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.

JohnHwangDD wrote:The Doctrine system simply threw rules out there. They don't represent Fluff at all unless one backs into it. In which case, no, it doesn't represent Fluff - it represents a ret-con.

Almost none of the rules of the game represents any kind of "fluff". Scouting units having a 33% chance to come from the from direction, tactically speaking? Random teleporter mishaps always displacing your units into positions favorable to your opponent? The fact that no matter the situation, you can't field four Leman Russ tanks in one army or a Techmarine riding a bike?

The rules are at their best when they don't try to slavishly follow the background material too closely, ones designed to jive with Fluff are most of the times flat-out horrible. It's dark in dere (Ogryns), Mindlock (Servitors), It's for your own good! (Commissars / Sanctioned psykers), and so on, are all examples of inane wastes of ink that either hamstring the units they're designed for, or come into play so incredibly rarely that they might as well not exists.

bryantsbears wrote:If you wanted to beef up the hellgun to something that is more respectable, I'd kick it up to AP 4, not 3. 3 seems just too powerful to be priced affordably.

How is a str3 ap3 hellgun over powered?

110 points of stormies double tap some marines, marines loose 3.333 models or 50 points
105 points of marines shoot at the stormines, stormies loose 3.111 models or 35 points.

I don't think this is that bad, considering that the marines can beat the tar out of the stormies in close combat. Remember guard is about shooting. Thats what we do, if one of our units is targeting something that they are designed to take out than they darn well better score some kills.

bryantsbears wrote:If you wanted to beef up the hellgun to something that is more respectable, I'd kick it up to AP 4, not 3. 3 seems just too powerful to be priced affordably.

AP4 is just a hair less meaningless as AP5. Either it's AP3, or it doesn't matter.

aka_mythos wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:You mean like a S9 AP2 Lascannon?

I'm not stupid I know the lascannon, but the discussion was on hellguns. My point wasn't to say yea or nay to hellguns being that powerful. It was only to point out the relative power of a strength 4 weapon to say "if this is what you imagine a hellgun doing, then go for the S4." When you look at the size of a hellgun even with some of the backpack as communication gear it should be bordering on the abilities of a special weapon.

I know you're not stupid. However, I'm a smartypants.

I think we're essentially saying the same thing. And really, for what they are, Bolter-class weapons wouldn't be unreasonable for Stormies. Like in 2nd Edition. Indeed, the case could be made, with the new backpacks, that these should be S5 or S6 weapons. If they're like a man-portable single-barrel Multi-Laser (R30" S6 AP- Rapid-Fire Gets Hot!), that wouldn't be so unfair at all. Tactically, you could get a lot of use out of them, and they would be a great adjunct to existing Inquistional Bolter-based Troops.

aka_mythos wrote:I asked before intent on that had been established, but it was made clear relatively soon after I asked.

I think with the larger big burst fire you could get away with:
burst mode R24 S6 Ap5 Assault 1/Get hot!

Um, you know, I did say "modal" in my original post...

But my main comment here is that the "burst mode" should still be Rapid Fire vs Assault 1, because Assault 1 24" is a Grenade Launcher firing Krak.

Agamemnon2 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:The Doctrine system simply threw rules out there. They don't represent Fluff at all unless one backs into it. In which case, no, it doesn't represent Fluff - it represents a ret-con.

The rules are at their best when they don't try to slavishly follow the background material too closely, ones designed to jive with Fluff are most of the times flat-out horrible. It's dark in dere (Ogryns), Mindlock (Servitors), It's for your own good! (Commissars / Sanctioned psykers), and so on, are all examples of inane wastes of ink that either hamstring the units they're designed for, or come into play so incredibly rarely that they might as well not exists.

Agreed.

And for economy of rules utility, they should be removed.

I'm starting to get a feeling that DD and Aga are the kinds of people who play the game to win first, win only.

WH40k isn't a game to be won! Warhammer 40,000 is a game to be played! Winning is fun, yes! But some of my favorite battles have been ones that I have lost. Why? Because the person I was playing was more into PLAYING the game than winning it. Allowing exceptions, allowing eachother to make moves or ignore or create rules as we played because it made sense to do so to feel more a part of the game, and make the game seem more rational. The best parts are making comments about the cowardous of some of the troops, or that the tank crews must have been on a bender because their damn arty was blinkin' 6" off target every dang shot. Letting a squad get a couple extra inches to engage into close combat because because it made for a brilliant battle scene.

The rules are supposed to be there to allow for interesting situations. Not just so they can be number crunched and super charged min/max forces created. Or rules and stats put in place exclusively so they would make the unit only that much more effective. If AP3 weapons become the norm, SM will eventually all move up to armor 2+ with Termies and other previously 2+ only models being bumped up to reroll fails on a 4+ or whatever and an Armor value of 1+ for pen purposes. Then AP3 weapons will be useless again and AP2 will become the rage.

I would like to see more 4+ armor where 3+ was on some units, and 5+ being worth something more than just an odd armor save to fail. This wouldn't require as much of an overhawl as you might think.

The IG don't need to become the next Tau or latest Eldar codex, or as dredded as a Necron army. As they currently stand, they aren't terrible. They're just hard to play. What the IG isn't key killer weapons, but flexibility and the choice to be anything other than a pure shooty army. AP3 hellguns aren't the answer. Cheaper Stormtroopers or S4 hellguns is a patch that could be used. Give them AP3, and every Imperial Guard army will be taking as many of the buggers as possible, and just make a new Min/Max line of IG, abandoning the others.

FLUFF IS WHAT MAKES WARHAMMER 40,000 WORTH PLAYING!!!

Why would you max out stormies? If they point costed the guardsmen correctly it would be just as fine.

Assuming 5 point guardsmen who can tripple tap:

100 pts of guard blast some marines = 3.3333 dead marines or 50 points
105 points or marines shoot back = 6.222 dead guardsmen or 31 points.

Provided the gutted squad does not run they are slightly more effective at killing marines as the stormies, and they are a little better at taking damage. If you add in the fact that cover makes the regular guardsmen just as killy, and even more resilient to damage and the normal person would not see stormies as that more effective.

So Guardsmen are superior to Marines? Your numbers aren't even factoring rounds fired at range as the Marines close, increasing their kill count. So weapons put out too much ammo or Guardsmen are too cheap? Works well for the IG side, terrible for everyone else.

The way I see it the doctrine system was created by GW to be a blanket set of rules to allow an IG player come up with the fluff they wanted to represent their guard and then back it up with rules. It isn't at all fluff based from the fact that you're picking the rules you want, but its advantage was its flexibility to allow you to represent with rules a number of different fluffy creations.

One thing I'm overly hesitant about is the constant power creep that drives every army into either becoming an MEQ or into being anti-MEQ. I think the most blatant example is the fact that AP6, AP5, and AP4 have systematically called next to useless. Jumping to AP3 even though it can be balanced and made fair by cost, seems like a big deal. So while doing that might ultimately be the best solution, it should not be one taken lightly.

aka_mythos wrote:The way I see it the doctrine system was created by GW to be a blanket set of rules to allow an IG player come up with the fluff they wanted to represent their guard and then back it up with rules.

Same with VDR. The problem is that it did too much and wasn't well-thought out for balance or playability. So there were a number of options that were grossly underpriced, while others were unplayably overpriced. The idea of limiting them to 5 total had little to no real impact, because the imbalance between the various tradeoffs was so high. Now if Doctrines were limited to 2 total, and the modularity was better, then they could have worked much better.

aka_mythos wrote:One thing I'm overly hesitant about is the constant power creep that drives every army into either becoming an MEQ or into being anti-MEQ. I think the most blatant example is the fact that AP6, AP5, and AP4 have systematically called next to useless.

Jumping to AP3 even though it can be balanced and made fair by cost, seems like a big deal. So while doing that might ultimately be the best solution, it should not be one taken lightly.

If there aren't a lot of solid checks on MEQs, then the game becomes truly degenerate of all-MEQ, and nobody wants that. So it is important that *non-MEQ* armies have excellent anti-MEQ capabilities, while MEQ armies become severely limited in their anti-MEQ abilities. It creates playing space for non-MEQ forces within a heavily-MEQ environment that ultimately helps drive diversity into better balance. So if Eldar / Nids / Orks / Guard all have significant anti-MEQ capabilities, it help promote a better-balanced environment overall. GW is doing this by forcing MEQ armies to field larger squads to limit the density of anti-MEQ gear within those armies.

AP3 is already balanced and fair based on what a Stormtrooper is and costs. It amuses me that we consider this to be a big deal.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Same with VDR. The problem is that it did too much and wasn't well-thought out for balance or playability. So there were a number of options that were grossly underpriced, while others were unplayably overpriced. The idea of limiting them to 5 total had little to no real impact, because the imbalance between the various tradeoffs was so high. Now if Doctrines were limited to 2 total, and the modularity was better, then they could have worked much better.

Limiting Doctrines even further would have made little difference. The problem wasn't the 5 Doctrine Points, the problem was the 'restricted troops' that you were 'giving up' weren't worth taking in the first place, so you lost nothing by doing a Doctrine army. Yes, most of the Doctrines themselves were terrible wastes of points, but the overall Doctrine System wasn't a flawed concept, just a flawed execution.

Doctrines should be done on a platoon by Platoon bases, similar to the way that Fan Dex did it, but each Platoon can only take a single Doctrine:

Drop Troopers (Carapace & Drop Troops)
Light Infantry (Light Infanhtry & Cameleoline)
Close Order Drill (Close Order Drill & Iron Discipline)
Mechanised (Mechanised and... umm... Combat Engineers ie. Special Weapon Squads).

That sort of thing.

BYE

Skinnattittar wrote:I'm starting to get a feeling that DD and Aga are the kinds of people who play the game to win first, win only.

And Jesus Christ, could you be any more wrong. My current W/L/D statistics at somewhere around 1:12:3. My army typically fields Ogryns, Medusas and, points allowing, quad launchers. Most of my infantry squads have missile launchers and no plasma guns (indeed, my entire army has 1). I own zero Leman Russes, zero Rough Riders and and no Hardened Veterans squads at all (My Elites slots are full of Ogryns, Ratlings, thudd guns and/or Enginseers). I'm in it for the models, and if I wanted to, I could improve my win ratio by some 30 percentage points anyday by sacrificing that.

Or just by playing a better-supported, more competitive army. Like Orks.

There's a difference between the game having a compelling background narrative, and designers using that narrative to make bad rules. A rule that stops Ogryns from getting inside Chimeras accurately reflects their stated-in-the-fluff claustrophobia and fear of the dark (actually, did those phobias for Ogryns exist anywhere before this rule was written), but does it add anything to the game? The same with Commissars executing psykers. It only turns a 83% probability of psyker death (Perils wounds Psykers on 2+) to a 100% one. When was the last time either of these rules came into play?

Agamemnon2 wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:I'm starting to get a feeling that DD and Aga are the kinds of people who play the game to win first, win only.

And Jesus Christ, could you be any more wrong.

Actually, yes he could. You only showed that he was half wrong.

I'm primarily in the game for the modeling and conversions - how stuff looks. My "hot" army at the moment is high-conversion "treadhead" guard, using the Tallarn metals as my infantry. I'm rebuilding my SM as all-Beakies, after standing up all-Tabard Templar army. I'm paying a huge premium to get my armies the way I want them to look. If you're curious, you can see some of my stuff on my website.

I manage to play roughly once a month, and it's all casual play lately, mostly Apocalypse.

So yeah, I must be your typical RTT / GT powergamer, despite not having played in any sort of tournament in *years*.

Skinnattittar wrote:So Guardsmen are superior to Marines? Your numbers aren't even factoring rounds fired at range as the Marines close, increasing their kill count. So weapons put out too much ammo or Guardsmen are too cheap? Works well for the IG side, terrible for everyone else.

HELLO MCFLY!
Guardsmen Shoot, thats their strength. They better be able to out shoot marines point for point, because they sure can not out fight them in close combat, are not nearly as versitile, do not have the leadership, do not have ATSKNF, have no real cool toys, or psychic tricks.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:One thing I'm overly hesitant about is the constant power creep that drives every army into either becoming an MEQ or into being anti-MEQ. I think the most blatant example is the fact that AP6, AP5, and AP4 have systematically called next to useless. Jumping to AP3 even though it can be balanced and made fair by cost, seems like a big deal. So while doing that might ultimately be the best solution, it should not be one taken lightly.

If there aren't a lot of solid checks on MEQs, then the game becomes truly degenerate of all-MEQ, and nobody wants that. So it is important that *non-MEQ* armies have excellent anti-MEQ capabilities, while MEQ armies become severely limited in their anti-MEQ abilities. It creates playing space for non-MEQ forces within a heavily-MEQ environment that ultimately helps drive diversity into better balance. So if Eldar / Nids / Orks / Guard all have significant anti-MEQ capabilities, it help promote a better-balanced environment overall. GW is doing this by forcing MEQ armies to field larger squads to limit the density of anti-MEQ gear within those armies.

AP3 is already balanced and fair based on what a Stormtrooper is and costs. It amuses me that we consider this to be a big deal.

If you don't see the need than why are you concerned that it is unbalancing? Besides have you actually looked at the karskin model? That hell gun is as big as a plasma gun, or melta, and no where near the power level. Heck ap3 hell guns are not over powered at all. I good indication is this. At the current point's costs, even if the stormies have ap3 guns, I would still rather take a squad of sisters.

I could write a short novel on the problems I'm seeing with the suggestions here, and only a sentence or two of viable rebutle mentioned thus far.

We started off with some rather rational suggestions like making guardsmen a little cheaper, improved doctrines, useful doctrines, ect... But the last couple pages are mostly game unbalancers.

@ DD and Ara : Didn't mean to insult, that's just how what's being said looks like. If that's not what you intended, I'm sorry, that's just how it looked. Well, read.

@ Foil : I didn't say at just shooting, I meant in general.

The IG are okay as far as things go in 40k. They aren't total junk, they're just harder to play than any of the other armies (in just about everyone who has played IG's opinion). And with assaults being a much more major part of battle than the IG were concieved for, they are generally left behind. I don't think they need a total overhawl and a whole new face. Making cheap STs with over powerful weapons will create an essentially new army, not a revised Imperial Guard. It's not my opinion, it's the blatantly obvious fact of the matter.

The IG do need an anit-MEQ weapon other than just a million lasbolts, even in fluff it's not enough and in game it rarely makes the cut. Upgrading a heavy weapon seems more reasonable. Make the Autocannon S7AP3. It fits, pretty damn well too. The thing is supposed to be an anti-medium armor weapon, and it is currently under used. The low rate of fire means that it won't completely unbalance things, but being S7 will pretty much ensure a knockdown hit with a 2+ to wound. Leave it at its current price, which is over priced at the moment anyhow.

have been fiddling around with this idea for a couple weeks now, and I think it’s worth putting out there, as I feel it will solve a few problems, allow for more flexibility, and some interesting options.

From the Ground Up Soldiers

Basically, with this system, you start off with buying a very basic soldier, and skills and abilities are added on. They would be the staple troop choice, and bought by the platoon. However, each platoon must have the same options as the first, the alternative to this would be taking them as an elites choice, who could have alternative additions. The idea is that you can have a fresh faced army or militarized force of gangers or peons with some military training, being kept in line, shown the ropes, and/or supported by a veteran force as a detachment from another unit. So, theoretically, you could also have a main troops force of veteran storm trooper like soldiers, heavy infantry, or any other sort of interpretation, with a detachment of scouts, conscripts, light infantry, basic infantry, or even mechanized assault force.

Starting Unit; Conscripts

Three points per model (3), worth less than a conscript stats wise. These could be civilians with lasguns and a bit of squad tactics training, or a hive gang arranged into squads defending their home planet. They don’t have any equipment other than their basic lasguns and some improvised armor yet, and they do not understand the basics of leadership so may not use the Leadership special rule, or any other character’s leadership but their own.

WS2 BS2 S3 T3 W1 I2 A1 LD5 SV6

PROS: Cheap, aggregate, fluffable, and disposable. Having these being your basic troops is like having a new army of conscripts. Having them as an elites choice attached to a stronger fielded force represents an detached unit being lead along into battle to be shown how to fight. Maybe they will survive long enough to learn a few things and be useful some day, or with any luck or grace of the Emperor, they will take a wound meant for a more veteran soldier.

CONS: They will run like sheep at the drop of the hat, or take to ground and be pinned. Make them crappy enough and they can’t be reliable and made into a flood based force, but as a platoon or two, they should make a good front line aggregate, their lack of skill being filled in by their elite choice counterpart.


Upgrade to Unit; Recruits

Plus one point per model (4), a better trained conscript force, or perhaps a the surviving remains of a conscript company, those that survived have the skills enough to fight on, and some valuable experience. These troops followed their leaders and made it through, they can now use the Leadership special rule.

WS2 BS2 S3 T3 W1 I3 A1 LD6 SV6

PROS: A bit more reliable, a bit more useful, still cheap aggregate.

CONS: Are they really much better?


Back to Basics; Guardsmen

Another point per model (5). Now we’re at the Imperial Guard standard trooper level! Maybe these troopers have been through the official training doctrine, or have just lived through enough battle as conscripts and are skilled enough to be counted as Soldiers.

WS3 BS3 S3 T3 W1 I3 A1 LD7 SV6

PROS: Cheaper than the current 6pt Guardsmen, not a whole lot worse though.

CONS: 6+ armor save isn’t very good.


Battle Brothers; Veterans

Plus a point per model (6). These guys are good! Well, at least compared to other Guardsmen. Veteran basic Guardsmen, or well trained soldiers. These troopers know their stuff and are well drilled and skilled.

WS3 BS4 S3 T3 W1 I3 A1 LD8 SV6


The Next Best Thing; Career Soldier

Why not? Drop a +3 to that points cost (9). These dudes are the elite, elite of the Imperial Guard, highly trained, and very violent. Are they real soldiers? Or psychopathic killers jammed into a platoon shape?

WS4 BS5 S3 T4 W1 I4 A2 LD8 SV6

Unit upgrades:

Basic Armor: Plus one point per model (1), increase the save to 5+.

Carapace/Improved Armor: Plus two points per model (2), increase save to 4+.

Hellguns/Improved Lasgun: Plus one point per model (1), increase AP of the lasgun to 5.

More powerful Lasgun: Plus two points per model (2), increase S of lasgun to 4. Represents improved lasgun technology or lasguns rubbing at an increased powerlevel (many fluff sources indicate that the lasgun can be utilized at a higher power level).

foil7102 wrote:If you don't see the need than why are you concerned that it is unbalancing? Besides have you actually looked at the karskin model? That hell gun is as big as a plasma gun, or melta, and no where near the power level. Heck ap3 hell guns are not over powered at all. I good indication is this. At the current point's costs, even if the stormies have ap3 guns, I would still rather take a squad of sisters.

That's your choice. I use stormtroopers to fill my troop choices and they work just fine; my only complaint is that they're a little too expensive. Relative to each other SoB are under priced, but I play guard, I can care less about other armies. I work with what I got and I try to do my best to have fun and win.

From my perspective if there really isn't a need than any action to change something is inclined to create an imbalance, even if only subtle. IG more than a lot of other armies is not about individually uber units, its about units being used in conjunction with each other.

Career Soliders are better shots than Genetically Enhanced Super Humans, hey?

BYE

That one was more of a "for the hell of it." And why not? I, myself, am a crack shot at 300m, even from the standing and kneeling unsupported positions. From the hip, I'm decent up to 100m. I'm not even a grizzled, 40k universe, battle bludgeoned campaign war veteran. Yeah, Marines have all that fancy tech, but at best these Career Soldiers are firing bolter level weapons, are still S3 T3 armor save 4+ and LD8 (even a grizzled vet knows when there are too many rounds in the air... or something like that. They'll have Vet Sergeants or something....).

Other rules would include limiting Conscripts and Recruits from certain weapons (or just listing what weapons they are allowed), upgraded equipment, ect... I think the variety this allows is rather reasonable, and basic Guardsmen (ones comparable to current ones) are still 6pts, which is agreed to be "too expensive," but the options allowed should outweigh that (take away their 5+ armor and they might be underpriced, according to those who say that 5+ armor is useless, 6+ even less so?).

The idea is, you can get a Stromtrooper style army out of this at reduced price and light infantry as elites, or vice versa. Following the "Detachment" idea, elites could have seperate doctrines than the troops version.

In modern militaries (US at least), troops from the same unit wouldn't have different battle gear, however another unit might, and often do, along with combat tactics and doctrine. So if you have a unit of heavy infantry but your mission also requires effective recon, requesting a detachment from a light infantry unit is permisable. I'm sure this would follow logic in 40k. Read the Gaunt's Ghost novels and many different units with many different weapons and weapon loadouts are mentioned, along with heavier armor, specialized weapons, and lasguns with higher power settings.

40K stats are very coarsely grained. BS5 is the domain of Officio Assassinorum operatives, Space Marine heroes, and Exarchs.

foil7102 wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:So Guardsmen are superior to Marines? Your numbers aren't even factoring rounds fired at range as the Marines close, increasing their kill count. So weapons put out too much ammo or Guardsmen are too cheap? Works well for the IG side, terrible for everyone else.

HELLO MCFLY!
Guardsmen Shoot, thats their strength. They better be able to out shoot marines point for point, because they sure can not out fight them in close combat, are not nearly as versitile, do not have the leadership, do not have ATSKNF, have no real cool toys, or psychic tricks.

No, but they do have more Mates, bigger and better Tanks, proper Artillery and other things which can annihilate that expensive squad of Marines in a single shot, luck willing.

But hey, yeah. Everything has to kill a Marine on a 2+, or it's just not worth it, right?

And did my eyes deceive me, or did someone seriously want AP3 Hellguns? Why not AP2 and remove all thought from the game!

There is such a thing as weight of firepower. The Guard have more of it. This means more bits at the cherry, however little they may be.

aka_mythos wrote:A bit of a un-reality check. Strength 4 = 35mm bolter. That is a 1.4 inch entry wound, and torso sized exit wound. If thats what strength 4 does, does a hellgun, a big laser even begin to make that kind of damage?

Also giving any non-heavy weapon 3 shots is bit ridiculous. The number of "shots" a weapon gets is supposed to abstract representation. And relative to each other the only real difference between an assault rifle type weapon and an SMG would be range and rapid-fire/assault.

The only way I could see lasguns or hellguns getting "gets hot" is as an alternate mode of fire. Fire lasgun at S4 and it gets hot, makes sense.

Also it was my absolutely ridiculous idea for Hellguns to be knock backed to AP6... I explained my rationale up there. If AP6 is good enough for a multilaser it should be good enough for a hellgun.

And as a side note....Bolters don't have exit wounds like we know them. It's Mass Reactive. It explodes inside you.....

No way can a Laser recreate that level of damage in a man portable version.

Grotsnik, how do you know that? Do you have experience in las-based weaponry? By the way, las-guns aren't lasers, they are "las." Back when 40k first came about, Lasguns WERE described as lasers, but over the last, what, over twenty years is it now? they have changed into something else. Lasers would not have recoil, las weapons do. Lasers would not have any stopping power, las weapons do. Lasers would not cause bursting wounds, las weapons do. Lasers do damage by heat from light. Light has practically no mass, so little in fact it is never considered in anything but at the atomic level (even then it is negligable), so a laser would enact no recoil and no stopping power (impact force on a target). This sounds extremely nerdy, but it is physics, my most hated subject. Plus I really like the Gaunt's Ghosts, Ciaphas Cane, and I read the 13th Legion series. Among a few other short stories from the Black Library, Codex fluff, ect...

Just to give you an idea on how much mass light has, if you were to make a laser that could push against a platform, you would need all the power of a metropolitan city to levitate a squirrel.

To begin with, a short off-topic comment. While a laser beam itself doesn't cause a bursting wound, surely the explosively evaporating tissue could seem like it? We're mostly made of water after all, and a suddenly heating a small piece of us to a thousand degrees or so might cause that bit to go "splat".

An a more topic-related note, giving a hellgun ap 3 would be silly. if the hellgun is better than a bolter, I'm pretty sure that most space marines would pretty quickly get their hands on them. After all, energy-based weapons are much easier to keep supplied, especially if you can just hook it up to your fusion plant backpack and blast away all day?

I don't understand where this idea of having portable multilasers is coming from? I like the idea of stormtroopers, and I'd love to use them more, but I think any str 5+ weapons should be restricted to heavy and/or Sentinel mounted stuff. I don't think Stormies need to be awesome to be useful, they just need a little something to work okay.

A str 4 ap - hellgun for a Stormie who costs 10 pts (including both DS and infl.), is a pretty decent deal. And if the cost of the basic guardsman is reduced, let his price go down an equal amount. There's no need to make him better (and more expensive) than a basic marine-type.

Well, plasma is hotter than a laser, and I have seen those. They don't burst either, by-the-by, they just severly burn to and through the bone instantly.

Taking the AP out of the hellgun and giving it a boost in strength is one solution, but why not just arm them with bolters/S4AP5 Hellguns instead? Besides that it would conflict with the new models, and some people would chafe that their are TWO similiar weapons in the Imperial Inventory, there really isn't a bad reason to. Or just make is an assaulting bolter, like a shuriken rifle of the eldar, but tough nuggies, if it makes sense, works, and is correctly fluffy, then let it be.

Skinnattittar wrote:I, myself, am a crack shot at 300m, even from the standing and kneeling unsupported positions.

Are you a crack shot at 300m in the midst of a massive war, with huge daemonic entities, walkers the size of skyscrapers and ravenous hordes of bugs coming at you from all directions while a man in a big hat keeps shooting your buddies in the head whilst screaming at you to advance?

Shooting on a range, or even hunting, does not = War. Please do not try to equate the two.



And even if we forget the above, I'm sure that if we made a perfect clone of you, but genetically enhanced him to be physically and mentally perfect (in comparison) and then put him inside a sophisticated suit of tank armour with weapons intrinsically linked to that suits integral targeting systems, he'd be better at 300m than you.

BYE

Oh, well then we had better inform every military that trains on firing ranges to stop bothering with all that, because HBMC says it's pointless.

Affective range in a non-combat scenario is two to three times that in a combat scenario. 40k range is about 1" = 5' or more, depending on how you want to interpret the models. So, if combat effective range of an average guardsmen with a lasgun is 24", that is about 120', or about 35m. I think that includes all before mentioned. The example I was making is that if a normal modern soldier, firing through iron sights, no optics, effective range is 100m to 200m, well trained, than perhaps there can be a Guardsmen analogy.

You don't have to explain such things to me HBMC, and I think just about everyone on here understands the same. Also, if I was going at the angle you seem to be suggesting I was proposing, then I would have suggested BS5 and increase the weapons range to 200" with a rend result on a 6 of the attempt to shoot, simulating a headshot.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:A bit of a un-reality check. Strength 4 = 35mm bolter. That is a 1.4 inch entry wound, and torso sized exit wound. If thats what strength 4 does, does a hellgun, a big laser even begin to make that kind of damage?
Also giving any non-heavy weapon 3 shots is bit ridiculous. The number of "shots" a weapon gets is supposed to abstract representation. And relative to each other the only real difference between an assault rifle type weapon and an SMG would be range and rapid-fire/assault.
The only way I could see lasguns or hellguns getting "gets hot" is as an alternate mode of fire. Fire lasgun at S4 and it gets hot, makes sense.

And as a side note....Bolters don't have exit wounds like we know them. It's Mass Reactive. It explodes inside you.....
No way can a Laser recreate that level of damage in a man portable version.

When I said torso sized exit wound it was my colorful way of saying it would split you in half, or more specifically it'd turn you to many colorful bits sent in multiple directions.

Skinnattittar wrote:Oh, well then we had better inform every military that trains on firing ranges to stop bothering with all that, because HBMC says it's pointless.

Affective range in a non-combat scenario is two to three times that in a combat scenario. 40k range is about 1" = 5' or more, depending on how you want to interpret the models. So, if combat effective range of an average guardsmen with a lasgun is 24", that is about 120', or about 35m. I think that includes all before mentioned. The example I was making is that if a normal modern soldier, firing through iron sights, no optics, effective range is 100m to 200m, well trained, than perhaps there can be a Guardsmen analogy.

You don't have to explain such things to me HBMC, and I think just about everyone on here understands the same. Also, if I was going at the angle you seem to be suggesting I was proposing, then I would have suggested BS5 and increase the weapons range to 200" with a rend result on a 6 of the attempt to shoot, simulating a headshot.

I think he's just trying to say what an individual, such as yourself, can do at a target range means little till it has been tested on the field of battle. He seems to be scepltical of the measure of your abilities because you've said little of any personal battle field tested abilities.

The divergence in the collective understanding of lasguns comes from those who have read Black Library books and those who haven't. Those who haven't see lasgun as being lasers, while those who have read those books have a perception that they are more like the exploding bolts from StarWars that the black library books make them out to be. Personally I think the distinction of those things would be a better way of distinguishing lasguns and hellguns, but I have to say I really see lasguns more as just straight up lasers.

Battle field reports and analyse shows effective battle field range is one-half to one-third that of range qualifications.

Perhaps there is a general lack of knowledge of these qualifications? Qualifying ranges are designed to simulate battlefield conditions as much as possible while still retaining high levels of safety. So while there are not bullets zipping overhead or your buddies running around ahead of you while you plink at targets and explosions blosoming a few meters from you, there is a lot of weapons discharge, changing and multiple targets, and short amounts of time to take your shot (longest target is the 300m target which is only up for three seconds, which is usually only for that long when it is a multiple target rotation). Crunch this information to the battle assessments and anticipations, 300m competency equates to at least 100m competency in a combat situation.