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.

I remember 5th edition when charging was a fixed 6 inches. Regardless of the ability of shooting armies being able to still dance away 12" from the units, I still remember getting into melee. And there's an important reason for that, ignoring a lock of pre-measuring: Because units can only move so far. the idea that shooting units can always move exactly 12.1" away is weak-sauce theory crafting. There's always a means to get in close enough where they can't get away, or be in a position that traps them against terrain.

A fixed charge ranged can be over come by a proper use of tactics, Random always allows a chance to fall flat on your face.

 Luciferian wrote:

 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?

You do, its called "To Hit" and "to Wound"

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:

 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?

You do, its called "To Hit" and "to Wound"

Wrong. We're talking about a mechanic that has a 27.7% chance to preclude you from even being able to roll to hit, let alone wound, at optimal charging range. If you applied the same mechanic to range attacks you would roll to see if the weapon even fires, then roll to hit and wound.

 Luciferian wrote:

 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.

Eventually. I think I've had at least one game where everybody who wanted into melee on a given turn failed to make it. But the chance of that is incredibly low. It's at the extreme end of the curve. And even then, it's not necessarily vital for victory.

I lose more games because I pretend that flying monstrous creatures aren't a thing and just accept that I'm going to lose to Flyrants or the Daemon Flying Circus than I do because I failed to charge with 2 units.

How many times have you had a destroyer weapon roll a 1 when targeting an enemy tank? I lose more games because the Shadowsword failed to do damage on a given turn than because I couldn't get a unit into close quarters.

I can think of a game where I lost because a Longfang missed his mark. I can think of a game I lost because the Manticore or Exorcist rolled a 1 today, or because 4 Dominions with Meltaguns failed to kill an enemy tank, or because a Lascannon Battery couldn't get a pen on a Ghost Ark even with Tank Hunter and Prescience and Perfect Timing. I can think of many, many, many games I lost because I didn't get the initiative, or because my opponent seized it. I can think of games where I can trace defeat to failing an Act of Faith test.

And sure, I can trace defeats to my combat units failing their charge rolls. I know I lost at least once because Bran failed a 4" charge into a Demon Prince. But I don't think its a serious concern. Charges are reliable enough that losing games because I failed a single charge is few and far between.

The new charge mechanic isn't random. If your 6 inches away, you need a 6+ on 2 dice. 10 inches? 10+. 3 inches? 3+.
In the current edition, if your ballistic skill is 4 you hit on a 3+. BS5 =2+. BS1 = 6+. Same idea with weapon skill and wounding. There is a range on which you must achieve a certain score. The range is fixed (1-6 or 2-12) and the required score is dictated by both fixed variables (unit stats) and factors within your control (battlefield positions).

 Luciferian wrote:

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?

And if you play enough games, you will have at least one where they all make their charge roll and then fail to score a single hit. I dont see people whining about the imbalanced brokenness of the To Hit and To Wound tables.

 Luciferian wrote:

 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?

You need to provide a good game balance reason as to why the system should change from random to fixed.

This thread has gone back and forth on the fluff reasoning, and that's not an argument that can ever resolve, because everyone has a different interpretation of how battles actually play out in this game.

So, i'll ask again... Why should the game be changed so that charge distance is not random & based on movement? From a game balance perspective. How does this make the game more balanced?

Saying "why shouldn't it" is insufficient.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:


How many times have you had a destroyer weapon roll a 1 when targeting an enemy tank? I lose more games because the Shadowsword failed to do damage on a given turn than because I couldn't get a unit into close quarters.

I can think of a game where I lost because a Longfang missed his mark. I can think of a game I lost because the Manticore or Exorcist rolled a 1 today, or because 4 Dominions with Meltaguns failed to kill an enemy tank, or because a Lascannon Battery couldn't get a pen on a Ghost Ark even with Tank Hunter and Prescience and Perfect Timing. I can think of many, many, many games I lost because I didn't get the initiative, or because my opponent seized it. I can think of games where I can trace defeat to failing an Act of Faith test.

And sure, I can trace defeats to my combat units failing their charge rolls. I know I lost at least once because Bran failed a 4" charge into a Demon Prince. But I don't think its a serious concern. Charges are reliable enough that losing games because I failed a single charge is few and far between.

Now take all of those examples, add another roll in front of them with a significant chance of failure, and tell me how many more games you would have lost due to dumb luck.

Personally, I've always thought that the 2D6 was a little too long for the average Charge. Cavalry, Bikes, Beasts, and Jumpers, sure. But anything that couldn't move more than 6" a Phase? It didn't add up.

It was a great boon for Assault units, that's for sure, but then the Overwatch craziness of Grim Resolve and Supporting Fire came in to play to revert it right back.

 Marmatag wrote:


You need to provide a good game balance reason as to why the system should change from random to fixed.

This thread has gone back and forth on the fluff reasoning, and that's not an argument that can ever resolve, because everyone has a different interpretation of how battles actually play out in this game.

So, i'll ask again... Why should the game be changed so that charge distance is not random & based on movement? From a game balance perspective. How does this make the game more balanced?

Saying "why shouldn't it" is insufficient.

I have done so plenty of times in this thread. The requirements that need to be met for a successful assault are already greater than those of a successful ranged attack. Now there's yet one more node of chance thrown in before you even get to roll to hit in melee combat. How is that not unbalanced in favor of range-heavy lists, especially with the addition of being able to break combat during your movement phase?

Also, I'm not saying that it should be fixed instead of having any element of chance. I'm just saying that the only sure charge distance shouldn't be three fething inches.

 Luciferian wrote:

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's range, LoS, and (at least in 7E) Snapshots and now BS modifiers for various stressed shooting extrapolations that can prevent or degrade shooting, mostly that CC didnt have to worry about (except range).

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.

Well, they also had other advantages. All their attacks inherently ignore cover, they dont care about LoS, they could inflict a single casualty and wipe the opposing unit if it broke, making it into CC locked the opponents actions, you could directly attack characters through challenges, they hit tanks on rear armor, etc. Now some of that will change, but CC has historically had some very powerful advantages

, in addition, there is a very good chance they won't make it at all on top of everything else.

There is also a good chance they will, and with 2d6 they have a greater potential reach and longer average charge distance than they did with the old 6" move, at the risk of the occasional flub.

With my armies, I havent found random charge distance to be a big hindrance. Honestly, the biggest killer has been no assaulting from even stationary vehicles and no assaulting from walk on reserve.

 Yodhrin wrote:


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?

Because it also gives you double the potential reach (and you roll 12" as often as you roll 2"), longer average charge distance, and with premeasuring allowed it prevents some of the more gimmicky micromovement games.

All of the arguments in favour of 2D6 random would be addressed sufficiently with Move+D3 semi-random

This would result in most units having a very long guaranteed charge distance, and would result in units like Bikes being able to assault something 25" away or closer at the start of their turn guaranteed, which would quite ridiculous.


That said Bikes in general really need to be something other than SpaceCavalry, but that's for anothe thread

 Luciferian wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:


You need to provide a good game balance reason as to why the system should change from random to fixed.

This thread has gone back and forth on the fluff reasoning, and that's not an argument that can ever resolve, because everyone has a different interpretation of how battles actually play out in this game.

So, i'll ask again... Why should the game be changed so that charge distance is not random & based on movement? From a game balance perspective. How does this make the game more balanced?

Saying "why shouldn't it" is insufficient.

I have done so plenty of times in this thread. The requirements that need to be met for a successful assault are already greater than those of a successful ranged attack. Now there's yet one more node of chance thrown in before you even get to roll to hit in melee combat. How is that not unbalanced in favor of range-heavy lists, especially with the addition of being able to break combat during your movement phase?

Also, I'm not saying that it should be fixed instead of without any element of chance. I'm just saying that the only sure charge distance shouldn't be three fething inches.

So, in principle, I agree with you - it's intensely frustrating to fail what should be a guaranteed charge. Like, my terminators could fall over forward and be in base contact, yet i fail by some miracle. Of course this usually involves difficult terrain, but still.

I think the challenge with 2D6 for most people, is that you don't really plan to attempt a charge of distance 10+ without fleet. So, your realistic charge range is 2-10" on 2D6. With that in mind, I think 1+2D6" was the right call, and a step in the right direction. Before we start changing it wildly, why not see how it pans out? I would be on board for 2+2D6 as well, but with the caveat that you can't charge more than 12".

Comparing charge distance to shooting distance, right there, is a problem. Can you really run as far as a bullet can fly? Pistols in this universe are lethal up to 12". Can you really charge further than bullet can fly? Furthermore, are you SO FAST that you can charge someone before they could fire overwatch, from *further than the max weapon distance* away? Because that's what a 12"+ charge becomes. You're charging someone from so far away that their weapons are unable to fire, and you're faster than their ability to react and squeeze the trigger over that distance.

Really it boils down to counter play.

Charging more than 12" removes a lot of counter play scenarios. Because a lot of units are slow movement compared to fast units, and it isn't fundamentally fair for units to either (a) charge from outside overwatch range and (b) declare a charge without any risk of a return charge from the unit they're targeting.

 Marmatag wrote:

I think the challenge with 2D6 for most people, is that you don't really plan to attempt a charge of distance 10+ without fleet.

Nope the issue is charging 6-7" without fleet

Look, I know folks like to harp on the whole "they tripped on uneven ground!" thing, and certainly the random charge distance can be that.

But take a look at what's going on here. In warfare, people don't take turns moving and it doesn't happen in phases. Likewise, shooting is not just done at one point in time.

IGOUGO is a pretty stark abstraction to make the action easy to follow. But it is (like all turn-based systems) for accurately representing the sweep of battle.

When that charge fails? Probably because the enemy effectively suppressed that unit and slowed them down in the process. But that unit making a headlong charge isn't stopping for teat in the middle of each phase, just like that enemy unit isn't sitting on its thumbs waiting to see if the enemy will cross the gap once their crumpets are done. The unit that rushed forward in the movement phase was doing that while firing their guns like madmen, the enemy unit was returning fire, and that random charge range is culmination of this exchange. If they make contact then they were more effective at suppressing the enemy and they came to grips, if not then they have been slowed down, perhaps caught out of position and are now getting pelted with fire while trying to regroup.

But that's just the narrative. I don't much care why it happens, and focusing too much on the "why does this abstraction occur" is a red herring.

Random charge range is a game mechanic. It is in there to not only represent the fog of war (as above) and our imperfect knowledge as a commander, but it is also meant to destabilize decision making in an environment where all players have perfect information at all times. In an environment where all players have a perfect god's eye view of events, there can be little uncertainty of action where such action is not randomized.

So why charging? Why not shooting? Well, first, shooting happens more often than charging and shooting is already pretty rife with rolling and checking things (line of sight, cover, multiple ranges in a given unit, in addition to the hit/wound/armour thing that assault also deals with). But more importantly, weapon ranges are pretty homogeneous from army to army. Most armies want to get to 12-24" in order to use their weapons. Outside of having a massive range advantage (which is rare, since fast armies tend to have closer ranged guns than slower ones) you can't really kite shooting units in the same way you do assault ones. Thus there is no need to randomize basic movement, maneuver and weapon ranges to counteract perfect player knowledge and good movement giving an undue advantage to long-ranged combat. Bottom line, almost every army in the game want to get in to firing range already.

So still, why random charging? The bottom line is high movement units in an environment with perfect knowledge. Players are omniscient in a way a battlefield commander could never be. If you have a movement advantage over the enemy then you basically get to control the flow of the game and this is not good. This is attributing too much importance to a single stat. No other stat in the game can decide whether or not you opponent gets to actually play the game, but with perfect knowledge movement can do just this. A unit with a movement advantage never has to take a risk when it comes to charging or getting charged. Superior movement lets shooty units kite as long as they want and it lets close combat troops always get the charge off. This doesn't make the person a superior general, it is not a sign of superior skill, it is simply punishment for the player playing a slower army with a close combat bent. Generally, static charging in an environment of perfect knowledge kills a great deal of play styles and makes gunlines the default method of play for anything that can't control the flow of battle with movement.

Just look at WFB before it got the random charge. Gunlines, gunlines as far as the eye could see. Entire sections of many army lists were completely useless because no matter how skilled their players were, they simply couldn't compete with armies that could run circles around them. So instead of competing, everyone just loaded up on guns, bows, cannons and other artillery. Games became static and boring and everything degenerated, all because of the movement gap making it pointless for many armies to even attempt to compete in close combat. With 7th already being so shoot happy, I don't think folks want that trend to continue, but static charging absolutely will cause that to occur.

At the end of the day, the choice to randomize something or not randomize it is completely arbitrary and up to the designer. If one thing is static then there is no reason something else wont be. If one thing is randomized to a greater or lesser degree then there is no reason everything can't be. It's is a game, it is an abstraction by default. At the end of the day, whether a given mechanic should have randomized resolution should come down to whether or not it makes a better game (which is also subjective and down to the will of the designer).

Personally? Having seen the state WFB got left in, I have no desire for fast armies to dictate the entire pace of the battle. Movement shouldn't be the game's god stat. I also want to see foot-slogging close combatants have a chance to compete.

As for the specific way it is randomized? 2d6 is simple and elegant. Using the M value (even halved) and a random roll to make the range more predictable just puts power back in the hands of high movement. Using a bunch of d3's may give a higher minimum but it lacks elegance and simplicity of straight 2d6. Using a static value just goes back to the problem of having perfect knowledge of the situation which is always bad for slower armies because it produces no chance of counterplay.

So yeah, I've played every edition of 40k (because for some reason a popular "refutation" of why folks accept 2d6 charges is that they are noobies that just don't know better). I've been wargaming for over twenty years (and 40k isn't the first or only game to randomize movement, hell it doesn't even go as far as games that require activation rolls). And I am on board with 40k's adoption of 2d6 charge. It is a step in the right direction and it allows the game to skip pre-measurment without all the movement gaming that ends up happening (and that was technically happening when we were guessing ranges anyways because most of us can measure ranges by eye in our sleep).

I get that folks hate seeing snake-eyes come up to ruin an important charge, it feels random and capricious (and with how unlikely it is, it often strikes memorably and without warning). It doesn't feel good (I play Deathwing, I have a natural fear of 1's already built in here). Flubbing a roll never does. But in terms of the greater whole, random (weighted) charges have a positive effect on making the safety of high movement less assured. So I'm willing to take an 8.33% chance that I may only be able to engage out to 3" if it means those durn space elves/bugs/whatever can't dance around the edge of my charge range with utter impunity and completely control the pace of the game just because they get a couple extra points of movement. Just another thing to plan for. It helps that there are going to be special rules modifying it to high hell, but even as a base concept it still works for me and I'm glad it's in the game.

Just my 0.02CDN (wait, I need to round that to 0.05 now don't I?) on the subject.

and the other issue is overwatch resulting in an additional 1 - 2"

 Vaktathi wrote:
Well, they also had other advantages. All their attacks inherently ignore cover, they dont care about LoS, they could inflict a single casualty and wipe the opposing unit if it broke, making it into CC locked the opponents actions, you could directly attack characters through challenges, they hit tanks on rear armor, etc. Now some of that will change, but CC has historically had some very powerful advantages

All true, but in my opinion this was balanced out by the requirements of moving into physical contact and suffering overwatch fire. And, as you said, many of those things are ALSO being changed in favor of units defending against charges. The only solid advantage that melee units have gained so far is the ability to attack first when charging, but given all of the other changes that seems to be somewhat of a paltry compensation. Outside of exploitative deathstar combos, would you say that melee units are effective when compared to ranged units in 7th? Well, they currently enjoy many of the advantages you mentioned, but most of those are changing.

Just to recap some of the changes to melee combat:

Nerfs
There is now a 27.7% chance to fail a charge at the most likely charge range of 7", and the only guaranteed charge distance is 3"
Units being charged can now overwatch multiple times per phase
Any units in combat can simply move out of combat up to their movement value with the penalty of not being able to take any offensive measures that turn. However, any other friendly units can fire at their newly disengaged opponents
It is no longer possible to sweep enemy units retreating from combat, they get to run away at will
Morale now simply causes an additional number of casualties and doesn't have the chance of the more extreme effects it used to have
Vehicles as a whole are much more survivable and can't be one shot. They will have to be whittled away by powerful, multi-wound weapons

Buffs
You now have to charge to within 1" instead of base to base contact
There is now a possibility of charging up to 13", but a successful 13" charge has a 2.78% probability of happening
Charging units strike first. However, we don't know how special rules are going to affect this for different weapon types and units

That's all I can think of.

So, my dudes, how is that balanced?

 Luciferian wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Well, they also had other advantages. All their attacks inherently ignore cover, they dont care about LoS, they could inflict a single casualty and wipe the opposing unit if it broke, making it into CC locked the opponents actions, you could directly attack characters through challenges, they hit tanks on rear armor, etc. Now some of that will change, but CC has historically had some very powerful advantages

All true, but in my opinion this was balanced out by the requirements of moving into physical contact and suffering overwatch fire. And, as you said, many of those things are ALSO being changed in favor of units defending against charges. The only solid advantage that melee units have gained so far is the ability to attack first when charging, but given all of the other changes that seems to be somewhat of a paltry compensation. Outside of exploitative deathstar combos, would you say that melee units are effective when compared to ranged units in 7th? Well, they currently enjoy many of the advantages you mentioned, but most of those are changing.

Just to recap some of the changes to melee combat:

Nerfs
There is now a 27.7% chance to fail a charge at the most likely charge range of 7", and the only guaranteed charge distance is 3"
Units being charged can now overwatch multiple times per phase
Any units in combat can simply move out of combat up to their movement value with the penalty of not being able to take any offensive measures that turn. However, any other friendly units can fire at their newly disengaged opponents
It is no longer possible to sweep enemy units retreating from combat, they get to run away at will
Morale now simply causes an additional number of casualties and doesn't have the chance of the more extreme effects it used to have
Vehicles as a whole are much more survivable and can't be one shot. They will have to be whittled away by powerful, multi-wound weapons

Buffs
You now have to charge to within 1" instead of base to base contact
There is now a possibility of charging up to 13", but a successful 13" charge has a 2.78% probability of happening
Charging units strike first. However, we don't know how special rules are going to affect this for different weapon types and units

That's all I can think of.

So, my dudes, how is that balanced?

I can think of one more buff: you can now assault out of transports [again. I don't know why they removed that]. That saves your assault units 2 rounds of getting shot at, so now they only get shot once, by overwatch.

You can also bump into other units and draw them into close combat while piling. I like this buff a lot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
and my guess is that transports got more durable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I even like this retreat from combat thingy (outside the obvious horrible abuse that is going to happen with some shooty builds).
Since it allows some tactics such as screening units and just stepping away from nightmarish monsters and to be fair you can't really more out of combat if you are fighting 1 on 1. Since you will be out, and can't do noting while your opponent will just assault you again. All that it does is allowing you to retreat to a safe position. It makes the game more dynamic, especially when combined with the ability to overflow into other combats, this I like a lot.

Not sure at all if I am a fan of the alternate activation for this seems to favor low unit count close combat armies and those are generally not that fun to play against.

2d6 is way too random. I don't mind a bit of dice, but, speaking from a tournament player perspective, I've seen many games where the most important roll looking back turned out to either be a unit failing to reach melee to either kill or lock down a threat (like the omnipresent riptide) at a silly short range like 4", or a key unit being lost due to a melee threat making a long bomb Hail Mary 12" charge.

I'm fine with set charge range, more stabilized random charge range, or something similar. I would've most preferred charging your move stat in the movement phase, IE 6+6 for marines.

Overwatch is also stupid. You're already shooting in your turn. If you could've shot faster just because someone started running towards you, why weren't you shooting that fast to begin with? And now a squad can go all trigger happy if the enemies keep failing charges, spitting out more fire in the enemy assault phase than they could across multiple game turns.

All told, assault-centric units better be cheap as chips compared to heavy weapons similar to shadow war if we're going to have any kind of melee-shooting balance.

 Marmatag wrote:


Comparing charge distance to shooting distance, right there, is a problem. Can you really run as far as a bullet can fly? Pistols in this universe are lethal up to 12". Can you really charge further than bullet can fly? Furthermore, are you SO FAST that you can charge someone before they could fire overwatch, from *further than the max weapon distance* away? Because that's what a 12"+ charge becomes. You're charging someone from so far away that their weapons are unable to fire, and you're faster than their ability to react and squeeze the trigger over that distance.

Really it boils down to counter play.

Charging more than 12" removes a lot of counter play scenarios. Because a lot of units are slow movement compared to fast units, and it isn't fundamentally fair for units to either (a) charge from outside overwatch range and (b) declare a charge without any risk of a return charge from the unit they're targeting.

Well I don't know how much distance 1" is supposed to represent in scale, but in real life a properly motivated person with an edged weapon is almost guaranteed a chance to cut you if they're within 21' of you, unless you already have them in your sights. Granted, a group of trained soldiers would have overlapping fields of fire and this isn't really a battlefield issue.

Anyway, I can agree with you that charging even 12" is a bit much. I would be happy with M+D3 or something like that. I would even be happy with fixed 6" charge. Having the extra charge range is NOT worth the random chance of failure, in my opinion.

For me, the current invariable sequence is:
1) Beginning of the turn, note that my unit is 10" from their unit.
2) Move out of cover and 6" towards target unit in the movement phase.
3) Declare a charge against the enemy unit now 4" from my unit.
4) Roll for charge distance.
5) Bang head against wall when I realize the 2 I rolled means my unit is in the open and in range of every unit my opponent has on the table.

A good you are all in rapid fire range I see.

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I can think of one more buff: you can now assault out of transports [again. I don't know why they removed that]. That saves your assault units 2 rounds of getting shot at, so now they only get shot once, by overwatch.

oldzoggy wrote:You can also bump into other units and draw them into close combat while piling. I like this buff a lot.

Yep, I forgot about both of those.

Don't forget, after a single round of blows, (and remember that there is no bonus attack for charging now,) the defenders can happily tip-toe away and let the rest of their army obliterate the foolish unit that dared to lay a hand on what has been the stronger army style in general for multiple editions now.

 Ronin_eX wrote:
Look, I know folks like to harp on the whole "they tripped on uneven ground!" thing, and certainly the random charge distance can be that.

But take a look at what's going on here. In warfare, people don't take turns moving and it doesn't happen in phases. Likewise, shooting is not just done at one point in time.

IGOUGO is a pretty stark abstraction to make the action easy to follow. But it is (like all turn-based systems) for accurately representing the sweep of battle.

When that charge fails? Probably because the enemy effectively suppressed that unit and slowed them down in the process. But that unit making a headlong charge isn't stopping for teat in the middle of each phase, just like that enemy unit isn't sitting on its thumbs waiting to see if the enemy will cross the gap once their crumpets are done. The unit that rushed forward in the movement phase was doing that while firing their guns like madmen, the enemy unit was returning fire, and that random charge range is culmination of this exchange. If they make contact then they were more effective at suppressing the enemy and they came to grips, if not then they have been slowed down, perhaps caught out of position and are now getting pelted with fire while trying to regroup.

But that's just the narrative. I don't much care why it happens, and focusing too much on the "why does this abstraction occur" is a red herring.

Random charge range is a game mechanic. It is in there to not only represent the fog of war (as above) and our imperfect knowledge as a commander, but it is also meant to destabilize decision making in an environment where all players have perfect information at all times. In an environment where all players have a perfect god's eye view of events, there can be little uncertainty of action where such action is not randomized.

So why charging? Why not shooting? Well, first, shooting happens more often than charging and shooting is already pretty rife with rolling and checking things (line of sight, cover, multiple ranges in a given unit, in addition to the hit/wound/armour thing that assault also deals with). But more importantly, weapon ranges are pretty homogeneous from army to army. Most armies want to get to 12-24" in order to use their weapons. Outside of having a massive range advantage (which is rare, since fast armies tend to have closer ranged guns than slower ones) you can't really kite shooting units in the same way you do assault ones. Thus there is no need to randomize basic movement, maneuver and weapon ranges to counteract perfect player knowledge and good movement giving an undue advantage to long-ranged combat. Bottom line, almost every army in the game want to get in to firing range already.

So still, why random charging? The bottom line is high movement units in an environment with perfect knowledge. Players are omniscient in a way a battlefield commander could never be. If you have a movement advantage over the enemy then you basically get to control the flow of the game and this is not good. This is attributing too much importance to a single stat. No other stat in the game can decide whether or not you opponent gets to actually play the game, but with perfect knowledge movement can do just this. A unit with a movement advantage never has to take a risk when it comes to charging or getting charged. Superior movement lets shooty units kite as long as they want and it lets close combat troops always get the charge off. This doesn't make the person a superior general, it is not a sign of superior skill, it is simply punishment for the player playing a slower army with a close combat bent. Generally, static charging in an environment of perfect knowledge kills a great deal of play styles and makes gunlines the default method of play for anything that can't control the flow of battle with movement.

Just look at WFB before it got the random charge. Gunlines, gunlines as far as the eye could see. Entire sections of many army lists were completely useless because no matter how skilled their players were, they simply couldn't compete with armies that could run circles around them. So instead of competing, everyone just loaded up on guns, bows, cannons and other artillery. Games became static and boring and everything degenerated, all because of the movement gap making it pointless for many armies to even attempt to compete in close combat. With 7th already being so shoot happy, I don't think folks want that trend to continue, but static charging absolutely will cause that to occur.

At the end of the day, the choice to randomize something or not randomize it is completely arbitrary and up to the designer. If one thing is static then there is no reason something else wont be. If one thing is randomized to a greater or lesser degree then there is no reason everything can't be. It's is a game, it is an abstraction by default. At the end of the day, whether a given mechanic should have randomized resolution should come down to whether or not it makes a better game (which is also subjective and down to the will of the designer).

Personally? Having seen the state WFB got left in, I have no desire for fast armies to dictate the entire pace of the battle. Movement shouldn't be the game's god stat. I also want to see foot-slogging close combatants have a chance to compete.

As for the specific way it is randomized? 2d6 is simple and elegant. Using the M value (even halved) and a random roll to make the range more predictable just puts power back in the hands of high movement. Using a bunch of d3's may give a higher minimum but it lacks elegance and simplicity of straight 2d6. Using a static value just goes back to the problem of having perfect knowledge of the situation which is always bad for slower armies because it produces no chance of counterplay.

So yeah, I've played every edition of 40k (because for some reason a popular "refutation" of why folks accept 2d6 charges is that they are noobies that just don't know better). I've been wargaming for over twenty years (and 40k isn't the first or only game to randomize movement, hell it doesn't even go as far as games that require activation rolls). And I am on board with 40k's adoption of 2d6 charge. It is a step in the right direction and it allows the game to skip pre-measurment without all the movement gaming that ends up happening (and that was technically happening when we were guessing ranges anyways because most of us can measure ranges by eye in our sleep).

I get that folks hate seeing snake-eyes come up to ruin an important charge, it feels random and capricious (and with how unlikely it is, it often strikes memorably and without warning). It doesn't feel good (I play Deathwing, I have a natural fear of 1's already built in here). Flubbing a roll never does. But in terms of the greater whole, random (weighted) charges have a positive effect on making the safety of high movement less assured. So I'm willing to take an 8.33% chance that I may only be able to engage out to 3" if it means those durn space elves/bugs/whatever can't dance around the edge of my charge range with utter impunity and completely control the pace of the game just because they get a couple extra points of movement. Just another thing to plan for. It helps that there are going to be special rules modifying it to high hell, but even as a base concept it still works for me and I'm glad it's in the game.

Just my 0.02CDN (wait, I need to round that to 0.05 now don't I?) on the subject.

This is an excellent post. Having a high movement stat is already a huge advantage, no need to compound it.

What about a 4D3 charge distance? Same maximum result, better minimum.

 Wyzilla wrote:

 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.

I have two degrees in history and am pursuing a doctorate. I think I know what I am talking about.

To take your specific example of bayonets, they were almost never used in infantry on infantry combat. In the entire 7 years of the Peninsular War there is one example of infantry crossing bayonets in the open field. Bayonets were used to repel cavalry and in fights for fortified positions; field battles were decided by shooting and yelling until one side got tired or scared and ran away.

Cavalry charged. Infantry did not, at least not in the way we tend to envision it.

First priority is making the game good. A distant second is trying to appease realism.

If you're really wanting the realism, I would think you would go for attacking the criminally short ranges of some of the long range and barrage weapons, or the extremely vulnerable design of most walking titans, among the other numerous breaches of contract with reality.

 Bobthehero wrote:
What about a 4D3 charge distance? Same maximum result, better minimum.

In practice, it works and would probably be my #1 alternative. But it also lacks elegance and simplicity.

The d3 is already kind of an inefficient die, because for the most part (unless you're a nutter like me that owns a lot of Zocchi dice) it is a virtual die. That is, you use a d6 to make it and then divide the result by 2 (or just memorize 1-2 = 1, 3-4=2, 5-6=3). It takes an additional tick to read its result, and while its not a huge issue, it is less ideal than rolling a die and reading it at face value.

It is no doubt a useful die when all you have are d6's, but it should be used sparingly as well. Roll 1d3 for wounds or a small blast? Sure.

But rolling four of them and reading (then reformatting in your mind) the results isn't as ideal as rolling two dice and adding the face values together.

Further it gives you this distribution (percentage to roll at least that result):

4 = 100%
5 = 98.7%
6 = 98.83%
7 = 81.48%
8 = 61.73%
9 = 38.27%
10 = 18.52%
11 = 6.17%
12 = 1.23%

As compared to a 2d6 (percentage to roll at least that result):

2 = 100%
3 = 97.22%
4 = 91.67%
5 = 83.33%
6 = 72.22%
7 = 58.33%
8 = 41.67%
9 = 27.78%
10 = 16.67%
11 = 8.33%
12 = 2.78%

So after around 8" the values start to coalesce and start getting pretty close and after 10" the 4d3 is actually worse at achieving the extreme end on the other side. So you kind of flip things. Much more reliable results on the low-to-mid end, less reliable on the high-end.

So it makes 6" charge (i.e. 7" threat range) a lot more reliable (98.83% opposed to 72.22%) and brings the minimum range to 5" (including the 1" boost) but long-shot charges past 10" become longer shots with 10" charges being about the same. So a unit trying to stay just out of 12" after enemy movement can be quite a bit more confident that the enemy wont make that charge, and the chance of it is low enough that I probably wouldn't even risk it unless I had nothing to lose. 2d6 will hit a 12" charge (i.e. an 11 or 12 on the dice) 11.11% of the time. 4d3 manages it 7.4% of the time.

As I said, it is probably my favourite alternative posted, but I don't think the shrunken range and longer long shots are as beneficial as the rank simplicity of tossing two dice and reading the results. But if GW had their backs against the wall due to fan backlash (although the two polls seems to suggest otherwise) then I say this would be my hope for a replacement. But I still think the general simplicity of the 2d6 makes it a winner even if it can deliver a snake-eyes charge where 4d3 cannot.

Edit - I think the probability peak of a 2d6 is also easier to understand than the one produced by 4d3 which is smoother but a lot less intuitive. But that may just be because it is a fairly common pair of dice to toss.

 Ronin_eX wrote:

So after around 8" the values start to coalesce and start getting pretty close and after 10" the 4d3 is actually worse at achieving the extreme end on the other side. So you kind of flip things. Much more reliable results on the low-to-mid end, less reliable on the high-end.

So it makes 6" charge (i.e. 7" threat range) a lot more reliable (98.83% opposed to 72.22%) and brings the minimum range to 5" (including the 1" boost) but long-shot charges past 10" become longer shots with 10" charges being about the same. So a unit trying to stay just out of 12" after enemy movement can be quite a bit more confident that the enemy wont make that charge, and the chance of it is low enough that I probably wouldn't even risk it unless I had nothing to lose. 2d6 will hit a 12" charge (i.e. an 11 or 12 on the dice) 11.11% of the time. 4d3 manages it 7.4% of the time.

Sounds pretty much ideal to me.

Don't we have enough threads about charge range?