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.

Something like that. From what everyone has said. If there are 3 shots of scatter, they target and if one scatters off, no problem you have 2 other chances to have it not scatter.

That's pretty powerful against heavy support behind an ADL - because of the cover based on the hole. I almost dare you to tell me it's not. Also someone was talking about scattering in the direction you want, that's insane. It's so crazy that I'm not even going to mention this to my group and we will use Barrage just like we always have.

If you manage to roll a hit on a multiple barrage weapon, then you choose the direction of the flip. Is that what you are referring to? How is that any different from rolling a hit with a plasma cannon/demolisher cannon and actually hitting what you want?

And it sounds like you are making these comments off hearsay rather than you actually understanding the rules ('Also someone was taking about scattering in the direction you want, that's insane', 'From what everyone has said')

Uhh, I just had a huge debate about why Barrage should just allow cover. Does it actually say "If you manage to roll a hit on a multiple barrage weapon, then you choose the direction of the flip". Or is that what everyone assumes it says.

As far as it being different, those shots provide cover saves, they also need LOS, and have a limit on their distance. They aren't a blind shot from across the board, That with 3 shots if you get the cross hair on your scatter die, you can manever for more if you want. Barrage seems to be a very abusive way to play a friendly game of 40k.

Yeah, if you spam the crap out of barrage weapons. Barrage weapons have a point and a weakness: the point is to troll enemies that think they can hide behind a wall and feel safe, and the weakness is generally weak armor or always being hit in CC.

I don't care if your Basilisk can shart on my Kroot without LOS, because my Fire Prism pens it on a 3+. Assuming, of course that my Farsight bomb doesn't melt it first.

 Sleg wrote:
KFF would be null because of the 6 inch rule

Err, what? Maybe you should go review the rules before complaining about them? KFF saves still apply against barrage weapons.

It doesn't say you go back to the target. If the first shot scatters off the target - the second shot hits in the same place as the first, if that's a miss it's a miss. If there is a 3rd shot it flips in the direction of the scatter die, starting from the 2nd shot. That's how I still read it. it never goes back to the original target, unless the die never scatters.

Again, go review the rules. You seem to have a really poor understanding of how the barrage rules work, and you can't attempt to "fix" them unless you understand them.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sleg wrote:
KFF would be null because of the 6 inch rule

Err, what? Maybe you should go review the rules before complaining about them? KFF saves still apply against barrage weapons.

It doesn't say you go back to the target. If the first shot scatters off the target - the second shot hits in the same place as the first, if that's a miss it's a miss. If there is a 3rd shot it flips in the direction of the scatter die, starting from the 2nd shot. That's how I still read it. it never goes back to the original target, unless the die never scatters.

Again, go review the rules. You seem to have a really poor understanding of how the barrage rules work, and you can't attempt to "fix" them unless you understand them.

This. The Barrage rules don't mention one, two, or three shots, it mentions what to do in the case of multiple shots.

If you don't like barrage deploy on the second floor of a ruin. Simples.

First, this thread is not about reviewing the rules as is. it's about presenting new rules for barrage.

Second, I have reviewed the rules as written and frankly it's very ambiguous as to what they are. My comments have only been what people are saying the rules are and it's very split between those that love to smash their opponents with Barrage and those who don't like being smashed by it.

If you have a comment about what I wrote, your interpretation of the rules, or an idea that would help balance out the rules I would love to hear it - if you just want to repeat read the book, start a thread in Make the Call.

 Sleg wrote:
First, this thread is not about reviewing the rules as is. it's about presented new rules for barrage.

The point is that you can't make new rules until you understand the old ones.

Second, I have reviewed the rules as written and frankly it's very ambiguous as to what they are.

No, it isn't ambiguous at all. Go back and read them again until they are no longer ambiguous to you.

Third, the rules declared "stupid" by a player who was baffled by the tactics of fighting a barrage heavy army.

Adjust tactics, not the rules.

 Peregrine wrote:
Err, what? Maybe you should go review the rules before complaining about them? KFF saves still apply against barrage weapons.

According to the rule book the shot is taken from the hole in the template. If this is true than the 6" rule no longer applies and KFF does not give cover. The rules as written.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You should read before making a statement or at least say something actually contributes to the conversation


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Third, the rules declared "stupid" by a player who was baffled by the tactics of fighting a barrage heavy army. Adjust tactics, not the rules.

So you are saying that barrage is fine the way it is and that it's how a player plays as opposed to the rules needing to be changed.

Personally, Barrage is very effective way to no longer play in friendly games.

 Sleg wrote:
According to the rule book the shot is taken from the hole in the template. If this is true than the 6" rule no longer applies and KFF does not give cover. The rules as written.

What 6" rule are you talking about?

So you are saying that barrage is fine the way it is and that it's how a player plays as opposed to the rules needing to be changed.

Exactly. Barrage weapons are fine. Try learning the correct rules and then adapting to deal with them, just like you adapt to deal with flyers/fast assault units/AV 14/etc.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Third, the rules declared "stupid" by a player who was baffled by the tactics of fighting a barrage heavy army.
Adjust tactics, not the rules.

Fourth, the rules are being defended by someone who "sees barrage so infrequently" he thought some ancient rules still applied to it.

And fifth, the 'tactics of facing a barrage heavy army' have nothing to do with it. My issue was with the 'hit any pointon the map' aspect (thankfully debunked), and because I find such a weapon to be unenjoyable both to play with and against. Barrage weapons are like fliers - I don't like using or facing them, and the best counter for Orks is fliers of our own, so I don't enjoy the game when the other guy brings them.

 Peregrine wrote:
Exactly. Barrage weapons are fine. Try learning the correct rules and then adapting to deal with them, just like you adapt to deal with flyers/fast assault units/AV 14/etc.

What is the correct rules?

 Sleg wrote:
What is the correct rules?

You'll find them on page 34 of the rulebook. Pay careful attention to the rules given under "multiple barrages".

as to the KFF, this must be a house rule that if an enemy unit fires within the KFF no cover save. Thus if the hole of the template is in the KFF it would negate it. Instead if an enemy unit is within the protection of the KFF that too would get the 5+ cover.

Saying that it would seem that the KFF would work against Barrage. Which for me and my group doesn't make a difference since we allow all cover saves, anyhow.

Dakkamite, I'm going to present the idea that it always scatters with no LOS - I like it.

 Sleg wrote:
as to the KFF, this must be a house rule that if an enemy unit fires within the KFF no cover save. Thus if the hole of the template is in the KFF it would negate it. Instead if an enemy unit is within the protection of the KFF that too would get the 5+ cover.

Yes, that would be a house rule, no such rule exists in the actual 40k rules. Now you just need to realize the absurdity of creating a house rule to fix a problem that only exists because of your other pointless house rule.

Which for me and my group doesn't make a difference since we allow all cover saves, anyhow.
Dakkamite, I'm going to present the idea that it always scatters with no LOS - I like it.

So how is this any different from arbitrarily declaring that bolters are now STR 3 AP 6 because you're tired of your guardsmen dying to them so easily?

So how is this any different from arbitrarily declaring that bolters are now STR 3 AP 6 because you're tired of your guardsmen dying to them so easily?

Who cares man, Sleg and I would prefer these rules over the ones in the book. Theres no reason why we *shouldn't* present them as 'proposed rules'. Its not like the rules will ever be forced onto anyone - I guarentee you not one of the rules ever posted in this forum has been adopted by GW except perhaps by extreme coincidence. We propose them not to force others to play them, but to get feedback on if others would like the rule or how they would change it.

So "I don't like it, I'd play with the normal rules" is fine, but what your essentially saying is "I don't like it, so *you* shouldn't use it"

Though to clarify Sleg, the specifics I had in mind were "if it had no LoS and no spotter" then always scatter

 Dakkamite wrote:
Theres no reason why we *shouldn't* present them as 'proposed rules'.

Sure there is, it's a solution looking for a problem. You're just changing random things with a shaky understanding of how the rules work and no real effort made to adapt to the standard rules. It's like declaring that Land Raiders are only AV 10 because you hate having to bring melta to kill them, you have a right to do it if you can find anyone willing to agree to it but the rest of us don't have to consider it a reasonable thing to ask for.

So this is what I got from now rereading the rules once again. If you have more than 1 barrage figure in a unit - you must always use the Multiple Barrage rules. If there is only one figure in the unit it must use the Multiple Barrage rules without LOS.
Multiple Barrage rule. roll deviation die and 2d6 (apply BS subtraction with LOS). second shot (or the first shot without LOS) roll deviation die, where ever the arrow points, flip the Template in that direction. Obvious, if cross hair it hits where it lands.It doesn't say you go back to the original target or go back to where the first template was place. I interpret it to be going where the template is. 3rd shot (or 2nd shot without LOS) roll deviation die flip template in direction of arrow. continue until all shots are resolved. Add up the number of hits and then resolve for wounds and saves.

 Sleg wrote:
If there is only one figure in the unit it must use the Multiple Barrage rules without LOS.

No. The multiple barrage rule and firing indirectly are two separate things. Firing indirectly happens without LOS or inside minimum range. Multiple barrages only happen when you have multiple shots of barrage weapons.

It doesn't say you go back to the original target or go back to where the first template was place.

Read more carefully. If you get a "hit" result on the scatter die with the second or later shot you may place it anywhere in contact with any previous shot.

 Sleg wrote:
Add up the number of hits and then resolve for wounds and saves.

Well as I said I don't have the rulebook here, but that there is wrong, since you have to resolve each individually since they are hitting a different area, and thus have different models first hit, etc.

 Peregrine wrote:
So how is this any different from arbitrarily declaring that bolters are now STR 3 AP 6 because you're tired of your guardsmen dying to them so easily?

If the people I play with agree that bolters should be that, then hell we'll play that way - I've played games where everyone moves, everyone shoots, and everyone melees at the same time. This was with 5th because 2 CC in a turn gave the Orks an advantage. I've also played where you could shoot your own figures and shoot into melee.

I only play 40k to have fun - the rules are just a guide to play. Only Tournies and test armies for tournie do I follow RAW. I'm still trying to figure out why you are responding to a PROPOSED RULES thread - it's obviously not for you, since you want to Force your opinion of the rules on this discussion without anything to back it up with.

 Sleg wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out why you are responded to the PROPOSED RULES thread - it's obviously not for you, since you want to Force your opinion of the rules on this discussion without anything to back it up with.

Because part of the proposed rules forum is telling people that their proposed rules are bad ones.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sleg wrote:
Yes, I said this wrong, you resolve all hits, before the next template is placed.

No you do not. You resolve all hits after you have placed all of the templates and counted the hits. If you resolve hits between templates you will remove casualties and hit fewer models with the next template(s) than you should.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3170233a_40K_RULEBOOK_v1.4_APRIL13.pdf

Q: In a multiple barrage, do you determine all of the hits and all of
the Wounds separately for each blast, or do you resolve all of blasts
in one go? (p34)
A: Work out the total number of models hit by each
template, then proceed to allocate Wounds and remove
casualties as normal for the models hit by each seperate
template.

I think I'm just going to ignore you from now on

 Sleg wrote:
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3170233a_40K_RULEBOOK_v1.4_APRIL13.pdf

Q: In a multiple barrage, do you determine all of the hits and all of
the Wounds separately for each blast, or do you resolve all of blasts
in one go? (p34)
A: Work out the total number of models hit by each
template, then proceed to allocate Wounds and remove
casualties as normal for the models hit by each seperate
template.

I think I'm just going to ignore you from now on

That's exactly what peregrine said though. To me that says have all the templates down (hit by each template means they are all identified at the same time, meaning all the templates are down), then resolve wounds et al for each separate one. Just like he said.

But this stopped being constructive a long time ago, perhaps we should just let it die

 Sleg wrote:
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3170233a_40K_RULEBOOK_v1.4_APRIL13.pdf

Q: In a multiple barrage, do you determine all of the hits and all of
the Wounds separately for each blast, or do you resolve all of blasts
in one go? (p34)
A: Work out the total number of models hit by each
template, then proceed to allocate Wounds and remove
casualties as normal for the models hit by each seperate
template.

Yes. Exactly like I said. You work out the total number of hits, and THEN you roll to wound and resolve those wounds one template at a time. Just like the rulebook says on page 34 in the last paragraph under "multiple barrages". Nothing in there even suggests that you place a template, resolve the hits (including removing casualties), and then place the next one.

Yes, but once again I had to do the back work and I've reach my limit with dealing with him. What it says is I originally said it correctly and then adjusted because of a comment - I should have just stuck to my guns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thank you Motyak for giving Peregrine more fuel. It's funny that the only comment made about my interpretation of the Barrage Rules has only been questioned about something I actually said correctly.

 Peregrine wrote:
but the rest of us don't have to consider it a reasonable thing to ask for.

 Sleg wrote:
Yes, but once again I had to do the back work and I've reach my limit with dealing with him. What it says is I originally said it correctly and then adjusted because of a comment - I should have just stuck to my guns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thank you Motyak for giving Peregrine more fuel. It's funny that the only comment made about my interpretation of the Barrage Rules has only been questioned about something I actually said correctly.

You were unclear in your initial post, in a game with as dense of a rules as 40k you need to be clear, if you had said 'for each template' in the post you are complaining about then none of the last few posts would have been necessary.

Eh, this is just going in circles now and it's going to get bad, I'm out