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.

There's three house rules that I've used in the past. Tell me if you like them.

One: In Fifth Ed, it says that units who fire rapid fire weapons can't charge. I think that doesn't make any sense; why can't they snap off shots while running, spray and pray, or however you like to think of it? To represent this, I have a rule that says a model can fire a rapid fire weapons once at half range (ex. one bolter shot at 12") and still charge into CC.

Two: One of the first pieces of terrain I built was a guard tower. I had my marines in there fending off a raider squad and I thought, "if they are higher up, shouldn't their weapons essentially have more range?" To represent this, I have a rule (keep in mind I don't have any math behind this. I just kind of pulled out the numbers.) that says for every 3" (generally accepted as one story) a model is off of 0 elevation (the ground), his weapon gains an additional inch of range. For example. If a model is standing on top of a building so that his base is 6 inches off of the ground, his weapon range increases by 2 inches.

Three: This is a simple rule that allows blast weapons to be fired at the ground. Instead of being required to center the template over a model, the template can be placed anywhere within it's range.

1. this is why there are assault weapons.

2. Why would range increase from being higher up? The gun doesn't get more propulsion power from elevation, you simply get a better LOS.

3. From what I understand, those used to be called guess weapons.

Play how you want, honestly, but this is my critique.

Kevin949 wrote:1. this is why there are assault weapons.

2. Why would range increase from being higher up? The gun doesn't get more propulsion power from elevation, you simply get a better LOS.

3. From what I understand, those used to be called guess weapons.

Play how you want, honestly, but this is my critique.

1. Yeah, but what's to stop a Space Marine or something from taking pot shots while charging? The rules were always meant to be as realistic as possible. To say that a person MUST sling his weapon in order to charge is just slowed. In fact, I'm not even sure why they changed the rule. In 2nd Ed., The rules I'm most familiar with, they had Rapid Fire so you could fire twice as many times or twice as far while stationary, and assault was, ver batum, "able to be fired the maximum number of times up to their maximum ranges, making them very good for assaulting things, hence the name!" It seems the new 5th Ed rule is meant JUST to be more restrictive.

2. I know it doesn't give more propulsion to the projectile, but think about it: While standing on the ground, you fire a weapon that has a maximum affective range of 50 ft. Your target is 60 ft away. You either can't or don't want to get closer, so you go higher. Now you can use the very same weapon to fire down at your target and hit it. It's simple geometry.

3. Again, there's nothing to stop someone wielding a rocket launcher from firing at the ground, especially since you're SUPPOSED to fire weapons with explosive payload at the ground when firing at infantry. That's how those weapons are used against infantry. It's a fact. You don't shoot a rocket at someone's chest. This is a very innocuous house rule though, so it hardly matters. I mean, you're trying to hit the damn enemies no matter how you do it.

1. Pistols also I believe, I would have to double check that.

2. Meh, it makes more sense to deduct from the targets cover save. But whatever.

3. No comment

1. That's just it, Rapid fire isn't supposed to be a good thing, it's a balancing act to keep the units cost down. If rapid fire went away and there was only assault, then the already overpriced/underpowered necron warriors would be harder on the army lists (just as one example).

2. Yes, but you lose accuracy dramatically as the coriolis effect comes into play.

3. I agree with you on this one, and I would LOVE to be able to pie plate wherever I want and hope it deviates onto units but again, it's a balancing act. And the way deviation works currently (if different from previous versions) it is very in favor of the shooter already. 2 hits on a 6 sided die AND you subtract your WS from the scatter result? With most squads/vehicles you still have to roll like a 6 or 7+ on the 2d6 to actually scatter off the squad/vehicle.

1. Is game balance. It use to be the way you described in 3rd, and was changed in 4th. Apparently they felt the old (your way) was not good for game balance

2. While you might get a marginal longer range in actual practice it is harder to hit a target outside your max effective range

3. Never understood this rule. Makes since the wayyou have it but i loved the Guess rules for weapons, and I really believe they got rid of it cause peolpe did not know math and could not get good at it.

#2

That's not how projectiles work! They lose stopping power and velocity at extended ranges, being higher up doesn't mean the bullet can travel further!

All solid projectiles follow an arcing path when fired. Similar to a quarter-circle.

As you see, firing from any height of a building the projectile loses the same amount of velocity and ends up having near 0 forward speed. At the same time, it has gained substantial downward speed from gravity and thus will hit the ground shortly after a projectile fired from the lower level.
Both projectiles will reach roughly the same ground position in a vacuum environment under the effects of gravity.
Without gravity, both projectiles will not lose velocity and continue to travel in straight paths until impacting another object.

With solid projectiles, you cannot gain longer range firing from higher off the ground.

With missiles, the missiles have finite fuel resources and their range is both representative of their limited fuel and the accuracy of their targeting script/spotter/etc.

With energy weapons, their energy is expended rapidly once released from their containment. Plasma weapons cool off rapidly (since the only place the plasma would be colder than is on a star or in hell). Las-weapons become too refracted from light interference and since laser weapons also rely on heat-energy, they dissipate rapidly in open air- even in a vacuum laser weapons will lose heat energy rapidly.

With gauss weapons, the energy stream used to strip molecules from the target seems to also lose power rapidly at longer range (unless a more focused beam is used with higher energy requirements), I can't substantiate this because gauss weapons are not in our current times, but I imagine its reaction to the molecular structure might have something to do with the proximity of molecular bonds between the atoms... the further their target is, the less of a "pull" the gauss might have on them.

Flamer weapons can only go as far as their fuel can be projected.

I imagine the bio-weapons on the Tyranids have a short lifespan... outside of their incubation within the weapon or within a target's body. So the little beetles fired by a Tyranid may only live for the few milliseconds it takes for them to be shot/injected into their victim, where they eat them from the inside-out.

The shuriken weapons of the Eldar are solid projectiles- granted they're more like shurikens/throwing stars than round steel slugs, but the principle is the same.
In fact, they likely lose forward velocity much faster due to their poor aerodynamics. The bullet slugs we know and love were designed very specifically because they are very aerodynamic. Eldar weapons seem to be more form than function in this regard.





Range is also heavily indicative of the range at which that soldier can reliably aim and hit their target. While it seems silly that certain warriors can see twice as far away as another--- this is coupled with that race's chosen technology and its own ability to find the target.
12" doesn't seem very far on a table, but it is likely a several HUNDRED feet away.
Take a handgun to the range sometime, see how far you can reliably hit your target-- now think of 38 thousand years later and what a pistol might be like.

1. I'm not sure why this would bother you if you're an old 2nd ed player. In second ed you couldn't fire at all before charging. The rule is there to differentiate units that prefer close range shooting to assault, and it does a decent job. The recent change to give marines bolt pistols in addition to their bolters meant that elite troops capable of both roles can fire off a shot before charging or fire twice and not charge - exactly as you desire.


2. That rule seems pretty convoluted for the marginal benefit given for specific situations. I don't mind the principle, but I think a simpler rule would be simpler as "when the shooter is higher than the target, measure a flat line from the firer to the target, ignoring the change in elevation." So if you were 23" away and 9" higher than the target, the range would be 23". On the other hand, when they returned fire they'd be 24.7" inches away.


3. There's a lot of potential for monkey business, though. With all partials counting as hits in the rules these days, this opens up the door for people picking the exact right spot that just touches on the maximum number of guys. This would be even more time consuming than it presently is, and pretty lame as well. If you play it differently in your own group and it doesn't cause troubles then best of luck to you, but there’s a pretty good reason it isn’t an option in standard games.

ComputerGeek01 wrote:

2. Meh, it makes more sense to deduct from the targets cover save. But whatever.

I like that. I'll do that instead of the range bonus.

That and also because of the scientific explanation that was presented.

Also, thanks for clearing up for me the whole rapid fire/assault thing for me. I suppose it still makes sense that a model with a rapid fire weapon could take one shot and still charge, but for the sake of a balanced game I get it. Maybe we could continue discussion on that.

And I see that the "fire at the ground rule" is still a point of contention, but house rules are never to be implemented without all players agreeing to them, so that's that.

Moral of the story: GW covers its own ass as far as rules are concerned.

Thanks guys, you've been loads of help

Kevin949 wrote:2. Yes, but you lose accuracy dramatically as the coriolis effect comes into play.

No. I wish people would stop taking physics lessons from Call of Duty. This is a game of shooting over a few dozen meters, we aren't operating the Paris Gun here.

On-topic,
1) meh, kinda makes sense but it would screw with a lot of balance
2) No, as said earlier it doesn't make sense from a physics standpoint
3) Definitely yes.

Facepalm

Austragalis wrote:One: In Fifth Ed, it says that units who fire rapid fire weapons can't charge. I think that doesn't make any sense; why can't they snap off shots while running, spray and pray, or however you like to think of it? To represent this, I have a rule that says a model can fire a rapid fire weapons once at half range (ex. one bolter shot at 12") and still charge into CC.

Marines have pistols they can fire giving them a single shot as they assault. Guard and Tau can't shoot and assault because they suck. Your rule makes pistols almost worthless - it gives nothing to some units with RF weapons and a big boost to others.

Austragalis wrote:Two: One of the first pieces of terrain I built was a guard tower. I had my marines in there fending off a raider squad and I thought, "if they are higher up, shouldn't their weapons essentially have more range?" To represent this, I have a rule (keep in mind I don't have any math behind this. I just kind of pulled out the numbers.) that says for every 3" (generally accepted as one story) a model is off of 0 elevation (the ground), his weapon gains an additional inch of range. For example. If a model is standing on top of a building so that his base is 6 inches off of the ground, his weapon range increases by 2 inches.

Being higher up does not give extra range. "range" in a projetile weapon is not how far it can lob the bullet but how far the bullet can travel whilst retaining enough velocity to be lethal. If a weapon's projectile has slowed to sub-lethal velocities after 50m then it'll still do that when you're at the top of the building. Being higher may extend the range of the projectile but all of that extra range will be in the too-slow-to-be-interesting speed range. Look at a well designed military installation - machine gun nests are always at ground level as putting them higher up decreases the effective range.

Austragalis wrote:Three: This is a simple rule that allows blast weapons to be fired at the ground. Instead of being required to center the template over a model, the template can be placed anywhere within it's range.

What is the purpose of this rule? What is it supposed to fix other than cramming a couple of extra models under the blast template?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

In_Theory wrote:
All solid projectiles follow an arcing path when fired. Similar to a quarter-circle.

As you see, firing from any height of a building the projectile loses the same amount of velocity and ends up having near 0 forward speed. At the same time, it has gained substantial downward speed from gravity and thus will hit the ground shortly after a projectile fired from the lower level.

Range is also heavily indicative of the range at which that soldier can reliably aim and hit their target.

Thank you for that - good explanations of two reasons why point 2 is wrong. As I mentioned there is a third - the effective range (where the projectile retains sufficient energy) which actually causes the distance you can shoot someone on the ground to decrease if you're higher up.

Scott-S6 wrote:

Austragalis wrote:Three: This is a simple rule that allows blast weapons to be fired at the ground. Instead of being required to center the template over a model, the template can be placed anywhere within it's range.

What is the purpose of this rule? What is it supposed to fix other than cramming a couple of extra models under the blast template?

Yeah, it's supposed to do exactly that. Isn't it annoying that when shooting small blasts at max. spread orks you get 1 or two hits? When shooting at the ground you could increase it to 4. This isn't such a bad rule as you make it to be.

But! I guess this rule would bypass some special shooting rules. First what comes to my mind is target of the shot. You could sometimes put a blast in a position where it touches 2 different units. Which is a target? Second thing is abilities like Harlequins Shadow Veil. When does it work?
I shoot at the ground and barely touch fellow Wright Lord, but place the blast so it gets max. Harlequins. I say: WL is the targer, no need to roll for Veil.
This could also lead to shooting at targets you don't have LOS to. Someone hides behind a wall - shoot it in front of it - the blast marker will easily hit him anyway.

This rule seems to be "logical", but can also lead to many abuses.


Oh, and also. In_Theory this arcing path is just not right. There are two forces involved, the gravitational pull and the force given to the bullet at the explosion. The bullet WILL go a bit further because there still will be some bullet force left [it will decrease because of air resistance]. The firing point is higher so the bullet has "more time" to fly further because it will take longer for gravitation to pull it down.

The bullet will go a bit further but it has further to go due to the higher starting elevation.

Plus, the bit further it goes is after the velocity has dropped into sub-lethal speeds so it doesn't extend the effective range at all.

Go and read a machine gunner's manual - it's very clear that ground level positions are most effective.

Scott-S6 wrote:The bullet will go a bit further but it has further to go due to the higher starting elevation.

Plus, the bit further it goes is after the velocity has dropped into sub-lethal speeds so it doesn't extend the effective range at all.

Go and read a machine gunner's manual - it's very clear that ground level positions are most effective.

I have never said anything about effectiveness and other things you wrote about.

All I said is that this arcing path is wrong. Both bullets in the same time should loose exact same amount of height. In this picture for some reason the upper bullet is falling down faster which is not true.
The upper bullet WILL go further.

If both bullets are shot so high, that the force of explosion (which propelled the bullet in the first place) is totally nullified by air resistance then they land on the same spot. This isn't the case here.

EDIT: Minor errors

Macok is right about the pathing. Just look at the battle-winning effect elevation had on the medieval longbow battles between England and Scotland.

However, as has been pointed out, the lethal range would not be increased. Furthermore, it would probably be harder to hit the enemy due to the extra dimension of movement. Cover save bonuses take care of themselves with true line of sight.

Captain_Trips01 wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:2. Yes, but you lose accuracy dramatically as the coriolis effect comes into play.

No. I wish people would stop taking physics lessons from Call of Duty. This is a game of shooting over a few dozen meters, we aren't operating the Paris Gun here.

On-topic,
1) meh, kinda makes sense but it would screw with a lot of balance
2) No, as said earlier it doesn't make sense from a physics standpoint
3) Definitely yes.

I'm sorry, I don't play call of duty.

HI all.
1/ If stationary rapid fire weapons can fire one shot at maximum range OR 2 shots at 1/2 range.
If moving rapid fire weapons can fire 1 shot at 1/2 range, but may not assault .(Makes assault weapons more special.)

2/ If in an elevated firing position , the target unit can not claim cover if the attacker has clear LOS over the interveenng cover.

3/ Blast templates can be placed anywhere on the games table within range restrictions.
But ALWAYS scatter 2D6".
Firer has LOS to the target they may deduct thier BS value form the scatter distance.

TFN
Lanrak.

Lanrak wrote:HI all.
1/ If stationary rapid fire weapons can fire one shot at maximum range OR 2 shots at 1/2 range.
If moving rapid fire weapons can fire 1 shot at 1/2 range, but may not assault .(Makes assault weapons more special.)

Why the nerf on rapid fire weapons?

Lanrak wrote:2/ If in an elevated firing position , the target unit can not claim cover if the attacker has clear LOS over the interveenng cover.

That's already the case.

Lanrak wrote:3/ Blast templates can be placed anywhere on the games table within range restrictions.
But ALWAYS scatter 2D6".
Firer has LOS to the target they may deduct thier BS value form the scatter distance.

This creates a problem with targetting - which unit was selected as the target. That's important because it determines which unit you are allowed to assault.

What do you mean, why the nerf on rapid fire weapons? That's how they work, exactly as he described.

Nope, RF weapons work kinda differently.

First of all two shots are always at 12", not at half of range.
Second of all after move you still get to shoot twice.

Oh ya, I forgot there are some units (tau comes to mind) that get 30" instead of 24" like others if stationary.

I didn't see he said 1 shot, my bad.

#3 - Don't like it so much. It let's you circumvent the protection inherent in being a grey knight, stealth suit, harlequin. As your not targeting the unit, you no longer have to roll vs. night fight or whatever. Same thing for compensating for range. Your range is 24, they're at 25 shooting you with their range 36 weapons. Put it at the edge of your range, and start hitting them. It also mitigates units being too close. Place the blast just past the unit thats right on top of you, you'll still catch a few, and if it drifts back a bit, your less likely to hit your guys.

Essentially, your making your blast and large blast weapons more effective than they already are, which is help they don't need. And simultaneously, your reducing the effectiveness of other units that are depending on range, or range related special rules, for survival. I vote no.

Let me just clarify that the point of these rules is NOT to change the balance of the game. The point of these rules is to make it so that logical actions can be taken without someone saying "oh, nope; there's a rule that says you can't do something that any soldier in the real world could do."

I mean, I know that the rules are kind of a balancing act between realism and fairness, but I tend to favor "real" rules.

My rule about rapid fire weapons I'm still deciding on. As I said, there's nothing to stop any soldier from firing while running. However, this is also a rule that I'm willing to just drop in favor of balance. It's a rule that I'd have to ask my play partners about.

With my second rule, I'm no ballistics expert; I was just trying to take into account the inherent value of an elevated firing position. I'm willing to drop this one entirely because my original premise was flawed.

As for my "fire at the ground" rule. I still say that it is a perfectly acceptable rule. First, it is just logical that a soldier could fire his weapon at the ground. Second, I think it helps aid in the balance of a game because it helps negate abuse of the unit cohesion rule. If some D wants to have his units 2" apart at all times, being able to place the marker between his models will help counter balance his abuse of the rule.

Hey - I just thought of something: are there any rules about blind firing?

Austragalis wrote:As for my "fire at the ground" rule. I still say that it is a perfectly acceptable rule. First, it is just logical that a soldier could fire his weapon at the ground. Second, I think it helps aid in the balance of a game because it helps negate abuse of the unit cohesion rule. If some D wants to have his units 2" apart at all times, being able to place the marker between his models will help counter balance his abuse of the rule.

keeping your models 2" apart is not abuse of the rules.

If you want to proceed with this rule you need to adress the problem with targetting. A unit must be chosen to be the target unit - this is the unit that you can assault.

With your rule as it stands there's nothing stopping you from targetting one unit and then deliberately shooting at another unit. How about changing the rule to be in-line with templates? i.e. must place the blast marker so that it hits the maximum number of models in the target unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Austragalis wrote:Hey - I just thought of something: are there any rules about blind firing?

No. Other than barrage.

Scott-S6 wrote:

With your rule as it stands there's nothing stopping you from targetting one unit and then deliberately shooting at another unit. How about changing the rule to be in-line with templates? i.e. must place the blast marker so that it hits the maximum number of models in the target unit.

How about you just say "The template must be placed so that at least one model in the target unit is entirely covered?" That sounds right to me. Then you roll to scatter and wound as normal.


>no blind fire rule besides "barrage."

Then let's come up with one

Sure, my rule for blind fire: Don't do it. The end.

Seriously though, going to ground (or is it being pinned?) is almost the same thing as blind fire, can't fire heavy weapons, fire RP at 12" only etc.. No properly trained military unit is going to stick the barrel of their gun over the parafit and just pull the trigger, this tells the enemy that you aren't paying attention to where they are and they charge on your flank. Blind fire has its uses is but they are covered with broad rules.

ComputerGeek01 wrote:Sure, my rule for blind fire: Don't do it. The end.

Seriously though, going to ground (or is it being pinned?) is almost the same thing as blind fire, can't fire heavy weapons, fire RP at 12" only etc.. No properly trained military unit is going to stick the barrel of their gun over the parafit and just pull the trigger, this tells the enemy that you aren't paying attention to where they are and they charge on your flank. Blind fire has its uses is but they are covered with broad rules.

Blind firing has one application that is used in a real fire-fight: to provide suppressing fire before you stick your head out. But I will agree that it is already covered in the going to ground rule. No blind fire rule, then.

Austragalis wrote:My rule about rapid fire weapons I'm still deciding on. As I said, there's nothing to stop any soldier from firing while running.

Which is at least partially accounted for through them gaining an additional attack when they assault.

By and large, the current Rapid Fire rules are the way they are to add tactical decisions to your list building. Assault weapons have a more critical role than simply being a single harder-hitting weapon in the squad. Although with armies all slowly gaining pistols as well as basic weapons, the single-shot-then-charge is coming back anyway.

Second, I think it helps aid in the balance of a game because it helps negate abuse of the unit cohesion rule. If some D wants to have his units 2" apart at all times, being able to place the marker between his models will help counter balance his abuse of the rule.

You've lost me there. How is keeping your models 2" apart an abuse of the rules? Most military fire drills and patrol training involve teaching soldiers to maintain correct spacing. Sure, you can be a bit more exact with it on the tabletop... but that's well within the rules.

Austragalis wrote:There's three house rules that I've used in the past. Tell me if you like them.

One: In Fifth Ed, it says that units who fire rapid fire weapons can't charge. I think that doesn't make any sense; why can't they snap off shots while running, spray and pray, or however you like to think of it? To represent this, I have a rule that says a model can fire a rapid fire weapons once at half range (ex. one bolter shot at 12" and still charge into CC.

Two: One of the first pieces of terrain I built was a guard tower. I had my marines in there fending off a raider squad and I thought, "if they are higher up, shouldn't their weapons essentially have more range?" To represent this, I have a rule (keep in mind I don't have any math behind this. I just kind of pulled out the numbers.) that says for every 3" (generally accepted as one story) a model is off of 0 elevation (the ground), his weapon gains an additional inch of range. For example. If a model is standing on top of a building so that his base is 6 inches off of the ground, his weapon range increases by 2 inches.

Three: This is a simple rule that allows blast weapons to be fired at the ground. Instead of being required to center the template over a model, the template can be placed anywhere within it's range.

1: Well, RAW... Although, I think that if a model didn't move, shoots within 12" (I wouldn't expect the distance to be greater if you're about to assault them), and the oponent stands within assault-range, then I think one could shoot and assault.

2: I'm not a mathematical expert, but... If you shoot something horizontally from two different heights with same weight and velocity, it feels as if gravity would force the lower object to the ground before sooner than the one that is higher, the one being higher continues to have momentum from being thrown (Air can't do >that< much to a bullet, can it?), thereby going further than the lower. But in game, I'd say RAW, you gain LOS and can shoot models in cover so that they do not gain any cover save. OR, one could say 'If you shoot up, the range is from the model to the target model. If you shoot down, your range is the full range 2-dimensionally' - Although that wouldn't really work if someone was very high up.. *shrug*

3: What's the point of shooting at the ground, when the shot will scatter? It's still random wether you'll hit anything or not after rolling the scatter dice.

insaniak wrote:
You've lost me there. How is keeping your models 2" apart an abuse of the rules? Most military fire drills and patrol training involve teaching soldiers to maintain correct spacing. Sure, you can be a bit more exact with it on the tabletop... but that's well within the rules.

Doesn't "abusing" a rule also include exploiting it as far as you can? Many players resent it when you take too much time to make sure all your models are spaced as far as you can get them, or when you take forever making sure a model is behind cover just so, or what have you.