JohnHwangDD wrote:Mechanically, 40k is already close to Moderns. All it would take would be Codices and minis.
.......No.
JohnHwangDD wrote:
@Eilif: WRT ranges, I think you confuse model scale with ground scale - if ground scale were model scale, then range would be effectively unlimited, and you'd just look at to-hit modifiers based on range. Think about it - a M16 has an effective range over a half-click, and a sniper rifle is good over a click. If you assume model scale holds at 70:1, then a M16 model could shoot up to 25 feet, and the sniper model would be 50 feet. That would set the minimum table size to be around 12' x 16'. On a board that big, CC becomes a non-issue.
For Warhammer Moderns, assume a basic statlines kinda like this:
- US Soldier - WS3 BS4 S4 T4 W1 I3 A1 Ld8 Sv4+ w/ M16 R24" S5 AP6 RF
- 3W Military - WS3 BS3 S3 T3 W1 I4 A1 Ld7 Sv5+
- "Terrorist" - WS3 BS2 S3 T3 W1 I4 A1 Ld6 Sv- w/ AK47 R24" S6 AP5 RF
- "Civilian" - WS2 BS1 S2 T2 W1 I3 A1 Ld5 Sv-
A major point of Moderns is that you would need to rescale everything so it made sense.
1. Even in modern combat,
CC is not, and should not, be a "non-issue". This is especially true in any scenario that requires one side to occupy terrain held by men from the other. Regardless of weapon ranges, someone is going to eat a hand grenade or take a bayonet to the chest. However,
40k provides an excessive level of detail and granularity with all its
WS, S/T, and A rules. Not to mention that "# of attacks" in a realistic close combat situation has little to do with how quickly you can swing your Ka-Bar and more with what firearm you are carrying, which even at ranges of <10 meters will still be your primary means of dropping bad guys. That would require re-working the existing
40k statline by shifting Attacks to the weapons instead of the users.
2.
40K's Initiative system has little relevance beyond hand-to-hand fighting.
IRL, initiative is far more significant in determining a soldier's or unit's ability to execute actions, sometimes in the absence of orders, in accordance with the
commander's intent. Of course,
40k has no overarching mechanics for passing orders/actions/information up or down the chain of command, and how that affects the activity (or lack thereof) of your individual squads and fire teams. This sort of stuff occasionally crops up in
40k as a Leadership test, which are often more related to overall troop quality/training and morale, which shouldn't be lumped together.
3. The mechanics for determining shooting casualties are off. Barring unusual circumstances like drug use (insurgents tend to use meth-amphetamines, can be covered by a
USR), when a round hits you stand a pretty good chance of becoming a casualty, with the chance reduced by wearing armor. First aid reduces the chance of being KIA instead of WIA. When a bullet connects with a human body it really doesn't matter all THAT much whether it's a .22 (S2) or a .338 Lapua (S5), somebody's gonna bleed and need treatment. So in terms of infantry weapons, all those S v T comparisons are unneeded and inaccurate anyway (vs T3, 150% difference between casualties caused by S5 and S2 weapons). The superior performance of more powerful rounds should have a more noticeable effect regarding things like suppression: big rounds whizzing overhead are more likely to make people seek cover, but
40k has no mechanics in place to model that nuance either.
4. On the flip side, the
40k system provides insufficient granularity for handling the effects of heavy/vehicle weapons vs infantry. A 20mm autocannon (S7), a 120mm HE shell (S8), and a JDAM (S10) all have an 83% chance of killing an unarmored human in open terrain, when really the lethality for all of them (and especially the last two) should be closer to 100%. This is partly a limitation of the S v T mechanic, and partly a limitation of using a
D6 for everything.
5.
40k is I-Go U-Go. I don't think I really need to elaborate on this point....
Bottom Line:
40K != Moderns. Not even close. One should probably just play
Fast and Dirty instead.