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.

So, I was teaching my dad WH40K the other day and trying to explain Ballistic Skill rolls, when he asked me a really good question. Seeing as GW is already trying to phase out BS greater than 5, and 40K has edited out most of the modifiers that used to affect to-hit rolls in ranged combat, why not just do away with a BS score and use it the way saves are used. So, an ork has a BS of 5+, a human 4+, an eldar aspect warrior 3+, and a space marine captain 2+, for example. Does this make more sense to the rest of you?

The little helper book in the Battle for Macragge actually did that.

And yeah, it'd be a simpler and cleaner thing, but GW love their stat block, and they love the idea that big numbers are always better.

It used to make me laugh in Bloodbowl, because you had the same numbers (agility 3 meant you needed a 4+, agility 4 meant you needed a 3+) and then you were supposed to add modifiers to the dice roll after that. They could have just said you have an agility of 4+.

Hmm they could of done it that way but that would just feel kinda watered down. I dont really think it is needed anyways it takes all of 2 games to learn what BS means what.

I don't really think GW wants to phase out the higher BS's, didn't they just re-include rules for BS6+ in the latest edition? (correct me if I'm wrong tough)

It's just that there aren't a lot of models which are that good a marksman. Only Telion comes to mind (and I sincerely hope the new DE codex includes some, like in the old codex )

Besides, you want it to be comparable to WS and ofcourse a higher skill should be better.

thats dumb.

sorry. =D

BS6 exists, it would be a pain to cram the rules for BS6 into a stat block.
It would also be aesthetically unappealing to have a X+ in the middle of a stat block.

GW isn't trying to "phase out" BS more than 5. They're using it more, and they just added rules for it with Sergeant Telion in the new Codex: Space Marines, Bjorn the Fell-Handed in the new Codex: Space Wolves, and so on.

personally i disagree with the current rules of BS also. but for different reasons:

theretically a SM can hit at a distance of 24" and miss at a distance of 2". this makes no sense in my opinion.

here's how i think they should do it:

6"-0" away 3+ to hit
12"-7" away 4+ to hit
18"-13" away 5+ to hit
24"-19" away 6+ to hit
(certain models getting modifiers to there rolls such as SM tactical marine +1, ork boy -1, and guardsman none)

Captain Solon wrote:thats dumb.

sorry. =D

That's funny given most (no, I'm sorry, ALL) of your ideas.

As for this idea, it kind of makes sense.

Just give people with ballistic skill 6 a 2+/6+, ballistic skill 7 a 2+/5+, and so on and so forth. So that if they miss with the 2, then they get the next number.

Emporer Penguin wrote:personally i disagree with the current rules of BS also. but for different reasons:

theretically a SM can hit at a distance of 24" and miss at a distance of 2". this makes no sense in my opinion.

here's how i think they should do it:

6"-0" away 3+ to hit
12"-7" away 4+ to hit
18"-13" away 5+ to hit
24"-19" away 6+ to hit
(certain models getting modifiers to there rolls such as SM tactical marine +1, ork boy -1, and guardsman none)

Go play 2nd Ed. It had stuff like this in it.

If GW loved the idea of bigger numbers being better, then Saves and Armour Piercing would be better if they were higher. They aren't. I leave the conclusion of this Modus Tollens to the reader.

Well, to be fair, the lower AP being better is only a result of the manner the armour save is represented. So those two combined are actually only one instance.

They have the BS as it is now, I believe, because the stats are supposed to be bigger is better.

Also, remember, when scattering you minus your BS.

It is also better to roll low when you are rolling morale and leadership tests.

Fact is, the core rules of Warhammer were pretty much scribbled down on the back of a beer mat in about 1981 and haven't been changed since.

I doubt GW will do a ground up revision.

VikingScott wrote:Go play 2nd Ed. It had stuff like this in it.

Not really, no.

Basically, you had two range bands, short and long. For basic weapons like the bolter, lasgun and other standard rifles, you got no modifier at long range and +1 at close range. This is less of a modifier compared to the modern game, where you get twice as many shots in short range.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nurglitch wrote:If GW loved the idea of bigger numbers being better, then Saves and Armour Piercing would be better if they were higher. They aren't. I leave the conclusion of this Modus Tollens to the reader.

You really can't judge GW's preferences by noting a single exception. That would require assuming a commitment to consistancy that just doesn't exist.

It was more than just having two ranges. There were things for moving fast and shooting at targets, light cover, heavy cover, shooting from a moving vehicle, and it went on and on. Having a higher BS really matter a lot. It was sort of like Necromunda.

Have you even played 2nd Edition or are you just talking?

grayspark wrote:It was more than just having two ranges. There were things for moving fast and shooting at targets, light cover, heavy cover, shooting from a moving vehicle, and it went on and on. Having a higher BS really matter a lot. It was sort of like Necromunda.

Have you even played 2nd Edition or are you just talking?

Yeah, I played it. I still play Necromunda.

Yeah, there were a lot more modifiers than range, but look at the rules system proposed by Emperor Penguin - it deals entirely with range. As such, Viking Scott’s suggestion to play 2nd ed makes little sense, because the range modifiers in later editions are actually more extreme. I’d rather have double the shots than a +1 mod any day of the week.

Emporer Penguin wrote:personally i disagree with the current rules of BS also. but for different reasons:

theretically a SM can hit at a distance of 24" and miss at a distance of 2". this makes no sense in my opinion.

here's how i think they should do it:

6"-0" away 3+ to hit
12"-7" away 4+ to hit
18"-13" away 5+ to hit
24"-19" away 6+ to hit
(certain models getting modifiers to there rolls such as SM tactical marine +1, ork boy -1, and guardsman none)

We're trying to make it simpler y'know?

I think it is fine, warhammer 40,000 requires ten times more math than that for the lists. Plus, we plan on playing this alot, since it is a hobby, we should be able to know our armies enough to go off our head after a while.

Enginseer wrote:I don't really think GW wants to phase out the higher BS's, didn't they just re-include rules for BS6+ in the latest edition? (correct me if I'm wrong though)

Pg. 18. Left side of the page.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Fact is, the core rules of Warhammer were pretty much scribbled down on the back of a beer mat in about 1981 and haven't been changed since.

I'm sure they didn't bother to turn it over - explains the clarity issues too

Hi all.
IMO the only good reason to have a characteristic value ,over a score to beat.Is if it is compared to an opponents characteristic to determine the chance of sucess.

EG attackers WS is compared to te defenders WS.Attackers S is compared to defenders T.

Attackers BS should be compared to the defenders 'Stealth/Field Craft' type value,for it to make sense.

Other wise , justy list the scores to roll 'equal to or over' to suceed.

TTFN

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:

Emporer Penguin wrote:personally i disagree with the current rules of BS also. but for different reasons:

theretically a SM can hit at a distance of 24" and miss at a distance of 2". this makes no sense in my opinion.

here's how i think they should do it:

6"-0" away 3+ to hit
12"-7" away 4+ to hit
18"-13" away 5+ to hit
24"-19" away 6+ to hit
(certain models getting modifiers to there rolls such as SM tactical marine +1, ork boy -1, and guardsman none)

We're trying to make it simpler y'know?

I think it is fine, warhammer 40,000 requires ten times more math than that for the lists. Plus, we plan on playing this alot, since it is a hobby, we should be able to know our armies enough to go off our head after a while.

Simpler?Warhams is not supposed to be simple,you need to be a little smart and just understand the rules.

I second that. wheres the fun in an uncomplicated game?

ph34r wrote:BS6 exists, it would be a pain to cram the rules for BS6 into a stat block.
It would also be aesthetically unappealing to have a X+ in the middle of a stat block.

Exactly. This is probably the reason it isn't like how you suggested. Yes it is a little simpler and probbaly good for teaching begginers but a + in a profile would just look wrong, and to be perfectly honest, subtracting a number from 7 isn't all that hard or complicated now, is it?

Emporer Penguin wrote:personally i disagree with the current rules of BS also. but for different reasons:

theretically a SM can hit at a distance of 24" and miss at a distance of 2". this makes no sense in my opinion.

here's how i think they should do it:

6"-0" away 3+ to hit
12"-7" away 4+ to hit
18"-13" away 5+ to hit
24"-19" away 6+ to hit
(certain models getting modifiers to there rolls such as SM tactical marine +1, ork boy -1, and guardsman none)

I just want to point out why I don't like this idea. What this effectivley does is cripple HW's to the point of being useless, making vehicles which are balancing on the edge of playability completley broken, that is unless you want to add ANOTHER modifier to make them useful again. Then instead of a tidey looking stat bar you are left with a mish-mash of trees and range modifier groups that tell you all of the possible ranges and weapons that this particular unit can use. It's not a completley terrible idea but it isn't a good one either.

Hi all.
The problem with having to hit chance fixed to BS or range is it fails to follow the way weapon target interactions realy work.

The targets ability to aviod detection -dodge is ignored.
The weapons 'effective range band' is ignored.(Most weapon have an optimum effective range , eg SMG up to 200m, sniper rifle 300m to 1500m).

The attackers BS effects the basic weapons effective range.The better the BS the higher the effective range.
This determins what targets can be attacked.

The targets ability sets the basic chance to hit.

EG Land raider Stealth value 1.
So you need to roll 2 or more to hit as a basic value.

A lone SM captain Stealth value 4.
So you need to roll 5 or more to hit as a basic value .

Modifiers.
Attacker less than 18"away +1 to hit dice roll
Attacker stationary +1 to hit dice roll.
Attacker using targeting equipment +1 to hit dice roll.

Target over 36" away +1 to targets stealth value .
Target in/behind cover +1 to targets stealth value.
Target using camo/stealth equipment.

TTFN

I agree with that actually. the thing is that you don't want to take about 20 minutes per unit just finding out what the roll is to hit.

I really dont see how you could simplify BS any more than it is. BS 5 or less take a d6 roll it and add your BS. Trying to hit 7 or better. Anything more than 6 you have your first shot trying to hit 7 off of a 5 if you miss then you have to roll a 6 or 5 or whatever is left from your BS to hit 7.

As for range modifiers. Meh. Use your imagination. Maybe your space marine get nervous when a horde of orks all named Nigel are rushing up to him. Its possible the guardsmen crapped himself when he heard his chimera expload next to him. The tau firewarrior missed because he is a damn dirty xeno. The only thing range modifing is going to do is cause even more arguements about how far way they are and such. Just not worth it for a game.

I think the OP is trying to do this:

Eldar Guardian.
Current profile: 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 8 | 5+
Proposed profile: 3 | 4+ | 3 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 8 | 5+

Here's an example of an Eldar Autarch with a new format
WS | S | T | W | I | A | Ld | BS | Sv
6 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 10 | 2+/6+ | 5+

Grambo wrote:Simpler?Warhams is not supposed to be simple,you need to be a little smart and just understand the rules.

No, that's basically the exact wrong mindset. The ideal is a simple ruleset that produces complex tactical considerations. You can accept greater complexity when it adds something else, typically a stronger tactical environment. But desiring complexity simply because a game should be more complex and players "need to be a little smart" is a really wrongheaded approach.

Simply making rules more difficult won't improve the game, in fact pointless complexity can actually make it harder to build a decent tactical game - players focus on tracking on pointless minutiae they can't step back to actually look at the decisions they as commanders should be making.