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.

Possibly a counter to make shooting a bit more realistic and to make the game more cinematic:

Because men under duress and combat situations are merely human (or neconish, or tyraniddy and so forth), it is only natural for them to misfire or aim a bit too low to the ground, causing their weapon to perform poorly i.e. shoot at the maximum range of its effectiveness.

A way to enhance the cinematic and realistic components of 40k and make shooting just as fun and engaging as assaulting, I propose the following addition to the game:

When a unit attempts to shoot with a non template, non blast marker weapon, you still roll a scatter dice for shooting. If the roll comes up for a scatter, the weapons fired from the unit shoot d6 inches less than its maximum range if the weapons have a max range of 24" and anything over 24" is reduced by a 2d6 roll.

Basically it gives shooting a closer parity to assaulting and adds an element of randomness to shooting that assaulting as been given in 6th edition.

If you're going to do this at all it'd be simpler and easier to say that your gun's maximum range is reduced by 6" but you get to add 2d6" every time you shoot.

I think the scatter dice idea is cool, but I think i could reduce pistol range by a lot. if you roll two 6s it would give you only half the distance of the weapon, and could put an army (like Ork Sluggas) at a real disadvantage.

No. Simply no. There are enough rules now as is.

Fairly good.

It would be good for armies such as Orks and Black Templars as they usually don't aim and prefer to either take pot shots or fire wildly when charging the enemy.

40 k has nothing to do with reality.Or logic or any real world inteaction.And cinematic is GW s new buzz word for random.So your idea fits well with the new randomness for randomness sake, er I mean GW cinematic game play(tm).

Basically, you want to nerf shooting again so that close combat, clearly the more "realistic" option, is once again king?

No, thanks.

Yeah, I actually find the current game balance more realistic than 5th.

Still not great, but at least people with knives running up and punching people with guns don't win most of the time.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, I actually find the current game balance more realistic than 5th.

Still not great, but at least people with knives running up and punching people with guns don't win most of the time.

If you paid attention to the dominant armies of 5th edition, that wasn't the case either.

Too much rolling, too much randomness. The game already takes long enough as it is.

This really sucks for some armies. Like, look at the Tau. They basically rely on their ability to shoot you up from a distance. Because the moment the enemy closes that gap, they die. A lot. So taking that away from them, and making it more "Oh, you MIGHT be able to shoot them. But I don't know. Roll a die." really sucks.

 washout77 wrote:
This really sucks for some armies. Like, look at the Tau. They basically rely on their ability to shoot you up from a distance. Because the moment the enemy closes that gap, they die. A lot. So taking that away from them, and making it more "Oh, you MIGHT be able to shoot them. But I don't know. Roll a die." really sucks.

Oh gee, it's almost as if melee armies already have to deal with that randomness already...

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 washout77 wrote:
This really sucks for some armies. Like, look at the Tau. They basically rely on their ability to shoot you up from a distance. Because the moment the enemy closes that gap, they die. A lot. So taking that away from them, and making it more "Oh, you MIGHT be able to shoot them. But I don't know. Roll a die." really sucks.

Oh gee, it's almost as if melee armies already have to deal with that randomness already...

Not really. Assaulting is a "final" stage. You only need to roll high enough once and then you fight at full effectiveness. If this was a rule, shooting armies would have to roll high every time they wanted to do something. Positioning yourself closer to stack these odds is a no-brainer for assault; positioning yourself closer as a shooting army is suicidal.

I'm against it just for balance's sake

Actually, I think it's a fine rule. While we are at it, though, I do think we ought to modify the maximum range of weapons a bit. Consider how long it takes to shoot a full magazine and replace it with an ordinary weapon (let's just assume that reloading a Bolter isn't more time consuming than slotting a handful of shells into a shotgun) and then consider the distance you can sprint in that time. Let's be generous and say that I fumble my reload and it takes 10 seconds and that the soldier running for comparison manages 100 meters in that time in spite of the flak jacket and gear.
So, let's assume that a round is 10 seconds long.

Now, to a range of 100 meters, a shotgun can still manage lethality. An modern day rifle can manage lethality (if not accuracy) a couple of kilometres easily.
Let's not go completely overboard with ranges, but on the basis that a normal soldier can manage up to 12" in a turn (12" in 10 seconds) I'd suggest these ranges:
Shotguns: 12"
Shuriken Catapult: 24"
Boltgun: 48"
Missile Launcher: 120"
Pulse Rifle: 120"
Railgun: 2km since we're still simulating atmospheric conditions on this scale.

I think the problem here is that once you get into close combat there are so many stats and modifiers, not to mention that you strike twice per turn, that close combat tend to be very one-sided.
Knee-jerking it and saying "it's not fair to us close combateers" is a bit silly. Once you actually do get into close combat, I'd have to have wittled your unit down considerably to have a chance with my ranged troops and considering that a melee unit generally speaking can move faster than a ranged unit since running doesn't punish you as hard...
And then we've got cover. Ranged combat is far more dynamic than melee combat. You don't get cover in melee. You also do not get quite as dynamic ranges where some models do not make the range requirement. Not to mention that melee combatants do not have to worry about positioning so that you open yourself up to their Long Fangs when you move out to take the shot - once you're in melee no one can shoot you and you're in your element.

In order to justify making melee combat even more stupidly all-powerful, we'd have to have tactical advantages such as flanking and numbers and so on. We don't.

Except that melee hasn't been stupidly powerful for a long time. All of the top armies of 5th edition were shooting armies, and all of the top armies of 6th edition are currently shooting armies, even moreso than before.

Except Grey Knights, Blood Angels and Space Wolves, although to be fair Space Wolves are good since their weapons do not cost anywhere near enough.
Also, some if not most of the bottom tier armies are shooting oriented and simply punishing ranged ad hoc is very stupid. Identify what makes problems and deal with that.

For instance:
Long Fangs have too cheap weapons, especially Missile Launchers. Fix their price.
Flamers of Tzeench and to a lesser extent flamer-equipped units are nearly immune to assaults. While FoT are simply put tens of points too cheap, in general some way of preventing overwatch is necessary.

Random assault distance isn't really a problem in my experience since it swings both ways giving you a significantly larger threat distance, but in general I would say overwatch is the culprit. Not only does it heavily favour lots-of-shooting armies, but it also weirdly makes units with cheap but incompetent shooters significantly better.

And then there's flamers. Removing their overwatch exception could actually work wonders for assault armies.

 Mahtamori wrote:
Except Grey Knights

Shooty as hell, with their melee prowess backing them up but not being the focus of the army.

 Mahtamori wrote:
Blood Angels

Supposed to be a melee army but turned out to become a shooty army due to cheap (fast) Razorbacks, Vindicators, Baal Predators and two Special Weapons per Assault Marine squad.

 Mahtamori wrote:
Space Wolves

As you've already noted, shooty as hell. Counter-Attack only adds more incentive to keep shooting. Razorback Spam with Rune Priests (Living Lightning) and Long Fangs backing it up does not an assault-centric army make.

 Mahtamori wrote:
Also, some if not most of the bottom tier armies are shooting oriented and simply punishing ranged ad hoc is very stupid. Identify what makes problems and deal with that.

As opposed to nerfing melee ad hoc like GW did in 6th?

 Mahtamori wrote:

Random assault distance isn't really a problem in my experience since it swings both ways giving you a significantly larger threat distance.

Doesn't matter. You can only ever guarantee a charge range of 2", and that's all that matters. Especially when you get overwatched even if you fail.

But can you objectively say that nerfing shooting, especially 12" Assault shots, effectively accomplishes making melee oriented units perform to their expected standard as described by their point cost?
My experience is largely from playing an out-dated 12" Assault 1 or Assault 2 army. I get eaten alive in melee (they get shot up badly in shooting as well, but when shot at I can move away) and overwatch doesn't do a lot for me. The increased threat distance is actually a pretty hard kick in the jewels.
I just wish my melee units weren't quite so bad, since my models have Fleet and I can reliably make better distance then in previous editions.

So, what sort of shooting or assault is it that's gotten rotten? It's not all of it, that's for sure.

AlmightyWalrus: Aren't you sensing a pattern here? Top armies are melee armies which do not pay enough for their shooting. Except for Necrons who aren't melee at all.
By the way, what armies are actually melee and what armies are shooting exclusive. Where do we find the shooting exclusive armies, generally, in power estimates compared to the melee exclusive ones?

I'd personally say that the current beneficiaries of 6th edition are the armies what are NOT designed to fold over to melee and have the capacity to shoot well, particularly in overwatch.
Absolutely none of this would be fixed by nerfing shooting distance.

 Mahtamori wrote:

AlmightyWalrus: Aren't you sensing a pattern here? Top armies are melee armies which do not pay enough for their shooting. Except for Necrons who aren't melee at all.
By the way, what armies are actually melee and what armies are shooting exclusive. Where do we find the shooting exclusive armies, generally, in power estimates compared to the melee exclusive ones?

I'd personally say that the current beneficiaries of 6th edition are the armies what are NOT designed to fold over to melee and have the capacity to shoot well, particularly in overwatch.
Absolutely none of this would be fixed by nerfing shooting distance.

Top 4 are arguably GK, IG, Necrons and SW. Three of those aren't supposed to focus on melee, even though they have a few capable melee units (or a lot, in the case of GK). The last one, Space Wolves, are supposed to focus on melee but don't, because shooting is so much better. Not folding over to melee does not a melee army make.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Mahtamori wrote:

AlmightyWalrus: Aren't you sensing a pattern here? Top armies are melee armies which do not pay enough for their shooting. Except for Necrons who aren't melee at all.
By the way, what armies are actually melee and what armies are shooting exclusive. Where do we find the shooting exclusive armies, generally, in power estimates compared to the melee exclusive ones?

I'd personally say that the current beneficiaries of 6th edition are the armies what are NOT designed to fold over to melee and have the capacity to shoot well, particularly in overwatch.
Absolutely none of this would be fixed by nerfing shooting distance.

Top 4 are arguably GK, IG, Necrons and SW. Three of those aren't supposed to focus on melee, even though they have a few capable melee units (or a lot, in the case of GK). The last one, Space Wolves, are supposed to focus on melee but don't, because shooting is so much better. Not folding over to melee does not a melee army make.

You state it like it's a universal truth. Three I agree with having seen on everyone's list (or near enough), but IG do not always end up among the most competitive on quite as many lists. Listing Grey Knights as an army supposed to shoot looks a bit odd, are you sure you aren't reading too much into perceptive performance with so very many units running around with Force Weapons and having weapons better than Bolters as an option?

Now please list what the proposed changes will do to the bottom half of the codex list? And try to compile a list of melee armies? Are those armies actually bottom? Besides being 3rd or 4th edition, what's the common thing about the least highly ranked armies?

The not-folding part is actually pretty important. Getting a Tactical squad in melee is a very serious threat to a unit designed to fold in melee (Guardians, Firewarriors, etc). Melee is a static situation, it's not a dynamic one like shooting is. You can't dodge out of line of sight, manipulate cover, nor even run away from melee. Once you're there you're there and if you can't pose a good enough threat to melee units, the battle is predetermined regardless what you do - making the shooting and movement game so much more important.
The game currently do not suffer for melee units because they can not assault a specific distance, the game suffers because melee do not have tactics. You can't throw more numbers into a melee since quality per model is precisely all that matters (Orks with their Fearless is the notable exception). You can't outflank an enemy, since models do not have flanks. Even the psychology sub-game is neutered hard because so very many models are ATSKNF.

What I'm trying to say is that, no it's not "fair" that melee units should get their chance at getting close. For what little tactical value this game has, it all ends when you get into melee - melee is strictly a game of chance, and I'm not talking about assault distance, I'm talking about the actual melee combat - a game with loaded dice.

 Mahtamori wrote:

You state it like it's a universal truth. Three I agree with having seen on everyone's list (or near enough), but IG do not always end up among the most competitive on quite as many lists. Listing Grey Knights as an army supposed to shoot looks a bit odd, are you sure you aren't reading too much into perceptive performance with so very many units running around with Force Weapons and having weapons better than Bolters as an option?

Because in almost every situation, you're just better off shooting everything with GK anyway? Psycannons and S5 stormbolters give the army amazing shooting. As someone who played a Paladinstar a while back, I know that in most of the matches I won, my Paladins would never actually reach combat. It's insurance, really.

Now please list what the proposed changes will do to the bottom half of the codex list? And try to compile a list of melee armies? Are those armies actually bottom? Besides being 3rd or 4th edition, what's the common thing about the least highly ranked armies?

The bottom tier shooting armies are bottom tier because the top tier shooting armies are better in every single way, to the point of making the bottom armies irrelevant overall. The heavy nerfs to melee and buffs to shooting actually did more to strengthen the top codecies (which are heavily shooting oriented in the first place) and increase their gap from the mid tiers, than it did to help the bottom tier armies, or to balance the game as a whole.

The not-folding part is actually pretty important. Getting a Tactical squad in melee is a very serious threat to a unit designed to fold in melee (Guardians, Firewarriors, etc). Melee is a static situation, it's not a dynamic one like shooting is. You can't dodge out of line of sight, manipulate cover, nor even run away from melee. Once you're there you're there and if you can't pose a good enough threat to melee units, the battle is predetermined regardless what you do - making the shooting and movement game so much more important.
The game currently do not suffer for melee units because they can not assault a specific distance, the game suffers because melee do not have tactics. You can't throw more numbers into a melee since quality per model is precisely all that matters (Orks with their Fearless is the notable exception). You can't outflank an enemy, since models do not have flanks. Even the psychology sub-game is neutered hard because so very many models are ATSKNF.

What I'm trying to say is that, no it's not "fair" that melee units should get their chance at getting close. For what little tactical value this game has, it all ends when you get into melee - melee is strictly a game of chance, and I'm not talking about assault distance, I'm talking about the actual melee combat - a game with loaded dice.

Tactics in melee are involved in the setup and build up of the actual combat, not the execution. Of course, 6th edition got rid of much of that. Furthermore, this isn't a discussion about tactical or strategic depth (of which 40k has very little, both in shooting, which you greatly exaggerate and melee), but of balance.

So wait... Why is long range shooting being nerfed? Wouldn't short range shooting (within' 24") be what's extremely detrimental to CC?

But seriously, this rule would make a lot of armies useless as opposed to "balancing" anything.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
So wait... Why is long range shooting being nerfed? Wouldn't short range shooting (within' 24") be what's extremely detrimental to CC?

But seriously, this rule would make a lot of armies useless as opposed to "balancing" anything.

I think this was more of a sardonic suggestion than anything else.

Then someone really needs to make a font for this kind of thing.

 Fafnir wrote:

 Savageconvoy wrote:
So wait... Why is long range shooting being nerfed? Wouldn't short range shooting (within' 24") be what's extremely detrimental to CC?

But seriously, this rule would make a lot of armies useless as opposed to "balancing" anything.

I think this was more of a sardonic suggestion than anything else.

Making shooting random would be a serious attempt to balance it the way charging has been randomized.

Simply reducing length of maximum range is not enough.

After looking at the mechanism, I'd say having maximum range scatter like blast templates would be a more constructive approach rather than shorter distances (as someone pointed out to me in separate discussion, bullets ricochet and some soldiers may aim higher). BS would still influence the actual final range as normal (as soldiers with better BS are less likely to miss their marks regardless).

So maximum range could actually increase or decrease instead. Armies with lower BS (like Orks) could actually see dramatic increases or decreases to their effective ranges.

Why not just make the range of each weapon equal to a certain D6?

For example, your standard 24" range weapon would instead be 6D6, or something like that?

I really don't see how range is the focal point here. And if we are going to nerf shooting, why not just make them take a LD test at LD-BS to see if their gun fire makes them wet their pants first.

And I want to see assualt chargers take an initiative test to see if they trip on their own feet first. When rolling for dangerous terrain all rolls of 2 means the model steps in something and gets left behind as he tries to clean it off its shoe.

Are we making convoluted and unnecessary rules to roll with, cause I can do this all day.

That sounds a lot more cinematic.

I think we should come out with a new stat called "Shooty Bits" and have it be a number from 2-10.

One rolls 2d6 and subtracts the Shooty Bits skill, then divides it by the Ballistic Skill, then multiplies it by the Armor Save of the enemy, then adds the armor value of the nearest vehicle (even if it is on a different table!) then subtracts the number of apples eaten by the shooting model divided by the number of apples eaten by the player controlling the model.

Does that nerf shooting enough?