A Rule You Would Change

[chicop76]

And today's best armies around the world haven't 99% abandoned automatic fire for riflemen because it's expensive. It just doesn't work very well unless you're firing an actual machine gun. There are virtually no circumstances in which a three-round burst from a rifle or carbine puts more rounds into the enemy per period of time than rapid aimed single shots. Even in very close quarters, such as room clearing, all the actual soldiers I've talked to or read say they prefer single shots.

Never said that wasn't the case. Training makes a difference. Today it is discouraged to go full automatic. Also your job is probably 3 careers lumped into one.

Traning with finite resources is different when training with a huge resource base.

Today's military is thought to avoid over kill and not waste man power. In both periods mentioned we had manpower and resources. In nam for example it was common for troops to unload full automatic at a certain area hoping they hit something. Was it effective not really.

The point is the only race that even shows modern tactics is the Tau and Eldar. While everyone else have the WWII-Vietnam era train of thinking on how to conduct war. How often humanity would wipe out a planet when they could had hit the problem at the source.

[chicop76]

And today's best armies around the world haven't 99% abandoned automatic fire for riflemen because it's expensive. It just doesn't work very well unless you're firing an actual machine gun. There are virtually no circumstances in which a three-round burst from a rifle or carbine puts more rounds into the enemy per period of time than rapid aimed single shots. Even in very close quarters, such as room clearing, all the actual soldiers I've talked to or read say they prefer single shots.

Never said that wasn't the case. Training makes a difference. Today it is discouraged to go full automatic. Also your job is probably 3 careers lumped into one.

Traning with finite resources is different when training with a huge resource base.

Today's military is thought to avoid over kill and not waste man power. In both periods mentioned we had manpower and resources. In nam for example it was common for troops to unload full automatic at a certain area hoping they hit something. Was it effective not really.

The point is the only race that even shows modern tactics is the Tau and Eldar. While everyone else have the WWII-Vietnam era train of thinking on how to conduct war. How often humanity would wipe out a planet when they could had hit the problem at the source.

[Dimitrios]

The one rule that bugs me the most is as follows:

A marine is surrounded on all sides by orks... flighing above said orks are deff koptpas... behind the orks are battlewagons... and behind the battlewagons are gargants... Everywhere the marine looks is ork... and yet... he aims his bolter and fires into the crowd and manages to roll snake eyes... not a single model is hit...

Or a guardsman, standing infront of an immobilised landraider... he points the nossle of his melta gun against the hull... however rolles a 2 and the shot misses...

NEITHER of these scenarios makes any sence to me, therefore i would like the shooting rules to be modified to EITHER:

1. Within 2 inches, all shooting attacks hit automatically. No dice roll is required.

OR:

0 - 2 inches = +2 to hit
2 - 6 inches = +1 to hit
6 - half range = normal balistic skill
half range - full range = -1 to hit
full range + 6 inches = -2 to hit
full range + 12 inches = -3 to hit
full range + 18 incges = -4 to hit... ETC ETC...

This brings shooting back in line with HOW IT SHOULD WORK... and not make all shots hit with exactly the same accuracy irrespective of the range of the firer to the target...

Certain weapons would modify this table, i.e sniper rifles could ignore this rule... auspex and other equipment would reduce the long ranged penalties... Imperial guard could order a squad to use tracer rounds on order to increase the accuracy of all other squads firing at the target ETC ETC...

This mechanic works very well in fantasy but would need to be modified to not be SO detrimental to the game...

[ElectricPaladin]

This mechanic works very well in fantasy but would need to be modified to not be SO detrimental to the game...

A similar mechanic works well in Fantasy, but what you're describing is way more extreme.

[Nurglitch]

Alternately there's a million different reasons why he could miss, or simply not fire, and considering the normal distribution stipulating a flat 3+ and calling it a day is good enough.

[DarkLink]

If you think that just because you're close, you should autohit, then you've never been in a firefight of any sort. Even just from paintballing in high school, I can tell you that's nonsense.

Besides, that degree of range modifiers wouldn't add anything to the game. Complexity for the sake of complexity is not fun

[Weidekuh]

The one rule that bugs me the most is as follows:

A marine is surrounded on all sides by orks... flighing above said orks are deff koptpas... behind the orks are battlewagons... and behind the battlewagons are gargants... Everywhere the marine looks is ork... and yet... he aims his bolter and fires into the crowd and manages to roll snake eyes... not a single model is hit...

Or a guardsman, standing infront of an immobilised landraider... he points the nossle of his melta gun against the hull... however rolles a 2 and the shot misses...

NEITHER of these scenarios makes any sence to me, therefore i would like the shooting rules to be modified to EITHER:

This brings shooting back in line with HOW IT SHOULD WORK... and not make all shots hit with exactly the same accuracy irrespective of the range of the firer to the target...

Both scenarios are actually quite plausible, even if rare.

Have you ever seen a player in a hockey or football match miss the goal while standing just in front of it? It happens.

Your guy firing the meltagun could have slipped, got distracted (it's a warzone, yes?), scared, accidently pressed the wrong button, have a weapon malfunction or something else. Take your pick.

[Spamthulhu]

I would get rid of Instant Death for strength alone. Fixes a lot of annoyances for numerous armies and makes characters less vulnerable. It should be a special rule granted to some weapons not any high strength weapon.

[chicop76]

I would get rid of Instant Death for strength alone. Fixes a lot of annoyances for numerous armies and makes characters less vulnerable. It should be a special rule granted to some weapons not any high strength weapon.

Nooooooooooooooooo!

That wouod make models like tyranid warriors really good. Heck I woukd field more crisis suits. Let's not talk about the Doom of Marlarti. The Doom would be much better.

[Wolfshade]

Way back in 2nd edition there was all kinds of +/- ve modifiers to hit, Dimitrios. It became a little clunky.

The other issue there is then the next logical step is to give +/-ve modifiers for being obscured or fast moving ro some other reason a target is difficult to hit.

E.g. why is it easier to hit someone hiding in a ruin than it is a man in the open slightly further away?

This then can lead to the double counting of the effects of cover. So the whole cover mechanic would need to removed from the save aspect. This also effects night fighting and makes cover more situational.

The knock on effect is that it changes how cover saves work and the night fighting mechanices, and so on and so forth.