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.

A quick straw poll to get your opinions on basic charge mechanics. Please make alternative suggestions in the comments.

The old 6" charge method worked, but had its downsides. Before pre-measuring was allowed, I was very good at positioning my units 12.5" from the enemy, which led to them moving forward and subsequently failing their charge. Fixed charges weren't that great, to that end.

I suggest that the charge move be combined with Advance, in that you can simply move into contact with your enemies in the movement phase. You can fire pistols to soften them up a bit in the shooting phase, if you didn't need the charge movement, and Overwatch is resolved after a unit moves into contact, by any units which are within 1" of the unit which charged.

This would have to include a re-write to falling back, as units will have to be able to tie a unit in CC for it to be worth the drop in pre-softening caused by charging before shooting.

Charging would also be an alternative to Advancing, allowing you to move 2D6" + move instead of 1D6"+move, but you can't shoot at all afterwards. Abilities which allow advance & charge will make the charge move + 3D6" instead. in all instances, at least 1 model must move the full move (unless they make contact, in which case they can stop) when you charge.

This lessens the amount of movement taking place (most CC armies are horde, so moving all the models 5-6", then moving again to charge, is gone, replaced with a single move) so should quicken the game a bit. Charges aren't a no-brainer as you can't shoot assault weapons or pistols and can't declare one if it has no chance of making it, and overwatch is resolved after the move so it's going to hurt a little more than currently (making flamers more useful for this).

I'm not a fan of the current charge system having you complete the movement anyway, as it is yet another penalisation for charging armies, dragging themselves out of position, possibly out of cover, ready for the enemy shooting phase.

Be careful what you wish for. Fixed charge distance and measuring at any time combine to give you shooting units kiting exactly 0.0001" out of charge range with zero risk.

 some bloke wrote:
I suggest that the charge move be combined with Advance, in that you can simply move into contact with your enemies in the movement phase.

I've updated the poll with your suggestion.

Standard Movement +D6?

Eliminates stuff like failing 3" charges

Though admittedly favours already fast units.

Maybe flat 6" plus D6?

The odds of pulling off a 9" charge should be similar to those required for something like Doom or Jinx in the Psychic Phase

dapperbandit wrote:
Standard Movement +D6?

Hell no. The last thing we need is shrinking the table even more by adding ~2-3" to all charge distances. If it absolutely must be less random than 2D6" then it should be 3+D6" or 3D3" so that the average distance does not increase.

Just do it the way it is in Killteam. Charges happen in the movement phase, if you fail you still move the distance rolled. Target unit gets to choose: Fire overwatch, or move three inches away from the charging unit.

Boom! Problem solved, last summer even!

 Togusa wrote:
Just do it the way it is in Killteam. Charges happen in the movement phase, if you fail you still move the distance rolled. Target unit gets to choose: Fire overwatch, or move three inches away from the charging unit.

Boom! Problem solved, last summer even!

My FLGS owner is of the opinion that KillTeam is a test bed for 9th edition rules.

We need appropriate charge distance for different unit types.

A foot soldier charging the same distance as a mounted cavalry is absurd.

Also, allowing movement in charge phase will add more offensive dynamic for both players as failed charges will leave enemy units "in the face" of incoming fire in the subsequent shooting.

Also, the game needs to get rid of "over-charging" maneuver from the game (where you get to catapult your units way past the initial charge target in order to consolidate into units behind it).

 Ginjitzu wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
Just do it the way it is in Killteam. Charges happen in the movement phase, if you fail you still move the distance rolled. Target unit gets to choose: Fire overwatch, or move three inches away from the charging unit.

Boom! Problem solved, last summer even!

My FLGS owner is of the opinion that KillTeam is a test bed for 9th edition rules.

I sure hope so. Its got a lot of good to be said for it.

Like a reversion to 2nd edition charging?

I'm fine with rolling for distance and not moving if you fail. I've never gotten why so many people want to move after a failed charge. I wouldn't mind an option but forced move seems silly.

In some ways I'd enjoy seeing charge roll as a leadership test for fluffyness. In other ways it would require many units to have special rules for that. Convincing conscripts in trenches to charge through overwatch into chaos marines? That's what commissars are for! Convincing khorne berzerkers not to charge said conscripts? Impossible.

Shas'O'Ceris wrote:
In some ways I'd enjoy seeing charge roll as a leadership test for fluffyness. In other ways it would require many units to have special rules for that. Convincing conscripts in trenches to charge through overwatch into chaos marines? That's what commissars are for! Convincing khorne berzerkers not to charge said conscripts? Impossible.

I like this. It's fluffy, and it makes use of the largely neglected leadership characteristic, which could add much more meaning to armies who affect it. The traits of factions such as Nightlords, for instance, would become far more impactful if they affected charging as well as fleeing.

 Ginjitzu wrote:

Shas'O'Ceris wrote:
In some ways I'd enjoy seeing charge roll as a leadership test for fluffyness. In other ways it would require many units to have special rules for that. Convincing conscripts in trenches to charge through overwatch into chaos marines? That's what commissars are for! Convincing khorne berzerkers not to charge said conscripts? Impossible.

I like this. It's fluffy, and it makes use of the largely neglected leadership characteristic, which could add much more meaning to armies who affect it. The traits of factions such as Nightlords, for instance, would become far more impactful if they affected charging as well as fleeing.

That idea feels really weird, and yet it sort of works. Give all units a flat charge range based on certain keywords (basically a soft return to unit types). So infantry can declare a charge against an enemy 6" away. Cavalry/beasts/things with Fly up to 12". Then, rather than rolling charge distance, you roll 2d6 and compare the total to your Leadership value. Makes leadership more important. Makes leadership buffs tie in to heroically charging forward in an interesting fashion. Situationally makes "scary" units with leadership debuffs less appealing to charge.

There's a lot to like there. On the other hand, some considerations:

* Currently, many units in the game have a leadership of 7 or 8. This means you'd be failing charges something like 40% of the time.
* Melee units failing a charge from 2" away because they flubbed a leadership test (which technically isn't a thing that exists in 8th) is weird and embarrassing.
* If the idea is that the unit has to be disciplined and brave enough to charge coherently (thus the leadership test), then it's really weird that space marines, space elf samurai, and robots can potentially fail it.
* I threw out 6" and 12" as flat charge distances above, but that change in a vacuum would mean many units would be unable to charge out of deepstrike again.
* Is failing a charge ever fun? It might be a relief for the guy getting charged. Making an improbably long charge can result in some feel good cheers. But has slogging across the table only to fail a short charge ever added to your overall game experience? If failing a charge is possible, even likely to happen at least once during a game, then ideally we'd want failing a charge to add to the game experience in some way.

I would like to see some other variables on the leadership roll - mostly based around number of model. A unit will be more likely to charge if they outnumber the other unit. Bring back the "monsters and walkers count as 10 models" thing from... ...I want to say 6th edition? and give +1 to ld if you out number the enemy when charging, for each factor (so if you charge 30 boys at a single guardsman, there's no way to fail).

Similarly, some models will be scarier than others (daemonically possessed landraider with a dirge caster, for example, compared with a leman russ) so will have their own rules to affect this.

I like the idea a lot. Fixed charge distances but still a test to pass or fail.

I also like the idea that a bezerker unit must pass a test to not declare a charge, if they can.

Some good ideas, particularly the idea of using leadership. Forcing ordinary men to run into Daemons shouldn't be as easy as if they are in range or not, so I do like that. However, CC kinda takes a lot away from the game for me, immersion wise I just find it odd.

Perhaps you could include leadership into reacting to a charge, the idea that a closer a target gets the harder it is to hit has always been strange to me. But if you add the idea of Composure or fear you could use this as reasoning to roll leadership on reacting to a charge, in turn these can benefit the hit rolls on overwatch or worsen your position overall.

I quite like the idea of leadership playing a part on whether or not a unit an charge. Reminds me of 2nd edition FEAR and TERROR where you had to pass a leadership test before you could charge certain units like Greater Demons etc.

Speaking of 2nd edition, i also like that you charged in the movement phase and that there where movement characteristics and charging was simply double your move stat.

If Leadership was to play a part in charging there would need to be a whole lot of other rules to make sure it works, but I'd like to see leadership playing an important part in the game again.

My suggestion would be that Charging was a fixed distance - double the move stat seems easy and straightforward to implement but might have some impact on first turn charges and deep strike that would need to be addressed. I would introduce a Ld based mechanic to the charging too, but with LD 5-7 being quite common, it would need to be done carefully. Perhaps Leadership tests for charging are done on 1D6 and you need to score equal or below the Ld value to pass, and then apply modifiers based on if the unit is under half strength, or outnumber the target etc. Or if you want to charge the closest enemy unit you don't need to pass a Ld test, but to charge a unit that isn't closest, or multiple units then the unit needs to pass a Ld test? I'm just throwing out suggestions and am sure they're not perfect, but something along these lines.

The idea of Berzerkers needing to charge unless they pass a Ld test is great! And other units could have their own special mechanics - If a Commissar is close enough to a guard unit, perhaps he could execute a model in order to auto-pass the leadership test etc.

 Peregrine wrote:

dapperbandit wrote:
Standard Movement +D6?

Hell no. The last thing we need is shrinking the table even more by adding ~2-3" to all charge distances. If it absolutely must be less random than 2D6" then it should be 3+D6" or 3D3" so that the average distance does not increase.

I would like to give the charger the option of picking either D12, 2D6 or 4D3.

Why not have the same roll do both?

The unit has its rated charge distance, at which point it needs an unmodified leadership roll to successfully charge. If the distance is less than that, the roll gets less difficult. If the distance is further than that, then the roll gets more difficult.

Of course that gets into the whole problem that making leadership important for more than one thing causes. The more important leadership is, the more pressure there is going to be to choose units with good leadership and/or demand units with better leadership from the developers. Then you end up with the 1st edition Warmachine/Hordes "If it's not fearless, it's garbage" scenario.

Or you end up with enough units that have enough different situational modifiers to their leadership ("Leadership 7, but 10 when it charges models painted blue") that you need to justify why you haven't just invented another stat (or stats) for the profile instead of trying to torture the current stats to do something they're not suited for.

I mean, if this Fiend model moves 14" compared to that Marine over there moving 5", how come they're both charging the same range of distances with the same determination?

I think one of the main things to watch out for if you were to make charges pass/fail based on Leadership is to avoid making charge failure an arbitrary thing that just happens without any meaningful user input.

Currently, rolling snake eyes on a charge roll can happen, but at least you always have the option to get as close to your target as possible to mitigate the chances of failing the charge roll. Every inch closer to the enemy is another result on 2d6 that will pass the charge test. Compare that to a flat leadership test that you can't meaningfully control where you just straight up fail to charge X% of the time. And if the reason you failed that charge is that your space marines weren't brave enough or your grimdark vulkans weren't disciplined enough, it's insulting/lore-breaking as well as being frustrating.

Stepping back for a moment, I feel like changing charges to 2d6" instead of the flat 6" and 12" distances of previous editions was largely intended to increase (on average) melee units' ability to cross the table and get into combat. I'm not sure if the added randomness (the experience of physically rolling the charge roll) was meant to be entertaining in its own right. Does anyone feel that the game is better because it's possible for a melee unit to fail a 3" charge by rolling snake eyes? If not, and if we generally agree that melee armies/units are at a disadvantage, it might be best to put an emphasis on improving the reliability of charges. Tying leadership to charges is a cool concept, but not one that *innately* makes charges more reliable. (Though it could depending on execution.)

I suggest charge distance be 1/2M +1D6"
No more failed 2" charges and no more 12" Hail Mary's.

Zustiur wrote:
I suggest charge distance be 1/2M +1D6"
No more failed 2" charges and no more 12" Hail Mary's.

Except for anything with a Move of 12" or more, of which there are a few.

The tying charges to leadership seems to be a popular concept. It's a shame I didn't think of it when I created the poll.

 Peregrine wrote:

dapperbandit wrote:
Standard Movement +D6?

Hell no. The last thing we need is shrinking the table even more by adding ~2-3" to all charge distances. If it absolutely must be less random than 2D6" then it should be 3+D6" or 3D3" so that the average distance does not increase.

Move + D3" then, like in Necromunda.

Charge - taken in the movement phase - double movement plus a D6 role capped by your initiative. So if you're IN4 then a 5-6 just adds 4".

it could work if you got D3 for every 3" of movement (rounding up) plus your move.

Movement...

1-3 = Mv +1D3" charge
4-6 = Mv + 2D3" charge
7-9 = Mv + 3D3" charge
10-12 = Mv + 4D3" charge
13-15 = Mv + 5D3" charge

I'd have this as part of the movement phase. I would also have that you can forgo any shooting with the unit (shooting would be only at the target of your charge, as per my previous post) to get 1D3 more movement. This would make all-out chargey units scary.

bouncingboredom wrote:
Charge - taken in the movement phase - double movement plus a D6 role capped by your initiative. So if you're IN4 then a 5-6 just adds 4".

Hmmm... what is that "Initiative" you are mentioning ?

By the way, I have some experience with fixed "charge distance = Move" and it was working fine. It encourages tactical maneuvering as you know exactly where to put your stuff to deliver or avoid a charge, and encourages good deployment and unit positioning because charge from DS is suddenly no joke. Also, it is a huge buff to Assault Marines and that's good in my book.

 AtoMaki wrote:

bouncingboredom wrote:
Charge - taken in the movement phase - double movement plus a D6 role capped by your initiative. So if you're IN4 then a 5-6 just adds 4".

Hmmm... what is that "Initiative" you are mentioning ?

By the way, I have some experience with fixed "charge distance = Move" and it was working fine. It encourages tactical maneuvering as you know exactly where to put your stuff to deliver or avoid a charge, and encourages good deployment and unit positioning because charge from DS is suddenly no joke. Also, it is a huge buff to Assault Marines and that's good in my book.

It's also a huge buff to Knight equivalents.

Personally id like to see a change to charge that its flat 7" move with a maximum charge range of within 8" (so you move from maximum within 8" to within 1"). Though i also wouldnt want to eliminate the possibility to charge from deep strike, so maybe you roll a d6 and get to add 2" on a 4+ or 5+ to your charge if you entered the battlefield this turn or something.

This poll is meaningless without context. In 40k 8e, charging happens in addition to moving. In Kill Team, it happens instead of moving. In 40k 8e, shooting is incredibly powerful, so charging has to be fast to give combat armies a chance to reach stabbing range. In Kill Team, shooting has lots of potential penalties and the board is much smaller, so charging has to be slow to give shooty armies a chance to escape or get some shots off.

I find the Kill Team model healthier, because it weakens the escalation race we've hit in 40k 8e where it sometimes seems like the only combat armies worth a damn are the ones who can hit a turn 1 charge and fight twice with three power weapon attacks per model. Otherwise your whole army is dead by turn 2, and even if you reach combat with something that hits less hard than a 'roiding Bloodletter, your opponent can just run away from combat on their turn and blow up your units regardless.

This has a negative impact on movement, shooting, and combat. But it doesn't exist in a vacuum - you can't just move charges into the movement phase and hope the rest fixes itself from there. And it's not purely negative, either - charge can be a lot more standardized in a game where 18" move units can move and then charge, instead of leaping across the board turn 1 and then whiffing a 4" charge on turn 2. It's a game of many phases, and they each impact on each other. You've got to produce an overall model of the game.

For example, my preferred game style is alternating actions, which immediately requires charge/move to take place in the same "activation". If they're split up, you face an endless game of keepaway as your opponent activates your target and moves away from you. That might manifest as a unit being activated and running through each individual phase, meaning charge-and-move (with no move on failure), or it might manifest as units being activated phase-by-phase, which means charge-or-move (with movement on a failed charge) goes back to being the only viable option (as in kill team). My preferred manifestation would be:

Initiative phase, where both players check for victory conditions, determine who goes first in subsequent phases, discard and generate per-turn resources, and activate "start of the turn" abilities.

Maneuver phase, where both players take turns to activate units, starting with units that have Advancing tokens. An activated unit can be moved, and can also Advance, Charge, Retreat, or Prepare, gaining an appropriate token indicating that it's Advancing, Charging, Retreating, or Prepared, which is removed the next time it's activated in a Maneuver phase. A unit can be activated early to perform a Reaction, allowing it to chase/attack a fleeing unit or flee from/shoot at a charging unit.

Hero phase, where both players take turns to activate units. An activated unit can use psychic powers, orders, command abilities, etc. passive auras aren't entirely gone, but are much less prevalent.

Battle phase, where both players take turns to activate units. An activated unit can attack using any of its weapons that are within range, whether guns or close combat weapons or both. Movement tokens restrict these attacks; a Retreating unit can't attack using any weapons, for example. Units that are Charging or Prepared are activated before all others in this phase.

Morale phase, where both players remove Shaken tokens and then take Leadership tests for certain units. A unit that fails its test gains a Shaken token, and while it is Shaken can only Retreat when activated in the Movement phase.

Either way, random charges are almost certainly here to stay just for the element of drama they add to the game. It doesn't entirely make sense that shooting attacks can be made by freely moving into range while melee attacks require a random roll to get into range, but that's the drama of the charge - and a motive to weight the game toward the riskier close combat option.