and then introduce special rules to individual units to represent their capabilities, increased player options and/or flavour. Example, bloodlusted Khorne Beserkers or drugged up DE Wyches get +D6 (3D6) charges, Rough Riders get M+D6, fanatical Black Templars add 2 to charges, and so on.

I expect bikes will charge 3D6" inches, max 12"

AOS style.

 PimpMasterGeneral wrote:
If you just use the movement stat for charging, slow units might never charge because the enemy could just move out of their charge range.
2D6 add some randomness that is needed to prevent charges and successfully charge.

It should not really be a issue, If GW is looking to balance things out it serves a lot to give much needed variety in units without much rules.

If missions are well designed to make a strong front line in the game it should give even slow units there place to shine.

I am really torn on this.

On the one hand, D6+M makes totally sense. It incorporates the new M stat and also removes the need for 'faster' models to need a "Fleet" mechanic to represent that they are better at moving.
Less rules = more fluid game play. Or at least it should

But on the other hand, 2D6 charge is more fair as it gives all melee units the same distance.
What if Orks only get a 5"M and Nids have a 7-8" moves.
D6+M charges would give a noticeable advantange to the Nids.
Remember that we can still move in the movement phase, so models that have higher M stats will get a double bonus if charges are D6+M.
2D6 charge range may be a good deal more random, but it makes melee units more balanced compared to other melee units.

D6+M would have been cool, but I am ok with 2D6" charges

-