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.

To-hit modifiers are massive part of fantasy (unless you're wood elves) and are, in my opinion, one of the main reasons gunlines do not dominate the current fantasy meta. I'd wonder if this could be imposed into 40k, were it would indirectly buff Assault and Close ranged armies such as Orks and Sisters of Battle while putting armies that try to keep you at >36'' away such as Scat Bikers and Tau a bit of burden. I'm not suggesting cover saves, i quite like 40k's cover system, I'm suggesting somethings as simple as -1 Bs when shooting at targets outside of your weapons half range. Tau gunline is now Bs 2 without Marker support for at least turn 1, making them have less of an ability to annihilate the front 30 boys of someones Greentide turn 1. Scat Bikes would also suffer, as 27pts for 4 Bs 3 shots makes units of them almost reliant on Guide support if they want to be incredibly effective at long range. Of course it would have it's winners and losers, such as Boltguns being 1 Bs 3 shot at ranged but 2 Bs 4 shots at close range. But then by adding a blanket rule, you can add exceptions in to indirectly buff under-preforming units.

For example, all Marines have ''Astartes reflexes'' that allows them to ignore the penalty of -1 to hit when using weapons with a range 24'' or below. Now, for no point cost increase, those Tacs everyone hates are now slightly better then everyone else at something. I'd envision all Sniper Weapons having a ''scoped'' ability that let them ignore the penalty, giving Snipers a niche they don't have any more.

It could even go the other way, when models are shooting at models with the unit type Gargantuan Flying/Monstrous Creature or Super Heavy Vehicle/Walker then they gain +1 Bs. This would effect snapshots, so you'd hit a Harridan on 5's instead of 6's. This tones down Knights and Wraithknights and Hieroduels which many people agree are to powerful, and seems rather logical as well.

Can anyone think of any glaring reasons that would oppose this being implemented?

Tomb Kings/Undead Legion player here.

What are to hit modifiers?

1) Your stupid TK Archers suck! (Why yes, my small-unit HE infantry and I are jealous...)

2) Its a fun idea. I'd probably like it. But would it make things too complicated?

3) Deciding who, and when, these modifiers applies will be ether massively unfair (Fusion Pistol is now at -1BS outside 3"? Eldar Rangers aren't full BS at 24", but SM are?), or massively complex.

Good idea, but I'm doubtful we could cleanly and fairly implement it.

Bharring wrote:
1) Your stupid TK Archers suck! (Why yes, my small-unit HE infantry and I are jealous...)

2) Its a fun idea. I'd probably like it. But would it make things too complicated?

3) Deciding who, and when, these modifiers applies will be ether massively unfair (Fusion Pistol is now at -1BS outside 3"? Eldar Rangers aren't full BS at 24", but SM are?), or massively complex.

Good idea, but I'm doubtful we could cleanly and fairly implement it.

I don't think it'd be that complicated. Have the rule only apply to guns of range x" and up and write a USR to give to sharpshooter units who can ignore the rule.

I wonder if this could stack well with or just be replaced by making cover saves To-Hit modifiers instead of saves like many people want.

To hit modifiers instead of cover would be welcome in my eyes. Back to 2nd ed.
Makes it a far more tactical game in cover strewn boards. As long as there is no area terrain and it is all down to LoS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Although it would slow the game down somewhat.

The first two editions of 40k and both to-hit and armor save modifiers just like fantasy. I much prefer it, as it let's cover AND armor affect a model, rather than one or the other. It also has the advantage of not needing all the weird work-around rules that have cropped up, like: jinking, ignores cover, etc as those were all worked into a single to-hit modifer chart.

It has its pros and cons, since I have absolutely no faith in GW implementing them fairly or logically.

If i was to make my own game it would use mods.

so long as there are not a dumb number things that stack to ruin it. (aka rules bloat a hoy)

Edit: VVV What Jimsolo said anything that can help the game move along quicker, be it less random charts, or less refering to charts that refer to other charts would be best.

I'd be in favor of it only if it could be done in a way that sped the game up rather than slowing it down.

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
To-hit modifiers are massive part of fantasy (unless you're wood elves) and are, in my opinion, one of the main reasons gunlines do not dominate the current fantasy meta. I'd wonder if this could be imposed into 40k, were it would indirectly buff Assault and Close ranged armies such as Orks and Sisters of Battle while putting armies that try to keep you at >36'' away such as Scat Bikers and Tau a bit of burden. I'm not suggesting cover saves, i quite like 40k's cover system, I'm suggesting somethings as simple as -1 Bs when shooting at targets outside of your weapons half range. Tau gunline is now Bs 2 without Marker support for at least turn 1, making them have less of an ability to annihilate the front 30 boys of someones Greentide turn 1. Scat Bikes would also suffer, as 27pts for 4 Bs 3 shots makes units of them almost reliant on Guide support if they want to be incredibly effective at long range. Of course it would have it's winners and losers, such as Boltguns being 1 Bs 3 shot at ranged but 2 Bs 4 shots at close range. But then by adding a blanket rule, you can add exceptions in to indirectly buff under-preforming units.

Trying to add to the rules and at the same time streamline them makes for a very difficult challenge. As an engineer I like to disassemble the product, review the parts and current modern equivalents or other products made by the same company, review what the customer said was wrong with the product and then suggest a course of action.

The product in question: The current BRB, codexes and meta. More specifically the rules for shooting and rules for assaulting.

Other modern products: (admittedly I'm new to 40k and don't really play other tabletop games)
GW products: Fantasy, 40k and Dark Heresy are the only ones that I'm aware of.

What you want (feel free to correct me), is for the game to become more balanced with assault becoming a viable option, as the current rules and meta consist of armies sitting across the table from each other, bombarding each other for 5 turns and more or less not moving unless you have units moving to capture objectives and seeing as the objectives are placed by the players, further enforces the gun line meta.So how in the Lord Emprah's name do we fix this mess while at the same time leaving it the 40k we know and love and making it nice and easy to play? Quite frankly I'm of the opinion that it would require a complete dismantling and reworking of everything from the very beginning but there's no fething way GW will do that. So looking at what we have to work with:

40k: Current rules in place unbalanced, needs to be fixed.
Fantasy: Balanced? Possibly take modifiers and tweak them to work for 40k?
Dark Heresy: Does this even apply? Maybe? I've played a single campaign with friends and it has hit modifiers and armor mods and it's placed in 40k universe. Problem is, it takes hours to go through a single engagement.

So using what we have, what is the best we can come up with? I'm still finalizing my thoughts on what should be done so I'll post later, I just wanted to review all the options and hear other people's opinions first.

Random final thoughts:
-How would this affect Ork shooting? Maybe with mods they become BS 1 so we double their shots? double the dakka?
-Overwatch affected by armor AND initiative?
-I personally hate the idea that my dark lance shots that can pierce AV 14 kill a cultist behind any sort of cover the same way it kills terminators behind cover. Should low AP weapons pierce cover?
-Heavy weapon squads get "Heavy weapon training" that allows them to aim properly, how would this affect tac squads with plasma/melta etc.
-Do Pyschic powers stay the same or does something like guide also become a modifier?
-Guys behind a wall covering their front view, exposed in the back, still get cover save from behind or nah?
-What angle would the shot have to come from to confer said cover save?
-How does this affect things that don't have the geometry of a wall?
- Should AP act as modifiers against armor values? Same applies to close combat weapons. (might make chain axes on berserkers worth it)

Hmm IF i had to make this a thing
Only two cover mods. cover and heavy cover. -1 and - 2 respectively.
You only take the best cover save from terrain you can. so no stacking a forest onto a ruin.
edit: Stealth and shrouded dropped to only stealth. and only -1.
Other things like moving a heavy weapon is a -1 or 2 bs
standing still should be a +1 or 2 bs.
or going to ground (taking defensive positions of some sort)
Over watch should be an initiative test at some stock - bs number.

Bring back partially true line of sights and height bands. ( terrain and area terrain extend up to a specific height band so if you are shooting from 3 levels up, a corn field wont benefit the victim.

also victim gets to remove models they want unless precision shots, which needs to be more of a thing.

But these are a bandage to internal bleeding.

I'd rather not throw Dark Heresy in there. The RPG line uses d100 and it isn't compatible with the TT game. And it's done by FFG, not GW.

right of course we wouldn't use actually Derk Heresy rules, I'm merely suggesting that we use the concepts of "long distance shooting" as a another modifier or that use rockrete as cover adds a considerable armor value. Good gods trying to play an entire 1850 pt battle with dark heresy rules would literally take all week.

I'm just curious as to whether people want to completely rework the system or just twist the rules a little as Alex suggested.

Models targeting a unit with 50% or more models obscured by cover shoot at -1 BS.

Models targeting a unit at least 36" away fire at -1 BS.

Weapons with the barrage or homing special rules ignore the range modifier. They are specifically designed to target enemies at long range.

 TheSilo wrote:
Models targeting a unit with 50% or more models obscured by cover shoot at -1 BS.

Models targeting a unit at least 36" away fire at -1 BS.

Weapons with the barrage or homing special rules ignore the range modifier. They are specifically designed to target enemies at long range.

Why 36"

Some weapons shoot better at longer ranges while others do extremely gakky in CCQ (like snipers)

I feel distance mods will slow the game down a bit since you have to check each individual model and stuff.

But speaking of checking by models. we also have additionally annoying terrain mechanics and LARGE blob units that can completely ruin the game (by having 50% behind something and daisy chaning them up to still get cover and stuff.

Unless we bring back focus fire.

Tables! We need more tables!
I like 40k because the core rules are basically simple. The application of the rules may not be simple, and the codex complicate the rules but it boils down to I roll dice you roll dice and stuff happens. The fewer modifications to dice rolls the better. Especially true in a game design culture of continuing evolution in a game that can take hours to play 6 turns.
Another problem with modifiers, in the abstract, is that once you start including them to make the game more realistic or tactically interesting they never stop. Evolution of that nature is how we ended up with 7th Ed. So no. I don't want more diverse shooting rules. I don't think it will make the game more fun, more realistic, or faster playing.

Or
40k is not fantasy.
Or
Why shouldn't gun lines have a tactical advantage in the 41st millennium?

Gun lines should exist. but an Assault unit shouldn't cost the same or more than the gun line when it has basically all the advantage.
The only equalizer is terrain and vehicles. and vehicles are already a hot mess of rules.

I hate this all or nothing, and all the alpha strike 40k we currently have.

Hate having to put away a fully painted unit without even getting to play them.

 Desubot wrote:

 TheSilo wrote:
Models targeting a unit with 50% or more models obscured by cover shoot at -1 BS.

Models targeting a unit at least 36" away fire at -1 BS.

Weapons with the barrage or homing special rules ignore the range modifier. They are specifically designed to target enemies at long range.

Why 36"

Some weapons shoot better at longer ranges while others do extremely gakky in CCQ (like snipers)

I feel distance mods will slow the game down a bit since you have to check each individual model and stuff.

But speaking of checking by models. we also have additionally annoying terrain mechanics and LARGE blob units that can completely ruin the game (by having 50% behind something and daisy chaning them up to still get cover and stuff.

Unless we bring back focus fire.

I don't know, why do rapid fire weapons magically become twice as effective at 12"? From a gameplay perspective, a unit that is 36" away is basically out of the fight, and I don't like that heavy weapons and vehicles can park and cover the whole table with 48"+ weaponry. At that range you're taking pot shots. Basically I'd like the range penalty to force gunlines to engage at a semi dangerous range. This will also make hitting your enemy in the flank much more useful since it'll be harder for models on the other side of the line to just turn their guns. It should punish overly conservative play.

We've added some basic modifiers to our game, but it's more of a 4th/5th Ed. hybrid.

-1 when shooting "flying" units (including jump and jet infantry) and -1 to anything in cover.

+1 when shooting vehicles (non-walkers) that didn't move.

-1 when shooting in the Reaction Phase, but that's a whole different kettle of fish!

 Desubot wrote:

 TheSilo wrote:
Models targeting a unit with 50% or more models obscured by cover shoot at -1 BS.

Models targeting a unit at least 36" away fire at -1 BS.

Weapons with the barrage or homing special rules ignore the range modifier. They are specifically designed to target enemies at long range.

Why 36"

Some weapons shoot better at longer ranges while others do extremely gakky in CCQ (like snipers)

I feel distance mods will slow the game down a bit since you have to check each individual model and stuff.

I don't think it'd really slow the game down all that much. You have a table printed with all the weapon profiles for your army and all the basic stuff you end up remembering after 1 or 2 games anyway. Just give weapons a short/long range in their profile, the short range has no penalty and the long range is -1 penalty, some weapons which are naturally short ranged or naturally accurate at long range might have their short range and long range being the same distance.

I think "to hit" modifiers are the way to go. I reckon they promote better balance and they can also serve to simplify the rules because a lot of rules can be removed and simply replaced with an appropriate modifier. Shooting at a Flyer? -2. Overwatch? -1. A unit designed to shoot at fliers? Ignore that particular penalty. Modifiers mean you don't have to be quite so all-or-nothing and can write more specific rules without it being a giant headache to keep track of them. Instead of "ignores cover" it just becomes "ignores negative modifier due to cover" and so on and so forth. Again, it's the sort of thing you just put in a table (but most players will remember after a game or two anyway).

 Desubot wrote:
Hmm IF i had to make this a thing
Only two cover mods. cover and heavy cover. -1 and - 2 respectively.
You only take the best cover save from terrain you can. so no stacking a forest onto a ruin.
edit: Stealth and shrouded dropped to only stealth. and only -1.
Other things like moving a heavy weapon is a -1 or 2 bs
standing still should be a +1 or 2 bs.
or going to ground (taking defensive positions of some sort)
Over watch should be an initiative test at some stock - bs number.

Bring back partially true line of sights and height bands. ( terrain and area terrain extend up to a specific height band so if you are shooting from 3 levels up, a corn field wont benefit the victim.

also victim gets to remove models they want unless precision shots, which needs to be more of a thing.

But these are a bandage to internal bleeding.

I'd play with these rules! Though I have the sneaking suspicion that cover-dependent units (like mandrakes) would go down in survivability compared to heavily armored units. Marines would benefit from cover almost as much as "stealthy" units, and they'd still get their high toughness and good armor save to go with it. Which is fine, and probably even appropriate for marines. Just something to keep in mind when repricing ALL THE THINGS!

I'm not necessarily opposed to range modifiers. The "short/long" range idea posted above seems like an easy way to implement it. Half-range for everything would feel sort of clunky as it makes things like lascannons suddenly less effective outside of 24". If you standardized it for most weapons though (like having "short range" be 12" for most of the common weapons) so that it's easy to remember, I think it would help the implementation a lot. For weapons like sniper rifles that shoulv arguably work better at long-range, you could even consiver having a "farshot" rule that grants a bonus to shooting at long range or perhaps applies the penalty to short range rather than long.

I'd be willing to try it, but I doubt I could sell my local group on the idea.

I firmly believe that cover should be a to-hit modifier as it was in 2nd edition. This meant that the cover would increase the survivability of units against all types of fire not just the big guns. This also helped assault troops get through the small arms of a gunline as long as the player was careful in his movement and planning.

Yes this made Space Marines in a defensive position very tough but they're Marines - they're supposed to be tough! And the Armour Save Modifiers of weapons meant that a models armour save was much less reliable.

Even the mechanic of a Cover Save to me is a bit odd. You've hit me... You've wounded me... No you didn't you'd hit the wall all along....

 Desubot wrote:
Hmm IF i had to make this a thing
Only two cover mods. cover and heavy cover. -1 and - 2 respectively.
You only take the best cover save from terrain you can. so no stacking a forest onto a ruin.
edit: Stealth and shrouded dropped to only stealth. and only -1.
Other things like moving a heavy weapon is a -1 or 2 bs
standing still should be a +1 or 2 bs.

So jetbikes being bikes and having relentless and WK being a gargantuan would be effective +2 or +3 BS all the time. And would be hiting my guardsman on +2 wounding on+2 with possible re-rolls?

When it comes to BS modifiers, it gets really complex real fast.

I've already started a Stacking Saves thread in Proposed Rules. I think that alone would do much of what we're looking for. Otherwise, below are some suggestions for a relatively simple to-hit modifier system.

Blast weapons don't care so much about BS. Possible fixes:
-Reduce direct hit facings to 1 per die (replacing dice is going to be a hard sell...)
-Allow BS to fall below 1 for Scatter.

The option to have BS fall below 1 has a few possible effects. Suggestions:
-Blasts always subtract BS (min 0), even on a direct hit. Reroll scatter die on direct hit, using that direction to scatter the negative BS. So of you're at -5, you scatter +5. On a direct hit, you still scatter (0 - -5) 5".
-Direct Hit weapons could remain the same, or TL failure like WHFB. So a BS 0 needs 6's on the first die, and 2+ on the second. Slightly worse than a BS1. You'd need an effective BS of -4 to max out the penalty (6's, then 6's). Sounds complex, but gets simple. And gives a much greater range of stats. An Ork should still hit the LR in front of it more readily than the Camp Cloak scouts gone to ground in ruins during Night Fighting next to a Shrouding librarian at max range. Currently, not all those effects stack. This way, they would stack smoothly. Each thing gives its benefit.
-Templates - if effective BS (unaffected by regular cover anyways), test against negatives (0 requires a 2+, -4 requires a 6+), but positive BS still doesn't matter.

Some modifiers are obstructions, others are obscurements. Barrage and Template (and possibly other rules) would be affected, as above, by Obscurement, but not obstructions. If you know where they are, you hit them solidly. If you dont (stealth, etc), it represents shooting the wrong place.

Obstructions:
-Cover (terrain, intervening models, obstructions not specified, etc): -1
-Hard Cover (ruins): -1
-Long Distance (discussed elsewhere): -1

Obscurement
-Stealth: -1
-Shrouded: -2
-Jinking: -1
-Large Target (MC, vehicle with 3+ HP): +1
-Invis: -2
-Snapshot: -3

I'm sure there would be others.

As for Weapons at Long Distance - I could see that on Rapid Fire or possibly Assault and/or Pistol, but not Heavy or Salvo. I'm thinking Rapid Fire only, and only at over half range. I'm not sure.

Perhaps this should be a Proposed Rules thread, though.

To-hit modifiers are too harsh in a D6 system. The graduation is not fine enough. Loyalist marines in 2nd ed were destroyed by to-hit modifiers due to their lack of shots. I see the marines' current offensive woes magnified by this issue if it were brought back.

Marines are probably one of the factions that would benefit most from such changes. Armor saves become much, much more effective against most weapons. Imagine taking only half - or fewer - hits from scatter lasers and Lasguns!

That's why allowing Armor Saves *and* any sort of cover effect (save or BS modifier) would be best paired with something that mitigates (or rebalances) Armor Saves. Such as an armor save modifier...

Bharring wrote:
Marines are probably one of the factions that would benefit most from such changes. Armor saves become much, much more effective against most weapons. Imagine taking only half - or fewer - hits from scatter lasers and Lasguns!

That's why allowing Armor Saves *and* any sort of cover effect (save or BS modifier) would be best paired with something that mitigates (or rebalances) Armor Saves. Such as an armor save modifier...

Trust me, it doesn't work. I lived it. 2nd ed was a disaster for loyalist marines. Power armor was literally useless in the era of armor save modifiers and the game was every more alpha strikey than it is right now. My entire list died to CSM once before I even got a turn. Because they had good weapons.

Yes, I think it could make a big difference, especially when you start talking long range engagement to hit modifiers (18-24+ inches). The fact that a lot of shooty lists can now hit on a blanket 3+ no matter how far away they are, and also tend to ignore my cover ignores the hell out of me.

A to hit modifer increases the usefulness of cover, and things like flamethrowers auto-hitting make more sense (automaticcaly negates cover on its own)

But that's a pretty big departure from the rules, and I'd say it's unlikely.

Martel732 wrote:
To-hit modifiers are too harsh in a D6 system. The graduation is not fine enough. Loyalist marines in 2nd ed were destroyed by to-hit modifiers due to their lack of shots. I see the marines' current offensive woes magnified by this issue if it were brought back.

This.

If 40k was a D10 system then maybe you could make it work. There isn't enough graduation in a D6 system to allow for modifiers like this. The practical effect of introducing to-hit modifiers is that you would make shooting useless for a good number of your armies. Most armies are BS 4, 3, or 2. That's only 3 different types of Ballistic skill in the entire game. Assuming that MOST of the time the enemy would be able to get at least a couple cover modifiers on you to give you a -2, what this means is that both BS3 and BS2 armies would be hitting on 6's, and BS4 armies would be hitting on 5's.

Now you've effectively reduced the types of Ballistic skills in the game from 3 down to only 2. There's BS4, and then there's everyone else.

Would you really want your Space Marines shooting with the accuracy of Orks? The only reason Orks are viable with a BS2 is because they have huge volume of fire, and even then, they prefer Assault over Shooting when they can get it.

You'd essentially turn 40k into what Fantasy is now, a game focused entirely on movement and assault. Shooting is mostly an afterthought.

Makumba wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Hmm IF i had to make this a thing
Only two cover mods. cover and heavy cover. -1 and - 2 respectively.
You only take the best cover save from terrain you can. so no stacking a forest onto a ruin.
edit: Stealth and shrouded dropped to only stealth. and only -1.
Other things like moving a heavy weapon is a -1 or 2 bs
standing still should be a +1 or 2 bs.

So jetbikes being bikes and having relentless and WK being a gargantuan would be effective +2 or +3 BS all the time. And would be hiting my guardsman on +2 wounding on+2 with possible re-rolls?

Then perhaps moving with relentless only -1 bs vs 2 and doesnt count as not moving.
SNP removes the negatives for moving only.

Bharring wrote:
When it comes to BS modifiers, it gets really complex real fast.
-Snapshot: -3

It certinly gets insane quickly if you arent building from the ground up for sure.

I would prefer -2 instead of 3. gives marines a slight edge at toting those heavy bolters over a guardsman.