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.

There seems to be a lot of support for assault ranges to be post target randomized allowing seemingly sure charges to fail giving lucky players that seemingly impossible charge.
Would it also be a good thing if shooting units where allowed similar post target flails and lucky shots to shooting by randomizing the shooting distance of all weapons ?

Ain't nobody got time for that

Where's that gif of Mad Max: Fury Road where he shakes his head and points out "That's bait" when you need it.

Did make me chuckle though.

Several Yellow Triangles of Friendship on this thread.

Seems a bit like stirring the pot, but if it stays civil, we'll leave it open for now.

I mean it would be fair but...

I dont think we should have weapons profiles at all. Just randomly roll to hit and wound. Everything should be random.

It isn't such a strange idea, when you give it some more thought.

Shooting and assaults both used to be equally uncertain for a long time due to errors in guesswork. This all changed when by pemeasuring was induced. Assault got more uncertain with the added randomness, while shooting became always successful due to fixed ranges. Close combat certainly needs relative buff so why not fix this discrepancy by making shooting ranges more uncertain.

Sure it will add some die rolls to the game. It will most likely take ~10- 15 rolls of 2d6 or whatever you use for randomization of the random part a turn but this will most likely cost minutes not tens of minutes a game that I would gladly trade if it somehow fixed some of the balance issues.

This is an awful, awful, horrible idea.

It just adds another mechanic that you need to roll for, to determine randomness. Just no, there are other ways to balance the game, this is not one of them.

Also make it impossible to shoot through other units, and forbid firing any weapons on the first game turn or after arriving from reserves.

I want a streamlined game, not more random stuff.

No thanks.

I see your point. I hope premeasure and random assault get gone. Doubtful since its in AoS but who knows at this point...

Oddly, this would actually result in less dice rolls overall as a single out of range shooting attempt could remove handfuls of dice from the game.

Random is bad. We already have random with dicerolls to determine literally everything! We don't need random events to occur to find out if we roll dice or not.

IMO all random aspects of the game need to be removed outside of dicing hits/wounds/saves/leaderships. This includes psychic powers (you should chose and pay for them)/charge distances/shooting ranges/objective cards/ warlord traits/ even seize the initiative. The game would be more fun.

I think that the OP makes a good point:

If you're in favor of random assaults, then why not random shooting?

I'm in favor of making both non-random. Tie assault movements to the movement characteristic. Just make the assault move a regular move.

You have a movement characteristic of 6? That's how far you can assault.

Short answer: No.

Long answer: F*** no.

it already is to hit my harlies well when the power goes off

 Traditio wrote:
I think that the OP makes a good point:

If you're in favor of random assaults, then why not random shooting?

I'm in favor of making both non-random. Tie assault movements to the movement characteristic. Just make the assault move a regular move.

You have a movement characteristic of 6? That's how far you can assault.

The 2 things aren't equivalent, besides there is a LOT more shooting every turn than there are assaults. It would take much longer to complete games.

"Pic Only" posts are considered spam here - please be sure to add more to a post going forward.

Additionally, RULE #1 - Be Polite - is quite important here.

Mandatory, in fact.

Thanks!

Actually, even better:

Make run movements standard also. Run = half of movement characteristic.

And allow units to run and charge in the same turn.

Example:

Space marine moves 6. Runs 3. Charges 6.

See how easy that is?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alternatively, if that's too fast, then just remove running from the game altogether, and collapse assaults and running together into the same thing.

Make the assault phase a second movement phase.

Example:

Space marine moves 6 in the movement phase. In the assault phase, if he hasn't shot a rapidfire, salvo or heavy weapon, he EITHER charges 6 OR runs 6.

They should just drop close combat all together. It's boring and makes the fluff seem even goofier than it is.

Variable distance charges are there for a reason. Assault is intended to be riskier, hence why it has historically been bloodier and more decisive than shooting once it occurs and has some strong advantages (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.

Likewise, the 2d6" charge nets both a higher average and longer possible charge distance over the old 6" charge move, which often seems to be forgotten. Yeah, you will fail assaults that would have been guaranteed in 4th or 5th, but you'll also be able to reach things that would have been impossible in those earlier editions, and have a longer average assault threat bubble in general with an average range of 7".

This is an artefact of some game mechanics being model centric while others are unit centric, in addition to other aspects of CC not present in most other games.

As for shooting attacks, random range makes zero sense, it's a property of the weapon, not movement the way the 2d6 assault move is. CC attacks do not have a variable range either, just the movement.

They should rename the "New Topic" button to "I'm Upset"

And if you declare you are shooting at a unit they get a return fire overwatch, or if they have a rule like Zeal they can surge forwards.

AGAIN - RULE #1.

So, in short, if you really don't have anything to say that isn't impolite, don't say it.

 emptyhat wrote:
And if you declare you are shooting at a unit they get a return fire overwatch

I heard you like overwatching... So you can now overwatch an overwatch when an overwatch is overwatching you

IMO... one of the two need to be random (shooting or charge). Otherwise we have the UGOIGO mechanic potentially bogging down as one faction shuffles back and forth and then charges without anything the other can do to utilize rapid fire or shorter ranged weapons.

So if one needs to be random... which one is the better one to randomize? Shooting happens way more often than charging. Gun ranges tend to be more reliable than a being rushing over terrain. Charging a gunner is typically more risky than shooting a gun.

Therefore... randomize charges

 Lobukia wrote:
IMO... one of the two need to be random (shooting or charge). Otherwise we have the UGOIGO mechanic potentially bogging down as one faction shuffles back and forth and then charges without anything the other can do to utilize rapid fire or shorter ranged weapons.

Explain this?

I don't understand the reasoning for this idea.

Why would standard charge distances and standard shooting distances bog anything down or prevent the use of short to mid range weapons?

If you move 6 in the movement phase and 6 in the assault phase, I still have 12 inches on you with a boltgun.

 Traditio wrote:

Explain this?

I don't understand the reasoning for this idea.

Why would standard charge distances and standard shooting distances bog anything down or prevent the use of short to mid range weapons?

If you move 6 in the movement phase and 6 in the assault phase, I still have 12 inches on you with a boltgun.

Except you don't... I only need to get within 1" ...so I start outside short range and rapid fire... and ignore your weapons, cross your entire firing area with impunity and only have to deal with overwatch before butchering you. If random.. there's risk. Wargames run off of Risk/Reward. An appropriate amount of randomizing puts the risk in there... too much and its just throwing die around forever.... not enough and a slight edge in skill or list building and a win is too certain.

Is it going to be picking a unit to charge and then rolling to see if successful like it is now, or rolling and then picking a unit within range to charge like in AoS? (At least, that's my understanding of how it works in AoS.)

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
Is it going to be picking a unit to charge and then rolling to see if successful like it is now, or rolling and then picking a unit within range to charge like in AoS? (At least, that's my understanding of how it works in AoS.)

I don't know if its been made clear. I'm guessing the the former, hoping for the latter