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 don't understand you. Marines still only get double-wounded by P8 and above which is quite strong, into plasma/melta damage.

the way ive viewed the increase from 1-10 to 1-12, is that we essentially added 2 new slots to potential stats, which I've felt we're best used where they would best create differences, which is for common units, so they represent something between 3 and 4 and 4 and 5, essentially becoming values of 3.5 and 4.5. So under this 12 slot system, a value of 7 is equal to 5 in normal 40k, and a value of 8 is equal to a value of 6 in the old system. So if we have str 8 weapons in our system double wounds against defense 5 models, theyre being double wounded by the equivalent of a str 6 weapon in standard 40k. This isn't to say this isnt how this system should work under our rules, but its an odd idea.

Imho I think you are only saying it "seems" about right because you have preconceptions that pulse rifles wound on a 3+. Remember, Space Marines have top-of-the-spectrum power armour, and that Tau pulse rifles do not harness plasma fully.

Youre right, that is why im saying it feels right. Thinking about this any other way means a big change in how we view stats, and most likely a large change in points costs to be worked out and play tested. We can change things so that space marines are wounded by boltguns on a 5+, probably by bumping up the defense value of everything by 1, which isn't a great option but is a direction to go to achieve this, and lets us make sure nothing has defense lower than 1.

Are you taking into account that we merged armour saves and toughness? The 3+ save and the decent toughness is what makes them R5.

yup, toughness 4 and a 3+ save equates to a defense value of 5 under my system. Very few common units qualify for anything higher than a 5, so i dont have that level finalized, nor for things like monstrous creatures, or how to work out invulnerable saves yet. Id like for invulnerable saves to be more dynamic than flat values, but I've no idea how to work that out. Maybe have power weapons reduce invulnerable saves by some amount or something...idk. Maybe keeping them as a reliable, inalterable standard is best.

the way ive viewed the increase from 1-10 to 1-12, is that we essentially added 2 new slots to potential stats, which I've felt we're best used where they would best create differences, which is for common units, so they represent something between 3 and 4 and 4 and 5, essentially becoming values of 3.5 and 4.5. So under this 12 slot system, a value of 7 is equal to 5 in normal 40k, and a value of 8 is equal to a value of 6 in the old system. So if we have str 8 weapons in our system double wounds against defense 5 models, theyre being double wounded by the equivalent of a str 6 weapon in standard 40k. This isn't to say this isnt how this system should work under our rules, but its an odd idea.

I completely know what you're trying to do and I like it, but it's a bit warped for the P8 = S6 example because by adding two values in between the most dense area you're pushing all the higher values up by two. Instead of directly converting it 100% of the time we should do what we want to do and what feels intuitive.

............................................Rg..P...A..Type
Lasgun................................20...4...1...Rapid Fire, Laser
Boltgun................................20...4...1...Rapid Fire
Heavy Bolter........................25...5...3...Heavy
Ranger long rifle..................30...5...1...Sniper
Scatter laser........................25...5...4...Heavy
Autocannon.........................30...7...2...Heavy
Starcannon..........................30...8...2...Heavy
Plasma gun.........................20...8...1...Rapid Fire
Bright lance.........................40...9...1...Heavy, Laser
Meltagun..............................10...9...1...Assault
Lascannon...........................40..10..1...Heavy, Laser
Wraithcannon......................10..12..1...Assault

So what do you think about the 5" gradations?

So what do you think about the 5" gradations?

if we want to keep deep striking and scatter similar to what it is now, with scatter ranges, its best to keep everything consistent and use 6" ranges, as thats the easiest to do using a D6. I like metric as much as the next guy, but changing the ranges like this doesn't really improve anything, so id vote to just not bother.

As for your chart, seeing a Boltgun at the same strength as a Lasgun nearly gave me an aneurism .

I completely know what you're trying to do and I like it, but it's a bit warped for the P8 = S6 example because by adding two values in between the most dense area you're pushing all the higher values up by two. Instead of directly converting it 100% of the time we should do what we want to do and what feels intuitive.

youre right, its far from perfect, but its a good jumping off point, and judgement calls should differentiate it. But we still need to hammer out other things first.

I've been thinking about simplifying orders somewhat, in order to reduce the amount of modifiers flying around, and taking the conditions normal 40K uses as the orders. For instance, Move! Could be a stand-in for running, take cover! Could be to to ground etc etc. i love the idea behind a lot of these orders right now, but the amount of math could be troublesome, so im trying different options. Im still trying to find a way to use 2 different defensive values, but not had much luck on that front, nothing's really intuitive enough yet.

I like metric as much as the next guy

How about 30cm rulers? xD But seriously shall we switch to cm tape measures?

but changing the ranges like this doesn't really improve anything, so id vote to just not bother.

Mahtamori:

You guys need to alter weapon ranges. The primary reason for GW to have 6" increments on all weapons is that this means they are compatible with D6 rolls. With D10 rolls the 6" increments are no longer compatible. Additionally, you have the opportunity to bring the game down from being 1st turn alpha strike to become more about tactics and have shooting begin around the 2-turn mark.
If guns are 5" base range (and let's ignore the idiotic non-metric system of 12 inch per foot) with the standard speed for an infantry at 5" (meaning 10" for bikes, beasts, and cruising vehicles)
If the standard range of a gun was 20" with 10" as rapid fire range and most long-range weapons at 30" (Bright Lance, Heavy Bolter, Pulse Rifle, etc)
If the standard no-mans land was 30" instead of 24" (and yes, the silly boards would still be 48" with 9" deployment zones, can't really do much about that) or at least 25"
-> you would have better ability to both preserve the random distance modifications by dice as well as preserve your army from first round alpha strikes.
Roughly speaking, artillery in 40k has lost it's tactical meaning because they reach everywhere and because just about everything fits the mold.
Try playing a game of Warmachine where 30" is a huge distance that no piece (that I am aware of) can reach. Position plays a massive role in that game in comparison. (And also, you get benefits for shooting people in the back.)

I know we may not use 5" gradations instead of 6", but I still think there is something we need to do about the range of weapons.

5" = 6"
10" = 12"
15" = 18"
20" = 24"
25" = 30"
30" = 36"
35" = 48-60"
40" = 72"+

This kind of thing means that long range weapons suffer the most while normal weapons only get a little buffering.

How about 30cm rulers? xD But seriously shall we switch to cm tape measures?

lol, i really dont expect to ask people to buy new rulers. Buying new dice to make things more variable would be a hard sell, nevermind the actual rulers, where there's no real benefit.

I know we may not use 5" gradations instead of 6", but I still think there is something we need to do about the range of weapons.

i agree weapon ranges right now are ridiculous, but there are better ways to do this. We have to be careful about reducing ranges, since itll give assault armies too much power, but i don't think any weapon should have a range beyond 48". Having a gun you can park in a corner and hit anything with it is dumb and boring, since your opponent can't divert units to it, and unless they have long range guns of their own, they can't hit back. We can maybe expand the "in between" ranges of 18", 30", and 42" to include more units, and increase variety that way, but we should look at other options as well.

lol, i really dont expect to ask people to buy new rulers. Buying new dice to make things more variable would be a hard sell, nevermind the actual rulers, where there's no real benefit.

When did I say new dice? Or rulers haha, just use D6 and regular 30" rulers?

i agree weapon ranges right now are ridiculous, but there are better ways to do this. We have to be careful about reducing ranges, since itll give assault armies too much power, but i don't think any weapon should have a range beyond 48". Having a gun you can park in a corner and hit anything with it is dumb and boring, since your opponent can't divert units to it, and unless they have long range guns of their own, they can't hit back. We can maybe expand the "in between" ranges of 18", 30", and 42" to include more units, and increase variety that way, but we should look at other options as well.

Well movement is now 5" so assault armies won't have any boost. What do you say to turning 6" differences into 3"? Because 6" really REALLY doesn't let us hit that sweet spot for most things, it's a whole move difference...

Well movement is now 5" so assault armies won't have any boost. What do you say to turning 6" differences into 3"? Because 6" really REALLY doesn't let us hit that sweet spot for most things, it's a whole move difference...

I still say standard move distance should be 6", just for the sake of consistency with things like scatter if nothing else. And making differences of 6" into differences of 3" is...problematic. It would help condense things much closer to the 24" bubble we're going for, but then we just drastically changed the mechanics of army's like Tau, where their extra range is critical to their success, and we just cut that in half. Also, itd be a bit weird to play since were all so used to measuring in 6" increments.

Edit: in addition, many of the models that can fire at 48" are pretty big (Typically vehicles), if we cut that range down to a maximum of 36" that could make things a bit crowded.

The upside is that it would allow us some extra wiggle room with weapon stats, but would be harder to take full advantage of, similar to the new wounds system. It would be interesting to have some armies have better control of some weapons than others, but idk, its might be just a bit too incremental.

I don't think so at all, 3" increments are absolutely not crowded. Think about how much 6" jumps are, they're huge! So if we don't allow ourselves this easy-to-snag opportunity to make things more precise and varied we'll eventually be stuck with crowded weapon ranges that either good or bad, since the jump between them is so high, weapons that SHOULD be in between instead get magnetised into these big chunks..

I'd say 48" should be for things like Fire Prisms and Leman Russes. Missiles launchers would go down to 36" (face it they never needed that monster range anyway), and meltas will go down to 9", lose the current melta effect and do something like +1 Power vs vehicles.

I don't think so at all, 3" increments are absolutely not crowded. Think about how much 6" jumps are, they're huge! So if we don't allow ourselves this easy-to-snag opportunity to make things more precise and varied we'll eventually be stuck with crowded weapon ranges that either good or bad, since the jump between them is so high, weapons that SHOULD be in between instead get magnetised into these big chunks..

I meant actual board space, because 36" is a lot of area, until we've got tanks sitting at the edges, models trying to charge at the enemy, terrain in the middle, etc etc.

I agree missile launchers shouldn't be 48" but heres my point. If we use 6" increments with a max range of 48 inches for rare units, that gives us 8 range "slots" to put weapons into. If we use 3" increments, we just doubled that, with 16 range increments. The problem is i don't think there's any way to use all 16 "slots" without things feeling odd. And even within the 6" increments, there are 3 "slots" that games workshop almost never used, 18" 30" and 42". That's nearly half of the available ranges not being used. If we used those, and reworked some weapons to use these ranges, it would create a lot more diversity without things becoming too scattered. Im afraid that if we use the 3" increments, well feel the need down the line to go "Oh lets just bump this guns range down 3" to make it feel different" without a real benefit.

I'd say 48" should be for things like Fire Prisms and Leman Russes. Missiles launchers would go down to 36" (face it they never needed that monster range anyway), and meltas will go down to 9", lose the current melta effect and do something like +1 Power vs vehicles.

Im not sure, dont fire prisms have two fire modes? one normal shot then a combined shot that does more damage? I would say reserve 48" for that combined fire shot, maybe make the normal shot 42" or something. Things like Imperial guard artillery, the tau broadside, and maybe the space marine whirlwind should be 48", things that are at their heart artillery units, and not a mainline tank. Melta's going down to 9 is a problem, because then at half range you have a non-integer value, which means writing a rule for. And having them just do more damage to vehicles doesnt make any sense realistically, that heat blast is scary to anything and everyone. I still say +2 strength if within half range is a good way to use the melta rule, because that way we can put them at str 8 or 9 normally, which is high but not ridiculous, but within 12" they get up to 10 or 11, to really put the hurt on units and vehicles. I may hate melta with a passion, but i recognize the need for it to be there and be scary.

Ok so i've had 2 ideas for weapon types similar to the ideas of laser, melta, and lance.

Shred: If a model is hit and wounded by a weapon with this special rule, they receive 2 wounds rather than one.
(This rule would be used for things like frag-type weapons and shotguns, things that dont make any sense currently. Eldar shuriken weaponry might get this, since their guns are basically really amazing shotguns. The idea of a lower-strength but double-wounding weapon would be very interesting to use.)

Storm: If a model using a weapon with this special rule rolls a to-hit roll of 6, they count as having hit with an additional round.
(This rule would help serve 2 things. Firstly, it would help make the storm bolter actually useful in marine armies, since its never NEVER taken when other options exist, because its so mediocre by comparison, and second would let us give orks that high-volume, low accuracy shooting without it being insane.)
(I'm also toying with the idea of it being a 5 or 6, rather than just a 6, but that might be a bit too much.)

If we use 6" increments with a max range of 48 inches for rare units, that gives us 8 range "slots" to put weapons into

But it's not really 8. It's really only 6 if not less. The ranges where they matter are gonna be 12", 18", 24" and maybe 30". That's where the majority of the guns should be, and it's just too bundled. The thousand guns that are in this category get herded into 4 groups, which is simply too chunky. If we had it where the most densely packed areas got split into 3" while the extremes stayed at 6" (instead of GW who completely skipped out 42"), we would sort of have the thing you wanted where you were converting the statistic values where 4 = 4.5 or something like that; the most populous places would maintain variety - 3" is very noticeable - but the outlying places wouldn't have unneeded groups.

I agree with the melta thing, but if we want closer range firefights where every inch matters don't you think sticking to 12" is going to be too much?

Have to respond to your other ideas in the morning

The ranges where they matter are gonna be 12", 18", 24" and maybe 30". That's where the majority of the guns should be, and it's just too bundled.

isn't that how it should be? What advantage does adding more increments here add? Its just back to the mobility discussion again, where how much effect does this really have? Is the underlying problem. I just dont see 3" increments improving anything.

You can't show that one army has an edge over another if the increments are so large. 99% of non-Heavy weaponry have to be herded into these three categories, and there's no space in between. If we added 15" and 21" ONLY, disregarding the outlying range groups, we can create variety as well as a distinct, noticeable tactical advantage. We can highlight shooty armies by giving them longer range guns, but this would be impossible if the next grade up was a full 6". Also, in the most dense areas of stats we need to maintain variety, correct? This is akin to what we have been trying to do with the comparison chart (the focal point) and your conversion from 1-10 to 1-12 where you created extra stats for the densest infantry populations.

I dont really like the idea of using inconsistencies, when everywhere else we've been trying to minimize or remove them. Beyond that, the game has never been focused on the range of guns, they just set up engagement ranges and show what is a short, medium, and long range gun. And its not really a tactical decision or advantage,even with the tau. The extra range of the Firewarriors is great and all, but the real strength is the extra damage. Having 15" and 21" means that you have to remember two new ranges when they don't really add anything. As for differentiating shooting armies, off the top of my head there are only two purely shooting focused armies, imperial guard and tau. Everything else is either Melee focused, movement focused, or jack of all trades. And there are so many ways to differentiate shooting armies other than arbitrary ranges.

As for it being similar to the stat problem of overcrowding, yes superficially, but here it's for a purpose. Ranges arnt meant to provide advantage except in rare cases like Firewarriors. They're used to show how to use the unit, and which units it can compete with. If my squad is using pistols at 12" I know i can't outshoot a squad with rifles at 24", so i have to go to Melee or dropping behind them or whatever tactic i choose to compensate for that difference in range. But this only happens because its such a large range discrepancy. If its a 3" difference, more often than not players will just advance, negating any advantage or difference it would have provided otherwise. For this 3" difference, half a standard movement distance, to have an effect you have to bank on the opponent just sitting 3" outside of his own shooting range, which no one will do.

Well played,

Storm: If a model using a weapon with this special rule rolls a to-hit roll of 6, they count as having hit with an additional round.

I see where you're going with this, but I still don't like the on rolls to 6, because it completely disregards the user's BS which is what it should be based off. Like what I tried to do with rending, it should be that if they still hit if their BS was 1/2/3 lower then they count as hitting with two shots instead of one. I like the name though!

Shred: If a model is hit and wounded by a weapon with this special rule, they receive 2 wounds rather than one.

I would change these two a bit:

Storm: If a model has a weapon with this special rule, any rolls To Hit that would still succeed if it had suffered -3 Marksmanship count as two hits instead of one.
Shred: If a model has a weapon with this special rule, any rolls To Wound that would still succeed if it had suffered -3 Power count as two wounds instead of one.

Im tossing around a new way of doing orders with less math and easier use. They would work much more like current imperial guard orders, in that they grant specific effects, special rules, rerolls, etc. We could also make orders more personal to each army this way, similar to the 6th edition codexs that include a warlord chart, but not as dumb and less random.
For example
Arise! : must be issued at the start of a units activation. The unit is cleared of all status conditions, and gains the fearless and fleet special rules for the remainder of the game turn.

Im also thinking about doing a parallel system for command as for psychics powers, where there are psychics power charts that each mastery level has access to, as it would provide better motivation to pay for things like the librarian upgrades, and maybe let us create lower tier psykers for armies that lack them.

As for shred, maybe make it if the targets defense value is equal to or less than the weapons strength, it does double wounds. For storm, maybe for every successful hit, roll a D6. On a 6+ (Maybe a 5+), one additional hit is scored. Its a bit slower, but it accomplishes the same thing. I know what your modifier system accomplishes, but its a pain to work out in the heat of things, despite its accuracy and logical sense.

But...the orders were great! Each order was individual and unique, it wasn't just a matter of addition/subtraction on stats. I think orders should be universal, every army should be able to capture that opportunity if the situation comes. I just feel it's way too expected and plain if we gave each army their own commands, not to mention it would be extremely hard to keep them unique and cool. Armies are bound to be able to, and to want the same orders, all armies should deserve "commands".

Gtg now will reply in 16 hours?

maybe for every successful hit, roll a D6. On a 6+ (Maybe a 5+), one additional hit is scored.

kinda sounds like rerolls

Rerolls is one way to do storm, but id rather it be lots of shots rather than rerolls, since thats the domain of master crafting and its more fun with more shots.

But...the orders were great! Each order was individual and unique, it wasn't just a matter of addition/subtraction on stats. I think orders should be universal, every army should be able to capture that opportunity if the situation comes. I just feel it's way too expected and plain if we gave each army their own commands, not to mention it would be extremely hard to keep them unique and cool. Armies are bound to be able to, and to want the same orders, all armies should deserve "commands".

they are very unique and exciting, but there's also lots of numbers being moved around, and i think we can capture the essence of many if not most through clever use of special rules. Not saying we shouldn't go for the numerical approach, but its more difficult for people to get into at first. Plus this means we don't just have orders values and special rules interacting, its just special rules. As for making some army specific, i didn't necessarily mean completely different charts for everyone, but maybe each army has 1 order in each level that is unique to them, so we can get some cool names and unique effects in here, like having tyranids have something called Consume! And Prey!. It would also be another way to differentiate all the different space marine chapters from each other if nothing else.

Well could we think of another rule for Mastercrafted? It's not living up to its name atm. As for storm, why not just give those guns more shots? Or perhaps just give them "Suppressing" and remove the Storm rule.

You know how you said that when a unit is suppressed they can still move but with their heads down? How about we make it so that they can only take pot shots (-3BS) and may only "run" through the hail of bullets (cannot move, except for running and charging).

Also, I would like to take this opportunity to extinguish some of the overlaps we have with modifiers. There is an increasing amount of rules which allow you to do something at the expense of your movement/shooting (e.g. firing ordnance weapons, running, Take Cover! command) and I want to make sure that you can't give up your chance to move twice by doing two things. It's hard to explain, but without this kind of intervention, something like this could happen:

A squad leader uses the Take Cover! command. It cannot move this turn. It exploits this circumstance by firing Heavy weapons at full BS.

As you can see I want to make it so that you can only sacrifice your movement/shooting once I guess.

they are very unique and exciting, but there's also lots of numbers being moved around, and i think we can capture the essence of many if not most through clever use of special rules. Not saying we shouldn't go for the numerical approach, but its more difficult for people to get into at first. Plus this means we don't just have orders values and special rules interacting, its just special rules.

In an ideal world you would have only numerical modifiers, because that is the simplest and most effective way to do this. But you and I wouldn't want that because it is boring, monotonous and unrealistic. But equally we cannot shove all the numbers into special rules, which are essentially ways of explaining more complex modifiers; there is no point in turning everything into special rules because that over-complicates things. So I decided to settle with a majority of numerical modifiers that represent real scenarios with a bit of flavoursome special rules sprinkled where appropriate

As for making some army specific, i didn't necessarily mean completely different charts for everyone, but maybe each army has 1 order in each level that is unique to them, so we can get some cool names and unique effects in here, like having tyranids have something called Consume! And Prey!

Ok thank god I thought you meant completely different charts for everyone. Sure each army can have one or two extra commands for personal use only but only in addition to the universal pools.

I dont really see why mastercrafting needs to be changed, its a slick way to give to-hit rerolls, and as an upgrade option is pretty cheap incase there are point lying around, and WS increases a already the domain of power weapons.

may only "run" through the hail of bullets (cannot move, except for running and charging).

this is an interesting idea, i worry it may make assaulting armies too powerful though, as many people would try to stop Death Stars with suppression, and this would let them run right through it.

I see what you mean by the problem, but for most armies getting two orders issued to one unit would require both an HQ's order and the sergeants order, which is a pretty substantial amount of resources getting pumped into that unit.

But equally we cannot shove all the numbers into special rules, which are essentially ways of explaining more complex modifiers; there is no point in turning everything into special rules because that over-complicates things

i would argue special rules are much easier to remember than numerical values, because we all know what feel no pain, stealth, shrouded, fearless, and stubborn allow a unit to do, because they're universal special rules, and their effects are limited to one aspect of a unit, and easy to remember. Also, if we want any sort of unique orders for each army, there needs to be a fast way of telling the opponent what they do if they not familiar with it. We can keep numerical orders, because obviously somethings just need that level of precision, but many of them can be described as a modified version of a current special rule or set of USRs, with a may not assault/move/shoot clause attached to them.

. As for storm, why not just give those guns more shots? Or perhaps just give them "Suppressing" and remove the Storm rule.

i dont want to just give them suppressing because i agree with the current games logic of how a unit gets pinned. It has to be faced with firepower that it can't hit back against, can't locate, and/or can't move away from. I think blast weapons, barrage, ordinance, sniper rifles, and truly massive amounts of firepower fit this definition quite nicely. The problem with giving the suppression rule to a single model is that should that model score even 1 hit, the target unit has to roll for suppression even though it clearly doesn't mesh with the definition. Its the situation tau payers could take advantage of by giving their Firewarrior sergeants a slightly different gun than the Pulserifle just to abuse the pinning rule it granted, while not sacrificing the firepower of the rest of the unit, which is not accurate and frustrating.

Ok thank god I thought you meant completely different charts for everyone

lol no as interesting that would be, im lazy and couldn't be bothered to come up with that many unique and balanced orders. I think a few for each army should be more than enough, since that lets us really push the core aspects of the army in the command system, and keep it from being too routine and universal.

Maybe make some of these unique orders, especially the more powerful ones, one use orders, for things like an ork waaaagh or some command for the blood angels that pushes all units within the command range into the red thirst/black rage for a game turn.

i dont really see why mastercrafting needs to be changed, its a slick way to give to-hit rerolls, and as an upgrade option is pretty cheap incase there are point lying around, and WS increases a already the domain of power weapons

slick? I just think there could be a more realistic and less boring approach

i would argue special rules are much easier to remember than numerical values, because we all know what feel no pain, stealth, shrouded, fearless, and stubborn allow a unit to do, because they're universal special rules, and their effects are limited to one aspect of a unit, and easy to remember. Also, if we want any sort of unique orders for each army, there needs to be a fast way of telling the opponent what they do if they not familiar with it. We can keep numerical orders, because obviously somethings just need that level of precision, but many of them can be described as a modified version of a current special rule or set of USRs, with a may not assault/move/shoot clause attached to them.

I think it would feel weird if we showed some of the numerical changes as special rules while the rest stayed as raw numbers. Unless we find names for every increase and decrease of any amount for every stat we can't put them all into special rules. How weird would it be if you had "This command grants Shrouded, -1 Dexterity, -2 Ballistic Skill and the unit may not move."

The problem with giving the suppression rule to a single model is that should that model score even 1 hit, the target unit has to roll for suppression even though it clearly doesn't mesh with the definition. Its the situation tau payers could take advantage of by giving their Firewarrior sergeants a slightly different gun than the Pulserifle just to abuse the pinning rule it granted, while not sacrificing the firepower of the rest of the unit, which is not accurate and frustrating.

Clearly we're not going to let that happen. We should tweak how a unit can get suppressed. Let's give all Blast, Barrage, Ordnance and Sniper weapons Suppressing in the definition ok? So like what I've done here:

Sniper: If a model has a weapon with this special rule, any wounds it causes are doubled. Also, all Sniper weapons have the Heavy, Rending and Suppressing special rules.

Then we have conditions on how a unit can get suppressed, like using the amount of shots being fired and how many weapons with the Suppressing rule are in the unit. How about this:

Suppressing: If a model has a weapon with this special rule, any shots it fires count as two for Suppression tests.

Or maybe we can have Suppressing (X) where (X) is the amount of shots it counts as for Suppression tests? So snipers could count as three etc.

Also, maybe we can have different levels of suppression, each one making the target lose BS and Mobility? perhaps..

Maybe make some of these unique orders, especially the more powerful ones, one use orders, for things like an ork waaaagh or some command for the blood angels that pushes all units within the command range into the red thirst/black rage for a game turn.

mm mm mm

Suppressing: If a model has a weapon with this special rule, any shots it fires count as two for Suppression tests.

i like the idea of this, but for things like blasts, ordinance, and snipers, they typically only hit a couple of models, or are a low model count unit. I think something similar to the current pinning rule, where they force a pinning test on successful wounds, would work a bit better. If we can't implement extra shots for storm well, this might be a good alternative.

slick? I just think there could be a more realistic and less boring approach

the problem is the other ways we could implement it are already covered by other special weapons, and yes slick, its straightforward and simple to use, and worth the points despite not being at the forefront of anyone's mind. More realistic, idk if power weapons didnt give WS bonuses it would fit very nicely there, but as it is it would be a bit redundant.

I think it would feel weird if we showed some of the numerical changes as special rules while the rest stayed as raw numbers. Unless we find names for every increase and decrease of any amount for every stat we can't put them all into special rules. How weird would it be if you had "This command grants Shrouded, -1 Dexterity, -2 Ballistic Skill and the unit may not move."

i dont mean we have orders that include both numbers and special rules, but rather it has one or the other. We'd have to simplify and condense many orders yes, but i think it would be much more streamlined this way, while keeping the essence of the order the same.

i like the idea of this, but for things like blasts, ordinance, and snipers, they typically only hit a couple of models, or are a low model count unit. I think something similar to the current pinning rule, where they force a pinning test on successful wounds, would work a bit better. If we can't implement extra shots for storm well, this might be a good alternative.

Yeah so maybe a squad has 10 shots w/ Suppressing. So 20 shots would basically cause a Suppression test one way or another. Just a really REALLY out of the blues idea, if you have 20 effective shots for Suppression, you divide that by 10 and compare that value to targets Fortitude. So normally it would be a 5+ (???) because 2 compared to 4 equates to a 5+, idk really random idea but what do you think?

the problem is the other ways we could implement it are already covered by other special weapons, and yes slick, its straightforward and simple to use, and worth the points despite not being at the forefront of anyone's mind. More realistic, idk if power weapons didnt give WS bonuses it would fit very nicely there, but as it is it would be a bit redundant.

Maybe power weapons don't increase weapon skill but instead do something else, while only mastercrafted increase weapon skill? We need to think of something cool for power weapons, just an increase probably won't cut it seeing as they are everywhere.

i dont mean we have orders that include both numbers and special rules, but rather it has one or the other. We'd have to simplify and condense many orders yes, but i think it would be much more streamlined this way, while keeping the essence of the order the same

I wouldn't say streamlined, I'd say smudged out. Clearly we cannot shove all numerical things into special rules so we either have to drop the majority of them which will be a nightmare, not to mention again, it would be terrible if there was a special rule representing any increase or decrease of any amount to any stat. And most orders will not keep the essence, in fact most will just be shaved bare of all personality it had.

Yeah so maybe a squad has 10 shots w/ Suppressing. So 20 shots would basically cause a Suppression test one way or another. Just a really REALLY out of the blues idea, if you have 20 effective shots for Suppression, you divide that by 10 and compare that value to targets Fortitude. So normally it would be a 5+ (???) because 2 compared to 4 equates to a 5+, idk really random idea but what do you think?

thats a bit too involved, but its an interesting direction. It still causes problems with blasts and similar weapons though.

Maybe power weapons don't increase weapon skill but instead do something else, while only mastercrafted increase weapon skill? We need to think of something cool for power weapons, just an increase probably won't cut it seeing as they are everywhere.

thats how I feel about it too, but there's nowhere for them to go without armor of some sort. To break it down, a power weapon needs to increase a models ability in close combat. Increasing a models ability in close combat can be done only a few ways. Extra attacks, higher weapon skill, more damage, higher initiative, poison, rending, instant death, reroll, etc. the only ones that even sort of fit are strength increases and higher weapon skill, and even then theyre not a good match as those areas are already covered by other weapon types. Im open to suggestions but i really have no ideas.

I wouldn't say streamlined, I'd say smudged out. Clearly we cannot shove all numerical things into special rules so we either have to drop the majority of them which will be a nightmare, not to mention again, it would be terrible if there was a special rule representing any increase or decrease of any amount to any stat. And most orders will not keep the essence, in fact most will just be shaved bare of all personality it had.

the problem is that right now all of the orders uniqueness is bought with complexity and math, which isn't a great direction. And they don't necessarily have to be 100% special rules. Empty the Mag! could just as easily be:

Must be issued before the units movement phase. The unit may not move, doubles the number of shots at targets within 12" this activation, and receives last strike USR until the units next activation. The unit may not shoot next activation.

No math, no complexity, its just the core of that order compressed. Sure some of the uniqueness is gone, but i don't think having to keep multiple units stat alterations on hand each turn is worth it.

thats a bit too involved, but its an interesting direction. It still causes problems with blasts and similar weapons though.

I wouldn't say it's too involved, rather it's one of those things that isn't quite intuitive, however once you explain it then you'll definitely remember it. Also what kind of problems with blast weapons? Just count the number of models on the template, multiply by two (because it's Blast; suppressing) then add that with the rest of the shots from your squad and move it right 1 decimal place to give you the number you compare to 4. It sounds long-winded in writing but really it's not too bad seen that it's on the same complexity level as a lot of other mechanics atm.

Im open to suggestions but i really have no ideas.

That's ok ^^ put your thinking cap on, I think we should work off what feels right. Let's see, power weapons are still weapons you swing -> use the model's power, not a weapon specific power, but power weapons have some sort of energy field -> increase user's Power? Hammers and axes are heavy -> make them reduce weapon skill/dexterity? Daggers and the like increase dexterity? And while we're at it, when a model has two close combat weapons (excluding pistols which fire a shot at user's weapon skill) they get to attack with both weapons but have decreased weapon skill because they are wielding two?

Actually, forget half of that, how about this?

Power: If a model has a weapon with this special rule, any rolls To Wound that would still succeed if it had suffered -3 Power cause two wounds instead of one.

This thing has come up quite a lot, but right now my thought sequence was that power weapons have gauss-like traits, and atm gauss is represented by rolls of 6 causing automatic wounds. So I polished that "on a roll of 6" rule with the same technique I have used for rending and storm etc. What do you think? Have you changed your opinion on the slightly unusual "imagine-" mechanic which tries to represent an unusual occurence?

the problem is that right now all of the orders uniqueness is bought with complexity and math, which isn't a great direction. And they don't necessarily have to be 100% special rules. Empty the Mag! could just as easily be:

Must be issued before the units movement phase. The unit may not move, doubles the number of shots at targets within 12" this activation, and receives last strike USR until the units next activation. The unit may not shoot next activation.

No math, no complexity, its just the core of that order compressed. Sure some of the uniqueness is gone, but i don't think having to keep multiple units stat alterations on hand each turn is worth it.

Well why would it not be able to move? And where is the BS decrease? Why would you refuse to incorporate a BS decrease to show that their rate of fire increases things like recoil and recklessness? And what does last strike do? Empty The Mag! as it is, does not deserve to have its -2BS decrease replaced by a "cannot move" which makes little sense.

I will be compassionate as I know where you're coming from; the fear of making things too mathematical and drowning everything in numbers. I would like to keep commands to a maximum of two stat modifiers, but right now I'm finding it extremely hard..

As an update for my command ideas, at this present moment I think that 4 pools of 4 commands is optimal. The bottom two pools are the lower tiers - exarchs and vet. sergeants gaining access to more commands while the lowest of sergeants only get the first pool. For this reason the second pool is aimed at having a "expertise and specialist" feel to it. The higher two pools have the dedicated strategists with access to all pools while the more specialist/inexperienced HQs only manage 3. For this reason the last pool is aimed at having a "commanding an army" feel to it.

Level 1: Split Fire!: The unit receives -1 Ballistic Skill. Up to half the squad may shoot at a different target.
Level 1: Let's Roll!: The unit receives +1 Fortitude and +2 Mobility. It may not shoot.
Level 1: Take Cover!: The unit receives +2 Stealth, -1 Dexterity and -2 Ballistic Skill. It may not move.
Level 1: Stay Put!: The unit receives +1 Weapon Skill, +1 Dexterity and -2 Ballistic Skill. It may not move.

Level 2: Overwatch!: The unit receives -2 Ballistic skill. All shots fired gain the Suppressing special rule. It may not move.
Level 2: Infiltrate!: The unit receives +2 Mobility and +1 Stealth. It may not shoot.
Level 2: Empty The Mag!: The unit receives -2 Ballistic Skill. It may fire double the amount of shots, but may not shoot next turn.
Level 2: Raid!: The unit receives +1 Mobility, +1 Weapon Skill and +1 Dexterity. It may not shoot.

Level 3: Target Acquired!: The unit receives +2 Ballistic Skill. It may not move.
Level 3: Focus!: The unit receives +1 Ballistic Skill and +1 Weapon Skill. It gains the Seasoned Marksman special rule.
Level 3: Sit Tight!: The unit receives +3 Stealth and +1 Dexterity. It may not move or shoot.
Level 3:

Level 4: Into The Fray!: The unit receives +3 Mobility, +1 Dexterity and +2 Fortitude.
Level 4: Arise!: The unit receives +1 Strength and +1 Defense. It removes all morale status effects and gains the Feel No Pain special rule.
Level 4: Lionheart: This command may only be issued when over half the unit has been killed. It receives +2 Attacks and gains the Fearless special rule.
Level 4:

Hope you like it, I insist you point out any dumb mistakes in this!

I wouldn't say it's too involved, rather it's one of those things that isn't quite intuitive, however once you explain it then you'll definitely remember it. Also what kind of problems with blast weapons? Just count the number of models on the template, multiply by two (because it's Blast; suppressing) then add that with the rest of the shots from your squad and move it right 1 decimal place to give you the number you compare to 4. It sounds long-winded in writing but really it's not too bad seen that it's on the same complexity level as a lot of other mechanics atm.

sorry i was thinking more along the lines of large blast vehicle weapons. I think we need something like suppression (X), so truly insane weapons can get higher suppression "multipliers". For example, your typical suppression weapon (say a Heavy Bolter) would be suppression (2) to demonstrate they get a 2X multiplier on their shots. A whirlwind missile launcher might get suppression (3) while the ridiculous imperial guard artillery unit with the insane cannon would get suppression (4). This lets the bigger, meaner blast/ordinance weapons of vehicles have more suppression power than typical infantry level weapons, and if they only hit a couple of models, they still have a chance for suppression, due to their multiplier. And is fortitude your morale equivalent or your defense equivalent? Because if its your morale equivalent it makes a lot more sense, and yeah I guess if you get used to it itd be fine, but round down or round up? I'd say down, it just makes more sense to me on this topic, but i like the current 2d6 morale system, so this wouldn't work with that. And to head off your idea on making morale consistent with everything else, 2d6 is very important as you have reliability in this system, since the results create a bell chart so its possible to see how likely each unit is to flee and map the results accordingly.

Hammers and axes are heavy -> make them reduce weapon skill/dexterity? Daggers and the like increase dexterity? And while we're at it, when a model has two close combat weapons (excluding pistols which fire a shot at user's weapon skill) they get to attack with both weapons but have decreased weapon skill because they are wielding two?

Having different power weapons differentiated from each other is kinda pointless since we don't even have power weapons nailed down yet. Sure those sound like great directions to go, but we need a power weapon mechanic. Lowering WS for wielding two weapons makes sense, i just hate it. The points necessary to take a matching melee weapon is typically enormous, for more powerful ones anyways, and you typically lose ranged weapons in exchange, so there's already plenty of penalty involved, and in a game of potentially millennia old warriors, i think they have the time and experience to train with two weapons to the point of mastery.
As for power weapons causing double wounds, that still doesn't fit, and it competes with shred and the like.

Well why would it not be able to move? And where is the BS decrease? Why would you refuse to incorporate a BS decrease to show that their rate of fire increases things like recoil and recklessness? And what does last strike do? Empty The Mag! as it is, does not deserve to have its -2BS decrease replaced by a "cannot move" which makes little sense.

the cannot move is because theyre so focused on taking out that squad that they don't think about moving, but also to make it a defensive order, so players can't run up and empty the mag at a unit. Last strike was the effect/USR that would apply to things like powerfists to show they strike last in close combat, again because they were so focused on shooting that unit down they didnt ready themselves for hand to hand combat. The loss of a BS penalty is unfortunate, but It was necessary to show how the order could be done differently while keeping the core idea the same.

As an update for my command ideas, at this present moment I think that 4 pools of 4 commands is optimal. The bottom two pools are the lower tiers - exarchs and vet. sergeants gaining access to more commands while the lowest of sergeants only get the first pool. For this reason the second pool is aimed at having a "expertise and specialist" feel to it. The higher two pools have the dedicated strategists with access to all pools while the more specialist/inexperienced HQs only manage 3. For this reason the last pool is aimed at having a "commanding an army" feel to it.

the problem i have with 4 order pools is that it would be hard to determine which units get access to which charts, because for any examples i can think of, there's very little differentiation between weak commander and experienced veteran. My librarians and chaplains may be wonderful combatants and icons, but they are only veterans with respect and semi-authority, not masters of tactics and strategy. But we would have to put them at command level 3 to show that they are better than a normal veteran, when thats a heavy handed way of doing so. A three level system (Base, Veteran, Command) offers all the differentiation with orders we need, while command ranges would differentiate between these levels, as more experienced veterans can actually be shown as such.

Lowering WS for wielding two weapons makes sense, i just hate it. The points necessary to take a matching melee weapon is typically enormous, for more powerful ones anyways, and you typically lose ranged weapons in exchange, so there's already plenty of penalty involved, and in a game of potentially millennia old warriors, i think they have the time and experience to train with two weapons to the point of mastery.

Yeah, but don't you think that it would definitely be harder to manipulate two weapons in the heat of battle than one? The skill of the warrior doesn't matter, they fight better with one and hence can't fight as effectively with two. You're trading manouevrability for power. And if you want to talk about points, we can modify them - so never let that be a hindrance to something that makes sense.

So what do power weapons do? If we can't think of anything classy, we can just make them give +1 power. Simple, logical and effective. But if there's anything uber-exciting and fresh, I'd take that instead.

the cannot move is because theyre so focused on taking out that squad that they don't think about moving, but also to make it a defensive order, so players can't run up and empty the mag at a unit.

No way, if they're asked to empty the mag it shouldn't change their movement, if anything it would make them more inclined to move towards their target. It shouldn't just be a defensive order. In normal circumstances someone will NOT be firing at max speed, because of the recoil and not wanting to waste bullets. But it should be able to be applied to situations where you are allowed to hold the trigger down. The advantage is that you get two turns' worth of fire in one, however you get such a negative modifier (-2/3 BS) that it would be daft to use it in normal situations.

But we would have to put them at command level 3 to show that they are better than a normal veteran, when thats a heavy handed way of doing so.

How is it heavy-handed?

A three level system (Base, Veteran, Command) offers all the differentiation with orders we need, while command ranges would differentiate between these levels, as more experienced veterans can actually be shown as such.

In my opinion a Dire Avenger Exarch should not be as experienced as a Librarian. The Librarian does still have a significant amount of experience, at least more than a simple Exarch. If you put them on the same level you're either going to make Exarchs really strong or Librarians kind of a poof, and neither of them deserve that.

In my opinion a Dire Avenger Exarch should not be as experienced as a Librarian. The Librarian does still have a significant amount of experience, at least more than a simple Exarch. If you put them on the same level you're either going to make Exarchs really strong or Librarians kind of a poof, and neither of them deserve that.

thats where command ranges give a differentiation, while neither are capable of the tactical mastery of actual commanders, one is a veteran, and the other is a veteran who occasionally leads small groups. But while both would get the veteran chart, the librarian would get a short command range to show he has more command of the battlefield than the exarch, because he's an HQ choice vs a sergeantish character.

So what do power weapons do? If we can't think of anything classy, we can just make them give +1 power. Simple, logical and effective. But if there's anything uber-exciting and fresh, I'd take that instead.

thats the only direction i can think of too, but it is really boring. Id argue it should be +2 rather than +1 since that feels a bit too weak, but hopefully inspiration will strike for a new idea.

Yeah, but don't you think that it would definitely be harder to manipulate two weapons in the heat of battle than one? The skill of the warrior doesn't matter, they fight better with one and hence can't fight as effectively with two. You're trading manouevrability for power. And if you want to talk about points, we can modify them - so never let that be a hindrance to something that makes sense.

i would argue not, there have been historical examples of effective warriors wielding two weapons, i think the inhabitants of the 41st millennia can manage it. But on this topic, we should subscribe to the rule of cool, and dual wielding melee weapons is definitely cool, so lets keep it free of additional penalties.

No way, if they're asked to empty the mag it shouldn't change their movement, if anything it would make them more inclined to move towards their target. It shouldn't just be a defensive order. In normal circumstances someone will NOT be firing at max speed, because of the recoil and not wanting to waste bullets. But it should be able to be applied to situations where you are allowed to hold the trigger down. The advantage is that you get two turns' worth of fire in one, however you get such a negative modifier (-2/3 BS) that it would be daft to use it in normal situations.

the mental image i have of this order is a squad getting charged by a fast horde of enemies or a big lumbering monster, and they know they can't get away so they try to dish out as much damage as possible before that unit closes for Melee. Yes they would be less accurate but i think there are better ways to represent this. Maybe split this into a defensive version and an offensive version, with one affecting movement and the other affecting accuracy. As for representing accuracy drops, to do this without numbers i think Must reroll successful hits would work very well with doubling shots, otherwise yeah dropping BS would do it too. I would still argue they should get last strike though, to show their focus on shooting instead of Melee, as well as a shortened max range just to be sure.

thats where command ranges give a differentiation, while neither are capable of the tactical mastery of actual commanders, one is a veteran, and the other is a veteran who occasionally leads small groups. But while both would get the veteran chart, the librarian would get a short command range to show he has more command of the battlefield than the exarch, because he's an HQ choice vs a sergeantish character.

Actually things like vet sergeants and exarchs shouldn't be able to issue commands to units other than their squad. Basically 0". And I'd give librarians 5/6".

Id argue it should be +2 rather than +1 since that feels a bit too weak, but hopefully inspiration will strike for a new idea.

Seeing as power swords are like what, 10 points on average? +2 Power is fine.

But on this topic, we should subscribe to the rule of cool, and dual wielding melee weapons is definitely cool, so lets keep it free of additional penalties.

Just a -1 WS decrease is not going to affect its coolness ^^ Because two weapons is actually VERY strong, remember, you're essentially doubling your effectiveness in combat! Sacrificing shooting isn't a good enough penalty because anyone that just wants to jump in and assault won't be affected by this balance measure and they will reap the benefits. Which is why just a small decrease in WS is representative of reality and a precaution. I also think people would be understanding of this change and they will be positively affected by it.

Must reroll successful hits would work very well with doubling shots

This is an interesting way to go, I'd just like you to decide mentally the pros and cons of rerolls; then,

Doing some calculations, doubling the shots and then rerolling successful ones actually doesn't increase the number of shots hitting THAT MUCH. (This could be useful to suppress, but then you would just go for the suppression command - so we should make it so that their number of shots hit is increased by around 50% otherwise the command isn't going to be that potent)

E.g. 10 Boltgun shots equate to 6.67 hits. 10 x 2/3 = 6.67
------20 Boltgun shots that reroll successful hits equate to only 8.89 hits. 20 x 2/3 x 2/3

It's a 33% increase, do you think this is enough?

to show their focus on shooting instead of Melee, as well as a shortened max range just to be sure.

well to be honest they aren't told to Focus! like in that command they are just keeping their finger on the trigger instead of preserving rounds, I wouldn't say they need to focus more, furthermore I want to avoid a shortened max range "just to be sure".

Actually things like vet sergeants and exarchs shouldn't be able to issue commands to units other than their squad. Basically 0". And I'd give librarians 5/6".

Exactly, an Exarch is limited to his unit, since he's sort of a sergeant, and a librarian is an independant character HQ unit. However, fluff-wise a librarian has no real authority within a chapter, hes just a highly skilled warrior with unique powers, and is respected for his knowledge, capabilites, and prowess. However, he is still just the equivalent of a veteran with special abilitites, he's not a commander, captain, chapter master etc, and is not a master of tactics, however he may lead smaller forces of marines when the real strategic officers are not required. He is only capable of what a veteran is tactically, but he has the experience and training to be able to see more of what's going on in his area of the battlefield than a typical veteran, and the respect of his peers let him give advice/orders. Hence, Veteran level orders, but he has a command range.

Just a -1 WS decrease is not going to affect its coolness ^^ Because two weapons is actually VERY strong, remember, you're essentially doubling your effectiveness in combat! Sacrificing shooting isn't a good enough penalty because anyone that just wants to jump in and assault won't be affected by this balance measure and they will reap the benefits. Which is why just a small decrease in WS is representative of reality and a precaution. I also think people would be understanding of this change and they will be positively affected by it.

Yes but think about how hard it is to give an entire unit only double weapons. The only models i know of that can do so, for vanilla marines and equivalent anyways, are sergeants, veterans, and HQ units. And even on sergeants, the only free option is 2 chainswords, giving him any more powerful dual weapons makes him a 56 point model minimum, and thats just with standard powerswords, nevermind powerfists, thunderhammers, or lightning claws, which would take him closer to 76 points. I think at 56 points for a 3 attack sergeant with power weapons is incredibly exepensive for how little use he'd likely get out of that arrangement compared to a typical loadout, and since the dual chainsword option isnt at all powerful, i dont see a point adding a penalty on top of all that. It may be a bit different for different codices, but i would think its a similar situation for most of them, dual wielding standard troops are rare, if even possible at all.

well to be honest they aren't told to Focus! like in that command they are just keeping their finger on the trigger instead of preserving rounds, I wouldn't say they need to focus more, furthermore I want to avoid a shortened max range "just to be sure".

I don't know about you, but if im facing down a scary unit that needs to die, whether its charging at me or im trying to mow it down myself, im not gonna be readying myself for combat, im gonna be getting as many shots out as possible, regardless of whether ive been ordered to focus or not. As for the max range, im worried about situations like a unit trying to flank around some terrain, and then you pop up a unit right at the max range and unload everything on it.you just ruined that units day. Not to say this shouldn't be used aggressively, it definitely should, but i think a range penalty would make people be much more aggressive that this version than they would likely be otherwise.

Edit: as for is re rolling successful hits enough, i think the prospective payoff will be very good incentive for people to take, not to mention making it a prime candidate for things like special weapons and template weapons especially, because a 33% increase in plasma or Melta weapons is a lot hurt to lay on a unit, and flamers dont care about hits anyways.

Lowering BS by 2 means that on double shots space marines would be landing the same amount of hits funnily enough

Yes but think about how hard it is to give an entire unit only double weapons. The only models i know of that can do so, for vanilla marines and equivalent anyways, are sergeants, veterans, and HQ units. And even on sergeants, the only free option is 2 chainswords, giving him any more powerful dual weapons makes him a 56 point model minimum, and thats just with standard powerswords, nevermind powerfists, thunderhammers, or lightning claws, which would take him closer to 76 points. I think at 56 points for a 3 attack sergeant with power weapons is incredibly exepensive for how little use he'd likely get out of that arrangement compared to a typical loadout, and since the dual chainsword option isnt at all powerful, i dont see a point adding a penalty on top of all that. It may be a bit different for different codices, but i would think its a similar situation for most of them, dual wielding standard troops are rare, if even possible at all.

I said that we just have to ignore points right now because it seems like it's getting in the way for some logical changes which you said you would accept. Especially particular points-cost anecdotes which are negligible atm and we can just fix the points cost later.

I don't know about you, but if im facing down a scary unit that needs to die, whether its charging at me or im trying to mow it down myself, im not gonna be readying myself for combat, im gonna be getting as many shots out as possible, regardless of whether ive been ordered to focus or not.

Yeah, I agree you won't be as prepares for combat but that doesn't mean every single model hits last. Some may still be sharp enough to hit at the same time. So we can give -1 Dexterity to portray that?

As for the max range, im worried about situations like a unit trying to flank around some terrain, and then you pop up a unit right at the max range and unload everything on it.you just ruined that units day. Not to say this shouldn't be used aggressively, it definitely should, but i think a range penalty would make people be much more aggressive that this version than they would likely be otherwise.

What's wrong with that? Bearing in mind your firepower is only increased by 33%, you've practically just threw away your unit just by being impatient enough to waste 200% of firepower for 133% of it. Or it actually does give you the tactical edge, in which case you've commanded well. But in most situations, the command is not worth it.

Lowering BS by 2 means that on double shots space marines would be landing the same amount of hits funnily enough

Yeah I saw that