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.

VladimirHerzog wrote:OnePageRules has such a simple yet efficient way to charge

in your activation you can do these actions :

Hold + Shoot
Move + Shoot
Move + Move
Move + Move (in base contact) + Melee

Also how it works in the Apocalypse ruleset.

auticus wrote:"What about gun ranges? Those are fixed and no one has a problem with that?"

Yeah. You also have to roll to hit. You don't just auto hit in range. The d6 + movement is kind of like that. You still have to roll to get in there instead of just getting to do it 100%.

You have to roll to hit in melee too, though.

Random charge distances, where you have to roll to see if you get the opportunity to roll to hit, is more like the shooting system in Fireball Forward, where you throw range dice along with your actual rolls to hit, and if the range dice + base range don't equal or exceed the range to the target, the whole attack is a failure. At least there you do have a base range, as opposed to the omnipresent risk of snake eyes on a charge in 40K.

I find it more than a little strange that a game where you have exact movement distances, exact shooting distances, exact deep strike, exact pile-in/consolidation, and overall a very heavy focus on exact positioning and measurement then implements getting into melee as a bell curve. I mean, if you don't like the 'I'll put myself 12.1" away so I am immune to melee' concept, that already rears its head every time you position yourself .1" beyond the movement+range of a unit, or set up your 9" no-deep-strike bubble to render a protected character immune to being shot or charged out of deep strike.

I'm okay with both more random (though I think we both know how 40K players would react to random movement distances) and more deterministic approaches, it's just the mix of the two that's odd.

 auticus wrote:
I prefer a move + d6 charge.

Problem with this is jump packs (or even worse bikes) get truly mind boggling threat ranges and means foot sloggers get totally and utterly left in the dust.
Although if you removed charges as an additional move entirely and instead made them a variant of moves (in the same way as advance or fallback is), I'd be all for this one.

S
"What about gun ranges? Those are fixed and no one has a problem with that?"

Yeah. You also have to roll to hit.

I don't entirely agree with the comparison. A charge roll is far, far, more swingy than rolling to hit is for ranged weapons. Namely it's one single roll to determine every single "shot".
Not to mention, of course, melee weapons have to roll to hit as well!

It is, however, a valid point that melee tends to be substantially more deadly for a given unit cost. Then again, melee also gives the enemy a free attack back plus potential overwatch, so it's also substantially more hazardous than shooting.

Overall I think it's a bit of a wash and it comes down to preference. Personally I think if ranged weapons have set threat ranges I don't see why melee shouldn't too. Plus extreme random charges just leads to feels-bad situations when you roll snakeeyes on a 4" charge or double 6s on an 11" charge, it's waaay too swingy a roll to leave to two dice.

Most of the games I play are move + d6 so I dont have a problem with jump packs or bikes or whatever.

I know for me - I don't want anything to do with deterministic 100% charges. It is a horrible experience for what I want out of a game ("the dance" I mean).

 auticus wrote:
I prefer a move + d6 charge. It doesn't have to be full on random 2d6 but I'm a hard no on set charge distances never deviating.

Set charges I've got way too much experience watching "the dance" that it doesn't seem like a wargame anymore, it seems like two forces dancing around each other waiting for the other to mess up then charge.

That goes against anything in my head where I would expect forces to run at each other, not laterally dancing around each other.

easy fix : make the mission force players to have a midfield presence (like 9th does, thats pretty much the only good part of 9th's missions IMO)

 auticus wrote:

"What about gun ranges? Those are fixed and no one has a problem with that?"

Yeah. You also have to roll to hit. You don't just auto hit in range. The d6 + movement is kind of like that. You still have to roll to get in there instead of just getting to do it 100%.

you still have to hit with melee.....
if you want to make both equal, then you would add a roll to see if your unit is allowed to shoot before they can actually shoot




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:
Most of the games I play are move + d6 so I dont have a problem with jump packs or bikes or whatever.

I know for me - I don't want anything to do with deterministic 100% charges. It is a horrible experience for what I want out of a game ("the dance" I mean).

you still do "the dance" even with non fixed charges tho... most games i play i have to check what the threat range of a big melee threat is and position myself outside of it (sometimes i'll be greedy and be within a charge of 10-12 but the only difference is that with fixed charges, you're losing 2-3")

 Mezmorki wrote:
Honestly? ProHammer is pretty close to my ideal because not only does it address many of the problem's my group has had with 40k, but we actually play it. The "ideal" is all well and good but what can actually get to the table it what matters at the end of the day.

Man, when people asked you balance questions about ProHammer before and you got mad at them, and now you're advertising it again? Wack.

Hecaton wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:
Honestly? ProHammer is pretty close to my ideal because not only does it address many of the problem's my group has had with 40k, but we actually play it. The "ideal" is all well and good but what can actually get to the table it what matters at the end of the day.

Man, when people asked you balance questions about ProHammer before and you got mad at them, and now you're advertising it again? Wack.

A system he put a ton of work in and works well, and he’s keen on SHARING it?
It boggles the mind! The audacity! /s

you still do "the dance" even with non fixed charges tho... most games i play i have to check what the threat range of a big melee threat is and position myself outside of it (sometimes i'll be greedy and be within a charge of 10-12 but the only difference is that with fixed charges, you're losing 2-3")

Not going to split hairs but i've spent 15 years with fixed charge distance and about 10-12 years without it and the feeling is night and day to me on the level of "the dance".

So while there may be one with random charges, its not anything near as annoying as it is with 100% deterministic charge distances for me.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:
Honestly? ProHammer is pretty close to my ideal because not only does it address many of the problem's my group has had with 40k, but we actually play it. The "ideal" is all well and good but what can actually get to the table it what matters at the end of the day.

Man, when people asked you balance questions about ProHammer before and you got mad at them, and now you're advertising it again? Wack.

A system he put a ton of work in and works well, and he’s keen on SHARING it?
It boggles the mind! The audacity! /s

Well we know he doesn't take criticism well.

Depends on the criticism. As a game dev myself I know the level of criticism we take.

But some of the criticism tossed transcends criticism and becomes personal attacks and just overblown exaggeration. But thats why we aren't usually allowed to engage on social media with the players.

Hecaton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:
Honestly? ProHammer is pretty close to my ideal because not only does it address many of the problem's my group has had with 40k, but we actually play it. The "ideal" is all well and good but what can actually get to the table it what matters at the end of the day.

Man, when people asked you balance questions about ProHammer before and you got mad at them, and now you're advertising it again? Wack.

A system he put a ton of work in and works well, and he’s keen on SHARING it?
It boggles the mind! The audacity! /s

Well we know he doesn't take criticism well.

Maybe the author of said criticism doesn't take rejection well.

kirotheavenger wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
There's a lot of talk on reroll charges, and I'd like to mention that I'm a huge fan of set charge distance, and not random charges. That's one thing that would make me want to play again. I've become a warhammer fantasy fan, but I probably won't play 9th edition, as it will most likely have random charges. If 40k ever adds set charge distance again, I'll be a bit happier.

I hate set charge distances unless you also get rid of pre-measuring. It just results in a bunch of measuring to make sure you're outside an opponents threat range.

its the same as premeasuring with shooting.

OnePageRules has such a simple yet efficient way to charge

in your activation you can do these actions :

Hold + Shoot
Move + Shoot
Move + Move
Move + Move (in base contact) + Melee

I much prefer this "two action" system, and it's the standard for games - Killteam, Necromunda, Starwars Legion, OPRs, Epic, and more all use essentially a two action system. It might be addressed "here's a list, pick any two" or "pick one that does two things", OPR uses the second..

It limits the amount of firepower a unit can put down as they can't use both guns and combat at the same time. Normally you have rules for using pistols in melee, either directly (shoot them as a CCW attack) or indirectly (they grant you better melee).

Specifically to charging, I also like how charges aren't crazy distances. In 40k your average charge is 13", whereas your average "just sprint across the battlefield" is 9.5". Then you get units that combine sprinting at full tilt and charging (and shooting on the way for good measure) so you're looking at a 16.5" charge! You're outpacing even fast recon elements now! And that's just average not including rerolls and such, rolling well you can outpace aircraft!
It's silly, the sudden "burst of speed" you get for charging is out of all proportion to reality.

This is one of the reasons i love DUST 1947 so much, not only does it use AA, each time a unit activates it can combine any 2 actions in any order(there is also no roll to wound, hitting is wounding). Where it concerns melee it is very simple-B2B contact attacks are made simultaneously unless you are a melee specialist with the charge or first strike USR. (first strike is pretty obvious, charge allows a third action for CC if you double move into base contact)

Insectum7 wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:
Honestly? ProHammer is pretty close to my ideal because not only does it address many of the problem's my group has had with 40k, but we actually play it. The "ideal" is all well and good but what can actually get to the table it what matters at the end of the day.

Man, when people asked you balance questions about ProHammer before and you got mad at them, and now you're advertising it again? Wack.

A system he put a ton of work in and works well, and he’s keen on SHARING it?
It boggles the mind! The audacity! /s

Well we know he doesn't take criticism well.

Maybe the author of said criticism doesn't take rejection well.

Or said author positioned the legitimate questions in an arrogant and condescending manner not worthy or a reply.

I have talked at length with Mezmorki about his prohammer project. i agree with his intent but i do not care for some of his solutions as i see them as not needed from our own groups experience, compared to how we do our hybrid 5th ed based combined edition games very similar to prohammer in intent.

 aphyon wrote:

This is one of the reasons i love DUST 1947 so much, not only does it use AA, each time a unit activates it can combine any 2 actions in any order(there is also no roll to wound, hitting is wounding). Where it concerns melee it is very simple-B2B contact attacks are made simultaneously unless you are a melee specialist with the charge or first strike USR. (first strike is pretty obvious, charge allows a third action for CC if you double move into base contact)

DUST1947 honestly looks like it has some really good rules. I really like the way it handles attack values with the small table and armour values.
Alas, the company didn't survive Covid and I'll never get to play it

My experience with set charge distance is with Infinity and WHFB 6th, and 6th let you respond to a charge by fleeing. If you got caught, your unit died (my play group changed this to auto hits in the melee phase.) This wouldn't work in 40k. I think a Move+d6 would be fine, or adding more responses to being charged. I'd like to add responses to most actions. Move+d6 is probably the best compromise for how powerful getting a charge is, locking the player out of shooting, and providing protection unless the unit engaged leaves melee.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:
Honestly? ProHammer is pretty close to my ideal because not only does it address many of the problem's my group has had with 40k, but we actually play it. The "ideal" is all well and good but what can actually get to the table it what matters at the end of the day.

Man, when people asked you balance questions about ProHammer before and you got mad at them, and now you're advertising it again? Wack.

A system he put a ton of work in and works well, and he’s keen on SHARING it?
It boggles the mind! The audacity! /s

Well we know he doesn't take criticism well.

Maybe the author of said criticism doesn't take rejection well.

Given their post came off like an unabashed shilling of the ruleset with nowhere a disclaimer that they themselves worked on it, there's already deception and cynical management of expectations going on.

Hecaton wrote:
Given their post came off like an unabashed shilling of the ruleset with nowhere a disclaimer that they themselves worked on it, there's already deception and cynical management of expectations going on.

Awww, gak! You caught me. I'm totally shilling my project hard. I'm driving so many clicks to my ProHammer thread here on Dakka (the only exclusive place you can access ProHammer!!!) and I'm getting mad ad revenue from the admins. It's crazy. Heck, I only work like 5 hours a week and I made like $2346.37 last week shilling ProHammer. You should sign up for this too!

/s

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
There's a lot of talk on reroll charges, and I'd like to mention that I'm a huge fan of set charge distance, and not random charges. That's one thing that would make me want to play again. I've become a warhammer fantasy fan, but I probably won't play 9th edition, as it will most likely have random charges. If 40k ever adds set charge distance again, I'll be a bit happier.

I hate set charge distances unless you also get rid of pre-measuring. It just results in a bunch of measuring to make sure you're outside an opponents threat range.

Is it any different to shooting though?

Not really since shooting is for the most part too powerful in 40k.

Hecaton wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:
Honestly? ProHammer is pretty close to my ideal because not only does it address many of the problem's my group has had with 40k, but we actually play it. The "ideal" is all well and good but what can actually get to the table it what matters at the end of the day.

Man, when people asked you balance questions about ProHammer before and you got mad at them, and now you're advertising it again? Wack.

A system he put a ton of work in and works well, and he’s keen on SHARING it?
It boggles the mind! The audacity! /s

Well we know he doesn't take criticism well.

Maybe the author of said criticism doesn't take rejection well.

Given their post came off like an unabashed shilling of the ruleset with nowhere a disclaimer that they themselves worked on it, there's already deception and cynical management of expectations going on.

Imagine being this mad over a free rule set no one is forcing anyone to play.
Also in response to...someone using pre-measuring and fixed charges in WMH, WMH basically forces you into moving forward in order to win the game. You can't dance around outside of engagement range too much because if the opponent gets into the scoring area first you go down on points and letting your opponent get well into the zone makes it hard to get them out and come back on points. Eventually you're going to meet in the middle of the board for a punch up and you generally want to be the one getting there first. 40k is a much broader game, with multiple points of engagement and more ranged, so it's easier to kill things without committing too hard.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
There's a lot of talk on reroll charges, and I'd like to mention that I'm a huge fan of set charge distance, and not random charges. That's one thing that would make me want to play again. I've become a warhammer fantasy fan, but I probably won't play 9th edition, as it will most likely have random charges. If 40k ever adds set charge distance again, I'll be a bit happier.

I hate set charge distances unless you also get rid of pre-measuring. It just results in a bunch of measuring to make sure you're outside an opponents threat range.

I do not like premeasuring. Hate it frankly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:

you still do "the dance" even with non fixed charges tho... most games i play i have to check what the threat range of a big melee threat is and position myself outside of it (sometimes i'll be greedy and be within a charge of 10-12 but the only difference is that with fixed charges, you're losing 2-3")

Not going to split hairs but i've spent 15 years with fixed charge distance and about 10-12 years without it and the feeling is night and day to me on the level of "the dance".

So while there may be one with random charges, its not anything near as annoying as it is with 100% deterministic charge distances for me.

Respect.
Anything wrong with a system providing two possibilities, and allowing players to choose which to employ?
So, “let’s use fixed charge today, kool?” Or “let’s use random charge today, kool?” With perhaps some backstory, say “the battlefield is flooded with torrential rains and footing is uneven under foot, sinking under the weight of walkers and tracks getting mucked up, wheels spinning in drenched sludge, so charges are random, kool?”

Not sure why a game system like 40k that has used different rules in different editions doesn’t simply compile the possibilities and let people choose what they like best. TOS can do the same, establishing which rules will be used and advertising accordingly… would be interesting imho.

kirotheavenger wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

This is one of the reasons i love DUST 1947 so much, not only does it use AA, each time a unit activates it can combine any 2 actions in any order(there is also no roll to wound, hitting is wounding). Where it concerns melee it is very simple-B2B contact attacks are made simultaneously unless you are a melee specialist with the charge or first strike USR. (first strike is pretty obvious, charge allows a third action for CC if you double move into base contact)

DUST1947 honestly looks like it has some really good rules. I really like the way it handles attack values with the small table and armour values.
Alas, the company didn't survive Covid and I'll never get to play it

They also really keep the bloat down by keeping unique weapons down to 1 type per faction. i like to think of it as a cross over between index 8th ed 40K and infinity. not quite as complex as the latter but with enough complexity to make it deeper than the former.

I am seeing some 3d print STLs show up for it now, especially for the "dustified" WWII vehicles. hopefully that will expand or the game will come back in a new incarnation. fortunately i have 5 full armies for it, so i am not at a shortage for game opportunities.

 jeff white wrote:
Not sure why a game system like 40k that has used different rules in different editions doesn’t simply compile the possibilities and let people choose what they like best.

Because 40k primarily runs on pickup games, discussing exactly which possible permutation of a dozen different "options" you want to use before a game is wildly impractical.
At the end of the day, I might not 100% like random charge distances, but I still think it's best for GW to pick something to be a unified ruleset people can rally around.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
Not sure why a game system like 40k that has used different rules in different editions doesn’t simply compile the possibilities and let people choose what they like best.

Because 40k primarily runs on pickup games, discussing exactly which possible permutation of a dozen different "options" you want to use before a game is wildly impractical.
At the end of the day, I might not 100% like random charge distances, but I still think it's best for GW to pick something to be a unified ruleset people can rally around.

Could you define "Pickup games"?

Ive seen this phrase used in context that is different than how Ive used it or seen it used before.

Every game club across the US that Ive been apart of (at least 13 in 5 states) would use the term pickup game in reference to a game vs a new or non regular player. If I show up to a lgs and ask a regular who i have a pre-exsisting relationship with to play a game, this wouldn't classify as "pickup."

The reason I bring this up is that I do not believe that 40k primarily runs on pickup games or games against an unknown opponent in a non-tournament scene where the only common denominator is that we both play the same game.

If you have an exsisiting relationship with your opponents then it shouldn't be out of the ordinary to discuss before the game what rules you want to follow...


EDIT: On the random charges vs fixed charges discussion, the game designers who decided 6" move 6" charge actually took other rules into account with these numbers. At the time rapid fire primarily was 24" and required you to be within 12" so you can double tap but at the risk of being charged. Now with the increased RF ranges and variable move speeds its much harder to find a medium without favoring one aspect or the other

Every game club across the US that Ive been apart of (at least 13 in 5 states) would use the term pickup game in reference to a game vs a new or non regular player. If I show up to a lgs and ask a regular who i have a pre-exsisting relationship with to play a game, this wouldn't classify as "pickup."

Never seen it used that way myself. Generally when people say 'pickup game,' they mean just that- you play against whoever else turned up that night at the store. No scheduling through facebook, building specific counter lists, pre-choosing scenarios or whatever people do these days.

You might have a general list in mind or make up one on the spot, but if you, Stevedave, Bob and Kevin are the folks that show up, you play one, the others play each other, and if there's time you'll swap opponents and fit another game in.
Even if they're regulars, you don't know if you're playing Stevedave's Eldar, Kevin's Orks or Bob's Space Marines.
Because maybe Bob didn't show up, but Marcy brought her Nids.

Tittliewinks22 wrote:


The reason I bring this up is that I do not believe that 40k primarily runs on pickup games or games against an unknown opponent in a non-tournament scene where the only common denominator is that we both play the same game.

Me too, I still believe in garagehammer. I think most of the games are played at people's homes or even in stores but mostly between players that already know each other, know each other armies and have probably organized the game in advance.

Even in real random pick up games, typically players know the pool of players and what specific armies (or even specific collections of models) they can realistically face. Most of the metas don't have more than 20-30 players.

It's not like every club or shop is something close to a GT with 150+ partecipants from different areas.

Yeah, you know the guy. He has 2000pts and you have 2000pts. His 2000pts loses to your army 5 out of 6 times. Now you can adapt. I specially like the idea of talking for hours what is okey and what isn't, when most stores have 2-3 tables, so talking means someone else will take the table and now you can wait for them to finish.

I use "pickup game" to refer to either of two things.

- You post on my group's facebook/discord/Whatsapp/whatever "anyone want a game thursday?" and whoever picks up you're good to go.
Depending on size of group I might not know them at all, or I might be already be acquainted. But we're not exactly close enough to have swapped numbers.

- You turn up at your group on the prescribed day and throw down with whoever else is milling about.

Either way I don't have any desire to be discussing which permutation of rules we want to use.
In my games, we briefly discuss which mission pack we want to use then we get to playing. Anything more would take too long and introduce too much debate.

Yeah, it totally depends on what someone wants from the gaming experience. I for example have stopped playing against unknown opponents long ago, I organize a game through a chat, or get contacted by another player who wants to play, and once we actually meet we already had all the pre-game talk we needed to have. I mean, I know the pool of players and approximately what they have so I can realistically expect what I might face even if I don't know which one of them would be my random opponent.

Occasionally there's a new player around and then yeah, blind game might happen but after a couple of matches also that opponent becomes known in terms of skills and what I can reasonably expect to face at the table. And most of the times it's someone new to the hobby, who can't possibly field the flavour of the month or play it properly, so even that scenario is not something I should worry about either.

Metas with 40+ dedicated players that all show up regularly might be different than my experience I guess.

All that aside, if someone said great, let’s do 1250 pts on a 6x4 table using this scenario using these movement and charge rules, as in the main rule book under optional rules, or simply as a house rule for this game use fixed charge distances, would not be a problem for me… best would be imho if gw simply had a main book with options from different past editions and a fellow hobbyist could say let’s use weapon profiles and movement and targeting mechanics from third, vehicle rules from fourth, army composition rules from second, and this scenario from fourth, no flyers, no superheavies, and no named characters, and i could say great… let’s do it, but the first game, let’s run 500pts so I can get used to those vehicle rules again, kool? Not sure why this would be trouble… for a pickup game

I have been playing two versions of 40K for the last 15 years or so:

1. Custom 2nd.

2. Custom 3rd-6th


Both contain AA, templates and proper terrain rules. TLOS is also not a thing. Version 1 allows ridiculous Hollywood explosions to occur and grunts throwing frag grenades like crazy while Version 2 allows me to field massive mobs of plague zombies to be annihilated by Imperial Knights.

 jeff white wrote:
All that aside, if someone said great, let’s do 1250 pts on a 6x4 table using this scenario using these movement and charge rules, as in the main rule book under optional rules, or simply as a house rule for this game use fixed charge distances, would not be a problem for me… best would be imho if gw simply had a main book with options from different past editions and a fellow hobbyist could say let’s use weapon profiles and movement and targeting mechanics from third, vehicle rules from fourth, army composition rules from second, and this scenario from fourth, no flyers, no superheavies, and no named characters, and i could say great… let’s do it, but the first game, let’s run 500pts so I can get used to those vehicle rules again, kool? Not sure why this would be trouble… for a pickup game

Another wrinkle is a lot of people use pickup games as tournament practice games.

So they don't want to entertain or debate using non tournament standard scenarios or rules since that is a waste of their time to them.

My ideal and very realistic version of 40k.

"A game that allows you to reenact heroic thematic and dramatic battles of the 41st millennia"
Basically take the new HH2.0 rules, bring in other factions, and ill be happy thats all i want, minor balancing to objectivly broken/insane combos, and or GW having the backgone to outright call out broken things and specifically shoot them down.

Example, say one unit is able to very clearly abuse a rule that all other armies are fully capable of using to not observe levels, GW having the gaull to just come out and say, hey this army/unit can do this any more because it was insane everyone else can keep playing with it.