Now we know that in DH1/RT/DW it was disadvantegous to be the one charging (with melee specialists) because it meant that you could strike only once and the enemy strike back multiple times.

So I'm trying to figure out how this works in DH2 beta...

So let's say I am starting out of charge range, I have to spend 2 AP to get into charge range, another 1 AP for the charge to make contact and then have only 1 AP left to attack. Probably not enough to make an attack at all, right?

Then let's say I am already in charge range and move in (1 AP) and then make my attack. The enemy then spends 1 AP on Evade (if left) and on his turn he can strike back with full AP? If so, this is not good.

Here's the reason for the anomaly: as the 2 combatants make contact in pseudo-reality both have the same time left within those 5 seconds for attacking the other (ignoring weapon reach). The system doesnt seem to account for that. The charger needs to spend the time charging but the person charged can spend all the time on the charger, causing the mismodeling.

If there is an error in my reading of the rules, I'd be happy to be informed of it, thanks.

Alex

Well you appear to completely gloss over the bonus damage, which is kind of what the attacker on a charge gets as a benefit.

I'm not saying that I 100% agree, but you do make some good points. It does make me wonder why the character can only make a singular attack on the round that he charged. Also, is it by design that the eviscerator can never be used on the same round that a charge was made?

Personally I would get rid of the rate of fire part or the rule and give the character back the point used to charge for use in any attack action used against the target of his charge.

Where I disagree with you is, I do feel that if the character spent over half their turn charging that they should have a small disadvantage.

I'm not saying that I 100% agree, but you do make some good points. It does make me wonder why the character can only make a singular attack on the round that he charged. Also, is it by design that the eviscerator can never be used on the same round that a charge was made?

Personally I would get rid of the rate of fire part or the rule and give the character back the point used to charge for use in any attack action used against the target of his charge.

Where I disagree with you is, I do feel that if the character spent over half their turn charging that they should have a small disadvantage.

The reason its RoA 1 cap is to not have to include excessive wording regarding how to work out the bonus damage.

And evisicrators are that way because they are terrifying . Look up "Crippling" as a weapon quality and tremble with fear. Its a bit out of line with how "scary" they're supposed to be in the setting (obviously, its never been "good," but this thing is especially more deadly. There is a reason you can't Called Shot with it now).

I actually found that Charging was good for the first time in any RPG I've played.

The bonus damage for the range is a cool mechanic, and it seems very, very useful. That little extra damage can mean a world of hurt on the wound charts.

EDIT: Bad wording.

Charging is always going to be slightly odd in any system where people move according to an initiative pass rather than all at once.

You've missed a couple of things in your analysis:

So let's say I am starting out of charge range, I have to spend 2 AP to get into charge range, another 1 AP for the charge to make contact and then have only 1 AP left to attack. Probably not enough to make an attack at all, right?

Melee attacks have a variable AP cost. You can put in as many as you like. Including the minimum of 1. Now the limiter of only spending 1 AP is that you may limit the number of hits you get. If you have a melee weapon with a RoF of 1 or higher you're fine to attack. If you don't, then yes, you cannot attack with only 1AP. Most of the melee weapons have a RoF that varies according to a characteristic (e.g. S for swords, WS for chainswords). So most characters that would willingly charge into melee would be able to attack, though less skilled melee fighters may not be able to use a charge for an advantage from extreme range.

I get the impression from your phrasing that you regard this as a bug, but I see no intrinsic reason for that this is necessarily a minus rather than just a way things work. You either charge from close by or you know what you're doing. An unskilled fighter running 12m to attack someone maybe shouldn't get an advantage from that. At any rate, it is what it is. So long as you're not attacking from extreme range though, or if you're using an easier weapon like a knife, you can charge someone.

Then let's say I am already in charge range and move in (1 AP) and then make my attack. The enemy then spends 1 AP on Evade (if left) and on his turn he can strike back with full AP? If so, this is not good.

Actually, no. Firstly Evade uses an AP so for your charge move (cost 1 AP), they spend for Evade (1 AP), so this isn't a net loss for the charger. In any case, a charge costs 1 AP and a melee attack can cost 1 AP, so the AP-impact is the same whether you attack with a charge or without. The only difference is that with a straight Melee Attack option, you can choose to spend more AP if you wish.

Here's the reason for the anomaly: as the 2 combatants make contact in pseudo-reality both have the same time left within those 5 seconds for attacking the other (ignoring weapon reach). The system doesnt seem to account for that. The charger needs to spend the time charging but the person charged can spend all the time on the charger, causing the mismodeling.

I'm not sure what you mean by the above, but I assume it's following on from the misunderstanding above about AP costs.

At any rate, there can be a significant advantage to charging. It can give a significant damage bonus. In my test combat comparison between DH1 and DH2 (elsewhere), a Maletant charged the party assassin and due to the additional damage bonus, all but took her out of the fight in one hit from perfect health. (Shattered her leg leaving her crippled and prone). Without the bonus, she would have been temporarily down, but able to rejoin the fight.

And the bonus increases with movement rate. I can't wait to see a Harlequinn charging. Then again, they would have a higher RoF probably so it would be an interesting tactical decision.

In any case, the net result of charging is that if you're very skilled, it might be more sensible to take a more cautious approach (relying on your higher RoF), but less skilled might favour the high damage, as would the highly skilled when facing particularly tough opponents they were struggling to damage. I quite enjoy these sorts of tactical trade-offs, personally.

Yeah, the Ab damage bonus doesn't cut it for me. Just as in D&D 3.x.

There's 2 possible modifications I can come up with now:

1. The receiver can't spend more AP on coutnerattack than the charger. (realistic)

2. Both sides can only make 1 hit max initially. (maybe even the receiver gets the same damage bonus, as the relative speed is the same for both).

In both cases one has to take into account that the charge might happen late in the round and then next round there is a new init phase...

Edit:

Actually, no. Firstly Evade uses an AP so for your charge move (cost 1 AP), they spend for Evade (1 AP), so this isn't a net loss for the charger.

The receiver replenishes this as his turn comes. So, it's a net loss of the whole of movement for the attacker. That's the point. And it's bad. Same as in DH1/RT/DW.

Alex

The reason its RoA 1 cap is to not have to include excessive wording regarding how to work out the bonus damage.

And evisicrators are that way because they are terrifying . Look up "Crippling" as a weapon quality and tremble with fear. Its a bit out of line with how "scary" they're supposed to be in the setting (obviously, its never been "good," but this thing is especially more deadly. There is a reason you can't Called Shot with it now).

Heh - you're not wrong! An eviscerator is a giant, two-handed chainsaw with teeth that look about 1" long. Take a moment to visualize that and then consider how many times in three seconds you ought to be able to attack someone with it.

And keep in mind that for a character who is not exceptionally skilled (e.g. WS < 40), a sword has a RoF of 1/2.

Yeah, the Ab damage bonus doesn't cut it for me. Just as in D&D 3.x.

There's 2 possible modifications I can come up with now:

1. The receiver can't spend more AP on coutnerattack than the charger. (realistic)

2. Both sides can only make 1 hit max initially. (maybe even the receiver gets the same damage bonus, as the relative speed is the same for both).

Just to absolutely clarify this, you're proposing a change such that if someone is charged, they are only allowed to spend equivalent AP in attacking back?

Just to absolutely clarify this, you're proposing a change such that if someone is charged, they are only allowed to spend equivalent AP in attacking back?

Something like that, yes. Something that prevents the disparity in attacks which made all the difference in previous systems. I see no reason why it wont make all the difference in DH2 too.

Alex

PS I added an edit in my above post, not sure if you'll see it without notice.

Just to absolutely clarify this, you're proposing a change such that if someone is charged, they are only allowed to spend equivalent AP in attacking back?

Something like that, yes. Something that prevents the disparity in attacks which made all the difference in previous systems. I see no reason why it wont make all the difference in DH2 too.

I can understand the reasoning behind it - if there's only time for the attacker to get one blow in, there should only be time for the defender to get one blow in. Well, adjusted for RoF obviously, but that's the principle.

There is a logic to that, but I'm thinking through the ramifications and I'm not comfortable I've thought of them all yet. One obvious one is that this can be used offensively against opponents to block their AP usage. E.g.

GM: The harlequinne solitaire is just a couple of meters away and holds a shuriken pistol and powersword.

Player: I charge him. It's the safest way!

Like I say, I can see the logic of it, but I'm worried about unforeseen consequences. You're trying to introduce a mechanic to simulate simultaneous movement in a rules system built around sequential turns. Not saying you can't or shouldn't, but I don't know where that road leads. For example, how are we going to work out when A charges B who charges C who charges D ?

That seems like it would be very easily abused... Charge someone who's carrying a heavy melee weapon and hit them with your dagger. They won't be able to attack you in the next round, since they can only use 1 AP, so they'll either have to wait around, or Disengage, which will just set them up for another Charge.

If Charge really is too weak as-is, I can see adding a further damage or WS bonus to the charger, but personally I don't see the need. Can you expand on why the current damage bonus doesn't "cut it for you"? It seems like a pretty solid deal to me, especially since you'd probably be using the 1 AP from the Charge to Move anyway, if you want to get into melee.. it's basically free damage.

Actually, no. Firstly Evade uses an AP so for your charge move (cost 1 AP), they spend for Evade (1 AP), so this isn't a net loss for the charger.

The receiver replenishes this as his turn comes. So, it's a net loss of the whole of movement for the attacker. That's the point. And it's bad. Same as in DH1/RT/DW.

Alex

I think I see the confusion. I may not have read you correctly. When you say it's a net loss for the attacker, the only circumstance I see that you might think this is if the attacker were say within charge range already, e.g. they're a couple of metres away, and they charge for 1AP and you are saying it's a waste because they have 3AP unused.

If I've read that right and this is what you're saying, then it's a mistake. They'd spend the 1AP on the charge and get their 1 attack with it. But they'd still have 3AP left so they could try and disengage (hit and run, but good luck with that), follow up with 3APs worth of follow-up Melee Attack action (for which they'd get no charge bonus), or be sensible and keep an AP or two back for Evading.

If this is a point of confusion, then I can see how you came to this conclusion. But a Charge is essentially a single Move action and Attack for 1AP instead of 2AP (one bonus) with additional damage (a second bonus). Looked at that from that point of view it's extremely nice.

That seems like it would be very easily abused... Charge someone who's carrying a heavy melee weapon and hit them with your dagger. They won't be able to attack you in the next round, since they can only use 1 AP, so they'll either have to wait around, or Disengage, which will just set them up for another Charge.

Ah now I knew my spider sense was tingling! That's exactly the sort of thing I meant when I wrote I was worried about unforeseen consequences. Good catch!

...

If I've read that right and this is what you're saying, then it's a mistake. They'd spend the 1AP on the charge and get their 1 attack with it. But they'd still have 3AP left so they could try and disengage (hit and run, but good luck with that), follow up with 3APs worth of follow-up Melee Attack action (for which they'd get no charge bonus), or be sensible and keep an AP or two back for Evading.

If this is a point of confusion, then I can see how you came to this conclusion. But a Charge is essentially a single Move action and Attack for 1AP instead of 2AP (one bonus) with additional damage (a second bonus). Looked at that from that point of view it's extremely nice.

I think you might be making a small but important mistake here, knasserll:

The Charge action (unless I'm reading it wrong) does not include the attack. It just sets you up for your next attack action, kind of like Aim.

Basically, Charge is a normal move action that can only move in a straight line. If you follow it up (immediately!) with an attack, that attack gets a damage bonus.

There's two sides to that coin:

The bad: You can't spend extra AP to get extra attacks, hurting your overall damage potential. You can , however, spend that AP on Aim, Called Shot or future Evades. This "problem" only comes up if you have AP to spare.

The good: If you're set up correctly, it's a normal move with a free bonus to the damage of your next attack. Free is good.

...

If I've read that right and this is what you're saying, then it's a mistake. They'd spend the 1AP on the charge and get their 1 attack with it. But they'd still have 3AP left so they could try and disengage (hit and run, but good luck with that), follow up with 3APs worth of follow-up Melee Attack action (for which they'd get no charge bonus), or be sensible and keep an AP or two back for Evading.

If this is a point of confusion, then I can see how you came to this conclusion. But a Charge is essentially a single Move action and Attack for 1AP instead of 2AP (one bonus) with additional damage (a second bonus). Looked at that from that point of view it's extremely nice.

I think you might be making a small but important mistake here, knasserll:

The Charge action (unless I'm reading it wrong) does not include the attack. It just sets you up for your next attack action, kind of like Aim.

Basically, Charge is a normal move action that can only move in a straight line. If you follow it up (immediately!) with an attack, that attack gets a damage bonus.

There's two sides to that coin:

The bad: You can't spend extra AP to get extra attacks, hurting your overall damage potential. You can , however, spend that AP on Aim, Called Shot or future Evades. This "problem" only comes up if you have AP to spare.

The good: If you're set up correctly, it's a normal move with a free bonus to the damage of your next attack. Free is good.

Yes. I'm making a mistake. Weirdly I knew this as I've done it previously. I think I've gotten different rules sets muddled up. My apologies. Okay. Re-thinking everything.

Okay. My mistake. It's less of a bonus than I realized, but still better than just moving and attacking which you'd have to do anyway.

Well, potentially better than moving or attacking. It depends on whether you're a master of weapons who wants to slice a million cuts into your opponent or if you are less skilled or just want to hammer a-hard-to-damage opponent with everything you've got.

Still, it's your tactical choice what you use so that's good overall.

Most melee weapons have a low RoF unless you're very skilled anyway, so that cap often will not be a problem.

This discussion has pointed out an omission in the Charging rules. Or at least a probable omission,.

There is no reference made to charging from vehicles or mounts! I want a Adeptus Ministorum riding a Pachycephalosaur amd running down heretics on some backwater former exodite world with a chainaxe!

I can't believe that the intent of the Charging rules is that there should be no mounted combat, or rather that you have to stop your bike / dinosaur / mutant war-grox and trot the last few metres with your lance.

Heavy weapons are better suited for charging than light ones, basically. I think that's fine. I like that it's not the default choice in every situation.

One oddity that I don't like, however, is that a Whip (and Electro-Flail) is probably the best candidate for the best charging weapon:

Focus on Agility. It's already a fantastic stat. Raising it to, let's say, 70 (which isn't that hard), you can now charge - with a whip - for 1d10+ 14 damage. Add in something like Weapon Tech and a decent Intelligence score and it gets outright silly. Who needs strength for anything?

Heavy weapons are better suited for charging than light ones, basically. I think that's fine. I like that it's not the default choice in every situation.

One oddity that I don't like, however, is that a Whip (and Electro-Flail) is probably the best candidate for the best charging weapon:

Focus on Agility. It's already a fantastic stat. Raising it to, let's say, 70 (which isn't that hard), you can now charge - with a whip - for 1d10+ 14 damage. Add in something like Weapon Tech and a decent Intelligence score and it gets outright silly. Who needs strength for anything?

Slaanesh warriors are the best warriors.

Sure, with high stats it might be different. However, a +3 or +4 is useful than a previous wound! And I am strongly advising against using bonuses of +Xb except very, very rarely. This is an invitation for munchkins. Instead use +3 (average value). Usually, even +2 is a good bonus. Be conservative or else the system will be a munchkin heaven and frustrate GMs.

Anyway, let's consider this scenario:

PC and NPC are 8m apart. Both roll init, NPC wins. Could charge but delays action instead (1 AP). PC (AB 3) moves into charge range (2 AP), then charges (1 AP). PC is clever and moves so that he gets +3 damage on the charge. Attack does no to light damage, it happens. PC had 1 AP for attack with his knife. Now it's NPCs turn. He can attack with 3 AP. And if he wins next rounds init again (maybe because he has superior Ab), the PC will be subject to another 4 AP.

The problem isnt the charge move, the problem is that the one who moves into melee over a distance is at a disadvantage. In DW I had an Assault Marine win init and charge a Nid Warrior and nearly paying for it with his life - even without a delayed action by the xeno.

I'm just reporting a potential problem, not suggesting a particular solution. I would hope that the new edition fixes one of the major flaws of previous combat systems.

Alex

Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but it sounds like your simultaneously think the system is too weak (want additional bonuses for charging) and too strong (limit the damage bonus)...

I agree with the latter point: Adding agility as damage in yet another way is a dangerous road to take. It's already risky to have it on weapons, potentially allowing for strength to be a dump stat. I do like that the damage bonus relates to the charge distance, though... maybe it could just be capped at 4, but otherwise work as-is?

+3 or +4 is certainly less than an existing wound. But why should it be more than that? We're talking about free bonus damage on an action you'd probably do anyway (movement).

Besides, I think you're underestimating that damage boost. An average Joe (Sb 3, Ab 3 with a Sword) charging another average Joe (Tb 3, AP 3) will have a 100% chance of inflicting a wound, assuming he hits. If he hadn't charged, that chance would be 80%. That's a noticable difference, and it obviously scales to be more an more worthwhile against tougher opponents.

It's also worth noting that many of the wound chart effects come in sets of 3 (ie. Wound x causes effect A; Wound x+1 causes effect A but with a harder test, Wound x+2 causes effect A but with an even harder test). Boosting your damage by 3 will almost always move you to the next "tier" of wound effects, which is often a big deal.

Finally (this is turning into a long post - sorry), your example:

Of course charge looks bad when you make a high-risk maneuver and then fail the roll. That's the same as saying that the opponent then spends all 4 AP to attack back, but rolls a 99. Whoops - big advantage goes back to the first character.

No action should be the default in every situation. Charge shines in some cases and is a bad decision in others - you chose a very bad one for your example.

I agree with the latter point: Adding agility as damage in yet another way is a dangerous road to take. It's already risky to have it on weapons, potentially allowing for strength to be a dump stat. I do like that the damage bonus relates to the charge distance, though... maybe it could just be capped at 4, but otherwise work as-is?

You have to carry those +Ab weapons around, and the current table for carrying capacity is less than forgiving to those of poor Strength scores. I wouldn't be concerned about it becoming a dump stat.

Why not a "the first hit of a successful attack action gains a bonus to damage equal to the distance moved during the charge action. The charge action must immediately precede an attack action in the same turn."

Then you actually get a bonus for your moving into close combat in a straight line. Just a thought.

Why not a "the first hit of a successful attack action gains a bonus to damage equal to the distance moved during the charge action. The charge action must immediately precede an attack action in the same turn."

Then you actually get a bonus for your moving into close combat in a straight line. Just a thought.

Kind of takes away from any tactical decision on weighing up whether it is better to make a controlled, skilled attack (multi-hits) or a powerful charge. I like having pros and cons to different approaches. Someone is going to have to remind me what the actual problem is with the existing Charge rules because I don't see it.