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.

bosky wrote:I'd like to be able to shoot into an existing melee so you can't tediously lock units in close combat for most of the game. The fact that most games are decided through assault bores me to tears and seems ridiculous for the 41st millenium. After all there is already a reason modern rifles don't have bayonets on them :/

This is a dangerous road to go down. This opens up terrible doors that will just lead to the game being

"Roll for first turn Exterminatus deployment"
"6! Sweet, I win" *shakes hands*

Modern combat does not a fun game make.

Exterminatus would only be available to Marines and armies with Inquisitorial advisors...

That's the Imperium isn't it?

Okay, hand me that chainsword.

cover can stay were it is, but blast weapons ignore intervening cover.

frag missle, plasma cannons, battle cannons really shouldn't care if you shot through another unit or over a hedge.
if you are in terrian then you should get cover.saves

JohnHwangDD wrote:Assault would also pick up the Assault Cannon and nearly every Eldar gun. I think that's fine, given how expensive the particular weapons are. Assault Cannon got crazy expensive, look at the Razorback option. Making it Defensive makes it worth the points. Eldar are way down, but making them nastier at move & shoot also works wonders to justify their points.

If you're advocating S5+ or S6+ instead of S4+, then it's not really that different from me suggesting S4+ / Assault. Quite frankly, Imperials *should* be slow and more limited at move & fire compared to Xenos. It's why Xenos pay more to get more.

Burst cannon is assault too, I can't remember about the SMS.

Freman Bloodglaive wrote:Exterminatus would only be available to Marines and armies with Inquisitorial advisors...

That's the Imperium isn't it?

Okay, hand me that chainsword.

Well, everyone has their own version of it to some extent. The point I was making was that the more 'realistic' 40k gets
the more boring it will become. Taking emphasis away from assault will make it a terrible game. Just remove the movement
phase all together. Line up and fire!

JohnHwangDD wrote:Assault would also pick up the Assault Cannon and nearly every Eldar gun.

There is only one Assault Heavy Weapon available to Eldar vehicles, that´s the shurican that it´s assault 3, all the other heavy weapons are Heavy treated as assault when mounted in a grav plataform. So making defensive all assault weapons leave the Eldar tanks almost at the same place, tho the shuri can upgrade every tank can take wouldmake sense then.
The rule I want to change is the remove wounds from out of range minis. In my last game I pincer move a demon squad with my storm guardians and flamed one flank then, to my surprise, my opponent all fair and square in 5th removed the guys from the yet unflamed flank, reducing casualties 50%. Very legal and very clever but a broken rule that can be exploited the opposite way 4th ed casualty removal was exploited.

M.

@Migs: True - I forgot that, in practice, every Eldar gun is effectively Assault, due to being mounted on a Tank, AGP, or MC.

Okay, since this discussion has gotten rather interesting, I have added a poll, please feel free to vote and specify if "other" so I can add that to the list.

The poll will last for seven days.

The only decent way of determining which weapons are defensive is to go through and specify the defensive weapons for each vehicle.

Otherwise, you're expecting that the coincedence of a weapon's stats and whether it has an assault characteristic means that it was somehow retroactively intended to be a defensive weapon. I mean, really, hasn't GW done that enough times for us to realize how much of a foolish idea that is?

@pguard: I suggested S4 (or less), or Assault (not caring S)

solkan wrote:The only decent way of determining which weapons are defensive is to go through and specify the defensive weapons for each vehicle.

Otherwise, you're expecting that the coincedence of a weapon's stats and whether it has an assault characteristic means that it was somehow retroactively intended to be a defensive weapon. I mean, really, hasn't GW done that enough times for us to realize how much of a foolish idea that is?

No, they haven't.

And you're right, the best way to do it is to specify the main and defensive weapon for every vehicle.

Personally I think defensive weapons are fine as is. The rule is limited to DEFENSIVE weapons. Xenos vehicles pretty much are all fast or can have the ability to fire as if they were, so they're more maneuverable than imperial vehicles already. Most non-imperials don't really have the option of adding a S4 defensive weapon to their vehicles, but its not like its a popular choice for the armies that can.

S5 or less seems reasonable to me; just below being able to instakill T3 models and crack oh-so-common AV12, which would be a little much for a defense weapons.

S6. Help bring eldar vehicles back from being overcosted.

I voted for Other.

Everything that's not Ordinance can count as Defensive weapons in my opinion. We need more mobility! (Maybe with a reduction in resilience, though.)

solkan wrote:The only decent way of determining which weapons are defensive is to go through and specify the defensive weapons for each vehicle.

Otherwise, you're expecting that the coincedence of a weapon's stats and whether it has an assault characteristic means that it was somehow retroactively intended to be a defensive weapon. I mean, really, hasn't GW done that enough times for us to realize how much of a foolish idea that is?

Yeah, this. Any St number you pick is going to produce some guns that are considered defensive but shouldn't be, or some weapons that aren't defensive but should be. And you shouldn't be trying to fix Eldar, Tau or whoever's vehicles by screwing around with the main rules - you fix units with changes to their codices.

Setting defensive/main weapons by St or whatever also ignores the capabilities of the firing platform. The primary determinant of how many weapons a unit can fire should be the technology of the platform, the number of crewmen, and sheer size of the thing. By listing individual weapons for individual platforms as main or defensive you have a lot more freedom to represent the capabilities of the firing platform.

It’d also be cool if defensive weapons could be fired at a separate target to the main weapons. So that, you know, defensive weapons actually defend the tank from infantry, while the main weapon sets about blowing up the big, strategic targets.

I think resolving the issue on a Codex by Codex basis is the best, albiet slowest way to handle the issue. Look at "Lumbering Behemoht." It allows the tank to move and shoot a couple of weapons, at a price. It's fluffy and neat.

I would imagine rules similar to that creeping into the new codices.

In the short term, S4 or Assault actually works pretty well. The suriken cannon is the only extra eldar gun you need to fire anyway, so it doesn't matter that it's the only assault rated weapon.

Umm... Heavy Bolters Polonius? Guard sponsons don't count as Defensive? Doesn't that strike you as just a little completelyfethingridiculous?

H.B.M.C. wrote:Umm... Heavy Bolters Polonius? Guard sponsons don't count as Defensive? Doesn't that strike you as just a little completelyfethingridiculous?

*Shrug*

I'm not sure it's not ridiculous, at least not in the context of a gaming system where vehicles can't generally shoot well on the move. The LRBT get's to shoot two weapons on the move, or all of them when still. Now, at the points charged for sponsons, it wouldn't hurt to be more mobile, but compared to the Eldar, IG just aren't hurt that badly by this rule. Russes are also appropriately priced for the current rule set. ( in general, of course. the Exterminator and punisher are still too expensive).

If GW won't allow modifiers (a -1 to hit while moving) the only way to show that is by reducing the number of weapons that can fire. As it is, the LRBT can shoot the turret and another weapon to full effect.

I have added some suggested answers to the poll. It will now be a continuous poll so as to give a better reflection on the general opinion.

Thanks for all the comments, I hope GW is watching

Get rid of the concept of "Defensive Weapons" entirely.

Allow all vehicles to move and shoot all their weapons, and allow each weapon to fire at a different target.

Raise the points costs of vehicles to compensate.

Sadly, this won't happen because it will hurt GW sales of vehicles.

So all vehicles are Superheavies?

Defensive weapons are fine, because they force tactical decisions between positioning and firepower, allowing better players to actually play better.

JohnHwangDD wrote:So all vehicles are Superheavies?

Nope.

Superheavies get Structure Points and access to Destroyer Class weapons.

I just find it ridiculous that vehicles are so hamstrung in 40K, at least on the Imperium side. The fact that a lot of the infantry moves faster than a lot of the vehicles in 40K already pushes my disbelief, but when you couple that with the fact that many vehicles barely outgun an infantry squad and that an infantry squad is much more resilient and survivable than most vehicles, I find myself being taken out of the game completely at times. As it is, the only real advantage a vehicle offers a player in 40K is the ability to move and fire a Heavy Weapon.

Vehicles have several advantages on infantry. That are immune to most guns in the game. Are much more mobile, and tend to have stronger guns. I fear a land raider with 2 twin linked lascannons and a multi melta more than I do a tac squad with a single lascannon and melta gun.

As far as vehicles being hamstrung on the imperium side I disagree. They have different tanks. The imperium uses heavy army, most alien races use light armor. We trade less guns and less armor for more speed.