Random assaulting debate that shouldn't even need to be debated

[Squidy]

Yes, another thread about 6th. Sorry, but I've played it enough and I'm still disappointed in GW.

The fact that you have to get across the table and then leave it up to dice as to whether you get to do anything or not is just... well dumb.

Oh sure, the average is better, but failed charges happen on a regular basis. A 6" move would be much better than having 2D6 because at least you're not leaving it to the dice to determine how good you do.


The main reason for this thread is to keep the fire alive. I don't like where GW is heading with my game and I think they need to know what they are doing wrong.

Now, this may sound crazy, but I liked the 5th edition rule book. Most people complained, but it simplified things and allowed for more balanced gameplay. Granted, they screwed it up with all the crazy codexes, but I liked the rule book in general.

Now, anyone who isn't saying good things about 6th is a cry baby. I'm tired of GW ruining my game, but I like 40k so much I'm not about to quit. Re-writing everything is the best idea I can come up with. You know, a book entirely of house rules. That's how disappointed the direction 6th headed for.

So, you guys with me? I don't mean to hurt anybody, I just want Warhammer 40k to be fun. :D And if you disagree, state your opinion. No need to insult. If I wrote anything to offend, just tell me and I will edit it (unless I can't for some reason). Mod, find this to be spam, just dump it and I'm sorry ahead of time.

[alshrive]

while i respect your personal opinion, my personal opinion is that you are wrong. I quite like the style of the game now, and find that it feels more cinematic and grand. that failed charge isn't down to bad luck, that failed charge is my warriors balking at the sight of their potential death, it is that costly slip on unstable ground or that moment of hesitation the sort of "wtf am i doing" moment. The same can be said for the ridiculously lucky charges; it is a warrior spurred on by vengeance for his dead battle brothers or simply sheer insanity (if i run really quick the bullets won't hit me)!

I understand that some people don't like the new rules, but i myself, prefer them.

[Wolfshade]

I think that with the ability to premeasure everything all movement lost it's random element, the is it or isn't it in range.
The trouble with that system is that some people are really good a learning to judge by eye the distances you can move/assault/shoot and unfortunately it is not a skill that everyone has or can improve.
So for that reason the random charges I like, I thought I wouldn't as I play mainly assaulting armies.
I think everyone loves the rules that they first learnt to play, for me that was 2nd ed, and with my rose tinted glasses on it was brilliant, though, in reality large games were a nightmare, assault with more that 5 people became a headache and shooting vehicles was always interesting. 3rd edition I loathed with a passion, so much so after buying the rule book and playing 4 games I stopped wargaming althogether, then 4th came and that was a huge improvement, 5th then streamlined 4th and introduced the revolution LoS which was a breath of fresh air, though to be fair a lot of people had been playing with true los for a while. 6th comes and it's shaken everything up again, it isn't a huge change as 2nd to 3rd but still a step with the random charges, random pyshic powers and flyers galore. I think until more 6th ed codecii drop we wo'n't really understand where we sit.

But certainly if you like to tweak it in a terms of houserules to get the fun back and your friends feel the same way why the hell not, it's your hobby :)

[Psychosplodge]

Well I still miss 2nd...

[inquisitorsog]

The trouble with that system is that some people are really good a learning to judge by eye the distances you can move/assault/shoot and unfortunately it is not a skill that everyone has or can improve.

Even though I'm pretty good at judging distances myself, I've always felt that relying on guesses on distances was patently unfair and designed to make new players feel bad. It's a skill most people can learn, so in addition to the tactical know-how and what not, an experience player gets another significant advantage against many new players.

I'm not sure that random rolls completely replace that, but I think they could have used a narrower curve such as d6+3 instead of 2d6. At any rate, I don't lose sleep over it. It's a change to the game we both have to play with, so it washes out.

I'm a little more concerned about random psychic powers to be honest. It was one thing I hated in fantasy back when I played it as it carries a whole lot of "what army am I bringing today?" with it. the fact that there's some defaulting helps, but still, it feels like randomly choosing your heavy weapons to me.

[Wolfshade]

My greatest 2nd ed moment was when a 30 man deathcompany charge 4 greater demons...

[Psychosplodge]

My greatest was a SM sergeant rolling near continuous sixes to destroy a brood of genestealers...

[RealGenius]

So, you guys with me? I don't mean to hurt anybody, I just want Warhammer 40k to be fun. :D And if you disagree, state your opinion.

Nice first post.

No, not with you. Variability makes the game more fun for me, because it levels the playing field between funsies players and hardcore players.

With 6th you introduce many potentially abusive elements: double FOC, Allied contingents, etc. To balance, you add many variable elements: mysterious terrain, warlord traits, random charge distance. 5th was good; 6th is better. Embrace all the rules, because if you pick and choose it doesn't work as well.

If you are failing charges, then you need to adjust your gameplay to 6th edition. If you want a guaranteed charge, get within 2". The game is different now.

[isotope99]

There is some variability but if you play assuming a charge range of 5", you will only fail 1/6 of the time over open ground (equivalent of a 2+), often enough to frustrate but no more than any other unlucky 1's that pop up during the game.

Overall, the occasional hero charges are enough to offset the occasional facepalm moments for me at least.

My biggest bugbears at the moment with 6th are:

Pointless slapfight challenges
Rallying within 6" making it impossible to run someone off the board

[Emerald Rose Widow]

House ruling would be a good way for you to get back to the fun, but you could say all this until you are blue in the face and I doubt GW would do a thing about it. Even when the majority of the community agrees on something or not, GW still ignores us, they will do what they want and they have already invested a LOT of money into 6th edition, and are making a lot in return. I respect your opinion, but I am just saying this because you are likely wasting your time if you think GW is going to change 6th edition because it takes away the fun for you. GW tends to just not care unless it hurts their financial base, which 6th edition has clearly not.

Personally I love random charges, they give me those momentary excitement of "I am taking this risk, am I going to make it?" or the occasional "dude if this guy fails his charge range, not only do I get to shoot him, but I can turn this around." I personally enjoy it a lot.

So my advice, just find people who agree with you and just house rule it, it will just be easier on you guys than forever petitioning a company who wont listen.

[wittdooley]

I'm actually okay with it, but I think it needs some revisions. I think Cav charges need to be fixed in some way. Whether or not this is applying a minimum distance to their charges or allowing for 3D6 (either straight or pick two highest), but something. I mean, I don't buy the "balking because they see their doom" shebazz. Thats what Fear checks are for.

Now, to be fair, most of this ire comes from a group of T-Wolves getting a 2" charge when they were 3" away from a group of wraiths....

[Slacker]

I too play mostly assault armies, and thought random charge lengths would suck. Granted, I have played a handful of games under 6th (about 8 or so) and not having won a game of it yet, charge lengths haven't been a specific problem. I just seem to have gotten the short end of the stick for all the other random stuff, whether it is the random mission (being out scored by my opponents fast attack choices) a mysterious forest keeping me from getting at the relic before my opponent because it would make me hit myself in the face, while being shot at by pathfinders in a forest that improve their cover save, or having my opponent roll the psychic power that forces me to re-roll all successful saves the time I decide to try playing a highly elite/low model count army, or having my reserves not come in when needed to support the rest of my army. It's been a rough go of it for me.

That all said, I wasn't ever completely out of most of the games I played, and all the games have still been quite fun. If someone asked me to choose between having to play 5th ed or 6th ed, I would still choose 6th ed. Even with the same lists over and over again, you can end up with very different games and very different outcomes every time. It makes for a more interesting game.

If a game is only fun because you win, then 50% of the people playing are not having fun.

[Slacker]

Now, to be fair, most of this ire comes from a group of T-Wolves getting a 2" charge when they were 3" away from a group of wraiths....

Cav is fleet, you rolled snake eyes twice in a row? Tough break man :(

[Capt Forsythe]

I think you should consider the overall game design instead of just the random charge length rule. Did deathstar assault units generally fare better than shooty lists in 5th edition? Debatable, but you will find the general consensus is yes, they did. How did 6th do in bringing balance to 40k?

+ positive
- negative
= both positive and negative

Changes to 6th Assaults:
Random charge length =
3-inch pile ins =
no deep strike, outflank, reserves, webway assaults -
overwatch -
no fearless wounds -
power weapon changes -
hit vs ws on vehicles +
fleet changes =
jump pack changes =
beast movement =
Character directed attacks +
challenges =
Hull points +

Shooting changes:
Rapid fire flexibility +
Overwatch +
Snap Fire +
Barrage sniping +
Hull Points +
Generally worse cover saves +
Character directed attacks +
Sniper weapons +
much more night fighting -

I'm sure there are several more changes I'm not thinking of. But my point is take into account the design as a whole, picking out one rule in a book of rules doesn't mean anything, because all these rules are interconnected. Now if you want to argue that assaults have been overly hamstrung, I won't agree with you, but you can make a reasonable case.

edit: BTW, BALANCED does not mean EQUAL in good game design

[ElectricPaladin]

The trouble with that system is that some people are really good a learning to judge by eye the distances you can move/assault/shoot and unfortunately it is not a skill that everyone has or can improve.


This.

By the end of fifth (and I started about a year ago, so "the end of fifth" didn't take long for me) I was really sick of having to make my tactical choices based on how good I am at guessing how far away things are from each other. I was really sick of people who had that skill, for whatever reason being better than me. I was really sick of the various cheap-*** ways of cheating people would do, like measuring how far apart terrain pieces were from each other while setting up, or letting out more tape measure than they needed, or other stupid, petty BS. A system that allows for premeasuring and then makes some things random - like the distance of a charge, or the range of a highly powerful special weapon - feels like a good balance. It rewards tactical thinking, basic knowledge of probability, and risk/reward assessment - all skills that seem actually, you know, wargamy. That's a lot more interesting to me than a game that rewards ability to guess distances.

[wittdooley]

Cav is fleet, you rolled snake eyes twice in a row? Tough break man :(

Oh yeah. It was brutal. Rolled a 3 on my fleet move to get me within 3, then rolled the snakes. In essence, I needed 6" out of two rolls. Wouldn't have ever beleived I wouldn't get it. Sucked.

[Houghten]

...dude, you shouldn't have even rolled for that charge. Fleet doesn't let you run and then assault any more.

Those four ones were the dice's way of telling you "you iz mukkin' about."

[bfmusashi]

I don't like where GW is heading with my game and I think they need to know what they are doing wrong.

There's the problem right there. It isn't yours, stop pretending it is. You don't like what they've done with their game you can move on to something else.

[Nabterayl]

while i respect your personal opinion, my personal opinion is that you are wrong. I quite like the style of the game now, and find that it feels more cinematic and grand. that failed charge isn't down to bad luck, that failed charge is my warriors balking at the sight of their potential death, it is that costly slip on unstable ground or that moment of hesitation the sort of "wtf am i doing" moment. The same can be said for the ridiculously lucky charges; it is a warrior spurred on by vengeance for his dead battle brothers or simply sheer insanity (if i run really quick the bullets won't hit me)!

I understand that some people don't like the new rules, but i myself, prefer them.
My thoughts exactly.

[LordGrise]

Mmm... Newp. Squidy, I gots to disagree with you. Vehemently.

I play Tau, and I started play in 5th. Under 5th edition rules, I basically ran an all-mechanized force because the only survivable models I had were Crisis Suits, Hammerheads, and Broadsides. I can't remember how many times I lost entire units in one round because I got just a hair too close. I never, and I do mean NEVER debarked my (always minimum) count of Fire Warriors from their Hammerhead until I was cornered and could no longer maneuver out of the way. Never used Pathfinders, only used stealth suits if it was a big game and I needed to round out the list. I had to learn the hard way about all the little cheat moves people would use to measure without breaking out a tape. I figured out really quick that there were a BUNCH of army builds that it was (to employ understatement in British proportions) not enjoyable to play against because I could not hold the distance open, could not kill them off quickly enough, and could not win in melee against. I don't know how many times I got essentially tabled. In turn two.

In short, I learned the hard way just how badly sabotaged my army was under 5th edition rules.

And I learned how to compensate and work around the worst of it; hence my mechanized build. I stayed with it and figured out what strategies would at least give me a fighting chance. Splitting my forces into two essentially equal echelons, and thereby forcing my opponent to focus on the one and simply accept the fire of the other. Utterly ignoring whatever the objectives were - my only objective was to still have units on the board at the end of turn five - if I could manage that, then that was win enough for me. Pinning. Markerlights.

Now we're in 6th. Charge is still an issue for me, but at least it isn't an unappealable death sentence any more - it might fail. Psychic powers are the new bugaboo for me; I don't have any, and I have no anti-psyker stuff yet. ::grin:: except railguns. I can have allies to at least give me some melee capability. Turn back the clock? Not a chance.

[Tynskel]

My thoughts exactly.

Even not defending the fluff, random charges add more tactical elements of the game. Do you gamble on a charge when your units are 7"+ away, or do you weather the fire, and try to get in closer? Do you switch from small units to larger units designed to absorb more punishment?

What I really don't understand is why people are complaining about this–there have been random charges since at least 2nd Edition. If the unit you were attempting to charge was in cover, you had to roll the dice!

[Mr Mystery]

Although my experience is LARP based, let me tell you organising a coherent charge is pretty damned difficult. Across open ground without incoming fire sure, you can get ten dudes to match pace. But in amongst an ongoing pagga? That's a different matter.

40k is won or lost in the assault phase. It's the most reliable way to drive the enemy off an objective and then hold it yourself. It SHOULD be risky. It shouldn't be a foregone conclusion.

Keep it random! Give a ranged army half a chance.

[wittdooley]

...dude, you shouldn't have even rolled for that charge. Fleet doesn't let you run and then assault any more.

Those four ones were the dice's way of telling you "you iz mukkin' about."

Oh... well shyte. Clearly I do more modeling and painting than playing :D. Though I suppose the re-roll does the same as the 'new' Fleet does.

[Sainhann]

Yes, another thread about 6th. Sorry, but I've played it enough and I'm still disappointed in GW.

The fact that you have to get across the table and then leave it up to dice as to whether you get to do anything or not is just... well dumb.

Oh sure, the average is better, but failed charges happen on a regular basis. A 6" move would be much better than having 2D6 because at least you're not leaving it to the dice to determine how good you do.


The main reason for this thread is to keep the fire alive. I don't like where GW is heading with my game and I think they need to know what they are doing wrong.

Now, this may sound crazy, but I liked the 5th edition rule book. Most people complained, but it simplified things and allowed for more balanced gameplay. Granted, they screwed it up with all the crazy codexes, but I liked the rule book in general.

Now, anyone who isn't saying good things about 6th is a cry baby. I'm tired of GW ruining my game, but I like 40k so much I'm not about to quit. Re-writing everything is the best idea I can come up with. You know, a book entirely of house rules. That's how disappointed the direction 6th headed for.

So, you guys with me? I don't mean to hurt anybody, I just want Warhammer 40k to be fun. :D And if you disagree, state your opinion. No need to insult. If I wrote anything to offend, just tell me and I will edit it (unless I can't for some reason). Mod, find this to be spam, just dump it and I'm sorry ahead of time.

No and be glad that I did not write the rules because I would have put far more random stuff into the game.

Like card-activation (hey I GW and I shouldn't pass up the chance to get more money from you). So instead of the standard U-go/I-go you would not know which unit would be going. You can't get more random than that.

So you know that that one unit of yours is hanging out there and you really want to move them. But the card for one of your opponent's unit came up first and they charge into your unit.

But not is all lost since you have some other units that could come to the support of your other unit. If only they can act before the Melee/Close Combat card show up.

Way more intense and you need to be thinking all the time.

[Sainhann]

Well I still miss 2nd...

So do I, the game was far more balance back then.

How else could a lowly Harlequin being the only member of his squad still alive pull the heart of that Blood Axe Warlord's Ogryn bodyguard and throw it into the Warlord face before causing a wound on the Warlord.

I had far more fun playing 2nd Edition then any 4th-6th Edition.

[Bean]

I really like that the game now allows premeasuring--rules against premeasuring are dumb in pretty much every way.

I don't really mind a little bit of increased randomness, but it feels inappropriate for charges--mainly because a failed charge is such a game-altering event and there really isn't any way to account for it in planning. When you need a four and you roll a three, that's very unlikely--and it might actually determine the outcome of the game (I've seen it happen, more than once) and that seems like a very bad game design element.

The success and failure of charges is just too important to be left to chance, and the fact that they are renders the game, on its own, renders the game a vastly less legitimate competitive exercise than it would be otherwise, which I think is a shame.

[Sainhann]

Mmm... Newp. Squidy, I gots to disagree with you. Vehemently.

I play Tau, and I started play in 5th. Under 5th edition rules, I basically ran an all-mechanized force because the only survivable models I had were Crisis Suits, Hammerheads, and Broadsides. I can't remember how many times I lost entire units in one round because I got just a hair too close. I never, and I do mean NEVER debarked my (always minimum) count of Fire Warriors from their Hammerhead until I was cornered and could no longer maneuver out of the way.

So you decide that because they could be killed not to use your army to it fullest.

Yes Tau Fire Warriors are squishly and that they die.

But conside this they also come with the best Infantry weapon in the game. True they are not going to kill a Space Marine outright with it due to the 3+ save that the Marine has.

But they will end up wounding that Marine and will kill outright, Imperial Guard, Eldar Guardians (actually most Eldar due to wounding on 2+), & Orks.

My Imperial Guard army is 190 models at 2,000 points 186 Infantry & 4 Chimeras. I expect to lose Guardsmen but I would go into a game knowing that.

So your opponent has that hard *** assualt unit that wants in close combat so give him an unit to kill then see if he can dance afterwards. I have killed many large nasty models and units because the weight of fire was too much.

I would love to have a strength 5, 30 inch, AP 5 weapon. My Eldar Guardians were nerfed years ago by GW because they had a strength 4, 24 inch weapon that killed Marines due the -2 save. But the -2 save has been gone for many years but did the Eldar Guardians get their weapon back.

Nope, GW has kept it as a strength 4, 12 inch, AP 5 weapon. The results most Eldar armies don't use Guardians anymore.

So your basic Tau trooper has the best gun while my basic Eldar trooper weapon is pure junk.

[DarkLink]

I like premeasuring, and I laugh every time I hear someone complain about how "but guessing range was totally a skill that, like, made the game better, man". Artificial difficulty, and nothing more. I have more fun without premeasuring.

Random Charge Length, on the other hand, removes most of the skill associated with the assault phase and replaces it with 2D6. You used to be able to carefully position models to avoid terrain, and only get stuck in with certain models, and pull enemy units off objectives, and all sorts of cool stuff. Now, you can only do that if you roll just right for Random Charge Length. You can get screwed over with snake eyes (and no one had better give me any bull**** about how everyone was always in cover always under any and all circumstances regardless of anything else and so RCL doesn't matter) if you roll too low, and you can get screwed over for rolling too high by being forced to engage enemy models and not letting them pile in.

Randomness can enhance the game, but not when it removes skill. Randomness in shooting and close combat attacks is good, because it adds the skill of gauging the odds to the shooting and assault phase. Otherwise, you'd just plug a few numbers into a calculator and remove X casualties for Y guns. That would be boring. Charges, however, already relied on player skill in that positioning your models was absolutely crucial. RCL removes much of that player skill. That's bad game design.

[Nabterayl]

Randomness can enhance the game, but not when it removes skill. Randomness in shooting and close combat attacks is good, because it adds the skill of gauging the odds to the shooting and assault phase. Otherwise, you'd just plug a few numbers into a calculator and remove X casualties for Y guns. That would be boring. Charges, however, already relied on player skill in that positioning your models was absolutely crucial. RCL removes much of that player skill. That's bad game design.
I think it's more an example of designing for something other than what you want. You disliked premeasuring because it required a skill that was "artificial" (and I did too, for the same reason). But you liked being able to carefully position models to avoid terrain and only get stuck in with certain models etc. From my perspective, the cool stuff you describe was artificial. I like random charge length because it better represents what a charge into hand-to-hand combat is really like. I don't require my 40K to look exactly like what combat in the 41st millennium would really look like, but I view pro-realism changes like RCL as a positive.

If the cool stuff you describe is considered desirable by the game designer, then RCL is bad game design. If verisimilitude is considered desirable, then RCL is good game design. And so on for another thousand possible design objectives, any one (or none) of which could have been the actual goal.

[DarkLink]

I didn't really dislike not-premeasuring, I just prefer being able to premeasure and think that the meta ability to gauge distance doesn't really add anything to the gameplay.

On the other hand, I dislike rules for cinema's sake. I want a solid game first and foremost. You can create fluffy units and army lists to create a story all you want. I don't mind the ability to randomly reach out to 12", that keeps people on their toes and can dramatically change the game. Failed charges, though, especially combined with Overwatch, can arbitrarily screw people over and create a lot of frustration, with no real way to work around it other than "get really close". If RCL were 2d6 or 6", pick the highest, I wouldn't mind it at all. You get randomness without the frustration.

[Nabterayl]

On the other hand, I dislike rules for cinema's sake. I want a solid game first and foremost.
That's fine, but it doesn't make RCL bad game design. It just means that you don't approve of the objective(s) that RCL was (probably) intended to meet. It's hardly a given that a tactical wargame wants to place every game element under the control of even the most skillful player, after all.

EDIT: Since the idea of cinema's been broached several times, I guess I should clarify that I'm not in favor of RCL solely on the basis of cinema. I'm not even in favor of RCL per se. What I actually like about RCL is that it makes it possible for any charge to fail. Failed charges, even at point blank range, are part and parcel of any charge, let alone charges whose objective is to engage in literal hand to hand fighting. What DarkLink says about it removing an element of the game at which the player could be skilled is definitely true, but the increased realism - and the increased cinema - makes up for that in my mind.

[OrksOrksOrks]

If you and your gaming group prefer the way 5th edition works, keep on playing 5th edition? GW didn't sneak into your house and burn your old rule books did they?

[Psychosplodge]

If you and your gaming group prefer the way 5th edition works, keep on playing 5th edition? GW didn't sneak into your house and burn your old rule books did they?

They still do that? :eek:

[Wolfshade]

If you and your gaming group prefer the way 5th edition works, keep on playing 5th edition? GW didn't sneak into your house and burn your old rule books did they?

Damn it that's who did it, pity they left 3rd....

[Cap'nSmurfs]

This again? Really? Reeeeeeaaaaaally?

[Psychosplodge]

This again? Really? Reeeeeeaaaaaally?

Is this not the purpose of the Interwebz?

[bfmusashi]

Is this not the purpose of the Interwebz?

And the Social Sciences?

[Psychosplodge]

you mean the oligies? they're not really science now are they...

[bfmusashi]

Yeah, but no one gives you money if you're a humanity.

[Psychosplodge]

Yeah, but no one gives you money if you're a humanity.

I'm not sure why any one would be giving them money anyway?

[Cap'nSmurfs]

Hey, my medieval history research is extremely important!

(to me)

(although also the idea that learning, knowledge and so on is only useful or good if it produces something one can then sell is one of the reasons we're all ****ed right now)

[magickbk]

I was one of those guys who could place a guess-fire weapon anywhere within 2" of accuracy (or a Nova Cannon within 5 cm). No tricky measuring of terrain beforehand, or anything like that. I watched where my opponent deployed, knew where I deployed, and knew the table size. Everything from there was watching movement and math in my head. It was a skill that gave me an unfair advantage against players that couldn't do the same, or didn't care to waste their time doing said math in their head. I have no problem with changes to the firing of said weapons. An even playing field for everyone is a good thing for the game.

The same thing extended to Fantasy. I could run around with small units, staying just out of charge range, and whittling my opponent down with magic and arrow fire until finally charging in the sides. It made for a tricky and challenging game for me of running around, baiting charges and running away, and so on, but for my opponent it was a frustrating crap-fest, and must have been boring as hell.

In 40K I have primarily played shooting armies, and I have frequently played against assault armies. I have thought since 3rd edition that the best way to fix assault was to have rules the way they are now, but to allow the consolidation move after winning an assault to take you into combat with a fresh unit, free of Overwatch fire but getting no charge bonuses. This allows assault units a way to get into combat without taking any additional fire, because even if you charge in and wipe a unit, chances are you are getting wiped out by shooting the following turn, unless you get all your units assaulting at the same time(which is especially less likely given random charge), or you use a deathstar, which is boring for your opponent.

Overall I like 6th so far, even though I don't have a lot of games under it yet.

[bfmusashi]

I'm not sure why any one would be giving them money anyway?

We make the best excuses... now with charts!