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 separate value gor charge distance would be my preferred option. For example M: 5/8. This or just a hard bonus, like +3SPD in Warmachine.

The issue I have with all of these proposals is.... why? Why make it more complicated than it needs to be? Just give everyone a fixed charged distance (e.g. 6").

Faster overall movement (base move + charge) within a turn is already reflected by units having different base movement speeds. Just have the charge be a fixed additional move on top of that. There's no reason for it to be variable.

Except people will point out "deepstriking" for why charges need to be variable. What frustrates me is that this situation makes the core rule subservient to a special rule, instead of modifying deepstrike rules to incorporate the appropriate counter-balancing mechanism on their own.

Thankfully, HH2.0 seems to have gotten it (mostly) right. Go back to scattering with deep striking units again, but instead of a mishap insta-wiping your unit temper the penalty a bit (and I like to think they lifted the rule where your opponent's get to deploy your unit from ProHammer... ).

Or just slap deep striking and assault units with a penalty during assault or something. Balance it that way.

 Mezmorki wrote:
The issue I have with all of these proposals is.... why? Why make it more complicated than it needs to be? Just give everyone a fixed charged distance (e.g. 6").

Faster overall movement (base move + charge) within a turn is already reflected by units having different base movement speeds. Just have the charge be a fixed additional move on top of that. There's no reason for it to be variable.

Except people will point out "deepstriking" for why charges need to be variable. What frustrates me is that this situation makes the core rule subservient to a special rule, instead of modifying deepstrike rules to incorporate the appropriate counter-balancing mechanism on their own.

Thankfully, HH2.0 seems to have gotten it (mostly) right. Go back to scattering with deep striking units again, but instead of a mishap insta-wiping your unit temper the penalty a bit (and I like to think they lifted the rule where your opponent's get to deploy your unit from ProHammer... ).

Or just slap deep striking and assault units with a penalty during assault or something. Balance it that way.

I'd rather deepstrike charges weren't a thing and deepstrike was inherently an alternative form of movement.

Dudeface wrote:
I'd rather deepstrike charges weren't a thing and deepstrike was inherently an alternative form of movement.

The thing is, deepstrike can be really powerful. For deepstriking melee units, I'd argue what really is the point of them if they can't charge after they deepstrike (which is the problem older editions had). If you deepstrike into melee range and have to wait a turn before charging, your unit is a sitting duck and will likely get blown to pieces. I'd also argue why is that deepstriking units can SHOOT completely without penalty, whereas melee units either can't charge (older editions) or have to roll particularly high on the charge (newer editions). Both options are dumb.

There are rules for "disordered charges" and the like, and IMHO effects like that should get applied to deepstriking units that want to charge. I also think something similar (albiet not as crippling as snap fire) should also apply to units deepstirking that then want to go onto shooting.

The other approach, of course, is that you give your opponent reactions and counter-plays that let them build somewhat of a defense against deepstriking, which is even better because it makes the whole thing more tactically rich.

Now that every weapon can charge after you fire it, and even charge units you did not shoot at, the Assault weapon type really feels lame.

Tittliewinks22 wrote:
Now that every weapon can charge after you fire it, and even charge units you did not shoot at, the Assault weapon type really feels lame.

100%. I think the functioning of weapon types have a somewhat slow and insidious power creep that people often don't talk about. Rapid fire weapons used to require you to stand still to shoot at max range, in addition to not being able to charge after shooting.

 Mezmorki wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I'd rather deepstrike charges weren't a thing and deepstrike was inherently an alternative form of movement.

The thing is, deepstrike can be really powerful. For deepstriking melee units, I'd argue what really is the point of them if they can't charge after they deepstrike (which is the problem older editions had). If you deepstrike into melee range and have to wait a turn before charging, your unit is a sitting duck and will likely get blown to pieces. I'd also argue why is that deepstriking units can SHOOT completely without penalty, whereas melee units either can't charge (older editions) or have to roll particularly high on the charge (newer editions). Both options are dumb.

There are rules for "disordered charges" and the like, and IMHO effects like that should get applied to deepstriking units that want to charge. I also think something similar (albiet not as crippling as snap fire) should also apply to units deepstirking that then want to go onto shooting.

The other approach, of course, is that you give your opponent reactions and counter-plays that let them build somewhat of a defense against deepstriking, which is even better because it makes the whole thing more tactically rich.

Deepstrike circumvents multiple turns of movement and taking enemy fire, its a positioning tool and idbe ok with hefty penalties for shooting out of it too, or even removing the option.

Transports sit in the same grey area, they're rarely useful for melee delivery at present for most armies without the transport charging in due to the timing of moves and disembarkation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mezmorki wrote:

Tittliewinks22 wrote:
Now that every weapon can charge after you fire it, and even charge units you did not shoot at, the Assault weapon type really feels lame.

100%. I think the functioning of weapon types have a somewhat slow and insidious power creep that people often don't talk about. Rapid fire weapons used to require you to stand still to shoot at max range, in addition to not being able to charge after shooting.

I do agree with this, it's led to a lot of the power creep imo.

Dudeface wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:

Tittliewinks22 wrote:
Now that every weapon can charge after you fire it, and even charge units you did not shoot at, the Assault weapon type really feels lame.

100%. I think the functioning of weapon types have a somewhat slow and insidious power creep that people often don't talk about. Rapid fire weapons used to require you to stand still to shoot at max range, in addition to not being able to charge after shooting.

I do agree with this, it's led to a lot of the power creep imo.

It's also removed the feel of some armies that got the ability to Rapid Fire or fire at max range on the move in exchange for slower movement and the like. Thousands Sons and Death Guard slowly and methodically advancing while laying down a curtain of fire felt a lot more characterful when everyone couldn't do the same thing but faster.

 Platuan4th wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:

Tittliewinks22 wrote:
Now that every weapon can charge after you fire it, and even charge units you did not shoot at, the Assault weapon type really feels lame.

100%. I think the functioning of weapon types have a somewhat slow and insidious power creep that people often don't talk about. Rapid fire weapons used to require you to stand still to shoot at max range, in addition to not being able to charge after shooting.

I do agree with this, it's led to a lot of the power creep imo.

It's also removed the feel of some armies that got the ability to Rapid Fire or fire at max range on the move in exchange for slower movement and the like. Thousands Sons and Death Guard slowly and methodically advancing while laying down a curtain of fire felt a lot more characterful when everyone couldn't do the same thing but faster.

At this point there are essentially only 2 weapon types...

And the ability to move and fire with Heavy weapons at a mere -1 is still jarring. The decisions that had to be made in prior editions were much more meaningful.

Oh, and I play UM, so there's no penalty for moving at all now.

 Insectum7 wrote:
And the ability to move and fire with Heavy weapons at a mere -1 is still jarring. The decisions that had to be made in prior editions were much more meaningful.

Oh, and I play UM, so there's no penalty for moving at all now.

Heavy Weapons should've been -2 AT MINIMUM for moving, and Rapid Fire could've been -1 to hit while moving and/or some penalty to charge.

Thats how I'd try to handle it anyway

The long and the short of this discussion is that, IMHO, GW has systematically removed nearly every "tough choice" or "hard choice" from the game when it comes down to unit movement and target selection. And in a miniatures-based wargame, these decisions should account for a large majority of the depth and tactics in the game. But its all just been cut off at the knees over the years.

Instead we're left with the stratagem-command point mini-game constituting the bulk of the tactical-level decision making. Ugh.

Say what you will, but I think the 3rd-7th edition paradigm of trying to "avoid modifiers" in the system was good because it forced the designers to come up with more discrete binary choices and options instead of saying "let's just give it a modifier." These discrete options end up creating a richer and more interesting decision space with tough trade-offs, instead of something that's prone to simple optimization games.

 Mezmorki wrote:
The long and the short of this discussion is that, IMHO, GW has systematically removed nearly every "tough choice" or "hard choice" from the game when it comes down to unit movement and target selection. And in a miniatures-based wargame, these decisions should account for a large majority of the depth and tactics in the game. But its all just been cut off at the knees over the years.

Instead we're left with the stratagem-command point mini-game constituting the bulk of the tactical-level decision making. Ugh.

Say what you will, but I think the 3rd-7th edition paradigm of trying to "avoid modifiers" in the system was good because it forced the designers to come up with more discrete binary choices and options instead of saying "let's just give it a modifier." These discrete options end up creating a richer and more interesting decision space with tough trade-offs, instead of something that's prone to simple optimization games.

Ok, I'll "say what I will". *ahem*.......I 100% agree with you.

There, I feel much better having gotten that off my chest.

 Insectum7 wrote:
And the ability to move and fire with Heavy weapons at a mere -1 is still jarring. The decisions that had to be made in prior editions were much more meaningful.

It wouldn't be such a problem if GW didn't flip-flop between "One model in the unit moved, so everyone counts as moving" and "Only models that move count as moving" between editions.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
And the ability to move and fire with Heavy weapons at a mere -1 is still jarring. The decisions that had to be made in prior editions were much more meaningful.

It wouldn't be such a problem if GW didn't flip-flop between "One model in the unit moved, so everyone counts as moving" and "Only models that move count as moving" between editions.

I liked the only models that moved counted as moving. When a tac squad piled out of the rhino you needed to think about who went where. The following turn you could either use the heavy to anchor the squad while the rest of the boys pivoted around him, or just up and move if the situation had changed. Or everyone could just stand and shoot.

 Nevelon wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
And the ability to move and fire with Heavy weapons at a mere -1 is still jarring. The decisions that had to be made in prior editions were much more meaningful.

It wouldn't be such a problem if GW didn't flip-flop between "One model in the unit moved, so everyone counts as moving" and "Only models that move count as moving" between editions.

I liked the only models that moved counted as moving. When a tac squad piled out of the rhino you needed to think about who went where. The following turn you could either use the heavy to anchor the squad while the rest of the boys pivoted around him, or just up and move if the situation had changed. Or everyone could just stand and shoot.

^Yeah I liked that too.
Both the planning ahead for the next turn, and the sort of "wheeling" a squad around for positioning while the Heavy stayed put.

 Mezmorki wrote:
The long and the short of this discussion is that, IMHO, GW has systematically removed nearly every "tough choice" or "hard choice" from the game when it comes down to unit movement and target selection. And in a miniatures-based wargame, these decisions should account for a large majority of the depth and tactics in the game. But its all just been cut off at the knees over the years.

Instead we're left with the stratagem-command point mini-game constituting the bulk of the tactical-level decision making. Ugh.

Say what you will, but I think the 3rd-7th edition paradigm of trying to "avoid modifiers" in the system was good because it forced the designers to come up with more discrete binary choices and options instead of saying "let's just give it a modifier." These discrete options end up creating a richer and more interesting decision space with tough trade-offs, instead of something that's prone to simple optimization games.

Agreed, the game is more "game" and less strategic "war" game in the current incarnation.

On the point of deep strike, it worked as intended and didn't change much from 3rd - 5th. it also fits the lore

.lore wise
teleporting/deep striking is notoriously inaccurate. it is a high risk/high reward tactic. you keep those assault or close range shooting units alive long enough to get there by virtue of them not being on the table at the start of the game. but when coming in you risk landing outside the optimal location or into something dangerous. the mishap table is a good representation of this.

.tactics wise
it gives you board control as to where you want to put them. As almost nobody is allowed to assault from deep strike in these editions save the following exceptions
.vanguard veterans (5th ed codex)
.Zagstrukk with his squad of storm boys (4th ed codex)
.dreadnoughts in lucius pattern drop pods
(There may be some characters i am missing that is just what i remember off the top of my head)

What it does do is give you a chance. a previous post mentioned that they get shot at when they deep strike in, and it handicaps them because they are a CC unit for example that cannot immediately charge in in most cases. by comparison is it fair to the other player to say the shooting unit that will get wrecked by the CC unit has no recourse to deal with them? especially if you use any rules that do not allow snap fire style overwatch?

One thing i can guarantee is if you cannot deep strike or use some other method of delayed entry. they will get shot at for multiple turns as they try to make their way there. VS just once.

Some players may be misremembering how easy CC does happen in 5th edition (and how effective it is) if they have not played in a while. i have played 3 games of 5th in the last 2 weeks and effective CC was achieved in every game on a 6X4 table. i expect it to happen so much i always build well rounded lists for my games where at least half my force is there to counter CC.

Back on the lore/experience side of things it makes for some fun and often times interesting game play, but then i am not a tournament player who needs a reliable performance guarantee.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:
The long and the short of this discussion is that, IMHO, GW has systematically removed nearly every "tough choice" or "hard choice" from the game when it comes down to unit movement and target selection. And in a miniatures-based wargame, these decisions should account for a large majority of the depth and tactics in the game. But its all just been cut off at the knees over the years.

Instead we're left with the stratagem-command point mini-game constituting the bulk of the tactical-level decision making. Ugh.

Say what you will, but I think the 3rd-7th edition paradigm of trying to "avoid modifiers" in the system was good because it forced the designers to come up with more discrete binary choices and options instead of saying "let's just give it a modifier." These discrete options end up creating a richer and more interesting decision space with tough trade-offs, instead of something that's prone to simple optimization games.

Ok, I'll "say what I will". *ahem*.......I 100% agree with you.

There, I feel much better having gotten that off my chest.

Yeah, the more GAME it becomes the less war it has.

We need more conundrums rather than problems..

 Mezmorki wrote:
The issue I have with all of these proposals is.... why? Why make it more complicated than it needs to be? Just give everyone a fixed charged distance (e.g. 6").

If we're assuming the distance traveled due to a charge over a fixed period of time, and we accept that different units have different movement values, then it breaks verisimilitude for units to suddenly be travelling the same distance in that period of time.

Say we use your fixed 6" charge distance for all INFANTRY units (because if I'm keeping anything from 8/9th, it is the keyword system), and on the battlefield I have a unit with a Move of 4", while you have a unit with a move of 8" - what I'd expect to see for Squats vs. Daemonettes, basically.

If a charge move is 6", suddenly the Squats manage to travel 150% of their Move in the same length of time that the Daemonettes travel 66% of their normal move - this should cause people to go "Wait a minute..." when they run into it.

Now, I'm not advocating for the 2d6" charge here, but something like the d6+(Move/2) allows you to show that a, terrain, etc, may influence how far you move in a charge; and b, that faster units will charge further on average (in the case of the above example, by 2").

 Mezmorki wrote:
Say what you will, but I think the 3rd-7th edition paradigm of trying to "avoid modifiers" in the system was good because it forced the designers to come up with more discrete binary choices and options instead of saying "let's just give it a modifier." These discrete options end up creating a richer and more interesting decision space with tough trade-offs, instead of something that's prone to simple optimization games.

How is "unit moved and can only fire snap shots" different from "unit moved and gets -1 to hit" in terms of whether there is a trade-off and whether there is an optimal decision?

 aphyon wrote:
Back on the lore/experience side of things it makes for some fun and often times interesting game play, but then i am not a tournament player who needs a reliable performance guarantee.

No, it ruins games by deciding everything with a dice roll or two and often leading to units seeing no use because their deep strike malfunctioned.

One thing i can guarantee is if you cannot deep strike or use some other method of delayed entry. they will get shot at for multiple turns as they try to make their way there. VS just once.

You cannot guarantee anything, because my unit might be moving up behind cover or I might have other units that my opponent prioritizes. Another thing you cannot guarantee is that your deep striking unit coming in on turn 4 will ever see combat when I get to place it in the corner of the table far away from my units.

you exaggerate the outcomes. how often do you mishap? it does happen but nearly as much as you think. not exactly where you wanted? adapt and overcome.


That thing happened in a game last month between iron warriors and khorn berserkers (3.5 codex in 5th ed rules). the khornate chosen terminators mishapped and got placed in the back corner. but reaper autocannons can still reach out and touch things even as they move up the field. it was a good fight and khorne won that battle (if barely...but who is counting as long as blood is spilled khorne always wins by default )

As for units seeing no use? how is that any different in 9th when you fail the 2d6 charge from your free 9.1" deployment and stand there and get shot to death anyway?


As for units having to move up the table. yeah, we use cover in our games and loads of it. it is still a huge risk getting them there. any player taking an army not really equipped for CC like TAU or guard are going to priorities those targets no matter what you do. and terrain doesn't save you from indirect fire no matter what edition you are playing.

The deep strike system makes sense if you are playing 40K as an epic battle in the 41st millennium in accordance with the setting as to how your dudes would and should behave.

if you are playing a rigid tournament mind set then the setting doesn't matter just the rules "balance". you could be playing with plastic blocks or green army men for the same experience.

As an "old-timer" in Mezmorki's survey who has played thousands of games of just 40K (not counting all the other games) over the last 20 years and still actively play every weekend i am not playing to be frustrated, i am playing to have epic fun. it is far more important to me than just winning.

Ork trukks careening out of control in a random direction=fun orkiness
Risky teleport landings=fun risk/reward

Being guaranteed X result because i popped the right strat while using the right relic and a boat load of re-rolls=not fun in my book.

 aphyon wrote:
you exaggerate the outcomes. how often do you mishap?

I haven't had a mishap since June 17, 2017.

As for units seeing no use? how is that any different in 9th when you fail the 2d6 charge from your free 9.1" deployment and stand there and get shot to death anyway?

Considering how easy it is to bring damage to bear in 9th that damage would have probably landed elsewhere, the best you can do in 9th is delay a unit from mattering one turn, maybe two, but with the lethality that's all you really need I suppose. I'm not saying 9th is perfect, I didn't try to argue with people saying that random charge ranges are good just because that's how the rules work in 9th for example, I just hate the old DS rules from every angle. Delayed reinforcements? Mishappened deep strike? Those sound like great missions that you decide ahead of the game to play with your opponent or decide ahead of the game to be part of the mission pack you will be playing. I see no reason why these also couldn't be balanced or why those misplaced reinforcements couldn't be playing a role in the game instead of being totally ignored.

if you are playing a rigid tournament mind set then the setting doesn't matter just the rules "balance". you could be playing with plastic blocks or green army men for the same experience.

I think we all have the places were we are more or less rigid when it comes to getting into the setting, I don't care too much about having a painted army, but I think if it's not GW it might as well be a lego man. I hate AoC and HotE because I don't think it is fluffy. I am okay with randomness but I think fail forwards mechanics are the best option, so instead of the gun failing and you taking damage the gun does extra damage to your opponent and you take damage or the gun fails but you're guaranteed it won't fail next turn.

i am playing to have epic fun. it is far more important to me than just winning.

Me too, DS mishaps happened more to my opponents than me because I didn't use the mechanic except for a short phase where I was lucky and Necrons were strong enough that when it went wrong I was still alright. I do think engaging in the adversarial spirit of the game is fun.

Ork trukks careening out of control in a random direction=fun orkiness

I think Orks are a special case, but I know there are Ork players that want their Orks to be as reliable as I want Space Marines to be. For something like Ork vehicle careening out of control I think you can make it more interesting than just taking away player control. For example you could roll on a table, either the vehicle gains the ability to enter melee with the move and if it does it gains a bonus to hit or the vehicle gains a bonus to shoot the closest visible enemy unit as it times a lucky shot while spinning around wildly or it gains bonus movement if it ends the move further away enemy units than it started, the player can either play into the option and benefit from the bonus or ignore it.

 kodos wrote:
I think the dislike for abstract line of sight comes from the rather bad version of it in 4th with TLOS in 5th being a real upgrade making things easier (but it went downhill from that)

like, a size 3 Land Raider on a size 3 Hill could not draw line of sight over another size 3 Land Raider standing in front of the hill because height was capped at 3

Nonsensical stuff like this encouraged me to use custom rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:
I have to admit, I'm a little confused about the supplement / sub-faction consternations.

Is the issue with what counts as a "sub-faction" and whether or not that sub-faction gets its own codex (and is hence a "supplement")? And following from this, are people upset that some factions (aka marines) get a number of sub-factions in their own supplement books whereas other factions may have either no sub-factions or just sub-factions presented within the main codex? What's the consternation about?

I think at the end of the day, ALL armies should be customizeable, and subfactions are partially a way to go about that. But ideally, most of that customization should be in the codex.

Supplements in theory are fine, but locking some power combo to an army in a few pages as part of a $40 campaign supplement kinda sucks. And the conspicuousness of SMs getting their own full subfaction books is also pretty lame, not only because of the special treatment, but because the amount of crap required to excuse selling a whole book definitely feels like a "bloat for the bloat god" and "cash grab for the cash god" type of situation.

Do a core codex for a faction which includes ALL sub-faction rules as an option. However those sub-faction boni will cost additional points. Example:

1) Yellow SM fight vs. Black SM. No sub-faction rules are used so that you can have a true mirror match.
2) Dedicate one or two pages for each sub-faction to add special rules. Now Imperial Fists fight vs. Iron Hands with the former being more accurate with the bolter and the latter being able to shrug off more damage.

And for the crowd who desperately need easy wins you can sell a supplement book which includes ALL overpowered sub-faction special characters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mezmorki wrote:

Tittliewinks22 wrote:
Now that every weapon can charge after you fire it, and even charge units you did not shoot at, the Assault weapon type really feels lame.

100%. I think the functioning of weapon types have a somewhat slow and insidious power creep that people often don't talk about. Rapid fire weapons used to require you to stand still to shoot at max range, in addition to not being able to charge after shooting.

Problem is that this difference between a bolter (RF) & storm bolter (Assault) doesn´t actually makes much sense as a bolter is not a cumbersome weapon to begin with AND is even lighter than a storm bolter. So a bolter should be able to be fired by infantry on the run. Weapons of heavy weapon teams of the IG (mortars, autocannons, etc.) should still only fire when being stationary.

Lots of interesting discussion going on here. Thanks all, and to OP for running the survey!

 Strg Alt wrote:

Problem is that this difference between a bolter (RF) & storm bolter (Assault) doesn´t actually makes much sense as a bolter is not a cumbersome weapon to begin with AND is even lighter than a storm bolter. So a bolter should be able to be fired by infantry on the run. Weapons of heavy weapon teams of the IG (mortars, autocannons, etc.) should still only fire when being stationary.

^I think this particular example is explained by the high volume of fire from the Storm Bolter and the troops who traditionally carried them, which was Terminators.

Back in 2nd ed Terminators were the only unit able to carry Storm Bolters, and they also had a higher BS than normal Marine, could move and fire their Heavy weapons without penalty, and also had Targeters for an additional +1 to hit. I think that all got condensed into Storm Bolter: Assault 2 24" for 3rd. The net result was, compared to Marines, the average Terminator put out more accurate firepower on the move and at longer range.

Much has eroded since then.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

Problem is that this difference between a bolter (RF) & storm bolter (Assault) doesn´t actually makes much sense as a bolter is not a cumbersome weapon to begin with AND is even lighter than a storm bolter. So a bolter should be able to be fired by infantry on the run. Weapons of heavy weapon teams of the IG (mortars, autocannons, etc.) should still only fire when being stationary.

^I think this particular example is explained by the high volume of fire from the Storm Bolter and the troops who traditionally carried them, which was Terminators.

Back in 2nd ed Terminators were the only unit able to carry Storm Bolters, and they also had a higher BS than normal Marine, could move and fire their Heavy weapons without penalty, and also had Targeters for an additional +1 to hit. I think that all got condensed into Storm Bolter: Assault 2 24" for 3rd. The net result was, compared to Marines, the average Terminator put out more accurate firepower on the move and at longer range.

Much has eroded since then.

It’s a fascinating journey to follow the stormbolter and the regular bolter throughout the editions. For most of it their stats remain static (rapid fie and assault2) but as the rules and the game change around them, their power and abilities shift.

I have to admit, I much prefer the 'place outside 9" and then go from there' method of Deep Striking/Teleportation.

I think it works with a 2D6 charge system (and I totally agree with Dysartes that fixed charge distances don't make any sense in a game where units have a variable move stat), because you need to roll a 9 to get into melee, and 9 is well outside the bell curve for a 2D6 roll (with 7, then 6/8 being the most common results), but also not impossible like a required 11 or 12 every time.

I just wish the 40k rules were more scalable, so rather than "Deep Strike = place 9" away", you could have Deep Strike (X), where "X" = the minimum number the unit has to be placed away from the enemy.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think it works with a 2D6 charge system (and I totally agree with Dysartes that fixed charge distances don't make any sense in a game where units have a variable move stat), because you need to roll a 9 to get into melee, and 9 is well outside the bell curve for a 2D6 roll (with 7, then 6/8 being the most common results), but also not impossible like a required 11 or 12 every time.

In practice, that seems to mean you don't generally try for a charge out of deep strike unless you have abilities that boost your charge roll or give you re-rolls, and then it becomes reliable. And in 9th Ed, reliability is everything- I've noticed a definite trend towards units that behave consistently and reliably rather than having swingy potential to either punch above their weight or flop entirely. It's a bit... sterile, I guess.

But personally, my bigger issue with charging out of deep strike (or shooting 12" weapons) in 8th/9th is that it takes all the fun tactics and challenge out of countering a melee unit and just boils down to a binary 'did you screen your units correctly?'. If you correctly draw your Magic 9" Bubble of Protection with sacrificial troops, you don't need to worry about the deep strike deathstar; if you leave one model out of position then you've activated my trap card and bad things happen. I just don't find it to be particularly interesting gameplay.

I'm not a huge fan of the old system, either, but at least with scatter there was an element of brinkmanship to it. Just keeping units 6-12" apart didn't guarantee a unit couldn't come down between them, so you had to gamble on how risky your opponent was willing to be with their DSing troops, and conversely they got to decide how much they wanted to push their luck.

Having perfectly reliable pinpoint precision deep strike but then crapshoot 2D6 charge distance also never sat right with me, but that's a nitpick.

Edit: I like the way Apocalypse handles movement and charging- IIRC you can move your normal distance and shoot, forgo shooting to double move and fight in melee (charging and advancing as the same mechanic, essentially), or stay still and get +1 to hit. It forces decision-making, means units can't do everything in the same turn, and very neatly ties melee threat ranges to the core movement stat.

You can force your opponent to DS into difficult terrain, that'll make charging nearly impossible. Screens can also be destroyed, so is sometimes to try to charge T2 against a screen or wait for T3 when the screen may or may not be gone or deep strike in the back T2 and just do an action.

You can also take a risk by leaving yourself up to getting rear-charged in the hopes that it fails for your opponent and you can just run away from the deep striking unit by charging towards your opponent's deployment zone and just ignoring the enemy deathstar in your deployment zone.

 catbarf wrote:
Having perfectly reliable pinpoint precision deep strike but then crapshoot 2D6 charge distance also never sat right with me, but that's a nitpick.

By the same token, I never liked how you could Deep Strike anywhere - almost as close as you want - then scatter, and then sit there and do nothing for a turn. I mean why bother with HTH units that DS if they have to sit there for a turn and weather all the incoming fire? Not every army has Terminators.

Perhaps the rules better show hidden deployment over deep strike/teleportation, but I like being able to place units where I need them to go plus the rando charge applies to everyone, not just those coming in from DS, so it seems fine to me.