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.

So, I've been reading the thread that I created about 'snipers improovement'

here is the final suggestion.

Sniper:

sniper rifles are heavy rifles, capable of very long range firesupport. they're the mainstray weapon for all marksmen.

Sniper counts as a Heavy 1 rifle (in all instances, unless a different type is stated.)
Sniper fire is considerably terrifying. a sniper-type weapon counts as a Pinning weapon.
Sniper fire is also considerably powerful, and because of that, it counts as rending. (counts as S4 for attacking tanks.)
Sniper fire is extreemly accurate, honed from not just computers and sigils, but also the experience of a sniper rifle. +1 to balistic skill while using the weapon. (to a maximum of 2.)

still too overpowered?

I think it's easier.

Why didn't you post this in the old thread, it certainly didn't need a new one.

Also, your BS thing is useless, every model with a sniper is already BS3/4/5, so a max of BS2 is daft. (I assume you ment 2+ to hit, so just say a max of BS5)

oh, no.

It's the ideal that a sniper rifle is a single shot.

You can't re-roll it, but then again, thats a bit unfair.

Yeah this discussion is unnecessary.
Most marksmen are already a high BS.
Snipers already have Pinning and Rending.

Captain Solon wrote:they're the mainstray weapon for all marksmen.

Well have you ever heard of a Marksman who snipes with a handgun?

Captain Solon wrote:Sniper fire is extreemly accurate, honed from not just computers and sigils, but also the experience of a sniper rifle

The sniper rifles experience improves my roll not the experience of my soldier? Can i get more if my sniper knows how to shoot well too?

Sorry just couldn't help myself

The only reason I'm posting here is to shoot down this idea that a Sniper is the ultimate end all soldier. They are not, in fact in modern warfare I will go one further and say they are obsolete in their traditional role.

The best Sniper in the universe might have a %99.99 kill rate. That looks impressive but it is in fact pathetic. My kill rate would be about %500. This is because a cruise missile not only kills the target but it manages to get four other guys we didn't know would be there and all of this without putting the best marksman in my unit in a dangerous situation. So tell me, what makes a Sniper so great?

ComputerGeek01 wrote:The only reason I'm posting here is to shoot down this idea that a Sniper is the ultimate end all soldier. They are not, in fact in modern warfare I will go one further and say they are obsolete in their traditional role.

The best Sniper in the universe might have a %99.99 kill rate. That looks impressive but it is in fact pathetic. My kill rate would be about %500. This is because a cruise missile not only kills the target but it manages to get four other guys we didn't know would be there and all of this without putting the best marksman in my unit in a dangerous situation. So tell me, what makes a Sniper so great?

He can take out leaders and elite soldiers who would see/hear a cruise missile and get in cover. Plus, a sniper can shoot faster and more accurate than a cruise missile. And the ammo is cheaper

I hope you're just busting my chops and you aren't serious Terje-Tubby. Cruise Missiles are super-sonic, you would not 'hear' them coming. A Sniper cannot shoot faster if you consider the time it takes from briefing to execution add more time for extraction of the Sniper. A Sniper has to hit his target in a vital area, a missile only has to get close enough to the target for them to die of trauma. Cover such as bunkers only serve to amplify the effectivness of modern weapons by ensuring that the target is in a stationary position, and in the case of a Thermobaric charges inside is the last place you want to be. A Sniper is vulnerable to Armor, Medium and Large arms fire while Anti Missile technology is only possesed by industrial nations.

The only use left for a Sniper is policing actions where the collateral damage brought about by ordanance is unacceptable. And in the event that your target is hiding in an otherwise friendly city an Assault unit is capable of neutralising the target more effectivly.

So I say again the Sniper in his traditional capacity is obsoulete

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZytECK4_GB0
- Guy running from a missile

There is a much higher risk of civilian casualities with a cruise missile than with a sniper. You also need infantry to take and hold ground, missiles can't do that for you, and in infantry warfare, a sniper is a valuable asset. They are not obsolete because we have fancy missiles.

I never said they didn't have a purpose, in fact I made it a point to say "in their traditional role" on two occasions. I saw the guy in the video that was a good laugh, but there is nothing supporting the idea that he got away or that he is the rule rather then the exception.

I've also pointed out the use of a sniper to reduce civilian casualties however a platoon is much more effective in this regard, if for nothing else then a one or two man squad firing from a window causes panic and they are not capable of crowd control. A Sniper team cannot hold ground, this simply isn't realistic without support they remain vulnerable to armor which a platoon would have counter measures for. There is also the meat grinder scenario. As for a Sniper firing on an Infantry Platoon in an open area? Bullets travell on a ballistic trajectory, the direction of a shooter can be deterived from that fact, it doesn't take much training to pick out a likley Sniper nest given only that information. Call in fire support. As for a Sniper countering an infantry platoon in an urban area? Suppressive fire on the nest, surround and neutralize the shooter. For all of their training and leetness that's all it takes.

A sodier who can shoot reliably is always a valuble asset but to take him out of a squad where he can provide support and be supported, to send him off on his own to sneak around behind enemy lines to shoot people and sneak back is an unnecessary risk in modern warfare. Do we give all the gernades and special training to the one guy who can throw a 110 MPH fastball? Then send him out to blow up a convoy?

ComputerGeek01 wrote:I hope you're just busting my chops and you aren't serious Terje-Tubby. Cruise Missiles are super-sonic, you would not 'hear' them coming. A Sniper cannot shoot faster if you consider the time it takes from briefing to execution add more time for extraction of the Sniper. A Sniper has to hit his target in a vital area, a missile only has to get close enough to the target for them to die of trauma. Cover such as bunkers only serve to amplify the effectivness of modern weapons by ensuring that the target is in a stationary position, and in the case of a Thermobaric charges inside is the last place you want to be. A Sniper is vulnerable to Armor, Medium and Large arms fire while Anti Missile technology is only possesed by industrial nations.

The only use left for a Sniper is policing actions where the collateral damage brought about by ordanance is unacceptable. And in the event that your target is hiding in an otherwise friendly city an Assault unit is capable of neutralising the target more effectivly.

So I say again the Sniper in his traditional capacity is obsoulete

Wait, are you talking about 40k or reality?

A sniper is able to kill One and only One target. A missle is not able to do that. Sometimes you only want to kill the one target.

Missles have their place, so do Snipers. Snipers can give cover fire for advancing units. I don't think cruise missles can really do that. Another thing a sniper can do is cause an advancing unit to take cover while they figure out where the sniper is. This could give a displacing army much needed time. All of which is a traditional role for the sniper.

I'm talking about reality, it's just a problem that I have with people who think that the 'lone wolf killer' is the best thing out there.

@jbunny: "A sniper is able to kill One and only One target... Sometimes you only want to kill the one target." That's not a Sniper, that's an Assassin. I'm not splitting hairs here, there is a BIG differance.

A Snipers role is more of a necessity at the time then it is something a soldier should specialise. Cover fire isn't done one bullet at a time. You'll never pin down an entire army with one guy and one gun. Remeber the guys being shot at aren't drones from some video game, they think, they act and there are more of them then there are of the Sniper and they have more guns.

In regards to 40K I don't see their use there either. The only thing they do is kill one unit at a time 1/4th of the time from a longer range then usual.

I guess you never seen a whole convoy of soldiers stop and take cover from a single sniper? I have seen them wait 10-15 mins while they bring up the heavy armor to blast the spot they think the sniper is.

You are splitting hairs. Sometimes the military needs to kill a general, or a key personal, and they use members of the sniper squads for just such a mission.

But I guess you know more about military tactics then almost every country in the world considering almost all use snipers, and all have specialized schools to train them to be snipers.

This is getting off topic, but I'm going to add that I dont think Comp Geek is saying that Snipers are useless, just that the idolized version of them is unrealistic.

Snipers/Assassins = synonomous.

Snipers are still useful in exactly the merit that Compgeek stated though. When the Somali pirates were holding those dudes awhile back, neither a ballistic missile or a group of marines was the answer. A unit of Navy snipers plugged the pirate bastards from the open bay of a carrier in choppy waters while the other boat was tethered to the naval vessel. Wake was ridiculous. They fired at the same time and killed multiple hostiles and nullified the chance of enemy reprisal to hostages.

Only someone with that skillset could have sufficed right there. However, on a modern battlefield and especially in urban warfare, 2 soldiers who are good marksman but not sniper grade can easily pin/hold an enemy while teammates move to support, surround, and suppress/kill. Rarely will one man sneak off and simply play solo to great effect. Generally sniping is done by the best shot in a given platoon when they have a suprise position on an unawares enemy.


EDIT: And for that matter, snipers are rarely lumped together in units anymore with the sole purpose of single person elimination. Generally they are considered a MOS or specialty added to a platoon much the same as a comms tech, medic, or other particularly trained individuals are. Other than that they do the same things other soldiers in their platoons do. They just make the long shots when they are presented.

As to the rule creation I think you could have kept in your original thread, but I won't bust your balls over it.

As to the ot conversation I would just like to point out that each cruise missile is roughly 900,000 usd, and the cost of transportation of a missile that size is much more expensive then the sniper, making each missile kill rough 1m per shot. Snipers on the other hand are reusable, cheeper, and get the job done at a rate that is not proportionally equal to their cost in comparison with a missile. Both have their uses, but the sniper gets idolized due to their effectivity versus cost. No flaming compturegeek, just an educated opinion.

Thanks to everyone, even those who disagree, for contributing to this discussion. But to pull this topic back on course (I'm just going to assume the origional thread is buried), now that we have a realistic view of what a Snipers role is in warefare we can hashout rules.

- I like Thunderfrog's analogy so instead of seperate squads of Ratings, who get chewed up BTW, let's make the Sniper\Sniper Rifle an equipment upgrade. Maybe to Vet Squads of IG? Just assume the guy they gave it to has the training.

- Long Range yes. 48"?

- Increased accuracy? I liked the 3rd edition rules of a hit on a 4+ just fine. But maybe a 3+ is justified given the reduced avalibility? This shouldn't be a BS modifier though as only qualified people would have them (hopefully).

- I also liked the Instant kill on a 4+ from 3rd ed. (BOOM HEADSHOT!).

- Heavy Weapon? This is where I am torn the most. I know it takes a minute to aim long range but if you watch competative marksmen they fire at a pretty decent rate! The fact that a Las weapon doesn't rely on a caliber means that the magazine size shouldn't be a limiting factor due to large bullets occupying obnoxious amounts of space. A long barrel on a Laser does exactly Jack $ for range\accuracy, so we could have a short barrel rifle with a steam punk scope? Not fluffy I know but still realistic. Without the long barrel a trooper would be able to shoot from the hip more readily since the center of balance for the rifle would be the same as an Assault varient, this would enable Rapid Fire, unless someone wants to argue that the charge time is differant.

- Or should we just say H with it and give IG vets one Tau Plasma Rifle that ID's on a 4+ instead of depending on Strength? Since in the end they would play about the same way.

ComputerGeek01 wrote:
- Increased accuracy? I liked the 3rd edition rules of a hit on a 4+ just fine. But maybe a 3+ is justified given the reduced avalibility? This shouldn't be a BS modifier though as only qualified people would have them (hopefully).

I don't like the idea of ork snipers being that good of shots, i really don't like the idea of normal soldiers being as good of shots as highly trained space marines because if IG snipers are as good as marines what are marine snipers like and more importantly what do pathfinders hit on? I like the BS system as is.

ComputerGeek01 wrote:
- I also liked the Instant kill on a 4+ from 3rd ed. (BOOM HEADSHOT!).

WHAT?! i didn't play in 3rd edition, but i seriously can't believe you could instant kill with snipers 50% of the time. I think rending is supposed to represent this but in a lighter way

ComputerGeek01 wrote:
- Heavy Weapon? This is where I am torn the most. I know it takes a minute to aim long range but if you watch competative marksmen they fire at a pretty decent rate! The fact that a Las weapon doesn't rely on a caliber means that the magazine size shouldn't be a limiting factor due to large bullets occupying obnoxious amounts of space. A long barrel on a Laser does exactly Jack $ for range\accuracy, so we could have a short barrel rifle with a steam punk scope? Not fluffy I know but still realistic. Without the long barrel a trooper would be able to shoot from the hip more readily since the center of balance for the rifle would be the same as an Assault varient, this would enable Rapid Fire, unless someone wants to argue that the charge time is differant.

Uhhh have you ever shot before because let me tell ya its really difficult to hit what your aiming at. Alot of competive marksmen have been shooting their whole lives which is much longer than an IG soldier would have shot. You also have to factor in the fact that competive shooters aim at either stationary targets or targets that move in a regular pattern (ie: up in the air then right back down) People especially people who do not want to be shot at move, most likely in an irregular pattern, making a shot much more difficult. As of for the sniper rifle itself anyone can tell you recoil is a factor in shooting and large calibers tend to have high recoil. Big ol sniper rifles need to be laid down on a bipod and with a shoulder guard to be shot properly and even then are fired once, not fired rapidly at a crowd.
Lastly this game requires alot of imagination to "understand" why things do what they do, snipers are heavy because the sniper needs to take time to aim. They get 1 shot because they're trying to not give up their position or are going for a good shot and they use the shooters balistic skill because just because your using a different gun doesn't make you a better shot
Rant over:

Computer geek@

3rd ed rules for snipers were they hit on 2+ wound on 4+ regardless of who's shooting and what they are shooting at.

There was never (3rd & up) an InstaDeath on a 4+. I can not speak of 2nd but I am sure it was not in that because I am pretty sure I would have heard of it.

Where are you getting that the sniper is a Las weapon?

Since a couple of people appear to be determined to drag this thread off-topic, I have simply removed the entire off-topic section of this thread.

Further off-topic posts will be dealt with.

If you're not interested in the topic at hand, move on.

If the fact that this is the second thread discussing this idea upsets you, I would suggest taking some time away from your computer. The original topic had evolved somewhat. There's nothing wrong with starting afresh to bring new ideas to the front.

I honestly think nothing is wrong with the 40k sniper rifles. Like has been said, sniper rifle troops have a high bs usually. The wound on a 4+ represents the sniper hitting a single target in a (probably) moving squad of troops. The existing rending represents hitting eyes, joints, etc. Oh yeah and pinning to represent the obvious.

ComputerGeek01 wrote:This is because a cruise missile not only kills the target but it manages to get four other guys?

It also gets the 6 across the street and the 50 cal mounted pickup driving down the road.

I think that they should wound on a 3+ this is to show that the gun has an extremely high velocity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also in an urban fight, snipers are more useful than massed platoons, tanks and missiles because of the fact that they can pin enemy in 1 position allowing your on troops to kill them.

Eh, when I consider snipers, I'm normally not thinking about IG, but my Rangers/Pathfinders.

It's 120 points for a squad of 5 pathfinders, and they generally get wiped as soon as possible. Granted, the Infiltration and +2 cover save is nice, but pinning checks are ridiculously easy to make. They should at least incur a -1 per unit killed in my 5 shot salvo.

I dont think there's anything wrong with the ballistic skill, but if they are going to only have 4+ on wounding, then they should remove the rending effect on infantry and just outright kill on 6's to hit, or 5's and 6's if you are a pathfinder. (Or any other sniper who currently gets rending on 5/6)

Keep snipers vs vehicles as is. It's pretty fair the way its set up. Its hard, but a lucky shot can down a vehicle, or at least hurt it. My Pathfinder squad dropped a valkryie last night before they got mobbed.

I rather like the idea of giving them Instant Death on a wound roll of 6 if the target didn't move in the previous turn. Alternatively, the ability to pick out a model from the target unit if the target unit didn't move.

I like that rule, nurglitch.