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 feel like gaunts should be at the same level as IG and Eldar, I mean it's only from a 5+ to a 6+, it's not enough difference to warrant R2, plus that would be incredibly annoying.

Like I said, 3-5 is the normal infantry range, it would be insane to put the ordinary marine on an extraordinary level, plus Boltguns are P4, they should be.

on the flip side, its also only from a 5+ to a 4+ from a guardsman to a Firewarrior, and if we want some form of consistency we need to have it be the same step. They are horde units though, and meant to perform a similar function to vehicles in that they help deliver important units unharmed to their goals, and maybe do some damage along the way, so this isn't as big a deal. Id suggest looking at more interesting ways to compensate for this in-codex rather than just bumping them up, maybe bringing back the endless horde special rules from older codexs. Also, whats the point of having a "normal range" if we never move below it?

As for having boltguns as strength 4, do you mean alongside Lasguns within 12", and ork gunz? Because no, that's not going to happen. And as for why they shouldn't be at defense 6, i say why not? Make them like they are in the fluff, super humans covered in near-vehicle level amounts of armor. As long as their points cost is adjusted to properly account for this, i think it would work quite nicely. Players wouldn't be able to spam them as much as is possible right now, and they would have to play a bit smarter to compensate. They're what, 14 points now? I think going back to 16 or even 18 ppm would be worth that increased durability. Plus we need a way to represent the units between space marines and Firewarriors, and this is a pretty solid solution.

Hmph, I don't think that it would be a good idea to be able to focus fire on the crew exactly..nor the vehicle itself. Unless there is a crew member outside the vehicle, the chances of a shot passing through a view slit are negligible. It would also be hard in some cases like war walkers or unarmoured sentinels, the chances of you hitting the driver is pretty high...

So right now what I'm hoping for is to keep the same system as right now, which , just have a special category for weapons/models that actually have the chance to take out a crew member which can potentially inhibit the vehicle's actions some way or another

god i cannot convey this idea well at all. Aiming at view slots was a bad example, but when a tank is taking fire, even if its not strong enough to penetrate, you can hear it in the tank, it still has an effect on the crew, and obviously the more powerful the attack, the larger the sounds and effects inside the tank. For a time, tank rounds were not designed to actually punch through the armor, they focused on turning the armor against the crew, as when hit by enemy fire the inside walls of the tank would shatter a small amount, creating shrapnel clouds inside the tank, which could injure or kill crew members. Also, the sounds of heavy fire can distract crewmen, hits not hard enough to penetrate can rock a tank and cause people to fall out of their station, knock out electronics, hit their head, create micro-shrapnel, etc, so there are numerous ways to affect the crew without penetration.

So one way to do this would be to bring back the vehicle damage charts, but rather than having penetrating and glancing roll on the same table, there would be a glance table with crew results, and a penetration table with vehicle results.

But the point im trying to make is that id like for army's to be playable without taking the large bulky anti-tank weapons in place, as they can instead take lighter, less powerful weapons that can suppress vehicles by interrupting the crews. Many pure or near pure assault army's are considered infeasible, as they have no way to deal with tanks at medium to long range reliably, and their available anti tank weapns are not terribly suited to taking down these targets, and such a system could provide it to them. The higher number of shots typically found on lower strength AP weapons would help them compensate for the lower strength, as they can land more hits to potentially cause these suppression results on the crew.

on the flip side, its also only from a 5+ to a 4+ from a guardsman to a Firewarrior, and if we want some form of consistency we need to have it be the same step

I suppose, but we still have the liberty to change it and I feel Tau should be a *bit* more armoured than Eldar, and to be honest they need it because they come in much shorter numbers than Tyranids, whereas the justification for Eldar being R3 is that they're Eldar.

Also, whats the point of having a "normal range" if we never move below it?

But we would move below it in some cases. But only rare cases. I can see whole armies in R6 working (because then we can actually have P3 weapons wounding on a 6+ for a change) but yes, we totally need to up their cost to compensate. As for bolters, I feel like if we put Lasguns to P3 normal with Assault 2 always (they have double the ammunition of bolters), it's enough to keep them at P4.

I can see this happening, a kind of VEHICLE MORALE (yes?!) where a certain number of hits has some sort of effect on the crew. However we CANNOT make this too OP or anti-vehicle weapons will just die..

I suppose, but we still have the liberty to change it and I feel Tau should be a *bit* more armoured than Eldar, and to be honest they need it because they come in much shorter numbers than Tyranids, whereas the justification for Eldar being R3 is that they're Eldar.

? I meant that gaunts are T3 with a 6+, guardsman and eldar guardians are T3 with a 5+, Firewarriors are T3 with a 4+, sisters of battle are T3 with a 3+, so it would make sense for these units to be defense 2,3,4, and 5 respectively.

To the entire army working with defense 6 comment, the implication is that an entire defense 2 army wouldn't work, and it would but you wouldn't be able to play it the same way, and we'd need more specialized rules to make it work. For instance, doing something like the old endless horde rules, where if a unit with this special rule is wiped out or routed, the entire unit may re-enter from the owning players side of the table, or something along those lines. But yes, space marines would need to cost quite a bit more than they do now to balance that out, which im not opposed to.

As for bolters, I feel like if we put Lasguns to P3 normal with Assault 2 always (they have double the ammunition of bolters), it's enough to keep them at P4.

Firstly Lasguns should not be assault or 2 shots base, because that greatly clashes with the role of a standard guardsman in that they are a largely immobile gun line that depends on orders to reach higher effectiveness. Second, i liked the system of having most guns at strength 4, "good guns" at strength 5, amazing guns at strength 6, it made sense, as it made sure boltguns were the same strength as a space marine in Melee, and showed how much weaker many of the weaker models, like guardsmen and eldar guardians, were in Melee than shooting.

One thing i would actually like to see is something like eldar shuriken weaponry be lower strength, but have something like shred special rule, so while its less likely for them to wound, when they do its devastating, and shuriken weaponry isn't really suited to penetrating vehicles, so the lower strength makes sense.

I can see this happening, a kind of VEHICLE MORALE (yes?!) where a certain number of hits has some sort of effect on the crew. However we CANNOT make this too OP or anti-vehicle weapons will just die..

Vehicle morale isn't really what i meant, but its a step in the right direction. And obviously not OP, thats something we should avoid at all costs in every element of the game. For the certain number of hits having an effect on the crew, that might be a way to do it, I'll think on this.

I meant that gaunts are T3 with a 6+, guardsman and eldar guardians are T3 with a 5+, Firewarriors are T3 with a 4+, sisters of battle are T3 with a 3+, so it would make sense for these units to be defense 2,3,4, and 5 respectively.

I know it would make sense, but remember the jump from 5+ to 6+ is actually much smaller than from 3+ to 4+, so I think that R2 for 'Nids is just slightly too much.

it made sure boltguns were the same strength as a space marine in Melee

I am opposed to this. I know you want to try to show that boltguns are stronger than an SM punch, but that's the thing, weapons and melee strikes are on the same Power scale, to be able to differentiate between the melee power "norm" and the ballistic power "norm" it would either call for a different stat, or a different average. So it would be like shooting attacks with average P4, whereas melee attacks with average P3.

And what's wrong with lasguns being Assault 2? You say you want it to be a fairly immobile defense line. That's what the inherent trait of a laser does!

I know you want to try to show that boltguns are stronger than an SM punch, but that's the thing, weapons and melee strikes are on the same Power scale, to be able to differentiate between the melee power "norm" and the ballistic power "norm" it would either call for a different stat, or a different average. So it would be like shooting attacks with average P4, whereas melee attacks with average P3.

what? I want space marines to be the same strength for both Melee and shooting, they're supposed to be the jack of all trades, master of none army. And having different averages, isn't that what was in place with most weapons being in the 4-5 range, with a few examples of 6s? It has a higher average than the Melee range of 3-5?

I know it would make sense, but remember the jump from 5+ to 6+ is actually much smaller than from 3+ to 4+, so I think that R2 for 'Nids is just slightly too much.

actually the jump from a 5+ to a 6+ is much greater, youre halving the chance of success as opposed to decreasing it by something like a third for moving from a 3+ to a 4+. But tyranid gaunts are THE horde unit of 40k they should drop like flys, having them be as survivable as many other units doesn't make sense. Plus all the fluff has gaunts dying in droves, until the scarier units close in and start taking fire instead, so making use of that idea should be a key component to the army.

And what's wrong with lasguns being Assault 2? You say you want it to be a fairly immobile defense line. That's what the inherent trait of a laser does!

But having them be assault means they can move and fire, and having them be 2 shots means that several imperial guard orders will be invalidated. First rank fire second rank fire is a huge component of the army, and there's an order that lets them move and fire. Having these abilities be traits of the command structure fits better with the army than having it be an individual components.

what? I want space marines to be the same strength for both Melee and shooting, they're supposed to be the jack of all trades, master of none army. And having different averages, isn't that what was in place with most weapons being in the 4-5 range, with a few examples of 6s? It has a higher average than the Melee range of 3-5?

nah there's a misunderstanding. If you take the logic that a bolter round is stronger than an SM punch, then you have to say that for everything else as well, basically meaning that in general melee attacks will be weaker. This means that weapon Power averages would be 1 or 2 higher than model-innate Power averages. And I don't want that.

actually the jump from a 5+ to a 6+ is much greater, youre halving the chance of success as opposed to decreasing it by something like a third for moving from a 3+ to a 4+

Oh yeah, derp, but the point is that 5+ and 6+ armour saves are regarded as close to trash, whereas 4+ and 3+ and 2+ are much more looked upon and sought after. So I don't think Tyranids would deserve that, we have the right to change it if we feel it is seemly and imo gaunts should be on the same level as guardsmen.

But having them be assault means they can move and fire, and having them be 2 shots means that several imperial guard orders will be invalidated. First rank fire second rank fire is a huge component of the army, and there's an order that lets them move and fire.

woah let's not talk about IG orders yet, as of yet we need to block it out right now and come back to it later, I am not ready to talk about IG order reworks. And having them be assault means they can move and fire, isn't that what rapid fire still is anyway? You said you want people to take risks which is why you like the rapid fire rule of 40k at the moment, this is the same kind of thing, if you move closer to them, although you're taking a risk because IG suck at combat, you're getting a stronger shooting facet.

nah there's a misunderstanding. If you take the logic that a bolter round is stronger than an SM punch, then you have to say that for everything else as well, basically meaning that in general melee attacks will be weaker. This means that weapon Power averages would be 1 or 2 higher than model-innate Power averages. And I don't want that.

but i don't want a SM Bolter to be stronger than a SM punch, i. Want them to be equivalent.

Oh yeah, derp, but the point is that 5+ and 6+ armour saves are regarded as close to trash, whereas 4+ and 3+ and 2+ are much more looked upon and sought after. So I don't think Tyranids would deserve that, we have the right to change it if we feel it is seemly and imo gaunts should be on the same level as guardsmen.

yes but people still take gaunts despite their trash survivability, because they perform a function that is not necessarily killing units, theyre mobile cover screens for scary units on top of potentially causing some damage themselves. And I think just having 3 and higher would be boring, itd be like never having a unit stat like BS or WS be less than 3.

You said you want people to take risks which is why you like the rapid fire rule of 40k at the moment, this is the same kind of thing, if you move closer to them, although you're taking a risk because IG suck at combat, you're getting a stronger shooting facet.

yes but assault serves a very different function than rapid fire, assault helps preserve a units mobility, whereas rapid fire is incentive to move forward to gets more shots. But the IG have more incentives to not move (orders, low Melee abilities, etc), so that incentive doesn't really come into play. Not to mention the entire design idea of the guard infantry is a blob of immobile guns, so such a change is literally changing the idea of the army.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I just posted the voting thread about reserves systems, let me know if ou want me to change any of the info on it.

For your reserve post I think your doubling wounds comment has skewed the feedback, you might as well just leave it. Could you change option 2 to (also update your option accordingly):

There is an element of uncertainty. At the start of the game, each player (assuming they have reserves) rolls a re-rollable D3+1 to determine when their unit arrives (Turn 2 to 4). Note that you do not have to utilise your unit as soon as they arrive, you just want to get the lowest result possible so they're ready asap. This means that there is 5/9 chance that your unit is ready on turn 2, 3/9 chance that your unit is ready on turn 3, and a 1/9 chance that your unit is ready on turn 4.

Do you want me to leave the damage information on there too? because thats kinda a big part of it

but i don't want a SM Bolter to be stronger than a SM punch, i. Want them to be equivalent.

Yeah, but SM punches are above average, but bolter rounds are average in the 41st millenium with all this exotic weaponry, it's just that marines have incredible strength.

For gaunts, I want them to be in the same category as guardsmen and guardians.

yes but assault serves a very different function than rapid fire, assault helps preserve a units mobility, whereas rapid fire is incentive to move forward to gets more shots. But the IG have more incentives to not move (orders, low Melee abilities, etc), so that incentive doesn't really come into play. Not to mention the entire design idea of the guard infantry is a blob of immobile guns, so such a change is literally changing the idea of the army.

Wait...what's the Rapid Fire rule at the moment? It's just if you're 12" you can always fire 1 more shot regardless of whether you move? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's exactly the same mechanic as with laser. So really there is no difference (only a distinction) between assault 2 with laser, or rapid fire without laser.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do you want me to leave the damage information on there too? because thats kinda a big part of it

You can have it for your option but personally I don't want it. The reason being, if you delay your squad it's not because they're moving slower it's because they're tactically biding until the right moment.

Yeah, but SM punches are above average, but bolter rounds are average in the 41st millenium with all this exotic weaponry, it's just that marines have incredible strength.

you're basing this on averages when that doesn't make any sense. I dont care if Melee has an average of 4, while shooting has an average of 1, it doesn't matter, because its the actual strength that matters, not the location relative to the average. If the Melee and shooting strength have the same value, its the same strength in game. And I thought most guns were going to be either strength 4 or 5? Because in that case Bolters should absolutely be in the 5 category, because they have to be stronger than things like Lasguns, ork guns, and the gaunt level bio weapons.

Wait...what's the Rapid Fire rule at the moment? It's just if you're 12" you can always fire 1 more shot regardless of whether you move? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's exactly the same mechanic as with laser. So really there is no difference (only a distinction) between assault 2 with laser, or rapid fire without laser.

the same as it is right now in the rules. May move and fire out to the weapons maximum range once, or 2 shots if within half range, and you may not assault after firing.

I thought laser was a weapon effect that caused weapons to get less powerful the longer range youre shooting, and potentially let you shoot through targets? Why was this changed, it was a cool mechanic.

And no assault 2 does not mean the same things as rapid fire, because assault 2 means you fire 2 shots always. Think about the difference between grey knight shooting vs normal space marine shooting. The only difference is that a grey knight come stock with an assault 2 storm bolter, but their shooting is so incredibly different from one another, just because of this distinction.

For gaunts, I want them to be in the same category as guardsmen and guardians.

why? I dont see this as a good reason to butcher the current logic behind the rules, when there are exciting possibilities in ways to overcome this problem uniquely. And we're going against fluff, the real ruleset, and pretty much everything else that says gaunts die in droves by putting them at defense 3 alongside orks and guardsmen and eldar guardians.

I dont care if Melee has an average of 4, while shooting has an average of 1, it doesn't matter, because its the actual strength that matters, not the location relative to the average. If the Melee and shooting strength have the same value, its the same strength in game.

Are you saying that you want melee attacks and shooting attacks to be on the same Power scale, with different averages? So punches would average 4 but shots would average 5?

And I thought most guns were going to be either strength 4 or 5? Because in that case Bolters should absolutely be in the 5 category, because they have to be stronger than things like Lasguns, ork guns, and the gaunt level bio weapons.

Hell no when did I say that? Guns are going to be exactly the same thing - with the majority of infantry guns at P3-5, where 5 is stronger than average and 3 is below average. 3 is for tyranid guns, long range las, and I guess ork guns (although i have not a clue what they are). Shurikens could fit into P3 too, with a different rule.

And no assault 2 does not mean the same things as rapid fire

I don't think you understood me? When did I say Assault 2 means Rapid Fire? I said lasers have the same mechanics as rapid fire. And they do.

And no assault 2 does not mean the same things as rapid fire

What does the fluff say? I know nothing about nids, but as long as the most basic tyranids have R2, I don't see it being a problem (i.e. all the other tyranid species won't be that squishy)

Are you saying that you want melee attacks and shooting attacks to be on the same Power scale, with different averages? So punches would average 4 but shots would average 5?

yes that's the idea, but not necessarily those values. Its the realistic route, in reality gunshots and punches are still measured and evaluated exactly the same so far as things like momentum and kinetic energy are concerned, it just so happens that bullets have an average far higher than punches in these areas.

Hell no when did I say that? Guns are going to be exactly the same thing - with the majority of infantry guns at P3-5, where 5 is stronger than average and 3 is below average. 3 is for tyranid guns, long range las, and I guess ork guns (although i have not a clue what they are). Shurikens could fit into P3 too, with a different rule.

quite a while ago actually, we discussed this before. And it leads to the awkward situation of space marine punches being stronger than their shooting which doesn't make any sense, as well as the situation of an imperial guardsman hitting as hard with his fists as his Lasgun, which also doesn't make any sense.

I don't think you understood me? When did I say Assault 2 means Rapid Fire? I said lasers have the same mechanics as rapid fire. And they do.

what laser mechanic are you talking about? The one where the shots decrease in strength as range increases? I dont remember any other mechanic for lasers being brought up.

What does the fluff say? I know nothing about nids, but as long as the most basic tyranids have R2, I don't see it being a problem (i.e. all the other tyranid species won't be that squishy)

gaunts are completely cannon fodder, most of them don't even have digestive systems since theyre expected to die so quickly, as making those organs would take time and resources that could be used to make another gaunt, and their express purpose is to die in large enough numbers to deplete the enemy's ammunition supplies. And yes of course the other species would be much more survivable, its just that gaunts are meant to die in ridiculously huge numbers, so lets bring that across in the rules.

quite a while ago actually, we discussed this before. And it leads to the awkward situation of space marine punches being stronger than their shooting which doesn't make any sense, as well as the situation of an imperial guardsman hitting as hard with his fists as his Lasgun, which also doesn't make any sense.

Well firstly, it's not fair to compare a directed energy weapon with a kinetic force. As for SM, I thought you wanted their punches to be the same as their boltgun? You said that earlier and now you're contradicting yourself.

The thing is, if you use the logic that melee strikes are on a different scale (as in average) then you have to apply that to all the armies, and I just don't find it worth it because although yes, it's awkward, but it's just as awkward if not even more awkward that the average is not 4 anymore. For all stats barring Attacks and Wounds, my goal was to stabilise them. Now the average is 4, with 1 either side being most common. But if you decrease the average just for one reason, while creating a whole lot of different problems (one being that things won't die very fast in combat, which leads onto more problems because tarpitting will become utilised by even the slightest of disposable units etc etc)

what laser mechanic are you talking about? The one where the shots decrease in strength as range increases?

Yes, and that is akin to rapid fire. You're within half range? Good, your shooting is augmented.

Well firstly, it's not fair to compare a directed energy weapon with a kinetic force. As for SM, I thought you wanted their punches to be the same as their boltgun? You said that earlier and now you're contradicting yourself.

it doesn't matter though, damage is damage, and saying that a standard humans punch is the same strength as their gun is crazy, it'd be like handing soldiers boxing gloves on the end of a potato launcher. As for contradicting myself, no I'm not, if a space marine is strength 5 in Melee, his gun needs to be strength 5 in shooting, because otherwise his assault rifle that shoots 20mm grenade rounds is insanely underpowered.

But if you decrease the average just for one reason, while creating a whole lot of different problems (one being that things won't die very fast in combat, which leads onto more problems because tarpitting will become utilised by even the slightest of disposable units etc etc)

but I'm not decreasing the average, I'm actually increasing it slightly for shooting. If the average for Melee is a 4, with 1 point on each side being standard ranges, thats fine. But if most guns are strength 4 or 5, with some examples of standard weapons at strength 6, the average is just below a 5. This helps ensure that units weak in Melee are actually shown as being weak in Melee themselves rather than in comparison to other units, and helping provide incentive to keep out of Melee besides the enemy being better at it. As for it being awkward to have the average slightly higher for shooting vs Melee, i don't really see how its awkward if it makes sense both realistically and gameplay wise, because the only way this awkwardness would come into play is if someone collected all the standard weapon and Melee strengths of units and then noticed, that shooting is higher, and even then it's not a problem with the game or the system, just an odd situation with the math.

Yes, and that is akin to rapid fire. You're within half range? Good, your shooting is augmented.

yes but they go about things very differently. Doubling a models number of shots is a vast difference to not applying a negative modifier to their shooting. Just because the situation in which their special cases are triggered is similar does not mean they are in any way performing similar functions.

EDIT: Just had a little idea, do we want to give some sort of bonus to taking dedicated close combat weapons, but not the pistol + CCW combo or the dual weapon combo? Because obviously the space marine hitting someone with the chainsword is going to be better suited to close combat than the one bonking the enemy on the head with the butt of his bolter? Idk just a quick little idea, but i think itd be interesting, maybe have them be +1 strength or something, but it could marginalize power weapons at +2 strength, so wed either have to buff power weapons up some, or slightly change the rules for power weapons or something.

EDIT2: I just had an idea for rending that gets rid of some of the math and weirdness in its current iteration with our system. Kinda take what we have going for lance (Never counts vehicle defense as being higher than 11 or whatever value we put on it). Rending would instead be Never counts infantry defense as being higher than 4. If a enemy units defense value is equal to or lower than 4, the model may reroll wounds. We could even make it rending (4) or whatever if want to allow slight variations in the strength of rending.

An extension / alternative to this that also makes power weapons more interesting would be to make it so that rolling a 6 with a rending weapon would activate these rending effects i said above, and if they rolled above a certain number on a follow-up roll they cause double wounds or something, while a power weapon would always have the armor reducing effect active, without needing to roll for that 6.

but I'm not decreasing the average, I'm actually increasing it slightly for shooting

That's potentially even worse. You're changing an average of 4+ to wound into an average of 3+ to wound. Things will be falling out of the sky. It's not worth just one reason to have to burden ourselves with all the consequences of a different average (on the same stat? wtf) Anyway, I want it consistent. The averages should be the same.

to not applying a negative modifier to their shooting

what are you talking about? The laser effect is exactly the same as rapid fire mechanically, the only difference being a stronger shot instead of two weaker shots.

EDIT: Just had a little idea, do we want to give some sort of bonus to taking dedicated close combat weapons, but not the pistol + CCW combo or the dual weapon combo? Because obviously the space marine hitting someone with the chainsword is going to be better suited to close combat than the one bonking the enemy on the head with the butt of his bolter? Idk just a quick little idea, but i think itd be interesting, maybe have them be +1 strength or something, but it could marginalize power weapons at +2 strength, so wed either have to buff power weapons up some, or slightly change the rules for power weapons or something.

Well dedicated close combat weapons would be better anyway right?

EDIT2: I just had an idea for rending that gets rid of some of the math and weirdness in its current iteration with our system. Kinda take what we have going for lance (Never counts vehicle defense as being higher than 11 or whatever value we put on it). Rending would instead be Never counts infantry defense as being higher than 4. If a enemy units defense value is equal to or lower than 4, the model may reroll wounds. We could even make it rending (4) or whatever if want to allow slight variations in the strength of rending.

Ehh it feels alien to what rending should be. It feels like a substitute for what a special rule is actually trying to represent.

An extension / alternative to this that also makes power weapons more interesting would be to make it so that rolling a 6 with a rending weapon would activate these rending effects i said above, while a power weapon would always have them active, without needing to roll for that 6.

Like I said the "on a roll of 6" rules are really biased and not well made at all, because it ignores the existing chance of hitting (repeating what I said ages ago if you hit on a 6+ anyway...common sense from there on, it's not objective)

what are you talking about? The laser effect is exactly the same as rapid fire mechanically, the only difference being a stronger shot instead of two weaker shots.

Did you even read this statement? Because they are clearly two very different effects being applied here, and at that the 2nd statement doesnt even make sense. 40K is a game of dice and numbers; If you throw enough dice, you will win, and giving a 2 shot weapon, disregarding the pointlessness of giving an assault weapon to a unit that never charges unless absolutely necessary, to a unit that is meant to be spammable is ludicrous. Plus, Rapid fire is the basic firing mechanism of nearly every troops choice in the game that isn't based on mobility (eldar, dark eldar, tyranids, etc), so why break that trend? But lets toss some numbers in here to get things rolling. If i have 2 lasguns, one a strength 3, assault 2 lasgun, and the other a str 4 rapid fire laser lasgun, lets see what they can do at "max" range of 24"

Lasgun 1)
Fire 2 times at 24", wound the average (4) on a 5+, average of 66.66% chance of wounding the target from that gun
can fire and move to maximum effect at any range
can charge into melee after firing

Lasgun 2)
fire once at 24", wound the average (4) on a 4+, average of 50% chance wounding the target
cannot charge after firing
must be within 12" to reach maximum efficiency (both in # of shots, and strength)

So lasgun 1 (the new version) is 33% better than lasgun 2 at wounding the average, can fire for full effect at any range, and can charge into melee after firing, and removes any incentive for them to advance or move at all. This change would probably bump the humble Guardsman platoon into one of the scariest choices in the game, because nothing short of vehicles and monstrous creatures are going to survive 100 lasgun shots, before orders,upgrades, and bonuses no less, from a unit costing less than 300 points.

Like I said the "on a roll of 6" rules are really biased and not well made at all, because it ignores the existing chance of hitting (repeating what I said ages ago if you hit on a 6+ anyway...common sense from there on, it's not objective)

Like i said, just an interesting option to consider for making power weapons more interesting than just a strength bonus.

Ehh it feels alien to what rending should be. It feels like a substitute for what a special rule is actually trying to represent.

Here's the thing though, EVERYTHING we've done thus far for these rules has been a substitute for what they are really supposed to be doing. It's inevitable that its going to feel like that with simplistic methods, because the function they were designed to serve no longer exists. This is the first direction i've seen that could be mechanically interesting while still making them feel sorta right. And so far as it being alien, i think it mechanically represents it quite well, because it makes sure the unit brings down the higher armor values, while making it much more likely to wound the lower armor values.

Well dedicated close combat weapons would be better anyway right?

Not necessarily though, lots of times you have the option to take a close-combat weapon without taking the pistol to compliment it, so as it stands, these choices are just there for modeling purposes. Im not a huge fan of this idea, but it could be a cool way to bring an in-game effect for these choices, so i thought id bring it up.

That's potentially even worse. You're changing an average of 4+ to wound into an average of 3+ to wound. Things will be falling out of the sky. It's not worth just one reason to have to burden ourselves with all the consequences of a different average (on the same stat? wtf) Anyway, I want it consistent. The averages should be the same.

But think about how insane having shooting-focused units be exactly as strong in melee as they are in shooting (Guardsmen would actually be weaker at shooting then in melee beyond 12" due to laser rule, and that fact just boggles my mind). You said one of your most important factors in the game was realism, and id say having guns be equal to or weaker than many units meant to shoot is a pretty stark break in reality. Not to mention most of the units that inhabit Defense 3 are either expendable or glass-cannon units that can be easily wiped out if the player uses them recklessly. And if we get overly worried about these glass-cannon units being too fragile, i have no problem with them getting a 6+ dodge save at the very least, as that would be easily supported by their increased reaction times and agility.

My point is that the laser special rule is akin to rapid fire, so if we give them both rapid fire AND laser then being in 12" will be almost a necessity, since it's around a 270% damage spike, which is too good to miss.

I know you have concerns about them being able to assault if I give them assault weapons, and I agree I overlooked it. Whether we make it so that the default is being able to assault after shooting or NOT, I don't mind, as long as there are rules that oppose it that either let/stop you from assaulting.

For rending, I would argue that there are several ways of interpreting it and that rending is a representation of several different occurences. You said that, along with the fact that it's trying to represent the increased chance of hitting weak spots, it also has an easier time getting through thick armour.

This means that, the special rule that I proposed (with the -3 if it still hits blah blah) is only half the story. The other side, however, you propose the "lance" style rule. The thing with this is that to be honest you can't really draw a line between what it's merely "good" against and what its "effective" against. So I thought of this:

Resolute (X): A model that has a weapon with this special rule treats the target's Resilience as being halved, and the weapons Power is (X).

So it affects all armour as it should, however it has a BIGGER impact on BETTER armour. So it's still going to be good against low armours (your point about "If a enemy units defense value is equal to or lower than 4, the model may reroll wounds." but it's going to be MORE effective against heavy armour. However weapons with this specific rule are NOT going to have Power on their weapon stat, because having them on the same scale of 1-12 probably might not work since the target's Resilience is getting halved anyway. Open to refinement but I think this should work nicely!

Also we have to be careful when using the "reroll" mechanic. Because atm you reroll with the same stats and the same chances, which means that a rerollable 3+ is actually quite a lot better than a rerollable 4+ because your second roll is also a 3+. It's kinda got the same issue with doubling stats, the gap is slightly too wide. But that's just a header, I'm not saying rerolls are bad.


For CCWs, I'd say that having a pistol AND a CCW lowers the user's Sk (Skill) for the CCW attacks only, however the pistol can still shoot normally at the user's Sk. This means that carrying only one CCW is going to be better, and pistols/2nd CCWs won't be mandatory. So:

1 CCW or pistol: No change
2 CCWs: -1 Sk
1 CCW and 1 pistol: -1 Sk for CCW attacks only.

Not finalised, but feel free to let out your opinion (be nice .-.)



For melee being the same Power as shooting, there is a chance for me to say that Power can't just mean brute force but also shredding/piercing/energy too. So yeah, bolters have a decent (at most) penetrating ability, and is quite potent if it does go through, but the kinetic energy in comparison isn't outstanding. So we give it P4. Compare that the Space Marine punch, which, with its momentum, the superhuman strength and the hefty power armour behind, can EASILY cause trauma and hemorrhaging even though it can't penetrate at all.

I know it's just an example. but I wanna get across that it's not COMPLETELY insane, there is some logic to it, and so I feel like it's good as it is

My point is that the laser special rule is akin to rapid fire, so if we give them both rapid fire AND laser then being in 12" will be almost a necessity, since it's around a 270% damage spike, which is too good to miss.

Here's the thing though, imperial guardsman have always been about the weight of fire, not the strength of the individual guns. So having the lasgun be very weak at its maximum range actually makes a lot of sense, as the lasgun doesn't have to be very good at wounding, it just has to capable of wounding the target, the combination of massive numbers and officer orders will buff their shooting just by having them roll a ton of dice. But in the fluff, the really dangerous part of guardsman shooting is when they let them close in on the platoon, then let loose a massive barrage of fire that obliterates enemies getting close. So having their shooting be so much better within that 12" bubble acts as both an offensive and defensive problem, as they shouldn't close for assault, as their absolutely trash in melee, and if they move away, they won't be able to shoot. But the enemy has to think about how they can close that gap without getting hit with a really brutal barrage in close combat, because they have to dodge all the other scary LOS in the army, leman russ and all that, but still somehow close on the squad, while staying beyond 12". And if we want them to be able to shoot and assault, id much rather that be an order rather than a trait of the gun, as that would make more sense within the army's mechanics.

For rending, I would argue that there are several ways of interpreting it and that rending is a representation of several different occurences. You said that, along with the fact that it's trying to represent the increased chance of hitting weak spots, it also has an easier time getting through thick armour.

If i recall correctly, the 3 ways rending was explained was being able to cut through armor, having enough shots to hit a weak point, or being skilled enough to target a weak point, but all 3 of these variations can be explained with the modified lance mechanic. Bringing down the higher level armor shows them being able to target weak points or cleaving through heavier armor, while a re-roll on the lower armor's shows them having no trouble at all breaking through it to wound the model.

And yes, a re-roll is much more powerful than a value increase or decrease, but thats the point of a re-roll besides requiring less math, rending is fairly rare rule and when it is given, it's typically given to a gun that is meant to straddle the line between anti-tank and anti-infantry, while on infantry its typically given to glass cannons, so it needs to be amazing to make up for their high-skill level and fragility.

So it affects all armour as it should, however it has a BIGGER impact on BETTER armour. So it's still going to be good against low armours (your point about "If a enemy units defense value is equal to or lower than 4, the model may reroll wounds." but it's going to be MORE effective against heavy armour. However weapons with this specific rule are NOT going to have Power on their weapon stat, because having them on the same scale of 1-12 probably might not work since the target's Resilience is getting halved anyway. Open to refinement but I think this should work nicely!

My problem with this is that i would argue that higher level armor should be affected less than lower level armor, because if im opening fire on a model with high armor with something like an assault cannon (str 6, 4 shot, rending), sure that model is going to be treated as having lower armor because its likely to hit weak spots, but at least there is significant armor there for all the other shots, whereas a less armored model doesn't have that advantage, so far as those bullets are concerned, everywhere on that model is a weak spot, so its far more likely to be wounded. Similarly, if i have genestealers attack my terminators, sure they're going to be tearing through that armor (they do have diamond tipped claws after all) but there is thick and sturdy armor to be torn through, whereas my guardsman might as well be wearing a wet cardboard box as far as those claws are concerned, so he's gonna be sliced and diced. Plus halving armor means doing some math, which slows things down a bit.

For CCWs, I'd say that having a pistol AND a CCW lowers the user's Sk (Skill) for the CCW attacks only, however the pistol can still shoot normally at the user's Sk. This means that carrying only one CCW is going to be better, and pistols/2nd CCWs won't be mandatory. So:

1 CCW or pistol: No change
2 CCWs: -1 Sk
1 CCW and 1 pistol: -1 Sk for CCW attacks only.

Im still really not on-board with having 2 melee weapons reducing weapon skill, i just dont see a point for it, and if i understand this correctly, is there any advantage to just having a close combat weapon? and idk i was never a huge fan of this direction, i just thought id bring it up.

For melee being the same Power as shooting, there is a chance for me to say that Power can't just mean brute force but also shredding/piercing/energy too. So yeah, bolters have a decent (at most) penetrating ability, and is quite potent if it does go through, but the kinetic energy in comparison isn't outstanding. So we give it P4. Compare that the Space Marine punch, which, with its momentum, the superhuman strength and the hefty power armour behind, can EASILY cause trauma and hemorrhaging even though it can't penetrate at all.

I know it's just an example. but I wanna get across that it's not COMPLETELY insane, there is some logic to it, and so I feel like it's good as it is

I would love for us to make a system involving different damage types and armor types and all that jazz, but we'd be straying painfully close to RPG territory, and thered have to be all these rules about interactions between different types, and we'd probably need some sort of multi-stage resolution system to deal with all this. and the added bloat wouldn't really be worth it. Plus, since we collapsed toughness and armor into defense, we also collapsed weapons strength and AP together, so so trying to use differences in damage types and penetration doesn't really fly. And so far as bolters are concerned, yeah their penetration isn't amazing or anything, it is a big round so there's a lot of friction and resistance, but it has a diamond tip so that definitely helps. The kinetic energy statement is only partially right though; they're a gyro-jet design, so they perform in an opposite manner to bullets, in that they start off slow then speed up the longer they fly, so their kinetic energy close to the model would be fairly low, but far out itd be like being at close range to a normal gun. However, the kinetic energy is not the scary part of the bolter, its the explosive charge in it, so it penetrates in a bit, then blows the target apart from the inside, and explosions are far more powerful in enclosed spaces.

It's this explosion and the accompanying shrapnel which is the scary part of the bolt, not the kinetic energy, and fluff even states that bolts are powerful enough to pick people up and throw them into a wall with the explosion, so i would definitely say they should be at least as powerful as a space marine punching, which fluff says can cave in a mans ribs with a punch. It's just that it wouldn't make sense fluff wise to have these futuristic weapons be exactly as strong as or weaker than the model wielding them, and from a gameplay perspective, it could motivate people to move in for melee instead of shooting, because they're just as good at it. And if we make it so that 3 is a somewhat common weapon strength, we run into the problem of model being able to wield that weapon can't hurt something defense 8 or higher, such as terminators and monstrous creatures, which means that there is potential for entire groups of units to be rendered useless. This situation would make perfect sense for things like shotguns, and potentially shuriken weaponry, since these are weapons are going about damage very differently than is typical, as well as long-range lasguns since theyre supposed to be trash, but having that situation apply to as many units as it would would be frustrating at the very least.

I also like having lasguns at strength 4, because it lets them be low with the laser rule, while setting up a nice and simple bump up to strength 5 for hellguns (upgraded lasguns), which in fluff are capable of seriously damaging and even penetrating power armor, so they would be on par with bolters.

The shotgun thread has a cool idea on it about how to handle damage for shotguns and the like though, and it's basically the opposite of the laser rule, so every 6" you get closer to the target than max range you increase damage by 1, so a strength 3 shotgun would be 3 at 18", 4 at 12", and 5 at 6". Call it Shrapnel or something.

Definitely an interesting topic! I'm surprised with all of the griping and complaining about rules and balance there would be more support for a community driven or “open” set of rules. And with all of the tools these days for online collaboration and communication you figure it would be possible to make it happen too. Have you guys thought of moving on to something more than just a discussion forum?

If I were to take a shot at this I'd probably start fresh and do a lot of groundwork before creating very simple baselines and rules. Then I'd have an easy to use online utility where testers could input their units and they would get a very simple print out of the entire rule system for their entire game (Maybe 1 sheet for the entire rule system with charts and rules etc, and 1 sheet with rules for the units). And then additionally there would be some sort of online form to submit the results. The results could be processed, viewed, discussed, etc.

Of course that’s all easier said than done…

Here's the thing though, imperial guardsman have always been about the weight of fire, not the strength of the individual guns. So having the lasgun be very weak at its maximum range actually makes a lot of sense, as the lasgun doesn't have to be very good at wounding, it just has to capable of wounding the target, the combination of massive numbers and officer orders will buff their shooting just by having them roll a ton of dice. But in the fluff, the really dangerous part of guardsman shooting is when they let them close in on the platoon, then let loose a massive barrage of fire that obliterates enemies getting close. So having their shooting be so much better within that 12" bubble acts as both an offensive and defensive problem, as they shouldn't close for assault, as their absolutely trash in melee, and if they move away, they won't be able to shoot. But the enemy has to think about how they can close that gap without getting hit with a really brutal barrage in close combat, because they have to dodge all the other scary LOS in the army, leman russ and all that, but still somehow close on the squad, while staying beyond 12". And if we want them to be able to shoot and assault, id much rather that be an order rather than a trait of the gun, as that would make more sense within the army's mechanics.

I know but think about it, if your Guardsmen are absolute ravagers within 12", why would you ever stay at 24"? You argued that they need orders to do damage at long range, but couldn't they just use those orders to boost them EVEN more at short range? Geez, they'll have about a 300% damage increase if you factor in laser, rapid fire AND orders. And the thing is that they're so expendable, you would just march them up to 12" and wreak havoc with your 50 point jelly squad... So far, this is where I'm at:

We scrap rapid fire for laser (like a replacement). We give them 2 shots to represent that the barrage of fire from all distances. But we give the P3 base, partly for balancing (their firepower can be augmented with other things) and partly because they're just lasguns.

Bringing down the higher level armor shows them being able to target weak points or cleaving through heavier armor, while a re-roll on the lower armor's shows them having no trouble at all breaking through it to wound the model.

Yeah but I think we need to split these occurences up, otherwise rending is gonna represent all of these, practically making it an all-round cleaver to anything. So one part of rending (as another rule) is going to show that it can hit weak points in armour (this is going to be given to snipers), this is going to be the "imagine -3" rule I'm ranting about (Hey...there could be a specific part of the rulebook which just makes it crystal clear on what these rules are and why they're like that!) Another aspect of rending could be the ease of slicing through particularly heavy armour. Just an idea, maybe for each shot hit the armour is lowered by 1/2 or something?

So for assault cannons I would say that although it doesn't have any specific capabilities to hit weak spots (other than being just a lot of shots in one weapon), it can be represented with the second part of rending.

Im still really not on-board with having 2 melee weapons reducing weapon skill, i just dont see a point for it, and if i understand this correctly, is there any advantage to just having a close combat weapon? and idk i was never a huge fan of this direction, i just thought id bring it up.

Ehh well just to recap (don't want to get into this again) a warrior with two CCWs is going to find it harder to handle both, so they get -1 Sk, but they can block attacks more easily so they get +1 D. Also it softens up the damage brought from a second attack, and also preserves the warrior slightly more.

Thank you for explaining what a bolt round does haha they're more fancy than I thought...But still I stand by the fact that boltguns would be most convenient at P4 and SM punches hurt arguably more ( ) Whatever

The shotgun idea is cool, could we call it "Buckshot"? Since shrapnel confuses with bog-standard blast weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@gravitywell Welcome Thanks for your input, although I don't see it possible in a million universes that we could fit it all on 1 page xD

What do you mean by "more than a discussion forum"? haha

@Gravitywell
Welcome to the thread! As for moving onto something more than a discussion forum, im assuming you mean a website, which while that would be awesome, i lack the know-how, skills, and frankly the money to do this. As for the functionality of setting up something like community and player test accounts and reports, again that would be awesome, but we are FAAAAR from ready to put out a ruleset that's ready for widescale testing. So far as setting up a 1 page rule outline with a 1 page unit spreadsheet, that would be nice for something like testing individual parts and small-medium level testing, but there's a lot more rules and information than we can fit on 1 page for a final release in the game, and we can't fit enough unit changes onto 1 page to really let players push and break the system like we'd want them to. I love the idea of gathering information and feedback like this though, hopefully we'll be able to implement this during testing phases further down the line, so thanks for the idea!

The shotgun idea is cool, could we call it "Buckshot"? Since shrapnel confuses with bog-standard blast weapons.

Much better name, but lets make sure we ask the poster to use that first, and give them credit for it somewhere.

Ehh well just to recap (don't want to get into this again) a warrior with two CCWs is going to find it harder to handle both, so they get -1 Sk, but they can block attacks more easily so they get +1 D. Also it softens up the damage brought from a second attack, and also preserves the warrior slightly more.

Yeah i remember the reasoning, i just disagree with it. I view the stat more as a "proficiency" kind of deal rather than a maximum capability, so they would definitely train to the point of proficiency. Gameplay wise, i just don't see it being powerful enough to warrant adding in a potentially complicating penalty, or a potentially complicating penalty with a corresponding complicating defense bonus.

I know but think about it, if your Guardsmen are absolute ravagers within 12", why would you ever stay at 24"? You argued that they need orders to do damage at long range, but couldn't they just use those orders to boost them EVEN more at short range? Geez, they'll have about a 300% damage increase if you factor in laser, rapid fire AND orders. And the thing is that they're so expendable, you would just march them up to 12" and wreak havoc with your 50 point jelly squad... So far, this is where I'm at:

But that 300% jump takes them from terrible to below average. A guardsman with the lasgun im talking about is hitting the average on a 5+, wounding on a 4+, so something like 1/6 shots are hitting, and they have 2 shots each at that range. If i recall correctly, most guardsman orders require them to be stationary (obviously excepting the one letting them move and still shoot), so using orders on the move is far less of a problem than you think it would be. So that 50 point guardsman squad of 10 guardsman would only be dealing 3.33 wounds against the average within 12 inches, thats only killing 1-2 models, and they had to close in on you to do that, meaning they either walked through your own return fire and assaulting units (likely to do WAY more damage than any lasgun) or had to buy a transport (which could easily double or even triple the cost of the squad), and you can only fit squads of 10 into the chimera, so thats going to push the costs way higher to field and move the same number of models.

So in order to be scary within that 12" they have to have high numbers, and be able to use orders, which means they are on foot and didn't move. Also, they need to be in range of their command squad to make use of their orders, so that's a limit as well. Running the math, they can do something like 2.22 wounds under these conditions against the average within 24" , which is 66% of the damage they could make by closing in, minus the risk of having to get closer, and the risk on getting into melee, whereas within 12", using orders, rapid fire, and laser, they're doing 5 wounds on the average, which is pretty decent for a 50 point unit.

We scrap rapid fire for laser (like a replacement). We give them 2 shots to represent that the barrage of fire from all distances. But we give the P3 base, partly for balancing (their firepower can be augmented with other things) and partly because they're just lasguns.

But the math shows that doubling the shots is actually a buff, not a nerf, before all the other problems with what weapon type it should be is taken into account.

the "imagine -3" rule I'm ranting about (Hey...there could be a specific part of the rulebook which just makes it crystal clear on what these rules are and why they're like that!)

I will be the first one to admit, that this way of resolving things is totally accurate, it perfectly executes what it needs to do, both gameplay wise and according to logic. Unfortunately, it involves a lot of work, because you either have to have memorized the URC, or have to look it up, which is far more time consuming than a reroll or other effect, so I don't see it as a great solution. As for making a page to explain how this would work, that's exactly my problem with this direction, you need that page to explain how it would work rather than just seeing "oh its a reroll" or whatever.

otherwise rending is gonna represent all of these, practically making it an all-round cleaver to anything.

But isnt that exactly what rending is supposed to do? its a rare special rule, the only units and weapons i can think of that use it are genestealers, assault cannons, snipers, and the grey knight psycannon (which is basically an upgraded assault cannon), so i don't think its going to be easy to abuse or broken or anything, plus it makes sense logically for it to affect things this way.

So for assault cannons I would say that although it doesn't have any specific capabilities to hit weak spots (other than being just a lot of shots in one weapon),

The problem is that that ability to fire massive numbers of rounds is one of the core aspects of rending, so just brushing it aside like this doesn't sit well, and if it's ability is to hit weak spots, wouldn't the weak spot on a terminator be considered normal armor for a lot of other units?

Much better name, but lets make sure we ask the poster to use that first, and give them credit for it somewhere.

Sure, but I don't know what you recommended it from

Yeah i remember the reasoning, i just disagree with it. I view the stat more as a "proficiency" kind of deal rather than a maximum capability, so they would definitely train to the point of proficiency. Gameplay wise, i just don't see it being powerful enough to warrant adding in a potentially complicating penalty, or a potentially complicating penalty with a corresponding complicating defense bonus.

Yeah but they would've trained more with one weapon, and their skill stat is supposed to represent their effective skill in normal circumstances. Gameplay wise, it does have an impact since you're changing their stats twice, that's theoretically more than a toughness buff from a bike, plus it's not that complicated, just 1 set of modifiers which will become second nature.

But that 300% jump takes them from terrible to below average.

But we can't make them absolutely terrible just to account for the fact that they're average at close range. We can't make them useless at 24", because otherwise there's almost always more incentive just to charge in and deal thrice the amount of damage.

So a guardsman with a rapid fire laser lasgun would probably be 40% as effective the average shooter at long range, which amplifies to 95% at short range. If we remove rapid fire, we can soften such a large disparity by making long range fire slightly better and toning down short range firepower to suit such cheap units. So from 60% to 80% or something close to that seems good ^^

I will be the first one to admit, that this way of resolving things is totally accurate, it perfectly executes what it needs to do, both gameplay wise and according to logic. Unfortunately, it involves a lot of work, because you either have to have memorized the URC, or have to look it up, which is far more time consuming than a reroll or other effect, so I don't see it as a great solution. As for making a page to explain how this would work, that's exactly my problem with this direction, you need that page to explain how it would work rather than just seeing "oh its a reroll" or whatever.

I'm really happy you theoretically like it, and I know its not as pragmatic as other rules but all it needs is a small paragraph in the corner of the page explaining what and why it is what it is

But isnt that exactly what rending is supposed to do? its a rare special rule, the only units and weapons i can think of that use it are genestealers, assault cannons, snipers, and the grey knight psycannon (which is basically an upgraded assault cannon), so i don't think its going to be easy to abuse or broken or anything, plus it makes sense logically for it to affect things this way.

Ohoho you don't play eldar xD What about all the pseudo rending special rules? They're not called rending but they function almost similarly. Eldar have bladestorm, monofilament, distort, plus sniper from ranger long rifles hahahaha. This is why I kinda wanna split it up since some of these don't really fulfill the complete meaning of rending.

The problem is that that ability to fire massive numbers of rounds is one of the core aspects of rending

But isn't there no difference between 10 shots from a whole unit and 10 shots from one gun?

and if it's ability is to hit weak spots, wouldn't the weak spot on a terminator be considered normal armor for a lot of other units?

Of course it would, which is why if you manage to hit a weak spot of a terminator his armour drops from 8 to 5 or 6.

Yeah but they would've trained more with one weapon, and their skill stat is supposed to represent their effective skill in normal circumstances. Gameplay wise, it does have an impact since you're changing their stats twice, that's theoretically more than a toughness buff from a bike, plus it's not that complicated, just 1 set of modifiers which will become second nature.

Exactly, skill in normal circumstances, they have that much skill in normal circumstances with any weapon they trained with. And yeah it's just one set of modifiers, but its a set of modifiers on top of everything else in a situation that doesn't really require them, and i don't like "its just one set of multipliers" as a justification, since if we did that for everything the game would drag on forever to work out all the numbers.

But we can't make them absolutely terrible just to account for the fact that they're average at close range. We can't make them useless at 24", because otherwise there's almost always more incentive just to charge in and deal thrice the amount of damage.

But they're doing over 2 wounds at 24" under these rules against the average, which isn't amazing, but thats before upgrades like grenade launchers and heavy weapon teams, and honestly, if you're hoping to get most of your wound output from lasgun guardsmen, you'd better be packing A LOT of them, othewise you have artillery, tanks, heavy weapons, special weapons, etc that do most of the damage, with lasgun guardsmen acting as wound shields and adding a bit more into the wound pool. Nothing you or i or any other designer trying to work on guardsmen is going to overcome is the fact that lasguns will never be serious wound dealers, its the special and heavy weapons that will be doing the most reliable damage, with lasguns being icing.

Ohoho you don't play eldar xD What about all the pseudo rending special rules? They're not called rending but they function almost similarly. Eldar have bladestorm, monofilament, distort, plus sniper from ranger long rifles hahahaha. This is why I kinda wanna split it up since some of these don't really fulfill the complete meaning of rending.

Nope, as i've said before, minimal eldar experience over here. Can you give me some examples of these rules? And so far as them being almost the same as rending just with different names...I don't really see why this would work against my version of rending, these units would just have their slightly modified version of it, as stated by their special rule, to where they only do one of the two effects like rerolling wounds against defenses lower than their strength or never treating armor as being above a set value, rather than the full blown rending situation. I actually like this direction as it would help with the eldar's "master of their field" mentality, so for instance (and correct me if im totally wrong on the unit names and uses) but striking scorpions being anti-horde units, they would get re-rolling wounds against models with defense equal to or lower than their strength, whereas howling banshees (anti-heavy infantry) would get the never count defense as being higher than (X), and power weapons to boot.

But isn't there no difference between 10 shots from a whole unit and 10 shots from one gun?

Yes but that's the logic of rending, not the application of it. Logically, they have tons of shots that can find a models weakpoint, but gameplay wise they just have a slightly higher than normal shot count, with rending to demonstrate this trait, as having an assault cannon be heavy 10 would be broken beyond belief and rapidly approaching apocalypse level weaponry.

Of course it would, which is why if you manage to hit a weak spot of a terminator his armour drops from 8 to 5 or 6.

But lets work this through by working with what rending is said to do in the fluff. Say an assault cannon can fire 10 rounds, of which 2 find a terminators weak point and proceed to try to wound him, with the rest being deflected or ignorable, on an equivalent ork model, every part of that ork counts as a weak spot so far as the bullets are concerned, and every one of them can try to wound him. Bringing that into gameplay, rending guns have much lower shot counts than the "filling the air with bullets to find a weak spot" method would really require (since doing so would be very very broken) so rending compensates to show the less armored models being shredded, since they dont have the armor or toughness to shrug off some of the attacks, while still bringing down higher armor to show the hits to weak points.

EDIT: Also, i brought up my concern over players losing units without being able to roll, and thus feeling like they don't have a say in their units deaths. I saw on another post about a different game system a solution thats pretty nice: just let players roll to defend against the attackers strength instead of rolling to wound. It's the exact same probability and chances, the defending player just has a role in their units defense this way, because getting wounded on a 3+ is exactly the same as saving a hit on a 5+.

Exactly, skill in normal circumstances, they have that much skill in normal circumstances with any weapon they trained with. And yeah it's just one set of modifiers, but its a set of modifiers on top of everything else in a situation that doesn't really require them, and i don't like "its just one set of multipliers" as a justification, since if we did that for everything the game would drag on forever to work out all the numbers.

Yeah but you want to show that they're better with one weapon, as they're inevitably had more training with just one weapon. And the modifier has a purpose, equally as much as any other modifier.

But they're doing over 2 wounds at 24" under these rules against the average, which isn't amazing, but thats before upgrades like grenade launchers and heavy weapon teams, and honestly, if you're hoping to get most of your wound output from lasgun guardsmen, you'd better be packing A LOT of them, othewise you have artillery, tanks, heavy weapons, special weapons, etc that do most of the damage, with lasgun guardsmen acting as wound shields and adding a bit more into the wound pool. Nothing you or i or any other designer trying to work on guardsmen is going to overcome is the fact that lasguns will never be serious wound dealers, its the special and heavy weapons that will be doing the most reliable damage, with lasguns being icing.

I acknowledge that, we can tweak the lasgun's overall effectiveness later, it's just I don't want there to be such an amazing gap between uselessness and ravagery.

Yes but that's the logic of rending, not the application of it. Logically, they have tons of shots that can find a models weakpoint, but gameplay wise they just have a slightly higher than normal shot count, with rending to demonstrate this trait, as having an assault cannon be heavy 10 would be broken beyond belief and rapidly approaching apocalypse level weaponry.

Yeah but remember the attacks a weapon gets is just a representation of actually a much larger number of rounds. So an Assault 4 would basically just mean it has a 4 x higher rate of fire than an Assault 1, which sounds good to me.

Also, i brought up my concern over players losing units without being able to roll, and thus feeling like they don't have a say in their units deaths. I saw on another post about a different game system a solution thats pretty nice: just let players roll to defend against the attackers strength instead of rolling to wound. It's the exact same probability and chances, the defending player just has a role in their units defense this way, because getting wounded on a 3+ is exactly the same as saving a hit on a 5+.

I'm impartial on this, I'm happy to let the defender roll as long as there are no downsides.

I'm impartial on this, I'm happy to let the defender roll as long as there are no downsides.

glad to hear so, this was something that was really worrying me.

I acknowledge that, we can tweak the lasgun's overall effectiveness later, it's just I don't want there to be such an amazing gap between uselessness and ravagery.

But having them be assault or 2 shot just flat out doesn't work with the mechanics of the guard. One option that would be a bit fluffy would be to offer an upgrade like "overcharged las-packs" which in fluff is said to increase the power of lasweaponry, at the cost of serious damage to components. I think Hellguns are based off this idea, just made with better components so that they don't break down when using overcharged las-packs. So maybe this upgrade would let the Lasgun act as str 4 out to 24". This way we can have the Lasguns be pretty weak, but a decently costed upgrade ( say 15 or 20 points per squad) would let them be more effective at 24".

Yeah but remember the attacks a weapon gets is just a representation of actually a much larger number of rounds. So an Assault 4 would basically just mean it has a 4 x higher rate of fire than an Assault 1, which sounds good to me.

except that this logic doesn't hold up, because it's also 4 times the fire rate of single shot weaponry, whereas the assault cannon is the 40K equivalent of a mini-gun, which can fire 6000 rounds a minute. Rending is there to show this has a much higher fire rate, and thusly a much higher chance to wound, than an equivalent shot weapon so far as stats are concerned, because doing otherwise wouldn't support how rending works and be incredibly unbalanced.

glad to hear so, this was something that was really worrying me.

then again, we have to be careful we don't run into any issues with this.

But having them be assault or 2 shot just flat out doesn't work with the mechanics of the guard. One option that would be a bit fluffy would be to offer an upgrade like "overcharged las-packs" which in fluff is said to increase the power of lasweaponry, at the cost of serious damage to components. I think Hellguns are based off this idea, just made with better components so that they don't break down when using overcharged las-packs. So maybe this upgrade would let the Lasgun act as str 4 out to 24". This way we can have the Lasguns be pretty weak, but a decently costed upgrade ( say 15 or 20 points per squad) would let them be more effective at 24".

oh sorry if I didn't make it clear, I am fine with it being 1 shots, 2 shots, P3, P4, anything, as long as being 12" away isn't an absolutely HUGE difference compared to being 13" away.

except that this logic doesn't hold up, because it's also 4 times the fire rate of single shot weaponry, whereas the assault cannon is the 40K equivalent of a mini-gun, which can fire 6000 rounds a minute. Rending is there to show this has a much higher fire rate, and thusly a much higher chance to wound, than an equivalent shot weapon so far as stats are concerned, because doing otherwise wouldn't support how rending works and be incredibly unbalanced.

Well, since it's 6 barreled, we'll give it 6 shots. Is this satisfactory?

then again, we have to be careful we don't run into any issues with this.

it's exactly the same math, just done in the opposite direction. The only issue is dice changing hands and that's not an issue at the moment so it shouldn't be under the new system

Well, since it's 6 barreled, we'll give it 6 shots. Is this satisfactory?

I do think assault cannons should be 6 shots, but I'm talking about the rending rule overall, assault cannons are just an easy example gun for me to use with this. Just increasing shots doesn't represent rending effects properly, because it functions the same as a high shot weapon, rather than a rending gun. Yes rending guns should be higher shots than normal, but they need to bring down armor and wound more often instead of being just a ludicrous amount of shots

Also I thought of a problem with using alternating phases over alternating activations, it doesn't prevent alpha strike tactics, so something to think about.

oh sorry if I didn't make it clear, I am fine with it being 1 shots, 2 shots, P3, P4, anything, as long as being 12" away isn't an absolutely HUGE difference compared to being 13" away.

But every rapidfire gun has a huge jump from 13 to 12", it's just the nature of the weapon type. Laser just makes it's a more distinct difference, but offering an upgrade to counteract this difference is a better way, we can show lasguns being weak and underpowered, while allowing them to be more powerful if the player is willing to pay for it. We could even make it an upgrade on their command squads for much more points than it would be on individual squads to show it's an order from the platoons officers, while pushing players to take more than minimum size squads to make the upgrade worthwhile. Maybe make an option for the company command squad that does this for the whole army for a ridiculous amount of points, but proportionally less than having it done on every platoon command squad.

it's exactly the same math, just done in the opposite direction. The only issue is dice changing hands and that's not an issue at the moment so it shouldn't be under the new system

Ok well I've run into one problem, how do we convert special rules that concern the To Wound roll?

I do think assault cannons should be 6 shots, but I'm talking about the rending rule overall, assault cannons are just an easy example gun for me to use with this. Just increasing shots doesn't represent rending effects properly, because it functions the same as a high shot weapon, rather than a rending gun. Yes rending guns should be higher shots than normal, but they need to bring down armor and wound more often instead of being just a ludicrous amount of shots

Well are assault cannons rending though? They've not got special rounds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
HEY! I just thought of a way to make re-rolls better. Surely there can't be any argument about this. Instead of making rerolls scale off the existing roll to hit/wound, we just give it its own value to succeed. This means we can define the power of rerolls ourselves; we can include more rerolls because now you can tweak how powerful they are. It also means we can balance out rerolls with special rule modifiers.

So something like the Target Acquired! command won't just be a +1 Mk command, instead it will grant you a 5+ reroll To Hit.

Similarly:

Seasoned Marksman - A model with this special rule gains a 5+ Attack reroll when shooting.
Sharpshooter - A model with this special rule gains a 4+ Attack reroll when shooting
Nimble Fighter - A model with this special rule gains a 6+ Defense reroll whilst in combat.

Ok well I've run into one problem, how do we convert special rules that concern the To Wound roll?

well if they do something like poison (1) where they get to reroll to-wound rolls of 1, it becomes poison (6) defending player must reroll defense saves of 6.

HEY! I just thought of a way to make re-rolls better. Surely there can't be any argument about this. Instead of making rerolls scale off the existing roll to hit/wound, we just give it its own value to succeed. This means we can define the power of rerolls ourselves; we can include more rerolls because now you can tweak how powerful they are. It also means we can balance out rerolls with special rule modifiers.

So something like the Target Acquired! command won't just be a +1 Mk command, instead it will grant you a 5+ reroll To Hit.

Similarly:

Seasoned Marksman - A model with this special rule gains a 5+ Attack reroll when shooting.
Sharpshooter - A model with this special rule gains a 4+ Attack reroll when shooting
Nimble Fighter - A model with this special rule gains a 6+ Defense reroll whilst in combat.

very interesting direction, I'm not sure we want this to be the universal law though, because having the reroll be dependent on the model means that it's based on their stats, a reroll for my inquisitorial sniper assassin at BS 8 should be a much higher reroll than a guardsman sniper at BS 3.

That being said, I think there are definitely ways to use this in exciting ways. On things like orders, this would be a godsend, as it gives us much better control over these rerolls and effects.

Well are assault cannons rending though? They've not got special rounds.

yup assault cannon is heavy 4 rending 24", they have the "fill the air with bullets" type of rending. And they kinda do have special rounds, i don't think its ever been fleshed out much, but it's implied they fire diamond bullets.