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.

 auticus wrote:

 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.

Yep. And different tourney circuits could run their own mix of rules, or the newest of the new edition rules re GW supporting their newly reinvented squats or Uber weapon toting jump pack restartes or whatever… nothing stopping that and I would suppose an even better measure of player skill, to adapt to different rules environments rather than exploiting one set of loopholes with one commission painted “build” after another…

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

Personally I’d prefer a guaranteed charge range and a random charge range. Guaranteed charge range would be half move (rounded up), IE:

- Necron Warriors with their 5 inch move would have a guaranteed charge range of 3 inches. Anything higher would require a charge roll.
- Kroot Carnivores with their 7 inch move would have a guaranteed charge range of 4 inches. Anything more requires a roll.
- Assault Marines with their jump packs would have a guaranteed charge range of 6 inches. Larger would require a roll.
- Vertus Praetors with their 14 inch move would have a guaranteed charge range of 7 inches. Larger would still require a roll.

I think this is far more balanced and prevents situations where you roll low and completely miss out.

??
Move characteristic+1d6 inherently does that.

If you're talking about the current 2d6 charge, I guess you have a point, but you're quoting an approach to charges that already has minimum distances built in.

Voss wrote:
??
Move characteristic+1d6 inherently does that.

If you're talking about the current 2d6 charge, I guess you have a point, but you're quoting an approach to charges that already has minimum distances built in.

Move +D6 is a higher average than 2D6, and then some models can go crazy. Land Speeders charging 20+ inches could be pretty disruptive. I'd be slamming Rhinos into things all the time too. Feels wierd.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Voss wrote:
??
Move characteristic+1d6 inherently does that.

If you're talking about the current 2d6 charge, I guess you have a point, but you're quoting an approach to charges that already has minimum distances built in.

Move +D6 is a higher average than 2D6, and then some models can go crazy. Land Speeders charging 20+ inches could be pretty disruptive. I'd be slamming Rhinos into things all the time too. Feels wierd.

on the contrary, charging your empty rhinos into troops to cause disruption feels dope as feth.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Voss wrote:
??
Move characteristic+1d6 inherently does that.

If you're talking about the current 2d6 charge, I guess you have a point, but you're quoting an approach to charges that already has minimum distances built in.

Move +D6 is a higher average than 2D6, and then some models can go crazy. Land Speeders charging 20+ inches could be pretty disruptive. I'd be slamming Rhinos into things all the time too. Feels wierd.

on the contrary, charging your empty rhinos into troops to cause disruption feels dope as feth.

Sure, but we can already do it with a move of 12" plus a 2D6 charge. 12 move, plus 12+D6 is even farther. This is across the table from the start of the game. I think it's a breaking point when a bunch of units are easily assaulting beyond 24".

Imo the issue with assault range right now is the total possibility of wiffing 2-4 inch charges. Being limited to a 12" charge range is definitely not an issue.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Voss wrote:
??
Move characteristic+1d6 inherently does that.

If you're talking about the current 2d6 charge, I guess you have a point, but you're quoting an approach to charges that already has minimum distances built in.

Move +D6 is a higher average than 2D6, and then some models can go crazy. Land Speeders charging 20+ inches could be pretty disruptive. I'd be slamming Rhinos into things all the time too. Feels wierd.

on the contrary, charging your empty rhinos into troops to cause disruption feels dope as feth.

Sure, but we can already do it with a move of 12" plus a 2D6 charge. 12 move, plus 12+D6 is even farther. This is across the table from the start of the game. I think it's a breaking point when a bunch of units are easily assaulting beyond 24".

Imo the issue with assault range right now is the total possibility of wiffing 2-4 inch charges. Being limited to a 12" charge range is definitely not an issue.

oh, i was assuming charges would be part of the movement like it is in onepagerules. yeah, if its move + move + roll it would be a little dumb.

When I brought up static charges, my examples were Infinity and WHFB, and the person who said Move+d6, if I remember correctly, also played old WHFB. Charging was done in the movement phase. I'm not a fan of charging being its own phase. Move+d6 is a nerf from Move+2d6, especially with it being done in the movement phase. But I'd prefer double move, unless they have fly, and vehicles would have to be different, too. In WHFB, flying models had charge equal their fly move, not double. Hopefully this clears this up a bit.

I think double move is too far, SM bikes charging 28", let's not!

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Voss wrote:
??
Move characteristic+1d6 inherently does that.

If you're talking about the current 2d6 charge, I guess you have a point, but you're quoting an approach to charges that already has minimum distances built in.

Move +D6 is a higher average than 2D6, and then some models can go crazy. Land Speeders charging 20+ inches could be pretty disruptive. I'd be slamming Rhinos into things all the time too. Feels wierd.

on the contrary, charging your empty rhinos into troops to cause disruption feels dope as feth.

Sure, but we can already do it with a move of 12" plus a 2D6 charge. 12 move, plus 12+D6 is even farther. This is across the table from the start of the game. I think it's a breaking point when a bunch of units are easily assaulting beyond 24".

Imo the issue with assault range right now is the total possibility of wiffing 2-4 inch charges. Being limited to a 12" charge range is definitely not an issue.

oh, i was assuming charges would be part of the movement like it is in onepagerules. yeah, if its move + move + roll it would be a little dumb.

^Ahh, gotcha. I might have missed that detail in the conversation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
When I brought up static charges, my examples were Infinity and WHFB, and the person who said Move+d6, if I remember correctly, also played old WHFB. Charging was done in the movement phase. I'm not a fan of charging being its own phase. Move+d6 is a nerf from Move+2d6, especially with it being done in the movement phase. But I'd prefer double move, unless they have fly, and vehicles would have to be different, too. In WHFB, flying models had charge equal their fly move, not double. Hopefully this clears this up a bit.

Yeah 40k 2nd edition workrd with charging being in the movement phase too.

Personally I like charges being done in it's own phase because it can be leveraged to further diversify troops, which is what the 3rd ed paradigm introduced. Models who fired pistols or Assault weapons were able to charge, while models who fired Rapid Fire or Heavy Weapons could not. It was a neat distinction that could require tough choices by the player.

I am quite happy to just stay with the 5th ed model when it comes to charging-
fixed charge distances over open ground, modified by movement/interaction through terrain-if you want more charge range bring a unit that is cavalry leaping or beasts. it gives the different unit types a reason to stand out.

With various rules regarding terrain, scout/outflank, rage/frenzy and fleet (and a very few special units/characters that can assault from deepstrike). my experience over the last decade+ is that while most units cannot assault turn 1, they really have no trouble living long enough to make it into assault with a table that has reasonable amounts of terrain on it.

Unless you are doing a complete game redesign there is no logical reason for random charge ranges to exist over open ground when so much else in the game has fixed ranges for ease of game play.

Jarms48 wrote:

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

Personally I’d prefer a guaranteed charge range and a random charge range. Guaranteed charge range would be half move (rounded up), IE:

- Necron Warriors with their 5 inch move would have a guaranteed charge range of 3 inches. Anything higher would require a charge roll.
- Kroot Carnivores with their 7 inch move would have a guaranteed charge range of 4 inches. Anything more requires a roll.
- Assault Marines with their jump packs would have a guaranteed charge range of 6 inches. Larger would require a roll.
- Vertus Praetors with their 14 inch move would have a guaranteed charge range of 7 inches. Larger would still require a roll.

I think this is far more balanced and prevents situations where you roll low and completely miss out.

Pretty kewl idea! So, to try to get more than the guaranteed charge would imply risking not getting the guaranteed amount? Interesting…

Voss wrote:
??
Move characteristic+1d6 inherently does that.

If you're talking about the current 2d6 charge, I guess you have a point, but you're quoting an approach to charges that already has minimum distances built in.

The difference is you've just increased charge range. You've gone from average 7 inch charges for everyone, to 6 inch movement models having an average 9.5 inch charge, with even faster units with say for example a 14 inch move to have an average 17.5 inch charge.

Now that 14 inch move unit can effectively go 31.5 inches to make their charge 1st turn. That's terrible.

My suggest just makes charges more reliable. So a 14 inch move unit can 100% charge something 7 inches away from it, or they roll if they want to risk going up to 12. I've just made the current system more reliable.

Jarms48 wrote:

Voss wrote:
??
Move characteristic+1d6 inherently does that.

If you're talking about the current 2d6 charge, I guess you have a point, but you're quoting an approach to charges that already has minimum distances built in.

The difference is you've just increased charge range. You've gone from average 7 inch charges for everyone, to 6 inch movement models having an average 9.5 inch charge, with even faster units with say for example a 14 inch move to have an average 17.5 inch charge.

Now that 14 inch move unit can effectively go 31.5 inches to make their charge 1st turn. That's terrible.

My suggest just makes charges more reliable. So a 14 inch move unit can 100% charge something 7 inches away from it, or they roll if they want to risk going up to 12. I've just made the current system more reliable.

You're working under the assumption that in this scenario charging units get to move AND charge though. Why not just make declaring charges the first part of the movement phase like Fantasy used to do.

I think current 40k is the best it's been, the missions are balanced and fun.
The issue holding it back is faction balance.

This could be easily fixed by removing points from the paper codexes and storing them on an online document which can be tuned and tweaked easily.
There is no point in printing points in the codexes anyway as they are invalidated before you get the shrink wrap off.

Units that are clearly problematic like Voidweavers can get an instant increase. And units not seeing any play can get a decrease.

This would need to be supplemented by regular FAQ's and balancing dataslates.

Even with this balance is never going to be 100% assured as there are simply too many moving parts.

But I reckon they could get most of the factions performing in and around that sweet spot of 50% win rate.

Slight problem with charging before shooting is that you can't soften up a target first, which is a much more important aspect of 40k than it was Fantasy.

You could solve this by still charging in the charge phase, but only if you didn't move beforehand.

Or, better yet, go to Alternating Activation so one unit can shoot before the other charges

I mean, I get your point, but unless you're charging top of T1, you do get to soften up your target first. By shooting it in the previous Shooting phase.

Pickled_egg wrote:
I think current 40k is the best it's been, the missions are balanced and fun.

hard disagree, current matched play missions are all the same but with slight variations

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Pickled_egg wrote:
I think current 40k is the best it's been, the missions are balanced and fun.

hard disagree, current matched play missions are all the same but with slight variations

Was about to say the same thing lol.
Current 40k imo is the worst its ever been because its the most boring thing to play right now. Every single game is the same damn thing, playing on the same board, using the same ITC standard terrain set up.
Every game feels like its being played in a clean room, its serialized, standardized, its soulless.

Well they are better then what was going on in 8th. But with how much time it takes GW to update stuff and make it good, by the time a missions system could be made fun, GW tends to change the design paradigma and everyone is back to hoping their army is going to do very well under a new core rules system.

Karol wrote:
Well they are better then what was going on in 8th. But with how much time it takes GW to update stuff and make it good, by the time a missions system could be made fun, GW tends to change the design paradigma and everyone is back to hoping their army is going to do very well under a new core rules system.

uhhh hard disagree, missions in 8th at least played better because the game itself was not as asinine as it became now.

And that also does not make any sense, the missions can be fine, in fact look at 7th when it came to open war, that was a blast in terms of missions. They can do it, they just choose not to now because they would rather market toward the tounrament crowd, which is why the missions are so bland. Then you look over at AoS, and see the missions they have, and the dynamics it introduces.

I love threads like this because it just shows the wide variety of what people want the game to be. Suggestions here range from no random charges, go back to 3-7 rules, and everything in between. My personal preference (note preference not saying my opinion is move valid) is that I would hate to go back to the 3-7 rules.

I personally think 9th is the best edition based on the core rules. And as for codex creep and balance, that has ALWAYS been a problem in 40k and will ALWAYS be a problem. There are over 20 factions, some with wildly different play styles, and so it is inevitable that some armies play styles will be better than others just in how the core rules interact with those armies. And this game is no less balanced than previous editions for the competitive scene with spamy BS lists dominating. At least GW tries to fix that now instead of dealing with the broken meta for years. However, when you compare the 9th edition books, with maybe the Necrons as an outlier, if both players are not bringing WAAC lists, then this game is much more balanced than previous editions by a good margin. Part of that is just the fact that factions actually get updates without having to wait a decade. I have played very few games in a semi-competitive way that have been total blowouts i.e over on turn 2. That cannot be said for 3-7 when blow outs were the default basically.

As for what I would do now to make the game better, in my opinion, is make it so no unit can be subject to multiple stratagems at a time. This is something that can be done without FAQs across multiple codex, with one simple statement in a main FAQ. This would eliminate some of the more egregious combinations.

I, personally, would also prefer if all stratagems were once use only. So you need to pick the right time to transhuman, or lighting fast reflexes, instead of it being an ever turn go to. Again this would take very little effort to implement. Also you might see some more of the under or non-used stratagems.

Both of these fixes are aimed at what is probably the most dysfunctional part of 9th, stratagem abuse and stacking of rules.

I also think the ap modifiers have gotten a little to much in the offense direction and probably need to be toned down, but that would require a bunch of FAQs across multiple codex which makes it more difficult to implement.

Just my opinions

I dont think anyone is saying that there has never not been codex creep, i think most people are syaing that the current codex creep is the worst its ever been.

My experience from mid 6th to now is that in my opinion its definitely is the worst its ever been, if not the most blatantly obvious that its just for marketing purposes, with the release vastly over tuned, and then nerfed 3 months later.

The other issues is this edtion is the worst in terms of things i need in order to play the game. Even at the tail end of 7th i never had to bring this much crap to a game, with rules spread out across multiple books and FAQs to fix those books

I agree on ap though, and ill say what i know people dont like to hear. All or nothing AP system was the best, and the way HH 2.0 is doing AP is so far the best looking AP system i have seen in the game.
For those that dont know the AP system of HH 2.0 is all or nothing, but AP3 and AP2 are very rare, but a lot of weapons have rending or breach Which is rending on a 4+

 Sim-Life wrote:

Jarms48 wrote:

Voss wrote:
??
Move characteristic+1d6 inherently does that.

If you're talking about the current 2d6 charge, I guess you have a point, but you're quoting an approach to charges that already has minimum distances built in.

The difference is you've just increased charge range. You've gone from average 7 inch charges for everyone, to 6 inch movement models having an average 9.5 inch charge, with even faster units with say for example a 14 inch move to have an average 17.5 inch charge.

Now that 14 inch move unit can effectively go 31.5 inches to make their charge 1st turn. That's terrible.

My suggest just makes charges more reliable. So a 14 inch move unit can 100% charge something 7 inches away from it, or they roll if they want to risk going up to 12. I've just made the current system more reliable.

You're working under the assumption that in this scenario charging units get to move AND charge though. Why not just make declaring charges the first part of the movement phase like Fantasy used to do.

Sim, no chance you are planning on moving to South Korea anytime sooner or later?

I ask cuz exactly, this is how things should be done. Charging is an all out for the turn. I wish for the return of epic style order tokens too… overwatch, hidden, broken, yada… charge would be one of those placed at the beginning of the turn as orders are given.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I think double move is too far, SM bikes charging 28", let's not!

I think the issue is that all the activity a unit does in 40K is additive. If you move, you go a set distance. If you move and then charge, you can easily be doubling your actual distance covered in a turn. Whether you shoot or not makes no difference, unless you Advance, which gives you only a measly 1D6" extra in exchange for no shooting or charging.

So you have one unit that moves 6" and Advances to move another 1D6" and doesn't shoot, while another unit moves 6", shoots, and then charges an extra 2D6". The unit that gave up its shooting and charging to move faster doesn't go as far as a unit that moved and shot and then charged anyways. Any mechanic where charging is still bonus movement on top of all your other activity has the same sorts of edge cases and issue of potentially enabling excessive movement.

A lot of games nowadays instead use an action system, typically two actions per unit, so you can move + charge or shoot + charge but not move + shoot + charge. Apocalypse does something similar, where the Assault order allows a formation to move twice and fight in melee, but not shoot.

Would bikes with a 28" charge range but no ability to shoot when charging be more oppressive than bikes with a 21" average charge range (more with rerolls), 26" threat range, and the ability to shoot before they charge? Could be, but I don't see it as a sure thing- and if your opponent had some ability to react, rather than all standing around while you zoom in to beat them up, that would help too.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Pickled_egg wrote:
I think current 40k is the best it's been, the missions are balanced and fun.

hard disagree, current matched play missions are all the same but with slight variations

Was about to say the same thing lol.
Current 40k imo is the worst its ever been because its the most boring thing to play right now. Every single game is the same damn thing, playing on the same board, using the same ITC standard terrain set up.
Every game feels like its being played in a clean room, its serialized, standardized, its soulless.

I can't really argue with how you subjectively feel about the game. It's your opinion, you are fully entitled to it and its no better or worse than my own.
I would add that I'm approaching the game from a competitive/tournament perspective. I get that games can feel very samey because that's kind of the intent with competitive play to ensure balance at tournaments, everyone plays the same mission pack. And I do feel they are making an effort to freshen it up with the notion of "GT seasons" (though I strongly object to the price point on those books)

But I also play narrative games, big apocalypse games, doubles games, I'm not just confined to competitive play. And you do have other options like the new Maelstrom deck. But tbh in my group we don't even use GW rules to govern those type of games, we come up with our own scenario's, objectives etc, and we discuss our armies in advance we establishment if we go are going fluffy or hard with our lists.

but my rather long winded point is, its hard to argue with you as I don't know what angle you are approaching the game with.

 Mezmorki wrote:
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

You don't need to benefit financially to make it obnoxious.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Pickled_egg wrote:
I think current 40k is the best it's been, the missions are balanced and fun.

hard disagree, current matched play missions are all the same but with slight variations

Was about to say the same thing lol.
Current 40k imo is the worst its ever been because its the most boring thing to play right now. Every single game is the same damn thing, playing on the same board, using the same ITC standard terrain set up.
Every game feels like its being played in a clean room, its serialized, standardized, its soulless.

If 2k Matched tourney practice games were all I played, I wouldn't like the game either.

If those are the only games you can get, you have my genuine sympathy.

If they are the only games you choose to play, I would question why. Obviously, the game should be strong enough that you can play your chosen format and have fun- I'm not saying otherwise.

But my games rarely feel the same. I don't think I've played the same size of game more than 3 times in a row, and because I use Agendas to drive my narratives, I tend to switch those up every game- though I usually prioritize the bespoke agendas because they tend to tie-in with long-term faction based goals. Another thing that provides me with a lot of variety is that I tend to run many small Crusades that ally to fight larger battles. I use theatre of war rules, but sparingly. I bought the Charadon and Octarius campaign books but I only have the mission packs for Charadon. I haven't actually played that battle yet- if I play in those settings, I want to play through the whole thing and I'm already involved in my own campaign setting, so it'll be a while.

Like I said though, I get that some people don't have the option to explore alternative formats, and I can even understand the POV of people who choose 2k matched out of a desire to belong to a scene or whatever.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I dont think anyone is saying that there has never not been codex creep, i think most people are syaing that the current codex creep is the worst its ever been.

My experience from mid 6th to now is that in my opinion its definitely is the worst its ever been, if not the most blatantly obvious that its just for marketing purposes, with the release vastly over tuned, and then nerfed 3 months later.

The other issues is this edtion is the worst in terms of things i need in order to play the game. Even at the tail end of 7th i never had to bring this much crap to a game, with rules spread out across multiple books and FAQs to fix those books

I agree on ap though, and ill say what i know people dont like to hear. All or nothing AP system was the best, and the way HH 2.0 is doing AP is so far the best looking AP system i have seen in the game.
For those that dont know the AP system of HH 2.0 is all or nothing, but AP3 and AP2 are very rare, but a lot of weapons have rending or breach Which is rending on a 4+

I actually disagree. I think codex creep is much less worse now. I remember the 5th/6th edition necrons and GK. 7th edition elder. Yikes. This power creep is nothing compared to those. But that is just my experience yours may vary. But I believe my second point is still valid which is the easiest and best way to “fix” 9th would be limits on strats

I have played very few games in a semi-competitive way that have been total blowouts i.e over on turn 2. That cannot be said for 3-7 when blow outs were the default basically.

first i think we need to clarify the difference between competitive and tournament-all wargames by their very nature are competitive, however that changes to another level when it comes to tournament style play.

As somebody who started in 3rd and went back to playing 5th when 8th edition dropped i have to give you a hard disagree there. the fact that scoring isn't done until the end and the game can go to a random turn 6 or 7 totally changes the outcome of the game. especially where objectives are involved, it keeps both players actively playing. most games in my experience are very close run things not blow outs and to me that is a good thing.

I actually disagree. I think codex creep is much less worse now. I remember the 5th/6th edition necrons and GK. 7th edition elder. Yikes. This power creep is nothing compared to those. But that is just my experience yours may vary. But I believe my second point is still valid which is the easiest and best way to “fix” 9th would be limits on strats

While i agree that 6th was a terrible edition (even GW agrees) and 7th had it's own version of bloat via formations. in 5th aside from GKs no longer being GKs as part of the military orders of the inquisition as the 3rd ed book properly played them(they were never supposed to be their own equivalent stand alone marine chapter). most codexes were quite good and not power creep in the same level we are seeing now where they need an immediate nerf(like the game devs didn't even play thier own game to understand the mistakes). in fact many were worse. that is why many 4th or 3rd ed codexes are used in our 5th ed games as they better represent the factions in the lore. GKs come to mind as do orks, eldar and tau.