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

I want to shoot that Battlewagon, but those unit of Gretchin are just a bit closer, so I guess my Lascannon guy has to sit around with a thumb up his ass until they're dead.

No. I hate "shoot closest" or "target priority" rules.

Of course, I had never even considered declared shooting in 40k. It's something I'm very used to in BattleTech, but applying it to 40k just makes so much sense. You want to ensure something dies, declare a lot against it, but you risk wasting shots. Don't put enough into a target, and you'll take the risk of leaving it alive.

Great idea.

The "shoot closest" rules in 4th always had the provision that you could shoot either the closest vehicle OR the closest non-vehicle. So you could ignore the Grenchin to shoot the battle wagon in your example.

And remember, a Ld test could be taken to shoot something other than the closest.

 Mezmorki wrote:
The "shoot closest" rules in 4th always had the provision that you could shoot either the closest vehicle OR the closest non-vehicle. So you could ignore the Grenchin to shoot the battle wagon in your example.

And remember, a Ld test could be taken to shoot something other than the closest.

I know what the rules were. Doesn't mean I liked them. I'm especially bitter about them because Marines got to ignore them thanks to having Ld10 army-wide just because they brought a Captain.

I understand Nurglitch's point, but the "Target Priority" rules from 4th Ed are not the solution.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I know what the rules were. Doesn't mean I liked them.

Don't you think it's a little unfair to hold up 'I can't shoot the tank because the grots are there' as an example for why it's bad, then? I get not liking target priority on principle, but you're citing a situation that was explicitly handled by the rule.

Anyways, I like declared shooting as a mechanic, but that's a lot to keep track of across an entire army (with split fire) for an entire shooting phase. I can't think of an elegant way to represent it on the table, either. Battletech has the major advantage of being designed for a lesser number of units.

Apocalypse accomplishes a similar effect by resolving damage after all shooting is conducted. You still get to assign fire and see the results before firing with another unit, but you only know how many saves the target will have to take until damage is actually resolved. Not a perfect solution for 40K either, but worth considering.

Fireball Forward does something similar through its activation system. When given a certain number of units to activate in a single impulse, you have to assign an activation order to your units before actually doing anything. That forces an element of planning and on-the-fly adaptation.

Just food for thought.

 catbarf wrote:
Don't you think it's a little unfair to hold up 'I can't shoot the tank because the grots are there' as an example for why it's bad, then? I get not liking target priority on principle, but you're citing a situation that was explicitly handled by the rule.

Then replace the Battelwagon with MANZ. Same problem. Same dumb rules.

 catbarf wrote:
Anyways, I like declared shooting as a mechanic, but that's a lot to keep track of across an entire army (with split fire) for an entire shooting phase.

I thought of that, but I'll take keeping track of declared shots over 4th's target priority rules.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Then replace the Battelwagon with MANZ. Same problem. Same dumb rules.

With a size system, it wouldn't be that hard to say that a unit is only screened (for the purpose of target priority or line of sight) by units the same size as larger. You wouldn't need that many categories- smaller than human, human-to-Marine-sized, Ogryn-sized, vehicle-sized, superheavy-sized would cover most of the weird cases.

So Grots couldn't shield for MANZ, but Tacticals could screen for Devastators, and even if you passed the target priority test you'd have degraded shooting (IIRC it conferred a cover save back in the day) against the screened unit. You could shoot the closest target in any chosen category without having to test, or take the test for unrestricted targeting.

But I'm also a fan of just having screening rules. Positioning should matter IMO.

Regarding declared fire:

We've played many many games of ProHammer using it, and it's never been an issue to track, and we don't use anything physical to track it either.

Bear in mind, that in ProHammer units can only split fire once (following a Ld test), so it isn't like 8th/9th where potentially each model could be firing at different targets. This keeps it simpler for declared fire. If you really wanted to track it just make some quick tokens with number pairs and drop a half the pair by each unit and the other half by it's target.

Regarding screening. What ProHammer does (and we're fine tuning this right now) is that a target unit is screened if all the lines of fire between the shooting unit and it's target must pass through other enemy models or between gaps in other enemy models less than 2" wide (coherency). If so, then a screen exists and any shots that hit instead hit the screen.

Normal size models can't screen for vehicles or monstrous creatures. So you can ignore a screen to shoot those larger target. Vehicles themselves count as a obscuring terrain feature when trying to shoot a unit behind it (assuming you have at least some LoS around the vehicle), which grants the unit a cover save.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
Don't you think it's a little unfair to hold up 'I can't shoot the tank because the grots are there' as an example for why it's bad, then? I get not liking target priority on principle, but you're citing a situation that was explicitly handled by the rule.

Then replace the Battelwagon with MANZ. Same problem. Same dumb rules.

Imagine the rules were different. Are you against ANY sort of fire-control discipline/screening rules?

 catbarf wrote:
With a size system, it wouldn't be that hard to say that a unit is only screened (for the purpose of target priority or line of sight) by units the same size as larger. You wouldn't need that many categories- smaller than human, human-to-Marine-sized, Ogryn-sized, vehicle-sized, superheavy-sized would cover most of the weird cases.

Pro-Hammer's screening rules seem fairly straightforward.

 catbarf wrote:
But I'm also a fan of just having screening rules. Positioning should matter IMO.

Positioning should matter, but so should the choice of my units. My squad with 4 Meltaguns isn't going to fire at the chaff unit when the thing they're meant to be shooting is just a bit further away. By the same token, my squad with 4 Flamers isn't going to waste their ammo on the nearby Chaos Terminators, when there's horde of Chaos Cultists slightly behind them.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Are you against ANY sort of fire-control discipline/screening rules?

I'm against any system that prevents a completely active (ie. non-broken/pinned etc.) from being able to use its direct-fire weapons at a target that it is both within range and LOS of due to arbitrary restrictions. I'm fine with being able to target only one unit unless something like a Leadership test is passed, as that shows off the squad leader actually leading the squad, and is an elegant mix of fluff and crunch (hell, our own 40k rules from years ago included this as a general rule), and it also opens up granular rules opportunities such as units that are unable to split fire due to temperament or training (Berzerkers or Gretchin) and those that do it inherently due to experience or technology (Long Fangs, Tau Multi-Trackers). But needing to take a test every time you want to fire at something that isn't the closest target, regardless of the weapons being used and (for the most part) the target being fired upon? No way!

"Sorry, you'll have to fire your squad of 16 Assault Cannons and 10 Frag Missile launchers at the brutally depleted unit of 3 Hormagaunts because they're 1" closer than the fresh unit of 30, which is obviously a better target, but suck it, 'Target Priority, bitch!"

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
"Sorry, you'll have to fire your squad of 16 Assault Cannons and 10 Frag Missile launchers at the brutally depleted unit of 3 Hormagaunts because they're 1" closer than the fresh unit of 30, which is obviously a better target, but suck it, 'Target Priority, bitch!"

That example specifically seems like more a problem of 40K's targeting/wound allocation being tied to the enemy's force organization rather than their actual disposition on the battlefield. I enjoy how Chain of Command handles targeting and wound allocation in a way such that whether I have three ten-man squads crammed into a tight space or one thirty-man squad makes zero difference to my opponent's shooting.

Do we assume that every Guardsman is perfectly disciplined and willing to ignore the Cultists shooting at him thirty yards away to instead take a shot at the CSM two hundred yards away and not so much as looking in his direction? I think it depends on what you expect from a wargame, and targeting restrictions are no more 'arbitrary' than any other limits on player activity.

In general, I like the idea of differing armies in terms of command and control. Guard and Orks seem more likely to engage the nearest, most immediate threat than, say, Marines. These kinds of distinctions can make armies play differently in ways beyond raw combat power. Ld seems the obvious stat to mediate this; I'm open to pretty much any suggestion for making Ld more valuable.

@HBMC : But you're fine with a unit being able to shoot through a 20 man unit at a 3 man unit that looks identical except for size (in order to score a kill point, or whatever)? Because that feels equally artificial.

 Insectum7 wrote:
@HBMC : But you're fine with a unit being able to shoot through a 20 man unit at a 3 man unit that looks identical except for size (in order to score a kill point, or whatever)? Because that feels equally artificial.

To be fair to HBMC, they stated the ProHammer screening rules make sense. Under those rules, the physical situation on the board comes into play. It would be difficult for 3 models to form a screen for 20 modes behind them, because the 3 screening models would have to block ALL potential lines of fire. Conversely, it would be very easy for 20 models to screen for 3 models under the same rules.

Obviously the positioning and geometry starts to matter though. It's possible for 3 modes to screen, but they'd probably need to get really close first in order to zone out the firing lines. But then it makes it easier for their opponent to flank around them and avoid the screen. But maybe that need to flank around requires moving off the objective or moving out of the safety of cover. But these sorts of trade offs are exactly what the rule is intended to do. Sounds like HBMC recognizes this just fine, as being a more logical way perhaps to handle target selection.

 Mezmorki wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
@HBMC : But you're fine with a unit being able to shoot through a 20 man unit at a 3 man unit that looks identical except for size (in order to score a kill point, or whatever)? Because that feels equally artificial.

To be fair to HBMC, they stated the ProHammer screening rules make sense. Under those rules, the physical situation on the board comes into play. It would be difficult for 3 models to form a screen for 20 modes behind them, because the 3 screening models would have to block ALL potential lines of fire. Conversely, it would be very easy for 20 models to screen for 3 models under the same rules.

Obviously the positioning and geometry starts to matter though. It's possible for 3 modes to screen, but they'd probably need to get really close first in order to zone out the firing lines. But then it makes it easier for their opponent to flank around them and avoid the screen. But maybe that need to flank around requires moving off the objective or moving out of the safety of cover. But these sorts of trade offs are exactly what the rule is intended to do. Sounds like HBMC recognizes this just fine, as being a more logical way perhaps to handle target selection.

While that sounds like a reasonable system, it doesn't appear to offer any way to use Ld (or other) in a way that differentiates different "discipline" levels of troops, which is one of tge things I really appreciated about the 4th ed mechanic.

Which is why I agreed with the ProHammer idea.

Having to make a test every time you want to fire at something slightly further away is stupid. I'd rather potential screening/LOS rules be built organically into the rules themselves.

I mean, it's either that or the current system, where you can kill things that are both out of range and LOS as long as you can see the tip of a claw on one model in the unit... but only to the side of terrain, never over it, because *mumble mumble* greatest edition ever *mumble mumble* meta-watch *mumble mumble*

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Which is why I agreed with the ProHammer idea.

Hmm. Well I like the idea that Marines are more disciplined than cultist rabble when it comes to fire control.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Which is why I agreed with the ProHammer idea.

Hmm. Well I like the idea that Marines are more disciplined than cultist rabble when it comes to fire control.

They are. That's why they have BS3+.

(Or, for Pro-Hammer, BS4 I presume... ?)

More importantly, if you want to show much better someone is at something, then make them better at it. Don't make everyone else worse. It's the same line of thinking that sees GW raise the points costs on things they think should be rare rather than actually making them rare.

hmmm.

you could go:

must target closest unit unless LD test is taken. You may ignore smaller units for the closest vehicle or monster instead.

you may ignore units under half strength.



or

you must target the closest unit with the most models in it first (clear and present danger).

smaller units of screening models can still grant cover, but they won't be seen as a threat.

 Hellebore wrote:
you must target the closest unit with the most models in it first (clear and present danger).

There's a unit of Cultists nearer to me than a unit of Chaos Terminators. The Cultists have 11 models. The Terminators have 10. I'm a Fire Dragon.

Which one should I be shooting at?

Whichever one you are feeling most threatened by, which will be the terminators most of the time with your ld9.

Your argument around controlling your units imo isn't really reflective of how soldiers behave. Issuing commands and having them followed without deviation (ie you as the player having complete control over what they do) isn't really how soldiers work.

That uncertainty is reflected by the chance they'll open up on a unit they see first that's the most threatening whether you know it isn't or not.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Which is why I agreed with the ProHammer idea.

Hmm. Well I like the idea that Marines are more disciplined than cultist rabble when it comes to fire control.

They are. That's why they have BS3+.

(Or, for Pro-Hammer, BS4 I presume... ?)

More importantly, if you want to show much better someone is at something, then make them better at it.

Better at choosing targets is different than better at hitting targets.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Don't make everyone else worse. It's the same line of thinking that sees GW raise the points costs on things they think should be rare rather than actually making them rare.

That's just frame-of-reference. In 2nd ed, you couldn't even take a test, you just could only shoot at the closest target. By contrast, in 4th, EVERYBODY got better at choosing targets because it was even allowed in the first place. Some units could just do it better than others. I forget whether 3rd ed had any such mechanics, I think enemy models just blocked LOS or something.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Which is why I agreed with the ProHammer idea.

Hmm. Well I like the idea that Marines are more disciplined than cultist rabble when it comes to fire control.

They are. That's why they have BS3+.

(Or, for Pro-Hammer, BS4 I presume... ?)

More importantly, if you want to show much better someone is at something, then make them better at it. Don't make everyone else worse. It's the same line of thinking that sees GW raise the points costs on things they think should be rare rather than actually making them rare.

Fire control (LD test to target a unit further from closest) is not the same as aiming/ballistics skill. You can be a crack shot sharpshooter but lack the control/discipline to avoid shooting at the nearest enemy and to target an enemy behind them.

+1 for 4th edition’s targeting rules. Yes, they sometimes require additional dice rolls, but they help distinguish more elite troops from frontline grunts/meatshields and take 40k closer to a more realistic tabletop wargame which I generally prefer.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Which is why I agreed with the ProHammer idea.

Hmm. Well I like the idea that Marines are more disciplined than cultist rabble when it comes to fire control.

They are. That's why they have BS3+.

(Or, for Pro-Hammer, BS4 I presume... ?)

More importantly, if you want to show much better someone is at something, then make them better at it. Don't make everyone else worse. It's the same line of thinking that sees GW raise the points costs on things they think should be rare rather than actually making them rare.

there are different problems here, and the point is what do you want your forces to represent on the table

are there some untrained soldiers that waste all their ammo on the first thing that moves no matter what it is?
do all models on the table have a basic training so that this is not an issue?
this has nothing to do with how good is the single soldiers at hitting the target, the best marksman seeing combat the first time without training and no NCO at hand who tells him what to do might shoot the first thing that moves, which he hits well but won't do much damage with his rifle because it is a tank like Alien (and how does an untrained soldier know that his laser rifle won't do any damage against an unkown enemy)

is it easier to have a core rule for split fire and target priority and make exceptions for those units who can ignore it, or make them Universal Special Rules for those units who needs them

this is something that need to be planned out before you go to writing the core rules to avoid the same problems that GW run into and why USRs never worked for them (they did no knew which rules they needed for the different factions when writing the core)

Those rules in 4th were realistic and made sense, but with the majority of units ignoring them anyway, it would have been easier to add them to those units who don't ignore them (like Conscripts, Gaunts, etc.)

I'd rather put rules in for green and veteran troops than assume all units are incapable of shooting at things.

Sorry guys, but having your shooting phase go to gak before you've even fired a shot because you're not allowed to shoot at the things you want just isn't fun. I don't see the rule adding anything to the game.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'd rather put rules in for green and veteran troops than assume all units are incapable of shooting at things.

Sorry guys, but having your shooting phase go to gak before you've even fired a shot because you're not allowed to shoot at the things you want just isn't fun. I don't see the rule adding anything to the game.

If your shooting phase goes to gak in that way - and you know that is how the system operates, rather than getting gotcha'd in a demo game - then that is down to your poor decision-making and/or the counter-play of your enemy...

...you know, like an actual wargame.

 Dysartes wrote:
If your shooting phase goes to gak in that way - and you know that is how the system operates, rather than getting gotcha'd in a demo game - then that is down to your poor decision-making and/or the counter-play of your enemy... you know, like an actual wargame.

I don't see it that way.

You should be able to direct your firepower where you need it, and no have units frantically firing at things they either can't hurt or are grossly overqualified to kill just because of a couple of inches distance here and there.

 Insectum7 wrote:
While that sounds like a reasonable system, it doesn't appear to offer any way to use Ld (or other) in a way that differentiates different "discipline" levels of troops, which is one of tge things I really appreciated about the 4th ed mechanic.

Well ProHammer had you covered there with the split fire rules. All models in a unit have to shoot at the same target, however if you make a leadership test and it passes the unit can split fire, and target up to two units, with models in the unit this firing in two groups.

We played that way for years in our own version. Worked perfectly. Only thing we did was requiring a primary and secondary target, so if you failed then you were stuck firing at the primary.

Not sure how necessary that is, but that's how we did it.

I'm with H.B.M.C. on this matter. The balistic skill, like any other stat, is an abstraction and it's enough to represent a unit's ability to aim and hit a target during actual warfare.

It shouldn't simply be considered the ability to hit something like paper range targets when nothing happens in the meanwhile.

And I also agree with PenitentJake: there's always a best choice, regardless of the game's system. Sometimes it's just harder to identify it, that's it.

So, more than forcing people to fire towards unwanted targets I'd like an evasion stat to compare with the BS, like the fight phase already does. Hitting a gretchin or a battlewagon shouldn't be equally easy/hard.

H.B.M.C. wrote:I'd rather put rules in for green and veteran troops than assume all units are incapable of shooting at things.

Sorry guys, but having your shooting phase go to gak before you've even fired a shot because you're not allowed to shoot at the things you want just isn't fun. I don't see the rule adding anything to the game.

yeah, hence why you need to think first that the default status of the troops for all armies will be before adding such rules

Dysartes wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'd rather put rules in for green and veteran troops than assume all units are incapable of shooting at things.

Sorry guys, but having your shooting phase go to gak before you've even fired a shot because you're not allowed to shoot at the things you want just isn't fun. I don't see the rule adding anything to the game.

If your shooting phase goes to gak in that way - and you know that is how the system operates, rather than getting gotcha'd in a demo game - then that is down to your poor decision-making and/or the counter-play of your enemy...
...you know, like an actual wargame.

the shooting phase goes gak because everything is decided during the movement phase that way

this is not a bad thing by default, you just need to be clear what game you want and if you want a game were all the important stuff happens during movement, this is fine
if you want the shooting phase to be the one were the important decisions happen, it won't be fun for all those armies who cannot ignore it because of a high LD or special rule

if you want tactical options in the shooting phase, declaring targets is the way to go and also offers a risk-reward system

It's hilarious when you read this discussion and then flip back to the first pages of this thread where people tried to tell everyone that there would be no issues creating such an edition

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Everyone who's willing to put in the hours to patch 40k themselves has a different idea about what worked/what doesn't about prior editions and is very set in their interpretation, whether or not it has anything to do with what anyone else liked.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You'll never get anyone to agree to anything.

Turns out they were right