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.

Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:I won't dispute the fact that 8th so far seems more balanced than 7th - the games I've played so far point to that, and I understand what achieving this balance cost us. However we do not have an exact grasp of what we will see on a hyper competitive environment yet - the exact tiers, builds, matchups and all that jazz. The autowin/lose extremes will soon manifest there.

We will have to wait and see. I don't expect we will wait long, though.

I think that you are being too pessimistic about the player base's ability to discover the OP stuff at short notice.

People were complaining about scat bikes well in advance of the official release of the 7th edition eldar codex.

Of course, I agree with you that we'll have to wait and see to confirm what is and is not OP and underpowered, given extensive playtesting.

But I think that we can already see the broad outlines already.

Conscripts and commissars are OP.

The entire tyrranid codex is OP.

Missile launchers are good, but only in the same sense that Soldier 76 is good in Overwatch.

And LRBTs are terrible.

 Traditio wrote:

Zewrath wrote:Conscripts are not even close to being broken.

Conscripts + commissars are one of the most broken things of 8th edition.

I have great confidence that it will be nerfed in a reasonable time frame.

No they're not. Not even close.
Have you honestly played more than 2 games of 8th? Me and my 2 friends have almost constantly since the rules leaked. Turn 1 charges from Tyranids shreds through conscripts like there's no tomorrow. 2 pack of genestealers and a fairly sized hormogaunt unit chewed through the entire blob in charge, meanwhile the hormogaunts have such a stupid long pile-in that after the combat that new units were almost immediately engaged.
To suggest that their huge amount of lasgun fire from a unit that hits on 5+ and wounds on 90% of all targets on 5+ is simply laughable. Bear in mind that I always brought a priest for +1 attack and a commissar.

Multiple Baneblades in CC however, is broken AF. Scions spam is broken AF. Mortar spam is arguably the cheapest and most abusable spam of huge amounts of S4 shots one can get in this game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Traditio wrote:

Conscripts and commissars are OP.

The entire tyrranid codex is OP.

Missile launchers are good, but only in the same sense that Soldier 76 is good in Overwatch.

You know what Traditio, I'm beginning to see why you're a meme on dakka.

 Traditio wrote:
And LRBTs are terrible.

I said this the moment I saw the Battlecannon.

Zewrath wrote: 2 pack of genestealers and a fairly sized hormogaunt unit chewed through the entire blob in charge, meanwhile the hormogaunts have such a stupid long pile-in that after the combat that new units were almost immediately engaged.

To counter my claim that conscripts + commissars are OP, you had to appeal to the tyrranids codex, which I also claimed was OP.

To suggest that their huge amount of lasgun fire from a unit that hits on 5+ and wounds on 90% of all targets on 5+ is simply laughable. Bear in mind that I always brought a priest for +1 attack and a commissar.

Multiple Baneblades in CC however, is broken AF. Scions spam is broken AF. Mortar spam is arguably the cheapest and most abusable spam of huge amounts of S4 shots one can get in this game.

All of what you are mentioning are from IG and Tyrranids.

This only strengthens my point. IG and Tyrranids are OP. Most other things are more or less middle of the road.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:I said this the moment I saw the Battlecannon.

All that LRBTs need, imho, are a 2+ armor save. Make that one change, and LRBTs would shift from trash to mid tier.

 Traditio wrote:

Zewrath wrote: 2 pack of genestealers and a fairly sized hormogaunt unit chewed through the entire blob in charge, meanwhile the hormogaunts have such a stupid long pile-in that after the combat that new units were almost immediately engaged.

To counter my claim that conscripts + commissars are OP, you had to appeal to the tyrranids codex, which I also claimed was OP.

To suggest that their huge amount of lasgun fire from a unit that hits on 5+ and wounds on 90% of all targets on 5+ is simply laughable. Bear in mind that I always brought a priest for +1 attack and a commissar.

Multiple Baneblades in CC however, is broken AF. Scions spam is broken AF. Mortar spam is arguably the cheapest and most abusable spam of huge amounts of S4 shots one can get in this game.

All of what you are mentioning are from IG and Tyrranids.

This only strengthens my point. IG and Tyrranids are OP. Most other things are more or less middle of the road.

You want me tell you what happened to my conscripts that got charged by Khorne Berzerkers? Ynari?

Zewrath wrote:You want me tell you what happened to my conscripts that got charged by Khorne Berzerkers? Ynari?

I don't doubt that Khorne Berzerkers or Ynari were able to kill your conscripts.

That's not the point. The fact is that a 30 man blob of conscripts only costs 90 points.

Those khorne berserkers probably cost a lot more than your conscript blob, and they probably got shot to bits on the next turn, didn't they?

 Traditio wrote:


All that LRBTs need, imho, are a 2+ armor save. Make that one change, and LRBTs would shift from trash to mid tier.

This is why it's hard for me to take any "OP" claims seriously from you. The Russ is not really squishy and sitting in cover they are absurdly hard to remove. What we universally saw on the entire forum that made the russ crap tier, like huge turd tier, is the fact that the battlecanon does way less than 2 wounds on it's average target. Yet here you are, thinking the only thing wrong with the LRBT is the actual saves.. I'm out of this thread. Sorry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Traditio wrote:

Zewrath wrote:You want me tell you what happened to my conscripts that got charged by Khorne Berzerkers? Ynari?

I don't doubt that Khorne Berzerkers or Ynari were able to kill your conscripts.

That's not the point. The fact is that a 30 man blob of conscripts only costs 90 points.

Those khorne berserkers probably cost a lot more than your conscript blob, and they probably got shot to bits on the next turn, didn't they?

This argument doesn't even make sense. You have lost the plot man. Your counter argument is that a cheap unit died hard to a more expensive unit, that is somehow argument for the cheap unit that died to the more expensive unit that the cheap unit = OP??

U wot mate?

I suspect with the keywords for each faction - <clan>, <ordo>, <regiment> and the like, that EVERY race is going to have a chapter tactics equivalent.

It adds more fun options, but it's a bit of a problem when some will always be stronger than others - particularly for certain roles. (for example, why would you run a detachment of mostly space marine vehicles as anything that wasn't iron hands in the old system...)

Zewrath wrote:This is why it's hard for me to take any "OP" claims seriously from you. The Russ is not really squishy and sitting in cover they are absurdly hard to remove. What we universally saw on the entire forum that made the russ crap tier, like huge turd tier, is the fact that the battlecanon does way less than 2 wounds on it's average target. Yet here you are, thinking the only thing wrong with the LRBT is the actual saves.. I'm out of this thread. Sorry.

Cover? In order to take advantage of cover, a LRBT has to meet two conditions:

1. It must be either touching or entirely on the base of a terrain piece

and

2. It must be 50% obsured or more.

LRBTs normally will not receive the benefit of cover.

That means that my krak missiles are wounding on 4s and bypassing saves on 4s or less.

Meanwhile, LRBTs have subpar offensive capabilities.

If you switch the 3+ to a 2+, they still lack substantial offensive capabilities, but at least they get a 4+ save against krak missiles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zewrath wrote:This argument doesn't even make sense. You have lost the plot man. Your counter argument is that a cheap unit died hard to a more expensive unit, that is somehow argument for the cheap unit that died to the more expensive unit that the cheap unit = OP??

I tell you want.

Play a game without conscripts or commissars.

Tell me how that game goes.

 Traditio wrote:
If you switch the 3+ to a 2+, they still lack substantial offensive capabilities, but at least they get a 4+ save against krak missiles.

IOW, they're still trash. A very durable unit with minimal offensive power is a unit that you ignore because it can't hurt you. You can make the LRBT literally have a special rule that it can't be wounded, period, and it would still be a bad unit simply because of how limited its firepower is. Maybe you could exploit its invulnerability as a weird tarpit unit in melee, but it certainly wouldn't be earning its points back with its guns. The fact that you think that making the LRBT more durable is the right answer just demonstrates how limited your understanding of game design is.

Peregrine wrote:IOW, they're still trash. A very durable unit with minimal offensive power is a unit that you ignore because it can't hurt you. You can make the LRBT literally have a special rule that it can't be wounded, period, and it would still be a bad unit simply because of how limited its firepower is. Maybe you could exploit its invulnerability as a weird tarpit unit in melee, but it certainly wouldn't be earning its points back with its guns. The fact that you think that making the LRBT more durable is the right answer just demonstrates how limited your understanding of game design is.

I don't think that they would be trash with a 2+ armor save.

One LRBT variant has a gun that fires 20 S5, AP 0 shots at a time.

If you combine that with a 2+ armor save, I think that you would be looking at a real mid tier option.

Obviously, the offensive capabilities of other variants might need a boost.

But I do think that a boost from 3+ to 2+ would help enormously.

And Peregrine, I really do mean this:

I really am sorry that LRBTs are terrible.

Complexity without bloat, depth without obfuscation. Things like armor facings, fire arcs and flanking=yay, things like Soul Blaze=nay.

Until I play it I can only post that the system seems miles better than 6th and 7th.

I absolutely do not want complexity to be increased, I don't have the time or inclination to get into deeply complicated simulation style rules sets

 Traditio wrote:


I tell you want.

Play a game without conscripts or commissars.

Tell me how that game goes.

I've tried both, and actually I think the second bubblewrap tactic I've been toying around with is stronger. A large line of bullgryns, accompanied by a Priest and a Ministorum Auxilia Commander tend to actually survive the alpha strike against most things and then murder them on their own.

It's about 100 points more expensive than the double blob+Commissar+Priest I was working with before, but the fact of the matter was those conscripts were almost always dying to significant alpha strike stuff (Blood angels drop assault, genestealer trygon rush, da jump boyz) and then I had to devote most of my shooting resources to taking them down. The bullgryns live through almost anything that drops in (the one time they've died was a big squad of TH/SS termies that made the 9" charge) and then they can usually deal with whatever it is with a return round+Fix Bayonets+my first activation.

Only reason they stink against the termies is that you really want to be punching them with the Maul bullgryns, but you also want to use those invulns to save your bacon.

So, how many test games with Guard have you run now, to make your claim that conscripts and commissars is definitively OP? Have you tried any different unit combinations? I'm only about 6 games in, so if you've got data, please share.

With regard to the core rules:

- I don't see the point in removing initiative. If anything, the new method seems far more unintuitive and just generally irritating.

- I don't see why WS needs to be a flat to-hit rate, rather than comparing to the enemy WS.

- There's so little difference between the weapon types, I don't know why they bothered giving them types at all.

- Also, it's really weird to me that you can fire an Assault weapon after Advancing, but not a Pistol.

- The difference between movement values seems excessive, to say the least. What does it matter if my infantry move 7" instead of 6", when stuff like bikes run circles round them regardless?

- Is there a reason that some vehicles and MCs get worse as they take wounds, whilst others remain at full power until they did? It just seems very arbitrary.

- Preventing characters from joining units is moronic. Characters joining units was never the issue. The issues were:
- A bloody stupid mess of a wound-allocation system that allowed characters to play hot-potato with incoming fire.
- The ally system.
- Psychic powers like Invisibility that made units nigh-on invincible.

- Why is damage random? Is it really so hard to settle on a value and save us some unnecessary rolling?

- Why do (former) blast and template weapons have to have random numbers of shots? It's not fun it's just irritating and a waste of time. Again, could they not just decide on a value? Hell, they could have a base value (e.g. 2 for small blasts) and then increase it if the unit has 5+ or 10+ models in it.

- Why must units get out of transports before the transport moves? That seems to defeat the point of taking a transport in the first place.


I can appreciate some of what GW did but I think a lot of their attempted fixes either went too far or went in completely the wrong direction. If they were a new company I'd probably be more forgiving, but they're one of the oldest gaming companies and this is the 8th iteration of this sodding game.

At least AoS had the excuse that its abysmal rules were free. GW fully expects people to pay for these rules. And then pay for them again down the line when they begrudgingly release the 'proper' rules for each faction.

For the sake of a sentence for each subfaction, we could have had a lot more flavour to our armies.

I get the indices are stop-gap, but the tier disparity is bad.

Take a look at the lists section - tell me how many DG and CSM lists you see.

As long as everyone gets the flavour - there is no reason that Marines should get new FREE rules in the form of Chapter Tactics if all the other factions don't get them at the same time.

If Marines have to pay for being boosted - that's fine.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Complexity without bloat, depth without obfuscation. Things like armor facings, fire arcs and flanking=yay, things like Soul Blaze=nay.

Exactly.

For the first time in nearly 2 decades I have glimmers of interest in 40k again. Burying everything in special rule after special rule would kill what interest I have. The 'aura' abilities that already exist along with some stat and weapon options/changes are more than sufficient to differentiate chapter X from chapter Y.

8th may well be more streamlined that I would like, I haven't played it, but 40k has been a horrific mess for years.

Ok so most people don't like complexity, but have you thought about this? What if we remove all complexity from all things, our children will turn out to be as smart as rocks. Maybe complexity isn't fun, but it serves a purpose, an educational one. Its super good, indirect education, while you do what you love. Its the complexities of this world that made us intelligent, if we remove it we might devolve into drooling troglodytes.

You might argue that people will simply not play then, and not get their dose of complexity anyway. This is true, but at least there would be an option. You might also argue that people will find complexity elsewhere, and that entertainment should not be complex. It might work today, but what about in 100 years? Maybe the simplicity creep has spread to all parts of life and our decent into ignoramusdom is steady at pace.

We need to differentiate Complexity from Depth.

A game can be overly complex without having any real depth. And vice versa.

FudgeDumper wrote:
Ok so most people don't like complexity, but have you thought about this? What if we remove all complexity from all things, our children will turn out to be as smart as rocks. Maybe complexity isn't fun, but it serves a purpose, an educational one. Its super good, indirect education, while you do what you love. Its the complexities of this world that made us intelligent, if we remove it we might devolve into drooling troglodytes.

You might argue that people will simply not play then, and not get their dose of complexity anyway. This is true, but at least there would be an option. You might also argue that people will find complexity elsewhere, and that entertainment should not be complex. It might work today, but what about in 100 years? Maybe the simplicity creep has spread to all parts of life and our decent into ignoramusdom is steady at pace.

There's a huge difference between complexity and depth. Complexity in this case refers to things that just make the game take longer for no good reason (such as soul blaze, rolling on tables to roll on more tables, or a lot of 7th ed), while depth refers to things that add tactical options/strategy to the game (such as deepstriking, choosing targets well, maneuvering to advantageous positions, or controlling objectives).

 Wolfblade wrote:

FudgeDumper wrote:
Ok so most people don't like complexity, but have you thought about this? What if we remove all complexity from all things, our children will turn out to be as smart as rocks. Maybe complexity isn't fun, but it serves a purpose, an educational one. Its super good, indirect education, while you do what you love. Its the complexities of this world that made us intelligent, if we remove it we might devolve into drooling troglodytes.

You might argue that people will simply not play then, and not get their dose of complexity anyway. This is true, but at least there would be an option. You might also argue that people will find complexity elsewhere, and that entertainment should not be complex. It might work today, but what about in 100 years? Maybe the simplicity creep has spread to all parts of life and our decent into ignoramusdom is steady at pace.

There's a huge difference between complexity and depth. Complexity in this case refers to things that just make the game take longer for no good reason (such as soul blaze, rolling on tables to roll on more tables, or a lot of 7th ed), while depth refers to things that add tactical options/strategy to the game (such as deepstriking, choosing targets well, maneuvering to advantageous positions, or controlling objectives).

I know perfectly well the difference. What I am arguing is that complexity is important, not because it will make a great game (it wont) but because it make us smarter.

FudgeDumper wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

FudgeDumper wrote:
Ok so most people don't like complexity, but have you thought about this? What if we remove all complexity from all things, our children will turn out to be as smart as rocks. Maybe complexity isn't fun, but it serves a purpose, an educational one. Its super good, indirect education, while you do what you love. Its the complexities of this world that made us intelligent, if we remove it we might devolve into drooling troglodytes.

You might argue that people will simply not play then, and not get their dose of complexity anyway. This is true, but at least there would be an option. You might also argue that people will find complexity elsewhere, and that entertainment should not be complex. It might work today, but what about in 100 years? Maybe the simplicity creep has spread to all parts of life and our decent into ignoramusdom is steady at pace.

There's a huge difference between complexity and depth. Complexity in this case refers to things that just make the game take longer for no good reason (such as soul blaze, rolling on tables to roll on more tables, or a lot of 7th ed), while depth refers to things that add tactical options/strategy to the game (such as deepstriking, choosing targets well, maneuvering to advantageous positions, or controlling objectives).

I know perfectly well the difference. What I am arguing is that complexity is important, not because it will make a great game (it wont) but because it make us smarter.

So does a rather simple game that isn't complex at all - in the end it's your opponent that truly provides the challenge.

You grow better, smarter, by challenging yourself and your equals. The level of complexity in the rules has little to do with it. It only means you got to memorize more.

the_scotsman wrote:
So, how many test games with Guard have you run now, to make your claim that conscripts and commissars is definitively OP? Have you tried any different unit combinations? I'm only about 6 games in, so if you've got data, please share.

Well, this is one of the interesting things with this edition, the lack of complexity means we can easily compare things. For example, a lord com and a few groups of conscripts/normal guardsman are more resilient and damaging than any other infantry in the game. There aren't that many special rules, so it's pretty easy to compare.

It isn't hard to see that yes one normal tactical space marine isn't worth more than three normal guardsman or four conscripts. The only potential balancing factor is morale, but that's a non issue for IG as they can make their troops fearless for less than a point each. Backups probably put the price right at a point each, but that's still absurdly cheap. Tyranids at least have to pay reasonable rates for it and the majority can be targeted without needing a sniper.

Even your example is discussing how a unit worth 100 points more does a similar job better. Yes, and I imagine having another additional thirty conscripts might have made a difference.

Honestly, I'm amused by the idea of blood angels drop assault being a threat to 30 man unit of conscripts. Was an average of 3 kills (60 points) from just your overwatch not doing it? If they flub the charge, you've made that units points back and then some.

If you want to go into detail, please do. I am sure many of us will be happy to explain what you did wrong.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

FudgeDumper wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

FudgeDumper wrote:
Ok so most people don't like complexity, but have you thought about this? What if we remove all complexity from all things, our children will turn out to be as smart as rocks. Maybe complexity isn't fun, but it serves a purpose, an educational one. Its super good, indirect education, while you do what you love. Its the complexities of this world that made us intelligent, if we remove it we might devolve into drooling troglodytes.

You might argue that people will simply not play then, and not get their dose of complexity anyway. This is true, but at least there would be an option. You might also argue that people will find complexity elsewhere, and that entertainment should not be complex. It might work today, but what about in 100 years? Maybe the simplicity creep has spread to all parts of life and our decent into ignoramusdom is steady at pace.

There's a huge difference between complexity and depth. Complexity in this case refers to things that just make the game take longer for no good reason (such as soul blaze, rolling on tables to roll on more tables, or a lot of 7th ed), while depth refers to things that add tactical options/strategy to the game (such as deepstriking, choosing targets well, maneuvering to advantageous positions, or controlling objectives).

I know perfectly well the difference. What I am arguing is that complexity is important, not because it will make a great game (it wont) but because it make us smarter.

So does a rather simple game that isn't complex at all - in the end it's your opponent that truly provides the challenge.

You grow better, smarter, by challenging yourself and your equals. The level of complexity in the rules has little to do with it. It only means you got to memorize more.

Exactly. And if this continues we might one day not even have enough working memory to be able to play age of sigmar.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

FudgeDumper wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

FudgeDumper wrote:
Ok so most people don't like complexity, but have you thought about this? What if we remove all complexity from all things, our children will turn out to be as smart as rocks. Maybe complexity isn't fun, but it serves a purpose, an educational one. Its super good, indirect education, while you do what you love. Its the complexities of this world that made us intelligent, if we remove it we might devolve into drooling troglodytes.

You might argue that people will simply not play then, and not get their dose of complexity anyway. This is true, but at least there would be an option. You might also argue that people will find complexity elsewhere, and that entertainment should not be complex. It might work today, but what about in 100 years? Maybe the simplicity creep has spread to all parts of life and our decent into ignoramusdom is steady at pace.

There's a huge difference between complexity and depth. Complexity in this case refers to things that just make the game take longer for no good reason (such as soul blaze, rolling on tables to roll on more tables, or a lot of 7th ed), while depth refers to things that add tactical options/strategy to the game (such as deepstriking, choosing targets well, maneuvering to advantageous positions, or controlling objectives).

I know perfectly well the difference. What I am arguing is that complexity is important, not because it will make a great game (it wont) but because it make us smarter.

So does a rather simple game that isn't complex at all - in the end it's your opponent that truly provides the challenge.

You grow better, smarter, by challenging yourself and your equals. The level of complexity in the rules has little to do with it. It only means you got to memorize more.

A game that is too simple has little depth, regardless of the skill of the opponent.
This is because a game that is too simple has a low skill ceiling.

So, complexity is needed. The question becomes how much complexity.
You want any additional complexity you add to the game to give you the maximum amount of new options as possible.
If you find an additional complexity isn't creating additional options, then it's unneeded complexity that should be removed.

So... you're both correct in a sense.
Complexity is important, but your opponent is what provides the true challenge.
Tho without sufficient Complexity then your opponent won't be given enough options or chances to be able to display the limit of his potential.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
It only means you got to memorize more.

It's incredibly dangerous to dismiss something as only having to memorize more.
A huge percentage of human intelligence is nothing more than memorization.
Being an eloquent speaker is little more than memorization.
Being an artist, a rocket science, a doctor, are also mainly memorization.

At the highest levels chess devolves from being a tactical game into being a memorization game.

So, I would personally avoid dismissing things as merely memorization.

Can we quit it with this weird social crusade stuff? Seems more suited for a blog and doesn't really work here. A game can be overly complex, but not challenging and the opposite can be true (I.e. chess). Most of the challenge comes from a good opponent and has nothing to do with how complex the rules are.

Does the complexity encourage thoughtful decision-making or is it rolling just for the sake of rolling?

We all know that simplicity can provide depth, and that complexity can still be rewarding. But the scale of 40K does not lend itself well towards a more complex rules set at the game sizes we see on the table.

I played Warmahordes back in the day (Mark 2) and that had a good measure of depth and complexity when playing against opponents of equal skill and playstyles. In those days, a 25 to 35 point game would take a couple hours, and it was good fun (against certain opponents). Moving it up to 50 points made the game take much longer to complete, as the complexity of model facings, control area, and lack of pre-measuring meant that each action had to be meticulously planned and thought out. Works fine in smaller scales, but larger games get bogged down.

In 40K, at 2000 points, we will see dozens of Space Marine models on the field. For horde armies like Orks, Tyranids, and Conscript-blob Guard, we can see hundreds of basic infantry models.

The issue isn't whether complexity is better or worse than simplicity (that's another subjective opinion for everyone to decide on their own if they like or not), but whether or not we want to spend a couple hours playing a game or an entire afternoon. 40K has basically turned into 28mm scale Epic 40K (with some exceptions, I never got a chance to play Epic). To remove, for example, scatter dice, armor facings, and TLOS from weapon hardpoints was not done out of malice, but a desire to make the game more streamlined and abstracted in order to 1) decrease game time, 2) simplify scenarios and limit arguments over specificity, and 3) make the game easier for more and newer players to hop in and enjoy.

If we want complexity, we need to look to smaller scale games like SW:A/Necromunda, Warmahordes, or even various boardgames (Betrayal at House on the Hill comes to mind).

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Does the complexity encourage thoughtful decision-making or is it rolling just for the sake of rolling?

Does having a random number of shots give the player any meaningful choice they have to make? If not then that mechanic serves no purpose in adding depth to the system.

Does having a randomised charge range add a meaningful player choice? No it does not as the result is random, the choice of the player has no impact. It doesn't matter whether they choose to charge the unit 9" away or the unit 5" away if they roll 3" for their charge distance. It is like snakes and ladders, you get no say if you land on a snake or a ladder, it is entirely down to the luck of the die.

Consider an alternate system where a unit can charge up to 6" with no penalty or up to 12" at the expense of the enemy getting +1 to hit as the enemy unit has had enough time to prepare themselves to receive the charge. Now the player has meaningful choices to make in different scenarios. If they are charging a weaker enemy then the +1 enemy to hit bonus is not too bad but lets say there is a weak unit 6" away from them and a strong melee unit 9" away. If they charge the weaker unit then they will definitely be able to do a lot of damage to it but could potentially leave themselves open for a counter charge from the stronger unit, possibly at reduced effectiveness from casualties. If they charge the stronger unit then they could deal some damage but the enemy unit will be striking back at them more effectively.