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.

What about having a successful charge grant bonuses while a failed one still closes the range but inflicts penalties, each based on degree of success?

Wyldhunt wrote:

Fixed 12" would be too much, sure. My point was more that kiting is entirely possible as-is. And I'm not sure the extra 6" needed to be 100% safe happens to be exact distance needed to make the amount of ground given up worthwhile. Switching charge rolls to 1d6 + 4" would only give you a threat range 4" longer than flat 6" charges, but it still feels like a reasonable amount of ground to be forced to give up if you want to kite the enemy.

That would work, but it is an admission that randomness needs to be included somehow, even if there is a fixed element.

Moreover, while the minimum distance is increased and the maximum decreased, the probability distribution is flat while the with 2D6 it is a curve, meaning the mins and max are far more probable results.

Kall3m0n wrote:

 Argive wrote:


Easy there old timer.
It is a pretty common term. Most people coming into table top these days would have had a lot of exposure to computer gaming more likely than not.
Kiting - Hit the enemy while not getting hit due to range/mobility.

On topic, not sure if anyone mentioned this but I think failed charges should still move max charge distance rolled. I just think its silly my unit of blood thirsty maniacs would run head first at the enemy and then stop mid way decide "darn it boys we wont be able to get there. lets turn around and stand back where we came from". Just seems odd to me.

I would say that smaller tables have also factored into the equation. And a T1 charge is not uncommon and just means game over for a lot of armies when coupled with going 2nd. Its not great design IMO.

The problem with that is that you can use it to gain A LOT of extra distance at no real disadvantage. Especially now "without" overwatch.
If I could gain an extra 5-6-7-8-9 inches by "trying" to charge a unit 12 inches away, I sure will do it! And if I make the charge, then awesome.

I too think it's a bit dumb that the models just stay completely frozen, though.
However, if your models still get to make a move forwards, it's usually to their benifit, so I think the current way is the lesser of two evils, even if it looks and feels wrong.

There's also the issue that moving your failed charge distance could actually screw a melee unit over by prompting it to leave the protection of terrain, friendly auras, etc. Assuming that the charge movement was non-optional of course.

Just Tony wrote:
Unfortunately I'm not that interested in the minutiae of separations of gaming terms that don't need the separations. I was more annoyed that some MMO player walks into a conversation spouting specific jargon from that style of gaming taking it for granted that everyone has somehow become as intimately familiar with that colloquialism as they are.

It's a pretty common term. I've never been that big of an MMO player, and I've been hearing and using the term for about 15 years now in the context of video games, board games, and tabletop RPGs. No big deal that you don't know it. We all have our blind spots. No need to turn it into a thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hiseadmose wrote:
What about having a successful charge grant bonuses while a failed one still closes the range but inflicts penalties, each based on degree of success?

Sounds tricky to pull off. Some of my units are actually quite bad at doing damage but still live to get sent into melee to temporarily tie up certain units. So guaranteeing those units a charge would be a pretty big buff unless the drawbacks of failing the charge were so severe that charging in the first place becomes a bad idea. For instance, my striking scorpions generally just jump on objectives or else try to deepstrike + charge shooty units. They make that charge out of deepstrike well under half the time. So if charging suddenly means that the squad gets wiped on the charge or something, I'll just be less likely to field said scorpions at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

Fixed 12" would be too much, sure. My point was more that kiting is entirely possible as-is. And I'm not sure the extra 6" needed to be 100% safe happens to be exact distance needed to make the amount of ground given up worthwhile. Switching charge rolls to 1d6 + 4" would only give you a threat range 4" longer than flat 6" charges, but it still feels like a reasonable amount of ground to be forced to give up if you want to kite the enemy.

That would work, but it is an admission that randomness needs to be included somehow, even if there is a fixed element.

Moreover, while the minimum distance is increased and the maximum decreased, the probability distribution is flat while the with 2D6 it is a curve, meaning the mins and max are far more probable results.

Fair points. I still don't feel that kiting specifically is a huge concern or the main reason for having randomized charge rolls, but I do agree that randomized charge rolls (with a sufficiently high minimum distance) have their merits.

Hiseadmose wrote:
What about having a successful charge grant bonuses while a failed one still closes the range but inflicts penalties, each based on degree of success?

I think this idea has merit and would be very easy to implement:

A successful charge roll behaves exactly as it does now.

An unsuccessful charge roll still allows you to move the models the same as a successful roll, but in the fight phase, the unit doesn't count as charging and is treated the same as if it were already in engagement range at the start of your turn i.e. no charge bonuses, no "shock assault" for SM, unit doesn't count as charging when selecting units to fight, so fights after all chargers etc.

To further differentiate, if the charge roll is less than half the charge distance, the target gets to fire overwatch without spending CPs or using a stratagem, or possibly the charge bonuses could be given to the target rather than the charging unit?

How about this: If you fail your charge you have to move the failed charge distance. Then, at the end of the crarge phase, the unit(s) that got a failed charge declared at them get to do a counter charge against that unit? It's interactive, it punishes falied charges sometimes, both units gets into CC and the failed charge dudes still gets to move forward and gain ground.

If it was designed in from the beginning, units could have a unique defensive ability that triggers on a failed charge. Perhaps a shooty units gets free overwatch, a melee unit may act as though it had charged, or a fast unit could withdraw at the end of the fight phase at no penalty. Any of these failed charge abilities could also require a leadership test to activate, or have choice between a no leadership test anti-charge ability and a leadership test to activate. For instance, Guard might need leadership hold and fire overwatch but not to flee, while Orks would not retreat from a fight without encouragement, but can in effect counter charge at the mere opportunity.

As an addon some combination of the following:

- Maximum roll, current rules and a leadership test to get an extra +1, capitalizing on a great success

- Half or better, leadership test to gain current rule bonuses; that did not go well but we engaged and overcame.

- Less than half, defender makes a leadership test to be treated as having charged. Gave the enemy an opining, and it was exploited.

- Minimum roll, defender is treated as having charged. A botch is a botch, and now we’re in the thick of it.

In any case, this way something always happens and there is no failed to charge, only failed to get the desired outcome or it went horribly wrong after charging.

Hiseadmose wrote:
If it was designed in from the beginning, units could have a unique defensive ability that triggers on a failed charge. Perhaps a shooty units gets free overwatch, a melee unit may act as though it had charged, or a fast unit could withdraw at the end of the fight phase at no penalty. Any of these failed charge abilities could also require a leadership test to activate, or have choice between a no leadership test anti-charge ability and a leadership test to activate. For instance, Guard might need leadership hold and fire overwatch but not to flee, while Orks would not retreat from a fight without encouragement, but can in effect counter charge at the mere opportunity.

As an addon some combination of the following:

- Maximum roll, current rules and a leadership test to get an extra +1, capitalizing on a great success

- Half or better, leadership test to gain current rule bonuses; that did not go well but we engaged and overcame.

- Less than half, defender makes a leadership test to be treated as having charged. Gave the enemy an opining, and it was exploited.

- Minimum roll, defender is treated as having charged. A botch is a botch, and now we’re in the thick of it.

In any case, this way something always happens and there is no failed to charge, only failed to get the desired outcome or it went horribly wrong after charging.

That's an interesting way of handling things. I know that GW has fooled around with the attacker getting unique bonuses when rolling high enough for assault (e.x. "Hounds of Abbadon get +1 Strength in a fight round after rolling 8 or more for charge distance") but I've not seen the opposite happen. "+1 Toughness if the opponent rolls a 8 or more for charge" or other similar defensive bonuses.

As far as the "Random Charges penalize kiting/hit-and-run (or however it's called), such a discussion appears to mainly exist in the realm of a blank salt plain with no objectives. Sure, some melee units can be kited, but can you kite a melee unit when it's going for the unit holding your only objective marker?

Personally, if the charge distance is half your move it should be an auto pass.

Jarms48 wrote:
Personally, if the charge distance is half your move it should be an auto pass.

Well, that would mean autocharging out of reserves for Reavers and possibly some other units as well.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Well, that would mean autocharging out of reserves for Reavers and possibly some other units as well.

Whilst that's true, there's ways to try and mitigate that. Points would be the obvious way.

The other way is put a cap of guaranteed 6 inch. So, something with a movement of 12 or higher could make auto-charges at 6 inches and anything 7 - 12 inches would still require a roll off.

The opposite could work too. Maybe a unit with a 5 inch move could get a minimum charge of 3 inches (2.5 inches rounded up).