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.

Melissia wrote:

LoneGamer wrote:Tau can do it - vehicle multi-trackers are explicitly described as advanced sensor suites for weapons tracking on the move.

Something which the Imperial Guard also has, as described in the Gaunt's Ghosts novels?.

And I hate fluff as justification for rules. The fluff is, and should be, a reflection of the game, not the other way around.

I play Warhammer 40000, I don't play Real Life Army Men and Tanks 2000.

I expect the game to have game mechanics that make me actually enjoy playing. Fluff is meant to be stories that are like wooooah, that is such a cool group of guys I want my army to be just them, but most of the heroes of the fluff stories are just guys from our codexes who rolled the perfect numbers at any point in time to create the story.

Cause if the game = fluff, then my 20 Grey Knights paladins easily take on your 2000+ Chaos Demons and take 2 or 3 casualties...just saying.

Tanks don't need to fire on the move just like Marines don't need 10 power weapon attacks per turn. Keep the fluff as the cool stories we live up to and keep real life as a small aspect of the game. Mech doesn't need buffs, really.

Melissia wrote:

LumenPraebeo wrote:If you take cover behind a wall, does your armor all of a sudden disappear?

I swear, every time I Hear this argument, it makes me want to punch someone in the face.

How does it feel to be wrong all the time?

-Seanzor: You stole my name and you live in SoCal! Do you by any chance go to the GW at portola plaza?

Melissia wrote:

LumenPraebeo wrote:If you take cover behind a wall, does your armor all of a sudden disappear?

I swear, every time I Hear this argument, it makes me want to punch someone in the face.

Why?

Vladsimpaler wrote:

Melissia wrote:

LumenPraebeo wrote:If you take cover behind a wall, does your armor all of a sudden disappear?

I swear, every time I Hear this argument, it makes me want to punch someone in the face.

How does it feel to be wrong all the time?

-Seanzor: You stole my name and you live in SoCal! Do you by any chance go to the GW at portola plaza?

I do not, I'm not quite that far south at this point in time. I might have to go drop by this mystical GW place at portola plaza one day. Good community??

LumenPraebeo wrote:

Melissia wrote:

LumenPraebeo wrote:If you take cover behind a wall, does your armor all of a sudden disappear?

I swear, every time I Hear this argument, it makes me want to punch someone in the face.

Why?

Because a 4+ cover save and then a 3+/4+ or even 5+ armour save would leave no wounds whatsoever.

Again, it's part of the game not necessarily being "balanced", but "tactically interesting"


Oh, well, I don't know why Melissia wants to punch people. That is a mystery indeed.

I need a reason?

At any rate, granting a 4+ save to a Marine who already had taken his 3+ save would just make Marines that much more overpowered.

Melissia wrote:I need a reason?

At any rate, granting a 4+ save to a Marine who already had taken his 3+ save would just make Marines that much more overpowered.

Or we could go back to that mystical magical land of Rogue Trader and 2nd edition where there were to-hit modifiers that actually didn't slow the game down with needless extra die rolls.

But that'd be, you know, crazy and stuff.

@Seanzor- Yeah man, the manager is really cool and is incredibly knowledgeable. I even think that 1 quarter he was the top selling store in Southern California which is really impressive because I know there's a bunker further up north and it's a 1 man store.

Instead it slowed the game down by forcing you to look at charts all the time.

Melissia wrote:Instead it slowed the game down by forcing you to look at charts all the time.

Well people don't even read the rules any more before complaining and flaming, so getting them to read charts wouldn't really make a difference. As to why vehicles don't fire on the move, and as a hated Imperial guard player can I just say.....erm storm raven anyone. I mean come on there are fast vehicles that fire on the move, that's why they are FAST!

Remember people this is a game, and has been designed for balance and playability, don't rage hate on a game. Just deal with it or don't play

MrWhippy wrote:

Melissia wrote:Instead it slowed the game down by forcing you to look at charts all the time.

Well people don't even read the rules any more before complaining and flaming, so getting them to read charts wouldn't really make a difference. As to why vehicles don't fire on the move, and as a hated Imperial guard player can I just say.....erm storm raven anyone. I mean come on there are fast vehicles that fire on the move, that's why they are FAST!

Remember people this is a game, and has been designed for balance and playability, don't rage hate on a game. Just deal with it or don't play

Indeed, if you want to change the rules, do it with your ork and nid friends, and see how they like it.

But I think we've established it's here to stay.

Melissia wrote:Instead it slowed the game down by forcing you to look at charts all the time.

What Fantasy player doesn't know that Soft cover is -1 to hit and Hard Cover is -2 to hit?

Though I guess it's easier to just go "lol ok they're behind stuff give them a 4+ cover save! lolol"

At the risk of getting Internet-punched in the face, I've got to say that I don't think that having to hit modifiers for cover, and cover-alone, would be that complex. All other modifiers being removed, it wouldn't be any more complex than remember which kind of save you get from which kind of cover.

However, it would require rebalancing every point cost in the game.

My problem is less to do with tanks and more to do with transports.

Move rhino 12" and dismount 2" or move 6" and run (average) 3.5" So a man going at a trot is doing say 5 mph, so say 2" = 1 mph speed, So my "fast" transport does a whopping 7 mph. Say a man runs and 1" equals 1 mph. So the man running goes 9.5 MPH and a vehicle moving flat out goes 14 MPH.

In 5th edition you take a vehicle because it is cheap and hard to kill not because it provides mobility.

Distances in 40k are abstract.

DAaddict wrote:My problem is less to do with tanks and more to do with transports.

Move rhino 12" and dismount 2" or move 6" and run (average) 3.5" So a man going at a trot is doing say 5 mph, so say 2" = 1 mph speed, So my "fast" transport does a whopping 7 mph. Say a man runs and 1" equals 1 mph. So the man running goes 9.5 MPH and a vehicle moving flat out goes 14 MPH.

In 5th edition you take a vehicle because it is cheap and hard to kill not because it provides mobility.

Yes. the extra 4.5 MPH/2.5" is just a bonus.

Norade wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:

Norade wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:Well with this being said, why can't I run and shoot at the same time? Why if I'm laying down can't I shoot back blindly/wildly? Why if fighting at night do I just not shoot sometimes instead of at least trying to hit something?

These are things that lead to that silly little thing called game balance. Just because another game lets their tanks move all out and fire everything doesn't mean it's conducive for WH40k to do it as well. I'm guessing you're talking about Flames of War maybe?

So you're saying that it's somehow impossible to add more realism to 40k on the tabletop but you're not giving a whole lot of reasons why it can't be done. After all, other systems manage balance while having more realistic rules and do so using a d6 based system. Thus making the game more intuitive isn't impossible or even hard to do. I'd even argue that 28mm is playing on too small a table as is and either tables should increase to 12' by 8' or the scale should change to give more realistic ranges and movement rates.

While FoW is the first that comes to mind I bet you more games than not have rules that are more realistic and balanced than GW's.

Yes, it's impossible because nothing in this game is "real" at all. So adding realism to a game that is based off of none is...well, absurd. "Other Systems" aren't this one. Other systems have entirely different rule sets to balance out this one change you've mentioned.

Also not to mention that this would add a HUGE benefit for only a select few armies and be a huge detriment to the rest.

I also do not doubt your claim that other games have more balanced rules. Especially considering that it is only just recently that GW is finally getting around to updating 6+ year old codices.

Funny you speak about it not being real, yet fail to notice that even the fluff disagrees strongly with what we see on the table top. We get battle scenes of tanks firing on the move while traveling at some speed. While some of the crazier parts of the fluff like the acts of the Primarchs and some of the more exaggerated tales about the space marines would still need to remain as tales, I see now reason why simple things like movement differences for different infantry and tanks moving and shooting properly couldn't be added and frankly all you've said on the issue is that it can't happen. For all your can't you can't seem to give any well thought out reasons why it isn't possible.

-sigh-

If it's so easy then by all means propose a rules change that won't break the game thanx. Although that's not really the point now is it? You've got your unassailable position here and you're not going to change it so really, this thread has become redundant.

Andilus Greatsword wrote:

Norade wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:

Norade wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:Well with this being said, why can't I run and shoot at the same time? Why if I'm laying down can't I shoot back blindly/wildly? Why if fighting at night do I just not shoot sometimes instead of at least trying to hit something?

These are things that lead to that silly little thing called game balance. Just because another game lets their tanks move all out and fire everything doesn't mean it's conducive for WH40k to do it as well. I'm guessing you're talking about Flames of War maybe?

So you're saying that it's somehow impossible to add more realism to 40k on the tabletop but you're not giving a whole lot of reasons why it can't be done. After all, other systems manage balance while having more realistic rules and do so using a d6 based system. Thus making the game more intuitive isn't impossible or even hard to do. I'd even argue that 28mm is playing on too small a table as is and either tables should increase to 12' by 8' or the scale should change to give more realistic ranges and movement rates.

While FoW is the first that comes to mind I bet you more games than not have rules that are more realistic and balanced than GW's.

Yes, it's impossible because nothing in this game is "real" at all. So adding realism to a game that is based off of none is...well, absurd. "Other Systems" aren't this one. Other systems have entirely different rule sets to balance out this one change you've mentioned.

Also not to mention that this would add a HUGE benefit for only a select few armies and be a huge detriment to the rest.

I also do not doubt your claim that other games have more balanced rules. Especially considering that it is only just recently that GW is finally getting around to updating 6+ year old codices.

Funny you speak about it not being real, yet fail to notice that even the fluff disagrees strongly with what we see on the table top. We get battle scenes of tanks firing on the move while traveling at some speed. While some of the crazier parts of the fluff like the acts of the Primarchs and some of the more exaggerated tales about the space marines would still need to remain as tales, I see now reason why simple things like movement differences for different infantry and tanks moving and shooting properly couldn't be added and frankly all you've said on the issue is that it can't happen. For all your can't you can't seem to give any well thought out reasons why it isn't possible.

-sigh-

If it's so easy then by all means propose a rules change that won't break the game thanx. Although that's not really the point now is it? You've got your unassailable position here and you're not going to change it so really, this thread has become redundant.

It isn't impossible. It's just difficult. Damn difficult.

Norade wrote:

Tazz Azrael wrote:I'm with the whole "it will make certain armies over powered" Mech Guard is the first that comes to mind especially if it is an Emperors Fist tank Battalion (12 or so LRBT all with sponsons being able to fire EVERYTHING per turn........ no ) while making armies such as Tyranids severely fubard.

Missing the fact that other armies would also see changes and the fact that I've said it would require a major rewrite to work. Are people just ignorant and not reading the entire thread before posting?

I read the whole thing before i posted and it still sounded like a bad idea, yes other armies would see changes but certain ones would gain to much of an advantage and then you would have to rework how they work so they are not over powered.

Vehicles work fine as is and dont need to be changed (why fix what aint broke)

Are YOU the one being ignorant by not realizing the feedback your getting is not what you would like to hear.

Vehicles work fine as is and dont need to be changed (why fix what aint broke)

+1 to this. I see no reason for the rules to change. if you want a more "realistic" game then you should not have picked 40k. I'd say the current rules are fine because as many others have said before (just to support their opinions I shall restate it) IT'S FOR BALANCE PURPOSES.

And everyone seems to be missing a simple solution. Instead of saying "If a vehicle moved 6 inches, it can fire one gun, if it moved more, it can't fire any, if it stayed still, it can fire all of them" say "If a vehicle moved up to 6 inches, it fires at -1 BS. If it moved up to 12 inches, it fires at -2 BS. If it moved up to 18 inches, it fires at -3 BS. If it didn't move, it can fire at full BS. This cannot reduce a BS to less than 1. Fast vehicles reduce this modifier by 1 (better shocks). A Vehicle's BS cannot go above it's base BS. If a vehicle has moved more than 6 inches, all Hit results on Scatter dice are resolved as Scatter results, using the arrow on the Hit side."

Hey there, that seems somewhat fair! And fluffy! It represents the difficulty of aiming from a moving platform, accounting for the fact that those that are able to aim better are, well, able to aim better even from a moving platform, while still aknowledging that if you're shooting in the direction of something, even if you aren't able to aim at all, you might still hit it. With high BS units like Space Marines, it leaves them the choice of whether to move quickly, be protected from CC and keep maneuverable, and risk missing ranged attacks, yet it also means that Orks, relying mostly on luck to shoot anyways, can actually get a benefit from paying to stick loads and loads of weapons on their vehicles. Yes, you might need to bump the cost of some vehicle weapons up a bit, like twinlinked Assault Cannons or vehicle mounted Big Shootas (or maybe have something like, the first Big Shoota costs the same, but every Big Shoota after that costs twice as much) But I think you'd generally keep a decent balance, even without price changes. Keep Ordinance weapons as they are, that you can only fire them if you fire them. That's fine.

well, that's far better than saying "blanket allowance for moving vehicles"!

I think it's not a terrible idea, but it would still make tanks OP. There should be more of a gradient, but having a 2D6 BS is a bit too complex...

I'm putting my opinion in -

Modern tanks have on gun.

They may have up to four machineguns, but they never have more than one [or two, if they have missiles or the like]

It is actually very rare for a gun to have this phenominon of 'twin linked guns' and for the record, it'd be hard to work with.

tanks are confined spaces. any tank soldier will tell you that. there is barely enough room for four men, and ammo. There are little to no automated weapon systems that we're so fond of in 40k.

finally, 40k isn't a direct reprisentation of real-world. let's stop trying to turn 40k into a battle sim and keep it as a board game with painted mini's, shall we?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
as for the idea of BS modifications, that's just a way for people to cheat. you may think it'll work, in which case, play it as a house rule. it won't.

and moving at cruising speed is the equivalent of moving to outflank another tank. who's ever seen a crusader Mk 2 tank [whatever it is, maybe cromwell. WW2 El-alamein.] outflank a tank to hit its rear-armour. imagine it is like everyone is focussed on getting weapons into a position where they can best take advantage of the enemies weak points and their own strong points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sam__theRelentless wrote:

DAaddict wrote:My problem is less to do with tanks and more to do with transports.

Move rhino 12" and dismount 2" or move 6" and run (average) 3.5" So a man going at a trot is doing say 5 mph, so say 2" = 1 mph speed, So my "fast" transport does a whopping 7 mph. Say a man runs and 1" equals 1 mph. So the man running goes 9.5 MPH and a vehicle moving flat out goes 14 MPH.

In 5th edition you take a vehicle because it is cheap and hard to kill not because it provides mobility.

Yes. the extra 4.5 MPH/2.5" is just a bonus.

wait wait wait. this guy is under the impression these distances are relative to each other? No, they're not. if this was the case, jump infantry would move 18" and tanks would move 24". not gonna happen.

Scipio Africanus wrote:I'm putting my opinion in -

Modern tanks have on gun.

They may have up to four machineguns, but they never have more than one [or two, if they have missiles or the like]

It is actually very rare for a gun to have this phenominon of 'twin linked guns' and for the record, it'd be hard to work with.

tanks are confined spaces. any tank soldier will tell you that. there is barely enough room for four men, and ammo. There are little to no automated weapon systems that we're so fond of in 40k.

finally, 40k isn't a direct reprisentation of real-world. let's stop trying to turn 40k into a battle sim and keep it as a board game with painted mini's, shall we?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
as for the idea of BS modifications, that's just a way for people to cheat. you may think it'll work, in which case, play it as a house rule. it won't.

and moving at cruising speed is the equivalent of moving to outflank another tank. who's ever seen a crusader Mk 2 tank [whatever it is, maybe cromwell. WW2 El-alamein.] outflank a tank to hit its rear-armour. imagine it is like everyone is focussed on getting weapons into a position where they can best take advantage of the enemies weak points and their own strong points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sam__theRelentless wrote:

DAaddict wrote:My problem is less to do with tanks and more to do with transports.

Move rhino 12" and dismount 2" or move 6" and run (average) 3.5" So a man going at a trot is doing say 5 mph, so say 2" = 1 mph speed, So my "fast" transport does a whopping 7 mph. Say a man runs and 1" equals 1 mph. So the man running goes 9.5 MPH and a vehicle moving flat out goes 14 MPH.

In 5th edition you take a vehicle because it is cheap and hard to kill not because it provides mobility.

Yes. the extra 4.5 MPH/2.5" is just a bonus.

wait wait wait. this guy is under the impression these distances are relative to each other? No, they're not. if this was the case, jump infantry would move 18" and tanks would move 24". not gonna happen.

Exactly. Otherwise the range of my pistol is twice the length of a battle tank. wtf

It's partly a "representational" thing, and partly a "balance" thing.

Alright is is representational. So up until 5th edition the majority of troopers could move 1/2 the distance that a pistol could fire and given the opportunity, could charge the other half. A vehicle could move 6" and fire all its weapons if it was below S6. Furthermore, a vehicle could move the distance of a pistol shot and the unit inside could fire. Now with 5th edition, a trooper can move upto a full pistols range, suddenly anything above a bolter goes silent if a vehicle moves at a walking pace as does every man riding on a transport. Representational, balanced but nonsensical.

I'll bet there are just so many promethium fumes floating around in and around those tanks that those guys are just too high to remember they have more than one gun.

I agree that Tanks are not well represented in the game however any change to make up the difference must, of course, lend itself to a major point adjustment. Use BA predators as an example. Those suckers are dirt cheap for what they do!

In regards to Flames of War

It buggers your RoF up by taking it down to one. (unless you have Stabilisers on a Sherman but then it adds a +1 to hit)

Also the Russian tanks can't fire AT ALL if they move over 6" so stick that in your pipe.

The good things are that you can fire at least one MG at full RoF (if I remember, I use infantry only forces) and possibly more?

Why aren't tanks able to fire on the move? Two reasons.

First in the turnover from 2E to 3E, they really didn't think out the vehicle rules, and tried to make things far to simple and cut/dried. This made vehicles awful. So they changed them in 4E. Alessio comes along and writes 5E, and says pretty much flat out in a podcast he didn't like that Predators could move and fire their heavy bolters and wipe out his banshees in the open, reducing us mostly back to 3E status for vehicles, until we get rules like 5E PotMS, Lumbering Behemoth, Aerial Assault, and a significantly higher incidence of the Fast rule on vehicles all bypassing this core rule.

So basically, poor game design going from 2E to 3E, and then Alessio being butthurt about his banshees being vulnerable to heavy weapons fire when in the open.

Ideally we'd have something like the following:

Stationary:
Fire all weapons no penalties.

6" or less:
Fire one weapon normal BS, all others -1 BS

6-12"
Fire one weapon -1BS, all others -2 BS

Over 12":
One weapon -2BS, all others -3 BS.

Tazz Azrael wrote:I read the whole thing before i posted and it still sounded like a bad idea, yes other armies would see changes but certain ones would gain to much of an advantage and then you would have to rework how they work so they are not over powered.

Vehicles work fine as is and dont need to be changed (why fix what aint broke)

First off, you have plenty of vehicles that are points balanced on how it worked last edition where there was more mobility for vehicles. As for 'working fine as is and dont need to be changed' the problem is 4th edition vehicle shooting rules worked fine and and didn't need to be changed, but there was a change to something that is worse.