How Charging Affects Close combat

[logan054]

DoN, I know how you stand on it however I am trying to get other people to say " I think ASF should work like" then I can decide If I like your idea or not :tongue: atm until I see someone say something about I am on the fence about your idea, yeah lamsb as said about not getting the rerolls on the charge against ASF but they just seems really odd to me with the current explanation of ASF rerolls in mind, to be fair I do think is ignoring we are both saying chargers should strike first!

 

[Disciple of Nagash]

So it boils round to ASF for you.

Well if it helps, for me I think ASF should be just that. It supersedes everything else and the warrior strikes first. I am not sure on the re-rolls, I think that may be too much. I also think ASF should not work against attacks to the flanks and rear.

So I suppose I am saying ASF should be as per the 7th edition.

EDIT: Actually thinking of it, I think the re-rolls should apply, but only if you are double the Int of your enemy.

 

[logan054]

Well if it goes back to how it was in 7th which I would be very happy either way, it actually makes little difference if you use I10 or strikes first, it boils down to the same thing, the only thing spells and such things that reduce In effect is characters striking and this is only actually against small units and its still going to rely on you casting multiple spells or having items + spells that reduce In.

 

[Bishop]

Yeah, we are all on the same page in that we want the chargers to strike first (the vast majority of the time)

Mechanically, I think that In 10 on the Charge is easier to implement. Adjustments for other rules HAS to come later. These are the "basic" rules (changes) that we are addressing. Any other special rules have to be an extension of these rules.

For the record, I'd like ASF to be just like 7th, but only apply to frontal combat.

Whether we decide that ASF is going to allow re-rolls or not, shouldn't effect the changes that we make to charging, since we aren't giving chargers ASF. Thus, models with ASF should be going first.

If we use:
- 8th ASF rules and grant the charging unit ASF then the ASF unit would go before the chargers, and negate the rerolls since they both have ASF.

- 8th ASF with the proposed In 10 change, then the ASF unit would strike first without rerolls (it's harder to use your speed and skill to attack enemy models charging at you)

- 7th ASF rules with the proposed In 10 changes, then there'd be basically no change from how it worked in 7th. (The ASF unit would go first, then the chargers at In 10)

I agree that we shouldn't be making piles of changes just to accommodate other changes. However, ASF is certainly on the list of things that many people despise... so it is something that will be looked at for sure.

 

[logan054]

Well basically this is how I see it:


8th ed ASF
Chargers strike at I10, ASF loses rerolls
Chargers strike first, ASF still get rerolls

7th ed ASF

doesn't matter either way, same effect

Mechanically I10 and strike first on charge makes no difference to implement, this is also the system we all know from previous editions

 

[Bishop]

I think that we should make it In 10... if the ASF still keeps the rerolls (overall), then they'd lose the rerolls when charged.

This makes sense to me. Speed and skill would apply much less when your enemies are bearing down on your position at a sprint.

 

[Montesque]

I'll cast my vote in for Init 10.

That way pretty much whatever we do with ASF is irrelevant, plus it's just ever so slightly neater.

 

[Count Lasombra]

I vote Initiative 10
I also like ASF the way it is.I play HE too,and I don't intend to stop rolling those re-rolls w/o a court order.

 

[logan054]

I think that we should make it In 10... if the ASF still keeps the rerolls (overall), then they'd lose the rerolls when charged.

This makes sense to me. Speed and skill would apply much less when your enemies are bearing down on your position at a sprint.

This actually makes no sense to me but hey the masses are speaking so yet again anything I say is ignored.

 

[Count Lasombra]

I believe it is at such a time that speed and skill matter the most.

 

[Disciple of Nagash]

Logan - no one is ignoring you, they simply disgaree. In these types of discussions it will happen, in the other projects I have been involved in there has been many a time when I have (I thought) a valid point, but had to concede when the majority decided otherwise.

Right, so the majority think I10 on the charge.

What about ASL such as GW etc? Personally I think those weapons should strike in Int order on the charge with the models basic ld (so they don't get I10), however this does not include stomps etc.

 

[Count Lasombra]

Sounds right to me.

 

[Bishop]

So, models charging with ASL attacks/weapons will strike in In order instead. That's okay to me.

Why are we excluding stomp attacks? Just wondering?

Seems appropriate, to me, for those to happen in In order on the charge as well.

Thoughts?

 

[Count Lasombra]

The stomps are extra,they happen after the models other attacks anyway.It seems wrong to let them happen simultaneously.

 

[Disciple of Nagash]

I agree - they are extra, outside their normal attacks I think it would add too much, especially in the case of things like Ogres which have already become very powerful.

 

[Anilar]

DoN i thought we were to discuss weapon rules, speciel rules and similar later. Don't youre question about ASL, greatweapon's and stomp come in the same category as spears, lances and the ASF rules, which have been brought up earlier ???

I don't know if what im about to write now is valid for the discussion, Ill just give my insight in how the various charge rules would work for wood elves.
Im a wood elf player, so i kinda like the current rules, where you strike in I order. With the random charge rules, movement in general and skirmishing wood elves don't rule the movement phase like they used too, and dont have the same control over setup of charges. And im talking from the perspective of an average player, not from some tournament super general of uberness, that some of you might be playing against.

Current rules is good for wood elves, we can charge and be charged an we usually strike first, simply by our high I. We generally get slaughtered by the step up rules anyways.
Since we don't get to reduce inc attacks, we need to get our combat resolution before we are dieing.

I 10 on charges, the wood elves are dead, except the treeman who is usually striking last anyways.

ASF, well the wood elves are just as dead.

ASF with I 10 the wood elves are just not there anymore.

I think the charging rules should be as current, but make a ton of special rules.
Ill just come with some examples, to explain my point, im not intending to start a discussion on special rules.
We could increase the charging bonus to +1 CR for each rank to a maximum of 3. Or maybe just +2 or +3. Thou the latter would probably boost small units too much.
Cavalry get a impact hit on charge, which would indicate there momentum, +1 strength on Impact hit if barded.
Lances give +2 str and maybe +2I on the charge. Low I units would not get that much on I bonus, but they a dumb, slow and heavy. Fast well trained units know how to receive a charge. And most Lance armed cavalry have atleast 3 I which would boost them to 5, which is a decent I.
Spears +1 str +1 I when mounted.
Infantery spears, would get I 10 or ASF against cavalry, they are designed to handle cavalry, and they would die to impact hit first, even before ASF High elves.
There is also the current special rule devastating charge or something, that could be applied, to heavy enough things.

Ani

 

[logan054]

The I see with +1 per rank on the charge is this only put power in cheap units which already have the advantage, the problems i see everyone else encounter against my WoC is I strike first and deal large amounts of pain. If general if you are high In you have this really annoying game dynamic that HE introduced back in 7th, I walk forward and have no real reason to engage you, this was very true in a tournament i played over the weekend.

Basically by turn 3 all my opponent had left was a unit 30 SM with a hero, all I did was walk backward with my warrior casting fireball (big one) fleeing every charge while my knights just marched around his flanks. I cannot think of a single game in 7th ed in which I would not charge a unit of khorne knights into a units, a +2/3 to my combat res would have changed nothing.

Problem with armies like WE is because they relied on avoid and killing the front rank in combat, your army book is 2 editions out of date so is really in need of a serious overhaul at any rate.

Spears at +1 I on the charge only really helps armies like WE, it does not help armies like Orc & Goblins, saraus Cav.

Spears with I10 would just be silly, now HE get re-rolls anything classed as cav, be it a super lord of doom or a basic knight, its just to much.

I do agree that Cav should have impacts hits at the steeds strength, hell even steed strength with +1 strength for rank.

 

[Anilar]

Well my argument was more that the changes should come from various special rules and weapon rules and not by changing the rules as they are. So people hit in Initiative order. Then we can always figure out how those rules should be, not so much if the options I listed was how they should be. It was examples of several areas where charging can be affected.

 

[logan054]

I know what your saying but the main problem is still that some armies gain far more than others from these changes, a I1 mounted model with a spear will still be striking last. At the end of the day I am mainly a WoC player and how 8th ed is now really suits my army, suck minor changes really would have no effect on me, the only army I can see gaining against me is elves and its not enough to really be concerned.

 

[Disciple of Nagash]

Anilar - I really disagree on creating lots more special rules. There are already so many as it is, that creating more would be very complicated.

Changing or fixing the basic rules to make this work is the idea.

The current idea which most people agree on is that the charge is not as important as is used to be, and I personally agree that if you play well and manage to get the charge then in most circumstances you should be hitting first.

In the example you used with WE - that is a fast mobile army that personally I would have though should be moving around and avoiding getting charged anyway - certainly that is what the army was designed for in previous editions.

Admittedly the army is fragile at the moment, but again I think that is an issue with the army book, not the WHFB - especially when you consider the fact that the army was designed when charging did get you to strike first.

You are quite right about ASL, that should be discussed when it comes to that rule.


So as far as I can see, the majority agrees to I10 on the charge?

 

[Count Lasombra]

 

[Sukhmet]

I would like to offer a little different take on the issue -

In a more general sense, what benefits do you want charging to offer?

Striking first? Impetus effect (CR boost)? Hitting at higher strength? Allowing a greater overrun distance? More atacks?

That is, what do we envision we are trying to create with the charge -
I imagine the extra impact (impetus, CR bonus), but not necessarily geting of the first swing, more likelihood of pushing a unit back, trampling the losers under foot. My visual image is the charge of the Rohirrim in ROTK

I am concenred that unless we take the meta view, we get stuck in limiting our thinking based upon past rules. I know that I like charging and striking first, but it doesn't make logical sense to me as a general rule. It feels like we want it that way because the rules used to be like that, ratehr than how we want it to play out.

I for one, cannot get past the idea of dopey zombies suddenly become I10 if they charge. Or dwarves with great axes suddenly becoming fast as lightning.

I would like to see a bigger, or charger dependent impact on CR- perhaps +1 for infantry charging, +2 for mounted or for those that give impact hits? I can imagine certain things getting a +3, but that might be too much of a boost

I am also thinking a boost to the strength of the hit, maybe +1 or so. Again, the impetus idea.

I know that it belong in another thread, but length of weapon (Spear, Lance, Pike) does need to be considered.

I personally like the consdieration of striking in initiative order (ASF issue aside) as it feels more like how it ought to be. If you really must give an increased chance of hitting first, I go four double the I value

 

[Bishop]

[mod] Thread locked - To be archived[/mod]