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.

Okay, so I think that if you're within 6" of the target you are shooting at, then you should get a bonus to your BS (BS 3 becomes BS 4), because it would be more realistic. Imagine, it becomes more difficult to miss your mark when they're 10 feet away, as opposed to when they are 10 yards away. Don't you think that that would be a great addition to the 5th Edition rulebook?

I think they should do away with cover saves and bring hit modifiers into the game instead. Cover and Armor not stacking is really annoying in 5th edition.

It may be easier to hit a still target at that range, but in many cases a close, moving, let alone evasive, target can actually be very difficult.

Jack

Plus as your opponent gets closer the more urgent your shots become, the change in your targets position is greater, etc.... This comes up a lot.

If I may suggest, I once played a demo of a game called Void. I don't know if it is still around, but there were a few players at Dakka-Dakka way back when they still had a shop.

Skinnattittar wrote:Plus as your opponent gets closer the more urgent your shots become, the change in your targets position is greater, etc.... This comes up a lot.

I do hope that you're being sarcastic? Because either way, that argument sucks.

Yes, my fearless troops are really gonna get all antsy when those troops get within 12"! Oh noes!

Some weapons used to have to hit modifiers at short and long range which should come back.

Something that would help especially with rapid fire weapons would be a +1BS at short range.

Vladsimpaler wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:Plus as your opponent gets closer the more urgent your shots become, the change in your targets position is greater, etc.... This comes up a lot.

I do hope that you're being sarcastic? Because either way, that argument sucks.
Yes, my fearless troops are really gonna get all antsy when those troops get within 12"! Oh noes!
Some weapons used to have to hit modifiers at short and long range which should come back.
Something that would help especially with rapid fire weapons would be a +1BS at short range.

Okay, Vlad. Let us all listen to you, the master of combat. Veteran of countless warzones and expert in all things lethal.

Shut up, moron.

What do you know of combat? What do you know of war? What do you know about a closing enemy, who's face is flushed and mouth agape, with only one intent and that is to KILL you! Not make happy go lucky dice rolls to see how many strikes he will get on you, but to come in screaming with AK47 blaring wanting to chop you up. BLOOD! Yeah, blood is what he wants and he wants it from YOU! What do you know Vlad? What do you know of combat? Please, share with us your skills in gunning down charging enemy troops while rounds come in on your position, grenades blasting ripping shrapnel to tear you to pieces. What do you know of combat Vlad? What do you know of the brave and "fearless"? Please, enlighten us, Vlad.

Skinnattittar wrote:

Vladsimpaler wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:Plus as your opponent gets closer the more urgent your shots become, the change in your targets position is greater, etc.... This comes up a lot.

I do hope that you're being sarcastic? Because either way, that argument sucks.
Yes, my fearless troops are really gonna get all antsy when those troops get within 12"! Oh noes!
Some weapons used to have to hit modifiers at short and long range which should come back.
Something that would help especially with rapid fire weapons would be a +1BS at short range.

Okay, Vlad. Let us all listen to you, the master of combat. Veteran of countless warzones and expert in all things lethal.

Shut up, moron.

Ah, how cute, personal attacks!

What do you know of combat? What do you know of war? What do you know about a closing enemy, who's face is flushed and mouth agape, with only one intent and that is to KILL you! Not make happy go lucky dice rolls to see how many strikes he will get on you, but to come in screaming with AK47 blaring wanting to chop you up. BLOOD! Yeah, blood is what he wants and he wants it from YOU! What do you know Vlad? What do you know of combat? Please, share with us your skills in gunning down charging enemy troops while rounds come in on your position, grenades blasting ripping shrapnel to tear you to pieces. What do you know of combat Vlad? What do you know of the brave and "fearless"? Please, enlighten us, Vlad.

The problem is, you're confusing warfare in the dark millennium that is the 40th millennium with modern warfare. I can't say that I know much about war (though apparently you do) but sure, if I was a U.S. infantryman, no feth I'd be scared. That's pretty obvious.

But we're talking more than 38,000 years into the future.

Is a Carnifex...that's right, a huge, hulking monstrosity that is tougher than most human tanks...going to be scared when some puny little things get near it? Is an Eldar Dreadnought...pure wraithbone, tougher than even a Carnifex, and inhabited by the souls of great Eldar warriors, and by all rights is fearless, going to be shaking when some Orks come within 12" of it?

For that matter, even Imperial Guardsmen, who are so fanatical that they make Al Qaeda look like Sesame Street, go against terrible things but still fight with righteous zeal.

Space Marines, they know no fear. According to you, they're going to be scared and they'll be shaking. Nope, don't think so.

Orks can't shoot well in the first place so this makes sense.

Cultists and Conscripts I can see not getting a +1 to hit as they are mere humans.

Oops...is that your battleship sinking?

P.S. Posting drunk is a bad idea, never do it.

"And they shall know no fear" Well, after Vlad's reply, this post kinda got wasted. So I'll just put QFT for Vlad.

The OP is asking for realism, not for "40k-ism." In the Grim-Dark Future, everyone but humans (not including super human Space Marines) are fearless.

Skinnattittar wrote:The OP is asking for realism, not for "40k-ism." In the Grim-Dark Future, everyone but humans (not including super human Space Marines) are fearless.

People seem to think that in 40k there can be no realism, when there has to be -some- realism in this game to make the game work. There is very little realism, yes, but there is some. (Like, after a humanoid gets hit by a giant rocket, you die)

In any case, what the OP is suggesting something that makes sense as opposed to something that is realistic.

There is a difference.

Vladsimpaler wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:The OP is asking for realism, not for "40k-ism." In the Grim-Dark Future, everyone but humans (not including super human Space Marines) are fearless.

People seem to think that in 40k there can be no realism, when there has to be -some- realism in this game to make the game work. There is very little realism, yes, but there is some. (Like, after a humanoid gets hit by a giant rocket, you die)
In any case, what the OP is suggesting something that makes sense as opposed to something that is realistic.
There is a difference.

Actually, in 40k, it is all too common for a humanoid to be hit with a rocket and survive unfazed. Happens at least one in every six times.

As for there being a difference between what makes "sense" and what is "realistic", I must cordially ask: What? When did how things actually work and how things should make "sense" have a difference? Things happen because they happen! Things are real because that is how things occur! That is the "sense" of the matter.

Now, I never refuted that there might not be a modifier for close range, but there are a lot of factors to take in for how much that modifier, who and how, it could be applied. I mearly made a suggestion that another system already existed that the OP might consider investigating.

Skinnattittar wrote:

Vladsimpaler wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:The OP is asking for realism, not for "40k-ism." In the Grim-Dark Future, everyone but humans (not including super human Space Marines) are fearless.

People seem to think that in 40k there can be no realism, when there has to be -some- realism in this game to make the game work. There is very little realism, yes, but there is some. (Like, after a humanoid gets hit by a giant rocket, you die)
In any case, what the OP is suggesting something that makes sense as opposed to something that is realistic.
There is a difference.

Actually, in 40k, it is all too common for a humanoid to be hit with a rocket and survive unfazed. Happens at least one in every six times.

As for there being a difference between what makes "sense" and what is "realistic", I must cordially ask: What? When did how things actually work and how things should make "sense" have a difference? Things happen because they happen! Things are real because that is how things occur! That is the "sense" of the matter.

Take Mass Effect. Some of the explanations of how things work makes sense, but are not really realistic.

Helping a country in a recession by printing more money seems to make sense, but again is not realistic.

Now, I never refuted that there might not be a modifier for close range, but there are a lot of factors to take in for how much that modifier, who and how, it could be applied. I mearly made a suggestion that another system already existed that the OP might consider investigating.

It sure seemed a bit like you were refuting it, and you can't really deny that, but I do agree that afterwards you did suggest a new idea.

According to that logic, my Tau shouldn't run when they lose some drones "oh no, they shot our drones, head for the hills!". And drones should never miss because they're computer controlled...but then maybe Tau are crappy programers or something. Meh, forgot I said anything such arguments are all mental masturbation.

closer targets aren't always easier to hit

and back to the original topic...

i personally think that short/long ranges should be brought back.. with the relevent +/- hit modifiers for the range.. plus the relevent +/- hit modifiers for cover, small target, large target, fast target, etc..

along with proper armour penetration, it's one of the few things i miss about 2nd ed 40k.

Modquisition on.
Gentlemen, this thread is getting out of hand. Lets dial it back a bit and remember Rule #1. In this section particularly, argue the merits of the issue and points, and avoid personal attacks and slideway slants. Else this thread will be closed and appropriate disciplinary actions taken. Thank you.

Vladsimpaler wrote:

Helping a country in a recession by printing more money seems to make sense, but again is not realistic.

Uh...you...uh... just lost me. How would that make sense at even a cursory glance?

Anyway, it sounds to me like, in the name of the OP's desired realism, the solution wouldn't be to give everything +1 BS at close range, but to make things not fearless anymore. I think if we're trying to realism at this point, this would be the direction to go.

agnosto wrote:And drones should never miss because they're computer controlled...

That don't make no sense.

Vladsimpaler wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:

Vladsimpaler wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:The OP is asking for realism, not for "40k-ism." In the Grim-Dark Future, everyone but humans (not including super human Space Marines) are fearless.

People seem to think that in 40k there can be no realism, when there has to be -some- realism in this game to make the game work. There is very little realism, yes, but there is some. (Like, after a humanoid gets hit by a giant rocket, you die)
In any case, what the OP is suggesting something that makes sense as opposed to something that is realistic.
There is a difference.

Actually, in 40k, it is all too common for a humanoid to be hit with a rocket and survive unfazed. Happens at least one in every six times.
As for there being a difference between what makes "sense" and what is "realistic", I must cordially ask: What? When did how things actually work and how things should make "sense" have a difference? Things happen because they happen! Things are real because that is how things occur! That is the "sense" of the matter.

Take Mass Effect. Some of the explanations of how things work makes sense, but are not really realistic.
Helping a country in a recession by printing more money seems to make sense, but again is not realistic.

Now, I never refuted that there might not be a modifier for close range, but there are a lot of factors to take in for how much that modifier, who and how, it could be applied. I mearly made a suggestion that another system already existed that the OP might consider investigating.

It sure seemed a bit like you were refuting it, and you can't really deny that, but I do agree that afterwards you did suggest a new idea.

I don't know about Mass Effect, but if it did make "sense," it would have been "realistic." The two are of the same ilk if not used for sake of perspective and context. Something "might make sense" at a moment in time, simply as the most complete thought for the moment. But whether or not it is true is something else entirely, hence the "might make" part of that particular phrase.

As for your last comment, yes I can really deny that. I never said that nor intentionally implied such a thing. What I DID do was point out other factors to consider. I quite simply divulged more facts to add to the issue.

I would just like to point out that a battle hardened, inter-planetary warrior from the 41st millenium would most likely have a much different standard of fear compared to a modern infantryman.

1337m45747r0y wrote:I would just like to point out that a battle hardened, inter-planetary warrior from the 41st millenium would most likely have a much different standard of fear compared to a modern infantryman.

While I agree that that is a valid point, I however must add that this sort of statement does not make them, more or less, one way or another, brave. In fact, it is possible to make them MORE cowardly for the same reasons it could make them MORE courageous.

I can't help but agree that, overall, it does not make much sense, nor is very realistic, in some circumstances, for a unit to miss at certain ranges with certain weapons. For instance, with a shotgun at closer ranges or when engaging a stationary vehicle at point-blank range.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

agnosto wrote:And drones should never miss because they're computer controlled...

That don't make no sense.

I was being flippant; however, you would think that an advanced alien race that is so dependent upon technology would be able to program a targeting system into a drone that's better than a BS of 2..... just saying.

Rapid fire weapons don't need a BS boost at short range, the extra shot represents the increased weight of fire (by factoring both volume and accuracy). Most special weapons only work on very short ranges anyway, which leaves only the heavies. There I'm going to argue that the Heavy rule already represents the accuracy of those weapons, they're so accurate to long ranges once set up that the improvement at close range is negligible.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

glory wrote:Rapid fire weapons don't need a BS boost at short range, the extra shot represents the increased weight of fire (by factoring both volume and accuracy). Most special weapons only work on very short ranges anyway, which leaves only the heavies. There I'm going to argue that the Heavy rule already represents the accuracy of those weapons, they're so accurate to long ranges once set up that the improvement at close range is negligible.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

Not completely invalid, and well rationalized. However I would like to think a Lascannon at <12" has a greater chance of making a hit on a stationary target than at 48".

EDIT: Perhaps a modification to the Heavy rule?

If you do something like a penalty for shooting at long range, it would be good to flip it for sniper weapons. Make them less effective when the enemy's closer.

1337m45747r0y wrote:Okay, so I think that if you're within 6" of the target you are shooting at, then you should get a bonus to your BS (BS 3 becomes BS 4), because it would be more realistic. Imagine, it becomes more difficult to miss your mark when they're 10 feet away, as opposed to when they are 10 yards away. Don't you think that that would be a great addition to the 5th Edition rulebook?

I don't think its a good idea, you then get back on the tortuous road to adding modifiers for CC weapons, heavies, armour etc and end up back at 2nd ed, great set of rules, but is that where we want 40k to be? You could argue linking In intelligence to to WS and BS for positive and negative modifiers backed up with luck and coolness (under fire) - hey that sounds like a cumbersome RP lite stat line.

The more modifiers you have the more cumbersome game play would become, i wouldn't fancy playing a 2000pt per side game (under current restrictions) with extra modifiers.

As for the 'realistic' comments, we play a game, with army men, on a table, and imagine we are in the Grim Dark 41st millennium.

I don't think anyone's advocating bringing new stats into the game. Or even really adding modifiers for high strength close combat weapons and such.

Modifiers aren't necessarily more cumbersome, if they're fulfilling a niche role that would otherwise require special rules to be filled. For example, up until fairly recently there were no modifiers to armor saves, but instead there were heavy close combat weapons, rending, and power weapons all created to act similarly to how armor modifiers would have worked. (They got rid of heavy close combat weapons, which was probably a good move as they really didn't make much sense.)

Currently cover saves are taking the place of to hit modifiers, but it results in the awkward outcome of heavily armored troops gaining no benefit from cover, or even from enemy units trying to fire through their own ranks. You could also argue that the Rapid Fire rules are in part an attempt to bring long range modifiers into the game without actually doing so (although they also try and represent going "full auto", or something along those lines).

Some amount of realism is necessary for the game; otherwise we'd be playing Chess, or something along those lines. On the other hand, it can't be a factual simulation of warfare (either real or in an imagined universe) with things like turn-based movement and shooting, and artificially lowered weapon ranges, and other things that are probably necessary for the game to work in the way it does. A game designer needs to try and strike a balance between representing a battle and making a good game.

Orkeosaurus wrote:If you do something like a penalty for shooting at long range, it would be good to flip it for sniper weapons. Make them less effective when the enemy's closer.

May I ask how/why on both?

I guess we should assume that a shooters BS is graded to their weapons system's maximum range, or to a fixed range, say perhaps 12", 18", or 24"? significant ranges under and over would therefore affect the BS, with exception of vehicles, since most of the races it can be assumed would have additional targeting/compensation systems? Then what about Orks? Well, one race requiring an exception isn't so bad.

More just thinking that scoped rifles would become less useful the closer the enemy is to you, because you need to adjust more and more the closer they are. Eventually you're stuck trying to use it more like a regular gun (which a trained sniper may not be as good at). I suppose you could make them better at long ranges instead of worse at short ranges; that might be easier.

I also think sniper weapons are in kind of strange place in 40k, with the S X thing going on (something I've never understood). Making them miss more at closer ranges would make them a little more unique, and emphasise their long-ranged role.

I think among the Orks, they would probably give their sniper rifles to Grots (or make them into some sort of machine gun that bears little resemblance to a sniper rifle).

Oh, undoubtedly, sniper weapons are not quite properly represented in 40k, and I think that is a great misfortune for the game. If it were up to me, they would all have a S characteristic and a modifier to any save (including Invulnerable and any sort). Basically, a successful sniper's wound would not allow a model to recover their wounds.

I would also remove the pinning effect, which I do not think properly represents Sniper effects in the size of battles that you play in 40k.

But I would think that even in the far future, a trained sniper and experienced marksmen is just as effective at shorter ranges as they are at longer ranges. An awkward mechanic to try and force players to use snipers only at long ranges is akin to putting high points costs on units you want to remain rare. By that I mean illogically forcing players to do as you want them to do with a simple idea.

The role I would fit snipers into would be to reduce armor and cover saves, though not to remove either. A sniper would also not have to worry about shooting through their own troops or suffer from the effects of shooting through enemy troops.

As for Orks, I do not believe sniping, done by any of their ilk, makes much sense from a fluff perspective. I am not implying there has never been, nor will there ever be, an Ork, Grot, or Gretchin sniper, but simply that they would most likely be very rare, and too few to be fairly represented as a common unit in their Codex.

Skinnattittar wrote:Oh, undoubtedly, sniper weapons are not quite properly represented in 40k, and I think that is a great misfortune for the game. If it were up to me, they would all have a S characteristic and a modifier to any save (including Invulnerable and any sort). Basically, a successful sniper's wound would not allow a model to recover their wounds.

I would also remove the pinning effect, which I do not think properly represents Sniper effects in the size of battles that you play in 40k.

But I would think that even in the far future, a trained sniper and experienced marksmen is just as effective at shorter ranges as they are at longer ranges. An awkward mechanic to try and force players to use snipers only at long ranges is akin to putting high points costs on units you want to remain rare. By that I mean illogically forcing players to do as you want them to do with a simple idea.

It wouldn't need to be awkward. Pretty much every unit in the game has their range limited, this would just be doing it in a different way (or a way similar to many barrage weapons).

It's pretty much impossible to follow a moving person close to you with a scope, you're zoomed in too close. A sniper at that range wouldn't use it, which means they're using their weapon in a significantly different manner; essentially using their long las in the exact same manner as they would use a regular lasgun. Realistically, they would lose whatever advantage sniper rifles have at that range. In reality that would be cumbersome to execute, but reversing a modifier that already exists is a small change and it's intuitive for snipers to have an advantage at long ranges and a weakness at short ranges (compared to other types of weapons).

The role I would fit snipers into would be to reduce armor and cover saves, though not to remove either. A sniper would also not have to worry about shooting through their own troops or suffer from the effects of shooting through enemy troops.

Why not? It's going to be more difficult to hit their mark if they don't have a full range of vision. Or if their target can obscure their body. But under my theory, cover saves would be a negative hit modifier, so the advantage for sniping at long range would cancel them out to an extent (but would also apply when shooting models out of cover as well).

As for Orks, I do not believe sniping, done by any of their ilk, makes much sense from a fluff perspective. I am not implying there has never been, nor will there ever be, an Ork, Grot, or Gretchin sniper, but simply that they would most likely be very rare, and too few to be fairly represented as a common unit in their Codex.

I think 13 hours had a grot sniper in it. Unless they add heavy/special weapons to grot mobs though (or somehow expand big gunz batteries to include them), I don't really see them as an entry of their own.