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.

Here's an alternative to the current way blast markers affect infantry. Make it affect infantry like it affects vehicles. All models touched by a blast marker, or large blast marker, are hit by it and must roll to wound. When rolling to wound the model under the centre hole of the template rolls against the full strength of the weapon and the models under or touching the edge of the template are roll against the half strength of the weapon rounding down.

Edit: I should have added that when a blast weapon hits the player must centre the model over a model in the target unit that is within range and line of sight (unless these restrictions do not apply, such as when a weapon scatters). When this happens a player may take a leadership test for the unit and if successful replace one model in the unit with another in unit coherency with it.

I assume you're suggesting this to get rid of the partial rolling. . .something I agree with. However, what you suggest makes blast weapons MUCH weaker which is preposterous because currently blast weapons are pretty sucky. If anything, blast weapons need a boost in power not a weakening.

Also, having Strength rounded down makes some lower end weapons (like a Frag grenade launcher) an utterly ridiculous Strength of 1.

I also don't like having the blast actually target the models under the blast. There simply isn't any reason for it. It would be fine to have one hit in the unit do more damage, but that wound should still be able to be allocated to any model in the unit during casualty removal as normal. There simply isn't any reason to add a 'sniping' element into blast weapons, especially if it then requires an extra Ld test and swapping of models to prevent abuse.


Instead of what you propose (which weakens blasts) I would suggest the following:


Models partially covered by a blast weapon are automatically hit by it without a roll, but the Strength of the attack is -1. Also monstrous creatures that have the center of the blast over their base suffer D3 wounds instead of just one.


This removes the process of rolling for partials but makes blasts slightly more powerful by automatically hitting partials at a slightly lower strength.

Centering and halving is even worse than what we have today. And I'm not convinced that Blast weapons need to be weakened from where they currently sit.

Currently, the center hole of the marker merely needs to overlap a target model (usu base). That makes it hard enough to get optimal coverage.

Halving Str for all but 1 model makes non-Ordnance Blasts unimpressive. S2 Frag? Meh.

Sure, you double partials, but going from 1/4 wounding to 1/6 wounding doesn't make up the difference.

yakface wrote:
Models partially covered by a blast weapon are automatically hit by it without a roll, but the Strength of the attack is -1. Also monstrous creatures that have the center of the blast over their base suffer D3 wounds instead of just one.

That's not too bad, but for consistency, all models should suffer d3 wounds for the center (Ogryns, HQs, etc.)

I'd suggest this:

The player may re-roll to-wound and armour penetration against any model wholly under the central hole.

This gives a minor bonus against the centered model, which balances against the restriction of needing to have the central hole over a target model.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
That's not too bad, but for consistency, all models should suffer d3 wounds for the center (Ogryns, HQs, etc.)

I'd suggest this:

The player may re-roll to-wound and armour penetration against any model wholly under the central hole.

This gives a minor bonus against the centered model, which balances against the restriction of needing to have the central hole over a target model.

If you were going to apply the D3 to non-MCs then you'd need to add in a little blurb about: when targeting units where the majority of the models have multiple wounds. Otherwise you have people putting the blast over a character in the unit just to get the extra wounds (even though during casualty removal those wounds could go anywhere).

I wouldn't mind giving one model an extra damage modifier (the one under the blast) like a re-roll or +1 strength but at some point you would get to a level where you just have too many little extra rules to make it all worthwhile.

I am suggesting this as a solution to the extra to-hit roll that blast markers are burdened with. Being able to hit every model within unit coherency of one model that you get to choose is very powerful. And reducing strength but not armour piercing ameliorates that partially, and just enough to avoid stuff like grenade launchers from becoming ridiculous. Hitting a particular model at full strength and toughness gives you some opportunity to snipe (and to have a fun "Look out Sir!" style roll), and the lower strength against the other models balances the gross carnage of being able to increase the number of models hit as well. Sometimes you'll blow your target up, when the unit is insufficiently organized that another model heroically takes the bullet, sometimes the hero and the intended victim die (because the hero didn't completely obscure the blast, i.e. exchanged places with the victim but did not get it out of the blast radius), and sometimes the hero gets horribly blown up and the rest of the unit survives unscathed. Huzzah!

As I think about it, it might be something to have all models hit by blast weapons, and only resolved in the full-strength/half-strength way if the target unit passes a leadership test. Thereby increase the potential of blasts against large and undisciplined hordes, but radically increasing their effectiveness against troops with poor leadership. Stuff like grenade launchers would still hit at a S2 AP5 in this situation, with battlecannons on a S4 AP3. I mean the point of blast weapons is not the way they crack armour (krak grenades, for example, have no blast radius) but the way they have the potential for mass carnage against unprepared troops. We already have weapons for cracking armour on monstrous creatures like krak missiles, melta guns, lascannons, autocannons, and so on. Besides, why add rolls to a game already burdened the project was motivated to remove superfluous rolls. Keeping the roles of blast weapons and high strength pin-point attacks separate makes the choice between them a better strategic problem by removing no-brainers. Take the assault cannon for example. It couldn't really handle high volumes of infantry as well as a heavy flamer and it couldn't handle vehicles as well as cyclone launchers. By adding two changes, the increased attacks and the increased armour piercing via rending, it's considered preferable to both. Whether it is actually preferable is probably false, but in the popular analysis the consensus opinion is that it is truly preferable to both.

Missile and grenade shooting attacks thus maintain their frag and krak attacks as distinct tactical options, and distinct from blast weapons like plasma cannons that combine high strength and low armour piercing.

More importantly this proposal places a limit on the severely increased nastiness of plasma cannons.

But why should blast weapons have the ability to 'snipe' models when all other type of weapons in the game don't get that ability?

Not only does that not make sense, but it also moves away from the way the game has been progressing which is to move away from individual models being affected by stuff but rather having the unit hit by things and then letting the controlling player choose what dies.


I completely agree that removing the partial roll would be a good thing, but I'll say it again: Blast weapons are currently very underpowered in almost all cases so if any house rule should be applied it would be to boost their potentcy not to weaken it.

Do you have some bad experiences with Plasma Cannons? Because for the most part they are way to over-priced for the damage they cause unless you get the odd shot off at an expensive deep-striking unit that is all clumped up together.

Actually point-effect weapons already have the ability to snipe enemy models. It's colloquially called "Torrent of Fire". Allowing the player to snipe with the centre of the template allows them to do what they could already by saturating an area with firepower. The difference being that the model under the centre of the template is the only model directly attacked during a blast attack, unlike a hail of point-effect attacks.

This follows the current game trend of organizing units in terms of their constituent members, where the success of unit actions depends on a relation between its constituents and what it is trying to do.

I don't regard blast weapons as being particularly underpowered. Their role is to saturate an area with firepower. This can be done with point-effect weapons so they need to be able to make up for any deficiency in strength and armour piercing (and attacks) with their ability to affect many more models than equivalent point-effect weapons with a high rate of fire. However in doing so this bonus cannot multiply out the effectiveness of having equivalent strength and armour piercing, the bonus should scale so that all blast weapons benefit to the same degree. The option of snipe and the option it opens up for a "Watch Out Sir!" rule replaces the Torrent of Fire effect that, if blasts affected more models, would become de facto sniping. In particular the sniping abilities of high strength and low armour piercing weapons would be disproportionately high, so the defending play is given the option of attempting to minimize the overall damage inflicted by blast weapons via the squad level tactics of formations interacting with the quality of the troops so attacked.

I think we have a very different perspective on the purpose of 'torrent of fire' in the game.

I don't believe the point of TOF is to represent that weapons 'snipe' particular models but rather because of the freedom of the basic casualty removal rules the best models in a squad will always be the last ones remaining, something that is rather unrealistic and a bit unfair to squads that don't have specialist models contained in them.

TOF is a rule implemented to represent that the veteran sergeants or heavy weapon troopers of a squad won't always be the last model alive. Sometimes, if the amount of firepower directed at them is so tremendous they might get hit by a lucky shot or the heavy weapon might get destroyed, etc.


The fact is, blast weapons are also included in the torrent of fire rule so there is absolutely no need to give them some sort of additional ability to snipe models within the framework already provided in the rules. A model firing a blast weapon has no more ability to pick out an individual model in a unit and target him then a model firing a bolter.



Finally, when it comes to blast weapons being underpowered, I don't know if we want to go down that road in this thread. However I will safely make the claim that on the whole GW has done a ridiculous job of point-costing blast weapons in the current game when you compare them to non-blast weapons that perform similar roles.

I don't believe the torrent of fire rule is for sniping either. I believe that the torrent of fire rule is, like the rule about casualty removal, so that the player have to think about balancing the effect of their shooting unit attacks and the maximization of those attacks (made on a model by model basis for range and line of sight) with the effect of attacks on a target unit and the minimization of those attacks (again individual models are removed, and units are only removed when all models in the unit have been). Sniping, whether it be by torrent of fire, line of sight, or range, is simply what the effect is effect is often called. This allows shooting to be resolved between units when shooting is resolved between models without

Blast markers should be resolved differently because, representationally speaking, they consist of two attacks: one against the target like a point effect weapon and one against the indirect targets like a mass of point-effect weapons used by the target. Resolving them using the torrent of fire is unsatisfactory because they do not cause a heavy rain of firepower, they create a blast that can affect many models. One cannot leap upon a rain of bullets in a heroic attempt to save one's comrades.

And aside from getting rid of the extra rolling, that's the purpose of my proposal, to give players an interesting option beyond taking the occasional saving throw. Whether anyone regards blast weapons as underpowered or overpowered under the current rules, I don't want my proposal to be underpowered or overpowered, or having the result of creating 'sweet spots', comparatively over-powered weapons that are a no-brainer for players to take.

Blast weapons should NOT be snipable. It is an attack against the unit, not a specific model. The "target" is merely representational. You can't (and shouldn't) be able to use Blast to single out Characters or Heavy Weapons.

Well exactly, any weapon attack is an attack against a unit. If there's enough of them then that attack may affect specific members of a unit. I'm saying there's always enough blast to affect a specific member of a unit. I'm saying that's it would be cool if we stopped rolling dice for partial hits, and gave the receiving player the option of exercising an advantage by the formation of the unit. Units already do this. Units that have all of their members in unit coherency can do something besides moving back into unit coherency. Similarly always having one regular weapon toting goon for every heavy weapon toting goon, and always in unit coherency with it so they resemble two-man fire teams, means that the effect of blast weapons could be minimized the ability of well motivated (high leadership) troops to maintain this formation. Remember, moving back into coherency would rob the unit of the ability to fire heavy weapons, but missing one turn would be a sufficient loss for the continued survival of the heavy weapon troops in the unit. Remember that killing special trooper helps net victory points not merely measured in things they have killed, but the things they may not kill, and the things they prevent you from killing.

My amended proposal is as follows: When a model in a unit uses a blast weapon or large blast weapon and hits, the player controlling that unit places the the blast or large blast template centered over a model in the target unit. The effects of blast weapons are resolved before non-blast weapons such that a model surviving the blast may be cut down in a torrent of fire while it reels in shock. Before the attacking player rolls to wound the defending player may announce a heroic action. If the target unit passes leadership that is only subject to modifiers if the unit is not fearless, but still rolled at the basic threshold if the unit is fearless. A pinned unit cannot take heroic actions. A unit of Possessed Marines would need to roll 10 or less to gain the benefit of a heroic action. If the attempt at a heroic action is successful then switch the model under the center of the template with another model within unit coherency distance. This may leave the model 'saved' from being the target of the blast attack, but still caught in its blast radius. In addition, if the heroic action is successful only the heroic model leaping into the path of the projectile and absorbing most of the damage. Additions to "And They Shall Know No Fear..." allow Space Marine players to automatically pass their heroic action roles since they are doing so for highly rational reasons of sacrificing the self for victory. Similarly Witch Hunters may use an act of faith to automatically pass a heroic action role. The specific rules for Inquisitorial Bodyguards taking hits for Inquisitors over-ride these general rules.

Needless to say people within the lethal blast radius will still be at risk, particularly where high caliber explosives are used, and the blast range is effectively extended so that it would affect two models 3" apart (or 5" in the case of the large blast template). The strength of the hits are lower, but you can roll many more. Previously you had to get models in base to base contact to fit five under a blast template. With my proposal models would still be affected even if they were up to an inch away from the eventual target. Models two inches away would be hit by a large blast template. Since they would not be governed by the torrent of fire application players wouldn't have to worry about a double-whammy of so many more full strength hits to absorb with toughness rolls.

Combined with pinning, it means that if a unit failed its heroic action role and was fearless, it would mean that they would roll for pinning to represent even the fearless being buffeted by the high pressure of the blast (or burst of tentacles in the case of barbed stranglers). Inability to do a heroic action would imply physical inability to resist being flung about like rag dolls. But simply taking it and carrying out a battle drill without heroic measures would protect the squad's ability to act next turn (by preventing a chance of being pinned) at the risk of a potential 36 rolls to wound. Stuff like large Ork mobz would be fearless, but they'd still be disrupted by blast weapons either severing unit coherency, killing key personel, and occasionally pinning them when a rain of fire falls from heaven and trembles the ground beneath their feet. Even Plague Marines would have to worry about a frag missile followed by a hail of sniper rifle fight to pick off survivors. Eldar Exarch powers like 'crack shot' would prevent heroic measures just like they would defeat cover saves.

In addition to giving blast weapons and large blast weapons the ability to target particular models in a unit like ordnance, there is the ability to engage in heroic actions when ordnance hits, but at a modifier to pinning if they are fearless and thus forced to take a pinning test to represent being physically disrupted. Monstrous creatures could only be exchanged for models of the same size when taking a heroic actions (although the Tyranid Tyrant Guard can exchange places with a Hive Tyrant), but blasts, large blasts, and ordnance will always leave units containing Monstrous Creature vulnerable to pinning whether the unit is fearless or not. They could be pinned if hit with either a barrage or an ordnance hit, or the combination of weapons that are separately blast or that cause pinning. Obviously the effect of Tyranid Monstrous Creatures would be that under synapse they would be fearless and have four wounds, but hitting them with blasts could slow them down. Something similar might be giving blast weapons the ability to ignore the skimmers moving fast shifting of penetrating hits to glancing hits. A direct hit by ordnance isn't glancing if it's working at full strength against a vehicle, rather than the indirect hit by hitting at half strength.

By my proposal blast weapons could possibly cause many more casualties, give players an opportunity to suppress fearless units (overwhelming firepower), and to use as flak on skimmers (in addition to causing two hits on an open-topped skimmer), no rolling for partial hits, giving the defending player an opportunity to maximize their squad formations (and hence tactics) depending on the defending player's strategy. Half strength for a "D" classed weapon would be S8. Notice how this still makes Monstrous Creatures, Fearless units, and Skimmers still useful, but more in line with regular infantry, non-fearless units, and vehicles.

I'd also suggest combining this suggestion with my earlier suggestion of grenades, pistols, and assault weapons used in assaults. Notice how the assault suggestion rewards the player keeps his men tight, while the blast weapon suggestion rewards a player for taking them over higher strength point-effect weapons with equal or fewer attacks, and higher attack weapons with lower strength. Plasma cannons would thus serve as the Space Marine's autocannon, it's seriously increased power bought as the expense of reliability.

Question: Why do Blast weapons need to be so much more complicated?

yakface wrote:Models partially covered by a blast weapon are automatically hit by it without a roll, but the Strength of the attack is -1.

But, but...modifiers are beyond our feeble little minds!


And there is absolutely no logical reason whatsoever that you should be able to snipe with blast weapons.

JohnHwangDD: My proposal isn't complicated. Making sure its implementation works well and evenly across the entire range of Warhammer 40k is what's complicated. It's easy.

1. Attacker rolls to hit with a blast weapon

2. Attacker places the weapon's blast marker within range and line of sight and centered on a target model in the unit.

3a. Defender may opt to take heroic measures with the unit.
3b. Defender takes a leaderhip test to see if the heroic action is successful.

When opting to take heroic action units with the Fearless rule test against their basic leadership. Models without the Fearless rule may have their leadership modified by things like being below 50%, unless they have the And They Shall Know No Fear rule or use an Act of Faith. Units with the And They Shall Know No Fear rule or using an Act of Faith (to the exlusion of other Act of Faith effects available) can always pass a heroic action leadership test. Models without leadership values cannot take heroic action.

4a. If the Defender opted to have a model take heroic action and made the leadership test, then replace target model with another from within unit coherency. Models can only replace models of the same size category (excepting Tyranid Tyrant Guard which can replace Monstrous Creatures in their units)
4b. All modes touching the template are hit. Roll to wound against the target model at full strength, and against all other models hit at half-strength rounded down.

5a. If the Defender opted to have a model take heroic measures and did not make the leadership test, then nothing gets to move.
5b. All models touching the template are hit at full strength.

6. Fearless units that have attempted a heroic action test may be pinned if also attacked by weapons that cause pinning tests (or attacked by blasts that also cause pinning!)

7a. If the Defended did not opt to take heroic measures, and did not take the leadership test, then nothing gets to move.
7b. All models touching the template are hit at full strength.

8. Fearless units cannot be pinned when they don't attempt to take heroic actions.

9. Skimmers do not benefit from the "Skimmers Moving Fast" rule when hit by blasts.

10. Monstrous Creatures and Tyranid Tyrant Guard always count as attempting heroic actions, even if they are alone.

IntoTheRain: I've tried out my proposal and I'd say there's a very logical reason for implementing it: It's hella fun!

I'm glad you enjoy your rule (that's the most important thing!) but I just have to say that I thoroughly disagree with your analysis.

Your rule has replaced one set of rolls (partial rolls) for a whole host of other time-consuming measures (taking a leadership test and swapping models in the unit) and added several layers of new sub-rules to fill the whole thing out.


Personally I don't feel that it adds anything terribly positive to the game and it certainly adds extra complexity for no needed reason (IMO).


That's just my honest opinion, but I always appreciate reading people's house rules, it's just that I'm a big proponent of trying to make things as simple as possible, and I don't think these rules stick to that tennent.

yakface: Actually it is really simple and quick to play. You should try it before saying it's un-necessary. It evens out large monsters like you wanted. It also makes the game more tactical by making formations even more tactically important, and it makes blast markers blast more guys. Notice that it can even be quicker than normal, because if a player doesn't opt to take heroic measures then they just roll to wound at full strength for all models touching the template, rather than rolling for partials as well.

Nurglitch wrote:JohnHwangDD: My proposal isn't complicated. Making sure its implementation works well and evenly across the entire range of Warhammer 40k is what's complicated. It's easy.

1. Attacker rolls to hit with a blast weapon
...
10. Monstrous Creatures and Tyranid Tyrant Guard always count as attempting heroic actions, even if they are alone.

The fact that you need practically a page of rules and explanation tells me that this is more complicated than "partically-covered models are hit on a 4+".

Well, then you've reached the wrong conclusion by an invalid inference. I could just as well say that my proposal amounts to leaving out the rule "Partially covered models are hit on a 4+" But there's more to blast markers by the ordinary rules than rolling for partial covers (partial cover is just a time-waster), there's a page of rules in the rulebook devoted to their application as well, more when we collect all the blast rules not printed directly under the entry for blast weapons, but referenced in relation to another rule such as open-topped vehicles.

Are you intending that the 10 points above replace *ALL* other Blast rules and references?

Because that's not the impression I had.

Most of those references, yes, perhaps all of them. I haven't really taken a complete census yet. Some rules, like blasts causing an extra hit on open topped vehicles, might be dropped since blast weapons would instead affect skimmers moving fast. Of course I'd also want vehicles to follow the bunker rules for hits to the vehicle and its passengers, but that's another thread.

Since I can't control your impression I have to just put stuff out there and hope that readers will approach it charitably. That said there's limits to charity. What impression did you get from the proposal?

IMO, it's not what I'd like. I'm reasonably happy with the current rules. If "high detail" is desired, then just convert the 4+ for partials into an I test.

Anyhow, my comments:

2. Centering is a problem. Your rule here is incomplete. What happens when firing a Blast weapon at target for which the center is outside range / LOS, but other parts of the model are within range / LOS? Does the shot fail? Do you move it as close as possible? This is why simply having the current rule of having central hole overlap the target is preferable.

3. This is just a mess. You now have all kinds of exceptions that reach into Codices and Specific models. In any case, you interrupt the player's Shooting phase with the opponent taking a Ld test for each Blast.

4. This is also very punitive against IG. SM can take a Ld10 Commander and gain this for every model on the board. IG are max Ld9, within 12" radius. But then, models with ATSKNF don't have to test? Nice.

Also, "heroic" is debatable - more like "cowardly", as the hero model swaps for a grunt. Swapping position is fiddly, and can probably be gamed.

4a. Having to make a Tyrant Guard / ATSKNF / exception is a huge mess is bad rules.

Fearless having to test when ATSKNF auto-passes is confusing. ATSKNF is supposed to be a weaker version of Fearless, not a stronger version!

Fearless being pinned / unpinnable is just wierd.

9. Penalizing Skimmers instead of Open-Topped is similarly strange.

10. I still don't understand this.

Overall, I find your rules to be contradictory from a development standpoint. I wouldn't want to try to explain this, or keep it straight with my opponent.

The rule is very unbalanced, as loyalist SM lose nothing, while everybody else except TMCs suffer. The net effect is to make SM even better for no good reason.

Okay, I'll reply in kind.

1. Except this proposal is specifically intended to eliminate the rolling for partials. Whether you're rolling for partials or initiative you're still engaging in an extra step of rolling dice.

2. Centering is having the central hole overlap a target model...

3. It must be if that's what you got out of it. The defending player has the option of attempting a heroic action test once. They don't have to take that option.

4. Models with ATSKNF don't have to test, but they're still limited by the restrictions of range, line of sight, and unit coherency. And since each unit can only attempt a leadership test once at turn, that's no huge bonus, especially considering that mitigating a blast like this can make one open to further blasts. Considering that not all Space Marine armies include Captains, and that some Imperial Guard armies have equivalent leadership, the issue of leadership is moot. The point is placing focusing the players' attention on the formations being employed by their squads, so "gaming it" misses the point.

4a. Actually acknowledging existing rules exceptions, and thus considering the whole while changing some part, is good rules. More to the point 'And They Shall Know No Fear' isn't some 'Fearless minus'. If anything it's a kind of 'Fearless Plus' where a unit that will remain on the board until wiped will make the right tactical decision occasionally and withdraw from irrational tactical propositions. The ability to run away from a combat before the Wraithlord/Carnifex/Daemon Prince gets there next turn always struck me as an advantage to sitting there and taking it twice (once from the fighting, another for losing the fighting and being fearless). Space Marines may get their heads handed to them on occasion, but the Imperial ones have to fall back and thus avoid a double reaming.

Likewise having Fearless units testing for Heroic Action makes plenty of sense. Those units are typically too crazy or too stupid to feel fear, and usually blessed with either a strong constitution or high leadership or both. But they are not immune to the purely physical effects of combat such as reeling from a sudden shockwave or slowed thanks to the impact of shrapnel. Their leadership test represents their confusion, their inability to act completely rationally, not their fear. Even if it doesn't chip a Carnifex's hoof, stepping on an exploding grenade will make the going slippery! Allowing Fearless troops to be pinned by sheer violence of firepower puts Monstrous Creatures and completely reliable troops in the same boat as troops that usually play by the pinning rules, and hence vehicles.

9. Skimmers are penalized in addition to open-topped vehicles.

10. Tyrant Guard exist to protect Hive Tyrants. They will always try to get between that beast and danger. Since I don't want to contradict their special rules I make the exception. Monstrous Creatures are typically fielded in singlet units, so they have no model that can take the hit for them, and by my proposal would receive no benefits since they could not switch places and this would make the decision to pass on a Heroic Action test a no-brainer. It's essentially a way to specify which units will automatically receive the benefits (Tyrant with Tyrant Guard) and which units will automatically receive the costs (Monstrous Creature singlets). This allows blast weapons to be used to suppress Monstrous Creatures, albeit temporarily, and make the choice between foot-slogging and bouncing monsters more evenly balanced by making them suppressible such that things like grenade launchers can be used for suppressive purposes like the infantry portable artillery they're supposed to.

So what's contradictory about the statement of my proposal? Loyalist Space Marines lose what everyone loses: Fearless troops that ignore pinning (unless hit by artillery), and the problem of invisible specialists, and blast weapons that are time-consuming to resolve. They gain the ability to automatically mitigate the effects of the enhanced blasts that they can also deliver themselves. Loyalist Space Marine specialists will be slightly better protected from blasts than the specialists of non-loyalist armies.

Here's what I'm proposing: I'm suggesting we ditch the partial hits roll in favour of hitting everything touching the template, and rolling to wound for everything touching the template so long as the defending player has the opportunity, one per unit per turn, to prevent you from sniping his specialists. I've seasoned it with some additional rules to make blast weapons more useful, such as accounting for the effects of area effect weapons on airborne stuff, the effects of sheer physics on the organization and reliability of even the most fearless troops, and the effect said buffeting has on the very large (being as being knocked on its monstrous rear). It makes blast weapons (and large blast weapons and ordnance) and pinning weapons desirable against all armies, while giving players an entertaining way of ameliorating its excesses (kind of like the 'gets hot' rule for plasmaguns).

I much prefer making current blast weapons have shots equal to their base number of shots x2.

For instance:
Plasma Cannon Heavy 1 Blast

Becomes:
Plasma Cannon Heavy 2

Same strength, etc.

Basically, sometimes it's better to have multiple shots, sometimes it's better to have the blast template. Hopefully they even out. This is an idea that we're supposed to try out in my gaming group, but have not gotten around to yet.

Partial hits are stupid. 'One and a partial' sounds lame, like we're bidding spades hands or something.

Blasts can hit around corners. That's worth something that cannot be translated into a number of attack dice, range and line of sight.

I should have mentioned, the multiple attacks only apply to 3 inch blast templates, if that wasn't already clear.

I'm just going to pick one thing, because I'm tired of this.

Nurglitch wrote:2. Centering is having the central hole overlap a target model...

In standard English, if you write "Attacker places the weapon's blast marker centered on a target model" it means "The exact center of the blast marker must be placed over the exact center of the target model."

In any case, I dislike the notion of BS3 Guardsmen being able to target individual models more effectively with their indiscriminate Blast weapons than Space Marines and Pathfinders armed with Sniper Rifles.

Sorry.

bthom37: Don't worry, you were clear. As I pointed out though, your suggestion removes the ability of blasts to hit things outside of the range and line of sight of an attacking model.

JohnHwangDD: Could you please explain how you think that, " in standard English", "Attacker places the weapon's blast marker centered on a target model" means "The exact center of the blast marker must be placed over the exact center of the target model."? I'm just not seeing it. Obviously if I'm going to make my proposal clear it would help to express it in ways that aren't so easily misunderstood.

Likewise how do you figure that blast markers can target individual models? They're indiscriminate weapons that hit everything under the template equally, unless under the conditions of a heroic action, whether a model is under the center of the blast marker or touching the edge. And the heroic action allows players to prevent individual models from being sniped even if the replacement models were originally out of range or line of sight from the relevant blast weapon. Models can be more easily sniped by the ordinary combination of range, line of sight, and torrent of fire.

Also, why are you apologizing? I mean admittedly your comments haven't been particularly helpful or constructive, but at least you tried.

I think models not under the 'hole' and those partially covered take hits at half strength is a good idea, with the proviso that it should be rounded up.

That said, I think only the Grenade Launcher loses out if you round down (iirc). So maybe you could raise the Str of the Frag Grenade by one (Str 4) and keep rounding down.

Rounding down means that there is a difference between weapons with Sn and Sn+1. Also, I was pretty sure frag grenades from grenade launchers were S4. Could be wrong though.