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.

(Copied from my so far dead darkhive thread):

Ever since I read the Flames of War rulesbook and heard their explanation of hitting something (which is basically if you can see something you can shoot at it, and if it's not completely obscure you can hit it) I have contemplated rather or not the BS characteristic is useles or not. Of course, if there is a target at long range or your gun is garbage, hitting an object may be a problem. So, do you think that the Ballistic Skill characteristic should be rid of in 6th ed?

Is this a joke post? Do you know what the word "useless" means? Do you know how the 40k rules work?

My Orks would LOOOOOOOOVE this idea.

But seriously, I think it'd be stupid. It'd really hurt armies that rely on small squads

First of all, yes, I know how the rules work and second of all, your telling me it is "stupid" to think someone couldnt just point their gun at a man shaped figure, oh, 50 meters away (which is a decently sized target) and hit them (which could be done without even aiming). Ever actually shot a gun befor? you'd have to have terrible eyesight, be mentally challened or have no idea which side of the gun points where to not hit a target. I've hit soda cans 100-some feet back just fine with a crappy .22 caliber bolt action rifle. I think the ability to hit something depends on the gun and the line of sight of the target.

*Edit* I forgot to include the word caliber, lulz.

Good for you, you shot a can. Problem is a can doesn't move, is not ducking behind cover, and is not shooting back at you. You know that the majority of bullets used in wars don't actually hit anything? Because they're being used for suppression fire. It is, in fact, hard to shoot something when you're under pressure from being killed by the thing you're shooting at.

Of course this isn't a question of "realism", I called it stupid from a gameplay view. Because that idea, in the way 40k works right now, would be completely broken. Armys that can take large squads can take overwhelm smaller ones in weight of fire. A 30 strong shoota boy mob could obliterate anything it looked at. Special weapons like melta and plasma would carry no risks because you would always hit. What about pie plates? Would that auto hit too? Guard would be impossible to play against.

I'm going to tell you this, and anyone else who gets the same idea: Shoehorning an idea from one game system into another NEVER WORKS, because games need to be designed as a whole, not as bit and pieces!

Luke_Prowler wrote:Good for you, you shot a can. Problem is a can doesn't move, is not ducking behind cover, and is not shooting back at you. You know that the majority of bullets used in wars don't actually hit anything? Because they're being used for suppression fire. It is, in fact, hard to shoot something when you're under pressure from being killed by the thing you're shooting at.

Of course this isn't a question of "realism", I called it stupid from a gameplay view. Because that idea, in the way 40k works right now, would be completely broken. Armys that can take large squads can take overwhelm smaller ones in weight of fire. A 30 strong shoota boy mob could obliterate anything it looked at. Special weapons like melta and plasma would carry no risks because you would always hit. What about pie plates? Would that auto hit too? Guard would be impossible to play against.

I'm going to tell you this, and anyone else who gets the same idea: Shoehorning an idea from one game system into another NEVER WORKS, because games need to be designed as a whole, not as bit and pieces!

...so, you think it's a bad idea?

ForgottenRealm wrote:

Luke_Prowler wrote:Good for you, you shot a can. Problem is a can doesn't move, is not ducking behind cover, and is not shooting back at you. You know that the majority of bullets used in wars don't actually hit anything? Because they're being used for suppression fire. It is, in fact, hard to shoot something when you're under pressure from being killed by the thing you're shooting at.

Of course this isn't a question of "realism", I called it stupid from a gameplay view. Because that idea, in the way 40k works right now, would be completely broken. Armiess that can take large squads can take overwhelm smaller ones in weight of fire. A 30 strong shoota boy mob could obliterate anything it looked at. Special weapons like melta and plasma would carry no risks because you would always hit. What about pie plates? Would that auto hit too? Guard would be impossible to play against.

I'm going to tell you this, and anyone else who gets the same idea: Shoehorning an idea from one game system into another NEVER WORKS, because games need to be designed as a whole, not as bit and pieces!

...so, you think it's a bad idea?

I think it's a horrible idea. BS in there for a reason.

Let's get rid of weapon skill as well. It's easy to hit things right in front of you too! Tau will be unstoppable!!! What a great game that would be...

Are you saying you could hit that can as easily or consistently as a USMC sniper? I think not... Hence, why some models have a higher balistic skill.

Luke_Prowler wrote:

ForgottenRealm wrote:

Luke_Prowler wrote:Good for you, you shot a can. Problem is a can doesn't move, is not ducking behind cover, and is not shooting back at you. You know that the majority of bullets used in wars don't actually hit anything? Because they're being used for suppression fire. It is, in fact, hard to shoot something when you're under pressure from being killed by the thing you're shooting at.

Of course this isn't a question of "realism", I called it stupid from a gameplay view. Because that idea, in the way 40k works right now, would be completely broken. Armiess that can take large squads can take overwhelm smaller ones in weight of fire. A 30 strong shoota boy mob could obliterate anything it looked at. Special weapons like melta and plasma would carry no risks because you would always hit. What about pie plates? Would that auto hit too? Guard would be impossible to play against.

I'm going to tell you this, and anyone else who gets the same idea: Shoehorning an idea from one game system into another NEVER WORKS, because games need to be designed as a whole, not as bit and pieces!

...so, you think it's a bad idea?

I think it's a horrible idea. BS in there for a reason.

Understand, that while I agree with you, (and the OP might not realize this) the BS of the model would simply be swapped for the BS of the gun. Absolutely nothing would change mechanics wise. Though I personally think shooters should get a bonus to hit at point blank range, that's besides the point.

I think BS is fine the way it is. If you go by gun characteristics you'd have to go by fluff, and we all know how amazing most 40k fluff is.

Fireknife wrote:I think BS is fine the way it is. If you go by gun characteristics you'd have to go by fluff, and we all know how amazing most 40k fluff is.

That's an assumption. Gun characteristics are no different than character characteristics in the fluff. Both are equally poorly represented!

Archon Revoc wrote:First of all, yes, I know how the rules work and second of all, your telling me it is "stupid" to think someone couldnt just point their gun at a man shaped figure, oh, 50 meters away (which is a decently sized target) and hit them (which could be done without even aiming). Ever actually shot a gun befor? you'd have to have terrible eyesight, be mentally challened or have no idea which side of the gun points where to not hit a target. I've hit soda cans 100-some feet back just fine with a crappy .22 caliber bolt action rifle. I think the ability to hit something depends on the gun and the line of sight of the target.

*Edit* I forgot to include the word caliber, lulz.

Ah, ok. You're a minor level gun nut that thinks he's got it all figured out, and because he can hit soda cans in his back yard with his peashooter, that there is no such thing as better or worse accuracy, and that it hence has no place in a wargame.

ph34r wrote:

Archon Revoc wrote:First of all, yes, I know how the rules work and second of all, your telling me it is "stupid" to think someone couldnt just point their gun at a man shaped figure, oh, 50 meters away (which is a decently sized target) and hit them (which could be done without even aiming). Ever actually shot a gun befor? you'd have to have terrible eyesight, be mentally challened or have no idea which side of the gun points where to not hit a target. I've hit soda cans 100-some feet back just fine with a crappy .22 caliber bolt action rifle. I think the ability to hit something depends on the gun and the line of sight of the target.

*Edit* I forgot to include the word caliber, lulz.

Ah, ok. You're a minor level gun nut that thinks he's got it all figured out, and because he can hit soda cans in his back yard with his peashooter, that there is no such thing as better or worse accuracy, and that it hence has no place in a wargame.

Is this necessary? Why the hate on .22s? Everyone knows they're the ultimate anti-zombie caliber!

Real World: Less than one of every twenty bullets fired hits the target, or somewhere along those lines. Can't remember the exact ratio.

40k: One third to five sixths of all bullets fired hit the target, depending on the shooter.

Your 40k: All bullets hit the targets.

What about my Combi-Weapons, which carry the risk of being useless one-shots? What about Orks? What about EVERY ARMY IN THE GAME THAT USES LOW BS AS A LIMITATION This is the worst idea I've seen in months of being here.

Your Friend Doctor Robert wrote:Real World: Less than one of every twenty bullets fired hits the target, or somewhere along those lines. Can't remember the exact ratio.

40k: One third to five sixths of all bullets fired hit the target, depending on the shooter.

Your 40k: All bullets hit the targets.

What about my Combi-Weapons, which carry the risk of being useless one-shots? What about Orks? What about EVERY ARMY IN THE GAME THAT USES LOW BS AS A LIMITATION This is the worst idea I've seen in months of being here.

"or somewhere along those lines." ?! Um...maybe in Vietnam, but I assure you, if a modern Western Infantryman is aiming at his target, he's hitting it. The majority of rounds that "miss" were fired as suppression fire and therefore not aimed...

Also, you do realize that the OP defeated his own argument in his second post by talking about gun quality being a limiting factor? This is a 1-for-1 substitute (gun for troop) for BS. It makes the whole thing moot as you're still left with a BS. Why all the hate on this guy when you could just let the thread die?

Further, I'm surprised no one has brought up the ever-present armor save that hasn't gone anywhere...point being, it's not relevant if you think you "automatically" hit (you don't) if you've forgotten about the target's armor.

ForgottenRealm wrote:...point being, it's not relevant if you think you "automatically" hit (you don't) if you've forgotten about the target's armor.

And where does that leave anyone with a 5+ or 6+ save?

ForgottenRealm wrote:

ph34r wrote:

Archon Revoc wrote:First of all, yes, I know how the rules work and second of all, your telling me it is "stupid" to think someone couldnt just point their gun at a man shaped figure, oh, 50 meters away (which is a decently sized target) and hit them (which could be done without even aiming). Ever actually shot a gun befor? you'd have to have terrible eyesight, be mentally challened or have no idea which side of the gun points where to not hit a target. I've hit soda cans 100-some feet back just fine with a crappy .22 caliber bolt action rifle. I think the ability to hit something depends on the gun and the line of sight of the target.

*Edit* I forgot to include the word caliber, lulz.

Ah, ok. You're a minor level gun nut that thinks he's got it all figured out, and because he can hit soda cans in his back yard with his peashooter, that there is no such thing as better or worse accuracy, and that it hence has no place in a wargame.

Is this necessary? Why the hate on .22s? Everyone knows they're the ultimate anti-zombie caliber!

Real men only use .45s , specifically, with the 1911, objectively the best handgun ever made.

Your Friend Doctor Robert wrote:

ForgottenRealm wrote:...point being, it's not relevant if you think you "automatically" hit (you don't) if you've forgotten about the target's armor.

And where does that leave anyone with a 5+ or 6+ save?

It doesn't leave them anywhere, they'll all be dead anyway! Hooray, more MEQ spam!

nice.

Your Friend Doctor Robert wrote:Real World: Less than one of every twenty bullets fired hits the target, or somewhere along those lines. Can't remember the exact ratio.

1 in 20 would be pretty amazing in the real world. In fact, it'd be totally unbelievable in the real world.

Vietnam estimates put it at about 1 out of every 50,000 bullets.

Estimates for the War of Terror aren't even as accurate as that. We're looking at something like 1 in 250,000 bullets.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-forced-to-import-bullets-from-israel-as-troops-use-250000-for-every-rebel-killed-508299.html

Personally, I think the only way to 'do away' with BS is if each unit had 2 numbers, for example 4/5 the first being what it takes to hit at short range, the second being what it takes them to hit at long range (under and over half the weapons range).

Auto hits are silly.

Also - Target shooting is ENTIRELY different to combat, even in wargames, let alone actual combat where you have a good chance of buying it.
Try playing a game of Paintball or Airsoft or even Nerf and while you're ducking behind cover and running and dodging see how accurate you are and that's before you account for them ducking, running and dodging.

I can bullseye a target all day long with a rifle, paintball gun, airsoft gun or nerf gun, but in a game?

*logs back on, checks on thread, sees so much potential for flame war

lol, erbody makin assumptions and hating while I'm gone. I woulda posted this yesterday, but i was to busy with lacrosse and homework.

When you guys are saying "that doesnt mean they can hit a moving target" (or something along those lines, I've saw a summary of that several times in the trhead) you are just proving my point more. Being able to hit a target should be based on whether or not the "target" knows how deal with incoming fire

This may be somewhat confusing at first, but think about it. Most guns that are military issue shoot in a somewhat straight line (since the troops will most likely have time to adjust their sights and range in before battle) so that eliminates the probability for a shot to be like more than a couple inches (a foot at most) off. Now picture this. Would it be hard to hit a large group of of poorly trained troops charging across an open field, or would it harder to hit a small group of elitly trained soldiers moving threw the shadows/covering each other or crawling across that open field.

My replacement idea for the BS characteristic would work out a little like this: declare target being shot at, see if their in range, etc. now when it comes to hitting them, you check to see how "trained" (or battlehardened) they are. Since trained soldier with good training have an average leadership (around 7) then we'd assume to hit a unit with a leadership of 7+ it would be a hit on every roll of a 4+ (declared as your "not being hit" roll) by the defending player (I'm sure leadership 9 and 10 models would be harder to hit cause of better training and just being around more, so a positive modifier to the roll would be logical).

Now for logical modifiers. If the guns are crap (i.e. orks) there could be a +1 modifier to your "not being hit" roll.
If the enemies are shooting at over half of their guns range then another +1 modifier would make sense.

I feel like i have more to type, but I got other stuff to do, so I may post more "enlightenment" (or total Bull Sh!t depending on your view) later.

Archon Out, loves

HERESY!

To add something constructive to the conversation:

I think something akin to a Ballistic Skill will always be required for Warhammer 40,000, whether it be an Accuracy value on the weapon itself or as a value like it is now.

In any case, would love to see Accuracy modifiers come back, even in simple forms such as new keywords like Accurate (+1 BS) or Inaccurate (-1 BS).

Archon Revoc wrote:*logs back on, checks on thread, sees so much potential for flame war

lol, erbody makin assumptions and hating while I'm gone. I woulda posted this yesterday, but i was to busy with lacrosse and homework.

When you guys are saying "that doesnt mean they can hit a moving target" (or something along those lines, I've saw a summary of that several times in the trhead) you are just proving my point more. Being able to hit a target should be based on whether or not the "target" knows how deal with incoming fire

This may be somewhat confusing at first, but think about it. Most guns that are military issue shoot in a somewhat straight line (since the troops will most likely have time to adjust their sights and range in before battle) so that eliminates the probability for a shot to be like more than a couple inches (a foot at most) off. Now picture this. Would it be hard to hit a large group of of poorly trained troops charging across an open field, or would it harder to hit a small group of elitly trained soldiers moving threw the shadows/covering each other or crawling across that open field.

My replacement idea for the BS characteristic would work out a little like this: declare target being shot at, see if their in range, etc. now when it comes to hitting them, you check to see how "trained" (or battlehardened) they are. Since trained soldier with good training have an average leadership (around 7) then we'd assume to hit a unit with a leadership of 7+ it would be a hit on every roll of a 4+ (declared as your "not being hit" roll) by the defending player (I'm sure leadership 9 and 10 models would be harder to hit cause of better training and just being around more, so a positive modifier to the roll would be logical).

Now for logical modifiers. If the guns are crap (i.e. orks) there could be a +1 modifier to your "not being hit" roll.
If the enemies are shooting at over half of their guns range then another +1 modifier would make sense.

I feel like i have more to type, but I got other stuff to do, so I may post more "enlightenment" (or total Bull Sh!t depending on your view) later.

Archon Out, loves

So, you are replacing a single abstract number with a convoluted method of doing the exact same thing? These kind of to hit modifiers and so on work in RPG's on D20's and some other games such as FOW with range modifiers but on a D6 with the scope for different guns within squads, different model types within squads etc you are just asking for confusion to end up with a result that is not really any different from the system you have now but with vastly more effort.

Not to mention that leadership is not representative of skill at shooting or taking cover in any way shape or form. Ratling snipers are crack shots with meh leadership, Ork warbosses have good leadership, but are still Orks and still can't shoot worth a damn

Why? Why replace one thing that works perfectly as is, with something else that makes much less sense.

...Plus, this would make nids pretty much auto hit if in synapse...

Ah what a odd thread ... You know if there was to be any change then in should be towards the fantasy style of hitting.

... May be adding and subtracting to a D6 to see if you score equal or greater then the targets Initiative score. Add the ballistic skill, +1 if stationary, +1 if the target is pinned, minus the cover save (would require reversing the cover save values), -1 for every 12" away.

... which is kind of how it was done ... but it was too slow so they rolled it all into a single easy to hit roll.

ph34r wrote:

Archon Revoc wrote:First of all, yes, I know how the rules work and second of all, your telling me it is "stupid" to think someone couldnt just point their gun at a man shaped figure, oh, 50 meters away (which is a decently sized target) and hit them (which could be done without even aiming). Ever actually shot a gun befor? you'd have to have terrible eyesight, be mentally challened or have no idea which side of the gun points where to not hit a target. I've hit soda cans 100-some feet back just fine with a crappy .22 caliber bolt action rifle. I think the ability to hit something depends on the gun and the line of sight of the target.

*Edit* I forgot to include the word caliber, lulz.

Ah, ok. You're a minor level gun nut that thinks he's got it all figured out, and because he can hit soda cans in his back yard with his peashooter, that there is no such thing as better or worse accuracy, and that it hence has no place in a wargame.

Hey now, that's kinda offensive to us real gun nuts...

And are you serious about hitting a target 50 meters without aiming? That's just ridiculous to think that. And no, you don't have to have any of those qualities to be unable to shoot. An untrained person would have no trouble missing that target. At 50 meters, a human would appear about 6" tall and about 1" wide. You could have the most accurate gun in the world, and not be able to hit gak, simply because the shooter doesn't have the skill.

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grakmar wrote:Vietnam estimates put it at about 1 out of every 50,000 bullets.

That's largely due to the fact that in Vietnam, the M16A1 was used, which had slits on all sides of the flash suppressor, which allowed the escaping pressure to vent out the bottom and push the muzzle up, causing it to "climb". This was especially problematic when the weapon was being fired in fully automatic. The newer models, like the M16A2, come with the bottom slits in the flash suppressor sealed, using the escaping pressure to push the muzzle down, working against the climbing effect.

Sorry if I seemed a bit ill-tempered in my earlier post. I just got home after being called back into work.

I really don't want to be to harsh here, but its a pretty bad idea to say this.

BS represents trying to hit a moving, hiding target who is trying NOT to be shot, as well as accuracy, reloading and sighting, basically everything in a FPS.

Without BS, a lowly ork boy could hit anything a far better trained, say, farseer or SM captain could hit- training, temperament, and, yeah, the gun matter a lot- but dont mean a thing if you cant shoot worth a darn.

BS is really to seperate killy armies from shooty armies.