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 am thinking that warhammer 40k is too assault oriented. i love the assault phase as i am a blood angels player as well as an IG player. however, i think that either there should be some rule adjustments or stat modifications.

1.in regards to rule adjustments, i think certain armies (IG, Tau, orks, and nids) should be able to shoot into cc (probably after taking a morale test). there is a precedent for this as seen with the Scaven from warhammer fantasy.

2.also i think vehicles should be able to fire all weapons even if one is ordinance (i would even except a lower BS to make it more balanced.

3.in regards to stat changes, id like to see certain heavy weapons get more shots. obviously not ordinance, rapid or fire but ones like heavy bolters, shrukin cannons, and the like. i feel this would give more shooting oriented armies more of an even playing field against 100+ orks for example.

4.id also like to see a +1 BS for all armies firing at vehicles of monsterous creatures because they are larger targets and a guardsman with a lasconnon is going to have a much easier time hitting a land raider than a ratling skulking in cover.

The Angry Commissar wrote:

4.id also like to see a +1 BS for all armies firing at vehicles of monsterous creatures because they are larger targets and a guardsman with a lasconnon is going to have a much easier time hitting a land raider than a ratling skulking in cover.

I didn't really like your ideas until I got to this one. It just makes a lot of sense. Maybe not against vehicles, as I'd say vehicle survivability in 5th ed is "about right", but versus MCs it seems to fit.

I'd say the to-hit bonus against large targets is good, but the rest is kind of silly. 40K shouldn't be more shooty, it's shooty enough. Explain why Ork Boyz are better at shooting than CC.

If you take the assault of 40k then you lose the whole sci-fantasy aspect that the game has had since its creation. It's not meant to be realistic, or what should happen. While adding +1 BS for large targets makes a lot of sense, it's simply not the way the designers wanted to go about making this game, and it doesn't work because the game is as shooty as it is. The negative modifiers fantasy gives to shooting really make having a higher ballistic a huge difference, while giving bonuses gives a lot more to low ballistic skill armies than it would to high ballistic skill armies. It's just much easier to keep everything balanced with the system they use now, even if it doesn't make as much sense from a realism standpoint.

The designers know what the players really want to do: run a puny little man right up to that gigantic monster and punch it with an over-sized fist! So long as this is what the fans want, I cannot see Games Workshop changing anything. Besides, where do they stop? You have guns, so shoot rather than assault. Well, you have ships, so orbital strikes rather than guns. Well, if everyone has ships, it would be ship-to-ship battles. Suddenly, this is not 40K. It could be cool, but it would definitely be a different game.

i think that the game is already shooty enough. especially in apoc.

I had a thread about this awhile ago http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/226460.page.

Basically we wont know how shooting and assult will balance out becuase many of the "shooty armies" such as tau, guard and others don't have 5th edition dex's yet.

Guard doesn't have a 4th Edition codex yet....

um yea they do. i use it lol

I'd like to see a reinstatement of overwatch. I thought that was a pretty shooty friendly rule.

The Angry Commissar wrote:um yea they do. i use it lol

Thats still the 3rd edition codex. Still, not long now!!!

U won't be so angry once the guard codex comes out, then maybe I won't have to listen to all you whining and winging lol

Hi all.
40k is a very gamey game.It is bares no relationship to anything other than the 'rule of kewel'.

It would be possible to balance ranged and close attacks if the rule were re-written as a simple simulation very loosely based on WWII combat.IMO.

Ranged attacks used to supress -pin enemy units , so they could be out flanked and finished off in close assault.

If you have played DoW and CoH on the PC, you may get where I am coming from.

TTFN
lanrak.

I have found if you want to have a more "shooty" kind of battle start 4'-6' From eachother. Most battles start at under 24" so for the most part there is little do do other then assault. Try setting up at least 4' away and begin your battle you'll see more of an effect from shooting.

Gen.Von Riech wrote:I have found if you want to have a more "shooty" kind of battle start 4'-6' From eachother. Most battles start at under 24" so for the most part there is little do do other then assault. Try setting up at least 4' away and begin your battle you'll see more of an effect from shooting.

We played a couple of games in 3rd edition diagnoally on an 8'x8' table (so 10 to 12 feet of ground to cover) and doubled all the gun ranges...lotsa fun shooting and manuver before the inevitable dogpile

Jack