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.

Before people start dismissing this saying the shooting rules are fine, I agree, they are. But what if it was more realistic? Let's get started.

Cover: How often have you been playing paintball, and you shoot your buddy, but then the inflatable cover takes the paint off him after he's hit? Never. Cover should not act as a save, but should give a modifier to balistic skill. The whole idea of cover is that it makes you harder to hit. Hedges would give -1, low walls and forests would give -2, fortifications -3 (to a minimum of 1).

Ranges: Why can't my snipers attempt that tricky long shot? Why can't my ork hit a tank that's only one inch away? Simplicity. But you know what? Screw simplicity. Bring in the modifiers! Extremely long ranges should be penalized rather than forbidden (I'm sure you can all think of a movie where someone makes an impossible shot from way too far away). How about for every three inches above the weapon's EFFECTIVE range (what is now the cut-and-dry no-exceptions range), you lose 1 ballistic skill, and for every six inches you lose one strength? For extremely close ranges, you should be rewarded! +1 balistic skill for being within six inches of the target, and +2 for being within three inches.

Hitting the Wrong Guys: Shooting and missing is not always bad if there are other enemies close by! Any of you who play shooters (either first- or third-person) can attest to this. If I miss the hive tyrant standing in front of me, don't my bullets have a pretty good chance of hitting the swarm of gaunts two inches behind it? If a shot misses and there is another unit (friend or foe) within six inches of the target, then you roll a die. On a roll of six, resolve the shot against the new target. You still roll to hit the new target with your normal balistic skill, but if this misses it misses for good.

Shooting Into Combat: Not every army cares about their comrades as much as the Eldar or the Tau. Do you think a crazed Khorne berserker gives a rat's ass whether his pal is right in his target's face? Absolutely not. Any hits on a unit in combat have to roll a second "to hit" roll to determine WHO it hits. A succesful roll will hit the intended target, while a failed one will hit your own team. Rolls to wound and saves are done as normal.

So whaddaya think? Obviously they would make the game more complicated, but do you think they are effective in making it more realistic? Are any of them feasible as actual rules? Lemme know

Cover sounds like a good idea, but make it to a minimum of a 5+ [unless the unit has such terrible stats that he actually hits on a 6...] that way, trying to simply spray ammo out over a target might do something.

make the ranges a bit more simplistic - yes, that horrible word, however, this means that my scout marine can hit his opponent 48" away, which is a bit rediculous, even on a 6. [yet heavy missiles can do it just fine...]

The hitting the guys behind is stupid, sorry.

as for Shooting into combat: even eldar would shoot into their own guys, if they felt it would aide the cause.

But, make it more simplistic, once more.

infantry, jump infantry and their equivalents:
BS to hit:
4+ to hit target, 3- hit your own guys
Wounds and so forth.
Count-as two models, bikes
Things like terminators are a bit bigger/easier targets.

therefore:
BS to hit
3+ to hit target
2- to hit your own guys

Dreadnought/Walker, Monsterous creatures EQ.
are so massive that they're hard to miss. so:
BS to hit
2+ to hit target
1- to hit your own guys.

HOWEVER:
When facing larger troops, this gets difficult, like a carnifex vs. a dreadnought, is obviously a 4+ - you're just as liekly to hit either.
and in the case of, say bikers vs. carni fex [bike eq vs mc] it could be a 3+ to hit carni, rather then a 2+. this would be rather difficult.

MandalorynOranj wrote:Cover: How often have you been playing paintball, and you shoot your buddy, but then the inflatable cover takes the paint off him after he's hit? Never. Cover should not act as a save, but should give a modifier to balistic skill. The whole idea of cover is that it makes you harder to hit. Hedges would give -1, low walls and forests would give -2, fortifications -3 (to a minimum of 1).

So marines trying to shoot at a unit behind fortifications hit on a 6+
Orks trying to shoost at a unit behind fortification hit on a 6+
hmmm... no thank you!
There are mechanics for hitting on a 7+ or worse in fantasy, you could steal that idea.
Lets do some mathhammering!!!

--- A boltgun fired by a marine against IG in a forest...
As now: 0.6666 hits, 0.4444 wounds, (4+ cover) 0.2222 dead.
As proposed: (-2 BS) 0.3333 hits, 0.2222 wounds, no armour save, 0.2222 dead.
So that worked out the same...

--- A boltgun fired by a marine against CSM in a forest...
As now: 0.6666 hit, 0.3333 wound, (3+ armour), 0.1111 dead.
As proposed: (-2 BS) 0.3333 hit, 0.1667 wounds, (3+ armour) 0.0556 dead
So that doesn't seem right at all... marine death rate of 11.1% down to 5.6% ???

--- A boltgun fired by a marine at a terminator in a fort...
As now: 0.6666 hit, 0.3333 wound, (2+ armour), 0.0556 dead
As proposed: (-3BS) 0.1667 hit, 0.0833 wound, (2+ armour), 0.0139
hmm... termie death rate of 5.6% down to 1.4% ???

Hmm... what you have done sir, is buff anything with a save better than most cover... yay marines! i'll go get a deathwing army.

MandalorynOranj wrote:Ranges: Why can't my snipers attempt that tricky long shot? Why can't my ork hit a tank that's only one inch away? Simplicity. But you know what? Screw simplicity. Bring in the modifiers! Extremely long ranges should be penalized rather than forbidden (I'm sure you can all think of a movie where someone makes an impossible shot from way too far away). How about for every three inches above the weapon's EFFECTIVE range (what is now the cut-and-dry no-exceptions range), you lose 1 ballistic skill, and for every six inches you lose one strength? For extremely close ranges, you should be rewarded! +1 balistic skill for being within six inches of the target, and +2 for being within three inches.

What about certain weapons that only have a 6" range...
Essentially, you've buffed up close range armies, yes long range armies can shoot further... but their guns are pretty long range anyway.
Now close range armies will be able to match longer ranges with reduced accuracy and get +1 or 2 BS just before they charge you?
I like the idea, but perhaps one or the other would suffice, but either one would unbalance the game immensly.

MandalorynOranj wrote:Hitting the Wrong Guys: Shooting and missing is not always bad if there are other enemies close by! Any of you who play shooters (either first- or third-person) can attest to this. If I miss the hive tyrant standing in front of me, don't my bullets have a pretty good chance of hitting the swarm of gaunts two inches behind it? If a shot misses and there is another unit (friend or foe) within six inches of the target, then you roll a die. On a roll of six, resolve the shot against the new target. You still roll to hit the new target with your normal balistic skill, but if this misses it misses for good.

Hmmm... i play alot of third/first person shooters, and you only rarely hit the "other guy" if they happen to line up for you or your using a blast weapon. Blast weapons can already hit other people, so can flamer weapons. If you miss the hive tyrant, you won't hit the guants, why arn't you shooting the tyrant in the face? It could work... but only if the "other unit" is directly behind the one you are aiming at. I've never gone to fire at someone in front of me and accidently hit the gut 10 metres to their left.

MandalorynOranj wrote:Shooting Into Combat: Not every army cares about their comrades as much as the Eldar or the Tau. Do you think a crazed Khorne berserker gives a rat's ass whether his pal is right in his target's face? Absolutely not. Any hits on a unit in combat have to roll a second "to hit" roll to determine WHO it hits. A succesful roll will hit the intended target, while a failed one will hit your own team. Rolls to wound and saves are done as normal.

Too complicated... Explained below

Captain Solon wrote:Cover sounds like a good idea, but make it to a minimum of a 5+ [unless the unit has such terrible stats that he actually hits on a 6...] that way, trying to simply spray ammo out over a target might do something.

It would have to effect everyone and go into 7+ and beyond. If it was capped at 5+ orks wouldn't be affected at all. Do you really think an ork is as good as a marine at picking out targets in a wooded area? I'd be surprised if the ork was even firing at the target, instead of firing into the sky and screaming loudly.

Captain Solon wrote:make the ranges a bit more simplistic - yes, that horrible word, however, this means that my scout marine can hit his opponent 48" away, which is a bit rediculous, even on a 6. [yet heavy missiles can do it just fine...]

If you want it to be nice and simple....
1/2 range (eg 12" if you fire 24") = +1 BS
Normal range = Normal
3/2 range (eg 18" if you fire 12") = -1 BS

Captain Solon wrote:as for Shooting into combat: even eldar would shoot into their own guys, if they felt it would aide the cause.
But, make it more simplistic, once more.

infantry, jump infantry and their equivalents:
BS to hit:
4+ to hit target, 3- hit your own guys
Wounds and so forth.
Count-as two models, bikes
Things like terminators are a bit bigger/easier targets.

therefore:
BS to hit
3+ to hit target
2- to hit your own guys

Dreadnought/Walker, Monsterous creatures EQ.
are so massive that they're hard to miss. so:
BS to hit
2+ to hit target
1- to hit your own guys.

HOWEVER:
When facing larger troops, this gets difficult, like a carnifex vs. a dreadnought, is obviously a 4+ - you're just as liekly to hit either.
and in the case of, say bikers vs. carni fex [bike eq vs mc] it could be a 3+ to hit carni, rather then a 2+. this would be rather difficult.

So my IG squad is sitting a little away from an IG blob squad of 50 in combat with a single grot.
The firing squad triggers its lascannon... 4+ to hit the grot... wait, what?
On the other hand... A single grot is in combat with 50 IG, the ork burna squad rolls up next to the combat... i wonder how many tightly packed IG i can fit under 1 template?

If you want firing into combat it has to be something complicated, no other way around it...
I'd ignore the following, it hurts my brain.

Firing into Combat
In times of great need or sheer desperation (or cunning strategical sacrifices) A commander of a force may order his own men to fire at a combat. To do this follow these steps.
1) When nominating a target for shooting, declare that your unit will fire into combat, and indicate which combat you wish to fire at. Normal LoS and range rules apply.
2) When firing into combat, due to the closely packed formation of the combatants all shots are at +1 to hit. Roll your dice as you normally would.
3) Take the unit strength of the targets, and work out a percentage for each unit compared to the total unit strength in the combat...
To work out unit strength count up the number of wounds on the starting profile of each model (more wounds usualy means a) bigger or b) more shiny things)
Anything that counts as a bike/jetbike, has a 2+ save or is on a base larger than 25mm adds 1 to its unit strength.
Montrous creatures count as double.
Walkers count as their front armour -4. (war walker =6, kan =7, normal dread =8)
Example 1: Chapter master on a bike, 6 marines and 4 terminators V's Ork warboss, 5 nobs and 2 killa kanz.
Unit strength of CM on bike = (wounds)3(bike, large base)+1 = 4
Unit strength of 6 marines = (wounds)6
Unit strength of 4 terminators = (wounds)4(large base, 2+ save)+4 = 8
Unit strength of Ork warboss = (wounds)3(large base)+1 = 4
Unit strength of 5 nobs = (wounds)10
Unit strength of 2 Killa kans = 14
Total unit strength = 4+6+8+4+10+14 = 46
To work out %, simply multiply each unit strength by (100/46) and round to nearest whole %
So... Unit strength of...
CM on bike = 9%
6 marines = 13%
4 termies = 17%
warboss = 9%
5 nobs = 22%
2 kans = 30%
Now roll a D100... to determine who you hit.
4) Roll to wound as normal
5) Allocate wounds and make saving throws, to represent the confusion of melee, every model recieves a 4+ cover save.
Important note. With regards to blast weapons and templates, simply count the number of models hit, then half that number and allocate as you would with normal hits in step 3.

ARRRRRRRRRRGH!
I'm not doing that every time i want to fire into combat... and there is no simple, but fair way of doing it.
Which is most likely why you can't do it in the first place!
A simple 5+/4+/3+ to hit certain targets just wont work most of the time as combats are never really even sided anyway, and it brings up the unfortunate situation described above before my post of death.

Haha, as I'm reading this I'm thinking "wow, this is really more complex/unbalanced than I thought," probably cause I wrote it around midnight. Oh well, it was worth a shot, kept me entertained for a while

I think it might help if you indulge in some analysis prior to offering your proposal. For example, you might start by defining "realistic", and then perhaps discuss the economy of realism in a table-top wargame.

HI folks.
If the OP wants a simple simulation of modern warfare, why use the 40k rule set?
40k is an abstract counterintuitive collection of 'the rule of cool' ideas lashed together on top of a 30 year old napoleonic game mechanics....

Most modern rule sets manage to cover more gameplay than 40k, with FAR less rules.

Does the OP want a rule set to follow perceptions of modern war?
Eg a simple modern war simulation .

Trying to 'fix 40k ' takes a lot more effort than first impression would have you belive...(A team of proffesional game developers have achived little in a decade beacuse of the hollistic nature of the abstract rules. )

TTFN

Lanrak wrote:
Most modern rule sets manage to cover more gameplay than 40k, with FAR less rules.

You know I've read this a lot on this site and the only thing I want to say about it is NAME ONE!. I get it, the 40K system needs a larger overhaul then what we get from one edition to the next but this whole "They is does it betterest!" crap without telling us what you are comparing it to is like saying "Well I could do a backflip off of Mt Everest and then swim to France... if I wanted to". I don't believe it because I haven't seen it, and my counter argument to your "there is a better system out there" is the success of GW. End of Rant.

You kinda gotta search them online and such because games as such are rather elusive.

Most of the Modern Warfare Wargames I've seen are rather small too, not sure the MM but it was on the level of Flames Of War.


and the illiterate why 40k shooting rules are the way they are, they weren't meant to be realistic. People have to face that and understand that the game was made to be competitive/fun/random and not realistic and accurate.

Then there's Battlefield Evolution...

Incidentally elegance, realism, and game-play need not be exclusive qualities.

Was way too convoluted and time consuming back in first edition when cover modified chance to hit, weapons had range modifiers for different ranges, there were all kinds of 'tiny chance to do this' . I had fun playing back then, but a game with 30 models on a side took longer than a 2000 point game does today. It also makes all kinds of balance changes, and 'realism' is pretty elusive in a game as abstracted as 40k. I don't think it really adds much to the game, and it slows things down badly.

Trying for realistic futuristic games is a bit silly anyway - the 'realistic' games tend to simulate combat sometime between WW2 and Desert Storm with some new weapons and armor mixed in and maybe some jetpacks and such. I think that real futuristic warfare will rely more and more on machines, once you get systems that can act on their own there's no real reason to put a big, squishy, environmentally sensitive human who use clumsy weapon mounts and carry battlefield-useless stuff like a reproductive system around. It's a trend that's starting now and I don't see why it wouldn't continue, especially since machines don't come back and need psychotherapy and long-term medical care or have families who get upset when they come home in a bodybag.

Paging Sergeant Zim, Sergeant Zim to the thread!

Hi ComputerGeek01.
List of games with more gameplay and less rules than 40k...
AT43, Battle Field Evolution, Chain Reaction III,Dirtside, Fast and Dirty,Infinity,StarShip Troopers,Urban war,Warmachine.....etc.
I am aware that 40k is a 'gamy game' where nothing has to make sense.

Lots of people like 40k full of 'awsome cool ideas' (that dont make much sense. )

However, those gamers who want a elegant and intuitive simulation of modern warfare are probably best off using another rule set.

Trying to turn the hollistic abstract mess than is 40k into an elegant and efficient rule set is practicaly impossible.

Most intuitive rule sets tend to simulate a well know real life event ,in my experiance.This way the game works in a familiar way and is easier to learn and play.

TTFN

ComputerGeek01 wrote:You know I've read this a lot on this site and the only thing I want to say about it is NAME ONE!. I get it, the 40K system needs a larger overhaul then what we get from one edition to the next but this whole "They is does it betterest!" crap without telling us what you are comparing it to is like saying "Well I could do a backflip off of Mt Everest and then swim to France... if I wanted to". I don't believe it because I haven't seen it, and my counter argument to your "there is a better system out there" is the success of GW. End of Rant.

GW's own Epic rules provide for greater strategic depth, while being a much smaller ruleset.

Thing is, GW's ruleset is built over five generations of adjustment, and in each generation they wanted different things from their ruleset. For example, in Rogue Trader/2nd Ed it was simple enough to move, you could move 4" and fire a standard weapon or run twice as far and not fire. Pretty clean, pretty simple, but it produced the odd effect of certain troops basically carrying guns for show - orks and the like were always carrying these pistols around but never shooting them as it was madness to move half speed and face a full extra turn of shooting from the enemy, they just ran and charged). This was overhauled in 3rd for a novel idea, you can always move 6" (half way between the standard move and a full run) but there would be assault guns that could fire even though you moved. Suddenly you had orks and the like advancing across the field actually firing the weapons they brought with them.

But in time they found they liked the old 2nd ed rule of making the choice between moving regularly and moving really fast and not firing. To bring that back in, they made reference to something they'd added in 3rd ed, fleet of foot. Great, except now we've got a game where whole armies are all moved 6", then you move to the shooting phase and roll a die for each unit to move them all over again. It's horribly clunky, but the kind of thing you get stuck with when you rewrite rules over and over again.

The thing is, 40K isn't made by idiots, but the environment in which it's made will tend towards bloat and messy design.

The only thing I'd add is shooting into melee and make it super simple:

Perhaps a Ld check for the firer to see if they are willing to shoot their comrades. Some army specific rules could reflect their personalities on the battlefield, like maybe Chaos auto-pass the check, Tau are at -1 Ld for the test, etc. Though to be honest I don't even know if I like the Ld check in the first place. Anyway moving on...

4+ Cover save to the enemy, any to hit rolls of a 1 are resolved as hits on your own guys, I guess allocate and roll wounds and saves normally.

I dont agree about the cover, because statisticly it will lower the amount of possibilities. As in BS and cover will be decided on one die, there are only 6 chances to that, and that will be a bad representation of the game.

But on the other hand i do agree so much that chaos should be able to shoot into combat. Or you could get caught up with some gaunts while a hive tyrant blasts you to death. And i like how you mentioned it should be army specific. I dont think marines COULD shoot on there fellow troops, they should let them die in combat with honor!

Shooting into combat
If a unit (for any reason) could shoot into combat I'd treat it as normal and split the hit/wound allocation randomly by starting with the closest model and then working down and around from that - as the chances of wounding targets further away in a melee would be smaller. It would be easier if a third party (such as a GM) was present to allocate the hits/ wounds though. Saves could be taken by either player or just one - depending on how attached player's are to their own models. In the current system I'd have no test for this, either the unit loses its cool or is else ordered to by an unscrupulous, uncaring or otherwise insane leader/commander (i.e you)

Shots that miss a target surrounded by other models
This is a little silly. If a shot fails to hit a target (and in the case of a vehicle or monstrous creature they'd be shooting at a suitably large target anyway and if they miss that they have no right to hit anything else ) then this represents many things, the round could be a dud or your soldier could have run out of ammo at that moment etc...

Snipers
Personally I think snipers should be able to allocate wounds to the unit they're firing at and that specialist weapons can be recovered by the unit automatically (what Ork wouldn't pick up his mates Big Shoota?). IC's however could be in trouble...

Ranges
I think, in general, the ranges are fine as they are. Remember BS is about a models competency with a firearm. If he misses he needed to reload, the round failed, his weapon jammed or he had a 'special' moment etc...

Cover
I think this seems to be one of the trickiest elements of 40k at the moment for a lot of people. I personally think it works well with the game as it stands but irks me in so many ways also (and I know I'm not the only one). If my guy with a Lascannon hits and wounds a target behind a bush or large shrubbery why should he get an invulnerable save - I understand the bush may obscure him (which is where the to hit modifiers come in - or he ducks at the last second and this could well save his life) but what chance does it have of stopping a weapon designed to penetrate battle tanks, or a soldier whose training and targeting data is so advanced he should easily be able to see him through the shrubbery-and what would happen to the poor bush?! I don't know how to change it (based on to hit/strength/AP etc) without making it more complicated and time consuming (which again as many people see as futile to introduce into a wargame). It's personal choice. All I have to say is house rules - rule. Otherwise stick to the rules that are set out or use any previous edition if you aren't happy (or try and, perhaps ineptly, create your own like me?).