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 can see giving giving guns the 'defensive weapon' rule but I think the strength thing works out fine defensive weapons aren't supposed to be strong and merely to discourage/suppress/kill any infantry that try to get too close. So low strength weapons pretty much fit the bill right off the bat.

It would be interesting to see S5 weapons become defensive though, I could see that.

I'm all for making defensive weapons able to fire at different targets, makes sense since the defensive gun is supposed to defend the vehicle from attacks while the vehicle does off doing its business (like shooting at that carnifex over there...).

It would be a good idea to have defensive weapons be able to fire all the time (unless moving flat out maybe), but suffer a BS penalty since it would be a lot harder to hit something while moving faster but the defensive gunner, being basically independent, could catch glimpses of enemy troops and take pot-shots at them. Maybe not a good way to use ammo, but they're supposed to have a lot right?

Tanks in 40K move at between 1 and 5 miles per hour when you compare their movement rate with infantry.

It's nowhere near fast enough to cause a problem in aiming.

If there's a reason for not allowing two weapons to fire it is for game balance.