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.

ERJAK wrote:
They actually said on facebook no charging after an advance.

ugh, really? So the only real thing I'm getting out of that is that they just wanted to break up the the Move/charge phase into 2 opposite ends of the player turn just to add some "tactical depth" or something?

Again, I'll wait til the rules come out and some games are played, but now I dislike Charging in 8Ed even more...

 Blacksails wrote:
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.
.

Problems with fixed charge ranges:

a) shooty armies would get HUGE boost. They can skirt at will impunity being always at least 0.1" away from being charged maximizing their firepower. Last time I checked shooty armies don't need boost. It's also extremely unrealistic as in reality nobody can estimate distances THAT accurately in real combat situation
b) it's also extremely unrealistic. Above is one reason and also in war there's never ever EVER perfect situation. Confusion with order that causes slight hesitation. Troopers get momentary freeze from fear. Somebody trips over bush etc(no battlefield is all even and clear terrain even if board looks like one) forcing delay. Troopers dont' have such a god view and god command as players and miniatures.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
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.

Or are worried people want fixed ranges and are themselves playing assault armies seeing fixed range charges would favour shooty armies.

Or are playing like me combo. Neither gunline, neither assault but mix of both.

2D6 charge is the best mechanic for this phase of the game, bar none. It helps simulate the various issues faced by troops slogging it through a battlefield, adds tactical depth, as it provides unforeseen circumstances with which to deal, is fast, clear, concise and avoids pedantry regarding miniscule movements and measurements.

It's nice to see that it has infact been proven, in real time, that GW has listened to it's customers. As the poll shows the 2D6 option, is in fact, the most popular.

 Marmatag wrote:

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

Except you can't pick charge against unit beyond 12" so it kinda does....Sure your stragglers will get into combat very quick but that's it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:
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?).

Plenty games have uncertain movements. Even non-GW's have system where unit does not neccessarily do ANYTHING if you fluke command roll etc. Neccessary thing to simulate fog of war and prevent god-view of players making for unrealistic game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
My preference is to move charging back into the Movement phase (ala 2nd Edition), and have it as a flat double Movement.

Simple, removes the ridiculously huge random variable, and also removes the complaint about assault units getting to shoot and fight close combat in the same turn.

Aaah yes huge nerfbat to assault armies. Just what 40k needs!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeff white wrote:
Declare charges in movement phase, 2x movement taking terrain into account - done.
Some units might get a bonus, or a Waagh bonus, or another unit/army specific modification, but as a base this works.

Sure if you want to nerf assault armies into oblivion

Funny. We have spent now couple editions reading "shooting is too powerfull" yet what I read now? "NERF ASSAULT ARMIES!"

tneva82 wrote:

a) shooty armies would get HUGE boost. They can skirt at will impunity being always at least 0.1" away from being charged maximizing their firepower. .

Which is eadily fixed by not allowing units to fire at full effect while moving, and/or by making sure that assault units can move faster than shooty units.

A unit can also only back up so far before the Edge of the table becomes an issue...

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
They actually said on facebook no charging after an advance.

ugh, really? So the only real thing I'm getting out of that is that they just wanted to break up the the Move/charge phase into 2 opposite ends of the player turn just to add some "tactical depth" or something?

Again, I'll wait til the rules come out and some games are played, but now I dislike Charging in 8Ed even more...

Move, shoot, charge. Remove shoot from the middle and while that would speed up it would also be pretty big nerf to assault armies. What would you give them in return?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

a) shooty armies would get HUGE boost. They can skirt at will impunity being always at least 0.1" away from being charged maximizing their firepower. .

Which is eadily fixed by not allowing units to fire at full effect while moving, and/or by making sure that assault units can move faster than shooty units.

A unit can also only back up so far before the Edge of the table becomes an issue...

So now you are talking about changing other aspects of 8th ed. It's not as easy as "change this rule". You then need to rework most of game from the ground up again.

And as it is assault armies would run out of models before edge of table becomes issue...

 insaniak wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

a) shooty armies would get HUGE boost. They can skirt at will impunity being always at least 0.1" away from being charged maximizing their firepower. .

Which is eadily fixed by not allowing units to fire at full effect while moving, and/or by making sure that assault units can move faster than shooty units.

A unit can also only back up so far before the Edge of the table becomes an issue...

Altho they are taking it in the opposite direction
Heavy Guns can now move with minimal penalty

Too much of the lore is pretty mixed up for speed to be a consistent thing.
Terminators, for example, are often a slow moving assault unit.
Bikers, Jetbikers, Open Top Vehicles are all highly mobile and can be pretty shooty.

Besides, there is only so much shooting a unit can take before it dies.

 Hollow wrote:
It's nice to see that it has infact been proven, in real time, that GW has listened to it's customers. As the poll shows the 2D6 option, is in fact, the most popular.

lol, the rules have already been made, irrespective of this poll.

Surely GW will listen to this "unbiased" poll!

tneva82 wrote:
Plenty games have uncertain movements. Even non-GW's have system where unit does not neccessarily do ANYTHING if you fluke command roll etc. Neccessary thing to simulate fog of war and prevent god-view of players making for unrealistic game.

I mean, could you name one/some? I've played/read a lot of systems and I can't think of any that is 100% random charging. Granted, I've never read an Osprey book (which I know publishes a lot), I know there's a lot of obscure games out there, and my memory is at time spotty. But...yeah, just off the top of my head, the games listed in my sig, BMG, WoK, WMH, BA, Saga...I don't think any of them lack a double M or M+x charge mechanic.

tneva82 wrote:

So now you are talking about changing other aspects of 8th ed. It's not as easy as "change this rule". You then need to rework most of game from the ground up again..

Well, yes. I was suggesting my preference. I have zero expectation that GW are going to change the 8th edition asault rules sure to a few complaints on forums.

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:
lol, the rules have already been made, irrespective of this poll.

The rules were made with GW's ear against the chest of the Warhammer community (So they say) listening to it's beating heart. They did not come away with "The community hate 2D6 charges" did they? As evidenced by the rules that were created. This poll is just a small signifier that they have read the pulse of the community well.

ERJAK wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Now that pistols have been given a distinct use in combat, there's no reason to retain the arbitrary distinction between movement and charges. They could easily just have a charge move take place in the movement phase as a run, doubling the range of movement.

We need random charge range just as much as we need random shooting range. And if we have one, we should have the other.

This is stupid for reasons many other people have listed. My suggestion is to just let close combat die altogether, it's stupid in a setting where things like D-cannons and titans exist anyway.

You're talking about a setting where crazy guys in giant robot chairs walk around making people take trial by drinking massive jugs of holy water to the point of choking. The fact that we play 40k at all is pretty stupid. Might was well get rid of the entire 40k setting, because every meaningful battle should be fought in space.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire concept and identity of the sci-fantasy universe that is Warhammer 40k.

Orbital bombardment with a skip filled with dice. Crush the table, the figures and your opponent. It's the only way to be sure.

 Hollow wrote:
This poll is just a small signifier that they have read the pulse of the community well.

I'm not sure that a poll where more than half of the respondents have voted for another option really suggests an overwhelming community support for the 2D6...

Why not move + d6 with a universal rule that charge distance can not exceed 12 inches?

You'd cut down on a lot of rolling for fast units, fast units wouldn't be charging 2 inches, infantry would still get a reliable charge with some unpredictability, it seems like the best way to go for me.

I love 2D6 charges and I am glad they are staying.

Combat specialists will often get rules on their dataslate to give them an edge too, such as a 3D6 charge, or being able to re-roll the lowest dice.

Tabletop games run much smoother with pre-measuring in my opinion. But pre-measuring plus fixed charges would make the game far too cagey I think. As players would be able to sit outside of threat range at all times.

Two combat armies facing off against each other would be just as bad with one not wanting to enter threat range of the other as they could guarantee they'd be charged themselves in the following turn and lose the advantage.

Where 2D6 is advantageous over 1D6+M is that it gives a nice bell-curve of result distribution (with a 7 being the most common, followed by a 6 or 8, and so on), and it also gives a good range (from 2" to 12").

It means to be a good general you need to try and mitigate the odds as best you can (getting as many units within 7" before you charge), but you also have to be flexible and adaptable to the luck on the battlefield.

I wouldn't want it to be applied to shooting because firstly it would be a mess rules-wise. Units have mixed weapons and the variety of ranges varies greatly. If you gave every gun a variable range on its profile it would bog the game down with a whole set of new dice rolls to make every turn.

Having a difference between charging and shooting in this manner also makes shooting feel technological and reliable, whereas combat feels desperate, savage and brutal. I love this juxtaposition and it feels really evocative of the sci-fi meets dark ages setting that 40k is.

 insaniak wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
This poll is just a small signifier that they have read the pulse of the community well.

I'm not sure that a poll where more than half of the respondents have voted for another option really suggests an overwhelming community support for the 2D6...

Quite clearly it doesn't. That's why I didn't state that it does.

 Robin5t wrote:
Why not move + d6 with a universal rule that charge distance can not exceed 12 inches?

You'd cut down on a lot of rolling for fast units, fast units wouldn't be charging 2 inches, infantry would still get a reliable charge with some unpredictability, it seems like the best way to go for me.

Fast units would then have no chance of failure and you would have way too long(26"+ easily) quaranteed charge ranges.

What if a units M stat is 12? or more? They aren't capped at 10.

 Robin5t wrote:
Why not move + d6 with a universal rule that charge distance can not exceed 12 inches?
.

Because that's effectively just Move plus 1", if you want to guarantee the charge will work.

In which case you might as well just make it Move plus 1" and save the unnecessary roll.

I'm in favor of a less random charge but it should be random with how pre-measurement works. We don't know all the rules yet so it's hard to say if it's gona be op or not. But i think that 3 or 4 + d6' is good considering there's always a 1" advantage now and that you can only fail a 1" charge on snake eyes through difterrain - if it still works as a -2' modifier.

But do we know if casualties are still taken from the front?

Not yet, no.

I'm fine with the 2D6+1" we'll be getting.

Yes, it can be annoying when the charge you really, really wanted to pull off falls short, and worse, you get Overwatched in the face for your troubles.

But, that's all part of the game's challenge.

If your entire plan all along has been that one charge, and it's truly what your victory hinges upon, well more fool you.

Knowing there's potential for all but the shortest of dashes to fail, why didn't you at least try to plan for it?

If you don't like random factors in games, why are you playing a game with any dice rolls involved at all? We've all suffered from Rubber Lance Syndrome. We've all scoffed at paltry Lasguns before utterly whiffing our 2+ armour saves en masse. Sure, we hope it won't come to that - but there's always that chance.

Charge distances as a sure thing are boring, especially in games where you can freely pre-measure.

Consider this....

In 3rd, 4th, 5th and I think 6th Ed (I may be wrong on 6th) there was no pre-measuring allowed. Now, at that point fixed charge reaches are ok - it's down to player skill to eyeball whether or not you'll be within that vital 6" - and a canny player would watch his opponent's measurements to get a better idea (so for instance, if he was just out of Rapid Fire, no point going for the charge in your next turn).

But now? Now I can freely measure whatever and whenever I want. If I was facing 6" charge reach across your army, it's an absolute doddle to simply fall back to the requisite 12.1" to keep you at arms length, and safe from a solid kicking.

But with a random charge reach? Well, that's a fear for me as well as you. Ideally, I'd like to hang back around 14.1" from your dude, to account for your 6" move, and average of 7" charge - gives me the breathing space I require, and if needs be leaves you well within most Rapid Fire ranges in the current game. But even then there's a significant risk factor. If you've got any toys or abilities which add to your distance, or make your distance more reliable, then I'll have to rethink, and possibly miss out on extra shots as I constantly fall back to keep a healthy distance.

2D6+1" - it's the future, and I doubt it's going anywhere anytime soon.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

If you don't like random factors in games, why are you playing a game with any dice rolls involved at all?

Not liking this particular bit of random and not liking random factors at all are not the same thing.

But now? Now I can freely measure whatever and whenever I want. If I was facing 6" charge reach across your army, it's an absolute doddle to simply fall back to the requisite 12.1" to keep you at arms length, and safe from a solid kicking..

Which is brilliant. You're now further away from the objective, without my unit even having to strike a blow.

 Hollow wrote:
2D6 charge is the best mechanic for this phase of the game, bar none. It helps simulate the various issues faced by troops slogging it through a battlefield, adds tactical depth, as it provides unforeseen circumstances with which to deal, is fast, clear, concise and avoids pedantry regarding miniscule movements and measurements.

It's nice to see that it has infact been proven, in real time, that GW has listened to it's customers. As the poll shows the 2D6 option, is in fact, the most popular.

Popular does not equal better.
It means that the people voting are most comfortable with this choice at the moment.
Have most voting Dakkanauts played with fixed ranges? With a different style of overwatch? For years, or even once?
Until they have, popular only confirms an active bias.
Should a company serve an active bias?
Or design a game that works best as a battle field simulation?
Or design a game with lots of dice rolling that ends up a mash of units in the middle of the table after turn three?
Or something else?
Not so cut and dried...
Besides, in order to respond to their customers, they would have to first expose those customers to options and allow them to choose in good time.
IMHO, there is no reason that they couldn't have allowed for more than one rule, by design.
Why not include three different ways to play?
M x 2, M + d6, or 2d6?
Then, after a month, and a year, have a poll...
Then, we may have data reliable enough to claim success in being responsive to their customers...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

But now? Now I can freely measure whatever and whenever I want. If I was facing 6" charge reach across your army, it's an absolute doddle to simply fall back to the requisite 12.1" to keep you at arms length, and safe from a solid kicking..

Which is brilliant. You're now further away from the objective, without my unit even having to strike a blow.

Just as planned, you feel for my feint and now I control the field, a ha ha ha hA!



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I'm fine with the 2D6+1" we'll be getting.

Yes, it can be annoying when the charge you really, really wanted to pull off falls short, and worse, you get Overwatched in the face for your troubles.

But, that's all part of the game's challenge.
...

Charge distances as a sure thing are boring, especially in games where you can freely pre-measure.

Consider this....

In 3rd, 4th, 5th and I think 6th Ed (I may be wrong on 6th) there was no pre-measuring allowed. Now, at that point fixed charge reaches are ok - it's down to player skill to eyeball whether or not you'll be within that vital 6" - and a canny player would watch his opponent's measurements to get a better idea (so for instance, if he was just out of Rapid Fire, no point going for the charge in your next turn).

But now? Now I can freely measure whatever and whenever I want. If I was facing 6" charge reach across your army, it's an absolute doddle to simply fall back to the requisite 12.1" to keep you at arms length, and safe from a solid kicking.

But with a random charge reach? Well, that's a fear for me as well as you. Ideally, I'd like to hang back around 14.1" from your dude, to account for your 6" move, and average of 7" charge - gives me the breathing space I require, and if needs be leaves you well within most Rapid Fire ranges in the current game. But even then there's a significant risk factor. If you've got any toys or abilities which add to your distance, or make your distance more reliable, then I'll have to rethink, and possibly miss out on extra shots as I constantly fall back to keep a healthy distance.

2D6+1" - it's the future, and I doubt it's going anywhere anytime soon.

Premeasuring to the eighth of an inch might be the problem, after all, huh?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
This poll is just a small signifier that they have read the pulse of the community well.

I'm not sure that a poll where more than half of the respondents have voted for another option really suggests an overwhelming community support for the 2D6...

I would have to agree here...

tneva82 wrote:

Problems with fixed charge ranges:

a) shooty armies would get HUGE boost. They can skirt at will impunity being always at least 0.1" away from being charged maximizing their firepower. Last time I checked shooty armies don't need boost. It's also extremely unrealistic as in reality nobody can estimate distances THAT accurately in real combat situation
b) it's also extremely unrealistic. Above is one reason and also in war there's never ever EVER perfect situation. Confusion with order that causes slight hesitation. Troopers get momentary freeze from fear. Somebody trips over bush etc(no battlefield is all even and clear terrain even if board looks like one) forcing delay. Troopers dont' have such a god view and god command as players and miniatures.

a) Basically what Insaniak said. We had a few editions of fixed charge range. It worked fine.
b) First of all, realism doesn't matter. Its all an abstraction either way. Second, if you want to be realistic and have your troops hesitate and trip and stumble, why isn't ordinary movement random as well? They're not just strolling, they're advancing under fire and ducking and dodging and finding cover. Surely they shouldn't just move a flat distance every turn, that's be super unrealistic.

If you accept the premise that ordinary movement represents more than a simple stroll up the battlefield, than all the logic about how random charge distance represents the unknown on the battlefield should be equally applied everywhere. This isn't a simulation. A fixed (or less random) charge distance still represents all the things you talked about, its just that its been averaged to make the game more of a tactical exercise than yahtzee.

40k can't be game where you emulate everything on the battlefield in exacting detail. That's what the RPGs are for.

2D6 is simply too random and doesn't represent reality any more than any other option being tabled.

 Hollow wrote:

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:
lol, the rules have already been made, irrespective of this poll.

The rules were made with GW's ear against the chest of the Warhammer community (So they say) listening to it's beating heart. They did not come away with "The community hate 2D6 charges" did they? As evidenced by the rules that were created. This poll is just a small signifier that they have read the pulse of the community well.

Oof. Wow. Are you sure that they allowed testing to consider a different way to play?
Are you sure that the testing community had the experience with other systems, with older 40k systems, to make a good comparison as a group?
My suspicion is that the same % of respondents who prefer strategy (fixed move taking into account terrain) over randomness (2d6) in this poll might be found amongst the playtesters who were perhaps drowned out by a more vocal, younger tourney oriented MtG groomed listbuilding subset, so the pure strategy RPG and historical influence was ignored. That, or more likely, testers weren't given an option either way. 2d6 was likely carried over as it matches current GW game designer meta-bias...

 Hollow wrote:
2D6 charge is the best mechanic for this phase of the game, bar none. It helps simulate the various issues faced by troops slogging it through a battlefield, adds tactical depth, as it provides unforeseen circumstances with which to deal, is fast, clear, concise and avoids pedantry regarding miniscule movements and measurements.

It's nice to see that it has infact been proven, in real time, that GW has listened to it's customers. As the poll shows the 2D6 option, is in fact, the most popular.

How would you feel about having randomized shooting range?

I also have not pick an answer to the poll, as none of them really fit what i want.
I would rather see a flat movement again for charge, with unit rules to change that a bit.
It keeps it simple, and takes out a lot of rolling that can otherwise be used for other factors including rolls during the phase itself.
I would also hope not to see many units at all over 9.