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.

This whole issue stems from 40ks rather clunky targeting mechanic. The same mechanic that prevents a squads heavy weapon targeting a vehicle whilst the small arms target the infantry. Things like this are why 40k itself needs remade before you can begin to fix individual armies and units.

And yet it's easily solved with Splitfire.

Giving tanks splitfire is a start, but they'd still be garbage compared to MCs.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
This whole issue stems from 40ks rather clunky targeting mechanic. The same mechanic that prevents a squads heavy weapon targeting a vehicle whilst the small arms target the infantry. Things like this are why 40k itself needs remade before you can begin to fix individual armies and units.

I'm glad someone got the point I was making.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
This whole issue stems from 40ks rather clunky targeting mechanic. The same mechanic that prevents a squads heavy weapon targeting a vehicle whilst the small arms target the infantry. Things like this are why 40k itself needs remade before you can begin to fix individual armies and units.

Yep, even tho once upon a time, we could. Rules used to be that the heavy/special weapons in a squad could target a 'large' target whilst the lasguns/boltguns/whatever small arms could target a 'small' target. Such an easy fix, as long as they keep the bit that small arms must declare their target before anything fires, etc etc.

 don_mondo wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
This whole issue stems from 40ks rather clunky targeting mechanic. The same mechanic that prevents a squads heavy weapon targeting a vehicle whilst the small arms target the infantry. Things like this are why 40k itself needs remade before you can begin to fix individual armies and units.

Yep, even tho once upon a time, we could. Rules used to be that the heavy/special weapons in a squad could target a 'large' target whilst the lasguns/boltguns/whatever small arms could target a 'small' target. Such an easy fix, as long as they keep the bit that small arms must declare their target before anything fires, etc etc.

This reminds me of the rules in Bolt Action whereby any model armed with a one shot AT weapon such as a Panzerfaust can shoot at a different target to his fellows, provided that target is a vehicle. It really makes them useful as the squad can suppress the supporting infantry whilst the Grenadiers with panzerfaust pop the enemy tanks.

Hmmm, how many former GW staff write Bolt Action rules...?

This is really interesting because my own dabbling with the rules has made me realise that what 40k really needs is a size stat. It would affect so much; transport capacity, AT and grav weaponary, cover etc. Definitely something to think about.

But I digress. The Leman Russ could certainly use a way to spread its firepower out. Do that, sort out ordnance and increase the rear armour and Russes would be worth their price. But again, fix 40k first!

 Future War Cultist wrote:
This is really interesting because my own dabbling with the rules has made me realise that what 40k really needs is a size stat. It would affect so much; transport capacity, AT and grav weaponary, cover etc. Definitely something to think about.

But I digress. The Leman Russ could certainly use a way to spread its firepower out. Do that, sort out ordnance and increase the rear armour and Russes would be worth their price. But again, fix 40k first!

Umm, it does, kinda. At least for transport purposes, regular, bulky, very bulky.

Used to be size 1 (swarms), size 2 (standard infantry, bikes, cavalry, etc) and size 3 (vehicles, monstrous creatures). Terrain was also sized 1, 2, or 3. A size two model behind size 2 terrain could only be seen/targeted by a size 3 but a size 3 behind size 2 could be seen/targeted by anything, while anything behind size 3 could not be seen at all. One funny quirk from this that I remember was that a Hive Tyrant with Guard behind size 2 had to take hits on the Tyrant, because the Guard were out of LOS as they were size 2 but the Tyrant was size 3.

I know about bulky, very bulky etc. I've been in the game a long time now. This would be taking the whole thing a step further. And a step back too, but in a good way.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
This is really interesting because my own dabbling with the rules has made me realise that what 40k really needs is a size stat. It would affect so much; transport capacity, AT and grav weaponary, cover etc. Definitely something to think about.

But I digress. The Leman Russ could certainly use a way to spread its firepower out. Do that, sort out ordnance and increase the rear armour and Russes would be worth their price. But again, fix 40k first!

I like this idea, especially if it's on a 1-10 scale like other stats, which would then be applied to all models. This would probably take care of issues such as a 20% obscured vehicle receiving no cover, but a Wraithknight with a ripper swarm/nurgling/canoptek scarab obscuring 20% of his foot receives cover.

There uses to be a size stat.

Small creatures (Grots)
Human sized
Large (vehicles, MCs etc)

You got +1BS when shooting at large creatures

 KommissarKiln wrote:
I like this idea, especially if it's on a 1-10 scale like other stats, which would then be applied to all models. This would probably take care of issues such as a 20% obscured vehicle receiving no cover, but a Wraithknight with a ripper swarm/nurgling/canoptek scarab obscuring 20% of his foot receives cover.

Exactly. It just fixes so many many things wrong with the game. And if super heavies are going to be a thing then it's necessary.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 KommissarKiln wrote:
I like this idea, especially if it's on a 1-10 scale like other stats, which would then be applied to all models. This would probably take care of issues such as a 20% obscured vehicle receiving no cover, but a Wraithknight with a ripper swarm/nurgling/canoptek scarab obscuring 20% of his foot receives cover.

Exactly. It just fixes so many many things wrong with the game. And if super heavies are going to be a thing then it's necessary.

My Stormsword carries my army and does not need any more nerfing, thankyou.

Who said anything about nerfing the stormsword?

Giving the enemy +1 to it it.

Oh yeah.

That wasn't my suggestion.

Ah, okay then