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 hate the heavy weapons rule. I hate not be able to move ANY troop in a unit if I want to fire the heavy. Heavy weapons are often debilitating for this reason. I would like to propose a change to the rule for weapons designated as "HEAVY."

Ok instead of no move and fire; why not if move then only hit on a six. Not a huge change but it makes a little more sense for those high rate of fire weapons like heavy bolters and assault cannons while not being over powered for single shot nasties.

More importantly this rule would only be applied to the model with the heavy and the movement of the unit would have no effect on the effectiveness of the heavy weapons.

Simple fixes to breath life into the lowly devastator or heavy bolter tac marine.

Opinions?

Assault cannons are Assault.
The idea sounds ok but test it first.

assault cannons are heavy 4, Purplefood.

Speaking of assault cannons; i would even keep their rending usr so that for every hit on the move you get another shot to roll for. So my change to the heavy category would not change rending.

purplefood wrote:Assault cannons are Assault.
The idea sounds ok but test it first.

Silly boy, they're Heavy.

OP: I don't really think that idea would work. I think it should allow the heavy weapon to fire if that specific trooper didn't move, even if any other squad member move.

Really?
I remember them being assault...
Hang on a sec.
Ok fair point i stand corrected.

I would propose one of two things, either allowing units to move and shoot Heavy Weapons on a roll of 6+ for 10pts per model ... Or allow them to hit with normal BS for a greater amount of points, 25pts maybe?

I'm all for making custom rules, but feel that if they give a bonus that they should have a disadvantage also, wether it be higher points or other, as it helps keep everything balanced and fair.

what about blast weapons?

anyway, it's supposed to be the point of putting your people on some sort of vantage point. I wouldn't feel safe with your rule running amok, and I play Guard! but the real reason you can't move is because a Rocket Launcher has a heck of a lot of recoil and you need to reload after the shot, even with a second guardsman or that robot arm thing the devestator has you still need to hold still for it to work. even if you think you can manage well enough without the fiddling by the time you've reloaded you've likely wasted a turn of the battle

Valkyrie wrote:
I think it should allow the heavy weapon to fire if that specific trooper didn't move, even if any other squad member move.

This. GW completely dumbed down the rules for movement. Movement should be considered on a trooper by trooper basis, not as a squad.

Mattlov wrote:

Valkyrie wrote:
I think it should allow the heavy weapon to fire if that specific trooper didn't move, even if any other squad member move.

This. GW completely dumbed down the rules for movement. Movement should be considered on a trooper by trooper basis, not as a squad.

I believe the reason was to make the shooting phase far easier and smooth running, by making the rules that if one models moves then the whole squad is classed as moved means that when your looking over your 10squads you can just point and say "he's moved, he hasn't, he hasn't, he has, etc, etc" rather than "that trooper has moved, that one hasn't etc etc" for a hundred soldiers.

Whilst I would say that a troop by troop basis could work for small scale games, as soon as it goes above 1500pts I image you'd find it hard if not impossible to remember if they have moved or not for each and every model

so is this a huge complaint about the fact that you have infantry carrying vehicle-scaled weapons and they don't get placed properly, forcing you to move them?

Remember, the rules evolved from reality. Heavy weapons, like an M2 heavy machine gun, were not meant to be run and shot. they were deployed weapons, taking a minute or two to set up. They were not very mobile, making their deployment in the field rare. However, when they were, it was imperative to place it properly, or else the effort was wasted.

The Heavy rule exists because the weapons are cumbersome and powerful, so placing them effectively is important. There really doesn;t need to be a point buy-in to make them more mobile or anything ike that.

I agree with Valkyrie and others...but I can't be bothered trying it...What annoys me, is that my IG troopers are supposed to be lugging around a Lascannon that is about fifteen feet long! Not to mention a bunch of sandbags!

Just let em take ponderous or slow and purposeful whichever it is for like 10 points a model.

I'd say -2 to hit instead of always on a 6. And I agree, I hate heavy weapons as well.

I love how heavy weapons works.

Means you can't just be running around the battlefield firing off missiles and who knows what else.

Hitting on a six when you move? Maybe able to be pulled off by an Ork (although their "heavy" weapons are mostly assault weapons), or a Space Marines, or that IG Heavy Bolter upgrade (Harker?) But that's not the way the game is meant to be played.

Sure if you want your friends to play like that, then do it.


Also I'm pretty sure that if even a single troopers in the squad moved, then they can't fire heavy, or Rapid Fire at full.

Did they seriously change that for 5th edition?
Pretty sure it says "If the squad moved then Heavy weapons can't fire"

Could just put the heavy weapons on bikes as well. (if offered)

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:so is this a huge complaint about the fact that you have infantry carrying vehicle-scaled weapons and they don't get placed properly, forcing you to move them?

Remember, the rules evolved from reality. Heavy weapons, like an M2 heavy machine gun, were not meant to be run and shot. they were deployed weapons, taking a minute or two to set up. They were not very mobile, making their deployment in the field rare. However, when they were, it was imperative to place it properly, or else the effort was wasted.

The Heavy rule exists because the weapons are cumbersome and powerful, so placing them effectively is important. There really doesn;t need to be a point buy-in to make them more mobile or anything ike that.

I'm surprised with a lot of the comments. You guys have been spoon fed rules that DON'T follow reality and are creating arguments to justify them.

Do me a favor and involve yourself in a demonstration: Place yourself in the shoes of battle hardened warriors in the grim dark future of 40K. There is little that scares you and you have been fighting side by side with your comrades for over a century (unless you are IG in which case you only live 80 haha). Get off you chair, run across the room, turn 45 degrees, kneel (get a sturdy base), aim, and pretend to fire a big ass gun. Do this while imagining you are in the heat of battle. How long did it take you? Under 10 seconds I am assuming, right? Now, compare the time of 10 seconds to the number of occurrences that transpire in the same "time frame." The time frame is a player turn. Because in 40K to move and fire a heavy weapon you would move in turn A and then, turn B, stay perfectly still while you aim or brace yourself or whatever cockamamie excuses you all are spitting. In the same time frame your opponent has moved, fired, and perhaps slaughtered an entire squad in CC. Somehow, actions that took you, in reality, 10 seconds to accomplish, is enough time for you to also jog the same distance, fire a round from your assault weapon accurately, charge an opposing squad of maniacs and killed them all.

What I am trying to convey is, the turn sequence system of 40k is inequitable in its treatment of how many actions take part in similar time frames. Heavy weapons are too greatly disadvantaged by having to be stationary the turn they fire. This problem is compounded by the fact that the rest of the unit's members are also encumbered by the limitations provided by a Heavy demarcation on a single weapon in their unit.

So there are two logical proposals for a rule change: (1) Only the unit member firing the Heavy weapon must be still the turn it fires, or (2) allow for moving and firing heavies but balance this buff by only allowing the shots fired to hit on a roll of 6. For Blast weapons, all scatter the full distance indicated on the D6 OR ignore the the HIT on the scatter and always scatter in the direction indicated but subtract the BS as normal.






Automatically Appended Next Post:
I am obviously in the camp of allowing heavies to move and fire in some fashion as I believe requiring them stay still for an entire player turn is too oppressive.

Mattlov wrote:

Valkyrie wrote:
I think it should allow the heavy weapon to fire if that specific trooper didn't move, even if any other squad member move.

This. GW completely dumbed down the rules for movement. Movement should be considered on a trooper by trooper basis, not as a squad.

It's not dumbing the game down if it forces you to think and consider your movements and what models you assign wounds to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Deuce11, you don't skip across the room and then swipe down your heavy ass weapon and shoot it. It's not a stick to wave around. Those weapons are heavy and require attention when moved. I'd be worried if you ran around with a loaded assault rifle, finger on trigger, but a rocket propelled grenade or a machine gun?

First of all, you have to pick your dakka-stick up, tuck it in a position where you can actually carry it around without dropping it on your toes. After this, you have to run with the damned thing. After this, you need to stop in a good spot and bring the weapon down to a fire position (this probably is the quickest action), but the problem is that a heavy weapon can't be fired from the hip. Remember Rambo holding an M60 in one hand shooting it? Not going to happen. Flip that tri-pod down, kneel down, unsafe the weapon (depending on weapon, load the damned thing as well, as you don't want to run with a live grenade in the pipe!), and then consider shooting.

Let's go through that for an assault or rapid fire weapon. Pick the weapon up with your most appropriate limb. Run. Try not to fall over in your haste. Duck down and swing your weapon and shoot. Did you hit anything, you didn't put it in safety because you were afraid of dropping it, did you?

Or, if you want your real-life exercise: instead of getting off the chair and pretending to carry a weapon, pick up the table your computer is on, or the chair you sit on if you're lazy, and run around the room a bit. Let me know when you've got it in a position where you can start typing again.

Some weapons are assault or rapid fire that other people wouldn't be able to treat any different than heavy weapons. I believe Bolters fall under that category. Eldar Wraithguns are too heavy to even be considered for living Eldar, yet are still only assault when in the hands of a Wraithguard.
Other units are *trained* or simply equipped/built to handle heavy weapons effortlessly. These units have the Relentless or Slow and Purposeful rules - jetpack units, for instance!

The real issue is balance, I know I'm biased because as a Guard player if I move a squad with a HW in it I probably have two or four more others in differant squads anyway so it's no skin off my nose. But I like that it forces you to think about placement so that all of those Run and Gun Noobs get slammed like they should instead of winning because of some luckey dice rolls and no thought or skill.

Mahtamori Ninja'd me!!! I agree, saftey is probably the top concern for a Heavy Weapons Trooper IRL. No matter how long you've been using your BFG no one wants to go down in history as the guy who tripped over a rock and blew up their own Lemun Russ, so safties on people. No one wants to run around with an armed bomb on their shoulder or a primed plasma cannon under their arm either, and as for the rapid fire weapons? Look up slamfire and tell me if you want to risk a Heavy Bolter doing that to you or your squad when you drop it.

I'd also consider ammo to be another reason. That giant battery next to your lascannon is probably good for one shot. I don't see them carrying many spares, the same can be said for rockets, mortors, HB hoppers etc. So if they were to fire a shot every turn for your average six turn game they would probably run out of ammo, remember if you 'miss' that also represents your trooper not firing some of the time. So you can imagine seeing as how the rest of the army relies on this guy being able to destroy the big scary tanks and such, he's going to want to take more time to aim then Johnny Shootemup with the Lasgun.

So those are my real life arguments, I would just like to state again even though I am biased because I play Guard I don't see a problem with the Heavy Weapons rule as it stands.

Mahtmori & ComputerGeek, have you ever watched combat training videos? The missile launchers our troops use are essentially nothing more than a barrel. The SM MLs are even modeled after them. They are light. Ok no need to only give one example. Check out the AA-12 automatic shotgun on youtube. Amazing things have been done with buffering recoil. In fact check out how easily the thing loads too. Also amazing. Guess what year it is? Yeah, liklihood is whatever number you guessed it was nowhere near the 41st century. Oh and are we super soldiers? Are our special forces an entire force of Dolph Lundrens? No, they are not. Is it conceivable that 7 ft super soldiers 20 thousand years from now might be able to fire a big gun inaccurately after hoofing it 20 yards (my approximated distance 6 inches would be at 28mm)?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Truthfully, comparing the game to anything in real life is silly to begin with.

How about the simple fact the CC rocks house in 40K and the rate of fire shooty armies have to represent spectacular fire fights in all the fluff and concept art is poorly represented by the game.

For $38K of my tax dollars EACH a Stinger had better be more then just a barrel :p . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger

Also an Autoshotgun is what I imagine what the troops in 40K use and that's an assault weapon.

I would say play test them and for the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster PLEASE post a Battle Report when you are done.

No, realism does not trump game balance, the rule is in place so you have to use your brain and deploy properly, and not just HURRRR RUN FORWARDS SHOOTBIGGUNS!

kill dem stunties wrote:No, realism does not trump game balance, the rule is in place so you have to use your brain and deploy properly, and not just HURRRR RUN FORWARDS SHOOTBIGGUNS!

Exactly. In the 41st millenium, one would also expect that technology had leapt to the point that wars wouldn't have to be fought by the hardest men in the universe... But they are. No super-mega-weapons that have evolved from what we have today...

Anyways, these rules came from somewhere, and that somewhere is the reality of the present day. There are guys carrying very large weapons, usually found on vehicles. They are hard to control, and even worse after moving. Now the rest of the squad also has to stay still in order for this one guy to shoot his mega-weapon. This is a compromise that GW had to make, otherwise matches would take a lot longer while people devised clever ways to make sure they knew who moved model-by-model.

Long story short: deploy properly or in a transport to gain strategic advantage rather than wishing that GW would change a rule!

HellsGuardian316 wrote:Whilst I would say that a troop by troop basis could work for small scale games, as soon as it goes above 1500pts I image you'd find it hard if not impossible to remember if they have moved or not for each and every model

I agree that remembering whether each model moved or not is unwieldy, and far too detailed for a game that should be looking at company level decision making. But what about the ability to split a unit in two for the purposes of firing (maybe requiring an LD check?) So you'd say 'the heavy weapon will be it's own weapon', your roll your LD and if successful it can ignore the movement of the rest of the unit and pick it's own target seperate from the rest of the unit.

Of course, if part of the unit is moving and part isn't you'd get trouble with coherency, so this might have to be part of a greater change to allow units to split into two.

Deuce11 wrote:What I am trying to convey is, the turn sequence system of 40k is inequitable in its treatment of how many actions take part in similar time frames. Heavy weapons are too greatly disadvantaged by having to be stationary the turn they fire. This problem is compounded by the fact that the rest of the unit's members are also encumbered by the limitations provided by a Heavy demarcation on a single weapon in their unit.

Umm, yeah, it is inequitable. The design parameters of 40K are vague at best, but certainly do not include an accurate simulation of a battlefield, and certainly not a modern battlefield. With heavy weapons the priority is to give them a unique role, by making them effective weapons but only if the unit remains stationary they achieve that goal. It isn't perfect design but it's pretty solid, and used in a lot of games.

That said, I agree with your later point 40K doesn't do a great job of representing the close quarters firefights of the artwork and fiction. The move in 4th ed to allow rapid firing weapons to double tap even if they moved was a good step forward, but more needs to be done. I just don't think a special rule for heavy weapons will manage that, though.

sebster wrote:

Umm, yeah, it is inequitable. The design parameters of 40K are vague at best, but certainly do not include an accurate simulation of a battlefield, and certainly not a modern battlefield. With heavy weapons the priority is to give them a unique role, by making them effective weapons but only if the unit remains stationary they achieve that goal. It isn't perfect design but it's pretty solid, and used in a lot of games.

so, how logical would it be to simply dump the security of the squad machine-gunner for the sake of keeping on the move? In the US Army, squads are built around two things: squad leader and SMG. every one else is in the business of keeping those two guys alive, why wouldn't they be doing the same thing? the heavy bolter/lascannon/missile launcher/etc. dude packs more firepower for big stuff, but is susceptible to small-arms fire. that's what the rest of the squad is for!

again, I repeat myself: deploy correctly!

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:so, how logical would it be to simply dump the security of the squad machine-gunner for the sake of keeping on the move? In the US Army, squads are built around two things: squad leader and SMG. every one else is in the business of keeping those two guys alive, why wouldn't they be doing the same thing? the heavy bolter/lascannon/missile launcher/etc. dude packs more firepower for big stuff, but is susceptible to small-arms fire. that's what the rest of the squad is for!

Umm, what? That can’t be a response to my point on the 40K turn sequence being an abstraction, and that the rules for heavy weapons are designed to make them a unique weapon on the field. Were you perhaps responding to my other suggestion, about splitting the squad so that the heavy weapon can support the advance of the rest of the squad?

again, I repeat myself: deploy correctly!

Sure, that’s an effective answer for people complaining about losing firepower when they have to redeploy. Which makes it an effective answer for no-one in this thread.

I think it was fine.

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

Long story short: deploy properly or in a transport to gain strategic advantage rather than wishing that GW would change a rule!

The name of the forum is 40K Proposed Rules, so I am going to wish they changed a rule and I am going to post my proposals here.

Thats fine, but dont get upset when 99% of responders come in and say its a terrible idea, and would upset game balance, Then tell you to learn to deploy correctly.

kill dem stunties wrote:Thats fine, but dont get upset when 99% of responders come in and say its a terrible idea, and would upset game balance, Then tell you to learn to deploy correctly.

Telling someone their proposed rule is terrible because of "xyz" or saying "have you considered this?"is fine, simply coming in and saying something along the lines of "you should learn to play better" is against the forum rules as its not constructive in the slightest. If the latter was a valid and acceptable response then what would be the point of proposing a rule.

But that aside, as "kill dem stunties" said, when messing with something thats changing the fundemental mechanics of game-play and the way things work you are going to meet a lot of resistance. As I keep saying, when I think up a rule, I always try and balance it with a drawback such as increased points cost, or something else like lost BS as mentioned by the OP. Makes it easier to swallow

HellsGuardian316 wrote:

But that aside, as "kill dem stunties" said, when messing with something thats changing the fundemental mechanics of game-play and the way things work you are going to meet a lot of resistance. As I keep saying, when I think up a rule, I always try and balance it with a drawback such as increased points cost, or something else like lost BS as mentioned by the OP. Makes it easier to swallow

Is an increase in points necessary when the rule that is changed effects everything under the category equally? Isn't it kinda a wash?