This has been bothering me for a rather long time. We know that most tanks in 40k move at the same speed or slower than modern tanks, we also know that anything considering itself to be an even halfway modern tank or fighting vehicle can fire on the move with good accuracy. So why can't tanks fire all their weapons all the time as they would be able to IRL?

Some might state that this is for balance purposes, but I doubt that because balance and rules are simple enough to change as needed. So is there some reason why tanks in 40k can't fire on the move in spite of having better sensors and the potential for better fire control than we have IRL?

They can't because that was the straw that broke the camel's back for why I don't play 40k any more.

I would have thought the absurd cost and ever changing rules would have done that. xP

Because suddenly Mech IG has just dominated the entire 40k table top game.

Who says Imperium tanks are so much more technologically advanced than present day? Remember, Imperium technology has been declining for over 10,000 years. They maintain their machines by praying to them.

Tau can do it - vehicle multi-trackers are explicitly described as advanced sensor suites for weapons tracking on the move.

Chaos Lord Gir wrote:Because suddenly Mech IG has just dominated the entire 40k table top game.

Wouldn't be that hard to balance with either points costs, or simply by retooling the games rules. Hell redoing the game's rules from scratch wouldn't even take that long. Looking at another gaming company we can see that wizards can push out new books for D&D 4e every month with original art assets along with doing regular errata. What's the excuse that GW is hiding behind?

Also, if it's such a huge imbalance why do most other game systems, including those designed to represent tanks lacking anything close to modern fire control, allow tanks to fire on the move with more freedom than 40k?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LoneGamer wrote:Who says Imperium tanks are so much more technologically advanced than present day? Remember, Imperium technology has been declining for over 10,000 years. They maintain their machines by praying to them.

Tau can do it - vehicle multi-trackers are explicitly described as advanced sensor suites for weapons tracking on the move.

Hmm, do we have sensor tech IRL approaching the level of an auspex device? Nope. How about things like servo skulls which show a higher degree of automation than current machines? Nope. What about servitors and other things that are either sentient machines or biological beings that have mainly mechanical brains? Nope. How about servos which are as light and powerful as those found in powered armor? Nope again. Hmm, it seems that 40k has everything needed to make turrets which can track on the move. They have the sensor tech, they have the servos to move the weapons, and they have compact and powerful computational devices.

Tanks could fire most of their weapons, that was called 4th edition! Really trying to put reality and 40k together doesnt make too much sense. For a game 30k years in the future, its funny that most battles are won by 2 ground forces that slug it out with infantry and tanks at close quarters.

It was probably a balance standpoint I suppose that back then there were too many defensive weapons. Although I think S5 should be the cutoff point so that a lot of the machine gun weapons arent left to the dust on many vehicles.

Going cruising speed, it would probably make fast vehicles less special

kenshin620 wrote:Tanks could fire most of their weapons, that was called 4th edition! Really trying to put reality and 40k together doesnt make too much sense. For a game 30k years in the future, its funny that most battles are won by 2 ground forces that slug it out with infantry and tanks at close quarters.

It was probably a balance standpoint I suppose that back then there were too many defensive weapons. Although I think S5 should be the cutoff point so that a lot of the machine gun weapons arent left to the dust on many vehicles.

Going cruising speed, it would probably make fast vehicles less special

Not really, while defensive weapons were able to fire anything that had a weapon heavier than a heavy bolter couldn't which seems rather stupid. As for reality and 40k, while I know they mix like oil and water that really shouldn't be the case. There isn't and never has been a reason why the rules can't represent fluff in a more accurate way than they do now.

As for firing at cruising speed making fast vehicles less special I have to laugh. Given that guardsmen are basic humans and can potentially cover 18" of movement per turn these 'fast' tanks are hardly that given that I doubt the guardsmen are running at anything even close to the current human maximum of ~27mph.

Well with this being said, why can't I run and shoot at the same time? Why if I'm laying down can't I shoot back blindly/wildly? Why if fighting at night do I just not shoot sometimes instead of at least trying to hit something?

These are things that lead to that silly little thing called game balance. Just because another game lets their tanks move all out and fire everything doesn't mean it's conducive for WH40k to do it as well. I'm guessing you're talking about Flames of War maybe?

Balance issues I assume. I was under the impression that the LRBT had "lumbering behemoth" which allows it to fire all its weapons in exchange for having to roll a d6 for any movement beyond 6". But yeah, orks would be fethed if all tanks could move and shoot all their weapons. Footsloggin armies would be even less viable and the whole game would devolve into who had the better tanks.

Kevin949 wrote:Well with this being said, why can't I run and shoot at the same time? Why if I'm laying down can't I shoot back blindly/wildly? Why if fighting at night do I just not shoot sometimes instead of at least trying to hit something?

These are things that lead to that silly little thing called game balance. Just because another game lets their tanks move all out and fire everything doesn't mean it's conducive for WH40k to do it as well. I'm guessing you're talking about Flames of War maybe?

So you're saying that it's somehow impossible to add more realism to 40k on the tabletop but you're not giving a whole lot of reasons why it can't be done. After all, other systems manage balance while having more realistic rules and do so using a d6 based system. Thus making the game more intuitive isn't impossible or even hard to do. I'd even argue that 28mm is playing on too small a table as is and either tables should increase to 12' by 8' or the scale should change to give more realistic ranges and movement rates.

While FoW is the first that comes to mind I bet you more games than not have rules that are more realistic and balanced than GW's.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gpfunk wrote:Balance issues I assume. I was under the impression that the LRBT had "lumbering behemoth" which allows it to fire all its weapons in exchange for having to roll a d6 for any movement beyond 6". But yeah, orks would be fethed if all tanks could move and shoot all their weapons. Footsloggin armies would be even less viable and the whole game would devolve into who had the better tanks.

Funny that other games don't have these issues then. FoW as the prime example has tank companies facing down infantry hordes and is considered to be rather well balanced. Why is it so hard for W to write decent rules? This isn't even to mention playtesting and proofreading them...

Norade wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:Well with this being said, why can't I run and shoot at the same time? Why if I'm laying down can't I shoot back blindly/wildly? Why if fighting at night do I just not shoot sometimes instead of at least trying to hit something?

These are things that lead to that silly little thing called game balance. Just because another game lets their tanks move all out and fire everything doesn't mean it's conducive for WH40k to do it as well. I'm guessing you're talking about Flames of War maybe?

So you're saying that it's somehow impossible to add more realism to 40k on the tabletop but you're not giving a whole lot of reasons why it can't be done. After all, other systems manage balance while having more realistic rules and do so using a d6 based system. Thus making the game more intuitive isn't impossible or even hard to do. I'd even argue that 28mm is playing on too small a table as is and either tables should increase to 12' by 8' or the scale should change to give more realistic ranges and movement rates.

While FoW is the first that comes to mind I bet you more games than not have rules that are more realistic and balanced than GW's.

Yes, it's impossible because nothing in this game is "real" at all. So adding realism to a game that is based off of none is...well, absurd. "Other Systems" aren't this one. Other systems have entirely different rule sets to balance out this one change you've mentioned.

Also not to mention that this would add a HUGE benefit for only a select few armies and be a huge detriment to the rest.

I also do not doubt your claim that other games have more balanced rules. Especially considering that it is only just recently that GW is finally getting around to updating 6+ year old codices.

Kevin949 wrote:

Norade wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:Well with this being said, why can't I run and shoot at the same time? Why if I'm laying down can't I shoot back blindly/wildly? Why if fighting at night do I just not shoot sometimes instead of at least trying to hit something?

These are things that lead to that silly little thing called game balance. Just because another game lets their tanks move all out and fire everything doesn't mean it's conducive for WH40k to do it as well. I'm guessing you're talking about Flames of War maybe?

So you're saying that it's somehow impossible to add more realism to 40k on the tabletop but you're not giving a whole lot of reasons why it can't be done. After all, other systems manage balance while having more realistic rules and do so using a d6 based system. Thus making the game more intuitive isn't impossible or even hard to do. I'd even argue that 28mm is playing on too small a table as is and either tables should increase to 12' by 8' or the scale should change to give more realistic ranges and movement rates.

While FoW is the first that comes to mind I bet you more games than not have rules that are more realistic and balanced than GW's.

Yes, it's impossible because nothing in this game is "real" at all. So adding realism to a game that is based off of none is...well, absurd. "Other Systems" aren't this one. Other systems have entirely different rule sets to balance out this one change you've mentioned.

Also not to mention that this would add a HUGE benefit for only a select few armies and be a huge detriment to the rest.

I also do not doubt your claim that other games have more balanced rules. Especially considering that it is only just recently that GW is finally getting around to updating 6+ year old codices.

Funny you speak about it not being real, yet fail to notice that even the fluff disagrees strongly with what we see on the table top. We get battle scenes of tanks firing on the move while traveling at some speed. While some of the crazier parts of the fluff like the acts of the Primarchs and some of the more exaggerated tales about the space marines would still need to remain as tales, I see now reason why simple things like movement differences for different infantry and tanks moving and shooting properly couldn't be added and frankly all you've said on the issue is that it can't happen. For all your can't you can't seem to give any well thought out reasons why it isn't possible.

Right now, tanks have a choice when it comes to take their turn


OPTION 1: Stay Still

GOOD: shoot all your guns, including ordinance barrage.
BAD: Auto hit in close combat, did not move.


OPTION 2: Move 6"

GOOD: can still fire 1 weapon, hit on a 4+ in combat, gained some maneuverability
BAD: Con only fire 1 gun, 4+ in combat is not great, only moved at infantry speed


OPTION 3: Move 12"

GOOD: Not on a 6+ in combat, Moved faster than infantry
BAD: Can not fire any guns



Right now, you have a tactical choice when it comes to your tanks. Sometimes it is best to stay still, sometimes better not too.

By letting tanks fire all of their guns all of the time, every tank will always move 7+ inches a turn. There is no reason not to do anything else. EVEN IF this is more "realistic", it makes for a less interesting GAME! The point of the game is the present the player with choices and let the player figure out which one is the right choice in different situations.


If you make something "always" the right choice there is no point to the game. There is nothing for the player to do other than to follow a list of instructions rather than make choices.

Look no further than Tic-Tac-Toe for an example of this. The game is solved, and if both players play correctly there is only one outcome, a draw.

Norade wrote:

Funny you speak about it not being real, yet fail to notice that even the fluff disagrees strongly with what we see on the table top. We get battle scenes of tanks firing on the move while traveling at some speed. While some of the crazier parts of the fluff like the acts of the Primarchs and some of the more exaggerated tales about the space marines would still need to remain as tales, I see now reason why simple things like movement differences for different infantry and tanks moving and shooting properly couldn't be added and frankly all you've said on the issue is that it can't happen. For all your can't you can't seem to give any well thought out reasons why it isn't possible.

Yes, well the fluff also has multi-wound models dying in one hit in CC to a standard power sword. Monoliths getting destroyed by a single melta bomb. The nightbringer afraid of a melta bomb.

I never said it wasn't possible, I'm saying it is not probable or cohesive to game balance for this rule set.

Im guessing because of the current game mechanics, if tanks can do that, then they can back paddle and fire at melee units all day, ( and GW dont want to make jumppackless melee units redundant )

Is your book full of typos? Because in my rulebook, tanks can move and shoot.

DarknessEternal wrote:Is your book full of typos? Because in my rulebook, tanks can move and shoot.

What we are talking about here is why would you have say an ork battle wagon bristling with shootas, rokkits, and cannons when you could only fire one if that thing moved even an inch

But I still stand that its all about balance

Well, you could fire all the passengers' weapons, couldn't you?

combat speed (or slower) only I believe, and only the amount of fire points it has (open topped excluded). And heavy weapons can't fire if the vehicle moved at all.

No, surely not... In the vehicles section of the rules, it clearly states that normal movement rules for heavy & rapid fire weapons don't apply. All vehicles are effectively relentless, except for their different "speed" things restrictions.

Sam__theRelentless wrote:No, surely not... In the vehicles section of the rules, it clearly states that normal movement rules for heavy & rapid fire weapons don't apply. All vehicles are effectively relentless, except for their different "speed" things restrictions.

Yes, the VEHICLE is "relentless". The units inside are NOT (unless they actually are, like terminators). But you asked about units inside the vehicle, not the vehicle itself. Check your post up above.

Okay, right. In that case, I firmly agree with svendrex: regardless of the fluff (which is just to make the game background interesting), this is the kind of rule that makes the game tactically cool.

It's a bit like in chess: Surely the rook (or "castle" in Poland) shouldn't be able to move at all? But otherwise the game just wouldn't run, in the same sense that 40k would run too much if tanks could shoot full power and move. Especially in the mech-based armies, whereby Tyranids and Orks would suddenly find themselves dead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kenshin620 wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:Is your book full of typos? Because in my rulebook, tanks can move and shoot.

What we are talking about here is why would you have say an ork battle wagon bristling with shootas, rokkits, and cannons when you could only fire one if that thing moved even an inch

But I still stand that its all about balance

Because they are busy holding on while the Trukk careens across the battlefield at high speeds (and going in circles). Or even just preparing to hold on...

All the people who seem to think this would only help some armies are looking at this wrong. In the current rules it would effect balance, but given that fact that many other more balanced systems can allow vehicles to move and shoot properly means that any competent rules would allow for increased fluff to table top representation and likely create a tighter rules system.

Norade wrote:All the people who seem to think this would only help some armies are looking at this wrong. In the current rules it would effect balance, but given that fact that many other more balanced systems can allow vehicles to move and shoot properly means that any competent rules would allow for increased fluff to table top representation and likely create a tighter rules system.

If it's so easy to do, then why don't you make a suggestion as to more balanced rules regarding tanks, their movement, and their shooting?

Furthermore, why can an assault rifle only fire twice in a round?! Or a Gatling gun only fire 4 times? Why can these weapons only fire about 30 meters? Why can a fence or hedge stop missiles, heavy-caliber bullets, lasers, and railgun slugs? The answer to all of these is the same: 40K is not a realistic game system.

Shrike325 wrote:

Norade wrote:All the people who seem to think this would only help some armies are looking at this wrong. In the current rules it would effect balance, but given that fact that many other more balanced systems can allow vehicles to move and shoot properly means that any competent rules would allow for increased fluff to table top representation and likely create a tighter rules system.

If it's so easy to do, then why don't you make a suggestion as to more balanced rules regarding tanks, their movement, and their shooting?

Furthermore, why can an assault rifle only fire twice in a round?! Or a Gatling gun only fire 4 times? Why can these weapons only fire about 30 meters? Why can a fence or hedge stop missiles, heavy-caliber bullets, lasers, and railgun slugs? The answer to all of these is the same: 40K is not a realistic game system.

Doing so would require a total rules rewrite and unfortunately I don't get paid to write rules and I doubt I would make a ton of money trying to start a new game system especially if I were to build around GW's IP. I can however point you to Warmachine/Hordes, and FoW which are rules systems that are better balanced than 40k. I'm sure i can find many more that are better written and don't have forces 6 years out of date and that don't charge you $80 a model.

I'm with the whole "it will make certain armies over powered" Mech Guard is the first that comes to mind especially if it is an Emperors Fist tank Battalion (12 or so LRBT all with sponsons being able to fire EVERYTHING per turn........ no ) while making armies such as Tyranids severely fubard.

Tazz Azrael wrote:I'm with the whole "it will make certain armies over powered" Mech Guard is the first that comes to mind especially if it is an Emperors Fist tank Battalion (12 or so LRBT all with sponsons being able to fire EVERYTHING per turn........ no ) while making armies such as Tyranids severely fubard.

Missing the fact that other armies would also see changes and the fact that I've said it would require a major rewrite to work. Are people just ignorant and not reading the entire thread before posting?

By letting tanks fire all of their guns all of the time, every tank will always move 7+ inches a turn. There is no reason not to do anything else. EVEN IF this is more "realistic", it makes for a less interesting GAME! The point of the game is the present the player with choices and let the player figure out which one is the right choice in different situations.


If you make something "always" the right choice there is no point to the game. There is nothing for the player to do other than to follow a list of instructions rather than make choices.

Like you said, it would require most if not all of the rules to be rewritten. and like svendrex said, there would be no reason not to. You'll have to either buff up the armor and toughness of other models or require the game to have tougher and more cover. In doing this, you'll be increasing the advantage melee units have over ranged units. The list of changes would go on and on. Personally, I think the way tanks play right now are perfectly balanced. Its the cover and armor saves i have a problem with. If you take cover behind a wall, does your armor all of a sudden disappear?

LoneGamer wrote:Tau can do it - vehicle multi-trackers are explicitly described as advanced sensor suites for weapons tracking on the move.

Something which the Imperial Guard also has, as described in the Gaunt's Ghosts novels?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LumenPraebeo wrote:If you take cover behind a wall, does your armor all of a sudden disappear?

I swear, every time I Hear this argument, it makes me want to punch someone in the face.

Melissia wrote:

LoneGamer wrote:Tau can do it - vehicle multi-trackers are explicitly described as advanced sensor suites for weapons tracking on the move.

Something which the Imperial Guard also has, as described in the Gaunt's Ghosts novels?.

And I hate fluff as justification for rules. The fluff is, and should be, a reflection of the game, not the other way around.

I play Warhammer 40000, I don't play Real Life Army Men and Tanks 2000.

I expect the game to have game mechanics that make me actually enjoy playing. Fluff is meant to be stories that are like wooooah, that is such a cool group of guys I want my army to be just them, but most of the heroes of the fluff stories are just guys from our codexes who rolled the perfect numbers at any point in time to create the story.

Cause if the game = fluff, then my 20 Grey Knights paladins easily take on your 2000+ Chaos Demons and take 2 or 3 casualties...just saying.

Tanks don't need to fire on the move just like Marines don't need 10 power weapon attacks per turn. Keep the fluff as the cool stories we live up to and keep real life as a small aspect of the game. Mech doesn't need buffs, really.

Melissia wrote:

LumenPraebeo wrote:If you take cover behind a wall, does your armor all of a sudden disappear?

I swear, every time I Hear this argument, it makes me want to punch someone in the face.

How does it feel to be wrong all the time?

-Seanzor: You stole my name and you live in SoCal! Do you by any chance go to the GW at portola plaza?

Melissia wrote:

LumenPraebeo wrote:If you take cover behind a wall, does your armor all of a sudden disappear?

I swear, every time I Hear this argument, it makes me want to punch someone in the face.

Why?

Vladsimpaler wrote:

Melissia wrote:

LumenPraebeo wrote:If you take cover behind a wall, does your armor all of a sudden disappear?

I swear, every time I Hear this argument, it makes me want to punch someone in the face.

How does it feel to be wrong all the time?

-Seanzor: You stole my name and you live in SoCal! Do you by any chance go to the GW at portola plaza?

I do not, I'm not quite that far south at this point in time. I might have to go drop by this mystical GW place at portola plaza one day. Good community??

LumenPraebeo wrote:

Melissia wrote:

LumenPraebeo wrote:If you take cover behind a wall, does your armor all of a sudden disappear?

I swear, every time I Hear this argument, it makes me want to punch someone in the face.

Why?

Because a 4+ cover save and then a 3+/4+ or even 5+ armour save would leave no wounds whatsoever.

Again, it's part of the game not necessarily being "balanced", but "tactically interesting"


Oh, well, I don't know why Melissia wants to punch people. That is a mystery indeed.

I need a reason?

At any rate, granting a 4+ save to a Marine who already had taken his 3+ save would just make Marines that much more overpowered.

Melissia wrote:I need a reason?

At any rate, granting a 4+ save to a Marine who already had taken his 3+ save would just make Marines that much more overpowered.

Or we could go back to that mystical magical land of Rogue Trader and 2nd edition where there were to-hit modifiers that actually didn't slow the game down with needless extra die rolls.

But that'd be, you know, crazy and stuff.

@Seanzor- Yeah man, the manager is really cool and is incredibly knowledgeable. I even think that 1 quarter he was the top selling store in Southern California which is really impressive because I know there's a bunker further up north and it's a 1 man store.

Instead it slowed the game down by forcing you to look at charts all the time.

Melissia wrote:Instead it slowed the game down by forcing you to look at charts all the time.

Well people don't even read the rules any more before complaining and flaming, so getting them to read charts wouldn't really make a difference. As to why vehicles don't fire on the move, and as a hated Imperial guard player can I just say.....erm storm raven anyone. I mean come on there are fast vehicles that fire on the move, that's why they are FAST!

Remember people this is a game, and has been designed for balance and playability, don't rage hate on a game. Just deal with it or don't play

MrWhippy wrote:

Melissia wrote:Instead it slowed the game down by forcing you to look at charts all the time.

Well people don't even read the rules any more before complaining and flaming, so getting them to read charts wouldn't really make a difference. As to why vehicles don't fire on the move, and as a hated Imperial guard player can I just say.....erm storm raven anyone. I mean come on there are fast vehicles that fire on the move, that's why they are FAST!

Remember people this is a game, and has been designed for balance and playability, don't rage hate on a game. Just deal with it or don't play

Indeed, if you want to change the rules, do it with your ork and nid friends, and see how they like it.

But I think we've established it's here to stay.

Melissia wrote:Instead it slowed the game down by forcing you to look at charts all the time.

What Fantasy player doesn't know that Soft cover is -1 to hit and Hard Cover is -2 to hit?

Though I guess it's easier to just go "lol ok they're behind stuff give them a 4+ cover save! lolol"

At the risk of getting Internet-punched in the face, I've got to say that I don't think that having to hit modifiers for cover, and cover-alone, would be that complex. All other modifiers being removed, it wouldn't be any more complex than remember which kind of save you get from which kind of cover.

However, it would require rebalancing every point cost in the game.

My problem is less to do with tanks and more to do with transports.

Move rhino 12" and dismount 2" or move 6" and run (average) 3.5" So a man going at a trot is doing say 5 mph, so say 2" = 1 mph speed, So my "fast" transport does a whopping 7 mph. Say a man runs and 1" equals 1 mph. So the man running goes 9.5 MPH and a vehicle moving flat out goes 14 MPH.

In 5th edition you take a vehicle because it is cheap and hard to kill not because it provides mobility.

Distances in 40k are abstract.

DAaddict wrote:My problem is less to do with tanks and more to do with transports.

Move rhino 12" and dismount 2" or move 6" and run (average) 3.5" So a man going at a trot is doing say 5 mph, so say 2" = 1 mph speed, So my "fast" transport does a whopping 7 mph. Say a man runs and 1" equals 1 mph. So the man running goes 9.5 MPH and a vehicle moving flat out goes 14 MPH.

In 5th edition you take a vehicle because it is cheap and hard to kill not because it provides mobility.

Yes. the extra 4.5 MPH/2.5" is just a bonus.

Norade wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:

Norade wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:Well with this being said, why can't I run and shoot at the same time? Why if I'm laying down can't I shoot back blindly/wildly? Why if fighting at night do I just not shoot sometimes instead of at least trying to hit something?

These are things that lead to that silly little thing called game balance. Just because another game lets their tanks move all out and fire everything doesn't mean it's conducive for WH40k to do it as well. I'm guessing you're talking about Flames of War maybe?

So you're saying that it's somehow impossible to add more realism to 40k on the tabletop but you're not giving a whole lot of reasons why it can't be done. After all, other systems manage balance while having more realistic rules and do so using a d6 based system. Thus making the game more intuitive isn't impossible or even hard to do. I'd even argue that 28mm is playing on too small a table as is and either tables should increase to 12' by 8' or the scale should change to give more realistic ranges and movement rates.

While FoW is the first that comes to mind I bet you more games than not have rules that are more realistic and balanced than GW's.

Yes, it's impossible because nothing in this game is "real" at all. So adding realism to a game that is based off of none is...well, absurd. "Other Systems" aren't this one. Other systems have entirely different rule sets to balance out this one change you've mentioned.

Also not to mention that this would add a HUGE benefit for only a select few armies and be a huge detriment to the rest.

I also do not doubt your claim that other games have more balanced rules. Especially considering that it is only just recently that GW is finally getting around to updating 6+ year old codices.

Funny you speak about it not being real, yet fail to notice that even the fluff disagrees strongly with what we see on the table top. We get battle scenes of tanks firing on the move while traveling at some speed. While some of the crazier parts of the fluff like the acts of the Primarchs and some of the more exaggerated tales about the space marines would still need to remain as tales, I see now reason why simple things like movement differences for different infantry and tanks moving and shooting properly couldn't be added and frankly all you've said on the issue is that it can't happen. For all your can't you can't seem to give any well thought out reasons why it isn't possible.

-sigh-

If it's so easy then by all means propose a rules change that won't break the game thanx. Although that's not really the point now is it? You've got your unassailable position here and you're not going to change it so really, this thread has become redundant.

Andilus Greatsword wrote:

Norade wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:

Norade wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:Well with this being said, why can't I run and shoot at the same time? Why if I'm laying down can't I shoot back blindly/wildly? Why if fighting at night do I just not shoot sometimes instead of at least trying to hit something?

These are things that lead to that silly little thing called game balance. Just because another game lets their tanks move all out and fire everything doesn't mean it's conducive for WH40k to do it as well. I'm guessing you're talking about Flames of War maybe?

So you're saying that it's somehow impossible to add more realism to 40k on the tabletop but you're not giving a whole lot of reasons why it can't be done. After all, other systems manage balance while having more realistic rules and do so using a d6 based system. Thus making the game more intuitive isn't impossible or even hard to do. I'd even argue that 28mm is playing on too small a table as is and either tables should increase to 12' by 8' or the scale should change to give more realistic ranges and movement rates.

While FoW is the first that comes to mind I bet you more games than not have rules that are more realistic and balanced than GW's.

Yes, it's impossible because nothing in this game is "real" at all. So adding realism to a game that is based off of none is...well, absurd. "Other Systems" aren't this one. Other systems have entirely different rule sets to balance out this one change you've mentioned.

Also not to mention that this would add a HUGE benefit for only a select few armies and be a huge detriment to the rest.

I also do not doubt your claim that other games have more balanced rules. Especially considering that it is only just recently that GW is finally getting around to updating 6+ year old codices.

Funny you speak about it not being real, yet fail to notice that even the fluff disagrees strongly with what we see on the table top. We get battle scenes of tanks firing on the move while traveling at some speed. While some of the crazier parts of the fluff like the acts of the Primarchs and some of the more exaggerated tales about the space marines would still need to remain as tales, I see now reason why simple things like movement differences for different infantry and tanks moving and shooting properly couldn't be added and frankly all you've said on the issue is that it can't happen. For all your can't you can't seem to give any well thought out reasons why it isn't possible.

-sigh-

If it's so easy then by all means propose a rules change that won't break the game thanx. Although that's not really the point now is it? You've got your unassailable position here and you're not going to change it so really, this thread has become redundant.

It isn't impossible. It's just difficult. Damn difficult.

Norade wrote:

Tazz Azrael wrote:I'm with the whole "it will make certain armies over powered" Mech Guard is the first that comes to mind especially if it is an Emperors Fist tank Battalion (12 or so LRBT all with sponsons being able to fire EVERYTHING per turn........ no ) while making armies such as Tyranids severely fubard.

Missing the fact that other armies would also see changes and the fact that I've said it would require a major rewrite to work. Are people just ignorant and not reading the entire thread before posting?

I read the whole thing before i posted and it still sounded like a bad idea, yes other armies would see changes but certain ones would gain to much of an advantage and then you would have to rework how they work so they are not over powered.

Vehicles work fine as is and dont need to be changed (why fix what aint broke)

Are YOU the one being ignorant by not realizing the feedback your getting is not what you would like to hear.

Vehicles work fine as is and dont need to be changed (why fix what aint broke)

+1 to this. I see no reason for the rules to change. if you want a more "realistic" game then you should not have picked 40k. I'd say the current rules are fine because as many others have said before (just to support their opinions I shall restate it) IT'S FOR BALANCE PURPOSES.

And everyone seems to be missing a simple solution. Instead of saying "If a vehicle moved 6 inches, it can fire one gun, if it moved more, it can't fire any, if it stayed still, it can fire all of them" say "If a vehicle moved up to 6 inches, it fires at -1 BS. If it moved up to 12 inches, it fires at -2 BS. If it moved up to 18 inches, it fires at -3 BS. If it didn't move, it can fire at full BS. This cannot reduce a BS to less than 1. Fast vehicles reduce this modifier by 1 (better shocks). A Vehicle's BS cannot go above it's base BS. If a vehicle has moved more than 6 inches, all Hit results on Scatter dice are resolved as Scatter results, using the arrow on the Hit side."

Hey there, that seems somewhat fair! And fluffy! It represents the difficulty of aiming from a moving platform, accounting for the fact that those that are able to aim better are, well, able to aim better even from a moving platform, while still aknowledging that if you're shooting in the direction of something, even if you aren't able to aim at all, you might still hit it. With high BS units like Space Marines, it leaves them the choice of whether to move quickly, be protected from CC and keep maneuverable, and risk missing ranged attacks, yet it also means that Orks, relying mostly on luck to shoot anyways, can actually get a benefit from paying to stick loads and loads of weapons on their vehicles. Yes, you might need to bump the cost of some vehicle weapons up a bit, like twinlinked Assault Cannons or vehicle mounted Big Shootas (or maybe have something like, the first Big Shoota costs the same, but every Big Shoota after that costs twice as much) But I think you'd generally keep a decent balance, even without price changes. Keep Ordinance weapons as they are, that you can only fire them if you fire them. That's fine.

well, that's far better than saying "blanket allowance for moving vehicles"!

I think it's not a terrible idea, but it would still make tanks OP. There should be more of a gradient, but having a 2D6 BS is a bit too complex...

I'm putting my opinion in -

Modern tanks have on gun.

They may have up to four machineguns, but they never have more than one [or two, if they have missiles or the like]

It is actually very rare for a gun to have this phenominon of 'twin linked guns' and for the record, it'd be hard to work with.

tanks are confined spaces. any tank soldier will tell you that. there is barely enough room for four men, and ammo. There are little to no automated weapon systems that we're so fond of in 40k.

finally, 40k isn't a direct reprisentation of real-world. let's stop trying to turn 40k into a battle sim and keep it as a board game with painted mini's, shall we?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
as for the idea of BS modifications, that's just a way for people to cheat. you may think it'll work, in which case, play it as a house rule. it won't.

and moving at cruising speed is the equivalent of moving to outflank another tank. who's ever seen a crusader Mk 2 tank [whatever it is, maybe cromwell. WW2 El-alamein.] outflank a tank to hit its rear-armour. imagine it is like everyone is focussed on getting weapons into a position where they can best take advantage of the enemies weak points and their own strong points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sam__theRelentless wrote:

DAaddict wrote:My problem is less to do with tanks and more to do with transports.

Move rhino 12" and dismount 2" or move 6" and run (average) 3.5" So a man going at a trot is doing say 5 mph, so say 2" = 1 mph speed, So my "fast" transport does a whopping 7 mph. Say a man runs and 1" equals 1 mph. So the man running goes 9.5 MPH and a vehicle moving flat out goes 14 MPH.

In 5th edition you take a vehicle because it is cheap and hard to kill not because it provides mobility.

Yes. the extra 4.5 MPH/2.5" is just a bonus.

wait wait wait. this guy is under the impression these distances are relative to each other? No, they're not. if this was the case, jump infantry would move 18" and tanks would move 24". not gonna happen.

Scipio Africanus wrote:I'm putting my opinion in -

Modern tanks have on gun.

They may have up to four machineguns, but they never have more than one [or two, if they have missiles or the like]

It is actually very rare for a gun to have this phenominon of 'twin linked guns' and for the record, it'd be hard to work with.

tanks are confined spaces. any tank soldier will tell you that. there is barely enough room for four men, and ammo. There are little to no automated weapon systems that we're so fond of in 40k.

finally, 40k isn't a direct reprisentation of real-world. let's stop trying to turn 40k into a battle sim and keep it as a board game with painted mini's, shall we?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
as for the idea of BS modifications, that's just a way for people to cheat. you may think it'll work, in which case, play it as a house rule. it won't.

and moving at cruising speed is the equivalent of moving to outflank another tank. who's ever seen a crusader Mk 2 tank [whatever it is, maybe cromwell. WW2 El-alamein.] outflank a tank to hit its rear-armour. imagine it is like everyone is focussed on getting weapons into a position where they can best take advantage of the enemies weak points and their own strong points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sam__theRelentless wrote:

DAaddict wrote:My problem is less to do with tanks and more to do with transports.

Move rhino 12" and dismount 2" or move 6" and run (average) 3.5" So a man going at a trot is doing say 5 mph, so say 2" = 1 mph speed, So my "fast" transport does a whopping 7 mph. Say a man runs and 1" equals 1 mph. So the man running goes 9.5 MPH and a vehicle moving flat out goes 14 MPH.

In 5th edition you take a vehicle because it is cheap and hard to kill not because it provides mobility.

Yes. the extra 4.5 MPH/2.5" is just a bonus.

wait wait wait. this guy is under the impression these distances are relative to each other? No, they're not. if this was the case, jump infantry would move 18" and tanks would move 24". not gonna happen.

Exactly. Otherwise the range of my pistol is twice the length of a battle tank. wtf

It's partly a "representational" thing, and partly a "balance" thing.

Alright is is representational. So up until 5th edition the majority of troopers could move 1/2 the distance that a pistol could fire and given the opportunity, could charge the other half. A vehicle could move 6" and fire all its weapons if it was below S6. Furthermore, a vehicle could move the distance of a pistol shot and the unit inside could fire. Now with 5th edition, a trooper can move upto a full pistols range, suddenly anything above a bolter goes silent if a vehicle moves at a walking pace as does every man riding on a transport. Representational, balanced but nonsensical.

I'll bet there are just so many promethium fumes floating around in and around those tanks that those guys are just too high to remember they have more than one gun.

I agree that Tanks are not well represented in the game however any change to make up the difference must, of course, lend itself to a major point adjustment. Use BA predators as an example. Those suckers are dirt cheap for what they do!

In regards to Flames of War

It buggers your RoF up by taking it down to one. (unless you have Stabilisers on a Sherman but then it adds a +1 to hit)

Also the Russian tanks can't fire AT ALL if they move over 6" so stick that in your pipe.

The good things are that you can fire at least one MG at full RoF (if I remember, I use infantry only forces) and possibly more?

Why aren't tanks able to fire on the move? Two reasons.

First in the turnover from 2E to 3E, they really didn't think out the vehicle rules, and tried to make things far to simple and cut/dried. This made vehicles awful. So they changed them in 4E. Alessio comes along and writes 5E, and says pretty much flat out in a podcast he didn't like that Predators could move and fire their heavy bolters and wipe out his banshees in the open, reducing us mostly back to 3E status for vehicles, until we get rules like 5E PotMS, Lumbering Behemoth, Aerial Assault, and a significantly higher incidence of the Fast rule on vehicles all bypassing this core rule.

So basically, poor game design going from 2E to 3E, and then Alessio being butthurt about his banshees being vulnerable to heavy weapons fire when in the open.

Ideally we'd have something like the following:

Stationary:
Fire all weapons no penalties.

6" or less:
Fire one weapon normal BS, all others -1 BS

6-12"
Fire one weapon -1BS, all others -2 BS

Over 12":
One weapon -2BS, all others -3 BS.

Tazz Azrael wrote:I read the whole thing before i posted and it still sounded like a bad idea, yes other armies would see changes but certain ones would gain to much of an advantage and then you would have to rework how they work so they are not over powered.

Vehicles work fine as is and dont need to be changed (why fix what aint broke)

First off, you have plenty of vehicles that are points balanced on how it worked last edition where there was more mobility for vehicles. As for 'working fine as is and dont need to be changed' the problem is 4th edition vehicle shooting rules worked fine and and didn't need to be changed, but there was a change to something that is worse.

My Outlook- Personally I believe Tanks should have on one main weapon anyway and a defensive weapon. You won't mind moving and shooting if you only have one big gun like most modern tanks today. I guess the big thing is that defensive weapons should be S5. But that is just my outlook at it.

Other Outlook- Maybe you should get a -1 BS for moving?

if tanks coudl move and fire at will you woudl get nothing but marine armies spamming LRs moving 12", firing TL lascannons (at 2 different targets mind), Heavy Bolters and pwhatever pintels they had.......and then disgorgng nasty CC units. balanced? i think not.

Praxiss wrote:if tanks coudl move and fire at will you woudl get nothing but marine armies spamming LRs moving 12", firing TL lascannons (at 2 different targets mind), Heavy Bolters and pwhatever pintels they had.......and then disgorgng nasty CC units. balanced? i think not.

If they had a BS penalty, it wouldn't be so bad, and it's not like they don't do that now with PotMS.

Rather than bugger about with modifiers to BS.(GW dont like to use modifiers in the core rules , mainly just in the USR and special rules... )

Why not simply reduce the effective range of the weapons when vehicles move?
Eg
Stationary all weapons fire at full range.

Moved 1 to 6 inches,Primary weapon fires at full range, secondary weapons fire at 1/2 range .

Move over 6 inches, Primary weapon fires at 1/2 range , secondary weapons fire at 1/4 range.

Just a thought....

I'm not seeing how BS modifiers are harder than double-digit division that can sometimes result in things like half inches.

This is purely for game balance and having an actual decision to make with the tanks.

If you could move 12 then fire, everything ( even if you have BS penalties range penalties) The meta would become even more mech dependant to the point where certain armies ( ones that are not very mobile) are simply invalidated.

It would also hamstring other armies that they already do this then everyone would have this ability ( DE they pay a price for being able to do this AV11 and 10) If your LRBT suddenly is AV11 on the front I could maybe see this since it would be so much eaiser tot ake down. You must make a choice though. Fast and mobile or, slow and clumbersome.

With proper BS modifiers, it's really hard to see it as being that bad. Sure that Chimera can move 12" and fire, but it'll be hitting on 6's with one weapon because it's BS is too low to hit with the others. Yeah that Predator just raced 12" and fired everything, too bad it's autocannon only hit on 5's and its Heavy Bolters on 6's, Oh man, it killed one ork!

Staying stationary is still a very large benefit for shooting in that case, however it's not the *only* option for shooting in this case, which is the problem now. Tanks should be be a "shoot/don't shoot" type deal.

That is, a 'shoot/don't shoot, move/don't move' vs. the current 'shoot and don't move/move and don't shoot' it is now.

Anything that makes the game more dynamic with more units moving and contributing to the game is a good thing.

Explains why I don't much care for the new versions of 40k and wfb...

Tanks should be able to move and shoot, units with good leadership should be able to split fire.

40K is not the real world! No Duh! But that is no excuse to make crappy rules. If I wanted a completely abstract game I'd go play Magic or heroclicks.

Instead it slowed the game down by forcing you to look at charts all the time.

Really is -1 or -2 that hard to do?

GW has gotten away from modifiers because MATH IS HARD for many people. If simple addition and subtraction is such a problem, maybe you should be studying instead of playing a game.

At any rate, granting a 4+ save to a Marine who already had taken his 3+ save would just make Marines that much more overpowered.

Oh, I see, a mechanic is broken, but it is only broken to hurt marines it's ok! Cover saves are the dumbest part of the game now. They are not really fair to anyone who has paid for a decent armor save.

Imperial Guard went from a bottom tier army to the top, sure it's not all because of cover saves, but it is a big part.

Cover should either be a save or to hit modifier.

Vaktathi.
I was simply showing an alternative method , other than BS modifiers.
(I am quite happy using modifiers in ALL the games I play.)

But GW believe thier target demoghraphic 'hate maffs'.
And they are happy to go to extra-odinary lengths in reguard to abstraction and complication to avoid it sometimes...

Listing the different wepon ranges , at the differnet speeds of the vehicles, is not out of place with the ridiculous rules for movement imposed on a system without a movement stat...

(Cover for example ,could have simply been a -1 or -2 to BS for soft and hard cover.)

40k rules are over complicated , abstract and counterintuitive, to the point where they disjoint with reality AND the background material.

And the most intuitive and elegant solutions look out of place...

gr1m_dan wrote:In regards to Flames of War

It buggers your RoF up by taking it down to one. (unless you have Stabilisers on a Sherman but then it adds a +1 to hit)

Also the Russian tanks can't fire AT ALL if they move over 6" so stick that in your pipe.

The good things are that you can fire at least one MG at full RoF (if I remember, I use infantry only forces) and possibly more?

These are WWII tanks, if it were a modern system they would be firing on the move with no issue. Or did you miss the fact that weapons technology is better now than then and should be even better in 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for the rest, i agree 40k is badly designed to to bottom and if they tried to launch today with their insane prices and poor rules everybody would laugh them out of the room. Instead we have fanboys too blind to see they play a bad game who'll always stay by them. I'm pretty much down with 40k myself, I have all the models I need to play proxy battles when I feel like it and there's an FoW group in my area that I might join.

"Red 5, I need you to make a strafing run!"

"I can't, my Valkyrie gunship can't move and shoot that many weapons!"

When did anyone say 40k is a straightforward simulation of modern warfare, that is suitable for ballanced tactical play?

It LOOKS like it should be based on modern warfare due to the types of units used.(As many people percieve it should play like modern warfare.)

But it uses NAPOLEONIC game mechanics from WHFB, abstracted (badly ) to try to fit the expectations of the gamers.

40k background and athetic is great.The rule set is possibly the most overcomplicated and abstract curently in print.

THAT is why vehicles can not move and shoot in the way many think they should.(Along with loads of other things that disjiont 40k from its background and gamers expectations.)

Lanrak wrote:When did anyone say 40k is a straightforward simulation of modern warfare, that is suitable for ballanced tactical play?

It LOOKS like it should be based on modern warfare due to the types of units used.(As many people percieve it should play like modern warfare.)

But it uses NAPOLEONIC game mechanics from WHFB, abstracted (badly ) to try to fit the expectations of the gamers.

40k background and athetic is great.The rule set is possibly the most overcomplicated and abstract curently in print.

THAT is why vehicles can not move and shoot in the way many think they should.(Along with loads of other things that disjiont 40k from its background and gamers expectations.)

Which once again serves to show that the rules are poor because they do a bad job at showing what the fluff says should happen.

Norade.
The ONLY way to get the synergy 40k players want with the background is a compete re-write.

And this promotes discord as many belive the 40k rule set just needs a few tweeks here and there.
BUT all the 'tweeks here and there' performed by the profesional game developers over the last decade have just added to the complication and abstraction.

Many belive a re-write of 40k to make it a modern warfare simulation would make it too difficult for us to play.
However, ALL the simulation type rule sets I play have less rules and far more gameplay!

Well, the way I see it, you've got several options:

1)Stick with the current ruleset
2)Convince the people you play with to adapt your house rules, but remember the original ones for tourney play
3)Find a new hobby

Lanrak wrote:Norade.
The ONLY way to get the synergy 40k players want with the background is a compete re-write.

And this promotes discord as many belive the 40k rule set just needs a few tweeks here and there.
BUT all the 'tweeks here and there' performed by the profesional game developers over the last decade have just added to the complication and abstraction.

Many belive a re-write of 40k to make it a modern warfare simulation would make it too difficult for us to play.
However, ALL the simulation type rule sets I play have less rules and far more gameplay!

Yup, GW couldn't find concise easy to use rules with a Sherpa guide leading them.

Well, the way I see it, you've got several options:

1)Stick with the current ruleset
2)Convince the people you play with to adapt your house rules, but remember the original ones for tourney play
3)Find a new hobby

1) I hardly play as it is due to annoyance at the gak rules.
2) House rules are no issue and I've stated in this thread that I proxy most models so tournies are out. (Hint try reading the whole thread next time sunshine.)
3) I'm already moving to FoW over 40k as mentioned above.

So thanks for adding nothing to the thread, you sir were a waste of my time.

When I said "you", I meant "one".

Sorry

Melissia wrote:

LoneGamer wrote:Tau can do it - vehicle multi-trackers are explicitly described as advanced sensor suites for weapons tracking on the move.

Something which the Imperial Guard also has, as described in the Gaunt's Ghosts novels?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LumenPraebeo wrote:If you take cover behind a wall, does your armor all of a sudden disappear?

I swear, every time I Hear this argument, it makes me want to punch someone in the face.

Hes got a point Meliss.
it gets to me to that a unit of terminators hidden behind a stone wall is just as (in)vunerable as one in the open. surely some shots would hit the wall and some would be absorbed/deflected by their armour making them less vunerable(if "vunerable" can be used to describe these ruthless B*****ds)

oh and to anyone else look up the IG rule "Main Weapon".

Sam_theRelentless.
One has several options.

1)Use GWs version of 40k.
2) Play an older version of 40k.
3)Houserule your favorite edition of 40k.
4)Play something else.(Infinity-Dust Tactics-Fast and Dirty-StargruntII-ChainReactionIII- No limits etc.)
5)Re -write /write a new rule set yourself...

(I have written a complete new rule set,The rough draught is only 14 pages long. , But then I write rules in a more straightforward way than GW do. )

Lanrak wrote:Sam_theRelentless.
One has several options.

1)Use GWs version of 40k.
2) Play an older version of 40k.
3)Houserule your favorite edition of 40k.
4)Play something else.(Infinity-Dust Tactics-Fast and Dirty-StargruntII-ChainReactionIII- No limits etc.)
5)Re -write /write a new rule set yourself...

(I have written a complete new rule set,The rough draught is only 14 pages long. , But then I write rules in a more straightforward way than GW do. )

Correct...

Would you mind terribly PMing me a copy, either this one or the revised one. I'd be interested to see it.

Hi Sam_theRelentless.
I dont know how to attach a PDF to a PM.(Techno dunce alert. )
So I have attached it to the bottom of this post.

The army lists and mission cards will be written later.(By people much better at it than me...)

It is a rough draught that just uses alternative methods to achive the game play I was after.It does need more work obviosly,(especialy around the close assault resolution-sequencing.)
(I am currently trying out differnt options to add more detail/realism to the close assault resolution.But real life keeps getting in the way.)

Sorry about the double post.
Sam.... Just click on the download button to see my latest draught of the S.T.A.C.S rule set.

I propose every unit has its OWN weapon profiles on its reference card*.(Playing card sized reference sheet.)
Assault weapons are used in close assault .
Small arms are the general rifle pistols etc issued to infantry units.
Support weapons are weapons with special effects.
Fire support weapons are weapons with special effects that can NOT move and shoot.

This means we can simply classify the weappon in the most apropriate slot for each individual unit.

Eg.
Heavy bolter is a 'fire support' weapon in an IG infantry squad, but classed as a support weapon when mounted on a Leman Russ battle tank.

*This gives us a simple method of altering the in game effectiveness of each and every unit, by altering the weapon data as needed to balance each unit.

Well i have to second the idea. Tanks should be able to fire on the move. In a gaunt's ghosts book (i don't remember the name) it says that a bunch of tanks were charging downhill and had auto stabilizers that let them fire on the move. If the fluff has it why doesn't the game have it.

Lanrak wrote:Hi Sam_theRelentless.
I dont know how to attach a PDF to a PM.(Techno dunce alert. )
So I have attached it to the bottom of this post.

The army lists and mission cards will be written later.(By people much better at it than me...)

It is a rough draught that just uses alternative methods to achive the game play I was after.It does need more work obviosly,(especialy around the close assault resolution-sequencing.)
(I am currently trying out differnt options to add more detail/realism to the close assault resolution.But real life keeps getting in the way.)

It's awesome, make sure to keep me updated, I'll also let you know if I have any suggestions because this is the kind of thing I'd really like to work on.

So far so good, I love the idea that you've decided to chuck everything out the window!

Sam_theRelentless.
Thank you for the vote of confidance!
I will be happy to hear any ideas and suggestions you may have.

As 40k currentley uses WHFB(Napoleonic) game mechanics, I thought they were hampering the game play .
And I think I was proved right!

Happy Gameing
Lanrak.

Lanrak wrote:Sam_theRelentless.
Thank you for the vote of confidance!
I will be happy to hear any ideas and suggestions you may have.

As 40k currentley uses WHFB(Napoleonic) game mechanics, I thought they were hampering the game play .
And I think I was proved right!

Happy Gameing
Lanrak.

Well, over the three separate forums, I think the point we've all got is that the rules can be improved. Nevertheless, I must warn that my FLGS is a very small community which does enjoy the present rules, and I'm sure there are many with my surroundings out there, thus immediately decreasing the effectiveness of fan-based rule sets... I merely wish to flex my game mechanics brain and/or support fan-based things, I'm probably not going to be a great rallying point for overthrowing GW

Sam_the Relentless.
I am not trying to overthrow GW !
But trying to develop a rule set we can use as an example of how the game play could be achived in a more straight forward way.

Often people need an example to see what we mean when we say 'over complcation'.

So any ideas , will be gratfully recieved.
(Just PM me.)

TTFN

Pretty sure most vehicles can move and shoot. Think the leman russ can always fire it's main gun on the move and thats the most tanky tank.

Why play WH40K if realism is what you are looking for? I'm sure there are plenty of modern/WWI/II tabletop games out there which focus on realism instead of balance and "fast paced, brutal combat". Indeed, would you play chess for the realism? Or solitaire? Neither of those, nor WH40K are designed with realism in mind. They're designed to be balanced, and played for entertainment.

Which real world wars do you know of that were fought 40.000 years from now, with magic and alien races? It's virtually impossible to make a balanced game, with many clearly defined and different races, which is also realistic. If only because we only have knowledge of ONE advanced race, and that's humanity. It's silly to demand realism from a game set in such an unrealistic setting as WH40K.

Play it for the game it is, make up your own rules (which means you'll likely play by yourself), or play a different game. Those are the options you have, and they cover enough eventualities that you don't have to complain about either one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh yea, and the LRBT has the Lumbering Behemoth rule which says that it can fire it's ordnance weapon on the move. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post the rule here, but it's in the codex.

Cautiously Pessimistic wrote:Pretty sure most vehicles can move and shoot. Think the leman russ can always fire it's main gun on the move and thats the most tanky tank.

Yes, the point was there are restrictions, and all vehicles moving at Cruising Speed cannot shoot unless they are Fast and/or have PotMS. The argument was about the relationship between distance moved and ability to shoot and its restrictions.

Hi Sgt Sixkilla.
I do not play 40k , as 40k is written for children.(And I am far beyond my childhood ).
I do prefer rules set than provide lots of game play, with straight forward rules.

Fast fun and intuitive, is alot easier to use then fast fun and abstracted beyond all reason.

Why do you want loads of unecissary pages of rules to learn?

I simply can not underatand this P.O.V.

Read and learn 100s of pages of rules, to arrive at a game that could be covered better by 30 pages of well defined rules.

TTFN