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.

This is an idea I had a while back and I thought I might as well get some feedback on it.

Basically, I think that weapons should simply have a rate of fire and 'Heavy', 'Assault', 'Pistol', and 'Rapid Fire' should just become abilities.

Pistol allows a weapon to be fired in melee (as the current rules).

Assault allows a weapon to be fired after a model Advances (with -1 to hit).

Heavy imposes a -1 penalty to hit if the model moved.

Rapid Fire doubles the weapons rate of fire when within half-range.

(Note: Personally, I'd be inclined to tweak these further, but since that's outside the purview of this particular idea, I've basically left them the same.)


There are a few reasons why I think this would be a good idea:

1) It allows for basic weapons to actually be basic, rather than always having some ability (or for an ability other than the above). Not saying this is always appropriate, just that it seems weird when your system doesn't actually allow for such.

2) It allows for other weapon types to be added later.

3) It allows the existing weapon types to be combined. e.g. you can have a weapon that's a Pistol and also an Assault weapon. Or a weapon that's Heavy but also Rapid Fire. Or Assault and Rapid Fire. etc.

It's not a major change but it would be very simple to implement and it seems like it would give designers more options for weapons without them actually needing to invent any new rules or abilities.


Any thoughts?

There is scope for simple having "Basic" as a weapon type. So keeping the familiar system but have "Basic 2" for the weapon profile.

Aside from a basic weapon, and I'm not sure what that would represent, can't you just give a weapon multiple profiles combi-weapon style and call it a day?

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Aside from a basic weapon, and I'm not sure what that would represent, can't you just give a weapon multiple profiles combi-weapon style and call it a day?

A combi-weapon is two different weapon profiles that fire separately. That's completely different to what I'm proposing here.

 vipoid wrote:
A combi-weapon is two different weapon profiles that fire separately. That's completely different to what I'm proposing here.

Sorry, I was thinking of older editions where it was one or the other but never both at once. I also said combi-weapon style, not exactly like a combi weapon so

Instead, this could be like plasma weapons, pick your profile before firing and then uses all the rules for that profile.

A made-up weapon might be something like:
Da Busta Blasta: Choose one profile before shooting with this weapon.
Assault 2 - S4 - AP0 - 18" - D1
Pistol 1 - S4 - AP0 - 12" - D1

You can fire the assault mode out of combat and the pistol version in combat.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
A combi-weapon is two different weapon profiles that fire separately. That's completely different to what I'm proposing here.

Sorry, I was thinking of older editions where it was one or the other but never both at once. I also said combi-weapon style, not exactly like a combi weapon so

Instead, this could be like plasma weapons, pick your profile before firing and then uses all the rules for that profile.

A made-up weapon might be something like:
Da Busta Blasta: Choose one profile before shooting with this weapon.
Assault 2 - S4 - AP0 - 18" - D1
Pistol 1 - S4 - AP0 - 12" - D1

You can fire the assault mode out of combat and the pistol version in combat.

That's interesting, though not really what I was thinking.

My idea would be more along these lines:

Heavy Bolter 36" RoF3 S5 AP-1 D1, Heavy, Rapid-Fire

It has a RoF (Rate of Fire) of 3, so it normally shoots 3 times. However, it also has 'Rapid-Fire' so if the model gets within half range (18" in this case), then the rate of fire is doubled. Finally, it has the 'Heavy' rule, so if the model moves it gets -1 to hit when shooting this weapon.

Obviously not every weapon would necessarily have 2 of these traits - it just gives the option for weapons that do.

It's a good idea.
Currently the designers make a lot of 'Heavy' weapons which are combined with a rule to ignore the hit penalty for moving. As this is the easiest way to approximate a basic weapon.
I find it a bit silly when rules writers are forced to do this sort of thing to work around holes in their own system.

This also leans towards the idea of adding keywords to weapons.
In addition to the basic ones you've already listed, there could be keywords which don't necessarily do anything by themselves, but which can be used to interact with other special rules.
For instance marines have rules which affect Bolter/Flame/Melta weapons. This would let you show which weapons are affected by such rules via keyword. Which is just a nice quality of life improvement, over the definition of bolt/flame/melta weapons they have had to add on page 166 of the marine codex.

This is a pretty good idea imo. It would be neat to see it play out

I like the high concept. A few questions:

* Would Heavy weapons still be prevented from firing at all after advancing? If so, how does this interact with a weapon that is both Heavy and Assault?

* What weapons do you see changing to "basic"? Giving up RF, Assault, and Pistol would be a downgrade for most weapons. Giving up Heavy would generally be a buff for most weapons. While I agree that it's weird "basic weapons" aren't a thing in official 40k, downgrading, for instance, a meltagun does feel a bit unnecessary even though losing assault probably isn't a huge nerf for it.

* Can you give a few examples of where you'd use this? The heavy bolter example is a good one, and I like the concept, but I'm struggling to think of a ton of weapons that I'd want to slap multiple "types" onto.

Wyldhunt wrote:
I like the high concept. A few questions:

* Would Heavy weapons still be prevented from firing at all after advancing? If so, how does this interact with a weapon that is both Heavy and Assault?

* What weapons do you see changing to "basic"? Giving up RF, Assault, and Pistol would be a downgrade for most weapons. Giving up Heavy would generally be a buff for most weapons. While I agree that it's weird "basic weapons" aren't a thing in official 40k, downgrading, for instance, a meltagun does feel a bit unnecessary even though losing assault probably isn't a huge nerf for it.

* Can you give a few examples of where you'd use this? The heavy bolter example is a good one, and I like the concept, but I'm struggling to think of a ton of weapons that I'd want to slap multiple "types" onto.

A lot of vehicles could have a rule something like:

Weapons of Strength [X] or lower on this model gain the Pistol type.

For point defense. Probably S5 for most tanks. (Although that DOES let a Punisher Cannon work as point defense... I dunno. Rule needs work.)

"Strength [X] and less than a bajillion shots," maybe. XD

Edit:
Actually, taking the "keywords on weapons" concept a step further, you could just have a "big gun" keyword or whatever on punisher cannons and other primary weapons. Then just write the rule as, "Strength [x] and lower non-Big Gun weapons on a model with the Vehicle keyword gain the Pistol keyword.

Wyldhunt wrote:
"Strength [X] and less than a bajillion shots," maybe. XD

For Russes, it could be sponson weapons only.

For Land Raiders, could be weapons of S6 or less. (Yes that allows for Flamestorm Cannons to be Pistols. I'm okay with that. Land Raiders suck right now.)

Repulsors could be S5 or less.

Honestly this isn't something I've thought about before, and it's a lot cleaner than adding a bajillion rules to different weapons.

Wyldhunt wrote:
I like the high concept. A few questions:

* Would Heavy weapons still be prevented from firing at all after advancing? If so, how does this interact with a weapon that is both Heavy and Assault?

Unless I'm mistaken, all non-Assault weapons (not just Heavy weapons) are currently prevented from firing after Advancing.

Regardless, under my rules, a Heavy Assault weapon would be able to fire after Advancing but would be getting a -2 penalty to hit (-1 from Heavy and a further -1 from the Assault rule).

Wyldhunt wrote:

* What weapons do you see changing to "basic"? Giving up RF, Assault, and Pistol would be a downgrade for most weapons. Giving up Heavy would generally be a buff for most weapons. While I agree that it's weird "basic weapons" aren't a thing in official 40k, downgrading, for instance, a meltagun does feel a bit unnecessary even though losing assault probably isn't a huge nerf for it.

The most obvious would be any of the 'Heavy except not Heavy weapons'. That is, weapons that are Heavy but have some rule to mitigate the usual -1 to hit.

However, there's another aspect in that with my method each weapon starts as a blank slate, so you have the option of inserting alternate keywords (rather than just Pistol, Assault, Heavy or Rapid-Fire).

So, just as an example, instead of Assault you could have a weapon with Swift Assault (this weapon can be fired after advancing and suffers no penalty to hit) or Ordnance (this weapon can only be fired if the model remained stationary).

Wyldhunt wrote:

* Can you give a few examples of where you'd use this? The heavy bolter example is a good one, and I like the concept, but I'm struggling to think of a ton of weapons that I'd want to slap multiple "types" onto.

One example that comes to mind is Pistols. It seems like a lot of them could easily gain the Assault rule - especially for Eldar armies which tend towards movement. It also just seems to make sense, as it's a little strange that pistols currently can't be fired after a model Advances, yet significantly bulkier weapons can be.

Another possibility would be making Storm Bolters Rapid-Fire and Assault (making them almost a combination of their old rules and their current ones).

The thing is, even if it's applied to relatively few weapons initially, I see my method as a way of future-proofing the game, as it allows for weapons with new keywords (or mixtures of keywords) in the future, rather than locking all weapons into just 4 types.

Or Aggressors getting Assault, Pistol with their gauntlet shooting.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Or Aggressors getting Assault, Pistol with their gauntlet shooting.

Because 3 str8 ap-3 d3 damage attacks in cc isn't enough? (4 if they charged/were charged).

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Or Aggressors getting Assault, Pistol with their gauntlet shooting.

Because 3 str8 ap-3 d3 damage attacks in cc isn't enough? (4 if they charged/were charged).

It makes sense they would have it. As is, the Gravis Captain and Aggressors aren't consistent with each other, which is stupid.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Or Aggressors getting Assault, Pistol with their gauntlet shooting.

Because 3 str8 ap-3 d3 damage attacks in cc isn't enough? (4 if they charged/were charged).

It makes sense they would have it. As is, the Gravis Captain and Aggressors aren't consistent with each other, which is stupid.

By that logic if I take "dirty fighter " on my claw lord shouldn't it apply to my warp talons and raptors? If characters could still join units that would make sense, but they can't.

I do like this idea however. Makes it easier to give weapons different abilities without writing special snowflake rules for every unit.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Or Aggressors getting Assault, Pistol with their gauntlet shooting.

Because 3 str8 ap-3 d3 damage attacks in cc isn't enough? (4 if they charged/were charged).

It makes sense they would have it. As is, the Gravis Captain and Aggressors aren't consistent with each other, which is stupid.

By that logic if I take "dirty fighter " on my claw lord shouldn't it apply to my warp talons and raptors? If characters could still join units that would make sense, but they can't.

I do like this idea however. Makes it easier to give weapons different abilities without writing special snowflake rules for every unit.

That's not the same situation as one is a Warlord Trait and the other situation is about what is LITERALLY the same weapon.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Or Aggressors getting Assault, Pistol with their gauntlet shooting.

Because 3 str8 ap-3 d3 damage attacks in cc isn't enough? (4 if they charged/were charged).

It makes sense they would have it. As is, the Gravis Captain and Aggressors aren't consistent with each other, which is stupid.

By that logic if I take "dirty fighter " on my claw lord shouldn't it apply to my warp talons and raptors? If characters could still join units that would make sense, but they can't.

I do like this idea however. Makes it easier to give weapons different abilities without writing special snowflake rules for every unit.

That's not the same situation as one is a Warlord Trait and the other situation is about what is LITERALLY the same weapon.

Sorry, thought you were arguing that an HQ should be more like the units he should be leading.

But still: Captain in Gravis Armour: boltstorm gauntlet (singular) vs aggressors: auto boltstorm gauntlets (plural). So not LITERALLY the same weapons. Unless you consider bolters and bolt pistols LITERALLY the same weapon.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Or Aggressors getting Assault, Pistol with their gauntlet shooting.

Because 3 str8 ap-3 d3 damage attacks in cc isn't enough? (4 if they charged/were charged).

It makes sense they would have it. As is, the Gravis Captain and Aggressors aren't consistent with each other, which is stupid.

By that logic if I take "dirty fighter " on my claw lord shouldn't it apply to my warp talons and raptors? If characters could still join units that would make sense, but they can't.

I do like this idea however. Makes it easier to give weapons different abilities without writing special snowflake rules for every unit.

That's not the same situation as one is a Warlord Trait and the other situation is about what is LITERALLY the same weapon.

Sorry, thought you were arguing that an HQ should be more like the units he should be leading.

But still: Captain in Gravis Armour: boltstorm gauntlet (singular) vs aggressors: auto boltstorm gauntlets (plural). So not LITERALLY the same weapons. Unless you consider bolters and bolt pistols LITERALLY the same weapon.

Have you seen the weapons? That's like suggesting different Bolter designs should have different rules.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Or Aggressors getting Assault, Pistol with their gauntlet shooting.

Because 3 str8 ap-3 d3 damage attacks in cc isn't enough? (4 if they charged/were charged).

It makes sense they would have it. As is, the Gravis Captain and Aggressors aren't consistent with each other, which is stupid.

By that logic if I take "dirty fighter " on my claw lord shouldn't it apply to my warp talons and raptors? If characters could still join units that would make sense, but they can't.

I do like this idea however. Makes it easier to give weapons different abilities without writing special snowflake rules for every unit.

That's not the same situation as one is a Warlord Trait and the other situation is about what is LITERALLY the same weapon.

Sorry, thought you were arguing that an HQ should be more like the units he should be leading.

But still: Captain in Gravis Armour: boltstorm gauntlet (singular) vs aggressors: auto boltstorm gauntlets (plural). So not LITERALLY the same weapons. Unless you consider bolters and bolt pistols LITERALLY the same weapon.

Have you seen the weapons? That's like suggesting different Bolter designs should have different rules.

Well, fine, if we're going by looks then wouldn't it make more sense to give the captain's weapon the same profile with half the shots as the aggressors? They really don't need any more help in the killing things department. Do loyalists really need any more buffs?

imo they have too many artificial differences.

Rapid fire and assault are basically the same thing, but they keep tweaking rapid fire and now assault weapons are crap.

You can see that in the fact that they changed storm bolters to rapid fire -can't be making marine weapons suck, so rather than making assault weapons better, they changed the storm bolter to RF instead.


I'd rather a breakdown of the main physics of guns and then a rebuild.

There are really only two factors to shooting - RoF and distance. These are then affected by movement.

Some weapons have fixed RoF, some have variable. Some are affected by distance, some are affected by momvement

ie

some guns can:

be fired on the move without accuracy impairment
Some guns cannot be fired while you move
some guns are less accurate while you move

some guns can be full auto-ed without impairment
some guns can't auto fire at all
some guns are less accurate when you auto fire


You can break down weapons into a matrix of these kinds of interactions.

ie a storm bolter (should) be unaffected by RoF, movement or Range, as it's mounted on the stabliised form of a terminator.

Most eldar weapons are grav stabilised etc, so generally are at 100% all the time.

Ork weapons have high Rof, but are probably not great at long range or on the move.


etc

Hellebore wrote:
imo they have too many artificial differences.

Rapid fire and assault are basically the same thing, but they keep tweaking rapid fire and now assault weapons are crap.

You can see that in the fact that they changed storm bolters to rapid fire -can't be making marine weapons suck, so rather than making assault weapons better, they changed the storm bolter to RF instead.


I'd rather a breakdown of the main physics of guns and then a rebuild.

There are really only two factors to shooting - RoF and distance. These are then affected by movement.

Some weapons have fixed RoF, some have variable. Some are affected by distance, some are affected by momvement

ie

some guns can:

be fired on the move without accuracy impairment
Some guns cannot be fired while you move
some guns are less accurate while you move

some guns can be full auto-ed without impairment
some guns can't auto fire at all
some guns are less accurate when you auto fire


You can break down weapons into a matrix of these kinds of interactions.

ie a storm bolter (should) be unaffected by RoF, movement or Range, as it's mounted on the stabliised form of a terminator.

Most eldar weapons are grav stabilised etc, so generally are at 100% all the time.

Ork weapons have high Rof, but are probably not great at long range or on the move.


etc

I'd argue that there are 4-factors in shooting as far as landing a hit goes; Range, RoF, Recoil, and Ergonomics.

There's a large difference between a full-auto P90, MG42 and BAR.
A difference in ergonomics between an APC9K, MP5 and Thompson.
A difference in recoil and range between a 9mm, .45, and .50 round.

 vipoid wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
I like the high concept. A few questions:

* Would Heavy weapons still be prevented from firing at all after advancing? If so, how does this interact with a weapon that is both Heavy and Assault?

Unless I'm mistaken, all non-Assault weapons (not just Heavy weapons) are currently prevented from firing after Advancing.

Regardless, under my rules, a Heavy Assault weapon would be able to fire after Advancing but would be getting a -2 penalty to hit (-1 from Heavy and a further -1 from the Assault rule).

Wyldhunt wrote:

* What weapons do you see changing to "basic"? Giving up RF, Assault, and Pistol would be a downgrade for most weapons. Giving up Heavy would generally be a buff for most weapons. While I agree that it's weird "basic weapons" aren't a thing in official 40k, downgrading, for instance, a meltagun does feel a bit unnecessary even though losing assault probably isn't a huge nerf for it.

The most obvious would be any of the 'Heavy except not Heavy weapons'. That is, weapons that are Heavy but have some rule to mitigate the usual -1 to hit.

However, there's another aspect in that with my method each weapon starts as a blank slate, so you have the option of inserting alternate keywords (rather than just Pistol, Assault, Heavy or Rapid-Fire).

So, just as an example, instead of Assault you could have a weapon with Swift Assault (this weapon can be fired after advancing and suffers no penalty to hit) or Ordnance (this weapon can only be fired if the model remained stationary).

Wyldhunt wrote:

* Can you give a few examples of where you'd use this? The heavy bolter example is a good one, and I like the concept, but I'm struggling to think of a ton of weapons that I'd want to slap multiple "types" onto.

One example that comes to mind is Pistols. It seems like a lot of them could easily gain the Assault rule - especially for Eldar armies which tend towards movement. It also just seems to make sense, as it's a little strange that pistols currently can't be fired after a model Advances, yet significantly bulkier weapons can be.

Another possibility would be making Storm Bolters Rapid-Fire and Assault (making them almost a combination of their old rules and their current ones).

The thing is, even if it's applied to relatively few weapons initially, I see my method as a way of future-proofing the game, as it allows for weapons with new keywords (or mixtures of keywords) in the future, rather than locking all weapons into just 4 types.

That all seems reasonable to me. I'm on board. You're totally right about heavy weapons by the way. My mistake.

 vipoid wrote:
This is an idea I had a while back and I thought I might as well get some feedback on it.

Basically, I think that weapons should simply have a rate of fire and 'Heavy', 'Assault', 'Pistol', and 'Rapid Fire' should just become abilities.

Pistol allows a weapon to be fired in melee (as the current rules).

Assault allows a weapon to be fired after a model Advances (with -1 to hit).

Heavy imposes a -1 penalty to hit if the model moved.

Rapid Fire doubles the weapons rate of fire when within half-range.

(Note: Personally, I'd be inclined to tweak these further, but since that's outside the purview of this particular idea, I've basically left them the same.)


There are a few reasons why I think this would be a good idea:

1) It allows for basic weapons to actually be basic, rather than always having some ability (or for an ability other than the above). Not saying this is always appropriate, just that it seems weird when your system doesn't actually allow for such.

2) It allows for other weapon types to be added later.

3) It allows the existing weapon types to be combined. e.g. you can have a weapon that's a Pistol and also an Assault weapon. Or a weapon that's Heavy but also Rapid Fire. Or Assault and Rapid Fire. etc.

It's not a major change but it would be very simple to implement and it seems like it would give designers more options for weapons without them actually needing to invent any new rules or abilities.


Any thoughts?

Sounds good, I'd change just a few small things:

I'd bake the Advance ability into the base movement for a model - so increase the M by a small amount, say a footslogger that normally goes 6" +D6" becomes 8".

Then using that, we can apply the following tweaks:

Pistol - Leave as you have said.
Assault - Apply a -1 to hit if model has moved over half its movement.
Heavy - Leave as you have said.
Rapid Fire - Half range double shots, but only if the model hasn't moved, otherwise, it only fires 1 shot up to half range if it moved up to half its' M, or none if it moves fully. (Lets just take it back to 3E for this).
Basic - Excellent idea! This can be used for the majority of weapons, no negatives to hit if the model has moved up to half its' M, can't fire if it moves further. Examples of weapons which could use the Basic keyword:
Multilasers - Basic 3
Grenade Launchers - Basic 1
Hot-Shot Lasguns - Basic 1

Slayer6 wrote:

Sounds good, I'd change just a few small things:

I'd bake the Advance ability into the base movement for a model - so increase the M by a small amount, say a footslogger that normally goes 6" +D6" becomes 8".

Then using that, we can apply the following tweaks:

Pistol - Leave as you have said.
Assault - Apply a -1 to hit if model has moved over half its movement.
Heavy - Leave as you have said.
Rapid Fire - Half range double shots, but only if the model hasn't moved, otherwise, it only fires 1 shot up to half range if it moved up to half its' M, or none if it moves fully. (Lets just take it back to 3E for this).
Basic - Excellent idea! This can be used for the majority of weapons, no negatives to hit if the model has moved up to half its' M, can't fire if it moves further. Examples of weapons which could use the Basic keyword:
Multilasers - Basic 3
Grenade Launchers - Basic 1
Hot-Shot Lasguns - Basic 1

Wouldn't that be a pretty big nerf for melee armies and a pretty big indirect buff for gunlines that already sit still and shoot a lot of heavy weapons? Something like an ork boy crossing the table moving 5" + 2" when advancing is losing 1.5" of movement on average compared to the current rules. He'd also go from potentially moving 11" with a lucky advance to only ever moving 7". Any army that leans on its rapid fire weapons or assault weapons would also be getting nerfed because their overall threat range would be reduced. Meanwhile, static gunlines will be enjoying the decreased offense of the foes that bombard into the dust with their unnerfed offense.

Wyldhunt wrote:

Slayer6 wrote:

Sounds good, I'd change just a few small things:

I'd bake the Advance ability into the base movement for a model - so increase the M by a small amount, say a footslogger that normally goes 6" +D6" becomes 8".

Then using that, we can apply the following tweaks:

Pistol - Leave as you have said.
Assault - Apply a -1 to hit if model has moved over half its movement.
Heavy - Leave as you have said.
Rapid Fire - Half range double shots, but only if the model hasn't moved, otherwise, it only fires 1 shot up to half range if it moved up to half its' M, or none if it moves fully. (Lets just take it back to 3E for this).
Basic - Excellent idea! This can be used for the majority of weapons, no negatives to hit if the model has moved up to half its' M, can't fire if it moves further. Examples of weapons which could use the Basic keyword:
Multilasers - Basic 3
Grenade Launchers - Basic 1
Hot-Shot Lasguns - Basic 1

Wouldn't that be a pretty big nerf for melee armies and a pretty big indirect buff for gunlines that already sit still and shoot a lot of heavy weapons? Something like an ork boy crossing the table moving 5" + 2" when advancing is losing 1.5" of movement on average compared to the current rules. He'd also go from potentially moving 11" with a lucky advance to only ever moving 7". Any army that leans on its rapid fire weapons or assault weapons would also be getting nerfed because their overall threat range would be reduced. Meanwhile, static gunlines will be enjoying the decreased offense of the foes that bombard into the dust with their unnerfed offense.

The 2" was an example, a placeholder value. Different units would have different advance upgrades to boost their movement. Try the following:
Guardsman: 8"M
Space Marine: 9"M
Terminator: 7"M
Rough Rider: 12"M
Spore Mine: 4"M
Zoanthrope: 5"M
Hormagaunt: 13"M
All of the above are just placeholder ideas.

Essentially I'm taking Rapid Fire back to 3E, and simplifying the rest - less dice rolls, faster movement phase.

Some weapons which nominally belong on Vehicles etc, can gain the Basic keyword and are unaffected by movement to half distance - like the Multilaser.

Unless you make stuff like Bloodletters 9", they're gonna be slower.

And it REALLY penalizes mixed units-those that like to assault AND shoot. They're already pretty subpar, since specialists generally do better-do you want core rules to make them even worse?

Given a previous discussion I had about how morale should function differently, I think that suppression should be factored into weapon types as well.

IMO the default weapon should be effectively an assault weapon. You shouldn't actually need a special rule for that.

It should just be:

weapon range Strength Shots AP

So you can move and shoot your weapon. If you run you get -1 to hit.

Then you have:

Pistol - can be used as an additional melee weapon (profile attacks)

Light: - no penalty to shoot while running
heavy - -1 to hit if moving, -2 if running. -1 to morale tests

Full auto - at half range the weapon inflicts 2 hits for each 6 rolled. -1 to morale tests

(I hate rapid fire's doubling of attacks at half range.)