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.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
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.

This is a great poll!
Thanks!
I hope that they don't close it!
Results are very interesting so far...

 jeff white wrote:
This is a great poll!
Thanks!
I hope that they don't close it!
Results are very interesting so far...

How are they interesting.. its pretty much 50/50

GodDamUser wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
This is a great poll!
Thanks!
I hope that they don't close it!
Results are very interesting so far...

How are they interesting.. its pretty much 50/50

How is "not random" being at 32% make it 50/50?

 CrownAxe wrote:

How is "not random" being at 32% make it 50/50?

When you consider that the I like 2d6 is also at roughly same percentage, based on a 2 party preference

Otherwise I could say 1/3rd don't like random so majority are for the random rolls

But in reality with this poll at the moment it is 1/3 no random, 1/3 2d6, 1/3 other/dead vote


and considering the 'others' (you could argue that the 1d6 have enough votes) are in such small numbers they can be negated you end up with a 50/50 result

GodDamUser wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

How is "not random" being at 32% make it 50/50?

When you consider that the I like 2d6 is also at roughly same percentage, based on a 2 party preference

Otherwise I could say 1/3rd don't like random so majority are for the random rolls

But in reality with this poll at the moment it is 1/3 no random, 1/3 2d6, 1/3 other/dead vote


and considering the 'others' (you could argue that the 1d6 have enough votes) are in such small numbers they can be negated you end up with a 50/50 result

The OP posed this thread for random charges vs non-random charges, not specifically about 2d6 charges. By that logic it's 58% for random to 32% against random

 CrownAxe wrote:

The OP posed this thread for random charges vs non-random charges, not specifically about 2d6 charges. By that logic it's 58% for random to 32% against random

I did say that as well

I see 49% that want charge range to be some amount less random than 2d6, and 38% that want it to stay as random or more.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
I see 49% that want charge range to be some amount less random than 2d6, and 38% that want it to stay as random or more.

That's a really forced reading of a poll in order to fit the conclusion you wanted to come to in the first place. It's 32% entirely non-random (a little under one third of respondants) and then ~56% who want some form of random with the most common (at 38%) being straight 2d6.

It would be unfair to assume that the 18% that chose for a random charge would automatically go for static if given the choice (considering that they didn't go for static when presented as a choice). The poll isn't asking what folk's second choice would be and it would be weird to lump folks looking for a random charge in with the static charge folks since you can't tell which of those, let's call them "swing" voters would go one way or the other if pressed.

Either way, the largest block of votes is still squarely on 2d6 straight. Combine it with the block of folks that don't give a grot's and that makes ~44% of the population just fine with the status quo as presented.

Not that anyone should use a forum poll as some kind of conclusive data (especially not with a sample size that small and pulled from what is likely a non-representative group of self-selected respondents), but if you wanted to draw any conclusions from this and the more poorly worded one, it is that Dakka isn't quite so universally against a 2d6 charge as some posters want to believe it is.

 Saber wrote:

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

There were bayonet charges even in the Ukrainian war a couple years ago. Sure, they are nothing close to what one would call mellee combat (fencing) - it's rather like run run run STAB STAB STAB. And it's aimed towards drawing the enemy off position - not necesserily killing everyone. In fact, historically, bayonet charges almost never ended up as mellee fights with mass casualties. They were used to take ground.

Would much prefer not random at all but if adding in random, something based upon the movement stat to give less variation i.e. movement + D3 though this would then double the benefit of fast movers. Something like 1/2 movement plus 2D3 would have also worked but moved away from the streamlining they are looking for.

 Ronin_eX wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:
I see 49% that want charge range to be some amount less random than 2d6, and 38% that want it to stay as random or more.

That's a really forced reading of a poll in order to fit the conclusion you wanted to come to in the first place. It's 32% entirely non-random (a little under one third of respondants) and then ~56% who want some form of random with the most common (at 38%) being straight 2d6.

I don't think it's forced, I read it as 49% want less variability, they just aren't in agreement whether less = D6 or less = none, with more of that group favouring none.

Likewise 55% want some sort of random, but they too can't agree on whether they want 2D6 or 1D6, with most of that group favouring 2D6.

I'm kind of surprised so many people like 2D6, I wonder if it's a true representation or biased by the fact this is a 40k forum and people who don't like random 2D6 charge range also have, well, quit 40k already I haven't met too many people who jumped up and said they love 2D6 but plenty saying that's part of the reason they quit, but obviously my sample size isn't huge in that case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

I would say not knowing the outcome exactly makes something unpredictable and the wider the variability, the less predictable it is.


If anyone's interested in what the spread is for 2D6, this is your chance of of failing a charge...

>2" - 3%
>3" - 8%
>4" - 17%
>5" - 28%
>6" - 42%
>7" - 58%
>8" - 72%
>9" - 83%
>10" - 92%
>11" - 97%
>12" - 100%

I'd say a 28% chance of failing a 5.1" charge isn't great when you also have a 28% chance of passing an 8" one.

I just find it so boring when games are won or lost due to the variability in a single dice roll that IMO should revolve around a player decision instead of randomness. My eagerness to play a game tanked after winning a game that I really should have lost if not for rolling a 10 for my charge and my opponent rolling 4's for their charges. Just end up feeling like I wasted time setting up my models.

I think the only way I could get behind 2D6 worth of variability is if winning or losing the charge didn't have such large consequences for the game as a whole, and you could certainly write a ruleset where that's the case, but I don't think 40k will ever be it unless they make some pretty drastic changes to how turns and phases operate.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
If anyone's interested in what the spread is for 2D6, this is your chance of of failing a charge...

2" - 3%
3" - 8%
4" - 17%
5" - 28%
6" - 42%
7" - 58%
8" - 72%
9" - 83%
10" - 92%
11" - 97%
12" - 100%

That doesn't seem accurate. You don't have a 100% chance of failing a 12 inch charge, because a result of double-6 IS possible, and a roll of double-1's at least gives you 2 inches. You need to shift everything there up one, with the 2 inch charge being 0%.

2" - 0%
3" - 3%
4" - 8%
5" - 17%
6" - 28%
7" - 42%
8" - 58%
9" - 72%
10" - 83%
11" - 92%
12" - 97%

Command points will grant charge range re-rolls and stuff like that

I have a tiny tiny attention span when it comes to tactics that always work and no random. The reason is that every game starts to become the same.

And that really burns me out.

So yeah - I'm fine with the level of random in 40k. If one wants to play like they have a pair, there is a game with a page 5 that states that very thing groomed particularly for ultra competitive players.

 Yarium wrote:
[That doesn't seem accurate. You don't have a 100% chance of failing a 12 inch charge....

I included > signs, > means "larger than". You can make a 12" charge, but you can't make a > 12" charge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:
I have a tiny tiny attention span when it comes to tactics that always work and no random. The reason is that every game starts to become the same.

But why so random? Why not D6?

Personally I prefer not random at all, but I don't think it works well with premeasuring. However the amount of randomness I want to see is on the order of what guessed ranges used to be like rather than the crazy random 10" spread in threat range. When armies deploy 24" apart a 10" spread represents over 40% of the distance between the forces at the start of the game.

If one wants to play like they have a pair, there is a game with a page 5 that states that very thing groomed particularly for ultra competitive players.

I don't know what that reference is supposed to be, but a desire to minimise randomness isn't a subset of competitiveness.

 Yarium wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
If anyone's interested in what the spread is for 2D6, this is your chance of of failing a charge...

2" - 3%
3" - 8%
4" - 17%
5" - 28%
6" - 42%
7" - 58%
8" - 72%
9" - 83%
10" - 92%
11" - 97%
12" - 100%

That doesn't seem accurate. You don't have a 100% chance of failing a 12 inch charge, because a result of double-6 IS possible, and a roll of double-1's at least gives you 2 inches. You need to shift everything there up one, with the 2 inch charge being 0%.

2" - 0%
3" - 3%
4" - 8%
5" - 17%
6" - 28%
7" - 42%
8" - 58%
9" - 72%
10" - 83%
11" - 92%
12" - 97%

it also ignores the be within an inch you have to be within 12 inches to charge so bump em all up a slot. 3 inch is 100% 12" 92%

I don't find 2D6 to be mega random.

If I'm within 6" of someone then as the stats block above points out, I have a roughly 72% of succeeding that charge.

2D6 allows for improbable gambles to happen and also prevents one from just getting within 6" and knowing that they will 100% get the charge off. I enjoy that range of probabilities, it prevents the game from becoming super static and keeps replayability higher.

If we were to incorporate random charges in our game it would probably be D6 + 3" to narrow down the extremes given on 2D6.

I think if you're going to do D6+3" you might as well not even bother and just use static.

I think a lot are missing the point of the 2d6" charge. It is to add a level of chance and excitement to a game.

One of the more fun games I had I missed a 3" Assault with a pair of Snake Eyes after spending two turns setting up the 'Perfect" Assault including avoiding Overwatch using terrain and a second unit to engage the 20-30 model Ork Mob. Yes it was frustrating and we had a laugh about it. The next turn the Ork Player on a whim then pulled off a 10" and 11" Assault. I still won the Now Close game, but we enjoyed it a lot better than the walk over it was becoming.

12% do not matter.
Of the rest, 49/88 want less random than current rules.
39/88 want same or more.
Seems pretty clear where sentiments lie here.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
and remember that there is no bonus attack for charging now,

This isn't confirmed yet; but very likely

 jeff white wrote:
12% do not matter.
Of the rest, 49/88 want less random than current rules.
39/88 want same or more.
Seems pretty clear where sentiments lie here.

I would not call 10% Pretty Clear.
It seems that 32 out of 88 want No Random and 62 out of 88 want a Random Charge distance.

It can be read either way.

Yeah. There is no "pretty clear" here unless you want to try to push an agenda of a variant of appealing to authority or try to have the weight of a perceived majority to validate ones' opinion..

Its pretty clear that the community lies roughly split in half on the issue as it always has, and your poll results will vary by forum. On a more competitive tourney minded forum, people wll not like random as much as compared to a less serious casual forum.

And if you check the other thread/poll its now at 49% for 2D6 charges. However there's a sorta troll option in the pool that kind skewers it.

So,

I'd rather have 2d6 to 1d6.

1d6 has a flat probability distribution. I don't really like that.

It's easier to count on and plan around the 2d6 distribution than a 1d6 distribution.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
12% do not matter.
Of the rest, 49/88 want less random than current rules.
39/88 want same or more.
Seems pretty clear where sentiments lie here.

I would not call 10% Pretty Clear.
It seems that 32 out of 88 want No Random and 62 out of 88 want a Random Charge distance.

It can be read either way.

...That's 94 out of 88...

I like 2d6, the gamble on a bell curve is an interesting drawback to the super deadly assault phase. However it can be frustrating failing a spectacularly short charge. A houserule that could be fun without massively skewing the charge distance would be...

Allow the charging unit to declare a "measured charge" before rolling, forgoing their 2d6 roll and instead charging 1/2 M.

Marines could "take 3", so not a big improvement over their minimum. Bikes could "take 6", which is a solid boost and eliminates the chance of an unlucky roll without allowing them ridiculous guaranteed 24" charges.

The above is obviously under the assumption that M values are unchanged.

Do we even know if Assault is as deadly as it was before? they removed sweeping advance, and with battleshock any wounds can cause a unit to lose models. even from overwatch.

 Luciferian wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
12% do not matter.
Of the rest, 49/88 want less random than current rules.
39/88 want same or more.
Seems pretty clear where sentiments lie here.

I would not call 10% Pretty Clear.
It seems that 32 out of 88 want No Random and 62 out of 88 want a Random Charge distance.

It can be read either way.

...That's 94 out of 88...

The numbers might have changed as I was typing , but the point was there.