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 have been wondering since GW are tyring to make 40K more realistic (e.g close guy dies instead of guy at back) and I thought that a guy would have to have terrible aim to go really close to a guy and miss a shot so I thought. If guys are within 6'' why don't they get +1 BS? People with BS5 would auto-hit or not go up any more but it would make it more realistic. Do you think they would do this?

Chaos Rising,

The system that we decided to go with in the 40k in 40 pages rulebook I think you'd like.

It differentiates between short range weaponry and mid-long range weaopnry. Instead of making it so it's a blanket "within 6" you get +1 BS" we chose to go with excess range. So now, if there are 24" of excess range you get +1 BS.

This was mainly done because Meltaguns are already super consistent as is, but if you were in Melta range a single model would nearly be guaranteed a tank kill. This just seems a little broken to me, unless they were increased in points.

I like the idea behind it but it would make pure cc models even worse compared to those wo can shoot.

I really wouldn't think shooting armies need a plus. How about if you are over half range it's a minus 1 to BS.

 Chaos Rising wrote:
I have been wondering since GW are tyring to make 40K more realistic (e.g close guy dies instead of guy at back) and I thought that a guy would have to have terrible aim to go really close to a guy and miss a shot so I thought. If guys are within 6'' why don't they get +1 BS? People with BS5 would auto-hit or not go up any more but it would make it more realistic. Do you think they would do this?

and orks everywhere rejoice.


I think they should have kept to hit modifiers, like from fantasy.

 rabid1903 wrote:
Chaos Rising,

The system that we decided to go with in the 40k in 40 pages rulebook I think you'd like.

It differentiates between short range weaponry and mid-long range weaopnry. Instead of making it so it's a blanket "within 6" you get +1 BS" we chose to go with excess range. So now, if there are 24" of excess range you get +1 BS.

This was mainly done because Meltaguns are already super consistent as is, but if you were in Melta range a single model would nearly be guaranteed a tank kill. This just seems a little broken to me, unless they were increased in points.

Well, they should get the hit. The are so close to the vehicle that the hit is guaranteed. The BS at max range should not be the same as BS at close range, it just doesn't make any sense.

Nothing should auto-kill, but going to BS 6+ so you can re-roll fails is fine.

This has been discussed in my circle of players. we suggested going as far as subtracting bs at extended ranges and at 12 and 6 inches the bs skill increasing or weapons becoming twinlinked. of course we are also discussing writing our own rulebook so, you know what can you do?

I think GW are trying to get away from modifiers as much as possible (although the Tau codex does have Darkstrider who forces -1T to the enemy his unit fires at so maybe not!).

How about twin linked at either 6" or half range?

I'd be more inclined to say that most 40k shooting takes place at 'close range' already. At point-blank range, it seems to me that the target's ability to move quickly relative to your ability to turn your weapon and the general confusion of very close fire-fights would cancel out any bonus for relatively larger targets.

If I was writing the next edition of 40k or trying to come up with a house rule to represent differences in range, I'd probably go with allowing snap shots at up to double your weapon's normal range if you remain stationary.

 rabid1903 wrote:
Chaos Rising,

The system that we decided to go with in the 40k in 40 pages rulebook I think you'd like.

It differentiates between short range weaponry and mid-long range weaopnry. Instead of making it so it's a blanket "within 6" you get +1 BS" we chose to go with excess range. So now, if there are 24" of excess range you get +1 BS.

This was mainly done because Meltaguns are already super consistent as is, but if you were in Melta range a single model would nearly be guaranteed a tank kill. This just seems a little broken to me, unless they were increased in points.

Isn't it extremely inconsistent with suspension of disbelief that a sniper rifle or a large railgun gets a bonus at close range while a light weight dedicated short range weapon like an assault rifle or shuriken catapult does not? Essentially at shorter range tracking and handling becomes more important than precision and long ranged weapons do not do tracking or handling and neither does suppression weapons - which sort of sums up most things with a range of 24" and everything with a range higher than that bar possibly the Tau pulse rifles

 Mahtamori wrote:

 rabid1903 wrote:
Chaos Rising,

The system that we decided to go with in the 40k in 40 pages rulebook I think you'd like.

It differentiates between short range weaponry and mid-long range weaopnry. Instead of making it so it's a blanket "within 6" you get +1 BS" we chose to go with excess range. So now, if there are 24" of excess range you get +1 BS.

This was mainly done because Meltaguns are already super consistent as is, but if you were in Melta range a single model would nearly be guaranteed a tank kill. This just seems a little broken to me, unless they were increased in points.

Isn't it extremely inconsistent with suspension of disbelief that a sniper rifle or a large railgun gets a bonus at close range while a light weight dedicated short range weapon like an assault rifle or shuriken catapult does not? Essentially at shorter range tracking and handling becomes more important than precision and long ranged weapons do not do tracking or handling and neither does suppression weapons - which sort of sums up most things with a range of 24" and everything with a range higher than that bar possibly the Tau pulse rifles

I agree. Close range firefights reward those with quick thinking and smaller, more maneuverable weapons, not the other way around.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Perfect Organism wrote:
I'd be more inclined to say that most 40k shooting takes place at 'close range' already. At point-blank range, it seems to me that the target's ability to move quickly relative to your ability to turn your weapon and the general confusion of very close fire-fights would cancel out any bonus for relatively larger targets.

If I was writing the next edition of 40k or trying to come up with a house rule to represent differences in range, I'd probably go with allowing snap shots at up to double your weapon's normal range if you remain stationary.

If you're talking about snap-shots, stop. In real life, people have actual reflexes, and are actually capable of firing weapons with incredible accuracy at close range. Is it confusing? To someone looking in from the outside, yes, but if its confusing for those involved in it, they need more training. Snap shots should never, ever be used as a basis for discussions on close range combat, and the only reasons Snap shots are not a leadership based mechanic and use BS1 is because it would annihilate any semblance of assault, which is half of the game.

 rabid1903 wrote:
Chaos Rising,

The system that we decided to go with in the 40k in 40 pages rulebook I think you'd like.

It differentiates between short range weaponry and mid-long range weaopnry. Instead of making it so it's a blanket "within 6" you get +1 BS" we chose to go with excess range. So now, if there are 24" of excess range you get +1 BS.

This was mainly done because Meltaguns are already super consistent as is, but if you were in Melta range a single model would nearly be guaranteed a tank kill. This just seems a little broken to me, unless they were increased in points.

So what your saying is, in most of my 600-800 point games my defilers awsome sauce amazing strength 8 ap3 ordenence large blast gets less scatter?

Smurfs should be very afraid...

There are many other rules that go along with this, I shouldn't have brought it up outside of my thread.

There shouldn't be. For every 6" of excess range while firing with weapons that have a range of 36" or less, you get +1 BS. Bam, done.

If you want to post all of the rules then go for it.

The game already has a close range dedication limit granted by weapon range. The weapon max range should be seen as describing the effective point of the weapon. A system that encourages weapons with a certain range (in the latest case this is the Eldar heavy weapons, heavy bolters, sniper rifles) at ranges which they can extend to far beyond is just poor.

Shotguns and Shuriken Catapults are significantly more effective at close range than a Bolter and a system which wishes to grant proximity benefits need to take this into account.

A quicker fix would be "only assault weapons get this bonus", but even that is poor since there's some assault weapons that are just strangers to the system (Living Lightning, anyone?).

 Chaos Rising wrote:
People with BS5 would auto-hit

BS 6 hits on a 2+, that can be re-rolled on a 6+
BS 7 hits on a 2+, that can be re-rolled on a 5+
BS 8 hits on a 2+, that can be re-rolled on a 4+

etc..

(That's what the BRB says)

 Mahtamori wrote:
The game already has a close range dedication limit granted by weapon range. The weapon max range should be seen as describing the effective point of the weapon. A system that encourages weapons with a certain range (in the latest case this is the Eldar heavy weapons, heavy bolters, sniper rifles) at ranges which they can extend to far beyond is just poor.

Shotguns and Shuriken Catapults are significantly more effective at close range than a Bolter and a system which wishes to grant proximity benefits need to take this into account.

A quicker fix would be "only assault weapons get this bonus", but even that is poor since there's some assault weapons that are just strangers to the system (Living Lightning, anyone?).

I agree. Heavy weapons shouldn't get the bonus, but bolter, shrunken catapults, and pulse carbines are all small enough to be used very well in close(er) combat.

Well in real life and in the spirit of realism, given many circumstances, closer ranges are actually less accurate because the shooter is panicked. This doesn't translate well to all armies, so I don't think it is a rule that should be implemented. The current ballistic skill system is a good representation, for the most part, of a shooters ability to remain calm and rely on training at short, and longer distances. Shooters may jerk the trigger causing them to fire wildly off to the left or right, fail to hit vital organs in the event of a hit, or fire their weapons prematurely when they don't have a good target acquisition because they want to score their hit quickly and kill/disable their target so that they survive the engagement.

McNinja,

You sure you know what you're asking? It's a whole rulebook, the Ballistic Skill changes are just a small part of it

 Firehead158 wrote:
Well in real life and in the spirit of realism, given many circumstances, closer ranges are actually less accurate because the shooter is panicked. This doesn't translate well to all armies, so I don't think it is a rule that should be implemented. The current ballistic skill system is a good representation, for the most part, of a shooters ability to remain calm and rely on training at short, and longer distances. Shooters may jerk the trigger causing them to fire wildly off to the left or right, fail to hit vital organs in the event of a hit, or fire their weapons prematurely when they don't have a good target acquisition because they want to score their hit quickly and kill/disable their target so that they survive the engagement.

Most military, paramilitary, or police forces that specialize in close combat, such as SWAT or Army Rangers clearing homes, tend to not be panicked. Now, if you were to tell a PFC and five of his friends straight out of basic to go clear a building full of both civilians and people who want their brains on the wall, you can be damn sure they'd be scared.

It is entirely about training. Just because your average person would be scared at close range does not mean that is the norm, especially for Orks (who don't care), Necrons (who are mindless robot zombies or ultra-experienced battle veterans), Tau (who train exclusively with ranged weaponry), Space Marines (who are superhuman in training and capabilities), Dark Eldar (who basically live in close combat), Eldar (whose basic troops still see and react faster than trained humans), and Chaos (another army that does not care and lives in close combat). Only Imperial Guard are exempt, because they are normal humans, and even then, stormtroopers, veterans, commissars, and the like are trained and/or battle-hardened to the point where being in the enemy's face doesn't even faze them anymore.

 McNinja wrote:

 Firehead158 wrote:
Well in real life and in the spirit of realism, given many circumstances, closer ranges are actually less accurate because the shooter is panicked. This doesn't translate well to all armies, so I don't think it is a rule that should be implemented. The current ballistic skill system is a good representation, for the most part, of a shooters ability to remain calm and rely on training at short, and longer distances. Shooters may jerk the trigger causing them to fire wildly off to the left or right, fail to hit vital organs in the event of a hit, or fire their weapons prematurely when they don't have a good target acquisition because they want to score their hit quickly and kill/disable their target so that they survive the engagement.

Most military, paramilitary, or police forces that specialize in close combat, such as SWAT or Army Rangers clearing homes, tend to not be panicked. Now, if you were to tell a PFC and five of his friends straight out of basic to go clear a building full of both civilians and people who want their brains on the wall, you can be damn sure they'd be scared.

It is entirely about training. Just because your average person would be scared at close range does not mean that is the norm, especially for Orks (who don't care), Necrons (who are mindless robot zombies or ultra-experienced battle veterans), Tau (who train exclusively with ranged weaponry), Space Marines (who are superhuman in training and capabilities), Dark Eldar (who basically live in close combat), Eldar (whose basic troops still see and react faster than trained humans), and Chaos (another army that does not care and lives in close combat). Only Imperial Guard are exempt, because they are normal humans, and even then, stormtroopers, veterans, commissars, and the like are trained and/or battle-hardened to the point where being in the enemy's face doesn't even faze them anymore.

So my point still stands that it doesn't translate well to all armies is still valid, thus it shouldn't be implemented as a general rule. While some of my instances may be negated by training by reasonable human beings, I highly doubt Orks have any regimented training in close quarters shooting, and again will press the trigger as fast as possible in attempt to score a hit. Panicked? Probably not. Ill trained, and have a decent chance at not scoring a hit on a single target? Probably. I completely understand your point, but overall it doesn't provide good effect across the board.

And in regards to modern SF and Rangers(who don't "specialize" in CQB, its just one of many talents), or SWAT: They might not be panicked, but I am reasonably sure as a human being(and a soldier) that they were probably scared or nervous as hell at a minimum. Its not like every round they fire is a killshot in the face or through the heart or something crazy. Now I'm not insulting your intelligence(or experience if it exists) but an encounter with the enemy is not taken lightly, its just a matter of allowing your training to kick in, and good leadership to help push through the fear that you may be feeling. We haven't even discussed physical endurance. Its Sci-fi, and everything is blown way out of proportion, but EVERYONE will get tired at some point, and then you begin to lack in certain areas like your ability to hit someone with a melee weapon, or shoot them with a pistol. Try an experiment if you are a shooter: Shoot a few rounds at a target, in armor(plate carrier, or whatever you may wear), perform some reloads, basic carbine/pistol functions. Record your performance. Now go run a mile(or perform a few 3 to 5 second rushes for 300 meters or so), then do the same thing. The changes will be drastic. And nobody is even shooting at you or trying to kill you.

I hope I'm explaining myself sufficiently. Again, understand your points, and not all armies are subjected to this. I still stand by my point that the current system in place is a good enough representation of combat with a ranged weapon and needs no further changes.

We experimented with range modifiers and ended up dropping them. We retained a +1 to hit stationary vehicles (except walkers) and a -1 to hit moving jump infantry, skimmers, swarms and jetbikes. Mainly because it became a bit cumbersome to add modifiers to the point people just quit doing it.

In theory, range should be one of the biggest factors in ability to hit a target but as mentioned before even that can be a bit dicey. Often a target's relative speed will seem more pronounced at closer ranges, thus nullifying the advantage of closer range. An extreme example: shooting skeet when the target is only 5 feet away! So I agree, for the most part the current system works in most cases.

I'd say modifiers for the percentage of the range. E.g. within the first 1/4 of its maximum range = +1 BS, but if the target's in the last 1/4 of its range -1 BS.

I'd also make rapid fire weapons able to fire one shot with normal BS or more shots with a reduced BS, to make them more realistic. Perhaps have scopes as an upgrade to increase BS when firing a single shot.