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.

So I just started Warhammer Fantasy the other day, and they use an interesting mechanic for their assaults - at the start of your turn, you declare who will attempt to assault what target, and then when all of these have been declared the actual charges and such occur.

And so I got to thinking. Shooting is a little OP in 40k by my reckoning, and in a 'realistic' sense all this shooting should happen at once, not troops patiently waiting to see if their buddies take the enermy down before adding their own volleys to the mix... so why not try out incorporating a declare then resolve mechanic for the shooting phase? Players have to decide just how much shooting is going on any given unit, before any damage is done. Maybe you'll order three units to fire on an enermy unit, only to find that two was enough and the third is wasted. Or perhaps you only put two, and place the third elsewhere - but the unit in question survives and can now charge you!

This rule would go a long way to removing the methodical nature of shooting and make it less predictable, in the good way.

I believe that was how it was in 2nd edition.

Really? I first got into this stuff in 3rd ed so I wouldn't know.

How did it work out?

Well it meant you had to hedge your bets and make sure you didnt dedicate too many units to shoot at one target. It was a much different game back then though all together.

Better different or worse? I can imagine better but I also imagine someone who has actually played with that rule would know better than me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, what about variable shooting range? Either the maximum range is within a... well, range rather than a specific number, or you can fire beyond maximum range at a BS penalty.

Because you know whats better than rules that let you stand 24.1 inches away and be invincible? Rules that don't allow that.

It was more realistic as all the shooting is supposed to be happening at once, but it screwed small elite shooty armies and favored armies with lots of shooty units.

2nd Ed also had shooting ranges short and long. Certain weapons gained a + or - in either short or long sections depending on the weapon type.
I think the range is more meant to be the limit othe ranges of the weapon, not just the range you have a chance to hit.

Yea....

Tau Markerlight mechanics might have a slight issue there.

It would screw over Tau and small unit armies and benefit the hoards.

It was okay back in 2nd because all the armies were made with this in mind, and balance wasn't really a thing for them.

You think 5th was bad, trust me, 2nd was horrendous. Wolves and Eldar Spring to mind here.

It would be a good mechanic and is probably how the game should be played but it's too far gone for some armies to be able to adapt to.

Hmmm... Might try using it in like, Kill Team games or something