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 think it is perfectly reasonable that snipers would have BS4 or better. They are trained for years to be marksmen and have sophisticated optics.

Folks should also remember modern military has many vehicles that are far better than IG. We have all sorts of sophisticated guidance systems, smart bombs, drones, and laser-guided weapons that could wreck a leman russ from miles away. Though this does stray somewhat into 40k's completely unrealistic weapon ranges that are set up to allow CC to be a viable strategy.

Though i do agree that modern soldiers shouldn't get a save against most weapons in the 40k arsenal.

The claim that some modern vehicles would be better than those used by a science-fiction milieu is usually based on a misunderstanding of what the game stats represent. The first rule of Warhammer characteristics is that sometimes a name is just a name and mechanics aren't representative.

Strength, for example, does not represent the physical strength of a metaphor from the background, there's no S4 rating that applies rightly to reality or even fiction vaguely resembling it, but its relative success as a step in the processes by which the close combat and Strength tests are carried out. It holds for relations such as "S4 vs T3 = 4+" and not "Space Marines are stronger than Imperial Guardsmen".

If you want to tack such a system down, you need to figure out how the system works as much as the value of its elements. Whether a model is removed as a casualty due to the chain of select target, measure range, roll shots, roll wounds, roll saves, remove casualties, and test for pinning.

You have to consider what the end results of those processes are such as one 'shot' from a weapon removing a maximum of one model from play unless it's a Blast or Template weapon. Does that mean that each shot represents a single bullet such that our modern militaries have access to fire two bullets over the space of time represented by the game turn if they use rapid fire weapons?

Now, the fact that this is fiction, and indeed fantasy, doesn't mean we throw realism out the window. Fiction doesn't have to be realism's bitch, but it does need to be on nodding acquaintance. Rules and background should meet somewhere. In Warhammer 40,000 they meet through the mass of science fiction and fantasy tropes that they represent, and not the lived experience of real soldiers.

Some people want to play Aliens, and some people want to play the History Channel. Others still want to play like whatever first person shooter they played last. Different people want different things. Everyone thinks that their representation is more accurate for the picture in their own head. My suggestion?

People who want the American military to have capabilities roughly on par with the Imperial Guard can have them be like vanilla Imperial Guard. For everyone that wants the Americans as Hollywood imagines them to be, just pay the points for their standard issue Lockheed-Martin Power Armour and Barrett's Bolter Combat System.