Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I think most everyone would agree that Strength 'D' weapons in the OLD Apocalypse rules were quite overpowered, and then in the current incarnation of Apocalypse GW seemed to have completely lost its mind and made them MORE powerful while still leaving them points-wise as an even swap with any other weapon the Super-Heavy vehicle is allowed to take! This obviously makes Apocalypse (and now regular 40K with the Escalation supplement) into the two simple questions of: how many D templates can you fit into your army and who gets to go first?

So how should GW have made Strength D weapons work in the current Apocalypse? Its very simple (in my mind)...'D' weapons should be those weapons designed to take out large targets (Super-Heavies & Gargantuan Creatures), not just weapons that are great at killing everything. That way, you actually have a decision to make when taking your big baddies...do you want to arm them to take on other big baddies, or do you want to take other types of weapons that are better at doing other stuff.

The first big thing that should have been changed is that 'D' weapons should have had a Strength listed (along with an AP), and 'Destroyer' should just be a special rule listed for the 'type' of the weapon. But since no current rules are written this way, we'll just assume that all current 'D' weapons have a S9 and an AP2 and the 'Destroyer' special rule (along with any other special rules they have).

So here's my theory on what the revised 'Destroyer Weapon' rule should have been:


DESTROYER WEAPON

If a weapon has 'D' listed as its strength, then assume it has a Strength of 9.

When placing a Destroyer Weapon blast marker, one hit that is inflicted counts as being a special 'Destroyer' hit. This special Destroyer hit must be resolved upon the unit that the center hole of the blast marker was placed over. All other hits caused by the weapon are resolved normally. If a Destroyer weapon isn't a blast weapon, then all hits caused by it count as being a 'Destroyer' hit.

Do not roll to wound or for armor penetration for a Destroyer hit, but instead roll on the following tables:


D6....Vehicle or Building
1.......Clipped: The model suffers 1 glancing hit. If a Super-Heavy Vehicle or Massive Fortification, lose an additional +1 Hull Point.
2-4...Solid Hit: The model suffers 1 penetrating hit resolved at AP1. If a Super-Heavy Vehicle or Massive Fortification, lose an additional +1 Hull Point.
5-6...Devastating Hit: The model suffers 2 penetrating hits resolved at AP1. If a Super-Heavy Vehicle or Massive Fortification, lose an additional +D3 Hull Points.


D6.....Non-vehicle Model
1.......Wounded: The model suffers 1 wound resolved at S10 for the purposes of instant death. Add +1 additional wound if a Gargantuan Creature.
2-4...Seriously Wounded: The model suffers D3 wounds resolved at S10 for the purposes of instant death. Add +1 additional wound if a Gargantuan Creature.
5-6...Deathblow: The model suffers 2D3 wounds resolved at S10 for the purposes of instant death. Add +2 additional wounds if a Gargantuan Creature.


No saving throws of any kind are allowed against damage inflicted by Destroyer hits, including special rolls such as Feel No Pain. Abilities that allow models to return to play like Necron Reanimation Protocols cannot be used if the model is removed from play by a Destroyer hit.


-----


So what does this accomplish? Two things mainly: The unit that the center hole of the blast is over still gets a single devastating hit resolved against that ignores all saves. This means if you put the center of the blast over a Super-Heavy or Gargantuan creature, then you're still doing massive damage (although certainly less than the current Apoc standards). But the key here is that all the other hits caused by the blast can now be saved by cover, invulnerable saves, etc. So this makes 'D' weapons great at still packing a wallop on super-heavies, gargantuan creatures, regular vehicles and lone monstrous creatures (things you can put the center hole of the blast over and know it is going to have to go onto them), it isn't all that great against any other type of unit hiding in terrain or that has beefy invulnerable saves.

What do you think? Does this nerf 'D' weapons so far that you'd never take them anymore? Or do you think they'd still be too powerful with these rules?

After watching this:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/566996.page

I think this is a great idea!

I think Destroyer weapons should only be S10 AP1. They're obviously powerful, so give them another ability: Invulnerable saves, FnP, etc can be taken, but invuln saves must be taken a -1, so 3++ becomes 4++.

 McNinja wrote:
I think Destroyer weapons should only be S10 AP1. They're obviously powerful, so give them another ability: Invulnerable saves, FnP, etc can be taken, but invuln saves must be taken a -1, so 3++ becomes 4++.

But that just turns them into the king infantry killer (because they won't cause enough damage/wounds to bother a Super-Heavy or Gargantuan Creature at all if that was the case). While that's an okay concept, it completely tears them away from what they're supposed to be, which is Super-Heavy/Gargantuan Creature killers.

And that's the thing. GW just made them good at killing EVERYTHING instead of making them just extra good at killing the big things like they should have been. They shouldn't be all that great at killing infantry, or else there's simply no reason to take any other weapon options.

 yakface wrote:

 McNinja wrote:
I think Destroyer weapons should only be S10 AP1. They're obviously powerful, so give them another ability: Invulnerable saves, FnP, etc can be taken, but invuln saves must be taken a -1, so 3++ becomes 4++.

But that just turns them into the king infantry killer (because they won't cause enough damage/wounds to bother a Super-Heavy or Gargantuan Creature at all if that was the case). While that's an okay concept, it completely tears them away from what they're supposed to be, which is Super-Heavy/Gargantuan Creature killers.

And that's the thing. GW just made them good at killing EVERYTHING instead of making them just extra good at killing the big things like they should have been. They shouldn't be all that great at killing infantry, or else there's simply no reason to take any other weapon options.

After re-reading your rules, I like them. The problem lies with the sheer scale of the weapons being used; of course a giant fething laser beam is going to be good at killing everything, that's what it's for. Killing things.

 McNinja wrote:

 yakface wrote:

 McNinja wrote:
I think Destroyer weapons should only be S10 AP1. They're obviously powerful, so give them another ability: Invulnerable saves, FnP, etc can be taken, but invuln saves must be taken a -1, so 3++ becomes 4++.

But that just turns them into the king infantry killer (because they won't cause enough damage/wounds to bother a Super-Heavy or Gargantuan Creature at all if that was the case). While that's an okay concept, it completely tears them away from what they're supposed to be, which is Super-Heavy/Gargantuan Creature killers.

And that's the thing. GW just made them good at killing EVERYTHING instead of making them just extra good at killing the big things like they should have been. They shouldn't be all that great at killing infantry, or else there's simply no reason to take any other weapon options.

After re-reading your rules, I like them. The problem lies with the sheer scale of the weapons being used; of course a giant fething laser beam is going to be good at killing everything, that's what it's for. Killing things.

And this is the big issue with D. If a weapon can blow the arm off a Titan, why should a Trukk be able to shrug it off?

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:

 McNinja wrote:

 yakface wrote:

 McNinja wrote:
I think Destroyer weapons should only be S10 AP1. They're obviously powerful, so give them another ability: Invulnerable saves, FnP, etc can be taken, but invuln saves must be taken a -1, so 3++ becomes 4++.

But that just turns them into the king infantry killer (because they won't cause enough damage/wounds to bother a Super-Heavy or Gargantuan Creature at all if that was the case). While that's an okay concept, it completely tears them away from what they're supposed to be, which is Super-Heavy/Gargantuan Creature killers.

And that's the thing. GW just made them good at killing EVERYTHING instead of making them just extra good at killing the big things like they should have been. They shouldn't be all that great at killing infantry, or else there's simply no reason to take any other weapon options.

After re-reading your rules, I like them. The problem lies with the sheer scale of the weapons being used; of course a giant fething laser beam is going to be good at killing everything, that's what it's for. Killing things.

And this is the big issue with D. If a weapon can blow the arm off a Titan, why should a Trukk be able to shrug it off?

Waaagh! field.

A Sentinel, then?

Nah, I don't like it. D weapons are meant to clear a massively congested board in Apocalypse. They are just where they need to be to aid a game of that size along.

As for in regular games? Well, don't think they had a place there, but I've seen plenty of people that are buying super heavies.

To the OP: if you're going to resolve hits against non-vehicles at S10, why make them S9?

greyknight12 wrote:To the OP: if you're going to resolve hits against non-vehicles at S10, why make them S9?

Because only a SINGLE hit caused by the D weapon is resolved with the Destroyer rule (which counts as being S10), whereas the rest of the hits caused by the blast are S9. The idea here is representing that a D weapon has an incredibly powerful core at the center of the blast that is specifically designed to damage massive targets (we can imagine that it needs sufficient mass to really strike home properly). So while the rest of the blast is still really devastating, the ONE hit from the center of the blast is super-powered and ignores all saves.

Matt1785 wrote:Nah, I don't like it. D weapons are meant to clear a massively congested board in Apocalypse. They are just where they need to be to aid a game of that size along.

As for in regular games? Well, don't think they had a place there, but I've seen plenty of people that are buying super heavies.

I've never understood this mindset. Why does the table need to get 'cleared' in Apoclaypse by D-Weapons? They're priced the same points as other weapons, and those weapons certainly don't 'clear the board' the same way D-Weapons do, so something is obviously very, very wrong. You can play an Apocalypse game without any D-Weapons at all (for the same points cost) and then what happens if the board doesn't get cleared? The argument makes no sense.

There simply is no point to have a weapon that is the best at everything and ignores all saves, etc. That makes it pointless to put your models into cover or do anything really because all that's going to happen is the D-Weapon is just going to vaporize your units without breaking a sweat no matter what you do.

More importantly, if you 'fix' D-weapons and make them good at one thing (and not everything), then the Escalation supplement actually *works* in regular 40k. You have a limited amount of super-heavies (one per side) and there are penalties for doing so (your opponent gets extra VPs for damaging them, special Warlord traits if they want them, and a +1 to their 'seize' roll). It is *only* the D-weapon rules that completely ruin that supplement from actually being a nice addition to standard games of 40K.

I am okay with D weapons. Weapons of that size and power should not really be survivable unless you are massive and powerful yourself.

It just has no place outside of massive Apocalypse games.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
I am okay with D weapons. Weapons of that size and power should not really be survivable unless you are massive and powerful yourself.

It just has no place outside of massive Apocalypse games.

Destroyer weapons, as they are should represent ship-based weapons. Your "massive and powerful yourself" clause doesn't mean much when a single hit from a Destroyer weapon can take a heirophant bio-titan off the table in a single hit. Let me repeat: One hit. Against a T10 model with 10 wounds. Only emperor Titans or star ships should remove models like that in a single hit. And actually, imperial orbital bombardments are my S10 AP1.

 McNinja wrote:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
I am okay with D weapons. Weapons of that size and power should not really be survivable unless you are massive and powerful yourself.

It just has no place outside of massive Apocalypse games.

Destroyer weapons, as they are should represent ship-based weapons. Your "massive and powerful yourself" clause doesn't mean much when a single hit from a Destroyer weapon can take a heirophant bio-titan off the table in a single hit. Let me repeat: One hit. Against a T10 model with 10 wounds. Only emperor Titans or star ships should remove models like that in a single hit. And actually, imperial orbital bombardments are my S10 AP1.

Then do explain to me that Sentinel surviving a direct hit from a Laser Blaster?

Because a scout walker vehicle still standing after taking a hit from a tank-buster weapon considerably larger than it is seems strange to me.

And Heirophants are T9, I think?

I think that your idea with S10/9 and everything is fine. It is no doubt better for a competetive environment. But it's not what I would use.

Just my 2 cents, not wishing to rustle any jimmies.

I would of liked to see along the lines of:

Vehicles:
1 = regular hit at st 10 roll to pen as normal. saves can be taken
2 - 5 = resolved as a penetrating hit at ap1, no save
6 = straight to explode/detention. no saves

non vehicles:
1 = 1 wound at st 10, saves can be taken
2 - 5 = d3 wounds at st 10 no saves
6 = d6 wounds all ID? no saves.

and all the super heavy stuff as op.

Just increasing their price could be feasible as well?

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
Just increasing their price could be feasible as well?

Sort of. The problem is, again, that D-weapons are good at doing EVERYTHING. A good game is one where the player has to make choices about what he wants to arm his units with and then using those armaments in the places where they'll be most effective.

D-weapons only have two 'blindspots' that they can't hurt: stuff out of LOS and flyers. Unfortunately, those aren't weaknesses tied into the design of the D-weapon, they're basic weaknesses that whole lot of weapons share.

So even if D-weapons are a whole lot more points, once you take them, they still devolve the game into 'what am I going to kill this round?' It doesn't matter if your opponent has units with great armor saves, puts his units in cover, has high AV vehicles, etc...none of it matters because D-weapons just kill what they shoot at. There is no real good vs. bad targets. And this is especially highlighted by their inclusion in regular games of 40K via Escalation. Even if you made each D-weapon cost 100 points or more, they'd still be totally worth the points cost because you can just obliterate anything you want to with them.

That's why I personally think D-weapons should have strengths and weaknesses like every other weapon. They should be good for killing some things and not so great at killing other things (just like every other weapon).

I think these are much more reasonable, Yak.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You should call this rule set: Just the tip of the D! hahaha

I agree with you sir. The weapons represented by the D classification have always been, as stated, the super weapons of the universe. Weapons which entire planets have been fought over to reclaim. They are a rare breed, and are not typically found in your average conflict; it usually takes a full on war protocol to even see titans and super heavies get into the mix, your average skirmish on the planet to claim an objective is not where they come in.

Using them in standard games of 40k removes any element of the situation remaining a "game". You are not using skill, tactics, or luck in any regard. There is no challenge to fielding them, and no hard choices to be made. You are boiling the game down to "my wallet is deeper than your wallet". That isn't a game, or a competition. You can try and argue that professional sports would largely disagree. That the teams and corporations with the best funding win out. The have an edge to be sure, and their respective components and individuals do get the best of the best in terms of training and equipment, but I cannot think of a single game or sport that, once started, someone is capable of just throwing money at it and altering the outcome.

Either the weapon system needs a revision, or the counters to what is wielding them need to be more appropriate.

@yak, I like your overall idea of the change to make to the weapon itself. I still think the scale of current games (4x6 table, detachment vs. detachment combat) is inappropriate for that kind of weapon. It makes sense in an Apocalypse game, and helped defined what is so fun in Titan Legions and Epic\Arma gameplay. Still, if you aren't facing down 20+ tanks, 40+ infantry squads, and countless other units...then honestly, how small is your epeen that you need to bring that into a game to win?

It kind of reminds me of gradeschool, when you'd get some buddies together to play rock-paper-scissors, and then the special kid with ADHD that talks too loud throws out lava and screams "LAVA BEATS EVERYTHING! THIS IS FUN!"

What D-weapons need most is a smaller blast size. If you reduce them to 3" blasts they're just as good at removing single big targets but much weaker against infantry*. If you have a choice of a Shadowsword with a single 3" blast of death vs. a Stormblade with two 7" plasma shots you now have to make a real choice. And this is even more true in normal games where, unlike in Apocalypse, hordes of infantry are a viable option you can expect to face.

Then once D-weapons are modified properly titan D-weapons need a nerf in their number of shots. Why does the Warhound get guns with stats that are identical to the ones on the Baneblade variants, except for the D-weapon which gets twice as many shots for no apparent reason? If you made the double turbolaser a single twin-linked 3" blast instead of two 5" blasts (and did something similar with the Revenant and larger titans) it would no longer be the clear default option that gives way too much firepower on a 750 point model. Alternatively, titans need a major point increase so they're no longer obviously overpowered compared to superheavy tanks.


*Remember, at maximum 2" coherency a 3" blast centered on a model can only hit that one model, and it rarely hits more than two models even with ideal scatter distance/direction.

D weapons shouldn't exist in normal 40k games. And I think that while changing the rules makes them fit better into 40k, you should never get saves from a D weapon...

Its meant to kill Titans...and you're telling me a stormshield will help? Or an Iron Halo? Or a thick cloud of smoke(Shadowfield)? /sarcasm

My point being they shouldn't be changed, they shouldn't exist in the first place. 2000 pts means a decent sized skirmish force, and unless it is a narrative campaign game there is no reason for a Revanent to be walking(-hopping?) around... And this is coming from someone who owns a Revanent. I would love to field it more, but not in games as small as 2k...that's not where it should be

Like it or not though, D weapons are in 40k now. I agree with Peregrine, small blast would let them be just as destructive on super heavies, but dispersion could make them much less useful against infantry.

Peregrine wrote:What D-weapons need most is a smaller blast size. If you reduce them to 3" blasts they're just as good at removing single big targets but much weaker against infantry*. If you have a choice of a Shadowsword with a single 3" blast of death vs. a Stormblade with two 7" plasma shots you now have to make a real choice. And this is even more true in normal games where, unlike in Apocalypse, hordes of infantry are a viable option you can expect to face.

Then once D-weapons are modified properly titan D-weapons need a nerf in their number of shots. Why does the Warhound get guns with stats that are identical to the ones on the Baneblade variants, except for the D-weapon which gets twice as many shots for no apparent reason? If you made the double turbolaser a single twin-linked 3" blast instead of two 5" blasts (and did something similar with the Revenant and larger titans) it would no longer be the clear default option that gives way too much firepower on a 750 point model. Alternatively, titans need a major point increase so they're no longer obviously overpowered compared to superheavy tanks.


*Remember, at maximum 2" coherency a 3" blast centered on a model can only hit that one model, and it rarely hits more than two models even with ideal scatter distance/direction.

I don't think that fully solves the problem as D-weapons will still obliterate any standard vehicle they touch and tear down super-heavies (and gargantuan creatures) way, way too quickly if they use the current rules, regardless of blast size.

I mean, I get what you're saying...basically leave them in the game as-is but only as vehicle and big creatures 'par excellence', but IMHO they're still too good even at just that role if you leave their rules the same and just shrink the blast size because they just AUTO-kill stuff.

I know everyone keeps saying that they're perfect for Apocalypse, but that's really a strawman argument. Apocalypse tends to be big enough that it can hide how terrible the rules are for D-weapons, but the fact is, the side with more D-weapons and/or that goes first in Apocalypse will almost always win (as long as they have enough D-weapons to cripple the opposing D-weapons before they get to go).

They are a bad, terrible rule and have no place even in Apocalypse. Anyone out there who thinks you need 'table clearers' for Apocalypse needs to just bring less models to the table (regardless of what GW says)...the rules shouldn't just be hogwash to allow you to put your stuff away and go home. They should still reward tactical thought and prudent game-playing.

jathomas2013 wrote:D weapons shouldn't exist in normal 40k games. And I think that while changing the rules makes them fit better into 40k, you should never get saves from a D weapon...

Its meant to kill Titans...and you're telling me a stormshield will help? Or an Iron Halo? Or a thick cloud of smoke(Shadowfield)? /sarcasm

My point being they shouldn't be changed, they shouldn't exist in the first place. 2000 pts means a decent sized skirmish force, and unless it is a narrative campaign game there is no reason for a Revanent to be walking(-hopping?) around... And this is coming from someone who owns a Revanent. I would love to field it more, but not in games as small as 2k...that's not where it should be

Well, that's why my suggested rules still has ONE hit that ignores all saves, representing that supernaturally powerful center of the D-weapon that can punch through anything and take out vehicles/titans/etc.

The thing about 40k games is that if you've ever played Epic, you know that a 40k game in epic is basically one detachment fighting an enemy detachment at close range...but if you think about a game as being that, there is literally no reason that a Titan or super-heavy shouldn't be involved in a 40K game at 2,000 points (or even less). A 40K game can represent a snap-shot 'zoomed-in' section of a much larger battle and it is perfectly acceptable to have a smaller titan show up and fight in that arena and there's no reason why the rules can't be reasonable and make super-heavies powerful but not OTT crazy.

My take

Destroyer- A weapon of this type has its Strength noted as D. These weapobns do not require a roll to wound or roll to penetrate vehicle armour- they automatically wound or inflict a pentrating hit. Furthermore, all Destroyer weaponbs are AP 1, and have Ignores cover and Instant Death.

And they go back to using the regular templates. 3", 5", 7", 10"

Yeh I agree with using regular templates or no templates at all, destroyer weapons using apocalyptic barrage templates aren't worth playing against.... This leading to who ever goes first wins. IDE only like to see apocalyptic barrage templates on artillery formations as a bonus to having them. To be honest giving a D weapon a blast template at all makes them over powered. THis is purely my outlook on the matter but I don't agree with apocalyptic mega blast D weapons. removing the templates from D weapons will be a start.

A little confused by the rules, Yak.

"When placing a Destroyer Weapon blast marker, one hit that is inflicted counts as being a special 'Destroyer' hit. This special Destroyer hit must be resolved upon the unit that the center hole of the blast marker was placed over."

Does this mean that if you place the blast over a Deathstar unit, one of those 'hits' to the unit can blow through the first model with no save allowed...but the rest act normally? This will do great versus the Eldar deathstar, doesn't put a dent in the Screamerstar.

What about disallowing any re-rolls even on the STR 9 AP 2 'part' of profile?

My worry is that this hard counter to the deathstars being nerfed to save other units means the deathstars become even more of a necessity and ruin the game even more than what we would have if we didn't touch it at all.

Right now, those D-weapons are powerful...but flyers, FMC, Mechanization...does well against it.

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
A little confused by the rules, Yak.

"When placing a Destroyer Weapon blast marker, one hit that is inflicted counts as being a special 'Destroyer' hit. This special Destroyer hit must be resolved upon the unit that the center hole of the blast marker was placed over."

Does this mean that if you place the blast over a Deathstar unit, one of those 'hits' to the unit can blow through the first model with no save allowed...but the rest act normally? This will do great versus the Eldar deathstar, doesn't put a dent in the Screamerstar.

What about disallowing any re-rolls even on the STR 9 AP 2 'part' of profile?

My worry is that this hard counter to the deathstars being nerfed to save other units means the deathstars become even more of a necessity and ruin the game even more than what we would have if we didn't touch it at all.

Right now, those D-weapons are powerful...but flyers, FMC, Mechanization...does well against it.

Yeah, you've got it. One hit is auto-everything, super-powered (although not quite as powerful as it is now), but the rest of the hits caused by the blast are just normal S9 AP (whatever the weapon is).

Now, you have to understand that when I say this is how D-weapons SHOULD work its not looking to 'fix' the horrible problems that GW has cornered themselves into...that's actually a terrible way to write rules. The 2++ save never should have come into existence in the first place, and once it did, the designers should have immediately errata'd it away.

But D-weapons should not be the 'solution' to killing those units, because that's not what their purpose is. Their purpose is supposed to be to take out super-heavies, so that's why my suggestion focuses those weapons back onto that purpose, but more importantly makes them good at killing some things really well, but not EVERYTHING like they currently are.

So in my fantasy world where I have the power to properly fix D-weapons to make them interesting and still tactically challenging, I would also have fixed 2++ (well, it never would have existed in the first place in my pseudo-world).


Instead, if you want D-weapons to be the 'fix' to the current ridiculous broken 40K rules (instead of what they're supposed to do), then yeah you'd just make them S10 AP1 ordnance that forces re-rolls of all saves, or something like that...But if you do make that change you have people taking D-weapons on titans to kill deathstars, which fluff-wise is not at all what D-weapons are supposed to be used for, and good game design means you make rules that encourage players to utilize weapons and units in ways that mirror how the unit/weapon is supposed to behave in the fluff.

 yakface wrote:
I mean, I get what you're saying...basically leave them in the game as-is but only as vehicle and big creatures 'par excellence', but IMHO they're still too good even at just that role if you leave their rules the same and just shrink the blast size because they just AUTO-kill stuff.

But they also cost a ton of points. I mean, a Shadowsword is 450+ points, even if it kills a vehicle every turn you're going to struggle to make its points back. And if your opponent brought an all-infantry list your Shadowsword is a 450+ point paperweight that kills one tactical marine a turn. So that makes taking the D-weapon in a TAC list a pretty big risk, and gives you a lot of incentive to take the more generalist options that won't auto-kill tanks but can make a useful contribution against infantry.

With your proposal you tone down the vehicle killing a bit, but since you keep the larger template sizes you still have a dual-role weapon and you still probably want to take the D-weapon titan over anything else.

They seem like reasonable rules to me.

I had seen somebody talk about a "target priority" rule for D Weapons in which you'd need to test to target regular vehicles and infantry if another superheavy/gargantuan creature was on the board/in range. Probably wouldn't apply to CCW though. Perhaps that would be another addition to add to your rules suggestion?

"Target priority" would really frustrate and annoy a lot of players as it is ultimately taking command and control out of the players hand and putting it to the dice, if a player see's an opportunity and fails to take it due to control going to the dice it would really annoy a lot of people, every idea is a good idea regardless so who knows what the answer will be.
I personally would like that the D weapons be toned down rather than restricted,