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.

All non heavy weapons should have rapid fire. It makes total sense. The closer you get the faster you can unload shots accuratelyenough to hit something. Heavy weapons are fine as is. Maybe at half distance they could get +1 to hit. But no rapid fire. Try this for a few games and see how much more fun you have with positioning and clever play.

warpedpig wrote:
All non heavy weapons should have rapid fire. It makes total sense. The closer you get the faster you can unload shots accuratelyenough to hit something. Heavy weapons are fine as is. Maybe at half distance they could get +1 to hit. But no rapid fire. Try this for a few games and see how much more fun you have with positioning and clever play.

No, that doesn't make sense at all.

Heavy weapons aren't always easier to hit with the closer you get, in fact many things like missile systems ( i'd argue a bolter is a type of missile / 40mm Grenade type round ) would actually be harder and less accurate.

Plus I like my assault weapons just fine thank you very much, short range and plenty of shots and lots of movement.

I don't think that's necessary. They should have a standard gun type, but more shots isn't what the game needs imo

I take it you’ve never fired a weapon in your life. The closer you get to the bad guy the faster you can fire without missing. Obviously.

warpedpig wrote:
I take it you’ve never fired a weapon in your life. The closer you get to the bad guy the faster you can fire without missing. Obviously.

You assume wrong. Just being closer doesn't make the weapon magically fire quicker. You could also argue that a guy charging you is more likely to make you panic and lose your nerve, so you can't fire as often; that fits nicely with the whole "psychological realism" you've suggested before.

warpedpig wrote:
I take it you’ve never fired a weapon in your life. The closer you get to the bad guy the faster you can fire without missing. Obviously.

The closer you get to the bad guy the more you have to move the gun to track the bad guy moving sideways.

warpedpig wrote:
I take it you’ve never fired a weapon in your life. The closer you get to the bad guy the faster you can fire without missing. Obviously.

Yes, because my rifle always puts out more bullets when the target gets closer. It just gets so excited by the prospect of imminent melee combat.

I like having pistol and assault weapons, not certain why you want to take them away. Are you playing a melee army?

Alternatively, Rather than interpreting rapid fire as firing more shots, maybe it's just that more shots from the volley are likely to actually hit home given the larger target?

You can never get closer to the bad guy with a gun because he's in your skin. Make love, not war.

How Rapid Fire works is this:

I am far away so I take single shots to reduce recoil interference. I am now close enough that I can reliably use small round bursts.

Pretty sure such a rule would unbalance things...to a ridiculous extent.

 Griddlelol wrote:
Pretty sure such a rule would unbalance things...to a ridiculous extent.

My thoughts exactly. Another escalation is not what the game needs and would cause massive problems. The fact that a weapon can be awarded rapid fire is a way of balancing by giving firing volume.

At 100meters you need to take time to carefully aim. Margin of error is much higher than if you’re in the same room as someone. At half range your cone of accuracy is much more forgiving and so you can fire faster with good odds of hitting. Yes a gun is only mechanically capable of one maximum firing rate. But we only would ever make good use of that at very close range. So yes. Every single weapon should get more shots the closer you get. Except for he’s y weapons which probably lack the tracking speed to swing around a ten foot barrel quickly or load another huge shell in time to fire again.

This would make shooting armies have a reason to get closer. Added risk. Added reward

warpedpig wrote:
At 100meters you need to take time to carefully aim. Margin of error is much higher than if you’re in the same room as someone. At half range your cone of accuracy is much more forgiving and so you can fire faster with good odds of hitting. Yes a gun is only mechanically capable of one maximum firing rate. But we only would ever make good use of that at very close range. So yes. Every single weapon should get more shots the closer you get. Except for he’s y weapons which probably lack the tracking speed to swing around a ten foot barrel quickly or load another huge shell in time to fire again.

This argument doesn't fly with me. I could not care less about rule changes to fuel realism. I want the rules to be fun and balanced, not realistic.

This would make shooting armies have a reason to get closer. Added risk. Added reward

This is an entirely separate argument, and I like the reasoning behind it. Aren't capture points or victory points doing this role already? The risk/reward is already there. Stand still/shoot - you get more heavy weapon shots or longer range shots. Move - you get closer to objectives, but your firepower is reduced.

If you make everything rapid fire, suddenly gun lines lose that risk/reward that's already there.

Plus, shooty armies have another major reason to not get close to the enemy - assault. My guard Vets can deal a lot of damage with gunfire, but they fold the moment anyone assaults them. I'm only bringing them close to a target to rapid fire when I know I can kill the vast majority of the squad off, AND, I don't lose too much cover.

I have an idea, let's make assault armies worse at range AND worse in melee?

Let's have 7 point skitarii vanguards putting out 6 shots apiece at 6" and genestealer cultists putting out twice the bolter firepower of a space marine. That'll fix the game.

Oh wait, you know what's really underpowered atm? Tau coldstar commanders. We should really *double* their fusion gun firepower in melta range, that'd be great.

the_scotsman wrote:
I have an idea, let's make assault armies worse at range AND worse in melee?

Let's have 7 point skitarii vanguards putting out 6 shots apiece at 6" and genestealer cultists putting out twice the bolter firepower of a space marine. That'll fix the game.

Oh wait, you know what's really underpowered atm? Tau coldstar commanders. We should really *double* their fusion gun firepower in melta range, that'd be great.

And Aggressors putting out 8D6 shots each with their Flamers! Totally balanced.

The last thing this game needs is more shots, more lethality, or more dice being rolled.

This leads me to the balance. Close combat should be extremely lethal. Close combat units should get a massive boost. Imagine that yes the shooting phase is potentially extremely deadly. But if just one or two genestealers can leap into a squad of troops they would wreak havoc. Any hits made in close combat should have a built in -2 AP at least. Because the closer you are the easier it is to strike at weak points. Shooting is much less discriminate than a well placed stab or slash

Stop rationalising everything with realism. It's a game about space elves, green football hooligans and super soldiers fighting.

Realism has nothing to do with 40k, and thank feth for that.

warpedpig wrote:
This leads me to the balance. Close combat should be extremely lethal. Close combat units should get a massive boost. Imagine that yes the shooting phase is potentially extremely deadly. But if just one or two genestealers can leap into a squad of troops they would wreak havoc. Any hits made in close combat should have a built in -2 AP at least. Because the closer you are the easier it is to strike at weak points. Shooting is much less discriminate than a well placed stab or slash

I take it you've never been in combat before

Sorry I had to. But none of that is true. I Promise you that a Imperial Guardsmen will not be the equivalent of a Plasma shot in close combat versus my battlewagon. And since you want realism so much. Can i just move over enemy units with my heavy vehicles and destroy them immediately? no armor saves allowed?

Again, stop attempting to put realism into a game that has Magic, Titanic Machines, Space Bugs, Living Fungus warriors and Demons. Lets try for balance not realism.

The only case I would even consider this idea would be if it was done in such a way as to REDUCE shots, and have it also apply to heavy weapons.

For example, an assault cannon got 6 shots within 12 and only 3 over 12". Single shot guns would just stay the same.

This would reduce the power of gun-line armies, which people seem to complain about a lot.

Obviously all weapons would have to be re-done to have an even number of shots, but that's not too much of a change, really. And points would probably have to change as well.

Sure an infantryman shouldn’t be able to get his close combat bonuses against a tank. UNLESS he had. Meltabombs. So then you could have tank hunter infantry. Also when tanks charge into troops they should be able to crush them. Thee should be a way to scatter and run as well. And this would mean people would use terrain better and their own tanks to screen in the front for troops. It will make the game more fun. Probably lead to more flamers too.