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.

It's lately bugged me that 40K puts weapons into three basic classes for their portability:

Assault - fire on the move and in close combat
Normal - any weapon that doesn't do damage to vehicles
Heavy - any weapon a normal person would have trouble using on the go; generally anti-vehicle

I'd like to see weapons slightly reclassified as such:

Assault - Carbines and Pistols designed for close range combat (generally up to STR 4)
Anti-Infantry - one or two handed weapons that can easily be used by a single individual (generally up to STR 5)
Man-Portable - a weapon best used with a mount or fixed position; usually needs a crew of two (generally up to STR 8)
Heavy - weapons either too heavy or with recoil too strong to be used by foot soldiers; generally found on vehicles or emplacements (up to STR 10)
Emplacement - weapons requiring serious power and/or a reinforced supporting structure to be used (generally STR D)

The rules:

Assault - unchanged
Anti-infantry - unchanged, just notated
Man-Portable - can be fired on foot while moving at -1 BS; this would be the various Meltaguns, Plasma guns, Missile Launchers, etc. we see used by foot soldiers. Bikes, speeders & vehicles can use without penalty
Heavy - Infantry can't use except as emplacement or towed gun; Bikes and speeders must be still to fire; vehicles suffer a -1 penalty to fire while moving
Emplacement - Infantry, bikes and speeders can't use except as emplacement; Vehicles can only fire while stationary; Knights and Titans suffer a -1 penalty to fire while moving

First off... There's no 'Normal' class for 40k weapons, and 'Heavy' weapons are by no means anti-vehicle. 'Assault' is a weapon type that does what you describe, but 'Heavy' has only partial resemblance to what you describe, and 'Normal' weapons do not exist in any way, shape, or form. (I've always wondered about that, actually - What happens if you want a weapon that can't be fired when charging, but can be fired after moving, but isn't rapid fire?)
Anyways, though, you seem to be assigning random labels to guns that don't actually exist in the 40k rules, and don't really exist in any sort of 40k meta sense. Anti-tank Assault weapons exist, and are prevalent in some Codexes. (Orks have Rokkits, Space Marines have Meltaguns.) Heavy weapons are terrible at killing tanks half the time, from choices like Heavy Bolters to various small blast frag-grenade type weapons. Meanwhile, weapons which would have to be classified as 'Normal' (That is, not Heavy weapons, but not Assault weapons either), run the full gamut of options - Plasmaguns can deal with light tanks pretty easily, but certainly aren't heavy weapons or anti-tank fire specifically, even Boltguns can deal damage to tanks if you hit AV10, Necron weapons generally have Gauss, meaning that even basic anti-infantry weapons can strip Hull Points from vehicles pretty easily.


I'm not sure why you're listing things like Meltaguns and Plasmaguns are 'Man Portable'. When I see it used in the game (or any other 40k property), it's almost always used to describe such weapons as Lascannons and Heavy Bolters, to distinguish the smaller man-portable varieties from the larger vehicle-mounted designs.

All in all, though, this would require a ton of rebalancing, and I don't see it actually improving the game. It simultaneously nerfs the heck out of Special weapons (Who can generally all be fired at full BS without this change,) but makes heavy weapons vastly better, since (especially on Space Marines and the like) -1 BS is not nearly as big of a penalty as firing Snap Shots.
In general, though: Why on earth would a Meltagun be as difficult to fire as a Missile Launcher? One is designed to be as compact and functional as any other infantry weapon, the other is designed as a heavy, slow-to-aim weapon that doesn't really work on the move. Also, then, where would Multi-Meltas fit in? They're supposed to be about equivalent to Missile Launchers in weight and bulk, but now their penalty would be identical to that of their much, much smaller and lighter companion Meltagun.

@Stormonu.
I agree that the way weapons are classified in 40k is a bit restrictive and basic.
(But then the functional interaction between weapons and target have been artificially restricted.Over simplified core rules do not cover all the target types. )

I agree with the general direction you are going in.Here are my basic definitions.

Pistol(Pistol grip).May be used in close combat the users unit is engaged in.(To make pistols useful for assault specialists.)

Rapid fire.May double effective range when using unit is stationary.(EG range 12", is doubled to 24" when unit is statiionary.)

Ordnance.May not move and fire.

Any other weapons may move and fire, but may not be fired in assault.

However, the main difference is that weapons are defined by the unit carrying them.

A heavy bolter could be Ordnance in an IG infanty unit.

Rapid fire in a Death Watch unit.(Specialist SM unit with suspensors to off set the weight , to allow it to move and fire, basic range 18", 36" if unit remains stationary.)

And could count as a pistol when carried by a Greater Deamon!

This is where 40k falls down,It tries to define everything simply in the core rules, in a similar way to a simple skirmish game.But them fails to consider the massive variety of unit types in the current 40k game.
Which means a simple generic effect is not specific enough to cover the detailed weapon and unit combinations.

Bikes shouldn't be relentless anywayz.

Lanrak wrote:
@Stormonu.
I agree that the way weapons are classified in 40k is a bit restrictive and basic.
(But then the functional interaction between weapons and target have been artificially restricted.Over simplified core rules do not cover all the target types. )

I agree with the general direction you are going in.Here are my basic definitions.

Pistol(Pistol grip).May be used in close combat the users unit is engaged in.(To make pistols useful for assault specialists.)

Rapid fire.May double effective range when using unit is stationary.(EG range 12", is doubled to 24" when unit is statiionary.)

Ordnance.May not move and fire.

Any other weapons may move and fire, but may not be fired in assault.

However, the main difference is that weapons are defined by the unit carrying them.

A heavy bolter could be Ordnance in an IG infanty unit.

Rapid fire in a Death Watch unit.(Specialist SM unit with suspensors to off set the weight , to allow it to move and fire, basic range 18", 36" if unit remains stationary.)

And could count as a pistol when carried by a Greater Deamon!

This is where 40k falls down,It tries to define everything simply in the core rules, in a similar way to a simple skirmish game.But them fails to consider the massive variety of unit types in the current 40k game.
Which means a simple generic effect is not specific enough to cover the detailed weapon and unit combinations.

This makes weapons currently listed as 'Rapid Fire' significantly better, though, and a lot of heavy weapons too. Boltguns firing two shots at full range? Yeah, sure, only if they're stationary, but that's still twice the number of shots. Guardsmen with first-rank-fire second-rank-fire just became crazy better.
And Space Marines with Heavy Weapons also just got exceptionally good. Lascannons are equivalent in size and bulk to Heavy Bolters, so are Multi-Meltas. So now, a moving Multi-Melta will just function exactly like a Meltagun. A Lascannon still fires full BS at 24". A Plasmacannon can still run around blasting people with a really good effective range.

Also, unless you strip bikes of Relentless, they now fire two Plasma shots at 24" instead of just 1 with zero penalties.

I'm afraid I have to agree with the others; I don't really see what problem this solves, or why it's necessary.

@Waaaghpower.
The proposed list for different weapons types I posted were assumed to be used in a re write of the rules.
EG without all the extra rules GW has added on to try to get the different effects in units that the limited generic weapon effects can not cover.

The current 40k rules are a complete mess . (Without any clear development goals beyond selling the latest bits of plastic product .)

Other games can have much more easily defined weapon functions and granularity, as the rules are written specifically for the game play of the game.

EG WWII games have 'armoured targets' (tanks), and soft skin target without any armour to speak of.
They usually cover things like suppression , which also adds another level of in game effects or shooting that is not in direct competition with assault.

40k does not have any clear distinction between armour and non armour.
The units have a steady progression of armour , with power armour and dreadnaught armour filling in the gap between light and meduim infantry, and light vehicles.
So a weapon and armour interaction that covers all units in the same way would make proportional weapon effects much better and simpler.
And a simple suppression would help balance the tactical function between shooting and assault.

I really do wish they brought in rules that alter ballistic skill - it would make so much more sense than all of the silly rules we have about cover and jinking and such