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.

So one of the hardest things to do in Warhammer 40k is successfully make an assault against even moderately quick units (with a few exceptions like TWC). I think one of the largest factors to that cannot be fixed with a BRB addendum, but the lack of reasonable assault vehicles to most armies. The 2nd factor is the charge resolving after overwatch, and possibly failing by just an inch.

So I propose, that units that declare a charge, resolving overwatch as normal, that fail, have the option to move their failed charge distance closer (or nearest distance and maintaining 1" away) to the unit they charged, or stay where they are. That way, should the target unit fall back in the movement phase, the assaulting unit isn't even farther away, and sitting there taking fire while pondering the meaning of life.

This isn't an every turn ability, you must be able to charge a unit. And it might not always be in your best advantage to move (you might move into a heavy weapons range that was stationary), but at least with the option to close the gap and apply real pressure.

1.) Do you think this would help?
2.) any ideas to refine the concept in a constructive way?

It seems worth playtesting. I can't say how it'd affect the game without seeing it in action, but it doesn't scream "Broken" to me.

Now comes the question about abusing it. So do units that are outside 12 inches still get to declare a charge and move accordingly or will there be some sort of limiting factor ?

Overwatch , excluding tau, is normally a big joke so on turn 1 can i charge a unit that is 24 inches away just to get some free movement in so i can a free random 2-12 inches ?

kambien wrote:
Now comes the question about abusing it. So do units that are outside 12 inches still get to declare a charge and move accordingly or will there be some sort of limiting factor ?

Overwatch , excluding tau, is normally a big joke so on turn 1 can i charge a unit that is 24 inches away just to get some free movement in so i can a free random 2-12 inches ?

that was the purpose of "This isn't an every turn ability, you must be able to charge a unit" you must have a valid charge to have the option. It might be a full 12" (at time of declaring charge) but not 12.1" because that's not a valid charge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And it doesn't come close to solving "all problems" with assaulting, but measured steps in the right direction have a better chance of balance than massive paradigm shifts

If charge was D6 + 6", I could see moving the D6" distance if the charge fails, as if the unit had run instead.

Unit shouldn't be able to declare a charge it can't possible hope to complete.

 Stormonu wrote:
If charge was D6 + 6", I could see moving the D6" distance if the charge fails, as if the unit had run instead.

Unit shouldn't be able to declare a charge it can't possible hope to complete.

Again.. "you must be able to charge a unit." so no 24" charges... But 12" is possible. and if you fail because a few got shot down as you ran up, you still ran your x".

But if you are suggesting that if you fail a charge, you can move 6", it doesn't cover the times where you have a 5" charge, and just manage to roll gak and fail, in the current system.
And if you cannot charge less than 6" when a run is a d6, i feel like that overly empowers the charge to never less than 7".

But... i can see why having a minimum possible charge distance is appealing. Any 3rd opinions?

I'm not a fan. It doesn't seem to add much.

pm713 wrote:
I'm not a fan. It doesn't seem to add much.

It's not supposed to flip the world on its head, but it should help assault units who don't quite make the charge range have the option to keep pressing and pressuring other units to move (which is a big deal with heavy, salvo weapons) charge back (not every unit is great in melee), or just keep the distance as short as possible (they move 6" and fire, no instead of being 13" away, if you failed a 7" charge, they are only 7 or 8 still) to charge again next turn/throw grenades.

if you declared a long charge of say 10" against, me, i fired overwatch with a heavy weapons team with AM, and then you only roll a 7, now you can be merely 3" away, and i either have to move the heavy weapons team, forcing snap shots, or just eat your charge next turn. All open to battlefield conditions of course (supporting units, lucky good/bad rolls)

I can't imagine KDK not wanting any chance to get closer if they failed charges.

 pumaman1 wrote:

pm713 wrote:
I'm not a fan. It doesn't seem to add much.

It's not supposed to flip the world on its head, but it should help assault units who don't quite make the charge range have the option to keep pressing and pressuring other units to move (which is a big deal with heavy, salvo weapons) charge back (not every unit is great in melee), or just keep the distance as short as possible (they move 6" and fire, no instead of being 13" away, if you failed a 7" charge, they are only 7 or 8 still) to charge again next turn/throw grenades.

if you declared a long charge of say 10" against, me, i fired overwatch with a heavy weapons team with AM, and then you only roll a 7, now you can be merely 3" away, and i either have to move the heavy weapons team, forcing snap shots, or just eat your charge next turn. All open to battlefield conditions of course (supporting units, lucky good/bad rolls)

I can't imagine KDK not wanting any chance to get closer if they failed charges.

I'm leaning towards the "doesn't add much" camp. Enemies moving away after you fail to charge isn't usually that big a deal unless we're talking about a very mobile unit. Sure, jetbikes can zip across the table after you fail your charge, but fire warriors, most marines, havocs, etc. won't get significantly farther away from the would be chargers. What usually happens to units that fail their charges (and what makes failed charges really harmful as a result) is that the enemy gets an extra turn to shoot at full BS plus an extra round of overwatch when you try to charge next turn.

Getting shot at before you can charge is one of the biggest issues facing a given assault unit these days, especially now that most transports can't be charged out of. Therefore, popular assault units these days tend to be things that can cover ground quickly. Things like khorne dogs and thunder puppies, for instance. This means that, of the assault units we usually see these days, an enemy moving 6 inches away after a failed charge is unlikely to prevent them from making the charge on the following turn.

So while the proposed suggestion would help assault units out, and while it would arguably benefit unpopular, slow melee units who probably need the boost more than their speedy counterparts, I feel that this change would be a bandaid where stitches are needed. Slow assault units still won't have a good answer to being shot at as they struggle to get across the board. Assault units in general will still take the same amount of return fire the turn after they fail the charge.

I'd be completely fine with your proposed change. I just also think it would slow down the game a bit (it adds to the time spent moving models) without making a huge difference.

 pumaman1 wrote:

pm713 wrote:
I'm not a fan. It doesn't seem to add much.

It's not supposed to flip the world on its head, but it should help assault units who don't quite make the charge range have the option to keep pressing and pressuring other units to move (which is a big deal with heavy, salvo weapons) charge back (not every unit is great in melee), or just keep the distance as short as possible (they move 6" and fire, no instead of being 13" away, if you failed a 7" charge, they are only 7 or 8 still) to charge again next turn/throw grenades.

if you declared a long charge of say 10" against, me, i fired overwatch with a heavy weapons team with AM, and then you only roll a 7, now you can be merely 3" away, and i either have to move the heavy weapons team, forcing snap shots, or just eat your charge next turn. All open to battlefield conditions of course (supporting units, lucky good/bad rolls)

I can't imagine KDK not wanting any chance to get closer if they failed charges.

I'm not seeing it helping a massive amount myself. Most times you'll just move closer next turn anyway. There aren't many times I've seen a charge and wished for the ability to move if I fail.

I like this actually. It would go a long way to making footslogging mobs of boyz useful. As it is turns one and two you get shot and then turn three they walk back and you eat another round of shooting because you probably failed both long charges on turns 2 and 3. With this at least you can semi reliably get there a turn earlier which is a big deal. Those pesky tau can't run away now!

Abuse Abuse Abuse I say.....
What if a unit has to go across an obstacle making it harder so would need a high roll and the target is on an objective. The charging unit could use the roll simply to get closer using the roll they scored.

licclerich wrote:
Abuse Abuse Abuse I say.....
What if a unit has to go across an obstacle making it harder so would need a high roll and the target is on an objective. The charging unit could use the roll simply to get closer using the roll they scored.

I'm not sure that counts as abuse: I think that's precisely the intended effect.

There have been more than a few times that I've charged, even with units that suck in melee, just to get onto an objective. Especially with units like Dire Avengers or shooty Marine bikers.

This isn't bad, and a LOT of people have always wondered why a unit that fails a charge just stands still. It's not going to make a huge difference, but still would be appreciated. It's okay to have rules that don't do much if they make sense, like Heroic Intervention. I've never done it, never seen it done, and never even heard of anyone doing it - but it's still a rule.

Personally, I think a bigger and better change would be allowing a unit that has destroyed the unit it shot at to charge as though it hadn't targeted anyone during the shooting phase.

 pumaman1 wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
If charge was D6 + 6", I could see moving the D6" distance if the charge fails, as if the unit had run instead.

Unit shouldn't be able to declare a charge it can't possible hope to complete.

Again.. "you must be able to charge a unit." so no 24" charges... But 12" is possible. and if you fail because a few got shot down as you ran up, you still ran your x".

But if you are suggesting that if you fail a charge, you can move 6", it doesn't cover the times where you have a 5" charge, and just manage to roll gak and fail, in the current system.
And if you cannot charge less than 6" when a run is a d6, i feel like that overly empowers the charge to never less than 7".

But... i can see why having a minimum possible charge distance is appealing. Any 3rd opinions?

Uh, no - if you fail the charge, you'd move D6". Same as a run. Basically, running becomes a consolation prize if you fail the charge and weather the Overwatch.

The charge roll would be 6" + D6". That guarantees a successful charge distance of 7", up to 12" instead of the current 2" to 12" crap now.

To answer the question presented in the title, it would mean you no longer made a Tactical Decision when at 10-12 inches do you run or charge.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
To answer the question presented in the title, it would mean you no longer made a Tactical Decision when at 10-12 inches do you run or charge.

You still have some decisions to make, because running closer, but failing combat might just put you into more guns range/rapidfire range etc. where as if you are 10-12 inches away, there isn't really a decision to run/risk a charge. the odds are so low you either shoot, generally poorly, and get shot to pieces back as they back up a few inches, or you run, and get shot to pieces, then back up and now you are farther away. This gives the assaulting unit the chance to cover more ground if they want. maybe they do want to stay in area cover, but at least they can get a lot closer if they want to.

but it seems the idea was disliked at large

 pumaman1 wrote:
but it seems the idea was disliked at large

I don't dislike it. Give it a try in your own personal games, see how it goes, and report back to us. That way, you have more than just theorycrafting at your disposal.