PDA

View Full Version : Random charges, would it be wrong if we could move during a failed charge?



Greyhound
14-02-2014, 04:44
This is the argument I often hear about: random charges offset the pre-measuring brought in the game; Random charges bring a sense of risk/reward, and a nice balance to the fact that now you know at any time the distance between units. I was also told that the range has increased because 2d6 > 6.

If that's true then why haven't we seen random shooting range.
24" becomes: 18" + 2d6
18" becomes: 12" + 2d6
6" becomes 2d6.

you suddenly get a completely different response, and how this idea would completely screw the armies that don't want to come close, and rely on shooting. That's when you start to realise that you can't just move 23.9" from your ennemy and start shooting, you'd want to be as close as possible to 20" just in case you roll a dreaded double 1, and lose an entire turn of shooting, this would nerf the range of shooting.

The truth is that 2d6 is actually a lot shorter than 7.
To get an average you have to get an equal chance of rolling a double 1 than a double 6, and in reality if I sometimes end up 2" away before the charge I never end up 12" from my target, or if I do I won't charge, I'll run.

If I have assault troops starting at 18" from my opponent I am going to look at my options and probably either move - run, or move shoot but not charge.

Charging at 11" or 12" is giving me a 91% chance to stay where I am, and only a 9% to charge, unless my unit can reliably weather a snapshooting phase, I normally prefer to run and increase my chances for the next turn.

Can anyone show me where the abuse would be to move the full extent of the charge, even if you fail it?
Were the authors worried that units would suddenly move across the board faster by snatching an potential extra 9" after shooting?
The extent of a lost charge would be that units with the assault rule (or relentless) would be able to move 6", shoot, and move again between 2" and 11", which in reality translates as probably 5-6 inches.

This moves is exactly what happens when the unit actually connect, so there is already a precedent to see units moving-shooting-moving, but the outcome is still pretty bad:
assuming you had to go in a straight line toward the enemy (and not use that move to hide/move back), the failed charge would:
-1) leave you inches away from your opponents who can move back, and run if they chose to, giving you just about ~50% to catch up
-2) leave you in front of an opponent who can now shoot/charge you very reliably and deny you the charge bonus (and get their own)

Obviously this would give assault units a small boost but I don't see that as a major issue, shooting would still be very good, it would just be boosting the assault ones when their luck ran out and they failed a charge (a scenario which is pretty gruesome at the moment)

lantzkev
14-02-2014, 05:57
The truth is that 2d6 is actually a lot shorter than 7.

you mean 6 inches?

previously you could charge 6 inches... now you can charge 7+ on average. you have to roll a 5 or less to actually charge less than before. Will it happen? of course it will occasionally, but generally you're better off, and more often than not you're doing at least what you did before.


Obviously this would give assault units a small boost

Try a huge boost, I think what you're saying is that if you charge you go the distance regardless of if you get there or not. Lets look at a all monster tyranid army starting at the backboard edge. Move 6, Run d6... charge 2d6. (average move per turn 16.5) prior? average move of 9.5. In two turns 33inches on average is covered, (or if you prefer a range of 18inch-48inches.

Naw just a small advantage... to think a army foot slogging could cover the average board width by turn 2 from the exact opposite side. I'm assuming you'd have a stipulation you must be in charge range... even then you're giving a huge advantage to your melee army because now running away is not an option. Retreating is unable to be done because the "retreat" move is usually 6 inches. but your melee guys that aren't getting an advantage... (lolz) are moving at least that plus another 2d6 charge...

Grand Master Azrael
14-02-2014, 08:36
I don't want shooting to change

MajorWesJanson
14-02-2014, 08:43
Maybe make charge go from 2d6 to d6+3, and have Fleet be d6+6 (and d6+3 run move)

lantzkev
14-02-2014, 09:04
I'd rather not see 7inch charges guaranteed, it's bad enough they can charge up to 12... to make that a one in six chance... ugh

Greyhound
14-02-2014, 10:06
No I mean you don't actually attempt charges at 10, 11 or 12"
The average charge is between 1" and 9" because there is a high risk of failure above 9"

Unless I am doing it wrong and should charge when at 12"

OuroborosTriumphant
14-02-2014, 10:25
No I mean you don't actually attempt charges at 10, 11 or 12"
The average charge is between 1" and 9" because there is a high risk of failure above 9"

Unless I am doing it wrong and should charge when at 12"

Depends entirely on how scary their overwatch is. If you're attempting a charge on something that can't overwatch (a non-Walker vehicle or a squad of Centurions for example) or something which can't hurt you with it's shooting (say a Dreadnought charging a Flamer/Heavy Bolter Tactical Squad), then there is no harm in trying for a cheeky 12" charge.

CrownAxe
14-02-2014, 10:26
No I mean you don't actually attempt charges at 10, 11 or 12"
The average charge is between 1" and 9" because there is a high risk of failure above 9"

Unless I am doing it wrong and should charge when at 12"
Overwatch is the only reason not to charge at 10"+ is overwatch which still rarely does more then 1-2 wounds at best (depends on the unit of course but still it needs to be like 30-40+ shots to be a significant threat). Its an assault unit, they aren't doing there job if their not in assault. Why not take the chance because if you do make it then boom you are in combat a turn earlier then if you had waited until next turn.

Also the minimum charge distance is 2", you can't roll 1 on 2d6 (which is frankly another buff from the new charge, you can get close enough to guarantee a charge). and is still is a bell curve so is skewed way towards 6-8" charge distance.

lantzkev
14-02-2014, 10:37
everytime I see someone upset about charge ranges I always get puzzled, then I think "they probably lost a game recently and blamed coming up short on a charge"

Losing Command
14-02-2014, 10:48
I don't think random charge range is the problem. It's all the penaltys you get for charging through terrain and lucky overwatches that are the most scary, and the fact you don't want to win close combat is the worst.

If units would move the charge distance even if they didn't make it you'd see declared charges even more, like all the time even to get the extra movement ;) Changing charge distance to <set value> + D<number> is also a HUGE buff, making the min. charge distance very high. Don't get me wrong, I started playing WH40k because there's still a lot of fistycuffs going on despite it being the grimdark far future, but buffing the charge distance is not the best way to go :)

=Angel=
14-02-2014, 10:57
The solution is pancake edition.
Move phase, assault phase, shoot phase.

You double move to charge or to run, no crazy unpredictable movement.
Bonus- no turn based assault shenanigans, as you always have to deal with an enemy shooting phase once you finish your assault.

Shiodome
14-02-2014, 11:13
everytime I see someone upset about charge ranges I always get puzzled, then I think "they probably lost a game recently and blamed coming up short on a charge"

no it's probably someone that plays an assault reliant army. i'm playing Daemons at the moment, and the OP is correct in that there is no reason to declare a charge if you're more then 8" away (i know he says 9" but for me that fails far too often). even it there's no overwatch you're pretty much always better off running with an assault unit >8" away just to ensure that next turn you ARE in range no matter how far your target backs off. trying to charge at distances >8" tends to mean you're desperate and things are going pretty badly.

the problem is even 5"-8" charges aren't reliable either. if shooting units had to first roll a 7 on 2d6 and if they failed they do nothing, then you'd rightly feel that shooting has been crippled. even if it was a 9 on 2d6, for example you had to pass a ld test every time you wanted to fire it would be crippling, because as we all know 9 on 2d6 is all to easy too fail. this would be the equivalent to charging 5", and i've certainly failed PLENTY of 5" charges.

the reality is assaulting went from something that always happened if you were 6" away or less, to something that virtually never happens if you're >8" away, is very risky with a high chance of failure 5-8" away, and reliable <5" away but still with a chance of failure. no of this is even taking into account difficult terrain...

there has been no practical gain for assaulting units but an absolutely lethal loss of reliability that isn't balanced out. people seem to say "now there's risk vs reward" and "but now the average is 7" on 2d6" in the same sentance and not see the problem there. 40k is about making risk/reward decisions fine, but the risks have increase far more then the reward.

to put it in numbers:
to reach the new improved average 7" - 41.67% likelyhood of failing and doing nothing that turn. no-one in their right mind would every rely on those odds. so in practical terms the charge range hasn't increased at all.
to reach the old 100% reliable charge range of 6" - 27.78% chance of failure. WTF!? you have a greater than 1 in 4 chance of failing a charge that before was guaranteed and people still don't see that as a problem?
even down at 4" there's an almost 10% chance of failing. which for an assault orientated army means its likely that at least one unit per game will fail an important charge (all charges are important, as if that unit never gets in combat it has almost no impact on the game).

and remember this is all a prelude to rolling to hit/wound etc. yes shooting can fail to do damage, but there isn't a preceeding step that gives you a high risk of not shooting at all. less puzzled now lantzkev?

lantzkev
14-02-2014, 11:27
WTF!? you have a greater than 1 in 4 chance of failing a charge that before was guaranteed and people still don't see that as a problem?

and remember this is all a prelude to rolling to hit/wound etc. yes shooting can fail to do damage, but there isn't a preceeding step that gives you a high risk of not shooting at all. less puzzled now lantzkev?

I am not confused at all. you can reliably charge your old distance, and even greater amounts. you play demons so we'll say you charge my tau squad that's full... 24 shots. 4 hit, 3 wound, 2 die...

What of your assault unit can't massacre what's left to defend?

Greyhound
14-02-2014, 11:28
Why not increase the shooting by -6" +2D6, then it would be fair.

CrownAxe
14-02-2014, 11:42
@Shidome: You seem to think anything that isn't 90%+ is likely to fail. All i see in your post is someone blowing everything out of proportions. You say Ld9 and 5" charges are easy to fail. That's the exact same odds as a 2+ on d6 (83.3%). Those are way good odds. Even 6"+ is like 72% thats better then 3+ armor. And overwatch really does like no damage. Without flamers, I rarely see it do more then 1-2 wounds even on large squads. And if you are doing good unit placement lising 1-2 guys should bearely reduce the charge distance you need (you shouldn't be a conga line)

Plus last edition had random charges too... when you charged through terrain. Almost all charges last edition were into terrain because that was how you get easy 4+ cover. And you had 0 chances of making a charge 7"+ because it capped at 6". Now you have the chance to make those long charges if you need to where as before you had no chance (and running isn't going to help you catch a unit that moves 12" like vehicles or jet/jump anything). As someone who also plays daemons and has so since 4ed, this new charge is amazing.

Shiodome
14-02-2014, 13:01
I am not confused at all. you can reliably charge your old distance, and even greater amounts. you play demons so we'll say you charge my tau squad that's full... 24 shots. 4 hit, 3 wound, 2 die...

What of your assault unit can't massacre what's left to defend?

how is a 1 in 4 chance of not charging your old distance the same as 'reliably charging your old distance'? o_O

Crown axe, i seem to think that anything that is 10% more likely to fail than something that doesn't have that 10% failure likelyhood (shooting) is inherently worse. do you disagree? you're talking as if a 10% chance of a unit being able to do nothing at all is negligible, i disagree. see my 'would you like to have to pass a ld9 test every time you wanted to shoot'? comparison.

Grocklock
14-02-2014, 13:12
Comparing it to last edition my opponent had to just stay 13 inches away and there where fine.
Most people could judge that distance.

Now my opponent to garantee the same comfort has to stay 19 inches away. Or risk getting charged.

The only thing I would change is Allow move though cover to affect charges. And when suffering casualties the defending player chooses which ones are removed problem solved

IcedCrow
14-02-2014, 13:17
I think its fine the way it is. It makes it more of a game and less of an exercise of repetition. Up until this edition, games seemed to me to play out according to a script. Now there are failed charges that can actually happen and you have to mitigate for those, which I like. Even when I need 4" to charge and I roll a 3. I have to have a backup plan or contingency plan. I also like you can go for a hail mary on a 10-11-12 and have a slim chance to make it.

Static charge distances are dull to me.

D6+X also not interested in because then you'll just move to within X and guarantee your charge (and not have to mitigate for potential failure)

Szalik
14-02-2014, 13:25
OP we can only agree that the current randomlol way of charging should be changed.

But then, even coming within the boundaries of reason with 4+d6 charge distance with fleet rolling 2d6 and choosing higher, won't repair the whole assault phase, that was already bad in 5th and now became even worse.

Denny
14-02-2014, 13:37
Crown axe, i seem to think that anything that is 10% more likely to fail than something that doesn't have that 10% failure likelyhood (shooting) is inherently worse. do you disagree?

Its not a like-for-like situation.

When you assault a non fearless/ATSKNF unit you can potentially destroy it completely by only causing one wound. You cannot do this from shooting.
By engaging a unit you can also make yourself immune to being shot at, and you can cause wounds in your opponent's turn.
You can also tie up a unit and prevent it from shooting.
You can gain additional movement and a follow-up move.
Close combat negates cover.
On the flip side, by assaulting, you can also suffer casualties in your own turn.

Successful assaults tend to be far more game changing and also far more risky.

T10
14-02-2014, 14:24
D6+X also not interested in because then you'll just move to within X and guarantee your charge (and not have to mitigate for potential failure)

I agree, but even with 2d6 charge moves you can move within 2" and be assured success.

As far as I can tell, the point of random movement for difficult terrain, running and charging all helps offset the fact that shooting ranges are fixed, and with players being alowed to measure ranges at all times there is no precision variance (a randomness of sorts) introduced through range estimation anymore.

-T10

IcedCrow
14-02-2014, 14:27
Yes within 2" is assured success... I'm ok with that because 2" is a very tiny distance. Moving within 6" puts us back to prior editions though.

gwarsh41
14-02-2014, 18:48
I really like what the 2D6 assault has brought to the game. It allows for some of the rules that give us D6+6 charge and so on. I feel like it did good things for my Daemons. Nothing like making that 10" charge and catching that riptide with your GUO.

Lee-Full_Davis
14-02-2014, 20:54
I like the 2D6 charges, especially when the charging is done by Scarabs as i can reroll both dice :D

Baaltor
15-02-2014, 00:10
Am I the only one who likes the -6+2d6 shooting range thing? I think it adds the same intrigue, and almost as much depth to the shooting phase. There may be some unforeseen factors that'd merit bonuses to 'To Hit' rolls, or extra shots, since shooting works thematically different, I think it's awesome. Maybe some weapons have minimum ranges too, like heavy weapons. Also different weapons should have different penalties, prolly, since range isn't uniform across weapons, and possibly work analogously to the changing assault range.

No this isn't trolling.

Epiphane: not -6+2d6, but -25%+(50% in d6's) in appropriate d6's=

Bolt Pistol: 9+d6
Boltgun: 18+2d6 <=this fits appropriately with Assault 2d6
Hvy. Bolter: 27+3d6
Rocket Launcher: 36+4d6

I think it may be worthwhile to change the way some shooting bonuses work. Like the Rapid Fire rule might make more sense if you get 2x shots if you're in the guaranteed range instead of within 1/2 range. Actually thematically this system fits with 'Ideal' range and maximum ranges. Maybe rapid fire only works on pistol/standard weapons, or heavy weapons have a 'minimum' range maybe the minimum range fluctuates too.

Also maybe BS skill isn't chance to hit, but the reliability of their ranges. Like low BS might be instead REALLY unreliable; but weapons get more shots to compensate, like twice as many shots.

What about 'ideal' ranges, where the 'd6s' are removed from the min range somehow, to make rapid firing less of a science too? Maybe this could be a function involving ballistic skill.



Now my opponent to garantee the same comfort has to stay 19 inches away. Or risk getting charged.


Here we go. The fact is that the threat range now is too large to just 'avoid', as a shooting player, you have to acknowledge risks, and take them. Or rather choose to. Before you could just hover out of range, but now it's all in or out, no maximising effect AND minimising risk. The random charge is a detriment to shooting almost as much as assault. You may not know how far you'll assault, but neither does your opponent.


how is a 1 in 4 chance of not charging your old distance the same as 'reliably charging your old distance'? o_O


Because the most common result is charging MORE than your old distance, and there's a chance to charge TWICE your old distance.

lantzkev
15-02-2014, 00:53
how is a 1 in 4 chance of not charging your old distance the same as 'reliably charging your old distance'? o_O

Crown axe, i seem to think that anything that is 10% more likely to fail than something that doesn't have that 10% failure likelyhood (shooting) is inherently worse. do you disagree? you're talking as if a 10% chance of a unit being able to do nothing at all is negligible, i disagree. see my 'would you like to have to pass a ld9 test every time you wanted to shoot'? comparison.

Because when you can count on something happening not just half the time, but three fourths of the time, it's fairly reliable.

Previously there was little recourse to assault armies because of their ability to continually consolidate into further assaults... Sorry that got nerfed.... /sarcasim off.

I'm still waiting on you to explain how your demon armies are suffering from them being able to reliably cover more ground... getting into assault turn 2 rather than turn 3 seems pretty good.

T10
15-02-2014, 08:27
Am I the only one who likes the -6+2d6 shooting range thing?

I think you just might be.

Dylius
15-02-2014, 11:16
I'd like to see movement during a failed charge, but not the full distance. I think it would have to either be the (2d6)/2 or the lowest dice roll.

I think the overwatch offsets any "free" distance that units would get, especially considering they'll have to weather another turn of shooting if they fail. They'll also often be in the open if they've just failed a charge.

Vipoid
15-02-2014, 11:37
Am I the only one who likes the -6+2d6 shooting range thing?

I'm in two minds about it.

On the one hand, I don't see why assault distance should be random - yet ranged weapons get to keep their precise ranges.

On the other, rolling 2d6 every time I want to shoot is incredibly tedious. 6th edition added enough pointless randomness and extra dice rolls without adding this as well.

Denny
15-02-2014, 17:49
On the other, rolling 2d6 every time I want to shoot is incredibly tedious. 6th edition added enough pointless randomness and extra dice rolls without adding this as well.

This. You'd get lots if little rules mechanics issues; what counts as half range for salvo/melta weapons? What would be the range of a fusion pistol? Should you adjust rapid fire?

Plus some long range weapons (like a battle cannon) would be basically unaffected whilst close range fire fights (which would mean all assault units . . .) would become considerable less effective in the shooting phase (so assault units are now nerfed . . . Again).

It's not a bad idea at all, it just really doesn't gel with the current rule set.

You know what I like about the random assault? It makes fleet units so much better than there non-fleet counterparts in terms of achieving successful assaults). Since fleet units also tend to be fragile this gives them a much needed advantage in trying to get in the first strike.

gwarsh41
15-02-2014, 18:32
As interesting as the random range on guns would be, I am happy with where it is. I pay daemons, I have enough random rolls as is!

Sgt John Keel
15-02-2014, 18:47
Because when you can count on something happening not just half the time, but three fourths of the time, it's fairly reliable.

For any real process, a 75 % success rate would be horrible and provide an awful user experience.

I know this is a game and you shouldn't expect to win 100 % of the time, but this isn't about that. A 75 % chance of success is not enough to make plans containing multiple elements, so effectively you need to plan with a 2-3" charge range which obviously is a reduction from earlier editions.

For example, an Assault Marine Squad will be outmatched by pretty much any close combat unit of equal points that don't pay for a jump pack (say, Slugga Boyz). This used to be fine, because the whole point of having the extra movement was getting the charge and being able to coordinate multiple assaults. Two Assault Squads had a decent chance of beating the crap out of a 30 man Boyz Squad because if you played decently well you would be able to charge with both units in the same turn (but they cost significantly more). If, on the other hand, only one unit is able to charge in a turn it will die horribly. If both fail to charge, they will likely die horribly next turn.

So, from 5th edition we would go from a virtually 100 % successful charge rate to a 52 % successful charge rate, while the chance of the Boyz getting the assault increasing from virtually 0 % to something.

So, now I either need to plan with a 3" charge range for any sort of reliability or use a third squad (which gives me about a 0.81 chance to successfully charge with two or more squads, ignoring overwatch effects). For convenience's sake I'm ignoring the conditionals of if you still try to assault with the other squads if the first one fails, to which I would likely say yes anyway.

This is either effectively a halving in charge range or a 50 % increase in cost to fulfil a mission (and it's still not super reliable, notwithstanding actual combat results). True to GW's form, this has not been followed by rebalancing, so I think it's justifiable to be upset.

I'm not much of a gambling man. Previously, charges were given to you by either outplaying your opponent, your opponent choosing to let you charge or having superior movement characteristics on your units. Seemed reasonable to me.

Baaltor
16-02-2014, 00:01
On the other, rolling 2d6 every time I want to shoot is incredibly tedious. 6th edition added enough pointless randomness and extra dice rolls without adding this as well.

Mhm, I can see your point. Although I think it's worth mentioning that a lot of time might be saved by shooting attacks not having enough range to happen; so 3+ sets of ~20+ dice rolling would be avoided. Also the range needn't be added every time as you'd be within minimum range at least sometimes.


For any real process, a 75 % success rate would be horrible and provide an awful user experience.


How should a ranged player feel about more than 50% of the time failing to avoid a charge at a range that was safe last edition then?

Sgt John Keel
16-02-2014, 01:29
How should a ranged player feel about more than 50% of the time failing to avoid a charge at a range that was safe last edition then?

I'm not sure I feel the situation is exactly the same, but probably similarly? So, it's a lose-lose situation.

Anyway, I don't think random charge ranges present a huge problem versus shooting armies, and I also don't think random charge ranges have made them significantly stronger. Usually a single squad assaulting is all that's needed in those cases, and that makes it far more reliable even if it's not perfect. Also, since it's unlikely that they will charge you themselves, you can usually move much closer before attempting the charge, so there's no need to play the odds as much anyway. Obviously Rapid Fire range is a factor, but unless you have ungodly luck and make >8" charges reliably it is likely that you will have to face a round of Rapid Fire anyway (as you did with fixed charge ranges).

lantzkev
16-02-2014, 02:22
For any real process, a 75 % success rate would be horrible and provide an awful user experience.

I'm not sure what your background is, but if I took you to vegas and said black came up 75% of the time and red came up 25% of the time.

Which would you bet on?

Charistoph
16-02-2014, 03:26
For any real process, a 75 % success rate would be horrible and provide an awful user experience.

Yeah, Imperial Guard and Tau really hate their base chances To Hit...

But as for a real process, 75% is a huge success rate for MOST processes to attempt. Many Doctors deal with sub-33% success rate processes all the time as the GOOD ones. Sale staffs would kill to have a process with a 75% success rate from a cold start.


I'm not sure what your background is, but if I took you to vegas and said black came up 75% of the time and red came up 25% of the time.

Which would you bet on?

Very good point.

ehlijen
16-02-2014, 03:42
For any real process, a 75 % success rate would be horrible and provide an awful user experience.


So fair games with more than one player are all awful user experiences? Those shouldn't have a success rate of more than 50% (or they'd be unfair).



That said, I'd prefer to have the ban on premeasuring and the 5th move and charge ranges back. Not premeasuring always felt like I was making decisions under time pressure (because I'd not have all the information), even though I wasn't. It helped sell the game as a war simulation to me (even though it really isn't).

Carnage
16-02-2014, 04:27
Comparing it to last edition my opponent had to just stay 13 inches away and there where fine.
Most people could judge that distance.

Now my opponent to garantee the same comfort has to stay 19 inches away. Or risk getting charged.

The only thing I would change is Allow move though cover to affect charges. And when suffering casualties the defending player chooses which ones are removed problem solved

On the reverse of this example, you have to start your turn within 8" of an enemy if you want a 100% chance of making combat (assuming no difficult terrain) instead of within 12". Potential charge range is higher, and average charge range is higher, but the margin for random dice rolls affecting the outcome a combat are also a lot higher.



I'm not sure what your background is, but if I took you to vegas and said black came up 75% of the time and red came up 25% of the time.

Which would you bet on?

Depends on the context. In vegas they'd just adjust the payout for black to a third of red if it was a 75/25 split. 75% is only "solid" if you have context on payouts.

For example, if, as a solider, you were in combat and your weapon only worked 75% of the time....well, that would suck.
If your car only started 3 out of 4 work days...that would suck.
If you won the lottery 3 out of 4 times, that would be awesome.
If you make combat 75% of the time...and still have to eat overwatch, and still actually have to, you know, WIN the combat, with a 25% chance of still eating overwatch and pretty much guaranteeing a quick death and potential a lost game....well...that sucks IMO.

In my opinion random charges isn't game breaking, but it compounds with several other factors to make melee broken. It's overwatch + random charge + remove casualties from the front + shooting buffs that is the problem. I haven't seen anyone mention the overwatch + remove from the front problem yet either. Sitting at even 5-6 inches, and losing 2-3 guys to over watch can "push" you out to the 7-9 inch mark if the squad is strung out a bit, and then it's super easy to fail a charge that should have been a sure thing.

lantzkev
16-02-2014, 04:51
Depends on the context. In vegas they'd just adjust the payout for black to a third of red if it was a 75/25 split. 75% is only "solid" if you have context on payouts.

I believe my comment was which would you bet on.


If you make combat 75% of the time...and still have to eat overwatch, and still actually have to, you know, WIN the combat, with a 25% chance of still eating overwatch and pretty much guaranteeing a quick death and potential a lost game....well...that sucks IMO.

You can improve your odds with better positioning... charging with a token unit first that will eat the first overwatch...


In my opinion random charges isn't game breaking, but it compounds with several other factors to make melee broken

No you seem quite clearly to think otherwise. Melee was broken in the prior edition. If you could do it and do it well, there was no real answer against it. Melee is still strong, but requires alot more thought now than "herp a derp, run at you, charge at you, consolidate into you, keep consolidating into you"

The thing that's changed the most for melee armies is that high model count armies aren't vulnerable to them like they used to be (it was nearly impossible to get a round of shooting off after the first charge because they were always in melee/consolidating into further melees) random charge ranges didn't change or compound the problems for melee. The only "problem" is that you can't consolidate like that anymore and that you can't charge from outflanking (and I do wish you could charge from outflank)

Carnage
16-02-2014, 05:40
You can improve your odds with better positioning... charging with a token unit first that will eat the first overwatch...
Of course you can. That positioning has changed from "get 1 guy within 6" to "get everyone as close as possible ASAP, 2" or less is best".


No you seem quite clearly to think otherwise. Melee was broken in the prior edition. If you could do it and do it well, there was no real answer against it. Melee is still strong, but requires alot more thought now than "herp a derp, run at you, charge at you, consolidate into you, keep consolidating into you"

The thing that's changed the most for melee armies is that high model count armies aren't vulnerable to them like they used to be (it was nearly impossible to get a round of shooting off after the first charge because they were always in melee/consolidating into further melees) random charge ranges didn't change or compound the problems for melee. The only "problem" is that you can't consolidate like that anymore and that you can't charge from outflanking (and I do wish you could charge from outflank)


I miss charging from outflank as well, but I understand why they removed it.

"Melee was broken in the prior edition"....4th edition? 2 editions ago? 5th edition was all guns and mech parking lots all the time and didn't have the consolidate into melee rule. I didn't play a lot of 4th edition, I stopped playing at the end of 3rd and started at the beginning of 5th again, but my understanding is that skimmer spam and 5 man las/plas, and carnifex spam lists ruled the day back then. I do remember the consolidating into melee chains that would ruin imperial guard back in 3rd edition, but all you had to do to combat that was deploy your squads at least 4" apart. I mean, it's not REALLY that different from just winning combat in your opponent's turn so you are freed up to move and charge something else without free of getting shot, it's just a fair but more random.

My point overall is not that melee is entirely pointless, but that it is less effective than it used to be and melee units haven't gotten a point break to match the reduction in their usefulness. Outside of demon lists, and a handful of units in other armies (seer council, nob bikers, beaststar, monstrous creatures....etc) no one uses it as a primary tool to deal damage, the units are generally just too fragile. It's partly the fault of the melee rules, but it's also the fact that because of those rules most melee units are too expensive now.

Off hand, I don't think I've seen more than 1 or 2 melee combats per game in sixth edition....and I play Blood Angels and Tyranids.

Khorneflakes
16-02-2014, 06:03
We came up with another way of charging.

Everyone can charge 3" + 2d6 taking the highest roll.
If you roll a 6 you can add a d3 roll (like rending bonus)
If you have fleet or are jump infantry you can reroll one dice roll. If you are both you can reroll both dice
If you have the beasts, bikes/jet bikes or cavalry unit type you add +1"

Eg A unit of marines charges a unit of orkz. They roll 2 dice and get a 4 and a 2 therefore they charge 7"
A unit of shrikes charges a unit of eldar guardians. They roll 2 dice and get a 1 and a 3 they use their reroll as jump infantry and get a 5 therefore they charge 8"
A unit of seekers of slaanesh charge a unit of space wolves. They roll 2 dice and get a 3 and a 6 they roll a d3 and get a 2 and add +1 for a total of 12" (the maximum roll)

Baaltor
16-02-2014, 08:19
I'm not sure I feel the situation is exactly the same, but probably similarly? So, it's a lose-lose situation.


Lose-lose? You could call it that, but I see it as a win/win. I can't turn when you'll charge me into an equation, and neither can you; that means I need to decide whether I'm running, standing or charging, and there's no have my cake (Shooting>12") and eat it too (Stay out of CC).

I understand Randomness isn't a thing lots of people like, and in fact I speak out against it in many things in 40k, but this is randomness that adds to the complexity of the game, and makes it exciting, not just in a novel way, but in a way that encourages players to play less to the rules and more to the scenario.



My point overall is not that melee is entirely pointless, but that it is less effective than it used to be and melee units haven't gotten a point break to match the reduction in their usefulness.

I might not agree with everything else you said, but I can sure as Hel agree with that. I've been keeping track of those numbers, because I'm boring and follow trends for fun. I don't play completely melee centric, but I've definitely noticed that trend. Shooting experienced double fronted unit and weapon buffs, but melee never really got the statline buffs it needed. Why did power weapons ever go up in points?


We came up with another way of charging.

Everyone can charge 3" + 2d6 taking the highest roll.
If you roll a 6 you can add a d3 roll (like rending bonus)
If you have fleet or are jump infantry you can reroll one dice roll. If you are both you can reroll both dice
If you have the beasts, bikes/jet bikes or cavalry unit type you add +1"

Eg A unit of marines charges a unit of orkz. They roll 2 dice and get a 4 and a 2 therefore they charge 7"
A unit of shrikes charges a unit of eldar guardians. They roll 2 dice and get a 1 and a 3 they use their reroll as jump infantry and get a 5 therefore they charge 8"
A unit of seekers of slaanesh charge a unit of space wolves. They roll 2 dice and get a 3 and a 6 they roll a d3 and get a 2 and add +1 for a total of 12" (the maximum roll)

Sorry, dude, I don't like those numbers. For starters it seems deal too complex, and the reliability/potential maximums are staggering.

Khorneflakes
16-02-2014, 08:46
Only for units that should be best at assaulting, jump troops and beasts.

IcedCrow
16-02-2014, 15:07
Im still finding melee combats often decide the game, so im missing how they are not as useful.

They arent as easy to get into combat now yes because you can fail the charge. Overwatch is typically not an issue barring a couple of units like dscythe guardians etc.

That still does not to me diminish their use.

IcedCrow
16-02-2014, 15:16
Duplicated phone post

Baaltor
17-02-2014, 04:16
Only for units that should be best at assaulting, jump troops and beasts.

Nope, I understand it's only my opinion but...



Everyone can charge 3" + 2d6 taking the highest roll.

Sounds way too double dipping in terms of the gains. And that's before adding this gem...


If you roll a 6 you can add a d3 roll (like rending bonus)


Rolling 1d6 sounds more acceptable to me; but I still appreciate the threat of being able to be charged from 12".

Khorneflakes
17-02-2014, 08:38
So your saying a base 3" +d6 and if a 6 comes up roll the d3?

Harwammer
17-02-2014, 10:00
I think the 2d6 is intentionally used due to the normal distribution of results.

In whfb you move the distance of the highest dice when you fail a charge. I too thought it was a little strange that in 40k you didn't get to move on a fail. However, in fantasy you don't get to make a 6 or 12 inch move before this.

Something else to consider, in 40k there is an opportunity cost to plan a charge; you don't get a run nor rapid fire option. To cut out these kind of basic decisions would make the game less interesting to play.

IcedCrow
17-02-2014, 13:24
In WHFB you don't get to move and then assault. In WHFB you declare a charge in the movement phase. In WH40K you can move your full movement, and then potentially move an additional 12".

Vipoid
17-02-2014, 13:44
In WHFB you don't get to move and then assault. In WHFB you declare a charge in the movement phase. In WH40K you can move your full movement, and then potentially move an additional 12".

That's true, but then WHFB is much more combat-oriented than 40k. Also, Fantasy units are a lot less manoeuvrable - making it more difficult for a unit to escape an assault unit.

Anyway, with regard to the former, in Fantasy shooting is mainly used to soften up units - usually it only kills small units or (in the case of cannons) lone monsters. Conversely, in 40k, shooting can easily wipe units off the field - without any need for assault.

To put it another way, if you fail a charge in Fantasy, then either your opponent will shoot you a little more or charge you themselves. As above, shooting isn't usually too bad, and charging confers a relatively minor bonus. So, usually, failed charges only really matter for units that get a bonus on the charge (e.g. cavalry with lances). Obviously there'll be exceptions to this, but I believe it's true in the majority of cases.

On the other hand, if you fail a charge in 40k, then your opponent gets a free turn of shooting against you. And, as above, shooting in 40k is easily capable of wiping out units. And, if nothing else, you've just put yourself in rapid-fire range of at least one enemy unit. Furthermore, in Fantasy, shooting is limited by arcs, range and movement. In 40k there are no arcs for non-vehicles (and vehicles can pivot for free), no penalties for shooting over half-range and (in most cases) no penalty to movement. To put it another way, in 40k it's much easier to focus fire on a particular unit.

Basically, failed charges just seem a lot more severe in 40k than in Fantasy.


Apropos of nothing, your new avatar is very disturbing, IcedCrow. O_o

IcedCrow
17-02-2014, 13:53
My avatar is the mood ring of internet forums :)

Charistoph
17-02-2014, 15:31
Conversely, in 40k, shooting can easily wipe units off the field - without any need for assault.

I disagree. It takes a lot of shooting to wipe a unit off the field, it's just much easier to do in 40K. The differences between 40K and Fantasy is that in 40K a unit generally can shoot, weapons have a higher rate of fire, better armor penetration and Strength, and ALL the models in a unit can shoot, and not just the front 2 rows (well, that's because every unit in 40K is a Skirmisher). But even with all that, you still need 25% casualties to get a unit to Fall Back, which isn't easy, and that's just getting them to Fall Back, not wiped out.

You have to dedicate an incredible amount of firepower in order to wipe a unit out with shooting. Even with weapons like the Vindicator and Basilisk on the board, they find wiping a unit out challenging, aside from lone Guardsmen squads.

Assault still only requires one Wound to have a unit wiped out. Just one. Admittedly, the prevalence of ATSKNF and Fearless makes getting a Sweeping Advance challenging, but most of those tend to be Assault units in a "game of shooting", anyway.

Grndhog89
17-02-2014, 16:17
It sounds like the easiest answer to all of this is to reintroduce the "M" (movement) stat for units. Then make charging M+D6. Fleet units get to "run" during their shooting phase but may still charge. End of story.

Charistoph
17-02-2014, 16:26
It sounds like the easiest answer to all of this is to reintroduce the "M" (movement) stat for units. Then make charging M+D6. Fleet units get to "run" during their shooting phase but may still charge. End of story.

Let's not bring up that one! Usually every time it's proposed, someone gets nerfed. Still, there is a point to it. But seriously, do you want Ravenwings being able to charge up to 18"? What about Saim Hann's Warlocks? Chaos Spawn? Screamerstars?

Grndhog89
17-02-2014, 16:39
Let's not bring up that one! Usually every time it's proposed, someone gets nerfed. Still, there is a point to it. But seriously, do you want Ravenwings being able to charge up to 18"? What about Saim Hann's Warlocks? Chaos Spawn? Screamerstars?

It makes sense that a marine in heavy power armor can't move as quickly as a guardsman (6" currently) or a Dark Eldar warrior who is wearing practically no armor. Giving an "M" stat back is just more intuitive.

People can scream about nerfs but when these nerfs make logical sense.....they can eat their complaints.

Vipoid
17-02-2014, 17:01
I disagree. It takes a lot of shooting to wipe a unit off the field, it's just much easier to do in 40K. The differences between 40K and Fantasy is that in 40K a unit generally can shoot, weapons have a higher rate of fire, better armor penetration and Strength, and ALL the models in a unit can shoot, and not just the front 2 rows (well, that's because every unit in 40K is a Skirmisher). But even with all that, you still need 25% casualties to get a unit to Fall Back, which isn't easy, and that's just getting them to Fall Back, not wiped out.

That's never been my experience.

Weight of fire can do a hell of a lot more than 25% to most units. Barring bad dice rolls, it's usually it's just a few units that are very hard to remove - either because of in-built tenacity (Nob Bikers, Paladins) or through 2+ cover save shenanigans.


You have to dedicate an incredible amount of firepower in order to wipe a unit out with shooting. Even with weapons like the Vindicator and Basilisk on the board, they find wiping a unit out challenging, aside from lone Guardsmen squads.

Again, I've seen a lot of squads wiped out in this manner without issue, so maybe we've just had different experiences.

Saying that, the other aspect is that squads don't always need to be wiped out entirely - often a unit will be so badly damaged that there's no longer any need to finish it off (i.e. it becomes a target of convenience, rather than necessity).


Assault still only requires one Wound to have a unit wiped out. Just one. Admittedly, the prevalence of ATSKNF and Fearless makes getting a Sweeping Advance challenging, but most of those tend to be Assault units in a "game of shooting", anyway.

That's pushing it.

An assault can won with one wound, and the enemy wiped out - but it's not exactly likely. In any case, winning an assault is rarely the issue - the issue is getting into assault in the first place, and staying there for a turn (since killing the enemy in the initial assault is actually counter-intuitive).

Also, I'm confused by what you mean when you say that most ATSKNF units are assault-units. It was my understanding that ATSKNF units (i.e. marines) were predominantly shooting units. :confused:

Baaltor
17-02-2014, 17:02
Marines are faster than guardsmen because they're in power armour.

insectum7
17-02-2014, 17:08
Marines are faster than guardsmen because they're in power armour.

Or not bothering to take cover while advancing.

Grndhog89
17-02-2014, 17:12
Marines are faster than guardsmen because they're in power armour.

Well I think physics would disagree with you but I can see the point you are trying to make. Still, you proved my point anyway. Okay, why should a guardsman be able to move as quickly as a marine in power armor? Shouldn't the guardsman have an "M" of 4 and the marine an "M" of 5? For example.

Charistoph
17-02-2014, 17:21
It makes sense that a marine in heavy power armor can't move as quickly as a guardsman (6" currently) or a Dark Eldar warrior who is wearing practically no armor. Giving an "M" stat back is just more intuitive.

People can scream about nerfs but when these nerfs make logical sense.....they can eat their complaints.

Yeah, a super human in powered armour which takes the weight of the armour off of him can't move as fast as a Guardsman who probably isn't in the best shape?

And back to you, people who whine about the lack of an M stat can eat their complaints.

In reality, from a smooth gameplay perspective, I get why leaving the movement stat to just unit type allows things to move quicker. Also consider, it's easier to randomize movement on a die when it's a base 6.


That's never been my experience.

Weight of fire can do a hell of a lot more than 25% to most units. Barring bad dice rolls, it's usually it's just a few units that are very hard to remove - either because of in-built tenacity (Nob Bikers, Paladins) or through 2+ cover save shenanigans.

Yes, weight of fire can and will do it, and that's what's usually ascribed to a unit AND what I'm talking about. The only units I see getting removed whole sale with minimal shooting are Guardsmen squads who are left independent and out of Cover. Out side of that, it usually takes 2-3 units a couple turns to actually wipe a unit out with shooting.



Saying that, the other aspect is that squads don't always need to be wiped out entirely - often a unit will be so badly damaged that there's no longer any need to finish it off (i.e. it becomes a target of convenience, rather than necessity).

Pretty much. Not as easy as it used to be, your opponent usually has to be obliging or you maneuvered well.



Also, I'm confused by what you mean when you say that most ATSKNF units are assault-units. It was my understanding that ATSKNF units (i.e. marines) were predominantly shooting units. :confused:

Marines are generalists. They are more Assault-based than Guardsmen, Guardians, and a few other units, but not dedicated assault units like Hormagaunts or Bloodletters are. It's all a matter of perspective, I guess.

Vipoid
17-02-2014, 17:29
Yes, weight of fire can and will do it, and that's what's usually ascribed to a unit AND what I'm talking about. The only units I see getting removed whole sale with minimal shooting are Guardsmen squads who are left independent and out of Cover. Out side of that, it usually takes 2-3 units a couple turns to actually wipe a unit out with shooting.

Hmm, I feel like I should start keeping a record of how many squads (and turns of firing) were needed to kill an enemy unit. :p



Marines are generalists. They are more Assault-based than Guardsmen, Guardians, and a few other units, but not dedicated assault units like Hormagaunts or Bloodletters are. It's all a matter of perspective, I guess.

They're generalists, but I believe they're still primarily focussed on shooting. I know what you mean though.

Charistoph
17-02-2014, 17:44
Hmm, I feel like I should start keeping a record of how many squads (and turns of firing) were needed to kill an enemy unit. :p

It could also be that often if a unit doesn't HAVE to be max-sized, they often aren't, or not built for wiping out an infantry unit in the first place. A Long Fang squad with Lascannons will take a while to chew threw a Hormagaunt squad, but tear a Tank a part pretty quickly.

Greyhound
18-02-2014, 21:25
It appears that most of you have fearless units. My experience of being wiped out happens with a lot of models untouched who just ran away because the nob was sniped out, or because they lost their initiative roll in a combat, lost by a few wounds.

Krucifus
19-02-2014, 11:43
After my game last night I thought I'd chime in here, personally I think random charge distances are the worse thing in 6th. ESPECIALLY with some armies getting bonuses to overwatch.

Last night we played a comfortable quick 1250 game, in which I charged my Land Raider forwards, emptied out my nice safe Plague Marines + Character, then rolled a 3 for charge distance when I needed a 4... This rewarded my Tau adversary with overwatch fire from half of his army, after which he had his own turn to fire at the stupidly stumbling around 'assault troops', and they were unsurprisingly wiped out, essentially handing him the game as I had yet to so much as damage anything in his army.

If you meticulously plan around a charge and everything else goes to plan it's heartbreaking to roll a low charge distance and give your opponent bonus shooting for you doing nothing but choosing to stand in the open and die.

It wouldn't be so bad if this was a one off, but we're finding that every game we play keeps being decided by stupidly low charge distance rolls, so much so that I'm pretty much giving up on assault units alltogether, which for Chaos and Orks is most of the fun reason for choosing those armies in the first place.

T10
19-02-2014, 11:52
Last night we played a comfortable quick 1250 game, in which I charged my Land Raider forwards, emptied out my nice safe Plague Marines + Character, then rolled a 3 for charge distance when I needed a 4...

(...)

If you meticulously plan around a charge and everything else goes to plan it's heartbreaking to roll a low charge distance and give your opponent bonus shooting for you doing nothing but choosing to stand in the open and die.


From where I am sitting, rushing a single unit straight into the face of the entire enemy army does not constitute "meticulous planning". It's a plan of sorts, but it lacks finesse.

-T10

Harwammer
19-02-2014, 12:14
The point of random charges is to encourage contingency plan, plus add extra risk/reward decisions in to the game (my opinion).

Sometimes you'll make the 'right' decision, but the dice will fail you. Clearly in the case of the CSM vs Tau the sheer weight of fire pushed back the character and his retinue.

As an aside, did you take a dirgecaster, and if not would it have helped you? It sounds like you were really up in the enemy's grill, so would the meagre 6 inch range have been enough to protect you? Finally, if you want assault units that can really push forwards, have you considered a Khorne unit with Icon of Wrath (reroll charge distances) or Possessed (reroll one or more of the charge distance dice)? Plague marines have a really strong set of skills, but they probably aren't quite the best unit to assault out of a Land Raider.

Krucifus
19-02-2014, 12:27
I had the dirge caster on it, but because of his placement and edging slightly back before I got there, the Landraider wasn't within 6 inches of any of the units. That thing would be a lot more useful if it made your own units within 6" immune to overwatch.

I did have other elements of the army there supporting too, but the Lord was my main heavy hitter, and the rest didn't really accomplish a whole lot without him. He was supposed to break up the Tau line enough for the rest to pick on seperate elements and do some damage, as it turned out they were little more than an annoyance.

At that point level there isn't a whole lot of redundancy after Troop choices, and I try not to bring my Drakes to every game, as although they are completely the Codex's crutch, I actually still hate the models and whole idea of them.

Vipoid
19-02-2014, 12:56
The point of random charges is to encourage contingency plan, plus add extra risk/reward decisions in to the game (my opinion).

Considering that assault is the final phase in a turn, what contingency plan could you possibly put into action? Bribe your opponent to skip his shooting phase? Break a beer-bottle over his head and take an extra turn while he's unconscious? :eyebrows:

IcedCrow
19-02-2014, 13:25
Contingency plan being - what do I do if I fail? Do I risk the charge now or do I sit in cover and move closer next turn? Before, that didn't exist. You knew you were within 6", so you could charge. THere was no failure unless you were assaulting through difficult ground.

Now you can also risk a long 10+" charge. Before you couldn't do that.

Before the set static charges made the game fairly much play itself, at least to me. I could direct how a game was going to go every game, even by just watching others, and it got very boring. Now, games are for the most part always different because some long shots can happen (and there are are no gimmes so even the low risk can still fail). This is something that I prefer.

Much like football - there is a slim chance that you are going to fumble the snap but look at Denver in the super bowl play 1. Who guesses Peyton Manning has the ball sail over his head into the endzone for a safety play 1? Nobody. I prefer those elements being able to occur. Prior editions - you never fumble the snap. You always know it will succeed.

Some may argue that guess ranging is a skill but I never found it to be so... there were a dozen dirty tricks you could employ to know your range, not counting just being good at it. I can guess within 1/2" from six feet out every time. When we started 5th edition fantasy we would practice guessing ranges for hours until we were masters at it. Its less a skill and more spatial awareness and learning how to grid a table out in your head which I taught my then 8 year old how to do.

T10
19-02-2014, 13:28
1. Don't rely on a single charge.
2. Push units into position to strike next turn instead of relying on a single-turn rush.

-T10

Harwammer
19-02-2014, 14:19
Vipoid: As you rightfully point out there is more than one turn in the game, you should have an idea of what you want to accomplish in these turns, and it can't be an entirely linear plan as you need to take in to account sometimes the dice go against you. You need to be aware of the possibilities of this failure and take actions to mitigate it before it happens. edit: also remember the dice can go against your opponent, identify where this might happen and how you can capitalise on that to make that fluff a catastrophic failure!

There are lots of way to do this (presenting multiple threats, using units to protect each other, using cheap, fast units to try tie down enemy shooters or block their retreat). This is more complicated than failing to roll the equivalent of a 2+ and having it lose you the game... sometimes it's worth considering whether that risk is worth it at all (risking a 1/6 chance to lose the game better give a pretty big reward!) which is why I guess Krucifus is considering ditching the shove a landraider forward and disembark strategy.

Greyhound
20-02-2014, 07:21
so if all those reasons are good for the game, why can't we have random distance shooting?

Hawkkf
20-02-2014, 07:34
Excuse me if this suggestion has already been made, but what if when you fail a charge you can still move a distance equal to the highest dice roll, but cannot end within 1" of the enemy. At least this allows you to reposition and set for the coming storm instead of standing there. The rationale in game would be something bad happened and stiffled the charge (in the case of a previous poster, maybe the Land Raider door jammed and by the time they got it open they didnt have time to close the gap) and when they realized they weren't going to make it the repositioned as best they could. Just standing there does seem a bit silly thematically.

CrownAxe
20-02-2014, 10:33
so if all those reasons are good for the game, why can't we have random distance shooting?

We can but how would that make the game better? The difference between shooting and assault has always been that combat is very high risk and hard to execute but has a high reward to make those risks worth it. Shooting is always safe and consistent as a contrast to assault. Adding random ranges to it just defeats the purpose of shooting as a game mechanic

Bubble Ghost
20-02-2014, 10:48
so if all those reasons are good for the game, why can't we have random distance shooting?

Because assault range and shooting range aren't the same thing. The range of melee attack is fixed. It's point blank. The effect with the 2D6" range is something else entirely from casualty infliction, and there's no equivalent of it with a shooting attack. A charge is essentially a ranged weapon which, if found to be in range, immediately locks those two units together so that only they may attack each other, and may not attack anyone else, for the rest of the battle or until one of them dies or runs away, and players have no control at all over whether either of these happens. It's an insanely powerful effect, and it never made any sense that you had complete certainty of achieving it, as you did before 6th ed.

A random shooting range would make sense if there were any innate effect attached to merely being in range when you made a shooting attack, as there is with charging. That's not a facetious statement, either - there could be some sort of suppression system, for instance, where firing at a unit had some potential negative effect independently of the casualties it caused. But there isn't. The uncertainty when declaring a shooting attack is that there is no guarantee of any particularly powerful bare-minimum effect, as there is with assault.

The real discrepancy between assault and shooting, as far as they are even comparable (they aren't), is that you get to make shooting attacks one at a time, viewing the results before you decide what the next unit will shoot at. One thing I keep meaning to try is using the target lock tokens from X-Wing and Star Trek Attack Wing sets to denote the targets of all shooting attacks before any dice rolls are made...



OP: No, it wouldn't be wrong. I don't think it would help much, either, and would be open to weird shenanigans occasionally, especially in the case of those occasional units who are forced to declare charges if they can possibly make one.

Baaltor
21-02-2014, 03:51
Brilliant words

I agree.

But stepping outside of what he said, assuming everything were as balanced (or more, its hard to be as bad as 40k...) would it be fun/a good idea? I think it would. That's not to say I missed Bubble's point,the fact is that Shooting and Assault are too different to make direct comparisons. I would like to see Shooting more volatile, and like clockwork.

Bubble Ghost
21-02-2014, 13:11
I think some sort of roll to acquire a target makes a lot of storyline sense, and if it were in the form of a randomly generated distance, it would have the immediate benefit of making range-shuffling shenanigans harder. That alone might be a good enough reason to include it, depending on your perspective. It might also assuage the feelings of people who get indignant that it's unfair that charging has a random distance when shooting doesn't, even though this is a complete misconception (I don't think assuaging people who are annoyed because they are mistaken ought to be an objective of the rules, particularly, but still).

But I'm not sure that 40K has the structure elsewhere to support it, overall. You'd need to add some sort of effect for just passing the range roll - because as it is, without any extra effect comparable to being "in combat" (comparable in that something would happen just for being in range, I mean), all a random range roll would do is essentially duplicate the roll to hit in macrocosm. An extra "do any models die? Yes/No" dice roll with no other effects. I don't think there need to be any more of those. Maybe if you adjusted pinning/morale effects a little, and changed the difficulty or effects of the tests depending on how many units had fired at a particular target. Or you could lessen the severity of pinning effects and make all shooting cause it (or perhaps just all shooting against which most models in the target unit were in cover). You could even get fancy, and knock say 12-18" off weapon range, and have a number of range dice ([Initiative]D6 for instance...) to add to that, which changes with other factors - like being pinned! I'm just rambling now though. You know what I mean.

Personally, I do think it would be fun, and there's a lot of storyline rationale for something like the -6+2D6 thing you mentioned earlier. I'm just not sure what it would achieve as a surgical implant to the rules without changes elsewhere, though, because there already exists the possibility that nothing whatsoever will happen when you fire your Vindicator at something. That's not to say there aren't arguments for it though.

Greyhound
21-02-2014, 21:15
It would help the shenanigans where my opponent utterly destroy my troops just at the edge of his gun range, then next turn move again to a safe position and fire at 23.9"

If they want safe range, they should come within 20" as I have to move within 5-6" before I charge.

I am going to stop running and try those 9-10-11" charges you guys talk about, to see if I genuinely have a tool in my box I haven't used.

Khorneflakes
26-02-2014, 05:10
after our last game where my carni failed a 5" charge (rolled 3") and my hive crone failed a 5" charge (double 1s!) I came up with another idea about charges. how about using int?

int + d6 charge range

+d3 if flying monstrous, bike, jump infantry, beasts and cavalry

half the total rounding up if going through difficult terrain

fleet can reroll the d6

ALL CAPPED AT A MAXIMUM OF 12" CHARGE

some units will be a lot better at it ie eldar/DE than others ie orkz

haven't tried this system out but will this weekend