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.

Tetsu0 wrote:
Anyone for 2d6 charge range shouldn't have a problem with 3d6 pick the highest two or 3d6 capped at 12 inches. Unless of course they really want to keep melee weak as in previous edition.

Also the idea that they should add more unit specific rules aka bloat, to fix this for fast units is also a stupid idea. The best solution is to find a compromise in a universal rule for charging. So that assault is a more viable option, otherwise we will continue to see shooty armies dominate in this edition especially with the boost to overwatch and heavy weapons not snap firing.

I mean, I guess so, but that's math that's harder to do in my head.

And melee won't be weak with the ability to charge out of transports.

We could go back to 5th ed charge ranges, a fixed 6" charge, that was the big trade off from 5th to 6th, on average you will get a 7" charge but you could get a 2" charge or a 12" charge.

TheAvengingKnee wrote:
We could go back to 5th ed charge ranges, a fixed 6" charge, that was the big trade off from 5th to 6th, on average you will get a 7" charge but you could get a 2" charge or a 12" charge.

Ah yes. Let's nerf assault armies even more. Just what the game needs.

tneva82 wrote:

TheAvengingKnee wrote:
We could go back to 5th ed charge ranges, a fixed 6" charge, that was the big trade off from 5th to 6th, on average you will get a 7" charge but you could get a 2" charge or a 12" charge.

Ah yes. Let's nerf assault armies even more. Just what the game needs.

Ask, and you shall receive.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/03/new-warhammer-40000-morale/

 KommissarKiln wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

TheAvengingKnee wrote:
We could go back to 5th ed charge ranges, a fixed 6" charge, that was the big trade off from 5th to 6th, on average you will get a 7" charge but you could get a 2" charge or a 12" charge.

Ah yes. Let's nerf assault armies even more. Just what the game needs.

Ask, and you shall receive.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/03/new-warhammer-40000-morale/

Does this nerf assault armies?

It looks more like it nerfs horde armies. So Orks and FootGuard.

 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...

Sorry, but that's Traditio logic.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
It looks more like it nerfs horde armies. So Orks and FootGuard.

It hurts multiple small unit armies more, I think. A small unit can be destroyed by this quite easily, where a large unit is merely hurt by it. The large unit only needs to roll once (and you can stack as many benefits as possible on that one unit, including command point rerolls), whereas you could potentially roll a LOT for morale (and thus take a lot more damage) if you use an MSU army.

 Melissia wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
It looks more like it nerfs horde armies. So Orks and FootGuard.

It hurts multiple small unit armies more, I think. A small unit can be destroyed by this quite easily, where a large unit is merely hurt by it. The large unit only needs to roll once (and you can stack as many benefits as possible on that one unit, including command point rerolls), whereas you could potentially roll a LOT for morale (and thus take a lot more damage) if you use an MSU army.

I'm fairly certain my Dominions don't care if they lose the 5th member to battleshock after loosing 4 to enemy retaliation. The 1 girl wasn't going to do anything anyway.

But a big blob of Guardsmen, could stand to lose 14 or more models from, for example, a Sisters of Battle Squad firing on them with 2 flamers, and then test battleshock and lose 11 more right then and there, reducing the squad to half strength when it would ordinarily have been only marginally inconvenienced by the dozen-odd losses.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
It looks more like it nerfs horde armies. So Orks and FootGuard.

It hurts multiple small unit armies more, I think. A small unit can be destroyed by this quite easily, where a large unit is merely hurt by it. The large unit only needs to roll once (and you can stack as many benefits as possible on that one unit, including command point rerolls), whereas you could potentially roll a LOT for morale (and thus take a lot more damage) if you use an MSU army.

I'm fairly certain my Dominions don't care if they lose the 5th member to battleshock after loosing 4 to enemy retaliation. The 1 girl wasn't going to do anything anyway.

But a big blob of Guardsmen, could stand to lose 14 or more models from, for example, a Sisters of Battle Squad firing on them with 2 flamers, and then test battleshock and lose 11 more right then and there, reducing the squad to half strength when it would ordinarily have been only marginally inconvenienced by the dozen-odd losses.

We REALLY wont know until we see what everything does. even with blob guard most of the times they used priests as a way of keep them on the table for quite a bit longer.

there will probably be characters that can heavily mitigate battle shock and its sounding like its an AOE.

also calling it now. ATSKNF is going to be taking battle tests without casualty mods.

 Desubot wrote:

also calling it now. ATSKNF is going to be taking battle tests without casualty mods.

Uch... this might just be true. But who knows they might just reflect psychology now better in the points since it is now basically secondary dmg of an attack that can be expressed in lost wounds and thus be used in point calculations.

 Desubot wrote:
We REALLY wont know until we see what everything does. even with blob guard most of the times they used priests as a way of keep them on the table for quite a bit longer.

there will probably be characters that can heavily mitigate battle shock and its sounding like its an AOE.

also calling it now. ATSKNF is going to be taking battle tests without casualty mods.

Things like Commissars, Chaplains, Synapse and Ork Mob Rule will probably have an effect (if those rules continue to exist).

Considering the impact they have, and how long they have been in the system, I'd be surprised if they are dropped all together.

ATSKNF (and the equivalent in 2nd Edition) was always more about recovering from falling back rather than ignoring initial morale.

What if ATSKNF allows marines to fall back from close combat and act in the same turn with some kind of penalty (-1 to-hit in shooting and assault since they are still disorganized). That would be more in keeping with things.

Alternatively, take a page from Epic: Armageddon and perhaps they only count every two casualties as one for the purposes of battleshock (though that basically makes their standard combat squads immune to it, so I like it less).

Either way, we have no way of knowing yet. I'm just hoping they stick to their guns and have units that modify morale rather than just straight up ignoring it. Morale is a rich space for design that has been squandered for a damn long time.

I hope they remove morale entirely. Might as well.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I hope they remove morale entirely. Might as well.

We know that's not going to happen now. Unfortunately the unique features are gone and it's just battleshock nonsense that forces everybody to have guys run away even when it makes no damn sense, like with marines or DKOK.

I guess GW thinks that people want to spend less time playing GW games lol.

 Wyzilla wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I hope they remove morale entirely. Might as well.

We know that's not going to happen now. Unfortunately the unique features are gone and it's just battleshock nonsense that forces everybody to have guys run away even when it makes no damn sense, like with marines or DKOK.

I guess GW thinks that people want to spend less time playing GW games lol.

Actually, with the article mentioning that some battle shock is due to things like CASEVAC, that is a pretty credible reason for disciplined forces to fall back piecemeal instead of all together. And of course more unique command structures will be modifying the baseline, but I have no problem imagining a marine hoisting a couple of his buddies back to the Thunderhawk while the surviving members of his combat squad cover him.

 Tamwulf wrote:
It's a game mechanic used to replace the old fixed charge ranges because of pre-measuring. If you go back to fixed charge ranges, then I'd say get rid of pre-measuring. If you want an idea of what fixed charge ranges and pre-measuring are like, go play Warmachine/Hordes. That's the only game I've had my opponent take out a piece of paper, calculator, and then used trigonometry to prove that his charging model could get within range of one of my models. I just laughed at his face, picked up my models, and went home. Far too serious of a player for me!

There is a huge after market right now for measuring widgets in WM/H, with players using proxy bases, measuring widgets, and laser line pointers in WM/H. I've seen players plan out their entire turn using these devices on the table, and no, it looked like crap as far as I was concerned, and it's something I would hate to see come to 40K.

That's a cultural aspect that is tied into the mentality of the Warmahordes players. I agree with you; it is just a bit too serious to be taken seriously. Nothing wrong with wanting to play hard and competitively, but at that point wouldn't you be better off with chess?

TheAvengingKnee wrote:
We could go back to 5th ed charge ranges, a fixed 6" charge, that was the big trade off from 5th to 6th, on average you will get a 7" charge but you could get a 2" charge or a 12" charge.

In 5th edition, Cavalry got a flat 12 inch charge after their 6 inch move. Hardly anyone remembers this, because hardly anyone took cavalry. It was always fun to pull off against an opponent, but it only ever worked the one time, then they remember. Would you prefer the 5th edition Charge mechanic? My Thunderwolf Cavalry would thank you for it

Rough Riders and Thunderwolves forever! Charge!

 Ronin_eX wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I hope they remove morale entirely. Might as well.

We know that's not going to happen now. Unfortunately the unique features are gone and it's just battleshock nonsense that forces everybody to have guys run away even when it makes no damn sense, like with marines or DKOK.

I guess GW thinks that people want to spend less time playing GW games lol.

Actually, with the article mentioning that some battle shock is due to things like CASEVAC, that is a pretty credible reason for disciplined forces to fall back piecemeal instead of all together. And of course more unique command structures will be modifying the baseline, but I have no problem imagining a marine hoisting a couple of his buddies back to the Thunderhawk while the surviving members of his combat squad cover him.

Exactly. The article mentions that the act of falling back is not just models fleeing, but it is a representation of any number of concepts. It's just an abstraction of a combat concept. I see that it could be:

- models fleeing combat
- further casualties inflicted on the squad
- models becoming casualties from prolonged damage on them (how many saves CAN a model make anyways?)
- a model taking his wounded buddy off of the battlefield
- a model stumbling over his own feet
- a model leaving the battle for a bathroom break
- a model getting bored and walking away

or any other creative reason you can think of! I know it requires using our imagination and being creative, but so does thinking about how bolters and psychic powers work, right?

Yeah no. I'm good with 2D6" charges. I got out of the game years ago when it was just a static game whose tactics always worked. I enjoy the not knowing whats going to happen aspect.

And recovering from failure is just as exciting to me as needing to have my tactics always work.

Surprisingly, it seems that most of us agree according to that poll.

I'd like the charge range to be individual like a movement stat. It makes sense to have a 2d6 charge for something like spawns but an assault marine with a jumppack should really be something like 4+d6. On one hand, it's an extra stat but It could be pretty easy cause most units per-army will have identical charge ranges and it allows for variety. And we allready have a movement stat.

So, here's what i'd do with charges:

Tactical marine (and other footslogging meq) - 5+d3
Scout - 6+d3
Assault marine and all marine bikers - 5+d6
Terminators and centurions - 4+d3
Dreads and ven dreads - 6+d3
Heavilly armored dreads - those av13 ones - 5+d3

Ork boys (and other footslogging orks), nobz - 4+d6
Grots - 4+d3
Stormboyz - 3+2d6 - and a couple explode if a 1 is rolled
Meganobz - 4+d3
Ork bikers - 5+d6
Deff dreads - 6+d3
Naughts - 5+d3
Killa kanz - 4+d3

Well, you get the idea.

 koooaei wrote:
I'd like the charge range to be individual like a movement stat. It makes sense to have a 2d6 charge for something like spawns but an assault marine with a jumppack should really be something like 4+d6, stormboyz could be 2+2d6, marines 4+d3, ork boyz 3+d6...well, you get the point.

If they follow AOS then this will sort of happen - ie some units will roll 3D6 for charge (max 12") or some will have a min charge etc

And with indeps not joining units anymore (if the rumores are correct), there's no problem with mixed squads!

Would it be a good rule if before you got to shoot you had to roll a die and 1-3 you don't get to shoot 4-6 you do? That's basically the charge rule, you're rolling to hit in order to be able to roll to hit. This is on top of close combat also being riskier than shooting because you can end up in the open and whenever you shoot a unit they don't get to immediately shoot back at you.
CC is a much riskier with no addditional reward.

Well, the reward is pretty significant. You take ground and disallow shooty non-mellee units from coming close to you. It's significant if scoring is still a thing. Simply trying to kill everything is not always a winning strategy. Not once have i seen games where a bunch of cc models won cause they hid on a point and shooty opponents were too afraid to come close.

Danny slag wrote:
Would it be a good rule if before you got to shoot you had to roll a die and 1-3 you don't get to shoot 4-6 you do? That's basically the charge rule, you're rolling to hit in order to be able to roll to hit. This is on top of close combat also being riskier than shooting because you can end up in the open and whenever you shoot a unit they don't get to immediately shoot back at you.
CC is a much riskier with no addditional reward.

I'd be okay with that if:

1. Units I shot at would be "locked in shootbat," where they couldn't move/shoot other units, and also, nothing could shoot my units which had locked the enemy units in shootbat.

2. I would get extra shots for declaring a shoot-charge. If i had rage, I would get even more! All my shots ignore cover and hit vehicle rear armor, too!

3. I could execute a sweeping shootvance, where everything in my opponents squad could be obliterated by causing merely 1 casualty. Or, in 8th edition, take a battleshoot test, wherein they lose additional D6 + lost units - Morale units just for me shooting them.

4. I could get low AP / High Minus Save Mod weaponry for very little cost. By way of, for instance, Thunder Hammer terminators with storm shields for 225 points. I could get the equivalent shooty unit with a 2+/3++, with strength 8 AP2 (or save mod -3) guns for 225 points. With a base attack of 2, all of these guys would be Assault 2, with the added benefit of gaining additional attacks when I first "lock my opponent in shootbat."

If i can have all of this, then yes, i'll roll to shoot.

Danny slag wrote:
Would it be a good rule if before you got to shoot you had to roll a die and 1-3 you don't get to shoot 4-6 you do? That's basically the charge rule, you're rolling to hit in order to be able to roll to hit. This is on top of close combat also being riskier than shooting because you can end up in the open and whenever you shoot a unit they don't get to immediately shoot back at you.
CC is a much riskier with no addditional reward.

 Vaktathi wrote:
(e.g. hitting on vehicle rear armor, Sweeping Advance, ignoring cover saves with all attacks, locking an opposing unit's actions, etc). Some of this may change, we'll see, but that has been the historical tradeoff. When we didnt have premeasuring, we had fixed assault distances, now that we do have premeasuring we have randomized distances.

That.

Tho if they gave ranged elite units firepower similar to melee elites, then that might be fine, just think of the numbers of STR8 AP2 attacks meganobs or Terminators put out