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 am saying that bonus-based modifiers generally scale badly.

And why is the risk for the charge greater than for the charged? That's the point. You seem to think it balances out. I think more AP > damage bonus (unless very high Ab).

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.

It is a continuing problem in DH2. To be precise: a charge carries a risk for both parties because of the higher energy on impact. Again, it's in error to model it so that the defender gets to respond to a charge with a flurry of attacks instead.

Even so I think the benefit of multiple AP outweighs a bonus to attack except at high Ab levels.

If it's better to be charged than to charge... that's wrong.

Alex

It is a continuing problem in DH2. To be precise: a charge carries a risk for both parties because of the higher energy on impact.

Perhaps I'm being dense here, but what is wrong with there being a risk to both parties? Surely a combat charge is a dangerous thing to both parties.

Again, it's in error to model it so that the defender gets to respond to a charge with a flurry of attacks instead.

Yes, it is. But this game is based around sequential turns in initiative order. Trying to introduce simultaneous movement effects into a game of sequential initiative produces all sorts of difficulties - the ability of a person to deny AP to another who hasn't gone yet by charging them at the end of their move, situations where A attacks B who attacks C who attacks A causing game breakage, someone with a high RoF weapon such as a knife preventing someone with a low RoF weapon like an axe from attacking at all. It would basically be introducing something that flew entirely in the opposite direction to the entire initiative system. Could be done. Expect a number of problems and inelegant patches, however.

E

Even so I think the benefit of multiple AP outweighs a bonus to attack except at high Ab levels.

That's far from universal - it depends what weapon you use, how hard it is to damage your opponent with the weapon you have, what the opponents own combat skills are like (if they're good at evading, you're not going to land many hits anyway). All sorts of factors. Though I also reject the basic assumption here as well. I see nothing wrong with charging being more use to unskilled combatants than people who know what they're doing. For example, when I see someone just starting out at martial arts, they're actually more dangerous to me if they run at me flailing than if they try to actually keep to their form and do things carefully. But by the time they actually have become skilled, then they can attack me with skill more effectively than with mad aggression. (Anyone who's done formal martial arts recognizes this - you can reliably beat someone who is bad at martial arts when you're good at it, but a panicked flailing of grabbing arms and flying fists can actually be hard to block or contain. Especially when you're training and you're not allowed to just belt them good and hard round the side of the head. ).

If it's better to be charged than to charge... that's wrong.

Why? Again, it's actually quite good strategy to make your opponent come to you and make themselves vulnerable by charging at you. The real statement should be "if it's better to move and then attack, rather than use the charge action... that's wrong." And the answer to that is, no it isn't. Not if there are some situations where it's true and others where it is not and the player gets to make tactical decisions and weigh up risks when deciding which situation is which.

And as observed earlier, is it actually better to be charged than to charge? Yes, the attack must use up an AP to move, but they also get to attack first. If a player doesn't think that's worth it, then they shouldn't take the risk of running toward an opponent.

I think the other benefit to charging is:

If a PC is getting destroyed by superior firepower (heavy weapon), it's worthwhile to charge and close the gap with the enemy so that they can't use their heavy weaponry on you. There are strategic benefits to charging in addition to just number bonuses.

I think the other benefit to charging is:

If a PC is getting destroyed by superior firepower (heavy weapon), it's worthwhile to charge and close the gap with the enemy so that they can't use their heavy weaponry on you. There are strategic benefits to charging in addition to just number bonuses.

I think primarily ak_37 is dissatisfied with charging compared to just move and attack, rather than as a general principle.

There are also some Talents that work with Charging, making you better at it, just to note.

Why? Again, it's actually quite good strategy to make your opponent come to you and make themselves vulnerable by charging at you.

Credentials time: Have you ever played any of the Warhammer tabletops in your 20 years as a gamer? Because right now you sound an awful lot like a yes-man. Nothing wrong with liking the beta but your defense of its obvious defects and the way you defend them doesn't reflect well on you.

Just sayin'.

Alex

Why? Again, it's actually quite good strategy to make your opponent come to you and make themselves vulnerable by charging at you.

Credentials time: Have you ever played any of the Warhammer tabletops in your 20 years as a gamer? Because right now you sound an awful lot like a yes-man. Nothing wrong with liking the beta but your defense of its obvious defects and the way you defend them doesn't reflect well on you.

Just sayin'.

Alex

Oh please. Not this again . Is that your fallback every time? To challenge whether I have the "credentials" to comment on the system? If anyone else had asked which of the tabletop games I'd played, I'd happily answer. But in this case, I politely decline. Because the entire purpose of your questioning me is to try and create an ad hominim argument attacking whether I am qualified to have an opinion or not. I do not get why you keep trying to assert that your opinion is somehow more valid than other people's because of a supposed greater experience (though that didn't go as you expected last time I answered one of your credentials questions and turned out to have been playing pen and paper RPGs for over twenty years and a huge variety of systems).

What doesn't reflect well, I'm sorry to say, is your replacing reasoned debate with Appeal to Authority arguments. Especially when that authority is yourself and your implied greater wisdom.

I make concise points and fairly clearly. E.g. introducing mechanics that simulate simultaneous movement such as only being able to spend as many AP as your opponent has left, cause huge difficulties when inserted into a rules set entirely built around sequential action in initiative order. Now if there's a flaw in that, you can presumably point it out. If there isn't, then demanding I prove my "credentials" doesn't point out anything.

I get that I annoy you when I pick apart things in your proposals. But you get to make charges about whether I have the credentials to argue something the day that I make an argument that goes: "trust me - I have a lot of experience". Until that point, my experience in this game or any other, is off the table for discussion. At least with people who are just hoping to find some omission that lets them portray themselves as better qualified to judge what is good or bad.

EDIT: And the above all goes also for when you start talking about "hard-core" gamers like you class yourself and using phrases like "okay for casual gamers".

I would say the disadvantage to charging rather than receiving a charge is you don't get to choose where the combat is, which can be a big thing. Obviously, with a one person vs one person combat, this isn't an issue, but once you get more complex objectives than "kill the man" and more complex terrain than "open room", you can goad the bad guys into charging you leaving their weak leader (perhaps) exposed. Stuff like that. Being able to set up charges is supposed to be slightly difficult to do, but also beneficial.

Why? Again, it's actually quite good strategy to make your opponent come to you and make themselves vulnerable by charging at you.

Credentials time: Have you ever played any of the Warhammer tabletops in your 20 years as a gamer? Because right now you sound an awful lot like a yes-man. Nothing wrong with liking the beta but your defense of its obvious defects and the way you defend them doesn't reflect well on you.

Just sayin'.

Alex

Dear Alex,

please stop being such a ******.

We've given you examples of why charging can be beneficial. Is your stance that charging should always be the best option, or do you refute that charging is ever a good idea? We can have the discussion if you make your stance known, rather than just flaunting non-existing authority in the face of well-formed arguments.

EDIT: The swear filter here is aggressive! What I called you wasn't actually so bad. Guess our imaginations will run wild, though!

What doesn't reflect well, I'm sorry to say, is your replacing reasoned debate with Appeal to Authority arguments. Especially when that authority is yourself and your implied greater wisdom.

To make matters short: for the most part I don't feel like I am having a thoughtful conversation with you. You may or may not want to revise your own statements to figure out why.

Why? Again, it's actually quite good strategy to make your opponent come to you and make themselves vulnerable by charging at you.

Credentials time: Have you ever played any of the Warhammer tabletops in your 20 years as a gamer? Because right now you sound an awful lot like a yes-man. Nothing wrong with liking the beta but your defense of its obvious defects and the way you defend them doesn't reflect well on you.

Just sayin'.

Alex

Dear Alex,

please stop being such a ******.

We've given you examples of why charging can be beneficial. Is your stance that charging should always be the best option, or do you refute that charging is ever a good idea? We can have the discussion if you make your stance known, rather than just flaunting non-existing authority in the face of well-formed arguments.

EDIT: The swear filter here is aggressive! What I called you wasn't actually so bad. Guess our imaginations will run wild, though!

Well, if someone in the light of the Warhammer tabletops suggests to me that charging shouldn't be more beneficial than not, I do question the intelligence of their remarks. And if you was to agree with such a notion, I would question yours too.

To recap:

"Why? Again, it's actually quite good strategy to make your opponent come to you and make themselves vulnerable by charging at you."

I'll email GW and tell them that in 40K 7E they should give the charged unit +2 A. Because charging makes you vulnerable in melee. Oh, and maybe +1S to the charger. (As for whether that balances out, that's not the point. The point is in whether that makes sense and if it's what one wants combat to run like.)

Alex

1) There's no benefit to being charged, if it was the charger's intention to get into melee anyway. You have not made a case for why it's a bad thing to charge someone, except in the case that you miss your attack (which would also be a bad thing if you had just moved in there).

Charging gives you an advantage. Whether or not it's a big advantage is debatable, but it's definitely an advantage. Either way, you're definitely not giving the person being charged any advantage. The case may be different if you did not want to get into melee, but then you shouldn't be charging in the first place.

2) As someone who does play the tabletop game, I know that 6th edition is the shooty edition. Charging into close combat is pretty strongly discouraged on the tabletop meta right now, to the extent that most players would advise ork boys to bring shootas rather than sluggas.

Also, the current tabletop rules really shouldn't dictate (although they might influence ) how Dark Heresy works, nor should my experience with the tabletop give you leave to question my intelligence.

What doesn't reflect well, I'm sorry to say, is your replacing reasoned debate with Appeal to Authority arguments. Especially when that authority is yourself and your implied greater wisdom.

To make matters short: for the most part I don't feel like I am having a thoughtful conversation with you. You may or may not want to revise your own statements to figure out why.

Politely, I'm just going to say that every argument I have made in this thread, I have backed up with argument and my reasons as well as my starting assumptions. If you can find any argument I have made or later make which is just a statement of something being bad without explaining, then by all means go ahead and ask me why that should be so. But I don't believe I've done that in this thread or the others and if you do ask me to back something up, I will do it with explanation, rather than saying I've played X list of games and therefore my opinion carries greater weight. And I have played a lot of games, RPG and tabletop, I just refuse to shift an argument onto those terms because quite frankly, there are plenty of people without that experience who have just as much or more to contribute as we long-timers.

As far as I'm concerned, this aspect of the discussion is over.

Why? Again, it's actually quite good strategy to make your opponent come to you and make themselves vulnerable by charging at you.

Credentials time: Have you ever played any of the Warhammer tabletops in your 20 years as a gamer? Because right now you sound an awful lot like a yes-man. Nothing wrong with liking the beta but your defense of its obvious defects and the way you defend them doesn't reflect well on you.

Just sayin'.

Alex

Dear Alex,

please stop being such a ******.

We've given you examples of why charging can be beneficial. Is your stance that charging should always be the best option, or do you refute that charging is ever a good idea? We can have the discussion if you make your stance known, rather than just flaunting non-existing authority in the face of well-formed arguments.

EDIT: The swear filter here is aggressive! What I called you wasn't actually so bad. Guess our imaginations will run wild, though!

Well, if someone in the light of the Warhammer tabletops suggests to me that charging shouldn't be more beneficial than not, I do question the intelligence of their remarks. And if you was to agree with such a notion, I would question yours too.

To recap:

"Why? Again, it's actually quite good strategy to make your opponent come to you and make themselves vulnerable by charging at you."

I'll email GW and tell them that in 40K 7E they should give the charged unit +2 A. Because charging makes you vulnerable in melee. Oh, and maybe +1S to the charger. (As for whether that balances out, that's not the point. The point is in whether that makes sense and if it's what one wants combat to run like.)

Alex

I have nowhere said that "charging shouldn't be more beneficial than not". I have said that sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. There's a whole range of factors that affect it and this is part of what makes it an interesting tactical choice. Do you need the damage bonus from charging because your enemy is tough and hard to damage? Or do you want to take a more careful and skilled approach that might net you more hits, but each one weaker? Do you want to wamt to carry a weapon well-suited to charging (e.g. it has a RoF of 1) or something better for receiving a charge with and using in quick, sustained combat (e.g. something with a fast RoF). Should you charge and hope to get the crucial advantage of the first attack, taking down your enemy before they get a chance to harm you? Or do you want to force them to come to you, hoping to avoid their charge and gain the benefit of being more prepared? These are all very interesting to me. Not only do I see merit in the existing system therefore, but the one proposal I recall you making for how to change this, had a serious list of flaws which I raised and which you have not addressed .

Also, although I like power levels to be kept in line with the Table Top games - e.g. an ork is an ork and a plasma pistol is a plasma pistol, DH does not operate on the same level of granularity or time scales as table top (except perhaps Necromunda). That single attack roll is a series of feints and blows in DH. That single Wound point is a number of increasingly harmful injuries. If you were to say to me: "the plasma pistol in DH is weaker than the Laspistol and this clashes with how things are in the table top version" and that was so, then I would agree with you that it should be changed. But to say "DH offers a wider range of more detailed and nuanced options than the more abstract table top game and these should be reduced so that it always follows the more simplistic approach of table top" I would disagree with that. It would be giving up a lot for no benefit. And this is effectively what you are saying.

Well, it's sort of what you are saying - it's a consequence of what you say you want when you talk of how you should email Games Workshop to tell them the tabletop should change to suit a condition that can sometimes arise in DH. But in actual effect, although you convey you think this, the only concrete rules proposals I recall you putting forward, don't achieve this and cause significant problems. In effect, although you are making mocking comments about what is there, I don't actually see any way put forward by you in its place that does what you want. All you've actually said in the above is that effectively you want to prevent a possible circumstance in DH (one of multiple possible effects of charging) because it never happens in table top. I don't see why, in and of itself, that is a good thing for the DH game.

1) There's no benefit to being charged, if it was the charger's intention to get into melee anyway. You have not made a case for why it's a bad thing to charge someone, except in the case that you miss your attack (which would also be a bad thing if you had just moved in there).

Charging gives you an advantage. Whether or not it's a big advantage is debatable, but it's definitely an advantage. Either way, you're definitely not giving the person being charged any advantage. The case may be different if you did not want to get into melee, but then you shouldn't be charging in the first place

Indeed. The degree of advantage to charging is variable and in a sub-set of circumstances, a skilled attacker can be better off making a more casual advance and attack (this circumstance is generally that of a superior attacker fighting weaker opponents). But it is an optional advantage and therefore a consistent advantage. In the occasional circumstances where it isn't to your advantage to do a Charge action against someone you want to melee, then you don't have to do one. You can do a regular Move and Melee Attack (1 AP) action for the same cost.

Though typically with the way DoS and RoF work together, you're very often best off charging.

Also, the current tabletop rules really shouldn't dictate (although they might influence ) how Dark Heresy works, nor should my experience with the tabletop give you leave to question my intelligence.

I'm of the opinion DH should be consistent with TT in terms of fluff and power levels. E.g. if a Wraithblade in TT has two ghostswords and more armour than a standard Imperial Guardsman, then their equivalent in DH should probably shouldn't have a shuriken pistol and armour worse than flak. But I see no reason to reduce the rules of DH to be as simple as Table Top. And it's clear that so long as you allow more granularity and detail in DH than you do in Table Top, then inevitably, you will start incorporating circumstances and details that mean things can sometimes be at variance. Though it's again worth highlighting that ak_37 is basing their objection here on the fact that in the right circumstances, with the right weapons and skill / strength differences, charging can be at variance to the TT game, not that it typically is.

If an argument is to be made that something is wrong because it can sometimes produce a circumstance at variance with table top, I require an argument to be made as to why being at variance with Table Top trumps other negative effects of changing the DH rules such as the loss of realism in this case.

Getting back to the matter at hand, what if attacks on the charge gain the Concussive (0) quality? If the weapon already has Concussive, it can be +1 instead.

Getting back to the matter at hand, what if attacks on the charge gain the Concussive (0) quality? If the weapon already has Concussive, it can be +1 instead.

Is this instead of the damage bonus or in place of? It would mean that the person charged could well lose their ability to hit back at the person who has charged them. It would be a bit odd for some weapons as well. (knife, sword, etc.). I could see a group of PCs fighting an especially tough opponent staggering their charges so that they could keep re-inflicting the Dazed condition. Even a character with a low damage potential disengaging and re-charging each round just to re-inflict the Toughness test.

I'm still of the opinion that Charging is fine as is, tbh.

Getting back to the matter at hand, what if attacks on the charge gain the Concussive (0) quality? If the weapon already has Concussive, it can be +1 instead.

I don't know. If the problem is in the disparity of attacks (with the person being charged having potentially more attacks to strike back), maybe one should try apply a patch that fixes this disparity. I think the rule that you cannot strike back with more AP than the charger had left when he entered melee range isn't too bad. It means that if you have a melee weapon with low ROF, you better have a delayed action to strike as enemy moves in. You could house rule that in such a situation even an attack with the Eviscerator can still be done - as the backswing of the impending attack could be considered part of the delayed action (getting a refund of the 1 AP if you actually strike). No reactions for parry/dodge left though.

Alex

Getting back to the matter at hand, what if attacks on the charge gain the Concussive (0) quality? If the weapon already has Concussive, it can be +1 instead.

I don't know. If the problem is in the disparity of attacks (with the person being charged having potentially more attacks to strike back), maybe one should try apply a patch that fixes this disparity. I think the rule that you cannot strike back with more AP than the charger had left when he entered melee range isn't too bad. It means that if you have a melee weapon with low ROF, you better have a delayed action to strike as enemy moves in. You could house rule that in such a situation even an attack with the Eviscerator can still be done - as the backswing of the impending attack could be considered part of the delayed action (getting a refund of the 1 AP if you actually strike). No reactions for parry/dodge left though.

Alex

That's the third time you've proposed a rule whereby the attacked cannot spend more AP fighting back than the attacker has left, but you've never responded to posts from others of us pointing out the serious problems that raises.

You're trying to introduce a way of simulating simultaneous movement into a rules system built around sequential actions based on initiative rolls. Which inevitably introduces a range of complications and inconsistencies.

Some of the issues I can immediately think of based on this -

• You have effectively created a system whereby someone can deny others the ability to use their AP.

Basically, so long as I time my move right, perhaps getting a couple of shots off at my opponent before I charge him, then that opponent is severely limited in their ability to hurt me back. Maybe prevented from even trying. Example scenario. I am three metres away from an opponent and have a laspistol and sword in hand. I shoot my opponent twice (2AP), then charge my opponent (1AP), then attack my opponent (1AP) getting a +3 to damage. My opponent who has 4AP, only gets to use 1AP to attack me back. And if they have a weapon with less than 1 RoF or need to ready the weapon, they can't hit back at all. Great - now I can kite people I'm in melee combat with!

N.b. that in this latest proposal iteration, defender can spend more AP, but just not on attacks. That's going to raise all sorts of realism problems a la "So, I can't punch him back, but I can re-load my weapon or prime a grenade?"

• You have created a chaining system that makes no sense

A charges B who charges C who charges D who charges A. Or with fewer steps if you like. It creates Crazy Physics where B doesn't have time to fully attack A, but can go all out on attacking C, who now doesn't have time to attack B because they only just got there, but can change weapons, re-load and attack D who because C took all that time before they attacked, can't strike back at them at all with their Chainaxe but can hit A twice with it - who the person they charged could only have 1AP to fight back but can now be attacked by someone with 4AP. If you set up a A->B->C->D->B chain, then you're actually going back in time!

This is what I'm talking about when I say introducing a system designed to simulate simultaneous movement in a system that works on actions in initiative order, produces bizarre and unforeseen effects. Unless you want to model fights with flowcharts showing who has attacked who and in what order, you're going to find this complex at some point. And it will certainly break realism which to me is very important.

• You make Charging a hugely effective tool that puts defenders at a massive disadvantage (in this latest iteration, you are requiring the defender to keep a delayed action in case they are charged

Aside from all the other issues, this changes Charging from being a simple small bonus to damage to something of profound tactical control and abuse potential. In the existing system, winning initiative and being able to charge already gives you the advantage of having a chance to take out your opponent before they can hurt you and optionally, to trade a couple of potential hits for a bonus to damage (better in a lot of circumstances). Your proposal takes this and adds on the ability to effectively deny your opponent the chance to strike back properly. A huge tactical benefit. Combine this with party-level tactics, and you can create lethal combos where PCs stagger charges. Instead of charging being something you try to get if you can, the game becomes one of carefully checking distances and moving in and out of range trying to get that all important first charge.

• It provides a way for people with high RoF weapons to block people with low RoF weapons from attacking at all.

Goodbye Powerfists - you'll never beat someone armed with a knife now!

This stuff has been raised every time you propose this change but you never respond to it. You've also not explained why you think Charging needs to be beefed up or why DH2 actions should be limited to effects replicable in Table Top which you seemed to give as your reason earlier.

• You have effectively created a system whereby someone can deny others the ability to use their AP.

Basically, so long as I time my move right, perhaps getting a couple of shots off at my opponent before I charge him, then that opponent is severely limited in their ability to hurt me back. Maybe prevented from even trying. Example scenario. I am three metres away from an opponent and have a laspistol and sword in hand. I shoot my opponent twice (2AP), then charge my opponent (1AP), then attack my opponent (1AP) getting a +3 to damage. My opponent who has 4AP, only gets to use 1AP to attack me back. And if they have a weapon with less than 1 RoF or need to ready the weapon, they can't hit back at all. Great - now I can kite people I'm in melee combat with!

N.b. that in this latest proposal iteration, defender can spend more AP, but just not on attacks. That's going to raise all sorts of realism problems a la "So, I can't punch him back, but I can re-load my weapon or prime a grenade?"

Restricting the use of AP is the point, as the defender cannot hit the charger before he has actually arrived. You might want to take note that it's possible to make one attack per turn only. Maybe less immediate thinking and more thoughtfulness would help. And the priming of the grenade and the readying of weapons takes place as the charger moves towards the attacker.

• You have created a chaining system that makes no sense

A charges B who charges C who charges D who charges A. Or with fewer steps if you like. It creates Crazy Physics where B doesn't have time to fully attack A, but can go all out on attacking C, who now doesn't have time to attack B because they only just got there, but can change weapons, re-load and attack D who because C took all that time before they attacked, can't strike back at them at all with their Chainaxe but can hit A twice with it - who the person they charged could only have 1AP to fight back but can now be attacked by someone with 4AP. If you set up a A->B->C->D->B chain, then you're actually going back in time!

This is what I'm talking about when I say introducing a system designed to simulate simultaneous movement in a system that works on actions in initiative order, produces bizarre and unforeseen effects. Unless you want to model fights with flowcharts showing who has attacked who and in what order, you're going to find this complex at some point. And it will certainly break realism which to me is very important.

Of course, B can move and attack C as normal. And the limits on AP for doing so depends on how much movement B requires to be in range of C. And if C can't attack B because they just made contact, C can't go all-out on B either.

As above, your fault-finding is not properly thought through. The principle this suggested possible is based upon is quite simple: if the charger loses 2 AP moving in, you have 2 less AP for striking back. Both of you have the same limit.

So let me briefly reiterate it: the conversation with you strikes me as unintelligent.

• You make Charging a hugely effective tool that puts defenders at a massive disadvantage (in this latest iteration, you are requiring the defender to keep a delayed action in case they are charged

Aside from all the other issues, this changes Charging from being a simple small bonus to damage to something of profound tactical control and abuse potential. In the existing system, winning initiative and being able to charge already gives you the advantage of having a chance to take out your opponent before they can hurt you and optionally, to trade a couple of potential hits for a bonus to damage (better in a lot of circumstances). Your proposal takes this and adds on the ability to effectively deny your opponent the chance to strike back properly. A huge tactical benefit. Combine this with party-level tactics, and you can create lethal combos where PCs stagger charges. Instead of charging being something you try to get if you can, the game becomes one of carefully checking distances and moving in and out of range trying to get that all important first charge.

I have no idea what you are talking yourself into above. I didnt even read it completely. However, I will tell you this:

If I am standing on a snowy field and with only a melee weapon and see one with an axe charging me, it makes very much sense to go Delay and try to hit him as he tries to hit me. That is an accurate modeling of pseudo-reality as seen in countless movies. If you choose to busy yourself with finger-twiddling instead, well, yes. The charger will have an advantage.

That is not a bug, that is a feature.

It provides a way for people with high RoF weapons to block people with low RoF weapons from attacking at all.

Goodbye Powerfists - you'll never beat someone armed with a knife now!

This stuff has been raised every time you propose this change but you never respond to it. You've also not explained why you think Charging needs to be beefed up or why DH2 actions should be limited to effects replicable in Table Top which you seemed to give as your reason earlier.

Everything has been addressed. If you have a Power Fist and someone is charging you, you better have taken the time to prepare for the attack. If you busy yourself with something else, then the swift knife charger will probably be able to keep you from immediately striking back. Again, this is intended. There's always next round if you survive.

Alex

I think adding more complexity to the system is a step in the wrong direction. DH combat should be fast and vicious, and this edition seems to accomplish that pretty well, I wouldn't want to complicate things further with huge, complex changes to charging.

If I am standing on a snowy field and with only a melee weapon and see one with an axe charging me, it makes very much sense to go Delay and try to hit him as he tries to hit me.

This is purely nitpicky, and I have to apologize for largely not paying much attention to this discussion since it started, but I feel this suggestion on your part is missing out on a key detail of this system as its written:

Delay no longer can interrupt a turn. Delay allows you to active your turn again between the turns of other characters, but does not have some sort of interruptive feature to it.

• You have effectively created a system whereby someone can deny others the ability to use their AP.

Basically, so long as I time my move right, perhaps getting a couple of shots off at my opponent before I charge him, then that opponent is severely limited in their ability to hurt me back. Maybe prevented from even trying. Example scenario. I am three metres away from an opponent and have a laspistol and sword in hand. I shoot my opponent twice (2AP), then charge my opponent (1AP), then attack my opponent (1AP) getting a +3 to damage. My opponent who has 4AP, only gets to use 1AP to attack me back. And if they have a weapon with less than 1 RoF or need to ready the weapon, they can't hit back at all. Great - now I can kite people I'm in melee combat with!

N.b. that in this latest proposal iteration, defender can spend more AP, but just not on attacks. That's going to raise all sorts of realism problems a la "So, I can't punch him back, but I can re-load my weapon or prime a grenade?"

Restricting the use of AP is the point, as the defender cannot hit the charger before he has actually arrived. You might want to take note that it's possible to make one attack per turn only. Maybe less immediate thinking and more thoughtfulness would help. And the priming of the grenade and the readying of weapons takes place as the charger moves towards the attacker.

Again, ignoring the insults and patronizing and focusing on the content, I know that is your point. What I'm doing is pointing out the negative consequences of it. For example, that it allows you to limit what another character can do by limiting yourself. Your system effectively ties two characters together and allows one to dictate how the other may spend their AP. E.g. I can stop someone spending all their AP on attacking me simply by running toward them. If I stood where I was, they would be able to spend all those AP attacking me if they wished. Your system allows me to control another player's time.

Your further expansion above, actually makes things worse in a way in that it now allows players to retroactively perform things after they should have happened. For example, you say the readying of a weapon or priming of a grenade happens whilst the attacker is running toward me, but I don't have that weapon readied at the point that I am attacked, quite probably affecting the output of the attack. Or I have a primed grenade in my hand. So if I'm slow, but I am attacked by someone fast, then have I acted ahead of my initiative pass? What about when the second person I'm already in combat with reaches their turn - they could have attacked me before I had a weapon readied, but now thanks to being attacked by their faster friend, I have it. You see? It creates all sorts of complicated situations of which this is just a simple one. What if what I was going to do was shoot the attack or do some other action that might affect their attack - turn on a powerfield, jump into cover? All sorts of timey-wimey problems begin to occur. You've also skipped over even more serious issues in the above such as how limiting someone else's AP effectively lets me kite them in combat. Particularly when I work with my team mates.

• You have created a chaining system that makes no sense

A charges B who charges C who charges D who charges A. Or with fewer steps if you like. It creates Crazy Physics where B doesn't have time to fully attack A, but can go all out on attacking C, who now doesn't have time to attack B because they only just got there, but can change weapons, re-load and attack D who because C took all that time before they attacked, can't strike back at them at all with their Chainaxe but can hit A twice with it - who the person they charged could only have 1AP to fight back but can now be attacked by someone with 4AP. If you set up a A->B->C->D->B chain, then you're actually going back in time!

This is what I'm talking about when I say introducing a system designed to simulate simultaneous movement in a system that works on actions in initiative order, produces bizarre and unforeseen effects. Unless you want to model fights with flowcharts showing who has attacked who and in what order, you're going to find this complex at some point. And it will certainly break realism which to me is very important.

Of course, B can move and attack C as normal. And the limits on AP for doing so depends on how much movement B requires to be in range of C. And if C can't attack B because they just made contact, C can't go all-out on B either.

Well then that is a big problem. Because now everyone is affecting how much time every one else has with each other unilaterally. And as pointed out, you can make circular chains that make no sense. All the above does is restate my example whilst leaving off the list of problems I showed resulted from it.

As above, your fault-finding is not properly thought through. The principle this suggested possible is based upon is quite simple: if the charger loses 2 AP moving in, you have 2 less AP for striking back. Both of you have the same limit.

So let me briefly reiterate it: the conversation with you strikes me as unintelligent.

It's more of a re-re-reiteration by this point. You keep telling me (and other posters) that we're unintelligent, but I'm not seeing anything that actually contradicts what I wrote. I understand your principle, as clearly demonstrated by the fact that my arguments are all based on the consequences of applying it. You've created a system that throws up all sorts of inconsistences with the rest of the turn sequence and introduced some serious tactical changes to approach. Traditionally charging has simply made your attack more powerful (as it does in DH2 for most cases with a few exceptions - typically when fighting weaker opponents). Under your proposed changes, Charging is now a potentially devastating defence mechanism - if you're outmatched by a foe: charge them.

You gloss over all sorts of things. For example: you try to make an equivalence saying "both of you now have the same limit" but as explored earlier, this can provide a character with a high RoF device stopping someone with a lower RoF device from being able to attack before. As I gave earlier as an example - knives now beat power fists. This is a negative to me. And as pointed out, by working together, characters can play rules-exploitative tricks on a defending character.

• You make Charging a hugely effective tool that puts defenders at a massive disadvantage (in this latest iteration, you are requiring the defender to keep a delayed action in case they are charged

Aside from all the other issues, this changes Charging from being a simple small bonus to damage to something of profound tactical control and abuse potential. In the existing system, winning initiative and being able to charge already gives you the advantage of having a chance to take out your opponent before they can hurt you and optionally, to trade a couple of potential hits for a bonus to damage (better in a lot of circumstances). Your proposal takes this and adds on the ability to effectively deny your opponent the chance to strike back properly. A huge tactical benefit. Combine this with party-level tactics, and you can create lethal combos where PCs stagger charges. Instead of charging being something you try to get if you can, the game becomes one of carefully checking distances and moving in and out of range trying to get that all important first charge.

I have no idea what you are talking yourself into above. I didnt even read it completely.

Well, in that case, there's little point in my repeating it. It's right there above should you wish to read what you're replying to.

However, I will tell you this:

If I am standing on a snowy field and with only a melee weapon and see one with an axe charging me, it makes very much sense to go Delay and try to hit him as he tries to hit me. That is an accurate modeling of pseudo-reality as seen in countless movies. If you choose to busy yourself with finger-twiddling instead, well, yes. The charger will have an advantage.

Delay doesn't work that way. You don't get to decide to go in the middle of someone else's turn once they've started acting.

That is not a bug, that is a feature.

It provides a way for people with high RoF weapons to block people with low RoF weapons from attacking at all.

Goodbye Powerfists - you'll never beat someone armed with a knife now!

This stuff has been raised every time you propose this change but you never respond to it. You've also not explained why you think Charging needs to be beefed up or why DH2 actions should be limited to effects replicable in Table Top which you seemed to give as your reason earlier.

Everything has been addressed. If you have a Power Fist and someone is charging you, you better have taken the time to prepare for the attack. If you busy yourself with something else, then the swift knife charger will probably be able to keep you from immediately striking back. Again, this is intended. There's always next round if you survive.

Alex

There isn't a way to "prepare yourself". Is this going back to your misunderstanding of the Delay rule? Because again, even if it did work that way, you'd still have to have won initiative in which case, under your rules changes, you'd almost always be better off charging your opponent if you could.

I think it's a negative for both realism and for game balance, to say that because you attack someone with a knife, that person cannot hit you with their powerfist. I think you're not really appreciating the way the AP rules work. Look at what you're saying:

You think that a defender with a Power Fist could hit back if they had a Delay action (we'll ignore that it doesn't work that way for a second) because they had prepared. Well how is that different from them keeping back 4AP which they haven't spent yet? In the one scenario you are wanting to limit their AP because it's unrealistic for them to have the time to hit their attacker in the short period left after the attacker has charged. In the second scenario, it's suddenly fine for the defender to go all out and use all of them, so long as they do it in the last metre. These are inconsistent with each other. If you adjust one for reasons of realism, you should adjust the other. Ergo, offering one as a defence of the other being broken is contradictory.

Though it's academic as the DH2 rules don't work that way.

EDIT: By the way, if you want to force an entire group of enemies to do be unable to attack you under this rules proposal, perform a Thunder Charge right through the middle of all of them.

Honestly, I don't see the point in enduring the insults - though I commend the effort, knasserll. ak-73 has reached Internet Troll level - the discussion is pointless.

Which is fine, really. His suggestion is so ridiculous that there's no way FFG will consider it. There's no risk of him breaking the game here.

Let's move along to actual issues.

Honestly, I don't see the point in enduring the insults - though I commend the effort, knasserll. ak-73 has reached Internet Troll level - the discussion is pointless.

Which is fine, really. His suggestion is so ridiculous that there's no way FFG will consider it. There's no risk of him breaking the game here.

Let's move along to actual issues.

I suppose you're right. I was just trying to explain the point but I suppose when you've laid it out three times, it gets boring for everyone. I just wanted him to understand the issues that the suggestion would cause. But yes, there's little reason why I should put up with repeated questioning of my intelligence.