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.

Me and a mate discussed this awhile ago just off handedly remarked that the basic weapons seem to be less lethal than you'd expect and there seems to be a distict lack of S5-6 weapons. So we figured why not add +1 S to all the basic weapons and the heavy weapons after them (provided they are only one Strength above initially). Things like S4 Lasguns, S5 boltguns/S6 Hvy bolters etc etc etc.

Basicly the standard rifle on the average (imperial guard) and high average (space marines) can wound their user on a 3+. I'm sure every one has seen that situation where one squad fires a full salvo at close range and inflicts one casualty, then the opponents squad fires back and inflicts none. Its funny the first time then it gets ridiculous, having to resort to heavy weapons to do an assault rifles job is just not good enough.

Now I'm not saying increase the S of anything that's S6 or more presently, just the things that are below it by one and see how your game turns out.

So your basic infantry weapon that is similar in function to a laser pointer will have a 50/50 chance of wounding a 6-7' tall superhuman in full ceramite armour? You're forgetting that the apparent "weakness" of these weapons is made up in sheer numbers. Play a game where your 50-man blob squads have S4 Lasguns and I'm sure you'll agree that it's an unnecessary change.

+1S to weapons? Sure. My destroyers would love to have S6 AP3 weapons, or a S10 AP2 cannon.
And S8 tesla destructors would be badass.

Snide comments aside, this is a horrible idea that completely messes up game balance.

My armies basic troop gun wounds T4 on a 3+ already, do we really want Tau to wound anything short of a MC on a 2+? What happens to the Railguns then, do they get to crank it up to 11 and penetrate Land Raiders on a 4+?

A blanket +1 strength on weapons across the board is the same as saying -1 Toughness and AV across the board and nobody wants that.

 Valkyrie wrote:
So your basic infantry weapon that is similar in function to a laser pointer will have a 50/50 chance of wounding a 6-7' tall superhuman in full ceramite armour? You're forgetting that the apparent "weakness" of these weapons is made up in sheer numbers. Play a game where your 50-man blob squads have S4 Lasguns and I'm sure you'll agree that it's an unnecessary change.

Said 7' tall super human is not represented as 7' tall in game terms (but hey thats cool, it would only make half GWs model range justified in being the 'high average' if they were), standard weapon wounds fore mentioned guardsman on a 2+ rather than a 3+ and still ignore its save while superhuman retains 3+ save. Supposed imbalance works both ways.

Given a 50 guard (5 sgts with pistols and 45guardsman with lasguns) blob is 250 points ala mathammer equals 3-8 kills depending on range. Compared to 28 Kalabites (all splinter rifles) of around the same points cost averaging 5-9 kills. Compared to 2 squads of 7 (2 sgt and 12 marines) space marines averaging 7-14 kills on either opposing unit.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
+1S to weapons? Sure. My destroyers would love to have S6 AP3 weapons, or a S10 AP2 cannon.
And S8 tesla destructors would be badass.

Snide comments aside, this is a horrible idea that completely messes up game balance.

Reread the OP champ, only the destroyers would get the +1 S, anything S6 or more wouldn't get the bonus.

 Bausk wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
+1S to weapons? Sure. My destroyers would love to have S6 AP3 weapons, or a S10 AP2 cannon.
And S8 tesla destructors would be badass.

Snide comments aside, this is a horrible idea that completely messes up game balance.

Reread the OP champ, only the destroyers would get the +1 S, anything S6 or more wouldn't get the bonus.

You said the heavy weapons that came after them. A destroyer may take the heavy variant of the Gauss Cannon, which is the Heavy Gauss Cannon. They also have Gauss Cannons as their basic weapon, which is an S5 AP3 assault 2 weapon.
And technically, the Tesla Destructor is the basic weapon of the Annilation Barge. They come with the destructor standard, ergo the destructor is basic.
I think you might need to reword your OP, and define what is "basic"


And Don't get me started on Tau! Their basic infantry gets a S5 AP5 30" range rifle. With S6, they pretty much murder marines, any type of infantry with a 5+ or worse save, and vehicles.
I believe you may be seeing things from an imperial perspective, judging by your examples. Please don't.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Bausk wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
+1S to weapons? Sure. My destroyers would love to have S6 AP3 weapons, or a S10 AP2 cannon.
And S8 tesla destructors would be badass.

Snide comments aside, this is a horrible idea that completely messes up game balance.

Reread the OP champ, only the destroyers would get the +1 S, anything S6 or more wouldn't get the bonus.

You said the heavy weapons that came after them. A destroyer may take the heavy variant of the Gauss Cannon, which is the Heavy Gauss Cannon. They also have Gauss Cannons as their basic weapon, which is an S5 AP3 assault 2 weapon.
And technically, the Tesla Destructor is the basic weapon of the Annilation Barge. They come with the destructor standard, ergo the destructor is basic.
I think you might need to reword your OP, and define what is "basic"


And Don't get me started on Tau! Their basic infantry gets a S5 AP5 30" range rifle. With S6, they pretty much murder marines, any type of infantry with a 5+ or worse save, and vehicles.
I believe you may be seeing things from an imperial perspective, judging by your examples. Please don't.

By basic I don't mean the base weapon of any given model, I mean the basic weapon of the army... I even cited examples.

last sentence of the OP states that its not the intention to increase anything that's already S6 or more. Tau fire warriors blasting away at S6 would change little VS marines, they would wound 16% or so more often...that's the intention. Anything with a save of 5+ or worse gets murdered by tau now, they would just get killed a little more now. On the flip side tau ain't gonna take hits any better either.

The idea arose when we found it funny seeing these high caliber explosive boltgun rounds, let alone xenos weapons that are better, failing to do anything when fired en mass. These weapons are ment to blow men clean in half, melt plate size holes them or shred though flesh & bone like it was a hot knife though butter. And yet even with a substantial amount of hits they fail to live up to the hype.

Increasing the str of a weapon has major implications.

Lets take the Fire Warrior example.


10 Fire Warriors in rapidfire range of some marines. On average they will cause 7 wounds(rounding up) and 2 marines will die.

10 Fire Warriors in rapidfire range with Str6 pulse rifles. On average will cause 8 wounds, which causes 3 casualities(rounding up)

Thats a 50% increase in effectivness against models with a toughness value. And against vehicles its just rediclous.


However, not all str increases are created equal. Going from Str5 to 6 is not as huge as going from Str3 to 4.

Lets compare 20 Guardsmen in rapidfire range of the same marines.

40 shots gives the following equation. 40(.5)(1/3)(1/3) = 2 dead marines.

40 shots are str4 gives the following. 40(.5)(.5)(1/3) = 3 dead marines.

The same effectivness increase. however, guardsmen can now glance AV10. The day lasguns can hurt vehicles is the day anything thats Av10 becomes non-competitive.

If units rapid fire weapons could supress enemy units , they could be less destructive, but have a much bigger impact on the game play.

Eg fire power controls enemy movment.

The lethality of weapons isn't really an issue at the moment; in the 40k era people are a lot better-armored than they are in modern times, so we can't really use our era as a comparison in terms of how lethal weapons should be.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The lethality of weapons isn't really an issue at the moment; in the 40k era people are a lot better-armored than they are in modern times, so we can't really use our era as a comparison in terms of how lethal weapons should be.

Armour and toughness are two distinctly different characteristics. That aside it was a whimsical fleeting idea that was shown to break the game, more so, for light vehicles.

I dislike this idea. It's basically a nerf to anything str:6 or higher.

Not to mention that the math has already shown that it's a 50% increase in effectiveness. That's nothing to sneeze at. I'd love my my 10man guard squads to be as effective as a 15man guard squad for the same amount of points. AND being able to glance land-speeders in turns 2+.

I understand you're trying to introduce realism, but this isn't the way to do it. It's just a horrible way to change a (fairly) balanced S:T ratio. The stats aren't only there to reflect the effectiveness of the weapon (or strength of the unit would have to be drastically reduced in CC). It's there to provide balance around a points cost. The pay off between the two means we get unrealistic situations such as the ones you cited, or the idea that my guard punch as hard as their gun.

On the idea of "suppressing fire" this already occurs: you don't move your troops into the open if you're getting shot by something that can kill you. There's no need for a game mechanic on that. The way we play reflects it as such.

This idea hurts me it is so bad.

I play Dark Eldar, and this pretty much means that evertyhing wounds nearly everything I have on a 2+. And the weakest guns can instantly kill my vehicles.

This boils down to you wanting to kill more stuff and be stronger, and thinly disguising it as "realism." If I were more cynical, I'd suggest that you recently had a game where your pistols did not do enough damage, so clearly the game is broken and unrealistic.

Ha

Termagants armed with S5 Fleshborers !

Or... s5 assualt 3 Devourers!



Silly little Troll <3!

I don't like this change, but I'll point out that if you're interested in doing this, it's more appropriate to shift the to-wound chart so that equal strength/toughness wounds on 3+. Poisoned weapons would also have to be adjusted accordingly.

As other posters have already pointed out, putting lasguns at strength 4, bolters at strength 5, and pulse rifles at strength 6 would cause serious problems when you started dealing with vehicles rather than models with Toughness values.