Handbook Suggestion: Alternate Charge Action

[FerociousBeast]

What do you think about the following as a alternative to the Charge action? If you guys like it, I will add it to the Arbitrator's Handbook. The goal here is to resolve some of the issues with the Charge action as written and, probably, intended in Underhive/Gang War.

Alternate Charge Action
Charge (Double) – Declare an enemy fighter to be the target of this charge. The fighter makes a Standard Move, adding D3’’ to the distance they can move, and must move towards the target in as straight a line as possible. The fighter becomes Engaged (and can ignore the enemy fighter's 1" zone of control) if the total distance moved results in base to base contact with the target enemy fighter. They can also end their move within 1" of other standing or Pinned enemies as long as the targeted enemy fighter is in base contact. If they do this and are Engaged at the end of the action, they can immediately make a free Fight (Basic) action against the targeted enemy fighter. Otherwise they perform the Standard Move + D3" towards the target, stopping short of any enemy fighter's 1" zone of control, and are not considered Engaged at the end of the action.

FAQ
Not part of the rule, but some anticipated clarifications:

• In subsequent rounds, the fighter is free to make Fight (Basic) actions against other enemy fighters in base contact instead, but must attack the targeted model when charging.
• If the straightest, most direct path lies through the base or 1" zone of control of another enemy fighter, the move stops short and the charge is failed.
  
• There is no problem with charging fighters that are not in line of sight.
• You could declare a hopeless charge (say against a model that's two feet away), but you must move directly towards it and cannot enter any enemy's 1" zone of control. It would essentially be a handicapped Double Move.

 

[Thorgor]

I think it's a good base to work with.
It doesn't handle the case where the target fighter is Seriously Injured though (in this case I'd say the charging fighter doesn't have to become Engaged and can perform a free Coup de grâce (Simple) action if they end their movement less than 1" away from the target.)

I'm not sure I like the straight line requirement. At the very least, it should be amended to avoid some stupid situations (fighter being forced to jump off a platform when they could have taken the stairs, or being forced to fail a charge through difficult terrain when going around it would have been faster). I also think player should be able to avoid the second dot from your FAQ (if the fighter has enough movement). It does make things pretty simple though... hmmm....

 

[Cpt. Boriel]

I like the work so far. And the straight line charge is simple. However are we addressing the issue that in underhive you cannot charge over obstacles but in gang war it makes no restriction? (Pg 46 and pg 8 respectively. Under ‘obstacles’)

 

[almic85]

I would not house rule in the need to move “in a straight line” for the charge. Also moving in a straight line is defined in the rulebook as “directly towards” as opposed to just “towards”

What I think you should have is a requirement that if the charging model enters within 1” of any enemy fighter during their charge move then they must move directly towards that enemy fighter to make base to base contact and become engaged.

If the charging model has insufficient movement to get into base to base contact and become engaged with an enemy model then they move their full movement value towards the nearest enemy model (or intended target) and at the completion of this move they are pushed directly away from any enemy model within 1” to maintain the 1”exclusion zone.

 

[Thorgor]

I'd do something like this:

1. Declare target. It can be any enemy fighter on the table (Standing or Prone).
   
   
2. Determine the shortest path to the target (taking terrain into consideration and avoiding other enemies' engagment bubbles; the shortest path may include jumping down from any height and jumping across any gap the fighter can attempt to jump) and roll 1D3 to determine the charge movement.
   
   
3. If the charge movement is enough for the fighter to move alongside the shortest path and end up in base contact with the target (or 1" away if the target is Seriously Injured), the charge succeeds; otherwise, it fails.

• If the charge fails, the fighter must make a standard move (using M as normal) following the shortest path towards the target and stop there. They cannot move less than M (unless something bad happens to them during this move, like falling to their death for instance).
  
  
• If the charge succeeds, the fighter must make a standard move (using the charge movement instead of M) that ends up in base contact with the target (or 1" away if the target is Seriously Injured). They can use whatever path they choose. If, at any point of that move, the fighter enters the target's line of sight, the target's controller can change the target's facing at the end of the move to face the charging fighter.
  If they are Engaged, the fighter can then make a free fight action against the target; if they are not, they can make a free Coup de grâce action against the target.

 

[Kairae]

What's the hate on running around people to stab them in the back? It's a touch gamey, but it's hardly OP and you have to declare that movement path before you measure* or roll the D3, so there's a chance that you'll make a Charge fail which would otherwise succeed.

*Unless you guys understand 'No pre-measuring' differently to me.

 

[almic85]

What's the hate on running around people to stab them in the back? It's a touch gamey, but it's hardly OP and you have to declare that movement path before you measure* or roll the D3, so there's a chance that you'll make a Charge fail which would otherwise succeed.

*Unless you guys understand 'No pre-measuring' differently to me.

I think plenary of people find the hassle of declaring the full line of movement before measuring too hard to actually implement, so they prefer to have them just move directly into combat.

In practice actually measuring in a non-linear manner is a real pain in the arse.

That said in practice I don’t have an issue with someone saying they will charge a model, rolling the d3 and then figuring out (measuring) if they can get around the back of my fighter before deciding where to actually charge into.

 

[Kairae]

Nor do I: but at that point you're allowing 'pre-measuring' as a house rule, so I'm going to measure range before I shoot. I have no issue with playing that way, but allowing pre-measuring of some things but not others is - to me - madness inducing. (I'm being a touch hyperbolic, but I asking the question 'where do you want to end up in my front or my back' and then rolling and seeing if they can reach the one they specified is a reasonable middle ground; but allowing them to change to the other after they've measured is not at all reasonable if you make me fail shooting when I fire at 24.5" and there was a valid target at 23").

So if you're trying to stop people charging you outside your rear arc when they start in front of you (which a large chunk of these rules appear to be aimed at), then it's easier to just implement RAW than house rule it. Forcing people to declare their movement and then measure (which is RAW) forces people to be more cautious with what they declare, because it expands the scope for failure. And there's at least one sci-fi skirmish game system that has "declare full line of movement prior to measuring" as how it's actually played with no issues (with respect to that rule), so I see no issue with implementing that in Necromunda.

Basically this is how I understand RAW (with the 'you don't get the free 1" to become Engaged' interpretation).

1. Declare movement path. It may enter within 1" of enemy models. The path must end in base-to-base (B2B) with 1 or more enemy models. Exception: when charging a model who is Seriously Injured you only need to get within 1" not to B2B.

2. Roll a D3. Move the model their M+D3 along the previously declared path, stopping when they reach B2B* with 1 or more enemy models or when they run out of movement. If the model does not reach B2B with any enemey models then it is moved back along it's path until it is 1" away from all enemy models. Exception: when charging a model who is Seriously Injured you only need get within 1" not to B2B.

3. If they are Engaged the can make a free Fight action or if they're not Engaged and within 1" of a seriously injured enemy fighter a Coup de Grâce.

Spoiler

But honestly, I prefer the free 1" movement. It makes Charging multiple combatants and Charging Seriously Injured fighters cleaner. It also makes charging people in the back from in front significantly easier, but I don't honestly think that's that big an issue.

* Ie no hitting B2B and then sliding around the back, because you can't Move when Engaged your movement stops once you become Engaged. This is interpretation not explicit, it just feels natural to me (due to experience with other games systems where it's played like that). But OTOH, I'd be completely OK with hitting B2B and then sliding around behind: I have no issue with rewarding excess movement. This is the only thing I think really needs to be clarified in the Charge rules.

 

[Thorgor]

What's the hate on running around people to stab them in the back?

It just doesn't make sense fluffwise to me. If I can see you coming, I'm not gonna turn my back on you. If you want to backstab, you've got to manage a sneak attack first. It does make backstabbing more difficult though.

Also, any proposed Charge rule that doesn't include declaring a target as its first step makes Fearsome non-sensical. So you'll also have to house-rule the trait.

 

[Kairae]

You're right with the Fearsome interraction. But that's a simple add your step 1. Or change my Step 1 to read "The path must end in base-to-base (B2B) with 1 or more enemy models, this fighter or fighters are considered to be the target of the charge.": this, arguably, is already strongly implied and is how the rule is generally understood.

Basically you're tying to:

1. Give Charge a target.
- This is a 'fix', and is obvious and simple.
2. Determine what happens when the Charge ends inside 1" but outside B2B?
- This is an option between 2 interpretations. Pick one until it's FAQ'd.
3. Change how Charge pathing works to and make Backstabbing more difficult.
- This is entirely subjective. And would require a balance pass on the cost/effectiveness of Backstab (which is already overcosted even if you were guaranteed to get +1 S on a charge).

I don't think you need any more than the first 2, and by smooshing all the 3 things you're trying to achieve together makes the change messy: you mix in 2 necessary clarifications with an optional gameplay change.

I also disagree that it doesn't make sense fluff-wise. If you consider 'Backstab' to be any surprise attack, then it's just a mechanical representation of the fact that the Charge was fast enough to get the drop on their opponent. You're not really running around them to stab them in the back, you're just stabbing them before they were prepared to defend themselves, compared to a charge that only just makes it which gives them the time to offer a modicum of a defence. The moving the model into the rear arc is just an abstraction of this.

But I'm not a simulationist, I'd prefer for balanced and interesting tactical decisions. Getting close enough to reliably charge around someone to get into their back arc takes real effort and should be rewarded.

 

[Thorgor]

@Kairae: point 3. should indeed be considered an optional house-rule and is not strictly part of the rewriting of the charge rules. It's self-contained into a single sentence, so it's easy to remove.

There is a 4th point I tried to address though: what happens when a fighter fails their charge. The official rules basically let you wander wherever you want with your M+D3 movement allowance, but they also don't mention anything about a target.
If there is a target, then there is a plan. And if there is a plan, then failure is an option.
From my (mostly simulationist) perspective, a failed charge represents a situation where the fighter first estimates that they can (barely) make it to contact but realize midway through the charge that they won't. That's why I force them to follow the shortest path but deny them the D3 bonus movement. This may also be influenced by some old WFB charge rules (where charge was a 2*M movement and failed charge was M mandatory movement.)

However, I would prefer to simply let players pre-measure everything, as it makes for a more tactical (if less narrative) game. I don't like the official rules where you are not allowed to measure things but can often get a very good estimate thanks to the floor paving, known floor heights, bases sizes, previously measured things (for instance, if you want to charge the guy who just shot at you), etc.

 

[almic85]

As an aside on backstab I think it would work better (be easier to implement) if it just gave the +1S if the charge was started from outside the target models line of sight.

@Kairae we are also trying to clean up having to enter a second models 1” bubble to engage the target at the end of the charge, while not allowing the charger to enter the 1” bubble along the path of the charge.

 

[Ben_S]

• If the straightest, most direct path lies through the base or 1" zone of control of another enemy fighter, the move stops short and the charge is failed.

I'd never have reached that conclusion from the wording of the rule. Going by the rule, I'd just assume you have to go round them, the same as you would terrain obstacles.

 

[Kairae]

we are also trying to clean up having to enter a second models 1” bubble to engage the target at the end of the charge, while not allowing the charger to enter the 1” bubble along the path of the charge.

This isn't necessarily a problem RAW (you can make it a problem depending on interpretation). If you move into 1" of a model you must plan to end Engaged with it; so, consequently, if it's impossible to be Engaged with 2 different models then you are not allowed to move within 1" of both of them (there is an awkward edge case where 2 fighters are 1.1-1.9ish" apart and the only way to Engage one is to stand directly between both of them; this incidentally is resolved by 'free move to get everybody Engaged if you're Active inside 1"'). With the exception of the edge case (where it's impossible to charge either model and that I'd resolve as 'you can't charge either, you must charge both') I see no issue with a model blocking the path to a second model and consequently forcing you to charge the first model (or failing if you try to charge the second, and there's not enough room to squeeze through).

The what happens to a failed charge also isn't an issue RAW. RAW if you Charge you say 'I'm moving M+D3" along this path to arrive in B2B with that model' (or, more usually, I want 'I'm charging to get to here', which is just an informal version of the more complete statement), so you move M+D3" along your declared path (without pre-measuring you need to have a declared movement path), if you don't reach an Engaged state you stop (outside 1") and nothing else happens (unless you can Coup de Grace). You follow normal movement rules, so if you fail you can't be inside 1": your movement stops at the 1" bubble.

BUT I'm essentially OT because I disagree with the premise of what your trying to fix rather than discussing how to fix it. So I'm happy to discontinue discussing it?

 

[Cpt. Boriel]

@Kairae I am not use to the 1” ‘suck in’ rule for CC, but I’m inclined to go with you on that. Charging (other than overseer slingshot) is hard with classic sector mechanicus. Plus it cleans up messy situations. It could be slightly abused my forcing a charge on multiple targets and giving you a hit penalty. Not a big issue. And it’s not too often you have groups of fighters within 2”.

Adding the stipulation that you can move within 1” of a model ‘if they are already engaged’ might clear it up but I haven’t had long to marinate on that.

I still do think that charging in the most direct path (as per pretty much all other GW games) should be followed.

Also on the backstab issue. Knives are supposed to be cheap. S+1 is a pretty good bonus for a second fighter joining the fray, or an ambusher from behind

 

[Kairae]

You say 'abused'; I say 'mutually support is a valid tactic, so working as intended.' That type of positioning also leaves you exposed to the fighter going 'lol, I throw a Grenade'.

I think 'charging the most direct path' should be encouraged; forcing people to decide whether they think they can risk getting into someones rear arc / running around an intervening fighter before measuring does that.

And I'm against anything that stops a Mighty Leap + Clamber Champion leaping onto an adjacent wall, climbing along it, and then leaping back behind an enemy fighter as part of a Charge to avoid getting forced into a 2 v 1 fight.

 

[Cpt. Boriel]

I meant to put abused in ' ' . worst i can think of is that you might move 2' extra to have to get yourself in contact with 3 models in a tight triangle. not really a position you want to be unless you have a couple specific combat skills.

direct path still makes the most sense.

I like your jackie chan charge, but a whole lot is at stake depending on your interpretation of leap gangwar, leap underhive, and mighty leap

 

[Kairae]

Nah, all you need to do is go 'Leaping from a Platform to a Ladder is legal', 'climbing doesn't need to be strictly up / down'# and wall-running is a thing (if you have Clamber)

*It's a movie staple, you'd be mad not to allow it.
#Seriously, not being able to climb along walls is thoroughly stupid.

 

[Thorgor]

direct path still makes the most sense.

What if the direct path includes a potentially fatal jump or other hazard? Is the fighter not allowed to take the stairs/ladder/walkway?

@Kairae: on the subject of having to engage all fighters whose bubble you breach, how would you solve the "corridor situation":

 

[Cpt. Boriel]

to answer both of you, how about 'the most direct route that cannot cause harm to the charging model'. it doesn't quite help much with mightly leap, but as mightly leap is written it's complete trash.