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.

2D6 sounds fine to me, especially as the charging unit attacks first.

Kataklysmic wrote:
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/

Yea, you aren't gonna win here if what poll says is true.

 admironheart wrote:


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.

Different strokes and all that, but I can assure you that random =/= tactical.

The random elements inherent to most wargames (shooting and damage resolution to some capacity through hit/wound/save rolls primarily, and leadership generally) are already good enough to represent the nuances and vagaries of combat. In order to be tactical, you need to have some measure of control over the events unfolding on the table. Taken to an extreme, a game where your models moved a random amount in a random direction and shot a random range with a random weapon at a random unit would be just about the least tactical exercise you could come up with. Likewise, the idea isn't to turn 40k into chess with fixed armies and movement restrictions, its to mitigate unnecessary random dice rolling that adds zero tactical depth.

Currently, if I move a unit exactly 3" from an enemy unit and want to charge them, I'm more or less guaranteed to get there...except if I flip snake eyes. Now I eat overwatch, then the next round of shooting, then maybe a counter assault. All because I failed a charge roll that I otherwise planned almost perfectly. In prior editions (and most other games) actions like that would be fixed, so that I correctly maneuver into a position, I get the reward of doing more damage. BFG has boarding and teleport attacks (similar to close combat in 40k) and those values are fixed. Not a single person ever has ever played it and legitimately thought "Gee, this would be better if I had to make a D6 roll to determine the range of my teleport attack". Its a waste of time and offers no tactical depth.

A fixed number allows for actual planning in movement (which is by and large the most important and tactical part of most wargames, 40k excluded because of the way terrain is commonly used and the size of the board vs model count and weapon ranges/modifiers) while a random roll either rewards people by declaring a crazy 10"+ charge and rolling box cars, or failing some sub 6" charge because of gak luck.

Let's be clear though, random can be fun. In the right cases, with the right people, playing a game based more on random chance than tactical decision making can be fun and enjoyable. I don't doubt at all that 2nd was a riot. But in today's day and age where we're flooded with dozens of wargames, GW has to decide if it's going to be more tactical, and more fluff and loosy-goosy. If its the former, make charging less random or entirely fixed. If its the latter, keep 2D6".

I would rather it be M+1d6. 2 - 12 inches is too unpredictable.

Other aspects of the game are based on odds, and you always know what your chances are of pulling them off. If I have a 2+ to hit roll, odds are pretty good something gets hit, if it's 5+, then I would need a lot of them to do some damage.

The charge range is too unpredictable for me. I play assault style armies and don't like the idea that the odds of making anything over 7 inches vary that wildly. With the introduction of movement stats, I don't like the idea that every unit is going to charge the same range - it doesn't make sense.

Random IS tactical. Go play a few games of Blood Bowl and come back once you've seen games can be built entirely around risk management. Understanding the risks of failing an action based on dice, knowing the probabilities of success and making the decision to take the risk or not are good skills, and I'm glad charging involves that type of skill in what otherwise otherwise would devolve into a point-and-click game.

 KommissarKiln wrote:
Random IS tactical.

Okay cool i'm gonna roll 10 dice, i want you to tell me the results beforehand ... what are your tactics?

Kataklysmic wrote:

 KommissarKiln wrote:
Random IS tactical.

Okay cool i'm gonna roll 10 dice, i want you to tell me the results beforehand ... what are your tactics?

Yahtzee!

 techsoldaten wrote:
I would rather it be M+1d6. 2 - 12 inches is too unpredictable.

Other aspects of the game are based on odds, and you always know what your chances are of pulling them off. If I have a 2+ to hit roll, odds are pretty good something gets hit, if it's 5+, then I would need a lot of them to do some damage.

The charge range is too unpredictable for me. I play assault style armies and don't like the idea that the odds of making anything over 7 inches vary that wildly. With the introduction of movement stats, I don't like the idea that every unit is going to charge the same range - it doesn't make sense.

Think about the results of two dice added together. There isn't an equal chance of getting any number between 2 and 12 - it's far more likely to end up with a number in the middle.

Does it change your thinking on this subject when, instead of saying "I have to roll a 7 to make this charge", you could instead say "I've got about a 60% chance of making this charge"? A six inch charge on 2d6 is (almost) a 75% chance of success. Does that feel a bit less unpredictable?

2d6 is definitely more the realm of Warmahordes, but 40k players do the same probability maths for stuff like Leadership checks and Armour penetration for melta weapons... and charge ranges.

lol the people picking 2d6 are clearly gunline armies

2D6 makes it very obvious that dedicated assault units will be able to mess with this to increase their chances of a successful charge while non-dedicated assault units will need to think twice before assaulting in. This is how it should be. The people against this rule are looking at it in a vacuum and not thinking logically. Most of the rules are tweaks or copied from AoS, so logically this means they will also copy the individual unit special rules so assault units will be buffed on their own sheets.

Any unit that isn't meant to charge will risk the 2D6, while assault troops will get 3D6 or min charge distance or some other boost to their charge. M+1D6 is stupidly strong for fast units. Not every unit in the game should be able to make a charge reliably but those that should, will.

Current charge is fine, which has already been improved in huge ways.

You don't want Jump Infantry / Bikes being able to move + charge for 30 inches.

The possibility for counter play is what makes a game like this fun. A longer charge range removes that counter play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:
lol the people picking 2d6 are clearly gunline armies

or we play armies that rely on slower units like terminators. why would i vote for a nerf to my melee capability, which is what you're advocating here?


There should be parity between charging units. You do not have parity in move distances, but you do in charge distances. This makes slow units viable, and fast units not even more broken then they've already been.

Where is the meh ether or option?

or combo option where some units can get movement + xd6

i think certain units should get it

i think other units shouldnt.

also what happend to ram/tank shock.

Kataklysmic wrote:

 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.

agreed. I was actually thinking of 3D6 discard lowest. But I still feel a unit's M should at least be taken into some consideration (why would Termis' charge distance potential be same as a Harleys?). Regardless, it'd still mitigate the randomness/wide swing potential by at least some %. Sure you can roll all 1's, but it's not as likely as just the 17% from a single D6.

Kataklysmic wrote:

 KommissarKiln wrote:
Random IS tactical.

Okay cool i'm gonna roll 10 dice, i want you to tell me the results beforehand ... what are your tactics?

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Kataklysmic wrote:

 KommissarKiln wrote:
Random IS tactical.

Okay cool i'm gonna roll 10 dice, i want you to tell me the results beforehand ... what are your tactics?

Yahtzee!

How about you read and respond to the full argument, or try what I suggested, before flooding the thread with straw man arguments and gakposting?

I am not completely against 2d6 charge as I quite enjoy the randomness and tension when you're trying to make a 10+" charge. I have seen people try and make long charges out of desperation but I sometimes like to go for a long charge if there are potentially big pay offs. I mean I couldn't say how many times I've failed a 3 or 4" charge so will sometimes go for long ones on the off chance I'll make it. It entertains me at least.

Either way I would just like a mechanic where even if I fail a charge I still get to move. It seems rather odd to me that when failing a charge of say 7 or 8 by a single inch my guys don't move at all...

How you fix that I'm not sure. Maybe charges are guaranteed at half move range and anything over that is 2d6 and then if you fail a charge you just move that half movement value?

Its true that random does not equal tactics but it is still a load of tactical decision making which comes from how the other rules interact with the random factor. If you know its random you would put much more thought into positioning and movement phases.

For example in 7th you know that failing a charge means you stumped. You have to take into account overwatch, difficult terrain, effects of charging through terrain and positioning of your opponents other units as a threat of counter charging.

If you abolish random charge ranges then it becomes solely a tactical process where you can win the game in listbuilding and the deployment phase but more mobile units get far more of an upper hand then they already have.

I support 2d6+1 which is effectively what the new rules are. It balances

 Nithaniel wrote:
Its true that random does not equal tactics but it is still a load of tactical decision making which comes from how the other rules interact with the random factor. If you know its random you would put much more thought into positioning and movement phases.

For example in 7th you know that failing a charge means you stumped. You have to take into account overwatch, difficult terrain, effects of charging through terrain and positioning of your opponents other units as a threat of counter charging.

If you abolish random charge ranges then it becomes solely a tactical process where you can win the game in listbuilding and the deployment phase but more mobile units get far more of an upper hand then they already have.

I support 2d6+1 which is effectively what the new rules are. It balances

even if its random you generally can tell what the averages should be. there is decision making in numbers games otherwise craps wouldnt be a thing.

 Desubot wrote:
Where is the meh ether or option?

I second this. It's all just an abstraction of how models are moving around. Do the methods really matter? Or the experience had on the tabletop?

 Formosa wrote:
lol the people picking 2d6 are clearly gunline armies

I'm Sisters, Space Wolves, and Imperial Guard. Only one of those is a gunline army.

While yes, being able to have Seraphim and Celestine cross the noman's land for a turn 1 assault on their jetpacks would be cool, I think it would be terrible for the game and for game balance.

The game would be about seeing who wins the initiative roll.

I think 1d6 + Move is probably a better mechanic, however, I could take or leave it at the end of the day. We've played with 2d6 charge distance for all of 6th and 7th Ed. There are so many other changes to 8th that I love, that random charge distance remaining is not a deal breaker.

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Where is the meh ether or option?

I second this. It's all just an abstraction of how models are moving around. Do the methods really matter? Or the experience had on the tabletop?

Well that depends on whether or not you're basing your enjoyment on the methods.

I'd be willing to bet a lot of the consternation surrounding this change comes from the same crowd that would fight over astroturf vs grass. They can argue all they want that it changes everything or changes nothing, and they could even be right - but in the end, people will still just keep playing baseball.

Just to throw this out there, but what if some units (like bikes) have more than a 12" move?
Eldar jetbikes, for example, could easily have 18"M stat (but no more turboboosting).

So Shining Spears would have guaranteed charges under a M+D6" system.

2D6 charges are better for the game.

 Galef wrote:
Just to throw this out there, but what if some units (like bikes) have more than a 12" move?
Eldar jetbikes, for example, could easily have 18"M stat (but no more turboboosting).

So Shining Spears would have guaranteed charges under a M+D6" system.

2D6 charges are better for the game.

M+D6 doesn't cap charge distance at 12. M+D6 means that you'd have a 19-24 charge range.

And double movement means a 36" charge range, if you add in the 18" move, that's 54" of charge. more than 4 feet. People don't even know what they're asking for, it's crazy.

 Formosa wrote:
lol the people picking 2d6 are clearly gunline armies

This is nonsense.

Charge range should be a straight d6" roll.

1" to 6", plus being within 1". That'd work.

That'd be fair.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Just to throw this out there, but what if some units (like bikes) have more than a 12" move?
Eldar jetbikes, for example, could easily have 18"M stat (but no more turboboosting).

So Shining Spears would have guaranteed charges under a M+D6" system.

2D6 charges are better for the game.

M+D6 doesn't cap charge distance at 12. M+D6 means that you'd have a 19-24 charge range.

And double movement means a 36" charge range, if you add in the 18" move, that's 54" of charge. more than 4 feet. People don't even know what they're asking for, it's crazy.

Just think about it. 1st turn charges against the army in the table at your side.
Rohirrim style!

 Jambles wrote:

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Where is the meh ether or option?

I second this. It's all just an abstraction of how models are moving around. Do the methods really matter? Or the experience had on the tabletop?

Well that depends on whether or not you're basing your enjoyment on the methods.

I'd be willing to bet a lot of the consternation surrounding this change comes from the same crowd that would fight over astroturf vs grass. They can argue all they want that it changes everything or changes nothing, and they could even be right - but in the end, people will still just keep playing baseball.

Oh! Good analogy! I will use that one in the future. Thanks!

 Galas wrote:
Just think about it. 1st turn charges against the army in the table at your side.
Rohirrim style!

My favorite scene in the whole trilogy! Charge!

But seriously, 2d6 is what it currently is in 6th edition, 2d6 is what is used in Age of Sigmar, and there are plenty of opportunities for speculating the math and statisctics behind it. Does anyone remember in 5th edition how Charges were set at 6 inches? I do, because Cavalry had 12 inch charges after their 6 inch move. Yes, that's right: TWELVE INCHES. No rolling, just moving them in. It was a trick you got to do against each player one time, but by golly in those days were my Rough Riders glorious on the charge... Felling many Tactical Marines and Terminators and trampling them beneath the hooves of the Imperial Guard's finest steeds. If you put in fixed charge distances, this could happen again to you!

If I HAD to choose, I would stick with 2d6 charges. Of all the things I have issues with in 40K 7th edition, the random charge range is NOT one of them

 Formosa wrote:
lol the people picking 2d6 are clearly gunline armies

I play drop pod marines... but I'm not a moron... I know that "good for the game" is better than "good for me now". Really wish more players thought of balance and a good game first and advocating for broken self serving mechanics a distance third.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
6+D6 might have been a more attractive option.... just sayin

 Talamare wrote:

 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"

This. Due to the fact that this still uses multiple dice, the Bell Curve in probability calculations causes the middle total results to appear more. For example:

2d6, versus 1d12.
The chance of rolling 12 is 50% on both accounts. It happens, or it happens not.

The statistical probability, however, differs by far. As the 1d12 has twelve sides, and we should assume the die to be balanced, one in every twelve rolls should, statistically, be a result of 12. Rolling 12 on 2d6 means both sides must roll a result of '6'. Thats one in six probability, and another one in six probability. As such, there is but a one in thirtysix probability, three times as less compared to rolling a 1d12, of rolling 12 on 2d6.

To continue the example, rolling 11 on 1d12 also statistically happens once every twelve rolls. Rolling 12 on 2d6 requires either a fuve and a six, or a six and a five. Twice in thirtysix. This is because you need to take into account the fact that what you roll on one die, affects the possible matching result of the other die. Rolling 10 on 2d6 in a bell curve is even more probable. If the first die is a '6', the next must be a '4', If the first die results in a '5', the other must be a '5', and if the first die shows '4', the next must be '6'.

As such, there are 36 different outcomes when rolling 2d6. Rolling a total of 7 is the most probable. through a 1 and a 6, a 2 and a 5, a 3 and a 4, a 4 and a 3, a 5 and a 2, and finally a 6 and a 1. So out of those 36 outcomes 6 possible combinations give a total of 7. Other total numbers are less likely.

2d3, as Talamere mentioned, is too stable, as there are only 9 outcomes:

1+1 (2)
1+2 (3)
1+3 (4)
2+1 (3)
2+2 (4)
2+3 (5)
3+1 (4)
3+2 (5)
3+3 (6)

Of which but one give a total result of 2, only two give a total result of 3, three give a total of 4, only two combinations allow for a total of 5, and again, only one attains the total of 6. The more combinations on the dice allow for a certain total result, the more probable it is you roll that total outcome.

 Formosa wrote:
lol the people picking 2d6 are clearly gunline armies

orks, assault oriented marines, and mixed elder here.. I want 2d6 because it somewhat equalizes armies, could be a 2 could be a 12 likely a 7 and plan accordingly.

Just curious, to all those people saying it should just be D6, 2D6, etc (i.e. no double M or M + x, etc), why do you think charges should be completely random? What justification, whether mechanically (purely random determiners are good for the phase) or fluffly (dudes trip over rocks while charging)?

Sincere question, I truly don't understand the support of a 100% random charge range (not counting the 1" melee range) w/ no static addition or purely static mechanic (like, I believe, literally every other skirmish/wargame besides GW games has?).