PDA

View Full Version : Love 8th Edition Random Charge Distances



Hrolfr Varini
21-06-2010, 04:38
One of the biggest flaws I find with most miniatures rule sets is the god like ability of player generals to flawlessly order their troops about executing complex maneuvers with the pinpoint precision and accuracy of a champion marching band on perfectly flat Astroturf over concrete.

I like the new approach to charge movement.

To me it factors in the randomness of some troops not quite hearing that command, drum beat, or bugle call during the loud chaos of battle.

Perhaps a unit leader may not feel up to carrying out that order with quite the enthusiasm of his superior commander.

The new charge rules take into the equation those unexpected changes in what appears to be level looking ground; those little dips, stones, sticks, or soft spots hidden by the foliage not detectable as one gazes across an otherwise flat looking plain. The kind of areas one can hit running that can twist an ankle, loose one's footing, or dislocate a knee or hip.

That is what I think was in mind when random charge distances were brought into the mix and I find it to be a refreshing approach. :yes:

Paraelix
21-06-2010, 04:41
I also am a fan... And I think it helps to balance out alot of issues.

"My elves move this far..."
"My humans are really, really angry... But they still move less >_>"

Plus it will hopefully help promote Dwarves to bring some axes to the fight instead of cannons... 15" Charge is 5x their move :D

Stronginthearm
21-06-2010, 05:39
Nah might see a few more dwarf fighty troops but gunlines still work better, in my experiance people will take convienience over fluff 9 times out of ten

Ultimate Life Form
21-06-2010, 05:46
Random charges definitely are a plus, though I fear they may be a bit too random.

bluesystem
21-06-2010, 05:50
Random charges definitely are a plus, though I fear they may be a bit too random.

How so? On a roll of 4 with most troops you can equal the old charge distance (and 4 on 2d6 is very common). It merely opens up the possiblity of making that nearly impossible 16" charge, if you are willing to take the risk. I think it is mostly to prevent the "hover slightly out of charge range" that may occur as a result of playing the rules vs playing a battle.

Ultimate Life Form
21-06-2010, 05:53
When foot soldiers start outrunning horses you know something is rotten in the state of Ostermark.

TheSanityAssassin
21-06-2010, 06:29
You know, I was initially very down on it when the rumours came through, but I'm really liking the random charge/fighting in initiative thing. Combined with step up it really give the feeling of the charged unit leaning back into the charge, and the units getting mixed up and fighting. And I agree completely, sometimes a unit is going to feel gung-ho and book it, sometimes they might think better of an order and hang back. And given that it's just a +1 combat rez, it's probably not going to make a HUGE difference in most infantry fights. Sure it could leave a fragile unit exposed in front of shooters once in a while, but such things happen in the chaos of war. And as said above, if you're within your 8-10 inches you're used to charging, odds are you'll go that far anyway.

Definitely agree with Paraelix about Dwarf axes in the fight. I tried for years to make a fighty Dwarf army work in 7th, and I just couldn't....This one looks like time to bust out Strollaz rune and send the beards forward again! Hopefully my common Dwarf v. High Elf fights actually get bloody instead of lots of "Elves bounce off armour save...Dwarves have no attacks and can't hurt anything....and we stand there..." kind of fights....White Lions Vs. Hammerers will actually see quite a bit of carnage now!

unheilig
21-06-2010, 06:37
I haven't played with it yet, but I have no theoretical problem with it.

it seemed to work well in wotr.

sulla
21-06-2010, 06:48
When foot soldiers start outrunning horses you know something is rotten in the state of Ostermark.But presumably you never had a problem with fully barded horses galloping(marching) all day long?;):p Or chariots moving slower than my elves most of the time... The game has always been full of silly stuff. 8th doesn't sound any worse than previous editions in this regard.

defunct
21-06-2010, 06:53
One of the biggest flaws I find with most miniatures rule sets is the god like ability of player generals to flawlessly order their troops about executing complex maneuvers with the pinpoint precision and accuracy of a champion marching band on perfectly flat Astroturf over concrete.

I like the new approach to charge movement.

To me it factors in the randomness of some troops not quite hearing that command, drum beat, or bugle call during the loud chaos of battle.

Perhaps a unit leader may not feel up to carrying out that order with quite the enthusiasm of his superior commander.

The new charge rules take into the equation those unexpected changes in what appears to be level looking ground; those little dips, stones, sticks, or soft spots hidden by the foliage not detectable as one gazes across an otherwise flat looking plain. The kind of areas one can hit running that can twist an ankle, loose one's footing, or dislocate a knee or hip.

That is what I think was in mind when random charge distances were brought into the mix and I find it to be a refreshing approach. :yes:

That was extremely well put, sir. :)

I like it too.

Part of a huge formation feeling unenthusiastic/tripping over, resulting in the loss of decisive momentum.

Or troops experiencing a mad vengeful rage, charging the opponent like hell behind them.

Love it!:p

zeebie
21-06-2010, 08:55
What I like about it, is as a dwarf you are statistically going to travel further on a failed charge then if you just marched. I can see alot of dwarfs declaring charges they never intend on making just to get the extra charge distance. (unless there a rule about not declaring impossible charges)

Frankly
21-06-2010, 09:01
Nice to see love for the random charge, I'm in full agreement with the OP.

Eternus
21-06-2010, 09:06
Can anyone who already has the book describe to us how the introduction to charging sounds? I don't mean quote the text, because I know that's not allowed, what I mean is, is there a paragraph of fluff justifying the random charge distance?

Hakkapelli
21-06-2010, 09:52
If you want to know why units move a fixed distance most of the time but a random distance when charging I can try explaining from my experience in the line of battle of Napoleonic re-enactment.

When marching over longer distances one is supposed to keep a steady pace and it is allowed to look down to avoid bad ground/obstacles. When marching 'At the charge' however you are supposed to keep looking at the enemy and walk over soft ground, roots, rocks and the bodies of your comrades. This alone can slow you down a bit. The last part of the charge is then carried out at a run. If all goes according to plan this ends with the lines clashing and hand to hand fighting. However if there is any area where Murphy's Law applies it is warfare.

Add the already mentioned facts that some units don't "feel like" charging. In the american civil war many units ordered to charge with bayonets made a token effort at charging and then fell back. If the defending unit have missile weapons then the stand and shoot could have disordered and pushed pack the unit. The orc unit could have a slight case of animosity etc.

Toshiro
21-06-2010, 09:57
I agree fully, I'm looking forward to this with great anticipation! :D

Korraz
21-06-2010, 10:01
Also, the guys just might have slight concerns about running head first into that black clad, huge chaos warrior, horses get scared, Orks start a brawl in Mid-Charge and slow themselves, Ogres stop for a quick lunch, the terrain is unstable or slippery, or or or...

Hrolf the Ganger
21-06-2010, 11:40
Ogres stop for a quick lunch...

He he. Made a fun picture appear in my head :D

I'm a bit torn on the random charge distances. There are clear pros and cons to both the fixed and the random ideas.

But since it is a better simulation of a real battle as mentioned above, I would say that I too lean more towards randomness in charges.

RealMikeBob
21-06-2010, 11:43
... or Old Bill the Standard Bearer's war wound is playing up and that always a sign that something bad's about to happen which has given the rest of the guys the jitters and now you mention it that unit of Skaven Slaves seem suspiciously too vulnerable, I mean there could be anything in there, even an assassin!

Anyway, I think its a great change.

CrystalSphere
21-06-2010, 11:49
I like the random distances, but i think it is too much 2d6 movement. I would have prefered something else like double movement + 1d6, something that adds a bit of random but just it is not completely so. I hate when you roll 2d6 and roll to 1s, it is just stupid, or when dwarves roll two 6s and move x5 their movement, i donīt really like it. Iīm not saying that it may not work in the game, but i would have prefered a system similar to the one in 7th edition just adding a single 1d6 to it, so you could charge between 1 and 6 inches more and not between 2 and 12 inches more.

Miredorf
21-06-2010, 12:03
i love them, but just 1D6 for infantry. 2D6 is retarded.

larabic
21-06-2010, 13:06
I like the idea of random charges, but i can see a few problems, the biggest one is of course demons. With the bloodletter's banner that add's an extra D6" does that mean they would charge 5" + 3D6? A possible 23" threat range (15" on an average roll), if you go second as a demon player and someone moved up you could potentially have a 1st turn charge as infantry! That just doesn't seem right to me.

Luisjoey
21-06-2010, 18:18
That represent both units clashing, no one knows who would get first, are 2 blocks running against the other!

in the end, they will fight with their own initiative, you are fighting for a +1 to combat resolution ;)

Bac5665
21-06-2010, 19:43
That represent both units clashing, no one knows who would get first, are 2 blocks running against the other!

in the end, they will fight with their own initiative, you are fighting for a +1 to combat resolution ;)

No, you're fighting for positioning. Even in the watered-down movement phase, positioning matters, and 2d6 charge ranges make it so that I can't be certain to even be within an inch of where I'd like to be. To me thats far too much of the movement phase to be in the hands of dice.

Midloo
21-06-2010, 19:58
I like the change and think it is one for the better. It turns charging into a "risk vs. reward" system instead of a "who can leverage the known movement value of their troops by best guessing the exact distance between enemies?" system. It worked very well in WotR and it works very well in 8e from all I've seen and read (book came in to FLGS last week).

Still - my favorite movement system of any GW game is Warmaster. The command mechanic cannot be beaten!

SanguinaryDan
21-06-2010, 22:18
When foot soldiers start outrunning horses you know something is rotten in the state of Ostermark.
Wouldn't be anything new for GW. Imperial BBs that became drifting hulks in BFG often moved faster than they could while "alive".

Don't know if I'm willing to pay ∼$75 for the rules only to find out they're another editing disaster. Aw hell. Who am I kidding? I'll do it just to see what happens to my Tomb Kings with these new rules.:D

Malorian
21-06-2010, 22:20
I don't like them.

Takes away from the tactical element of the game if you ask me (and you did).

Skyros
21-06-2010, 22:27
I like the random charge distances - gets rid of people agonizingly fiddling around FOREVER trying to wind up an eight of an inch outside your charge arc.

Razhem
21-06-2010, 22:37
Lack of precision = random flailing.

And I swear that if I hear one more time the "it's historically accurate!" argument, I'll burn an orphanage. The important thing is that the rules work, not that they are "accurate" and I'm 100% convinced that when GW came up with the random movement rule, the last thing they thought of is it being "realistic".

Also, OP, you loose the godlike power of precise movement and get the godlike power to know every exact range on the table at any moment, so that argument doesn't hold water either. Hell, by your logic, you should also roll the range of your ranged weapons (wind is a factor), the range of your spells (maybe you didn't put enough umph in your wand waving) and do a series of "trip on mud and corpses" checks during the combat phases.

Miredorf
21-06-2010, 22:49
Also, OP, you loose the godlike power of precise movement and get the godlike power to know every exact range on the table at any moment, so that argument doesn't hold water either. Hell, by your logic, you should also roll the range of your ranged weapons (wind is a factor), the range of your spells (maybe you didn't put enough umph in your wand waving) and do a series of "trip on mud and corpses" checks during the combat phases.

Thats a really good argumentation. Im happy im with you on this one :D

SatireSphere
21-06-2010, 23:01
I don't like them.

Takes away from the tactical element of the game if you ask me (and you did).

Hardly.

The charges aren't truly random as there are certain distances that are favored (given that 2d6 gives us a bell curve). It's fairly reliable that your block of Empire soldiers will be able to charge that unit that's 8 inches away, but now with a lucky roll you can get the unit that's 16 inches away as well. It allows for desperate situations to be resolvable and makes you have to consider that with a lucky roll your opponent can reach you that far away if they are bold. It's just one more bit of math to bring into consideration.

The change I like the most about the move phase is the musician granting the free reform if you pass a leadership test. Gone are the days when infantry were absurdly slow to turn around.

Icarus
21-06-2010, 23:05
My Skaven have been disobeying my orders and messing things up for years. I say it's about time the rest of you lot had to deal with a bit of unpredictability! ;)

indytims
21-06-2010, 23:08
Also, OP, you loose the godlike power of precise movement and get the godlike power to know every exact range on the table at any moment, so that argument doesn't hold water either. Hell, by your logic, you should also roll the range of your ranged weapons (wind is a factor), the range of your spells (maybe you didn't put enough umph in your wand waving) and do a series of "trip on mud and corpses" checks during the combat phases.

LOL, well, we can't have everything now, can we? Your argument takes on an apparent "all or nothing" stance on the topic. "Well, if charge ranges are random, so should everything else be."

I don't agree - I think it's fine to mix the mechanics to freshen up the rules-set a bit.

I like the random charge ranges. It doesn't lower the "tactical thought" required to play the game as some here have proclaimed, either, in my opinion. It's simply another factor players will have to take into account when they plan their strategies.

To be honest, though, final judgement won't come (at least for me) until I've gotten a dozen games or so under my belt. What might look terrible on paper might turn out to be a load of fun on the tabletop, and vice versa. :)

-Tim S.

Idle Scholar
21-06-2010, 23:10
I don't like them.

Takes away from the tactical element of the game if you ask me (and you did).

Are you going to do a review of 8th Malorian? Based on your battle reports and postings I think it'd be very informative.

Flash Felix
22-06-2010, 00:23
And I swear that if I hear one more time the "it's historically accurate!" argument, I'll burn an orphanage. The important thing is that the rules work, not that they are "accurate" and I'm 100% convinced that when GW came up with the random movement rule, the last thing they thought of is it being "realistic"..

Then you'd better get ready to burn an orphanage, because I find them a lot more historically accurate. Even the greats like Caesar, Alexander and Genghis Khan couldn't predict with certainty how far units were going to move. Morale, training, disipline, sub-unit commander determination and ability; all of this has a very real impact on battles, and this is quite neatly captured in a simple 2d6 dice roll now. I disliked the fixed charge ranges, and am happy to see it gone.


Also, OP, you loose the godlike power of precise movement and get the godlike power to know every exact range on the table at any moment, so that argument doesn't hold water either. Hell, by your logic, you should also roll the range of your ranged weapons (wind is a factor), the range of your spells (maybe you didn't put enough umph in your wand waving) and do a series of "trip on mud and corpses" checks during the combat phases.

Well they couldn't get everything right..... I don't like pre-measuring either, except in very narrow circumstances (defensive scenarios, and then only pre-game to terrain features for the defender). You're right, they could make everything random, but there needs to be a line drawn somewhere. I think your examples are going too far, you obviously think charge distances are going too far. Fair enough, that's your opinion. But as I said, I'm happy with it.

decker_cky
22-06-2010, 00:29
When foot soldiers start outrunning horses you know something is rotten in the state of Ostermark.

And yet...you need some very goofy luck for infantry to outcharge cavalry. I'd venture a guess that MV4 is outcharged by MV7 probably 90% of the time or more. 2D6 choose the highest + higher movement = predictably faster.

Fredox
22-06-2010, 01:11
I hate when you roll 2d6 and roll to 1s, it is just stupid, or when dwarves roll two 6s and move x5 their movement, i donīt really like it.

I think this gives a half decent reason. Different people/races act differently.

Gimli (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0722636/): [out of breath] I'm wasted on cross-country! We Dwarves are natural sprinters, very dangerous over short distances.

Flash Felix
22-06-2010, 02:19
It's not just about the running...... Rough sequence of events on how charges are made in the real world;

1. General decides that the 48th Regt is to attack.
2. General dictates orders to courier
3. Courier rides/runs/flies/teleports to the 48th Regt
4. Commander of the 48th Regt reads the order, questions the courier
5. Commander gives orders to company commanders. Trumpets, drums, loud voiced sergeant majors are used to transmit orders
6. 48th Regt reorients its formation if necessary, and begins to walk towards the enemy
7. 48th Regt crosses ground, possibly ploughed, covered in corpses/undergrowth/chest-high grass/fences/streams, trying to keep its formation intact. This can take some time
8. At a set distance, probably only about 30-40 metres, the 48th Regt breaks into a run, yelling battlecries
9. Battle
10. Tea and medals (hopefully)

This example uses a formed unit such as you might find in a High Elf, Empire or Dwarf army, but the process is much the same even in Orc or Khorne Marauder hordes (less dressing of the ranks, but passage of information and movement is still required).

Anything can go wrong. Orders are written poorly, and need to be queried, couriers are lost or killed and replacements take extra time to get through. Unit commanders are incompetent, scared or lacking in determination. Or dead, and replaced by 18 year old ensigns. Terrain is difficult to cross, or units incapable of keeping a coherent formation or just plain terrified of the maneating monsters they're advancing towards. Or the enemy actually notices the attack, and counter-charges before it closes.

As I said above, all of this is neatly encapsulated in a dice roll now. I like it. The mechanic could be better if it had a Ld component to it, but I'll take what it has at the moment as an improvement. Nothing is certain in war, particularly an assault. As people playing at being 'commanders' we need to deal with this.

Ianos
22-06-2010, 04:55
It's not just about the running...... Rough sequence of events on how charges are made in the real world;
.....
Nothing is certain in war, particularly an assault. As people playing at being 'commanders' we need to deal with this.

Yet as Razhem said, generals in 8th, get to premeasure the entirety of the battlefield at any given time. I mean c'mon, even Napoleon fell for terrain miscalculations.

I really do not know if these two changes are for the better of a system, but from the looks of it, its more like they are trying to ease things up and put more player mistakes into the fault of the dice.

Skilled generals should be able to note the terrain and all distance information and use those to win while their most basic move should not be as random as it gets (its not even 2d6 keep highest or similiar) all the time, just because...

Bac5665
22-06-2010, 04:57
Why is realism better? Was (is) real war fun to you people? War is terrible!! I want my games to be an abstract affair, more focus on fun (see I can co-opt that word too) than on realism.

I think it is fun to have a highly tactical game with precise, if unrealistic, movement. Do I want the game to bear a passing resemblance to war? Yes. But real war is not fun, nor necessarily that tactically complex, once the battle is joined. (This is not to say that generals didn't have to be intelligent. They did, but the heat of battle is not the time when that most came through).

A good general would always tell you that a battle should be over before it begins, and that the quality of troops will determine the battle more than any tactical decision made by the general during the fight. Neither of those factors make for a good game, which requires that the game be fair and rewarding of player decisions.

Random charges take away from rewarding player decisions and they are no more fair than fixed movement values. So they wreck a major necessary component of a good game. Especially 2d6 random charges, which has a huge range of possible outcomes.

Flash Felix
22-06-2010, 05:48
Yet as Razhem said, generals in 8th, get to premeasure the entirety of the battlefield at any given time. I mean c'mon, even Napoleon fell for terrain miscalculations.


I don't like pre-measuring either. In my case it's taking the bad with the good; it's not like I have a choice now that the rules have been set.



Why is realism better? Was (is) real war fun to you people? War is terrible!! I want my games to be an abstract affair, more focus on fun (see I can co-opt that word too) than on realism.

I think we can all agree that Warhammer is a rather broad church, covering a multitude of definitions of what is fun. Unfortunately, most of us have to compromise our sense of fun to whatever the rules say. In my case it was the fixed charges and removing casualties from the front in 7th Edition, which made my Dwarves very one-dimensional. For you it appears to be random charges in 8th.

All I can say is that each individual player needs to balance up the pros and cons of the game rules, and decide if it's worth our time and money. Only you can make that call.

chilledenuff
22-06-2010, 07:44
So dice rolls to charge, meh if you've ever used a snotling pump wagon in anger its nothing new. I thought this was a mechanic to do 2 things:
1. Introduce an element of 'Fog of War' ie battlefields are confusing and things aren't always as simple as they look on a tabletop
2. Counterbalance premeasurement (and that is a subject I don't want to start on, i hope there is a limited time span on measurement in one's own turn (having played other games with premeasuring it can REALLY slow a game down).. aagh i started, will stop now!). No longer will those silly elven horsey types stop 1" away from my charge range etc etc
I'm all for randomness (hence O&G player in the main)

Eternus
22-06-2010, 13:00
Why do people talk about random charges as though it's a game shattering change to the game? First off, unless I'm wrong, it only applies when charging, so maneuvering in the Movement Phase isn't dead, it's just as important as it ever was, and is as precise as it ever was. Random Charges does not mean that you have absolutely no idea at all how far your units will charge - first, they have a minimum charge range that they will move, which for a move 4 model is still three quarters of their charge range in 7th anyway, which isn't that bad surely? And second, you can make a fair guess approximately how far they are likely to charge, and attempt to position them within that distance before rushing in - this is where the skill will be in 8th. Rather than planing movement down to the nth degree, you have to start playing the probabilities - if your game is being ruined because your units are not making their charges, either you're riddiculously unlucky (I think I will fall into this category) or you're not playing the odds. The skill will be in making sound, reliable judgements which the majority of the time will stand you in good stead if you bear in mind the probability of making a charge, or not. If you think your unit is too far away to stand a good chance of their charge hitting home, either don't charge, or try and plan a contingency, like having two units in a position to charge. Random Charges is no different to firing a cannon, except that you generally have to judge a much shorter distance than when shooting a cannon ball right the way across the battlefield - you know how far away you think the enemy is, and you know you have to account for the Misfire, sorry, Artillery die adding between 2" and 10" to the distance, and then another 2"-10" bounce, assuming the infernal contraption didn't blow itself to bits. If I can reliably drop a cannonball on an Elven Sorceror's head from thirty-odd inches away, I can sure as hell judge a 10" charge move!

This change to the game has been used in WotR for a while, and they must have decided that it was a sound enough mechanic to transfer to Fantasy Battle. I think the skill level in moving and charging hasn't reduced, it is simply that the criteria have changed. We need to play a half dozen games or so before we can get any idea of how much the change affects game play, and then, if necessary, we need to relearn how to charge.

IMO Fantasy needed to have some pretty major changes made to rejuvinate the game, and with pressure from other systems tempting players away, it needed to change decisively for the better to remain competative (in the face of other systems I mean), so I welcome the changes, random charges being just one, that add an element of the unknown to the game. We are capable wargamers with a wealth of experience between us. We shouldn't be put off by change, we should be able to adapt to it, because this is the way to get the best out of the experience. Either way, it's done, so we just have to accept it and choose to enjoy the game rather than not enjoy it.

Malorian
22-06-2010, 15:27
Are you going to do a review of 8th Malorian? Based on your battle reports and postings I think it'd be very informative.

Check out my podcasts ;) (Last one was on orcs and the next few are going to be just about 8th.)


"Why do people talk about random charges as though it's a game shattering change to the game?"

The problem is that it's all part of a package that is taking away the importance of the movement phase in fantasy.

In previous editions games were won or lost in the movement phase and this is what set it apart from other games that just won or lost based on dice (or rather more so), but between random charge distance, attacking in initiative order, and flank charges not being so imporant due to steadfast, it really has changed the way fantasy will be played in that the movement phase is much less important and dice rolling is more important.

It isn't ruining the game, but it certainly is taking away from the part that I loved about the game and what made me start it in the first place.

Marshal Torrick
22-06-2010, 15:38
I think people are still operating, naturally, in a 6th/7th edition mindset with the idea that getting a charge off is critical to victory in the combat phase. This, as far as I see, is not the case anymore as it only really adds +1 CR. I say let somebody surge one of their units ahead 14 inches; that will just leave them isolated and flankable on my turn.

If you want to have better odds of charging and maintaining some form of a battle-line you will need to let the enemy get closer to you anyway and then charge so that more of your troops will be able to get to where they need to go.

I do not think it's a terrible idea, and it counter-balances the pre-measuring that is now allowed.

Eternus
22-06-2010, 16:30
Malorian, I agree that till now movement has been the focal point of many battles, and everything else comes off the back of how well you manveuver your army. This has been made slightly less inportant in 8th as you say, but because the random movement only affects charges I just don't think the effects will be as pronounced as some people think.

When games were won or lost in the movement phase, this left slower armies like infantry heavy armies and Dwarfs in particular, at a distinct disadvantage and so people ended up taking extreme examples of those armies, like the Dwarf Gunline, to compensate for inadequecies elsewhere. But as you said, it's the way all the different aspects of the game mesh that determines the result - the dice will have more impact than before, especially as units will have to actually stick a blade in the enemy to kill them more often, rather than run them down as they flee as was so often the case in previous editions. This in particular I think will have more impact than random charging, because we now have to balance staying power with hitting power. In 7th, as long a unit could hit hard enough on the charge, it rarely had to be concerned with how tough it was to damage, because there was no one left to strike them - couple this with a fast moving unit like Chaos Knights, and you can understand why so many people have a pre-occupation with getting the charge in. Now you have to consider more than one combat phase worth of fighting because your small elite unit will be fighting against a unit that is stubborn because they have more ranks, having more enemy able to strike back, and as a result you have more risks to consider and whether or not that rock-hard-on-the-charge unit of Knights could really do with some support. Hell, my Zombies may actually get to roll a die or two in anger!

Looking at all the benefits gained by infantry units in 8th, like extra attacks for Hordes, being stubborn of you have more ranks than the enemy, balanced against the maneurverability and flexibility of smaller less cumbersome units, army selection will need to be considered in more detail than ever before I think, and selecting armies is half the fun of the game.

So many things are changing it's making my head spin - I just want to get hold of my new rulebook and lock myself in a candle lit room for a week. I understand many of the viewpoints put forward here, but I think that only time will tell how much of this theorising will turn out to be accurate.

Alltaken
22-06-2010, 19:46
I don't like it at all. For me the sense of a medieval styled tactical game is to keep tactics reight?

What is the biggest tactical asset proposed by fantasy: Movement, every other rule (even army composition) allings itself to proper movement on the field.
The second should be army composition or deployment.

This nerfs commanding skills, deffinetly. You might not like extreme accurate movement or the "my unit moves more than yours" but that's supposed to be one the tactics you have to overcome.

Fredox
22-06-2010, 19:57
But if by having to overcome it you need to go to extremes like the dwarf gunline then surely something needs to be changed? I'm sure if there were only minor changes made to the system then everyone would be complaining it's only 7.5 and not 7th ed.

sulla
22-06-2010, 21:30
I don't like it at all. For me the sense of a medieval styled tactical game is to keep tactics reight?

What is the biggest tactical asset proposed by fantasy: Movement, every other rule (even army composition) allings itself to proper movement on the field.
The second should be army composition or deployment.

.

Personally, I would reverse those in 7th. Army selection is far more important than movement. The number of games I have played where the result was a foregone conclusion because of mismatched armies... And I'm not even talking about poorly selected armies, just armies that will get steamrolled by VC magic or a BT etc. Plus the fact that 7th allowed armies to dance around enemies out of reach at will. Now, with redirecting and random charges, this will take a lot more skill and luck to do.

(I'm not sure how 8th will work out, but I never found 7th very tactical at all. Most combats were a forgegone conclusion, most charges were predictable too. The only guys who could really break the cycle were the undead, who could get off some charges through the 'tactic' of advancing to your flank and forcing through a movement spell with spam. About as skilled as me taking my Black Guard and filling them with characters and marching up the centre of the field.)

Seth the Dark
22-06-2010, 21:54
I'm glad that random charge distances are included in the new edition. For me, it just wasn't fun coming up to the middle of the battlefield sitting there and staring at my opponent's army.

Ronin_eX
23-06-2010, 01:06
I'm glad that random charge distances are included in the new edition. For me, it just wasn't fun coming up to the middle of the battlefield sitting there and staring at my opponent's army.

And that is more important than all the fog of war and realism stuff in my mind (though those to are important so that random charges possess a level of verisimilitude). The old static move system produced boring results that were easy to predict many turns in advance (hell with my dwarfs I could predict it before the game started with 99.9% accuracy). The static movement was too easy to predict and would provide no options to buck the trend even if you see it coming three turns in advance.

If you have M4 and your opponent has M5 then he chooses when to charge and when to avoid you. If you bring cavalry (not an option for me, but more power to you) then they will get the charge off against anything slower than them.

The new method keeps these as trends rather than foregone conclusions. Use your superior speed and you will likely control the time and place of battle. But your opponent no longer has to play to the beat of your drum. Now that infantry squad parked over 14" away can still be a threat to your plan and can throw off your battleline if they go with the longshot and pull of something special (and if your opponent is smart then he also has a plan for making sure his regiment will use it to his advantage).

Now I look at my dwarfs and realize that offensive action is possible. I throw in Strollaz's Rune and suddenly I can pull off a first turn charge if I go second (deploy at edge, get 6" Strollaz's move, enemy marches 8", declare charge on my turn with a 58% chance of travelling at least the 10" needed to close the gap).

So for me random charge is fun because it adds an element of risk management to what was once a static and predictable sub system and it takes the certainty out of stalemates where both sides stare one another down not wanting to give the charge to the other player. Mix this with charges being weakened in effect, step up and two rank fighting and you have a much more interesting and dynamic game going one which is a big plus in my eyes.

Aluinn
23-06-2010, 01:35
I'm not sure that the realism argument for random charge distances can really hold up, but I don't think it needs to, either. There are plenty of other good reasons to do it:

The thing is, it's necessary for a game with pre-measuring, else "Mexican standoffs" would become agonizingly common, and so by extension a good argument for pre-measuring is a good argument for random charges. As to that, I've always strongly disliked that, as someone put it, a "meta skill" like estimating distances in inches was a deciding factor in games, and it played a huge role in 7th. Being good at eyeballing distances is not in any way a tactical skill, and yet it had the ability to completely swing games one way or the other, in situations where one player was excellent at it and the other bad at it. I think this has gone unnoticed for a long time because veterans often play other veterans (and new players other new players) and they tend to have a roughly similar level of acumen for it. The thing is, even when some balance is achieved, there's still a huge part of the game there that has nothing to do with tactical decision-making. Then, for those times when a beginner finds themselves up against a veteran, as if things weren't bad enough for them, they have to worry about being outguessed in addition to being outmaneuvered.

Now, I'll grant, dice-rolling also has nothing to do with tactical decision-making, but at least odds are easy to learn. All you need to do to learn 2D6 result distributions is look at a chart once, for example, and it really is not difficult to do rough mathhammering of the unit-vs.-unit type on the fly in the middle of a game. By comparison, guessing distances accurately requires either a good deal of practice, talent, or cheating, and if people weren't really guessing distances anyway but deducing them from relative positions of other things on the board, it's kind of ridiculous for any of them to complain about just removing the guessing, because, well, they weren't even doing it.

Think of the random charge range as making everyone into a mediocre range guesser, and removing even the remotest possibility of cheating, and it seems a lot more appealing. At least, it does to me.

Aside from that, random distances have potential to reward players who really think about what they're doing. The wise player will probably only be attempting a charge when they're M+6-8" from their target, whereas others may either feel the need to get super close and remove even a minimal risk, or, at the other end of the spectrum, to make bad gambles at getting a high roll. The one exception to this is when you're losing and absolutely need that long charge to turn things around, but again that's a calculated and smart decision to take a chance.

If people have other complaints about the Movement Phase, I think that probably deserves a new thread. Those are potential issues and there are sure good points to be made, but they aren't necessarily related to random charges except by happening to occur in the same phase of the turn.

Toshiro
23-06-2010, 08:36
I welcome the random charge distance whole heartedly for the reasons mentioned earlier, realism and changing an otherwise very static phase.

For those that argue that random charge distances don't make any sense with pre-measuring when talking about terms of realism, remember that archers often had pre-measured distances to get the most out of their volleys, this is pretty much the only thing I will use pre-measuring for to make sure i don't waste my shooting. Other then that i won't bother pre-measuring as it will slow the game down. I see no reason that others can't make that same decision, just because you CAN pre-measure it don't mean you HAVE to. You have a free will right? Don't be a douche that have to pre-measure every little tiny thing just to spite the new rules. Ok?

blindman
23-06-2010, 15:13
I like the random distances, but i think it is too much 2d6 movement. I would have prefered something else like double movement + 1d6, something that adds a bit of random but just it is not completely so.

That's the question, i like this rule because it forces you to think a bit on what would happen if the dice didn't favour you, but i think is too random imho.

I don't mind if it's realistic or not, if i wanted to play realistic games i would play another game instead of warhammer.

Anyway it's too early, surely as i play more games i'll probably change my mind. Lets see in a few weeks.

Alltaken
23-06-2010, 17:27
Personally, I would reverse those in 7th. Army selection is far more important than movement. The number of games I have played where the result was a foregone conclusion because of mismatched armies... And I'm not even talking about poorly selected armies, just armies that will get steamrolled by VC magic or a BT etc. Plus the fact that 7th allowed armies to dance around enemies out of reach at will. Now, with redirecting and random charges, this will take a lot more skill and luck to do.

(I'm not sure how 8th will work out, but I never found 7th very tactical at all. Most combats were a forgegone conclusion, most charges were predictable too. The only guys who could really break the cycle were the undead, who could get off some charges through the 'tactic' of advancing to your flank and forcing through a movement spell with spam. About as skilled as me taking my Black Guard and filling them with characters and marching up the centre of the field.)

Well the magic unbalance of composition is off. And I haven't found sound movement tactics, while dancing armies proposed more of challenge to face than randomness

matticusmaximus
23-06-2010, 21:14
I'm not sure that the realism argument for random charge distances can really hold up, but I don't think it needs to, either. There are plenty of other good reasons to do it:

The thing is, it's necessary for a game with pre-measuring, else "Mexican standoffs" would become agonizingly common, and so by extension a good argument for pre-measuring is a good argument for random charges. As to that, I've always strongly disliked that, as someone put it, a "meta skill" like estimating distances in inches was a deciding factor in games, and it played a huge role in 7th. Being good at eyeballing distances is not in any way a tactical skill, and yet it had the ability to completely swing games one way or the other, in situations where one player was excellent at it and the other bad at it. I think this has gone unnoticed for a long time because veterans often play other veterans (and new players other new players) and they tend to have a roughly similar level of acumen for it. The thing is, even when some balance is achieved, there's still a huge part of the game there that has nothing to do with tactical decision-making. Then, for those times when a beginner finds themselves up against a veteran, as if things weren't bad enough for them, they have to worry about being outguessed in addition to being outmaneuvered.

Now, I'll grant, dice-rolling also has nothing to do with tactical decision-making, but at least odds are easy to learn. All you need to do to learn 2D6 result distributions is look at a chart once, for example, and it really is not difficult to do rough mathhammering of the unit-vs.-unit type on the fly in the middle of a game. By comparison, guessing distances accurately requires either a good deal of practice, talent, or cheating, and if people weren't really guessing distances anyway but deducing them from relative positions of other things on the board, it's kind of ridiculous for any of them to complain about just removing the guessing, because, well, they weren't even doing it.

Think of the random charge range as making everyone into a mediocre range guesser, and removing even the remotest possibility of cheating, and it seems a lot more appealing. At least, it does to me.

Aside from that, random distances have potential to reward players who really think about what they're doing. The wise player will probably only be attempting a charge when they're M+6-8" from their target, whereas others may either feel the need to get super close and remove even a minimal risk, or, at the other end of the spectrum, to make bad gambles at getting a high roll. The one exception to this is when you're losing and absolutely need that long charge to turn things around, but again that's a calculated and smart decision to take a chance.

If people have other complaints about the Movement Phase, I think that probably deserves a new thread. Those are potential issues and there are sure good points to be made, but they aren't necessarily related to random charges except by happening to occur in the same phase of the turn.

Quoted for truth.

The new charges aren't going to "ruin" the game, just add another layer of decision-making and uncertainty, which will make the game overall more dynamic and fluid

Lord Inquisitor
23-06-2010, 22:08
When foot soldiers start outrunning horses you know something is rotten in the state of Ostermark.
Pratchett maintained that over a small distance a man could outrun a horse because he's got less legs to sort out ;)



Then you'd better get ready to burn an orphanage, because I find them a lot more historically accurate. Even the greats like Caesar, Alexander and Genghis Khan couldn't predict with certainty how far units were going to move. Morale, training, disipline, sub-unit commander determination and ability; all of this has a very real impact on battles, and this is quite neatly captured in a simple 2d6 dice roll now.
Um, apart from the fact that it doesn't take into account morale, training, discipline, commander determination or ability - all of which are represented by the unit's characteristics, particularly Ld. It's just random.


And yet...you need some very goofy luck for infantry to outcharge cavalry. I'd venture a guess that MV4 is outcharged by MV7 probably 90% of the time or more. 2D6 choose the highest + higher movement = predictably faster.
Working out the probability that a cav unit will charge further than a inf unit is tricky (and meaningless for all intents and purposes - the winner is the one that charges far enough to get into combat, not the one that charges further), but it is easy for any given charge distance.

For example, at 11" (average for M4 infantry) the probability to charge this distance (or more) is 58% (M4 infantry) and 98% (M7 cav).



* * *Okay, my opinions on this random charge distances:


I think a small amount of uncertainty is good (stops mexican standoffs)
I think a large amount of uncertainty is bad (makes predicting movements hard)
I think charge moves that are greatly in excess of normal moves are bad (makes outmanoeuvering an enemy unit difficult)
I think individual dice rolls that have a great effect on the game should be minimised
I think that in any system premeasuring or guessing ranges doesn't make an awful lot of tactical difference

So I'm not happy with the new system. Not because it adds uncertainty to the game per se, but it adds a great deal of randomness. A system where you're not entirely sure whether you can expect your infantry to charge 8" or 10" is uncertain. If you've no idea whether they'll charge 6" and 16", that's just random. The fact that chargers can charge four times their movement rate, twice that of marching, means that outmaneuvering your opponent is tricky. Such a high maximum coupled with a relatively tiny failed charge move means that players can "speculatively" charge enemies without fear of being flanked if you fail your charge. And I really don't like it when individual dice rolls can have a huge effect on the game - so we've finally gotten rid of the problems associated with Terror and Fear and how much these individual dice rolls can impact the game ... and replaced them with random charge distances? Great. One step forward, one step back.

All of this doesn't mean the death knell of the game and both infantry and cavalry show normal or skewed distributions and there's a huge new arena for us to mathhammer... but I don't think it was a change well implemented at all, and it is my least favourite part of 8th. Making the game "overall more dynamic and fluid" seems to be a euphemism for "more controlled by the luck of the dice" like that's a good thing, that a game where tactical decisions are more disrupted by dice rolls is somehow more tactical than it was before.

Aluinn
23-06-2010, 22:54
* * *Okay, my opinions on this random charge distances:


I think a small amount of uncertainty is good (stops mexican standoffs)
I think a large amount of uncertainty is bad (makes predicting movements hard)
I think charge moves that are greatly in excess of normal moves are bad (makes outmanoeuvering an enemy unit difficult)
I think individual dice rolls that have a great effect on the game should be minimised
I think that in any system premeasuring or guessing ranges doesn't make an awful lot of tactical difference

So I'm not happy with the new system. Not because it adds uncertainty to the game per se, but it adds a great deal of randomness. A system where you're not entirely sure whether you can expect your infantry to charge 8" or 10" is uncertain. If you've no idea whether they'll charge 6" and 16", that's just random. The fact that chargers can charge four times their movement rate, twice that of marching, means that outmaneuvering your opponent is tricky. Such a high maximum coupled with a relatively tiny failed charge move means that players can "speculatively" charge enemies without fear of being flanked if you fail your charge. And I really don't like it when individual dice rolls can have a huge effect on the game - so we've finally gotten rid of the problems associated with Terror and Fear and how much these individual dice rolls can impact the game ... and replaced them with random charge distances? Great. One step forward, one step back.

All of this doesn't mean the death knell of the game and both infantry and cavalry show normal or skewed distributions and there's a huge new arena for us to mathhammer... but I don't think it was a change well implemented at all, and it is my least favourite part of 8th. Making the game "overall more dynamic and fluid" seems to be a euphemism for "more controlled by the luck of the dice" like that's a good thing, that a game where tactical decisions are more disrupted by dice rolls is somehow more tactical than it was before.

The "dynamic and fluid" statement is vague and possibly a euphemism, I agree, and I don't think the point of the change was to make the game more tactical, so it may be that GW has been slightly disingenuous. I don't understand why they need to be misleading about it however, because I think the actual goal (as far as I can tell; I may be wrong) is perfectly acceptable. That was, possibly, to level the playing field between people who could judge distances well and people who could not, and leave the decisions they made as the primary deciding factor rather than a metaskill.

This is not just a matter of war machines; it affected every phase of the game. If you couldn't tell the difference between 8" and 10" on the tabletop you were at a severe disadvantage against someone who could judge that 2" reliably, for hopefully obvious reasons. Random charges and premeasuring make this not matter, and that is a good thing, IMO. People act like charges were 100% predictable before, but they were not if you misjudged your distance. There was risk as there is now. The major problem that existed is that the risk was more for some people and less for others, and that the discrepancy was not related to any actual decision they made. Now there remains risk, but saying it is greater or lesser is difficult because that will be different from player to player; the important thing is that charging is, as of the change, the same risk for everyone, assuming they know their averages.

Now, GW could have made charges M+D6" or (M*2)+D6", but, at least in the latter equation, I think the difference is deceptive. 2D6 has a more predictable distribution than 1D6, and the extremes are much less likely to show up. 2M+D6 is more predictable overall, I think, but not by as much as it seems at first glance. I doubt it would have made a great deal of difference in practice.

Lord Inquisitor
23-06-2010, 23:09
The "dynamic and fluid" statement is vague and possibly a euphemism, I agree, and I don't think the point of the change was to make the game more tactical, so it may be that GW has been slightly disingenuous. I don't understand why they need to be misleading about it however, because I think the actual goal (as far as I can tell; I may be wrong) is perfectly acceptable. That was, possibly, to level the playing field between people who could judge distances well and people who could not, and leave the decisions they made as the primary deciding factor rather than a metaskill.

This is not just a matter of war machines; it affected every phase of the game. If you couldn't tell the difference between 8" and 10" on the tabletop you were at a severe disadvantage against someone who could judge that 2" reliably, for hopefully obvious reasons. Random charges and premeasuring make this not matter, and that is a good thing, IMO.
Fine, you've made an argument for premeasuring. As I already said, I'm cool with premeasuring and games like Epic and Flames of War premeasure.

I don't see why this has to go hand-in-hand with hugely variable charge ranges.


People act like charges were 100% predictable before, but they were not if you misjudged your distance. There was risk as there is now. The major problem that existed is that the risk was more for some people and less for others, and that the discrepancy was not related to any actual decision they made. Now there remains risk, but saying it is greater or lesser is difficult because that will be different from player to player; the important thing is that charging is, as of the change, the same risk for everyone, assuming they know their averages.
The risk was negligible for two experienced players. The risk now is pretty big no matter what. We've got a net increase in the risk, no matter the skill of the general. More risk involved in tactics doesn't seem like a good thing to me.


Now, GW could have made charges M+D6" or (M*2)+D6", but, at least in the latter equation, I think the difference is deceptive. 2D6 has a more predictable distribution than 1D6, and the extremes are much less likely to show up. 2M+D6 is more predictable overall, I think, but not by as much as it seems at first glance. I doubt it would have made a great deal of difference in practice.
I like the original rumour of M+(2D6 pick highest) as it has a tight, skewed distribution.

The problem with M+2D6 is that it has a greater range and variance. 2xM+D6 has a linear distribution unlike M+2D6's bell curve, but for any given charge, the "maximum threat range" and the "zero risk range" are so far apart and there is a great deal of variance around the average, making it hard to predict. I wouldn't like 2M+D6 either really - the average is still too far for my liking and the probability of a minimum and maximum deviation is much higher - but the point remains that a degree of uncertainty could be better implemented with less randomness.

Aluinn
23-06-2010, 23:55
I don't see why this has to go hand-in-hand with hugely variable charge ranges.

Well, they don't have to be hugely variable, you're right, but they do have to be to some extent randomized because of it. That was the main point there.


The risk was negligible for two experienced players. The risk now is pretty big no matter what. We've got a net increase in the risk, no matter the skill of the general. More risk involved in tactics doesn't seem like a good thing to me.

The operative phrase being "experienced players" (without bad depth perception, I'll add :)). I think the problem I mentioned is mainly seen when an experienced player goes up against a relatively new one. I don't think this means it should be any less a concern. If you want to fine-tune the balance of the game, it makes sense to look at such matchups.

I don't mean that I want the experienced player in that match to have no advantage, but I'd prefer if their advantage didn't come from eyeballing distances. Now it doesn't, so there's something to tick off the big list of problems. The question of whether it causes worse new problems remains, but I don't think it does, for reasons stated.


I like the original rumour of M+(2D6 pick highest) as it has a tight, skewed distribution.

The problem with M+2D6 is that it has a greater range and variance. 2xM+D6 has a linear distribution unlike M+2D6's bell curve, but for any given charge, the "maximum threat range" and the "zero risk range" are so far apart and there is a great deal of variance around the average, making it hard to predict. I wouldn't like 2M+D6 either really - the average is still too far for my liking and the probability of a minimum and maximum deviation is much higher - but the point remains that a degree of uncertainty could be better implemented with less randomness.

I agree that M+2D6-take-the-highest would have been better, but I don't think that flat M+2D6 is all that bad. It may be hard to predict in a sense, but the outlying results are rather rare (snake eyes and 12 being 1/36 each) and the median results very common. I'm sure you know this, but I wanted to emphasize it. I see your point, and it is true that you will very, very probably at some point roll snake eyes for an 8" charge, and your opponent will at some point roll boxcars on a 16" charge, and those incidents will be frustrating, but I take comfort in the fact that they will be rare. Now, if we get into rolling a 3-5 or a 9-10, we'll see those substantially more, but they are in rough proportion also going to be less frustrating, because some cheeky munchkin who tries to charge at extreme range may still fail on their 9, for example, and you can laugh.

And as others have said, all of it is ameliorated by the charge being less important. That doesn't explain the decision not to go with 2D6-take-the-highest, and I can't speak to that, but it makes our situation less doom-and-gloom than is being made out by many people. It may cause its own frustrations but I think +1 CR is enough of a bonus to make charges highly desirable--unless you have spears, I guess, in which case it may be kind of a wash unless the enemy unit is super tough--and yet not so much so that failing one will swing the whole game except in odd circumstances.

Lord Inquisitor
24-06-2010, 00:29
Well, they don't have to be hugely variable, you're right, but they do have to be to some extent randomized because of it. That was the main point there.
I still don't follow. I play several games and know of others that manage to play with fixed charge distances and premeasuring.

Epic, for example, is a game where a "charge" move is simply a single move while a "march" move is triple movement - and defaults to premeasuring - yet assaults are often the pivotal points in the game without any kind of randomised movement being required.


The operative phrase being "experienced players" (without bad depth perception, I'll add :)). I think the problem I mentioned is mainly seen when an experienced player goes up against a relatively new one. I don't think this means it should be any less a concern. If you want to fine-tune the balance of the game, it makes sense to look at such matchups.
Well, I would say that the experienced player is going to have rather more advantage than merely being better at guessing distances. I should say that pit a serious player against a newbie and allow the newbie to premeasure but not the tournament player and I shouldn't think it would make much of a difference ;)

Anyway, we're still talking premeasuring. Why not play with fixed - or limited variation - distances AND premeasuring? That way we've eliminated the guessing risk AND the arbitrary randomness risk!


I agree that M+2D6-take-the-highest would have been better, but I don't think that flat M+2D6 is all that bad. It may be hard to predict in a sense, but the outlying results are rather rare (snake eyes and 12 being 1/36 each) and the median results very common. I'm sure you know this, but I wanted to emphasize it. I see your point, and it is true that you will very, very probably at some point roll snake eyes for an 8" charge, and your opponent will at some point roll boxcars on a 16" charge, and those incidents will be frustrating, but I take comfort in the fact that they will be rare. Now, if we get into rolling a 3-5 or a 9-10, we'll see those substantially more, but they are in rough proportion also going to be less frustrating, because some cheeky munchkin who tries to charge at extreme range may still fail on their 9, for example, and you can laugh.
Well, I'd firstly say that calculating the risks can be very difficult, we're replacing guessing distances with probability theory knowledge. Do you know off the top of your head the ideal distance to park a cav unit to minimise the risk of being charged while maximising the chance of getting the charge off in your turn? It's not entirely trivial - certainly not something you can do in your head unless you're Rain Man. I've made a little table - I'm a stats geek - and I'm sure playing aids like these will become commonplace (sort of cheating if you get someone else to do the maths for you, eh? ;)).


And as others have said, all of it is ameliorated by the charge being less important. That doesn't explain the decision not to go with 2D6-take-the-highest, and I can't speak to that, but it makes our situation less doom-and-gloom than is being made out by many people. It may cause its own frustrations but I think +1 CR is enough of a bonus to make charges highly desirable--unless you have spears, I guess, in which case it may be kind of a wash unless the enemy unit is super tough--and yet not so much so that failing one will swing the whole game except in odd circumstances.
I don't think so. I think that flanking with infantry will become so important that the key factors will be either pinning the enemy in place so your units can flank or manoeuvering so that you can multiple-charge an enemy unit, especially in the flank.

Conversely, deathstar units may be able to smash through your lines if they get the charge and outnumber enough to break stubborn. Many other units - cavalry, monsters, small units - really need that +1CR to succeed at all.

A game where - for example - you've outmaneuvered your opponent's deathstar so that you can get a frontal charge and a flanking charge and you roll a "3" when all you needed was a "4" with the flanking unit - the frontal charge unit gets chewed up without the flank support and their deathstar pursues through your lines ... this is the sort of thing I'm thinking about. Yes, if one unit squares of against one unit then the charging bonus is just the matter of 2 points of combat resolution here or there, but most of the time the pivotal moments in the game are about which units charge.

Aluinn
24-06-2010, 01:24
I still don't follow. I play several games and know of others that manage to play with fixed charge distances and premeasuring.

Epic, for example, is a game where a "charge" move is simply a single move while a "march" move is triple movement - and defaults to premeasuring - yet assaults are often the pivotal points in the game without any kind of randomised movement being required.

I meant it would seem necessary if you want to avoid standoffs where both units are just outside charge range and the first one to move up will be guaranteed to be charged. Admittedly that's an abstracted, single unit vs. single unit situation, but I've seen it happen enough without premeasuring to make me think that it would become fairly common.


Well, I would say that the experienced player is going to have rather more advantage than merely being better at guessing distances. I should say that pit a serious player against a newbie and allow the newbie to premeasure but not the tournament player and I shouldn't think it would make much of a difference ;)

Anyway, we're still talking premeasuring. Why not play with fixed - or limited variation - distances AND premeasuring? That way we've eliminated the guessing risk AND the arbitrary randomness risk!

And the experienced player really ought to have some advantage, I completely agree, but this goes back to what I said a few posts ago; that is, I think it is fairly lame when any part of that advantage, even if it isn't the greatest part (which is arguable, but that argument probably isn't going anywhere because it involves so much subjectivity and so many variables) comes from distance-estimation. As for having a less risky but still somewhat random charge, I do agree, and as I said I don't know why GW didn't go with M+2D6, take the highest. It just doesn't bother me a great deal that they didn't, even though it seems a better option. Maybe they thought it was, well, I don't want to see "too complicated", but a little too involved for something that happens so often. I wouldn't accept that argument but it may have something to do with their reasoning.


Well, I'd firstly say that calculating the risks can be very difficult, we're replacing guessing distances with probability theory knowledge. Do you know off the top of your head the ideal distance to park a cav unit to minimise the risk of being charged while maximising the chance of getting the charge off in your turn? It's not entirely trivial - certainly not something you can do in your head unless you're Rain Man. I've made a little table - I'm a stats geek - and I'm sure playing aids like these will become commonplace (sort of cheating if you get someone else to do the maths for you, eh? ;)).

Just for fun I'll try it off the top of my head :). I think it would be M+8" for the cavalry if the other unit has, say, M4. I'm probably wrong, but hopefully close-ish.


I don't think so. I think that flanking with infantry will become so important that the key factors will be either pinning the enemy in place so your units can flank or manoeuvering so that you can multiple-charge an enemy unit, especially in the flank.

Conversely, deathstar units may be able to smash through your lines if they get the charge and outnumber enough to break stubborn. Many other units - cavalry, monsters, small units - really need that +1CR to succeed at all.

A game where - for example - you've outmaneuvered your opponent's deathstar so that you can get a frontal charge and a flanking charge and you roll a "3" when all you needed was a "4" with the flanking unit - the frontal charge unit gets chewed up without the flank support and their deathstar pursues through your lines ... this is the sort of thing I'm thinking about. Yes, if one unit squares of against one unit then the charging bonus is just the matter of 2 points of combat resolution here or there, but most of the time the pivotal moments in the game are about which units charge.

Just as an aside I'll note that I think the way to deal with deathstars in 8th will be shooting and/or magic, and that they will not be very good deals, but your point may stand just as well for an enormous horde of cheap-o models. However, in that case, if you keep your units close together and let the enemy come to you, it will be much harder to fail, because those units are wide as heck. I know, it will happen, and it will suck, but I think we just need a lot more redundancy in combat to limit the chances even further. Have two flanking units, in other words. A formation of 3 medium-sized blocks should be pretty good. Alternatively, take a fairly large unit, say 15-strong, of low-priced heavy cav such as Knights Errant or Empire Knightly Orders, if your army can get them. 6-9 fast-moving monstrous infantry maybe if it can't. Or hybridize.

But I'll say again, it seems like a bad deal to charge full-strength, scary units when, AFAIK, every army can either get very powerful magic or war machines to soften them up, gimp them with hexes, or make them run away. Those things aren't 100% reliable either to be sure, but the redundancy thing applies there too.

EDIT: Tried to make a diagram, failed, deleted it :(.

H33D
24-06-2010, 04:03
Average Movement Value : 4
Average 2D6 Value : 7
Average Movement : 11

Table of Possible 2D6 Results:

2 : 1/36
3 : 1/18
4 : 1/12
5 : 1/9
6 : 5/36
7 : 1/6
8 : 5/36
9 : 1/9
10 : 1/12
11 : 1/18
12 : 1/36

I'm sure a lot of you are aware of these average's and probabilities. I just wanted to state that the outcomes of a 2D6 are very near the number 7 which increases the average charging distance by 3 inches. There is a 1/36 chance that that dwarf unit is actually going to reach you with a 15" charge and if they pull it off and you complain you might as well complain when your opponent gets 'insane courage' (which I believe will be removed).

As far of the tactical value of random movement, I feel it is going to increase advanced players skill due to being able to effectively 'bait' in a new way with charging, making more optimistic players try to pull off a high 2D6 roll and hit you.

As for charging in general, it gives you +1CR. That is it. Those Dwarves will still hit you last. The omnipotence of charging is gone and now it is more tactical and less "my guys have a higher movement value and so I win".

I think random charge distances will help bring the game more flavor and depth rather than screw everyone over who is capable of currently outcharging a dwarf.

Anyway thats my opinion and I don't really think it will hurt as much as people think and I believe it will be more fun that people think.

SilasOfTheLambs
24-06-2010, 04:34
I'm cautiously in favor of the change.

The historical argument holds little water with me just based on the kind of game we're playing. The book itself said that warhammer is not an exercise in simulating reality, but an exercise in making a good game. Granted, GW has done that poorly in various ways, but to say it's better due to being accurate or realistic is silly.

I think this thread is too narrowly focused on charge distances. A few people have pointed out the main thing: this change must be seen in the context of the other changes to charging.

So let's discuss them.
1) No longer grants asf
2) even if it did, units striking first have virtually no chance of wiping out so many enemies that no return attacks are possible, which used to be a major linchpin of most heavy cavalry, monsters, and elite infantry like wardancers, swordmasters, black guard etc (though the latter throw out so many attacks they might still do it).
3) distances are random
4) Grants +1 cr
5) A failure is an utter catastrophe, usually resulting in a unit moving less than its basic movement value.

Clearly, the thrust of the rules is to de-emphasize charging as an unbeatable tactic. However, I really don't think this devalues the movement phase. The important tactics now are still movement-based; flanking, dominating individual combats, and making use of the game's now dizzyingly varied terrain. These all require canny use of the movement phase. Meeting the enemy on your own time and on your own terms is still critical, but now charging isn't the only way to effectively do so. Accordingly, I approve.

Lord Inquisitor
24-06-2010, 18:56
And the experienced player really ought to have some advantage, I completely agree, but this goes back to what I said a few posts ago; that is, I think it is fairly lame when any part of that advantage, even if it isn't the greatest part (which is arguable, but that argument probably isn't going anywhere because it involves so much subjectivity and so many variables) comes from distance-estimation. As for having a less risky but still somewhat random charge, I do agree, and as I said I don't know why GW didn't go with M+2D6, take the highest. It just doesn't bother me a great deal that they didn't, even though it seems a better option. Maybe they thought it was, well, I don't want to see "too complicated", but a little too involved for something that happens so often.
Well, I think we're broadly in agreement here. I don't think 2D6-pick-highest is too hard (it's the default difficult terrain mechanic in 40K and doesn't present any issues there). I think it's more likely the usual GW problem solving situation:
Designer 1 - Infantry are underused, we need to give line infantry a reason to be taken.
Designer 2 - Right, we can a) allow casualties to be taken from the rear rank, b) make them stubborn if they outrank their opponent, c) require flank chargers to have ranks, d) fight in 2 ranks, 3 if 10 wide, e) allow infantry to charge far further than before
Designer 1 - These sound great - let's do them all!

Transports in 40K are a great example:
2nd ed - deathtraps! people us footslogging forces
3rd ed - amazing! people switch to fully mech armies
4th ed - deathtraps! people switch to footslogging forces
5th ed - amazing! people switch to fully mech armies

The GW "design pendulum" is well established :rolleyes: Wait for infantry to be nerfed in 9th... ;)


Just for fun I'll try it off the top of my head :). I think it would be M+8" for the cavalry if the other unit has, say, M4. I'm probably wrong, but hopefully close-ish.
A little conservative. The optimum is 14", you're running too high a risk of failing your own charge. M+6" is a good rule of thumb, but I made a table (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=263228).


But I'll say again, it seems like a bad deal to charge full-strength, scary units when, AFAIK, every army can either get very powerful magic or war machines to soften them up, gimp them with hexes, or make them run away. Those things aren't 100% reliable either to be sure, but the redundancy thing applies there too.
I don't think so, unless you run a gunline, the real power in WFB is and always should be combined charges. But even if we go with what you're suggesting, we're still looking at powerful magic or war machines - which are also two areas where individual dice rolls can have a big effect on the game ;)


I'm sure a lot of you are aware of these average's and probabilities. I just wanted to state that the outcomes of a 2D6 are very near the number 7 which increases the average charging distance by 3 inches. There is a 1/36 chance that that dwarf unit is actually going to reach you with a 15" charge and if they pull it off and you complain you might as well complain when your opponent gets 'insane courage' (which I believe will be removed).
As you can see above, I'm aware of these probabilities and I've made some relatively sophisticated probabilities involving both units.

The problems are as follows:

There's a high variability. The chance of rolling 5-9 (i.e. within 2 points of average) is only 2 in 3.

Not all charges are equal. Some are of crucial importance and a lucky or unlucky dice roll can shape the game.

The very low failed charge to maximum charge ratio allows for speculative charges without presenting any risk of being flanked.


As far of the tactical value of random movement, I feel it is going to increase advanced players skill due to being able to effectively 'bait' in a new way with charging, making more optimistic players try to pull off a high 2D6 roll and hit you.
Why do we need randomness to bait? Baiting existed just fine in 7th.

Plus as I've just said, often there's little disadvantage to a failed charge.


Anyway thats my opinion and I don't really think it will hurt as much as people think and I believe it will be more fun that people think.
Why do people keep saying this? Do you really feel that "More random" = "More fun"?

I don't find it fun when I've outmaneuvered my opponent and then the dice kick me in the nuts. It's frustrating. Likewise a victory gained by the dice abandoning my opponent is hollow. Sure these moments are part of wargaming and those times that your bloodthirster misses with all their attacks are entertaining - but making it part and parcel of the movement phase doesn't seem "fun" to me at all.


I think this thread is too narrowly focused on charge distances. A few people have pointed out the main thing: this change must be seen in the context of the other changes to charging.

So let's discuss them.
1) No longer grants asf
2) even if it did, units striking first have virtually no chance of wiping out so many enemies that no return attacks are possible, which used to be a major linchpin of most heavy cavalry, monsters, and elite infantry like wardancers, swordmasters, black guard etc (though the latter throw out so many attacks they might still do it).
3) distances are random
4) Grants +1 cr
5) A failure is an utter catastrophe, usually resulting in a unit moving less than its basic movement value.

Clearly, the thrust of the rules is to de-emphasize charging as an unbeatable tactic.
Agreed, and I think these are good things.


However, I really don't think this devalues the movement phase. The important tactics now are still movement-based; flanking, dominating individual combats, and making use of the game's now dizzyingly varied terrain. These all require canny use of the movement phase.
Right! Still with you.


Meeting the enemy on your own time and on your own terms is still critical, but now charging isn't the only way to effectively do so. Accordingly, I approve.
Here I don't get it. Sure you can have a unit that's happy to be charged, but why does random movement help the game, particularly movement based stuff like flanking?

All of these things you describe work fine with a non- or less-random system. What does such big variability add to the system?

Saying "ah, well, charging is less important now" is all well and good, but really you're just telling me that a crappy rule is less crappy because it isn't so important ... that doesn't make it a substitute for a good rule.

However, I still maintain that flanking will be the way to win games, and that DOES require charging.