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.

Grenades seem to be a sort of bugbear for 40k. If you represent them like they are in the movies, you spent lots of time fiddling with vastly unpriced template weapons. If you represent them like they are currently in the 4th edition of 40k you basically get flash-bangs.

However...

Since grenades are given strength values in the 40k rulebook for damaging vehicles, allowing frag equipped troops to hurt A10 vehicles, I figured why not extend the vehicle grenade rules to troops via the Ultramarine Tyranid Hunter Squads. And, while I'm at it, streamline assault combat so it reflects the assault methods of Epic Armageddon (for kicks!).

In an assault models can only use their close combat attacks, special or otherwise, if they are in base-to-base contact. Casualties are selected from models in base-to-base contact, and the 2" killzone as normal. Or they can exchange their regular attacks for a single grenade/pistol/assault weapon attack resolved using WS and the profile of the weapon employed. Furious charge and other special rules function as normal to modify the S of these weapons. Models that aren't in base-to-base combat can only make a single attack with a pistol, assault weapon, or grenade using their BS. These attacks are resolved in initiative order, but casualties are removed as per shooting attacks (models may claim cover saves, and grenades have a range equal to the bearer's I. Grenades retain all their other rules, like negating cover and whatnot but only if at least one model employs a grenade instead of another mode of attack.

An Imperial Guardsman could then either attack with A1+1 on the assault at S3 or A1 on the assault with S4 to represent the damage done bashing someone with a grenade, or by throwing a grenade before charging in.

I like the concept of improving grenade rules for 40K, but disagree on the implementation.

IMHO, grenade rules should work more as a shooting Weapon that can be fired in the Assault Phase, where up to one model per squad (with some exceptions for things like Raptors, Assault Marines, etc.) may forgo shooting their normal weapon to throw a grenade. Make the range equal to 12" (or less in some situatios), roll to hit as normal. Place appropriate blast marker, and treat the rest like a blast weapon. Here's an example of a few grenades when applied to these rules:

Frag Grenade: Ra 12", Str 4, AP -, Small Blast, Pinning
Krak Grenade: Ra 6", Str 6, AP 3, Assault 1
Incendiary Grenade: Ra 12", Str 3, AP 5, Template (place whole template in range)
Plasma Grenade: Ra 12", Str 5, AP 4, Small Blast
Melta Bomb: Ra 6", Str 8, AP 1, Assault 1, Melta

Giving them a better attack on the charge is a really cool idea though. The problem I had with implementing the suggestion I just made is that it is like giving the squad an additional attack for too few points, which would require heavy re-pointing of items.

CK

Why clutter up an already rules intensive game with more rules?
In 40K, grenades are an abstract, with the exception of melta bombs. Generally they give you 'perks' in hth.

And a 12" range? so you can throw an object as far as you can shoot a pistol? You are running the risk of turning grenades into cheap versions of move & shoot ML's

The thing I like about my proposal is that it just rearranges the existing rules to allow grenades to be used as weapons, and as a live option amongst whatever other weapons a model might employ. Instead of restricting the weapon-use of grenades to vehicles, and the other effects to additional abstraction on top of weapon use in regular assaults, this proposal integrates grenades into the category of weapons while retaining their abstract effects, and simplifies the assault rules while allowing players the tactical option of using their fancy guns or grenades in an assault.

However, it occurred to me that allow all assault weapons the option of one attack in the assault phase in addition to any attacks in the shooting phase doesn't really work as it effectively gives assault weapons an extra shot and in the case of single shot weapons doubles their value. Hence I'd like to amend my proposal such that a model can either use a pistol or assault weapon in the shooting phase before assaulting or make one attack using a grenade, pistol, or assault weapon in the assault phase, using WS if in base-to-base and using BS and ordinary shooting rules otherwise. This clears up problems with meltaguns and flamers being usable twice in a turn, so meltaguns don't displace the option of meltabombs, etc.

So an Ork boy with a big shoota could either shoot with 3 big shoota attacks in the shooting phase, and attack with three boy attacks in the assault phase, or shoot with 3 big shoota attacks in the shooting phase, and attack with one stikkbomb attack in the assault phase (allowing the mob to benefit from the effects of a frag grenade), or forgo shooting with the big shoota in the shooting phase, and use that big shoota to support the boyz in the scrum. Notice how this gives the model three options in a turn where it assaults, rather than the no-brainer shoot three times and then assault three times.

Soooooo, when does your hypothetical Ork boy actually throw in the grenade in an assault? Before he moves? After? What if he is already in BTB? can he throw the grenade at his feet?

And now, you & your opponent have to keep track of which one of your mob fired 3 shots, which Didn't fire but threw a grenade, and which didn't fire, waiting on the scrum.

In theory, it would work if you had one unit and your opponent had one unit. Now look at the table, how many units with grenades in how many squads are there?

Would these rules replace the current rules? Or work alongside them?

The hypothetical Ork boy would use a grenade instead of making its normal close combat attacks, just like it was assaulting a vehicle, at its initiative value.

The ability to attack with a grenade would then obviously be an option that would be easy to track: Assaulting models have the option of either making their regular attacks or a grenade attack. If they use a grenade attacker then their unit benefits from the ordinary rules applying to that type of grenade in the assault. The decision to either use a ranged weapon (either a pistol or assault weapon) normally in the shooting phase or once in the assault would be the only thing players would need to keep track off. If model didn't shoot with an assault weapon it would add the option of using said weapon in the assault phase to the options to attack normally or attack with a grenade. Naturally units being assaulted would always have all three options open for their models, rather like (but not the same as) the Death or Glory attack afforded to tank-shocked units.

Using grenades or ranged weapons during the assault phase, but outside of base-to-base contact would replace the usual rules for additional attacks and replace them with a hybrid of shooting and assault rules - shooting between units would be ordered by the initiative of the involved models rather than by units.

I like the Idea because how many times do come up against a wraithlord and your not able to wound it

I would like to see grenades 'fired' in the Shooting phase but have some lingering effect that lasted into the Assault phase, perhaps lowerering combat attributes and Leadership.

Laserbait wrote:Why clutter up an already rules intensive game with more rules?
In 40K, grenades are an abstract, with the exception of melta bombs. Generally they give you 'perks' in hth.

And a 12" range? so you can throw an object as far as you can shoot a pistol? You are running the risk of turning grenades into cheap versions of move & shoot ML's

You obviously never played in 2nd Edition. Grenades where a common weapon back in the day. Even the much feared Vortex Grenade of Apocalypse was something you could bring to an everyday game.

My biggest problem with the game today is that it it's become too simplified compaired to what it was a decade ago.

hmm hello long time player first time poster on this forum. with Grenades if it was a 6" range shatter!!
that way like in the real world you can kill your self . butter fingers lol

Corpsman_of_Krieg wrote:I like the concept of improving grenade rules for 40K, but disagree on the implementation.

IMHO, grenade rules should work more as a shooting Weapon that can be fired in the Assault Phase, where up to one model per squad (with some exceptions for things like Raptors, Assault Marines, etc.) may forgo shooting their normal weapon to throw a grenade. Make the range equal to 12" (or less in some situatios), roll to hit as normal. Place appropriate blast marker, and treat the rest like a blast weapon. Here's an example of a few grenades when applied to these rules:

Frag Grenade: Ra 12", Str 4, AP -, Small Blast, Pinning
Krak Grenade: Ra 6", Str 6, AP 3, Assault 1
Incendiary Grenade: Ra 12", Str 3, AP 5, Template (place whole template in range)
Plasma Grenade: Ra 12", Str 5, AP 4, Small Blast
Melta Bomb: Ra 6", Str 8, AP 1, Assault 1, Melta

Giving them a better attack on the charge is a really cool idea though. The problem I had with implementing the suggestion I just made is that it is like giving the squad an additional attack for too few points, which would require heavy re-pointing of items.

CK

This sort of thing will create a nightmare. 10 storm guardian + plasma grenades = 90 points (if I remember correctly, might be 100) and now you got them shooting at 12" each with a s5 ap 4 blast weapon? That's just nuts. And who is going to take shuriken cattapults ever again? 2 shots at strength 4, ap 5, and the same range just isn't as good. Throwing meltabombs is just straight broken.

While I would like to see grenades do something more, I don't think this proposal is the way to go about it.

I'd like to see Grenades effect Monstrous Creatures, similar to Tyranid Hunters.

One thing to keep in mind is that 12" is defined such that a squad can fire their weapons from the hip at full effectiveness. It doesn't necessarily mean they can throw grenades that far with accuracy, or while maintaining a defensive posture.

The purpose of grenades really is to flush enemy units out of cover, they can arc unlike shots from a rifle. Also don't forget a Boltgun itself is a high powered grenade launcher with armour piercing rounds.

I like the idea that they effect morale in close combat. Maybe if a squad is equipped with grenades they count as a modifier or something similiar.

djones520 wrote:

Laserbait wrote:Why clutter up an already rules intensive game with more rules?
In 40K, grenades are an abstract, with the exception of melta bombs. Generally they give you 'perks' in hth.

And a 12" range? so you can throw an object as far as you can shoot a pistol? You are running the risk of turning grenades into cheap versions of move & shoot ML's

You obviously never played in 2nd Edition. Grenades where a common weapon back in the day. Even the much feared Vortex Grenade of Apocalypse was something you could bring to an everyday game.

My biggest problem with the game today is that it it's become too simplified compaired to what it was a decade ago.

I can still remember when a grenade was in danger of "scattering back" towards ones own troops..... IIRC, the range on a thrown grenade was 6 inches, or was it strength of model turned to inches? Its been a loooooong time since I looked at those rules

And the current edition IS much simpler than 2nd edition.

So, any comments on my proposal, because it seems to do what several people on this thread seem to want.

Nurglitch wrote:So, any comments on my proposal, because it seems to do what several people on this thread seem to want.

Having actually read your post, it looks like a cool idea. Maybe they sacrifice one of their attacks? So say they have base attacks, and a charging bonus attack. They can either lose all of their base attacks, or else lose their charging bonus attack to use a grenade, and then they use their BS to throw it. Or maybe they just get -1 attack is easier.

I honestly don't know how AP should work. How about it doesn't do anything. And meltabombs should only be used on monstrous creatures, not any kind of infantry. They're freaking meltabombs, someone is going to blow a hand off.

Note that Combat Squads and CSM now get grenades standard which makes them much less exciting.

Nurglitch wrote:So, any comments on my proposal, because it seems to do what several people on this thread seem to want.

Your idea seems like its introducing a lot of rules and variations to assault when that part of the game is already very cluttered. I’d rather grenades just gave the attacker a single ranged attack they can make before charging. It would be resolved after moving into assault, but would count as a shooting attack with no possible moral check for the target. Frag grenades would be St3, Ap -, and with no blast template to keep things simple.

You can give models different bundles of grenades, so they have to make the choice as to which type they throw. Frag grenades would offer a small round of bonus St3 attacks. You could have flashbangs, which work like frags currently do, making everyone IN 10. You could have krak and melta, which inflict high St hits on vehicles. Players are then left with the choice of which grenade type they throw.

Sebster: Actually I'm not introducing any rules, just extending existing rules, and actually stream-lining and simplifying the assault process.

Nurglitch wrote:Sebster: Actually I'm not introducing any rules, just extending existing rules, and actually stream-lining and simplifying the assault process.

I agree it would be cool if grenades did something interesting against infantry, a good possible execution would be on the charge. The problem being of course points balancing and implementing it across all codices.

Frag Grenades
Guard BS3 S4, slight upgrade in addition to the advantage of striking simultaneously.
Space Marines BS4 S4, hits on 3+.

Krak Grenades (monstrous creatures)
S6 no armour save.
Tyranid Hunters: Twin-linked against TMC, 6" small blast template shooting attack on the charge against non-MC tyranids. Because they're just that cool.

Melta Bombs (monstrous creatures)
S8 no armour save.

Stikkbombs
Same as Frag&Krak. BS2 but they're only 1 pt and there are SO many of them. S5? and MC get a save.

Plasma Grenades
What are they? S5? Pretty good for the points. Storm Guardians, Scorpions and Swooping hawks (charging) get a nice bonus. Probably not overpowering since Scorpions and Storm Guardians tend not to see as much action as other units, and Swooping Hawks could use a cc upgrade anyway.

Tau Grenades
What are they? Flares or something? I don't even know the strength value. Whatever it is I'm sure it's fine.

Blight Grenades, Harlequin Grenades
It's just not their style so they choose not to use them .

I really don't like Space Marines getting Frag and Krak grenades for free, but it's probably just me. It's supposed to be a worthwhile considered upgrade. Considering Plasma Grenades are superior maybe Space Marines pay 15 points base, and 16 points total to get Frag and Krak. Guard pay 6 points base and 7 points total to get Frag. Or maybe Guard just get them for free.

And presumably infantry would now _throw_ their grenades at vehicles (including those pesky Skimmers) rather than close combat hit.

Then there is also the question of initative order. It's probably easiest just to leave them the same (the same after being modified by normal grenade rules anyway).

Y'know, while it's nice that people have their own ideas about how grenades should be re-integrated in Warhammer 40k I started this thread to talk about my proposal, not as a thread for people to post proposals. While I'd sure like to hear other people's proposals, I'd prefer to talk about my own in the thread started for that purpose...y'know?

Nurglitch wrote:Y'know, while it's nice that people have their own ideas about how grenades should be re-integrated in Warhammer 40k I started this thread to talk about my proposal, not as a thread for people to post proposals. While I'd sure like to hear other people's proposals, I'd prefer to talk about my own in the thread started for that purpose...y'know?

... I looked over the preceding posts and I really think using Assault shooting weapons in the assault phase is a bad idea. 40k uses a telescopic scale, 12" is farther than 6" than 6" is from 0" just like 48" (a Lascannon) is much farther than 24". Close combat is close combat: knife work with close ranged pistol shots. You don't pull out any kind of automatic weapon when you're fighting alongside your mates. I think involving grenades would be a welcome change just because grenade rules are uninteresting at best and could use some help. And grenades are cool. Fluff-wise there's no danger involving grenades on the charge, especially if your opponent is using any kind of cover.

As for firing Assault weapons in the assault phase on the charge, they are already allowed to fire before a charge (unlike rapid-fire weapons). In certain cases such as Ork Bikers (at least in the last book, I don't know off the top of my head regarding the new) there are/were rules where they can fire their weapons again in leiu of close combat attacks. Shining Spears get their lance thing which I suppose would be something similar, at least in spirit.

Nurglitch wrote:Sebster: Actually I'm not introducing any rules, just extending existing rules, and actually stream-lining and simplifying the assault process.

You’re giving charging models the choice to use their grenades instead of their standard attacks when fighting infantry, and you’re also giving them the choice to use their assault weapons in close combat, in place of shooting and their regular attacks. They’re new rules.

I agree with the idea in this thread that grenades, in their present form, are fairly boring. I like the idea of changing the rules, but believe that any suggested change should lead to interesting tactical choices without bogging the game down too much. I’m not convinced the option of replacing your standard attacks with a grenades and assault weapons would produce interesting tactical choices, and has the potential to get confusing in certain situations.

Tacobake: That's why players have a choice of using their assault weapons at full effect, or limited to a single attack instead of supporting attacks. You don't go spraying and praying in a melee, but you do the occasionally aimed shot, or more likely jam the barrel of your gun flush against an enemy and squeeze the trigger.

Sebster: Yes, using grenades instead of standard attacks is in the 40k rules. It's just restricted to vehicles and my proposal generalizes their use ('extends' it) to all enemies. Likewise the 'Psycho-blastas' rule still exists in 40k, though it's soon to make an exit, and using assault weapons in combat instead of supporting attacks cuts that rule to fit a general situation.

I think giving players the choice of having models either shoot and attack normally, shoot and attack with a grenade (and thus confer grenade bonuses upon their unit), or forgo shooting and give a close-ranged supporting shot that counts towards winning the assault, is tactically interesting. In particular I think it will direct players attention more closely to the positioning that they use when assaulting - a leading model uses a grenade, others use their regular attacks, and special weapons hang back to support with assault weapons. In particular I think it gives Imperial Terminators and Chaos Terminators distinct tactical envelopes, and makes assaults a tactically more interesting proposition (particularly in smaller games).

That said you mentioned that my proposal has the potential to become confusing in certain situations? What are these situations?

Nurglitch wrote:Sebster: Yes, using grenades instead of standard attacks is in the 40k rules. It's just restricted to vehicles and my proposal generalizes their use ('extends' it) to all enemies. Likewise the 'Psycho-blastas' rule still exists in 40k, though it's soon to make an exit, and using assault weapons in combat instead of supporting attacks cuts that rule to fit a general situation.

I think giving players the choice of having models either shoot and attack normally, shoot and attack with a grenade (and thus confer grenade bonuses upon their unit), or forgo shooting and give a close-ranged supporting shot that counts towards winning the assault, is tactically interesting. In particular I think it will direct players attention more closely to the positioning that they use when assaulting - a leading model uses a grenade, others use their regular attacks, and special weapons hang back to support with assault weapons. In particular I think it gives Imperial Terminators and Chaos Terminators distinct tactical envelopes, and makes assaults a tactically more interesting proposition (particularly in smaller games).

That said you mentioned that my proposal has the potential to become confusing in certain situations? What are these situations?

You’ve gone from having a rule that was available in an small set of circumstances and applied it to almost every assault in the game. You can argue that the rule already existed, and technically you’d be right, but with the rule now applying to so many more circumstances, requiring players to specify which models will be taking which actions, its clear assault will have a new rule for every situation.

I suspect it will lead to increased confusion in a part of the game that already causes enough headaches when one or both players are pedantic. You have to clarify which models will be using each of the three possible attacks, taking note of how many possibly shot or threw frag grenades in other phases of the game. Every time a player lost one of his assault models, he’d have to specify if he was knocking over a guy who was one of the troops who’d fired before the assault, or one who’d saved his assault shooting for melee. He’d have to specify if it was a model who had already shot on the charge in, or already thrown a grenade, or possibly a model who’d thrown a grenade. Now imagine a 30 model mob of shoota boyz with grenades charging a full sized squad of Black Templars, or two or three units of tactical marines assaulting two units of firewarriors.

Not that increased complexity is necessarily a bad thing, when it leads to more interesting decision making. However, I think for a decision to be tactically interesting no choice should be able to be simply calculated as superior to the alternatives. Unfortunately giving characters the choice of replacing their standard attacks with one higher strength attack can be quickly calculated as being optimum or not. It does make troops a little more flexible, and means IG can take down AV10 vehicles, and that’s pretty cool. If I was to support the idea I think that element should be focused on, maybe to the point where IG squads can forgo all their attacks for a single attack with a chance of cracking dreadnaught armour.

Sebster wrote:You’ve gone from having a rule that was available in an small set of circumstances and applied it to almost every assault in the game. You can argue that the rule already existed, and technically you’d be right, but with the rule now applying to so many more circumstances, requiring players to specify which models will be taking which actions, its clear assault will have a new rule for every situation.

Yes, that's what generalization is. I can not only argue that the rules already exist, I would be right (they do exist, not simply technically but practically). However, I don't see how it's clear that the assault phase will have a new rule for every situation. If you mean every assault will have the same new 'rule' (treating the proposal as a single rule since rule and groups of rules are interchangeably rules), then you'd be right. However aside from simply asserting this I see no evidence for this being a problem. Players already need to specify if their models are attacking normally or using special close combat attacks. As a group they seem up to the task. Could you specify what sort of situations you could foresee as being problematic? \

Sebster wrote:I suspect it will lead to increased confusion in a part of the game that already causes enough headaches when one or both players are pedantic. You have to clarify which models will be using each of the three possible attacks, taking note of how many possibly shot or threw frag grenades in other phases of the game. Every time a player lost one of his assault models, he’d have to specify if he was knocking over a guy who was one of the troops who’d fired before the assault, or one who’d saved his assault shooting for melee. He’d have to specify if it was a model who had already shot on the charge in, or already thrown a grenade, or possibly a model who’d thrown a grenade. Now imagine a 30 model mob of shoota boyz with grenades charging a full sized squad of Black Templars, or two or three units of tactical marines assaulting two units of firewarriors.

I don't see how this 'increased confusion' is problematic since the problem is a result of the pedantry of one or more players. If players have issues with memory, and really who doesn't, they can always use markers to indicate salient differences between models (such as those involved in combats with Mephiston, for example, or with different units of Wyches, and so on). Plenty of players (myself included) already use mechanical aides such as these to track these things and thus resolve combats with a minimum of fuss and muss. As players we already rely on such markers on the models themselves to differentiate who is equipped differently or attacking with/without special close combat attacks. In my play-testing I've found no appreciable increase in work once players are used to the extra options (grenade attacks or what we're calling 'point-blank attacks').

Sebster wrote:Not that increased complexity is necessarily a bad thing, when it leads to more interesting decision making. However, I think for a decision to be tactically interesting no choice should be able to be simply calculated as superior to the alternatives. Unfortunately giving characters the choice of replacing their standard attacks with one higher strength attack can be quickly calculated as being optimum or not. It does make troops a little more flexible, and means IG can take down AV10 vehicles, and that’s pretty cool. If I was to support the idea I think that element should be focused on, maybe to the point where IG squads can forgo all their attacks for a single attack with a chance of cracking dreadnaught armour.

I've noticed that when people use the term 'complexity' in relation to Warhammer they inevitably mean 'tractibility'. Increases the number of options available, for example, does not increase the complexity of the decision that a player must make: choices don't exhibit combinatoriality in Warhammer such that increases options as I've proposed actually increases complexity. But then it's common for people to associate (even momentarily) increased information as increased complexity, despite the fact that it's increased interaction between information that is actually the property of complexity (hence the 'complex' sub-term). I think it's the result of over-confidence on the part of many people, the idea that they regard themselves as bright cookies and so anything to large for them to parse easily and immediately must be too complicated to do so, rather than any natural limits on the human capacity to parse and compute information, and thus on themselves. Hence when people cannot immediately perceive how the options are tactically interesting (given the possible conditions those options might apply to), they often go for what seems 'optimum' according to some narrow heuristic that excludes important information (we see this in so-called 'math-hammer' analyses all the time). In Warhammer that important information is often time and space. For example piling Imperial Guardsmen into an armour 10 vehicle may seem advantageous as after all the more Guardsmen in base-to-base the greater chance of damaging that vehicle. But as anyone used to assaulting vehicles will tell you, if the vehicle survives it can either escape and leave the attackers out in the open or fight back against them directly. Likewise exchanging 2 S3 attacks on the charge for 1 S4 attack on the charge may look good on paper against an opponent that conveniently lines up and doesn't fight back, but the expected value of such actions must be weighed against the various expected utilities of different assault situations and opponent lethality. While the Guardsmen may have a better chance of killing five models of unit A, the guarantee of survivors may make the utility of doing so effectively 0 because the Guardsmen need to kill all eight to make that assault strategically useful (eu >0) and they can only do so by splitting their attacks between the higher strength grenade attacks and the lower strength regular attackers.

Take the same situation, where the Imperial Guard are attacking and need to either kill all of unit A in one term (very unlikely) or cause enough casualties to require the removal of a 'lynchpin' model whose presence maintains unit A's unit coherency. While the former outcome is the most preferable, it is also the least likely under ceteris paribus conditions. Unfortunately Warhammer is played on a board where the decision of which Guardsmen should use which attacks will covary with the positions that the Guardsmen will end up in after their assault moves. Players used to using Imperial Terminators with powerfists will recognize this situation of deciding which Terminators will use their powerfists and which will use their ordinary attacks in order to disrupt and defeat a more numerous (or more dangerous) but slower (initiative-wise) foe.

Partly that's why I made this proposal, because instead of having artificial restrictions on the effect of these weapons in assaults the clever players will eventually compute not only the most effective combinations of attacks, but the most effective combinations of attacks depending on the situations where the situations involves the enemy formation and position, as well as their own offensive/defensive powers. My proposal requires that players not only consider the strategic implications of assaulting one unit with another, but the immediate tactical consequences, and hence requires them to solve squad-level tactical problems. This requirement to consider squad-level tactics as well as unit strategy already exists in Warhammer 40k and the best players not only know about it but exploit it to the consternation of players either not in the know, or not so tactically astute. My proposal is aimed mainly at making this under-regarded facet of Warhammer 40k more obvious, and reveal hidden depths of what is often consider (and often quite pleasantly played as) a beer and pretzels game.

Back when I was writing a mock 5th ed I had changed how grenades work in combat.

Inspired by the scene in Starship Troopers where, Rico jumps on the back of the tanker bug and drops a grenade in him. I had it to where infantry could use thier grenades against monstrous creatures. However they would only get one attack much like on a walker. Then roll to wound as normal using the following profiles.

Frag Grenade S4, AP6
Krak Grenade S6, AP4
Melta Bomb S8, AP1

It would help much weaker armies fair better agains "big 'uns" in hand to hand combat.

smart_alex: Thanks for showing interest, but this thread is about my proposal for grenades. So please, either explain what advantages your proposal has over mine, or start your own thread. 'Cause you're just spamming this one.

n an assault models can only use their close combat attacks, special or otherwise, if they are in base-to-base contact. Casualties are selected from models in base-to-base contact, and the 2" killzone as normal. Or they can exchange their regular attacks for a single grenade/pistol/assault weapon attack resolved using WS and the profile of the weapon employed. Furious charge and other special rules function as normal to modify the S of these weapons. Models that aren't in base-to-base combat can only make a single attack with a pistol, assault weapon, or grenade using their BS. These attacks are resolved in initiative order, but casualties are removed as per shooting attacks (models may claim cover saves, and grenades have a range equal to the bearer's I. Grenades retain all their other rules, like negating cover and whatnot but only if at least one model employs a grenade instead of another mode of attack.

fine if you want it you got it.

You are saying only models in base to base can attack in hand to hand but casualties can be removed from the 2" kill zone. So models within 2" can be attacked but not attack back?

Also how does furious charge increase the stength of a melta gun. STR 9 now, thats just rediculous, it completely goes against all the fluff. Models S would almost become pointless if this is the case.

Also, then squads like vets for IG would in effect have 3 str 8 no armor save wpns in "hand to hand" combat that they can fire every turn. Yes it sounds fun but has the potential to throw things way off in the game. Although this is the only thing that I would have some interest in seeing, I just cannot see it ever happening. Even though IG could definately benefit. There is no way. I could see this happening via fluff as weapons which are meant for assault could be used at close range I suppose. BUt marines would be screwed if this happened. Therefore it will not happen.

smart_alex wrote:fine if you want it you got it.

Thank you. Sorry if I came across as a dick.

smart_alex wrote:You are saying only models in base to base can attack in hand to hand but casualties can be removed from the 2" kill zone. So models within 2" can be attacked but not attack back?

I am saying that only models in base-to-base contact can attack with their regular close combat attacks, and casualties from those attacks are removed from the kill-zone as normal. It could be thought as representing the fluidity of close combat. Leaping, of course, still allows models to attack normally from outside of base-to-base contact. They also have the options of making either a grenade, a pistol, or an assault weapon attack using their WS. Otherwise models need to use their pistols and assault weapons like shooting attacks using BS to attack from outside of base-to-base contact.

smart_alex wrote:Also how does furious charge increase the stength of a melta gun. STR 9 now, thats just rediculous, it completely goes against all the fluff. Models S would almost become pointless if this is the case.

It doesn't. Furious charge only affects ordinary close combat attacks, not grenade, pistol, or assault weapon attacks since it adds bonuses to the models and not their weapons.

smart_alex wrote:Also, then squads like vets for IG would in effect have 3 str 8 no armor save wpns in "hand to hand" combat that they can fire every turn. Yes it sounds fun but has the potential to throw things way off in the game. Although this is the only thing that I would have some interest in seeing, I just cannot see it ever happening. Even though IG could definately benefit. There is no way. I could see this happening via fluff as weapons which are meant for assault could be used at close range I suppose. BUt marines would be screwed if this happened. Therefore it will not happen.

Whether or not GW decides to implement my proposal is irrelevant. The question is whether it would improve the game, and GW implementing rules and rules that improve the game are not necessarily the same... I don't think Marines would be screwed at all, especially if you care to consider that Marines can field units like Assault Marines, Terminators, and basic Marines (okay, just DA and BA, but that'll change) have pistols. Indeed I don't see Space Marines losing or gaining anything, but having a slightly different play-style wherein their strength in shooting is well-balanced with their strength in the assault because they can leverage some of that shooting strength in the assault phase. Whether having three melta-gun-armed Guardsmen in an assault is useful, then, would depend on those melta-gunners surviving the hail of close combat attacks, grenades, assault weapons, and pistol fire from an assaulting unit of Space Marines. They would still be limited by number, position, and luck, and their 'advantage' would be matched by concurrent gains of other armies capable of doing the same thing (and in fact better in the case of Marines because they all have pistols to use in the assault just in case the Guardsmen aren't kind enough to all stand in the standard 2" killzone).

I'm not sure that Orks come out of this very well as each Ork boy (Choppa + Slugga) within 2" but not in B2B loses four WS:4 S:4 attacks and gains one BS:2 S:4 attack (AP is almost irrelevant here). There will be more boys attacking (up to 29 of 'em) with their BS. Conversely every shooting army (SM, IG, Tau, Eldar etc) does rather well, IG Storm troopers in particular.

On the plus side this'd kill off Nidzilla armies so it's not all bad.

Remember the Orks also have the opportunity to use their rokkit launchas, burnas, and big shootas. Besides, it's not like a clever player won't hit the Ork mob to minimize the number of boyz able to fight in the assault. The 12" range on the sluggas also balances out the problem of getting all 20/30 Orks into the fray, and they'll still have the numbers to throw more Orks into the grinder. Definitely something to think about, I agree.