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.

 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.

Except that happened quite a lot on battlefields historically. Why do you think soldiers kept carrying bayonets for so long? It is only really with the omnipresence of fully automatic weapons on the modern battlefield that charging the enemy and hitting him in the face stopped being a viable tactic.

 Saber wrote:
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.

The problem with this is that this game has armies that rely on melee combat and charging to do anything. Those armies are now put at a tactical disadvantage because the randomness of the charge makes them unreliable. Their unreliability makes it hard to devise a sound tactical plan for the game. This is a disadvantage a player of a ranged army does not have. And unlike the other inherent disadvantage of assault armies (having to get into melee range before being able to do anything) this one is virtually impossible to balance out through stats or point costs as it detracts from player skill.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 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.

Random? No. Variable? Sure. How much gear one is carrying, how well fed or rested one is, if one has minor injuries, equipment condition, etc can all influence how fast one can be.

Likewise, even running over even a seemingly empty grassy field can find small holes, uneven clumps, hidden rocks, etc, that can slow or cause one to trip and thats not taking into account being under fire.

And the chance of someone loosing his footing while running on normal terrain is pretty minimal.

I've seen it plenty of times. Hell I've done it plenty of times

In my Longsword group, someone falls down probably once or twice a month without even really being in contact with their foe, and thats on maintained gym floors with no mad dash to make contact. We have people fall over just playing stance tag (maintaining a fighting stance while playing "tag" as a warmup exercise) from time to time, again, on maintained gym floors. Balance isnt always easy, especially in combat.

That only becomes a problem on rough terrain, which is already represented with difficult and dangerous terrain.

People trip and fall over small things like sidewalk curbs (which 40k would not considet difficult terrain) all the time at normal walking paces (I mean, maybe not every day, but at the office I'm at now I've seen it happen a couple of times). In combat that happens not at all infrequently, and tales abound of things like insurgents crossing Iraqi streets with RPG-7's, tripping and killing themselves as the RPG warhead detonates as it is dropped nose first into the ground .

Also, there are no landmines in the game

They arent directly represented, but it was just a random example. Could be an unexploded mortar shell or the like just as easily.

and Space Marine power armour is supposed to be reliable enough not to break down from running a few meters

In new condition? Sure. After it may have been in the field for weeks and suffered a las bolt blast? Maybe not.

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.

well, in real life people generally just shoot at each other from very close distances instead of trying to bayonet each other, hand to hand combat in reality, as portrayed by 40k, is usually something that occurs as an "oh gak" surprise moment to individuals as someone turns a corner or someone dives behind a barricade not seeing a foe behind it. Nobody is fixing bayonets and mounting attacks across open ground as coherent units to take enemy held positions in the field through direct hand to hand assault

Much of the weirdness here is an artefact of GW's rules trying to make actions unit specific but everything else model specific, and that creates weirdness quite often.

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.

the problem is that morale varies wildly and many assault units have inherently crappy Ld (e.g. Orks, Ogryns, etc) whild others could literally never fail.

Generally, I do like the randomness of it, as nothing's guaranteed.

However, it is sometimes a bit too random. I would have been happier with a move + D6 charge range, or just 6+D6. Because it does suck to fail a 3" charge.

I think the big reason random charge distances were brought into the game is the fact you can pre-measure distances, and having a fixed charge range causes all kinds of trouble for melee dependant units (staying 1" or more out of charge range if it was fixed being the main issue). I've been told this sort of thing happened a lot in WHFB.

Personally, I prefer a Move + D6" approach, but if we got rid of the ability to premeasure distances, I wouldn't mind x2 Move charges.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Random? No. Variable? Sure. How much gear one is carrying, how well fed or rested one is, if one has minor injuries, equipment condition, etc can all influence how fast one can be.

Likewise, even running over even a seemingly empty grassy field can find small holes, uneven clumps, hidden rocks, etc, that can slow or cause one to trip and thats not taking into account being under fire.

The problem with your argument is that, firstly, this is not a simulation. It's supposed to be a strategy game, and they're supposed to be streamlining the rules to introduce more balance and player skill into the game, not less. Secondly, it's very inconsistent to insist that these kinds of variables should only apply to charges. There are many variables in marksmanship as well, perhaps even more. What if Brother Marineguynius has three bolts in his combat load that are a few grains light in propellant? What about the wind? What about swamp gas refracting the light from las weapons? What about weapon malfunctions? None of that is accounted for, so why should an Astartes in Terminator armor tripping over a clod of grass 25% of the time he tries to punch someone in the face be accounted for?

A terminator wouldn't trip anyway, anything that weighs over one tonne is simply going to rip right through anything that would trip a human and pound the ground flat. Same with a space marine.

One other thing that just occurred to me: how are they going to deal with charges through difficult terrain if the chance of being hindered by terrain is already built in to every charge action regardless of the ground it occurs on?

Well I guess the dude just tripped in the larger hole he just made.

Charge could benefit from being rolled with D3's, I think, something like 4D3 would be ideal, I think.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 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.

Random? No. Variable? Sure. How much gear one is carrying, how well fed or rested one is, if one has minor injuries, equipment condition, etc can all influence how fast one can be.

Likewise, even running over even a seemingly empty grassy field can find small holes, uneven clumps, hidden rocks, etc, that can slow or cause one to trip and thats not taking into account being under fire.

And the chance of someone loosing his footing while running on normal terrain is pretty minimal.

I've seen it plenty of times. Hell I've done it plenty of times

In my Longsword group, someone falls down probably once or twice a month without even really being in contact with their foe, and thats on maintained gym floors with no mad dash to make contact. We have people fall over just playing stance tag (maintaining a fighting stance while playing "tag" as a warmup exercise) from time to time, again, on maintained gym floors. Balance isnt always easy, especially in combat.

That only becomes a problem on rough terrain, which is already represented with difficult and dangerous terrain.

People trip and fall over small things like sidewalk curbs (which 40k would not considet difficult terrain) all the time at normal walking paces (I mean, maybe not every day, but at the office I'm at now I've seen it happen a couple of times). In combat that happens not at all infrequently, and tales abound of things like insurgents crossing Iraqi streets with RPG-7's, tripping and killing themselves as the RPG warhead detonates as it is dropped nose first into the ground .

Also, there are no landmines in the game

They arent directly represented, but it was just a random example. Could be an unexploded mortar shell or the like just as easily.

and Space Marine power armour is supposed to be reliable enough not to break down from running a few meters

In new condition? Sure. After it may have been in the field for weeks and suffered a las bolt blast? Maybe not.

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.

well, in real life people generally just shoot at each other from very close distances instead of trying to bayonet each other, hand to hand combat in reality, as portrayed by 40k, is usually something that occurs as an "oh gak" surprise moment to individuals as someone turns a corner or someone dives behind a barricade not seeing a foe behind it. Nobody is fixing bayonets and mounting attacks across open ground as coherent units to take enemy held positions in the field through direct hand to hand assault

Much of the weirdness here is an artefact of GW's rules trying to make actions unit specific but everything else model specific, and that creates weirdness quite often.

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.

the problem is that morale varies wildly and many assault units have inherently crappy Ld (e.g. Orks, Ogryns, etc) whild others could literally never fail.

You forgot that an Organized Charge only moves as fast as the Slowest Person.
Did 15 years of Steel Combat Myself.

 Luciferian wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Random? No. Variable? Sure. How much gear one is carrying, how well fed or rested one is, if one has minor injuries, equipment condition, etc can all influence how fast one can be.

Likewise, even running over even a seemingly empty grassy field can find small holes, uneven clumps, hidden rocks, etc, that can slow or cause one to trip and thats not taking into account being under fire.

The problem with your argument is that, firstly, this is not a simulation. It's supposed to be a strategy game, and they're supposed to be streamlining the rules to introduce more balance and player skill into the game, not less. Secondly, it's very inconsistent to insist that these kinds of variables should only apply to charges. There are many variables in marksmanship as well, perhaps even more. What if Brother Marineguynius has three bolts in his combat load that are a few grains light in propellant? What about the wind? What about swamp gas refracting the light from las weapons? What about weapon malfunctions? None of that is accounted for, so why should an Astartes in Terminator armor tripping over a clod of grass 25% of the time he tries to punch someone in the face be accounted for?

In my earlier post I made a distinction between movement types. To repeat, normal movement is done at a practiced and intentional combat pace, while Charges and Running is far more hasty and haphazard, hence why normal movement has a set value while running and charging is random. It's also there to avoid some of the weird 0.1" manipulation silliness from old Fantasy.

As for weapon accuracy, the types of shooting done in 40k arent really the kind where those things would require additional rules. They already have a random factor built in (hence why nothing automatically hits and even superhuman super soldiers miss often).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Anpu42 wrote:


You forgot that an Organized Charge only moves as fast as the Slowest Person.
Did 15 years of Steel Combat Myself.

that too, good point

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 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.

Random? No. Variable? Sure. How much gear one is carrying, how well fed or rested one is, if one has minor injuries, equipment condition, etc can all influence how fast one can be.

Likewise, even running over even a seemingly empty grassy field can find small holes, uneven clumps, hidden rocks, etc, that can slow or cause one to trip and thats not taking into account being under fire.

And the chance of someone loosing his footing while running on normal terrain is pretty minimal.

I've seen it plenty of times. Hell I've done it plenty of times

In my Longsword group, someone falls down probably once or twice a month without even really being in contact with their foe, and thats on maintained gym floors with no mad dash to make contact. We have people fall over just playing stance tag (maintaining a fighting stance while playing "tag" as a warmup exercise) from time to time, again, on maintained gym floors. Balance isnt always easy, especially in combat.

That only becomes a problem on rough terrain, which is already represented with difficult and dangerous terrain.

People trip and fall over small things like sidewalk curbs (which 40k would not considet difficult terrain) all the time at normal walking paces (I mean, maybe not every day, but at the office I'm at now I've seen it happen a couple of times). In combat that happens not at all infrequently, and tales abound of things like insurgents crossing Iraqi streets with RPG-7's, tripping and killing themselves as the RPG warhead detonates as it is dropped nose first into the ground .

It happens. But as you say, not all that frequently. Do you think it happens often enough to justify a completely random charge distance? And why would one person stumbling stop an entire squad's charge dead in his tracks?
"Charge men! For the Emperor!"
The Space Marines heroically charge into the hail of plasma bolts towards the Tau gunline, heedless of the casualties inflicted by the vile Xenos' firepower.
"Oh wait hold on guys, stop charging! Fred just tripped on a rock. Wait until he gets up, then we start charging together again on the count of three."

 Vaktathi wrote:

Also, there are no landmines in the game

They arent directly represented, but it was just a random example. Could be an unexploded mortar shell or the like just as easily.

Unexploded mortar shells are also not represented And if it were, such terrain hazards should be represented by a charging squad taking additional casualties, not by the entire group of people suddenly stopping their charge.

 Vaktathi wrote:

and Space Marine power armour is supposed to be reliable enough not to break down from running a few meters

In new condition? Sure. After it may have been in the field for weeks and suffered a las bolt blast? Maybe not.

Space Marines spend half their lives caring for their equipment. Presumably it is a lot more reliable than that. And even if it weren't, it would not justify random charge distances. Especially not for entire groups of units.

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.

well, in real life people generally just shoot at each other from very close distances instead of trying to bayonet each other, hand to hand combat in reality, as portrayed by 40k, is usually something that occurs as an "oh gak" surprise moment to individuals as someone turns a corner or someone dives behind a barricade not seeing a foe behind it. Nobody is fixing bayonets and mounting attacks across open ground as coherent units to take enemy held positions in the field through direct hand to hand assault

 Luciferian wrote:

 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.

Neither. I consider the odds and ranges ahead of time when putting my list together.

Before playing Sisters and Wolves, I played Artillery Gunline Imperial Guard and Imperial Guard Armoured Battlegroup, and wrote lists that were entirely dependent on me winning the initiative roll off. I won if I got to go first, I lost if I didn't.

Compared to that, I have a lot of control over a 2d6 charge. If that one charge was so essential that I had to make it to win the game, and I failed it, then I made a error in my planning or execution and need to analyse the situations that lead up to that being the deciding factor, and possibly return to the drawing board to make a new list. Or sometimes just shrug it off an try again. It's statistically improbably enough sometimes I can write it off, and play another game.


Oh, and I won the most recent game in memory where I had a unit [Vigilators], fail to charge 3 times in a row.

 Iron_Captain 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.

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.

This. I in general do not like random charge distances, but 2d6 is awfully unreliable for those who actually want to get in assault, and should in my opinion at least be replaced with something more reliable.
Failing a charge in general comes down to losing the unit or at least suffer crippling casualties for most assault based armies. Failing a few of these with key units will most likely cost you
the game so you do not want this to happen.


Post overwatch charge range 7" 41.66% failure
Post overwatch charge range 6" 27.77% failure -> More than 1 in 4 of your charges is likely to fail at 6"
Post overwatch charge range 5" 16.66% failure -> 1 in 6 of your charges is likely to fail at 5"
Post overwatch charge range 4" 8.33% failure -> 1 in 12 of your charges is likely to fail at 4"

This makes the charge range with an acceptable failure rate 4" and this is all is post over watch ranges. So for most this will be 3" to 2" for those assault based armies that tend to lose models in overwatch.

 Iron_Captain wrote:



It happens. But as you say, not all that frequently. Do you think it happens often enough to justify a completely random charge distance? And why would one person stumbling stop an entire squad's charge dead in his tracks?

The stop is really an artefact of the turns and igougo, really it would be more of a slowing or staggering, which may delay a charge enough to justify it carrying over into another game turn.

Does it happen in real life as often as portrayed in game? No, but enough that the mechanic isn't out of place. By the same token I can set a half blind 14 year old (BS1 for game purpowes) behind a modern assault rifle with a red dot optic and theyll hit a man sized target at 25 meters 100% of the time, not 16% of the time, whereas them hitting a moving target at 100m under combat stress would be almost entirely random chance. Abstraction isnt perfect.

"Charge men! For the Emperor!"
The Space Marines heroically charge into the hail of plasma bolts towards the Tau gunline, heedless of the casualties inflicted by the vile Xenos' firepower.
"Oh wait hold on guys, stop charging! Fred just tripped on a rock. Wait until he gets up, then we start charging together again on the count of three."

As helpfully noted by Anpu42, charge moves at the speed of the slowest component. In reality it wouldnt be a stop but a section of the line may slow or stagger however. Charges done into direct fire heedless of casualties, leaving behind stragglers and the like, are typically exceedingly costly affairs that often fail.

Unexploded mortar shells are also not represented And if it were, such terrain hazards should be represented by a charging squad taking additional casualties, not by the entire group of people suddenly stopping their charge.

Again, the "stop" doesnt really happen, thats just a game artefact. And thr example was someone seeing one at the last second and falling or tripping to avoid it that, at a more measured pace, they would have avoided entirely. An abstract example of what *could* happen.

In present-day not anymore. But in historical times it happened a lot. Even during WW2 infantry charges were still surprisingly common and used by every major army in the conflict.

Aye, they happened, but most also usually failed, costing many lives for little gain.

 Vaktathi wrote:

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.

the problem is that morale varies wildly and many assault units have inherently crappy Ld (e.g. Orks, Ogryns, etc) whild others could literally never fail.

True. It probably should not be based on leadership but rather on a separate morale value that represents a units willingness to engage in melee.
To make it even more realistic we could even make it so that the unit receiving the charge has to pass a check too or else it breaks and runs.

while perhaps ealistic, that sounds like even more dice rolling.

Except the current mechanic isn't realistic or tactical. The best option for both is fixed charge distances on a per-unit basis with a modifier for difficult terrain. Not only will assault benefit will, but everybody can pre-measure and know exactly how to maneuver their models about the table.

 oldzoggy wrote:

 Iron_Captain 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.

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.

This. I in general do not like random charge distances, but 2d6 is awfully unreliable for those who actually want to get in assault.
Failing a charge in general comes down to losing the unit or at least suffer crippling casualties for most assault based armies. Failing a few of these with key units will most likely cost you
the game so you do not want this to happen.


Post overwatch charge range 7" 41.66% failure
Post overwatch charge range 6" 27.77% failure -> More than 1 in 4 of your charges is likely to fail at 6"
Post overwatch charge range 5" 16.66% failure -> 1 in 6 of your charges is likely to fail at 5"
Post overwatch charge range 4" 8.33% failure -> 1 in 12 of your charges is likely to fail at 4"

This makes the charge range with an acceptable failure rate 4" and this is all is post over watch ranges. So for most this will be 3" to 2" for those assault based armies that tend to lose models in overwatch.

I think our conditions for acceptable rate of failure may be different. I try for the 25% all the time. Though I rarely have one unit charging a given target. I've got Celestine and the Vigilators going in together, or Bran and some melee Grey Hunters going in together. The Repentia usually go by themselves, but they're fleet and they tend to charge things that can't fight back effectively anyway.

Things that bug me.

A: "We're bringing back movement stats because each unit should be the proper speed!"
Bringing back a Movement stat and then...not really using it. That's just a silly decision. If everyone runs +D6" and charges 2D6", etc...you're not using your Movement stat. Why bring it back? Silly.

B: The consumer argument that "well that makes fast units better"
Yes. That is the point. It's not an unfair advantage. It is a purpose built advantage, which you should find a way to deal with. Balance does not mean everyone does the same thing...an army should excel in certain areas and suck in others. As long as the game results are balanced enough, you're doing fine. A genestealer or hormagaunt should without question be faster than 90% of the units on the table top...not "maybe" faster, but faster. This is where a Movement value based run/charge would have come in. A genestealer or hormagaunt may have crap armour, and no gun...so its advantage should be speed and viciousness in close combat.

C: Simplifying or streamlining the game...and then not"
GW indicated they wanted to streamline and simplify the game...and then they do this nonsense. As with 7th and the stupid movement values assigned to similar units etc., you'll end up with a dozen new special rules attached to each guard justifying why X unit is faster on a charge, or while running...instead of simply doubling the Movement value and calling it a day. Now, to set apart something like a genestealer we'll get "oh well Genestealers roll 3D6 and pick the best two..." etc. So you'll see another dozen rules (at least they'll be on the cards/unit entries) to justify breaking the game's rules again. (let's keep in mind the rules in 7th were so crap that certain units had 11(!) special rules...allowing them to break/ignore half of the core rules because they were so crap). This just means adding more dice rolls or time wasted to the turn sequence.

D: Well 2D6 is a bell curve and you get an average of...[i]
Doesn't matter. Nothing is more immersion breaking than a genetically engineered bio-beast made to hunt and kill fleshy things...rolling a 2-3" charge.

I was pretty intrigued by 8th, but honestly the running/charging stuff may be enough to keep me from really buying into it. Shame. As mentioned, if you're going to argue the nuances of randomness and battlefield chaos...then you need to include this throughout the game. I'm fine with that. As it stands the randomness is somewhat arbitrary (and oddly I love random stuff in certain games/settings/rules sets) and doesn't gel with the other phases/rules.

Wee! Buttons!

That's my very useful contribution to this topic.

The only time it should be random IMO is if you're charging across difficult or dangerous terrain.

It isn't keeping me away I my crab themed Dread mob army idea might just be viable in 8th and this makes me happy. But the 2d6 sure is a wasted opportunity in my book.

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
If that one charge was so essential that I had to make it to win the game, and I failed it, then I made a error in my planning or execution and need to analyse the situations that lead up to that being the deciding factor, and possibly return to the drawing board to make a new list. Or sometimes just shrug it off an try again. It's statistically improbably enough sometimes I can write it off, and play another game.

That's where you're exactly wrong, though. It's not statistically improbable at all - you said earlier that you automatically assume a 7" charge is a sure thing, but the truth is that you will fail a 7" charge more than one out of four times. That's not negligible at all, and the only way to tactically plan for its occurrence is to never charge from further away than 3". These are facts. It actively takes away from your ability to make plans and choices as a player and leaves everything up to chance, even if you're going to be successful three-fourths of the time.

Vaktathi wrote:

In my earlier post I made a distinction between movement types. To repeat, normal movement is done at a practiced and intentional combat pace, while Charges and Running is far more hasty and haphazard, hence why normal movement has a set value while running and charging is random. It's also there to avoid some of the weird 0.1" manipulation silliness from old Fantasy.

As for weapon accuracy, the types of shooting done in 40k arent really the kind where those things would require additional rules. They already have a random factor built in (hence why nothing automatically hits and even superhuman super soldiers miss often).

Yes, there are rolls which reflect a model's skill at wielding weapons, but there is nothing that precludes ranged attacks from even occurring at all, except for the range of the weapon. That's the inconsistency. There are already an equal amount of rolls to determine whether or not melee and ranged weapons hit, wound, and pierce the defenses of their targets. In addition, assaulting models must move into contact with their target as opposed to having the benefit of range and are penalized for attempting to do so by suffering an additional round of fire. Now, in addition, there is a very good chance they won't make it at all on top of everything else.

 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.

In other words, it's pretty much the same as having a fixed 6"-ish charge, but sometimes will completely screw you over. And that's better how?

All of the arguments in favour of 2D6 random would be addressed sufficiently with Move+D3 semi-random except the whole "slow units always get charged first" line, and frankly my first thought to that was "Yes. And?". There's no reason your shambling, bloated, lumpen hulk unit with low movement should suddenly find itself capable of leaping forward at three or four times that rate - slow is slow, the answer is to account for that when balancing the unit's other rules not impose a hideously wide range of random results on all charge attempts in the game to give the slow units an occasional surprise attack.

I'd prefer fixed myself, but then I don't tend to play in tournaments and refuse to play against petty TFGs, so I've never run into people wasting half an hour trying to gain a 0.1" advantage, so Move+D3 sounds like a fine compromise, ensuring that most of the determining factor in whether a charge succeeds or not rests on the player but playing for minute advantage is confounded.

As far as I'm concerned, if I've positioned my unit properly accounting for distance, terrain, any special rules I or my enemy might have etc, I've earned the reward of a successful charge and shouldn't be denied that reward because I happened to roll snake eyes.

Its kinda funny how assaulting at realistic ranges is currently more unreliable than shooting with plasma weapons ; )

 Luciferian wrote:

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
If that one charge was so essential that I had to make it to win the game, and I failed it, then I made a error in my planning or execution and need to analyse the situations that lead up to that being the deciding factor, and possibly return to the drawing board to make a new list. Or sometimes just shrug it off an try again. It's statistically improbably enough sometimes I can write it off, and play another game.

That's where you're exactly wrong, though. It's not statistically improbable at all - you said earlier that you automatically assume a 7" charge is a sure thing, but the truth is that you will fail a 7" charge more than one out of four times. That's not negligible at all, and the only way to tactically plan for its occurrence is to never charge from further away than 3". These are facts. It actively takes away from your ability to make plans and choices as a player and leaves everything up to chance, even if you're going to be successful three-fourths of the time.

First off, the game should not have come down to the point where a single unit's charge or shooting in one turn determines the game.

I didn't say 7" was a sure thing, I said I by default try for 7" and down with regular units, 9" and down with fleet units, if I only risk bolter overwatch for trying. If it's a tank, I try at any range, because it can't fight back at all and there's no loss for trying.

And, as I also said, if my first squad of 5 vigilators have a 27% chance of failure, both of the teams have a combined 7% chance of not get either of them in. If 7% chance is still too high, then there's Celestine and some Repentia, or Bran and some Grey Hunters, or even the leftover survivors of my Dominions to throw at the enemy to absolutely make sure it happens.

 oldzoggy wrote:
Its kinda funny how assaulting at realistic ranges is currently more unreliable than shooting with plasma weapons ; )

What do you consider to be 'realistic ranges'?

Because the chance of charging 4" is equal to the chance of rolling a 1.

Most players that I know tend to assault at ranges 5-7" pre overwatch with normal no special rules models.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

First off, the game should not have come down to the point where a single unit's charge or shooting in one turn determines the game.

I didn't say 7" was a sure thing, I said I by default try for 7" and down with regular units, 9" and down with fleet units, if I only risk bolter overwatch for trying. If it's a tank, I try at any range, because it can't fight back at all and there's no loss for trying.

And, as I also said, if my first squad of 5 vigilators have a 27% chance of failure, both of the teams have a combined 7% chance of not get either of them in. If 7% chance is still too high, then there's Celestine and some Repentia, or Bran and some Grey Hunters, or even the leftover survivors of my Dominions to throw at the enemy to absolutely make sure it happens.

And if you play enough games, you'll likely have a game in which the Vigilators, Celestine, the Repentia, Grey Hunters and Dominions all fail due to pure, arbitrary chance. Is that the kind of thing that tournaments should hang on? Is it really a balanced mechanic if you have to throw every single melee unit in army army at one target just to be sure that you'll even get the chance to assault? How is that allowing you tactical choice as a player as opposed to you just throwing all of your units at the odds until something sticks? How does that allow for sound planning if there's only one plan available to you? You keep talking up your tactical prowess, while at the same time describing how this mechanic in particular dictates your tactics in a very specific and inflexible way.

I like it, in a wargame, nothing should be guranteed,

I can see a small measure of a random element for charging, but 2D6" is far too large a variable to make sense. The argument that some soldiers tripped gets very ridiculous when you consider 20+ trained close combat killers finally getting their chance to engage the enemy...and "oopsy!" The argument that one failed charge shouldn't cost you the game is utterly presumptuous; real battles have been won or lost on the very same principle. A close combat unit must risk a great deal to get into position to charge; penalizing it with such a wide range of outcomes reduces player agency and makes for a game based more on luck than skill.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I like it, in a wargame, nothing should be guranteed,

Again, so why is it guaranteed to be able to make ranged attacks? If you're going to be consistent, how about we make a mechanic where every ranged attack made at the average range of all weapons has a 27.7% chance to never happen?