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.

After lots of discussion back and forth, I wonder what people think of random charge distances.

This is about the random element only, I haven't included whether the unit gets to move first or not, this is just talking purely about the random element to the charge. It could be D6 or M+D6, 2xM+D6.... if you like any of those options, just select "I prefer random, but no more than D6".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gah sorry, totally missed the existing poll, I was looking for a poll on random charge distance, not D6 vs 2D6 Please lock this mods.

I would like this one to stay, it has a better Choice of options.

Apple fox wrote:
I would like this one to stay, it has a better Choice of options.

Yeah I prefer it too, I guess we'll let the mods decide

I also appreciate a more genuine thread title, that doesn't show bias from the jump.

There's 2 sides to this equation:

1. The charge distance itself, and
2. The randomness of the charge.

There are people who want the charge distance improved.
There are people who are okay with a max 12" charge, but want it less random.

For those who want the charge distance improved:
This is where you lose me. Basing charge distance on movement means slow units will literally always be getting charged first, and going second, meaning that no matter how good you are tactically at outplaying your opponent, their long range charge will make you strike second. This is the exact problem we have now, but flipped, because of initiative. No matter how well you outplay your opponent, your Boyz are striking second to the Eldar because of initiative. Proposing a multiple of movement or based on movement simply brings this back under a different guise. You already have disparity in movement, adding further to that in the charge phase is a problem.

Not to mention, the key point here for me is: If you're in range to charge me, i'm in range to charge you. Expanding that distance based on movement removes this key balance. Additionally, if you're in range to charge someone, you are susceptible to overwatch, which should always be true. A charge range >12" means that there are entire classes of units that cannot ever fire overwatch. No matter how well they position themselves, there is no way for them to fire on you before you charge them, even in overwatch. That's a problem.

For those complaining about the randomness of the charge, but still believe there should be equal charge distances: I can get on board with this, but it's mainly driven by the frustration of failing a charge you feel you should make. But then again, you'll have the same problem if it was 1d6+6", you'd roll a 1 on your 8" charge and be upset. Fixing the charge distance gets us back to where people could exactly predict your charge distance and it'd be pretty damn hard to engage someone in melee. And guaranteeing a 12" charge seems pretty silly, considering the current balance is around 12" and 24" troop guns in a lot of cases.

Random charges force you to make a risk versus reward decision, and really think about how to set up your troops to minimize that charge distance. I like that.

2d6 charge works fine for me. It has its "derp" moments, but also allows for a longer average range than the old 6" charge, and a longer maximum potential charge distance for those potential epic moments.

Greater risk, greater reward, longer average reach, sounds suitably fitting for close assault.

I agree on preferring a random charge distance. I think Marmatag has hit the nail on the end. I remember in the old days of Fantasy, the game was more or less a test of who could eyeball a charge distance better than the other, and led to situations where my forces were tiptoeing around, felt very off.

I'm surprised that people are so accepting of the 2D6 charge. It just seems so unpredictable and random to me. I think something like half of the unit's move + D6 would be better.

 Luciferian wrote:
I'm surprised that people are so accepting of the 2D6 charge. It just seems so unpredictable and random to me. I think something like half of the unit's move + D6 would be better.

well, it's variable but not unpredictable, you know 6-8"is your most likely sweetspot, and that nearly 75% will be at least 5". It's a pretty bog standard bell curve distribution.

We could go back to 5th edition charge ranges so most units have a fixed 6" charge range, I am not sure why people who are promoting the fixed charge distance think it would a fixed 12" charge distance. The major change to the charge distance other than premeasuring from 5th to 6th was that instead of 6" every time you could get 2" to 12" with an average of 7"

 Luciferian wrote:
I'm surprised that people are so accepting of the 2D6 charge. It just seems so unpredictable and random to me. I think something like half of the unit's move + D6 would be better.

Yeah, too much randomness is bad. Especially in places like this where it actually inhibits tactics and does not make sense from a realistic point of view. A degree of randomness for things like whether you hit stuff or not with your attack is good, as it provides an abstraction of the myriad variables that are out of your control that determine whether you hit your target or not in chaotic battlefield situation. Charging however in reality depends not on factors out of your control but is simply related to how fast you can run (charging is nothing more than running at an enemy after all). Therefore it should be linked to a unit's movement allowance, and not be determined completely randomly.

I've heard of half move plus 2d3, and that seems real good to me.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
I'm surprised that people are so accepting of the 2D6 charge. It just seems so unpredictable and random to me. I think something like half of the unit's move + D6 would be better.

well, it's variable but not unpredictable, you know 6-8"is your most likely sweetspot, and that nearly 75% will be at least 5". It's a pretty bog standard bell curve distribution.

It is still unpredictable because it might just as well be 2". Sure 6-8" is most likely, but the high likelihood of getting a different result still makes it far from predictable. Something is predictable when you can be almost certain of the outcome before it happens. 25% chance of less 5" means you are far from being almost certain of getting a charge range above 5", let alone of being any more specific. When playing assault armies, where entire games can be won or lost on a charge, that means you do not have nearly enough certainty to make a sound tactical plan. That is a huge disadvantage assault armies get against any other sort of army.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I've heard of half move plus 2d3, and that seems real good to me.

meh, that just takes a bell curve and cuts out every other stop on its distribution. It also introduces the need for either getting d3's or counting a d6 as a d3.

I like the warmachine mechanic; and think something similar would work well in 40k with a minor adjustment.

move+3'' - your units can ALWAYS charge at least this far.

OR

you can elect to roll 2d6 and make a wild charge.

This means that you have the option of that last ditch last resort charge (but its not worth doing for units that move at least 9 at all, and less than ideal for units with move 7-8). It allows you to never fail the 3-4 inch charges, and at the same time gives you an option for moving quicker with units that are otherwise slow, at the expense of potentially failing the charge.

Any charge that is not at least 3 inches, does not grant any charge bonuses.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I've heard of half move plus 2d3, and that seems real good to me.

seems overly complex, and would be slow with all kinds of measuring. "Okay, my terminators are guaranteed 2.5", so let's start measuring.."

I think the bigger question is: Why should faster units have a longer charge distance than slower units? There are two answers, from a gameplay & balance standpoint, and from a fluff standpoint. I'd like to hear what people think here, because from a balance standpoint, there is no question that this is not at all balanced.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
I'm surprised that people are so accepting of the 2D6 charge. It just seems so unpredictable and random to me. I think something like half of the unit's move + D6 would be better.

Yeah, too much randomness is bad. Especially in places like this where it actually inhibits tactics and does not make sense from a realistic point of view. A degree of randomness for things like whether you hit stuff or not with your attack is good, as it provides an abstraction of the myriad variables that are out of your control that determine whether you hit your target or not in chaotic battlefield situation. Charging however in reality depends not on factors out of your control but is simply related to how fast you can run (charging is nothing more than running at an enemy after all). Therefore it should be linked to a unit's movement allowance, and not be determined completely randomly.

There's a good case to be made for random movement in the case of charging however.

Normal movement is a practiced natural combat pace, units are moving forward coherently, watching for ambush, mines, rough spots on the ground, etc.

Charges and run moved are random, these are hasty advances which, while faster, makes it likely that they may lose their footing, be less mindful of enemy attack, increases possibility of gear breakage (e.g. servo failure on power armor), may not see that piece of falling masonry about to fall on them, they may fall avoiding a landmine they otherwise would have seen earlier, etc.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
I'm surprised that people are so accepting of the 2D6 charge. It just seems so unpredictable and random to me. I think something like half of the unit's move + D6 would be better.

well, it's variable but not unpredictable, you know 6-8"is your most likely sweetspot, and that nearly 75% will be at least 5". It's a pretty bog standard bell curve distribution.

True, but you still have the chance to totally flub your charge for no reason other than arbitrary chance. Putting some kind of floor on the minimum charge distance would make me happier about it, personally. That way if you wanted to try your luck at a long charge you could, but you could still maneuver into charge range with some level of confidence that you're not going to just roll snake eyes and fail a 6" charge.

 Luciferian wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
I'm surprised that people are so accepting of the 2D6 charge. It just seems so unpredictable and random to me. I think something like half of the unit's move + D6 would be better.

well, it's variable but not unpredictable, you know 6-8"is your most likely sweetspot, and that nearly 75% will be at least 5". It's a pretty bog standard bell curve distribution.

True, but you still have the chance to totally flub your charge for no reason other than arbitrary chance. Putting some kind of floor on the minimum charge distance would make me happier about it, personally. That way if you wanted to try your luck at a long charge you could, but you could still maneuver into charge range with some level of confidence that you're not going to just roll snake eyes and fail a 6" charge.

Why should you have a guaranteed 6" charge?

 Marmatag wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
I'm surprised that people are so accepting of the 2D6 charge. It just seems so unpredictable and random to me. I think something like half of the unit's move + D6 would be better.

well, it's variable but not unpredictable, you know 6-8"is your most likely sweetspot, and that nearly 75% will be at least 5". It's a pretty bog standard bell curve distribution.

True, but you still have the chance to totally flub your charge for no reason other than arbitrary chance. Putting some kind of floor on the minimum charge distance would make me happier about it, personally. That way if you wanted to try your luck at a long charge you could, but you could still maneuver into charge range with some level of confidence that you're not going to just roll snake eyes and fail a 6" charge.

Why should you have a guaranteed 6" charge?

I don't think it should be 6, but units should be able to charge at least as far as they are guaranteed to move in another phase of the game.

 Marmatag wrote:


Why should you have a guaranteed 6" charge?

Why shouldn't you? Why should you have a guaranteed range on your bolter? We could do that all day.

I'd say you should have a guaranteed minimum charge so it allows you to tactically plan for assaults in the same way you can plan for shooting, as opposed to either having to move within 3" every time you assault if you want to be sure it's going to happen or simply hoping your assault, and possibly the game, isn't ruined by mere chance.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
I'm surprised that people are so accepting of the 2D6 charge. It just seems so unpredictable and random to me. I think something like half of the unit's move + D6 would be better.

Yeah, too much randomness is bad. Especially in places like this where it actually inhibits tactics and does not make sense from a realistic point of view. A degree of randomness for things like whether you hit stuff or not with your attack is good, as it provides an abstraction of the myriad variables that are out of your control that determine whether you hit your target or not in chaotic battlefield situation. Charging however in reality depends not on factors out of your control but is simply related to how fast you can run (charging is nothing more than running at an enemy after all). Therefore it should be linked to a unit's movement allowance, and not be determined completely randomly.

There's a good case to be made for random movement in the case of charging however.

Normal movement is a practiced natural combat pace, units are moving forward coherently, watching for ambush, mines, rough spots on the ground, etc.

Charges and run moved are random, these are hasty advances which, while faster, makes it likely that they may lose their footing, be less mindful of enemy attack, increases possibility of gear breakage (e.g. servo failure on power armor), may not see that piece of falling masonry about to fall on them, they may fall avoiding a landmine they otherwise would have seen earlier, etc.

The distance one can run within a given time is never random. And the chance of someone loosing his footing while running on normal terrain is pretty minimal. That only becomes a problem on rough terrain, which is already represented with difficult and dangerous terrain. Also, there are no landmines in the game and Space Marine power armour is supposed to be reliable enough not to break down from running a few metres.
In real life, charges do not fail because someone stumbled on a rock (rather, the success of a charge usually depends on the morale of both sides). Neither should it be that way in 40k. That is ridiculous.
If we want to keep a degree of randomness for whether a charge fails or succeed, I feel it would be better to have an alternative, more realistic system where charge distance is more or less fixed but whether your troops get to reach the enemy depends on passing morale checks.

 Luciferian wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:


Why should you have a guaranteed 6" charge?

Why shouldn't you? Why should you have a guaranteed range on your bolter? We could do that all day.

I'd say you should have a guaranteed minimum charge so it allows you to tactically plan for assaults in the same way you can plan for shooting, as opposed to either having to move within 3" every time you assault if you want to be sure it's going to happen or simply hoping your assault, and possibly the game, isn't ruined by mere chance.

Because assault is incredibly devastating, whereas bolter fire can be generally shrugged off.

Because really, 6" is already basically guaranteed with 2d6, and almost entirely unfailable on 2d6+1. Because 2d6 is easy to math out, and easy to understand and provides a very nice looking probability distribution that makes a lot of sense and makes slow assault units not trash and fast assault units not overpowered.

Because, tbh, if you're planning on rolling a 2 or a 3 on 2d6, you're probably being far too paranoid and giving up opportunities. I try almost automatically on a 7 or less.

Charge distance should be set per individual movement and be biased to large mobs of fast models like gaunts or daemonettes while being biased against slow units such as Terminators or already absurdly fast bikes. Random charge distances only remove tactical play from the game and inject more randomness, which is the last thing 40k needs. The only "random" mechanic should involve actual combat, models being removed, and the psychic phase. Everything else should be decided by the player's decisions and a ruler.

Well, if you want to get 'realistic' the entire of idea of charging is stupid. No one runs wildly at their enemy on the battlefield, and it certainly doesn't give them an advantage (like +1 attack or striking first). The exception, of course, is guys on horseback, but even then they don't go crashing into other people or nonsense like that.

An element of randomness and unpredictability is desirable in a wargame, both to make it a game and to accurately model the unpredictability of actual warfare. Of course there's a thing as too much randomness, but I don't think random charges pushes things too far. You could drop random charges but it should be replaced with some other mechanic that makes engaging with the foe less than 100% reliable.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:


Why should you have a guaranteed 6" charge?

Why shouldn't you? Why should you have a guaranteed range on your bolter? We could do that all day.

I'd say you should have a guaranteed minimum charge so it allows you to tactically plan for assaults in the same way you can plan for shooting, as opposed to either having to move within 3" every time you assault if you want to be sure it's going to happen or simply hoping your assault, and possibly the game, isn't ruined by mere chance.

Because assault is incredibly devastating, whereas bolter fire can be generally shrugged off.

Depends on the unit doing the assaulting. Also, bolters aren't the only ranged weapon. There are ranged weapons with fixed ranges far more deadly than most assaults.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Because really, 6" is already basically guaranteed with 2d6,

Nope. 1 in 4 of your rolls are going to be less than 5". That is not 'basically guaranteed'. With a relatively low number of dice rolls, probability based on averages is essentially meaningless. You are only going to be able to see that pattern when you get hundreds of dice rolls.

 Saber wrote:
Well, if you want to get 'realistic' the entire of idea of charging is stupid. No one runs wildly at their enemy on the battlefield, and it certainly doesn't give them an advantage (like +1 attack or striking first). The exception, of course, is guys on horseback, but even then they don't go crashing into other people or nonsense like that.

An element of randomness and unpredictability is desirable in a wargame, both to make it a game and to accurately model the unpredictability of actual warfare. Of course there's a thing as too much randomness, but I don't think random charges pushes things too far. You could drop random charges but it should be replaced with some other mechanic that makes engaging with the foe less than 100% reliable.

What complete and utter bollocks. If you actually bothered to open a history book you'd know that charges are a major stable of history, with the charge becoming a key method of dispersing and routing the enemy with the advent of bayonet mounted on muskets and rifles.



Secondly randomness is a horrible excuse for gak mechanics. Randomness does not win battles, logistics and morale does.

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Because assault is incredibly devastating, whereas bolter fire can be generally shrugged off.

Because really, 6" is already basically guaranteed with 2d6, and almost entirely unfailable on 2d6+1. Because 2d6 is easy to math out, and easy to understand and provides a very nice looking probability distribution that makes a lot of sense and makes slow assault units not trash and fast assault units not overpowered.

Because, tbh, if you're planning on rolling a 2 or a 3 on 2d6, you're probably being far too paranoid and giving up opportunities. I try almost automatically on a 7 or less.

You're going to fail a 7" charge 27.78% of the time. It's not nearly the sure thing you guys are making it out to be, and game outcomes WILL be decided on that arbitrary chance. That's not something I'm comfortable with for the sake of being able to talk about how nice a distribution of probability something is.

Iron_Captain wrote:
The distance one can run within a given time is never random. And the chance of someone loosing his footing while running on normal terrain is pretty minimal. That only becomes a problem on rough terrain, which is already represented with difficult and dangerous terrain. Also, there are no landmines in the game and Space Marine power armour is supposed to be reliable enough not to break down from running a few metres.
In real life, charges do not fail because someone stumbled on a rock (rather, the success of a charge usually depends on the morale of both sides). Neither should it be that way in 40k. That is ridiculous.
If we want to keep a degree of randomness for whether a charge fails or succeed, I feel it would be better to have an alternative, more realistic system where charge distance is more or less fixed but whether your troops get to reach the enemy depends on passing morale checks.

Right, this is a game where nearly everyone is a trained, maniacal killer. Some of them have been enduring constant battle for centuries, some of them have powerful martial technology beyond anything we've created, and some of them are motivated by the power of actual gods or simply the will to destroy their enemies. There's no good reason a unit of such soldiers should be able to move at a steady pace through fields of fire and alien terrain, then coincidentally trip on their shoelaces the instant they decide to swing a sword at someone. In my opinion it's just ludicrously silly.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:


Why should you have a guaranteed 6" charge?

Why shouldn't you? Why should you have a guaranteed range on your bolter? We could do that all day.

I'd say you should have a guaranteed minimum charge so it allows you to tactically plan for assaults in the same way you can plan for shooting, as opposed to either having to move within 3" every time you assault if you want to be sure it's going to happen or simply hoping your assault, and possibly the game, isn't ruined by mere chance.

Because assault is incredibly devastating, whereas bolter fire can be generally shrugged off.

Depends on the unit doing the assaulting. Also, bolters aren't the only ranged weapon. There are ranged weapons with fixed ranges far more deadly than most assaults.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Because really, 6" is already basically guaranteed with 2d6,

Nope. 1 in 4 of your rolls are going to be less than 5". That is not 'basically guaranteed'. With a relatively low number of dice rolls, probability based on averages is essentially meaningless. You are only going to be able to see that pattern when you get hundreds of dice rolls.

With regards to ranged weapons: of course the Shadowsword's Volcano Cannon is far more destructive than a Chainsword. But a Reaper Chainsword on a Knight is definitely nastier than a Volcano Cannon. The disadvantage you pay for being more destructive is the fact you have to be in melee to use it, while the Shadowsword gets 2 turns to try to kill you before you reach it.

With regards to 75% chance: It's good enough that I can count on getting into melee if I have to, and plan around it, and not lose the game. I've had assault units fail to reach their target of 75% charges for 3 turns straight before, and it can be frustrating, but it's not game breaking in the least and it's fairly rare.

 Wyzilla wrote:

What complete and utter bollocks. If you actually bothered to open a history book you'd know that charges are a major stable of history, with the charge becoming a key method of dispersing and routing the enemy with the advent of bayonet mounted on muskets and rifles.

To be fair, attempting to charge a group of enemy combatants armed with contemporary weapons is a pretty damn good way to get riddled with lead for your troubles. I agree with you otherwise, though.

 Luciferian wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

What complete and utter bollocks. If you actually bothered to open a history book you'd know that charges are a major stable of history, with the charge becoming a key method of dispersing and routing the enemy with the advent of bayonet mounted on muskets and rifles.

To be fair, attempting to charge a group of enemy combatants armed with contemporary weapons is a pretty damn good way to get riddled with lead for your troubles. I agree with you otherwise, though.

Unlike for the French, Ork Machine gunners aren't going to overwatch on a 1+.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

With regards to 75% chance: It's good enough that I can count on getting into melee if I have to, and plan around it, and not lose the game. I've had assault units fail to reach their target of 75% charges for 3 turns straight before, and it can be frustrating, but it's not game breaking in the least and it's fairly rare.

You're either extremely lucky or simply unaware of when chance affects you negatively. Failing three assaults in a row, or even one assault, can and will decide the outcome of games.