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.

Now that I am picking up some Warhammer, I think 40K rules can benefit from some small tweak:

1- Add to-hit modifiers with terrain: Better terrain affect hits with either -1 or -2 depending on the type. Nerf cover save to 5+ of course.
2- Add modifiers to unit type: Bike/beast has -1 to to-hit against them while vehicle got a +1.
3- Allow for the ability to roll >6 with 6 + 1D6 with all special weapons. So to roll a 14 armour penetration for your plasma gun, you need 6 + 2 (because 1 is always a fail).

leohart wrote:Now that I am picking up some Warhammer, I think 40K rules can benefit from some small tweak:

1- Add to-hit modifiers with terrain: Better terrain affect hits with either -1 or -2 depending on the type. Nerf cover save to 5+ of course.
2- Add modifiers to unit type: Bike/beast has -1 to to-hit against them while vehicle got a +1.
3- Allow for the ability to roll >6 with 6 + 1D6 with all special weapons. So to roll a 14 armour penetration for your plasma gun, you need 6 + 2 (because 1 is always a fail).

I agree wholeheartedly with #1 (with the exception of nerfing cover saves, I think they should be completely gone) and #2, that's mostly how 40k used to be before it was ruined by 3rd edition. And cue all of the haters and people who can't grasp anything more complex than checkers coming into your thread complaining that your ideas are too complex when in reality they're actually more elegant and make more sense.

I'm confused about #3 though, could you elaborate further? Thanks!

Vladsimpaler wrote:

leohart wrote:Now that I am picking up some Warhammer, I think 40K rules can benefit from some small tweak:

1- Add to-hit modifiers with terrain: Better terrain affect hits with either -1 or -2 depending on the type. Nerf cover save to 5+ of course.
2- Add modifiers to unit type: Bike/beast has -1 to to-hit against them while vehicle got a +1.
3- Allow for the ability to roll >6 with 6 + 1D6 with all special weapons. So to roll a 14 armour penetration for your plasma gun, you need 6 + 2 (because 1 is always a fail).

I agree wholeheartedly with #1 (with the exception of nerfing cover saves, I think they should be completely gone) and #2, that's mostly how 40k used to be before it was ruined by 3rd edition. And cue all of the haters and people who can't grasp anything more complex than checkers coming into your thread complaining that your ideas are too complex when in reality they're actually more elegant and make more sense.

I'm confused about #3 though, could you elaborate further? Thanks!

from what I understand he wants everything to rend against vehicles but use a D6 instead of a D3

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

Vladsimpaler wrote:

leohart wrote:Now that I am picking up some Warhammer, I think 40K rules can benefit from some small tweak:

1- Add to-hit modifiers with terrain: Better terrain affect hits with either -1 or -2 depending on the type. Nerf cover save to 5+ of course.
2- Add modifiers to unit type: Bike/beast has -1 to to-hit against them while vehicle got a +1.
3- Allow for the ability to roll >6 with 6 + 1D6 with all special weapons. So to roll a 14 armour penetration for your plasma gun, you need 6 + 2 (because 1 is always a fail).

I agree wholeheartedly with #1 (with the exception of nerfing cover saves, I think they should be completely gone) and #2, that's mostly how 40k used to be before it was ruined by 3rd edition. And cue all of the haters and people who can't grasp anything more complex than checkers coming into your thread complaining that your ideas are too complex when in reality they're actually more elegant and make more sense.

I'm confused about #3 though, could you elaborate further? Thanks!

from what I understand he wants everything to rend against vehicles but use a D6 instead of a D3

Hm. Though the wording seems to make it so that all special weapons are rending. It's an interesting idea and I can see why the OP might want it, however I think that there are already enough special weapons that can do a lot of damage to tanks. That's just me though, haha

I discussed these ideas with a couple of veterans in my local store and was told that some of these mechanics were there in previous editions as well. It seems GW has been trying different ideas until they find something that works.

Regarding 3: For penetration against vehicle, I suggest that:

if Str - AV > 10 => nothing happens
otherwise,
Str - AV, roll(s) required
1 1
2 2
...
6 6
7 6, then 2+
8 6, then 2+
9 6, then 3+
10 6, then 4+

This allows plasmagun versus AV14 a chance. A volley of Boltgun will now also able to do something to light vehicles. Rending can go from D3 to D6. Vindicare assassin rule updated to not have Rending vs Vehicle.

leohart wrote:I discussed these ideas with a couple of veterans in my local store and was told that some of these mechanics were there in previous editions as well. It seems GW has been trying different ideas until they find something that works.

Regarding 3: For penetration against vehicle, I suggest that:

if Str - AV > 10 => nothing happens
otherwise,
Str - AV, roll(s) required
1 1
2 2
...
6 6
7 6, then 2+
8 6, then 2+
9 6, then 3+
10 6, then 4+

This allows plasmagun versus AV14 a chance. A volley of Boltgun will now also able to do something to light vehicles. Rending can go from D3 to D6. Vindicare assassin rule updated to not have Rending vs Vehicle.

Okay, I'm probably not reading this right, however I'm still not really making sense of this.

So let's say I fire a Plasma Gun at a Landraider. Armor pen is 7+D6. I roll a 6, so I get 13. Then you subtract that from 10, getting 3. Then you have to roll an additional 3+?

I didn't get a ton of sleep last night so my brain is not in full working order, however I honestly think that Plasma Guns aren't really meant for anti-tank. Bolters can already shred light (as in AV10 or 9) vehicles so there's not really any worries there. Personally I think vehicles are as tough as they need to be.

No problem. If you shoot a Str 7 (Autocannon/Plasmagun) at AV 14: you need to roll for 14 - 7 = 7. That means you need to roll a 6 first, then roll a 2+. If you have a Str 6 weapon, you need to roll 6, then 2+. Str 5, weapon, you need 6, then 3+.

Now that I think about it, this probably is not the best idea. I just want some saving grace for plasmagun since it is simply a super bad weapon in the current state.

leohart wrote: No problem. If you shoot a Str 7 (Autocannon/Plasmagun) at AV 14: you need to roll for 14 - 7 = 7. That means you need to roll a 6 first, then roll a 2+. If you have a Str 6 weapon, you need to roll 6, then 2+. Str 5, weapon, you need 6, then 3+.

Now that I think about it, this probably is not the best idea. I just want some saving grace for plasmagun since it is simply a super bad weapon in the current state.

Ohhhhh okay now I get it. haha I can definitely relate to you on wanting plasma guns to get better, but to be honest the best thing is for them to get a points drop. Being more expensive than a melta gun isn't a good thing at all.

It's a good idea, it just needs some refining.

mini-rending

All weapons/attacks if they roll a 6 for pen, may roll another die. f it gets a 6 the pen is increased by 1 and they will roll it again adding +1 to the pen, and stopping with any roll less than a 6.

Real examples:

Guardsman with a Plasma gun against a LR:
4+ to hit(7), 6 for normal pen(+6), 6 on next roll(+1), and a 3 on final roll(+0)
str 7 +6+1+0 = 14, a glance

SM with a bolter against a LR
3+ to hit(4), 6 for normal pen(+6), 6 on next roll(+1), 6 on next roll(+1), 6 on next roll(+1), 6 on next roll(+1), 6 on next roll(+1), 5 on next roll(+0),

str 4+6+1+1+1+1+1 = 15, a pen

Statistically its unlikely, but it does introduce the ability for the odd little chance occurrences like hitting in just the right spot....

A Plasma cannon could potentially take out a LR, but it's just not likely to happen.

So a Grot Blasta or Laspistol could potentially ruin Titans? Eh, no thanks! It seemed a good idea but frankly I hate it.

pk1 wrote:mini-rending

All weapons/attacks if they roll a 6 for pen, may roll another die. if it gets a 6 the pen is increased by 1 and they will roll it again adding +1 to the pen, and stopping with any roll less than a 6.

Real examples:

Guardsman with a Plasma gun against a LR:
4+ to hit(7), 6 for normal pen(+6), 6 on next roll(+1), and a 3 on final roll(+0)
str 7 +6+1+0 = 14, a glance

SM with a bolter against a LR
3+ to hit(4), 6 for normal pen(+6), 6 on next roll(+1), 6 on next roll(+1), 6 on next roll(+1), 6 on next roll(+1), 6 on next roll(+1), 5 on next roll(+0),

str 4+6+1+1+1+1+1 = 15, a pen

Statistically its unlikely, but it does introduce the ability for the odd little chance occurrences like hitting in just the right spot....

A Plasma cannon could potentially take out a LR, but it's just not likely to happen.

I like this suggestion. It would help de-mech the current metagame as well as help re-enforce the “risk vs reward” mechanic that is supposed to be (but not currently) present with transports. It would also make wargear choices less punishing and less reliant on meltaguns (which is currently the side effect of bad game design).

What also makes this rule good is that it is fairly low impact and can easilly be inserted into games without re-balancing codices or additional rules. This is seriously one of the best suggestions I’ve read in the proposed rules forums.

So a Grot Blasta or Laspistol could potentially ruin Titans? Eh, no thanks! It seemed a good idea but frankly I hate it.

It's less likely than jamming 5 assault cannons in a row, but yea it could happen...

Let's see, laspistol needs to hit(no one with a laspistol can shoot well anyway), 6 to pen, plus at least 6 6s in a row, plus 6s on the damage chart as many structure points as it has left. If I do that I'm going to go buy some lotto tickets. Math-hammering that, I think it works out to a 1 in 26,121,388,032 chance of a guardsman taking out a Reaver titan(assuming no void shields) in one shot.

leohart wrote:Now that I think about it, this probably is not the best idea. I just want some saving grace for plasmagun since it is simply a super bad weapon in the current state.

Plasma weapons are meant to be used against heavy infantry, not against tanks--they're AP2 and wound MEQ on 2+. Their usefulness against light tanks is a side effect of this, not a main feature.

leohart wrote:
1- Add to-hit modifiers with terrain: Better terrain affect hits with either -1 or -2 depending on the type. Nerf cover save to 5+ of course.
2- Add modifiers to unit type: Bike/beast has -1 to to-hit against them while vehicle got a +1.

I actually wrote some rules with to-hit modifiers, played some test games, and there are several issues with it.


1) Giving a -1 hot hit in the shooting phase can have drastically different effect depending on the unit's BS

Example:
Marines fire into -1 BS cover.
Go from hitting 4/6 times to 3/6 times. Effectively decreasing firepower by about 25%

Orks Fire into -1 BS cover
Go from hitting 2/6 times to 1/6 times. Effectively decreasing firepower by about 50%


In the End you nerf low BS shooting and buff high BS shooting. Any shooting at BS 5 or more becomes very very deadly.

With the Vindicare assassin, going from BS8 down to BS 6, is nothing. They would basically ignore cover with a powerful, Low AP weapon with worse or no cover saves.
In the end, the current 40k prices for shooting are based around not having to hit modifiers. If you re-do the shooting phase, you need to re-price everything.


2) Anything Twin Linked becomes awesome.

Twin linking a weapon has a greater benefit to a weapon the lower your BS is. Twin linking a BS 3 weapon is a 50% increase in firepower, while a BS4 weapon is only increased by 33%

Again, this is similar to the problem above. Twin Linked, High BS, Low AP shots become VERY good (especially if cover saves are nerfed). All of the Las/Plas razors got a lot better against MEQ/TEQ.


3) Storm Shields become AMAZING

If the cover save is reduced to a 5+, then the 3++ save from storm shields becomes even better. If you think that storm shields are over-prevalent now, nerf cover and see what happens.

Again, the storm shield save was increased in 5th edition when they knew that the cover save was going to be increased. Again, you would need to either re-balance the storm shield, or significantly increase their cost in ALL of the marine codexes.


4) You nerf the shooting phase, without a comparable nerf to the assault phase.

Simple enough really, by imposing BS modifiers (even if you reduce cover saves) overall, you are decreasing the amount of damage in the shooting phase, especially against MEQ/TEQ who often do not need the cover save.



Basically, you will be buffing the special weapons (Making low AP better) while nerfing the normal guns. Bolters are already not that great, and with this, they are really just wound catchers. Any list that relies on torrent of fire to kill infantry (Eldar S6 spam, Tryanids, Dark Eldar Splinter stuff) is nerfed as well. All this will do is increase the number of Min/Maxed squads with special weapons (Such as 3 man Henchmen units, Combi-weapon Wolf Guard, Truborn with blasters) as any unit with high AP guns becomes worse.

=================================================================================================================

You want to give a Nerf to the tank spam you see all the time? There is a very simple way to do it. New Damage Table.

1) Shaken
2) Stunned
3) Damaged (shooter's choice of Weapon or Immobilized)
4) Destroyed-Wrecked
5) Destroyed-Explode
6) Destroyed- Anihilated (S5 AP 2 hits inside the transport, S5 AP- to everything within 2D6")

Fixed 3 things

a) Glances can hurt stuff bad
b) You never kill the storm bolter on a Rhino or immobilize a Basilisk
c) Transports are actually risky to ride in for all units not just ones with low saves.

====================================================================



You like the plasma gun and feel that it is not that great compared to the Melta and the Flamer. There already is a solution, which I feel may become the Norm for 6th edition Imperial books.


For years, Flamers were 5, Meltas 10, and Plasma guns were 15 pts for Imperial armies.

Then, along came a Rules MADMAN named Matt Ward, who wrote a book called Codex: Grey Knights, who dared to defy this tradition.

In a little unit called Inquisitorial Henchmen, you get a Flamer, Meltagun, or Plasmagun for....10 points.

Honestly, that is all it took for me to consider taking plasmaguns, make them the same price as a meltagun. The 3 "special weapons" are not better or worse than each other, but rather they are each different and Specialized. If plasmaguns were 10 pts in mech-Vet squads, I bet a lot of people would consider taking them, who currently run all meltas all the time. They are great against Heavy Infantry, Great against MC's, and can even hurt AV 10-11 in a pinch (and how often do you really see AV 14 these days)


[I know that he gets a lot of hate, but to be honest, there are a few things in his rules which are actually quite good. I think this is one of those things]

I can see the effect of improvement stats for modifier and twin-linked on low BS models. Perhaps this is not the best idea.

I still stand by the idea of adding modifiers to "To Hit" against unit types (-1 bike, -1 calvary, infantry , +1 vehicles).

Recosting is the simpliest option to fix plasma gun. However, this requires the FAQ to fix everything which might not be that great since this touches all the codices. One thing that I have not seen from GW is a big change in the rule, so I have low hope that this would happen.

What would probably end up happening is special rules for DA that allows them to not getting hot with plasmagun for the same price.

leohart wrote:I can see the effect of improvement stats for modifier and twin-linked on low BS models. Perhaps this is not the best idea.

I still stand by the idea of adding modifiers to "To Hit" against unit types (-1 bike, -1 calvary, infantry , +1 vehicles).

Recosting is the simpliest option to fix plasma gun. However, this requires the FAQ to fix everything which might not be that great since this touches all the codices. One thing that I have not seen from GW is a big change in the rule, so I have low hope that this would happen.

What would probably end up happening is special rules for DA that allows them to not getting hot with plasmagun for the same price.

You could always change the movement invuln to a 'to hit' modifier. If a unit or vehicle moved >= 6in -1, >= 12 is -2. This would make jump infantry harder to hit, which does make some sense. Units disembarking from a vehicle count movement from the exit point on a vehicle e.g. a unit disembarking out of a rhino that moved 12 inches count as moving 2 inches, not 14.

pk1 wrote:

leohart wrote:I can see the effect of improvement stats for modifier and twin-linked on low BS models. Perhaps this is not the best idea.

I still stand by the idea of adding modifiers to "To Hit" against unit types (-1 bike, -1 calvary, infantry , +1 vehicles).

Recosting is the simpliest option to fix plasma gun. However, this requires the FAQ to fix everything which might not be that great since this touches all the codices. One thing that I have not seen from GW is a big change in the rule, so I have low hope that this would happen.

What would probably end up happening is special rules for DA that allows them to not getting hot with plasmagun for the same price.

You could always change the movement invuln to a 'to hit' modifier. If a unit or vehicle moved >= 6in -1, >= 12 is -2. This would make jump infantry harder to hit, which does make some sense. Units disembarking from a vehicle count movement from the exit point on a vehicle e.g. a unit disembarking out of a rhino that moved 12 inches count as moving 2 inches, not 14.

Again, the issue is not how to apply a to hit modifier, but that simply the units in 40k are not priced for to hit modifiers. Case in point: Lootas VS Vindicare

If the lootas are firing at a tank that moved 12" then they are hitting on a 6, followed by a 4+. OR they go from hitting 4/12 to 1/12. 125% of their origional firepower.
The vindicare fires at a tank that moved 12" Goes from hitting on a 2+ followed by a 4+ to a 2+ followed by a 6+. Goes from hitting 11/12 times to ~10.1/12 times. ~92% of his original firepower.


Another example; Killa Kan vs. GK Ven Dread with TL autocannons, same -2 BS

Killa kans goes from hitting 3/6 times to 1/6 times. Firepower reduced to 33% of Original
Ven Dread goes from hitting 35/36 times to 27/36 times. Firepower reduced to 77% of Original

Against tanks, the cover saves means that ALL UNITS will deal half damage, regardless of their BS. That way all units are effected by the same amount, rather then unfairly effecting certain units. That is the point of the 4+ Cover save.



Again, if you feel that firepower should be more deadly to tanks then do something that effects all units equally, regardless of their BS, such as the damage table, or give tanks lower cover saves than infantry,



=======================================================
What you could do to make people feel better about it is to simply roll it at a different time, same results, but without the unfair penalty to massed fire from low BS units.


You roll to hit as normal
Then on a 4+ half of those "hits" are actually misses due to Speed/Cover/Smoke, or on a 3+ because of your armor, etc.

Then you roll to wound and so on. That way the cover is taken against the "hits" instead of the "wounds"

[basically makes it easier for people to see that Saves are representing missed/blocked shots, but it makes the rolling process harder as you have to hand the dice back and forth between players]


I do like fantasy and their to hit modifier system, BUT they have everything priced so it works out. BS4 or higher is very rare and expensive. There are no guns that I know of that are twin linked.

svendrex wrote:

pk1 wrote:

leohart wrote:I can see the effect of improvement stats for modifier and twin-linked on low BS models. Perhaps this is not the best idea.

I still stand by the idea of adding modifiers to "To Hit" against unit types (-1 bike, -1 calvary, infantry , +1 vehicles).

Recosting is the simpliest option to fix plasma gun. However, this requires the FAQ to fix everything which might not be that great since this touches all the codices. One thing that I have not seen from GW is a big change in the rule, so I have low hope that this would happen.

What would probably end up happening is special rules for DA that allows them to not getting hot with plasmagun for the same price.

You could always change the movement invuln to a 'to hit' modifier. If a unit or vehicle moved >= 6in -1, >= 12 is -2. This would make jump infantry harder to hit, which does make some sense. Units disembarking from a vehicle count movement from the exit point on a vehicle e.g. a unit disembarking out of a rhino that moved 12 inches count as moving 2 inches, not 14.

Again, the issue is not how to apply a to hit modifier, but that simply the units in 40k are not priced for to hit modifiers. Case in point: Lootas VS Vindicare

If the lootas are firing at a tank that moved 12" then they are hitting on a 6, followed by a 4+. OR they go from hitting 4/12 to 1/12. 125% of their origional firepower.
The vindicare fires at a tank that moved 12" Goes from hitting on a 2+ followed by a 4+ to a 2+ followed by a 6+. Goes from hitting 11/12 times to ~10.1/12 times. ~92% of his original firepower.


Another example; Killa Kan vs. GK Ven Dread with TL autocannons, same -2 BS

Killa kans goes from hitting 3/6 times to 1/6 times. Firepower reduced to 33% of Original
Ven Dread goes from hitting 35/36 times to 27/36 times. Firepower reduced to 77% of Original

Against tanks, the cover saves means that ALL UNITS will deal half damage, regardless of their BS. That way all units are effected by the same amount, rather then unfairly effecting certain units. That is the point of the 4+ Cover save.



Again, if you feel that firepower should be more deadly to tanks then do something that effects all units equally, regardless of their BS, such as the damage table, or give tanks lower cover saves than infantry,



=======================================================
What you could do to make people feel better about it is to simply roll it at a different time, same results, but without the unfair penalty to massed fire from low BS units.


You roll to hit as normal
Then on a 4+ half of those "hits" are actually misses due to Speed/Cover/Smoke, or on a 3+ because of your armor, etc.

Then you roll to wound and so on. That way the cover is taken against the "hits" instead of the "wounds"

[basically makes it easier for people to see that Saves are representing missed/blocked shots, but it makes the rolling process harder as you have to hand the dice back and forth between players]


I do like fantasy and their to hit modifier system, BUT they have everything priced so it works out. BS4 or higher is very rare and expensive. There are no guns that I know of that are twin linked.

I think what you are really pointing out is that TL weapons really start to be useful even for SMs. From a fluff perspective it makes a lot of sense, from a gaming perspective it might throw things off.... or it might not. You pick your targets based on these factors so in a game I think it will have a little less impact than you think it will(but it will change gameplay a bit).

The issue is not that a game mechanic like this working, It works fine. I agree that an enemy with a better shooting ability would be less effected by cover as they are able to find their targets better. Twin linked weapons would put out so much fire, that one of the shots is bound to hit.

The issue is pricing. If BS 2 shooting units were significantly cheaper to make up for their lack of ability to shoot into cover effectively, it would be fine. If High BS/TL weapons were more expensive than they are currently to factor in the fact that they can shoot into cover better it would be fine.

Shooting units in Fantasy are done this way, and it works just fine, because all of the books were designed that way. 40k was not designed that way at all, that is the only issue.


I did play a couple of games this way (soft cover was -1BS, Hard cover was -2 BS, no cover saves). I has a GK Razorback with a TL heavy bolter and Psybolt Ammo. I was up against Necrons. I AP the warriors, and was still very accurate due to TL and BS4. It was kinda a hero for only being 50 pts. (granted it is a little underpriced to begin with.)