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.

My Outlook- Personally I believe Tanks should have on one main weapon anyway and a defensive weapon. You won't mind moving and shooting if you only have one big gun like most modern tanks today. I guess the big thing is that defensive weapons should be S5. But that is just my outlook at it.

Other Outlook- Maybe you should get a -1 BS for moving?

if tanks coudl move and fire at will you woudl get nothing but marine armies spamming LRs moving 12", firing TL lascannons (at 2 different targets mind), Heavy Bolters and pwhatever pintels they had.......and then disgorgng nasty CC units. balanced? i think not.

Praxiss wrote:if tanks coudl move and fire at will you woudl get nothing but marine armies spamming LRs moving 12", firing TL lascannons (at 2 different targets mind), Heavy Bolters and pwhatever pintels they had.......and then disgorgng nasty CC units. balanced? i think not.

If they had a BS penalty, it wouldn't be so bad, and it's not like they don't do that now with PotMS.

Rather than bugger about with modifiers to BS.(GW dont like to use modifiers in the core rules , mainly just in the USR and special rules... )

Why not simply reduce the effective range of the weapons when vehicles move?
Eg
Stationary all weapons fire at full range.

Moved 1 to 6 inches,Primary weapon fires at full range, secondary weapons fire at 1/2 range .

Move over 6 inches, Primary weapon fires at 1/2 range , secondary weapons fire at 1/4 range.

Just a thought....

I'm not seeing how BS modifiers are harder than double-digit division that can sometimes result in things like half inches.

This is purely for game balance and having an actual decision to make with the tanks.

If you could move 12 then fire, everything ( even if you have BS penalties range penalties) The meta would become even more mech dependant to the point where certain armies ( ones that are not very mobile) are simply invalidated.

It would also hamstring other armies that they already do this then everyone would have this ability ( DE they pay a price for being able to do this AV11 and 10) If your LRBT suddenly is AV11 on the front I could maybe see this since it would be so much eaiser tot ake down. You must make a choice though. Fast and mobile or, slow and clumbersome.

With proper BS modifiers, it's really hard to see it as being that bad. Sure that Chimera can move 12" and fire, but it'll be hitting on 6's with one weapon because it's BS is too low to hit with the others. Yeah that Predator just raced 12" and fired everything, too bad it's autocannon only hit on 5's and its Heavy Bolters on 6's, Oh man, it killed one ork!

Staying stationary is still a very large benefit for shooting in that case, however it's not the *only* option for shooting in this case, which is the problem now. Tanks should be be a "shoot/don't shoot" type deal.

That is, a 'shoot/don't shoot, move/don't move' vs. the current 'shoot and don't move/move and don't shoot' it is now.

Anything that makes the game more dynamic with more units moving and contributing to the game is a good thing.

Explains why I don't much care for the new versions of 40k and wfb...

Tanks should be able to move and shoot, units with good leadership should be able to split fire.

40K is not the real world! No Duh! But that is no excuse to make crappy rules. If I wanted a completely abstract game I'd go play Magic or heroclicks.

Instead it slowed the game down by forcing you to look at charts all the time.

Really is -1 or -2 that hard to do?

GW has gotten away from modifiers because MATH IS HARD for many people. If simple addition and subtraction is such a problem, maybe you should be studying instead of playing a game.

At any rate, granting a 4+ save to a Marine who already had taken his 3+ save would just make Marines that much more overpowered.

Oh, I see, a mechanic is broken, but it is only broken to hurt marines it's ok! Cover saves are the dumbest part of the game now. They are not really fair to anyone who has paid for a decent armor save.

Imperial Guard went from a bottom tier army to the top, sure it's not all because of cover saves, but it is a big part.

Cover should either be a save or to hit modifier.

Vaktathi.
I was simply showing an alternative method , other than BS modifiers.
(I am quite happy using modifiers in ALL the games I play.)

But GW believe thier target demoghraphic 'hate maffs'.
And they are happy to go to extra-odinary lengths in reguard to abstraction and complication to avoid it sometimes...

Listing the different wepon ranges , at the differnet speeds of the vehicles, is not out of place with the ridiculous rules for movement imposed on a system without a movement stat...

(Cover for example ,could have simply been a -1 or -2 to BS for soft and hard cover.)

40k rules are over complicated , abstract and counterintuitive, to the point where they disjoint with reality AND the background material.

And the most intuitive and elegant solutions look out of place...

gr1m_dan wrote:In regards to Flames of War

It buggers your RoF up by taking it down to one. (unless you have Stabilisers on a Sherman but then it adds a +1 to hit)

Also the Russian tanks can't fire AT ALL if they move over 6" so stick that in your pipe.

The good things are that you can fire at least one MG at full RoF (if I remember, I use infantry only forces) and possibly more?

These are WWII tanks, if it were a modern system they would be firing on the move with no issue. Or did you miss the fact that weapons technology is better now than then and should be even better in 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for the rest, i agree 40k is badly designed to to bottom and if they tried to launch today with their insane prices and poor rules everybody would laugh them out of the room. Instead we have fanboys too blind to see they play a bad game who'll always stay by them. I'm pretty much down with 40k myself, I have all the models I need to play proxy battles when I feel like it and there's an FoW group in my area that I might join.

"Red 5, I need you to make a strafing run!"

"I can't, my Valkyrie gunship can't move and shoot that many weapons!"

When did anyone say 40k is a straightforward simulation of modern warfare, that is suitable for ballanced tactical play?

It LOOKS like it should be based on modern warfare due to the types of units used.(As many people percieve it should play like modern warfare.)

But it uses NAPOLEONIC game mechanics from WHFB, abstracted (badly ) to try to fit the expectations of the gamers.

40k background and athetic is great.The rule set is possibly the most overcomplicated and abstract curently in print.

THAT is why vehicles can not move and shoot in the way many think they should.(Along with loads of other things that disjiont 40k from its background and gamers expectations.)

Lanrak wrote:When did anyone say 40k is a straightforward simulation of modern warfare, that is suitable for ballanced tactical play?

It LOOKS like it should be based on modern warfare due to the types of units used.(As many people percieve it should play like modern warfare.)

But it uses NAPOLEONIC game mechanics from WHFB, abstracted (badly ) to try to fit the expectations of the gamers.

40k background and athetic is great.The rule set is possibly the most overcomplicated and abstract curently in print.

THAT is why vehicles can not move and shoot in the way many think they should.(Along with loads of other things that disjiont 40k from its background and gamers expectations.)

Which once again serves to show that the rules are poor because they do a bad job at showing what the fluff says should happen.

Norade.
The ONLY way to get the synergy 40k players want with the background is a compete re-write.

And this promotes discord as many belive the 40k rule set just needs a few tweeks here and there.
BUT all the 'tweeks here and there' performed by the profesional game developers over the last decade have just added to the complication and abstraction.

Many belive a re-write of 40k to make it a modern warfare simulation would make it too difficult for us to play.
However, ALL the simulation type rule sets I play have less rules and far more gameplay!

Well, the way I see it, you've got several options:

1)Stick with the current ruleset
2)Convince the people you play with to adapt your house rules, but remember the original ones for tourney play
3)Find a new hobby

Lanrak wrote:Norade.
The ONLY way to get the synergy 40k players want with the background is a compete re-write.

And this promotes discord as many belive the 40k rule set just needs a few tweeks here and there.
BUT all the 'tweeks here and there' performed by the profesional game developers over the last decade have just added to the complication and abstraction.

Many belive a re-write of 40k to make it a modern warfare simulation would make it too difficult for us to play.
However, ALL the simulation type rule sets I play have less rules and far more gameplay!

Yup, GW couldn't find concise easy to use rules with a Sherpa guide leading them.

Well, the way I see it, you've got several options:

1)Stick with the current ruleset
2)Convince the people you play with to adapt your house rules, but remember the original ones for tourney play
3)Find a new hobby

1) I hardly play as it is due to annoyance at the gak rules.
2) House rules are no issue and I've stated in this thread that I proxy most models so tournies are out. (Hint try reading the whole thread next time sunshine.)
3) I'm already moving to FoW over 40k as mentioned above.

So thanks for adding nothing to the thread, you sir were a waste of my time.

When I said "you", I meant "one".

Sorry

Melissia wrote:

LoneGamer wrote:Tau can do it - vehicle multi-trackers are explicitly described as advanced sensor suites for weapons tracking on the move.

Something which the Imperial Guard also has, as described in the Gaunt's Ghosts novels?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LumenPraebeo wrote:If you take cover behind a wall, does your armor all of a sudden disappear?

I swear, every time I Hear this argument, it makes me want to punch someone in the face.

Hes got a point Meliss.
it gets to me to that a unit of terminators hidden behind a stone wall is just as (in)vunerable as one in the open. surely some shots would hit the wall and some would be absorbed/deflected by their armour making them less vunerable(if "vunerable" can be used to describe these ruthless B*****ds)

oh and to anyone else look up the IG rule "Main Weapon".

Sam_theRelentless.
One has several options.

1)Use GWs version of 40k.
2) Play an older version of 40k.
3)Houserule your favorite edition of 40k.
4)Play something else.(Infinity-Dust Tactics-Fast and Dirty-StargruntII-ChainReactionIII- No limits etc.)
5)Re -write /write a new rule set yourself...

(I have written a complete new rule set,The rough draught is only 14 pages long. , But then I write rules in a more straightforward way than GW do. )

Lanrak wrote:Sam_theRelentless.
One has several options.

1)Use GWs version of 40k.
2) Play an older version of 40k.
3)Houserule your favorite edition of 40k.
4)Play something else.(Infinity-Dust Tactics-Fast and Dirty-StargruntII-ChainReactionIII- No limits etc.)
5)Re -write /write a new rule set yourself...

(I have written a complete new rule set,The rough draught is only 14 pages long. , But then I write rules in a more straightforward way than GW do. )

Correct...

Would you mind terribly PMing me a copy, either this one or the revised one. I'd be interested to see it.

Hi Sam_theRelentless.
I dont know how to attach a PDF to a PM.(Techno dunce alert. )
So I have attached it to the bottom of this post.

The army lists and mission cards will be written later.(By people much better at it than me...)

It is a rough draught that just uses alternative methods to achive the game play I was after.It does need more work obviosly,(especialy around the close assault resolution-sequencing.)
(I am currently trying out differnt options to add more detail/realism to the close assault resolution.But real life keeps getting in the way.)

Sorry about the double post.
Sam.... Just click on the download button to see my latest draught of the S.T.A.C.S rule set.

I propose every unit has its OWN weapon profiles on its reference card*.(Playing card sized reference sheet.)
Assault weapons are used in close assault .
Small arms are the general rifle pistols etc issued to infantry units.
Support weapons are weapons with special effects.
Fire support weapons are weapons with special effects that can NOT move and shoot.

This means we can simply classify the weappon in the most apropriate slot for each individual unit.

Eg.
Heavy bolter is a 'fire support' weapon in an IG infantry squad, but classed as a support weapon when mounted on a Leman Russ battle tank.

*This gives us a simple method of altering the in game effectiveness of each and every unit, by altering the weapon data as needed to balance each unit.

Well i have to second the idea. Tanks should be able to fire on the move. In a gaunt's ghosts book (i don't remember the name) it says that a bunch of tanks were charging downhill and had auto stabilizers that let them fire on the move. If the fluff has it why doesn't the game have it.

Lanrak wrote:Hi Sam_theRelentless.
I dont know how to attach a PDF to a PM.(Techno dunce alert. )
So I have attached it to the bottom of this post.

The army lists and mission cards will be written later.(By people much better at it than me...)

It is a rough draught that just uses alternative methods to achive the game play I was after.It does need more work obviosly,(especialy around the close assault resolution-sequencing.)
(I am currently trying out differnt options to add more detail/realism to the close assault resolution.But real life keeps getting in the way.)

It's awesome, make sure to keep me updated, I'll also let you know if I have any suggestions because this is the kind of thing I'd really like to work on.

So far so good, I love the idea that you've decided to chuck everything out the window!

Sam_theRelentless.
Thank you for the vote of confidance!
I will be happy to hear any ideas and suggestions you may have.

As 40k currentley uses WHFB(Napoleonic) game mechanics, I thought they were hampering the game play .
And I think I was proved right!

Happy Gameing
Lanrak.

Lanrak wrote:Sam_theRelentless.
Thank you for the vote of confidance!
I will be happy to hear any ideas and suggestions you may have.

As 40k currentley uses WHFB(Napoleonic) game mechanics, I thought they were hampering the game play .
And I think I was proved right!

Happy Gameing
Lanrak.

Well, over the three separate forums, I think the point we've all got is that the rules can be improved. Nevertheless, I must warn that my FLGS is a very small community which does enjoy the present rules, and I'm sure there are many with my surroundings out there, thus immediately decreasing the effectiveness of fan-based rule sets... I merely wish to flex my game mechanics brain and/or support fan-based things, I'm probably not going to be a great rallying point for overthrowing GW

Sam_the Relentless.
I am not trying to overthrow GW !
But trying to develop a rule set we can use as an example of how the game play could be achived in a more straight forward way.

Often people need an example to see what we mean when we say 'over complcation'.

So any ideas , will be gratfully recieved.
(Just PM me.)

TTFN

Pretty sure most vehicles can move and shoot. Think the leman russ can always fire it's main gun on the move and thats the most tanky tank.