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.

SaintHazard wrote:Interesting. So theoretically, Marines should be BS5, except that they're idiots.

I like it!

Glad you do! Of course, GW will never admit it, but everyone knows it's true!

Killkrazy: No, they don't have to send in their whole army. But they do have to send one guy to check they won't all drown if they try to cross.

Scott-S6 wrote:The nice thing about pre-measuring is that it helps prevent the movement slippage that some people seem to have a problem with.

You know, where two units are >24" apart but three 6" moves and a 6" assault somehow gets them into combat...

Indeed.

Yes, and that is perfectly true. However, I think this would be best represented, not by pre-measuring, but by specialized wargear allowing premeasuring. Even the best soldier can't perfectly tell whether an object is 500 metres away or 550. However, this range could easily be significant in terms of being able to hit that target. As said earlier, grant veteran soldiers or commanders access to upgrades allowing pre-measuring, and avoid having to rework systems to allow for random changes in range.

If you've ever fired a gun for any length of time, you really pick up where your effective range is even without being a good judge of distances. No soldier except the designated sniper maybe will be engaging targets at 500 meters. The actual engagements take place well within the weapons' ranges.

And your proposed partial pre-measuring is a horrible solution. It doesn't fix the issue with movement cheating/fudging, if you can premeasure from some troops you can basically apply that to adjacent troops that don't have targeters (i.e. more "cheating", unless you bring back and modify the 3rd edition rule to not allow firing of any other weapon without a targeter once one weapon with a targeter has been fired), and it unbalances the game in favor of elite armies who would have more access to such equipment.

Yes, it is more realistic, but it's much more complicated as you pointed out yourself. Some may enjoy this extra complication, but to me that makes the game much less fun. We may differ here, but I'd rather spend more time killing things than trying to calculate all kinds of variables jjust to see if I can shoot something. More importantly, a lot of new players pick up 40k as their first game, and I like to think they get into it faster and easier because the rules are simple and easy to understand. Yes, there a little dumbed down, but it's so much easier to explain and introduce than Fantasy.

You don't calculate "if" you can shoot something, it just modifies your success rate. Frankly, if you can't do basic +1/-1 arithmetic, then you're an idiot. A "little" dumbed down? 40K is basically the preschool version of miniature wargames. But granted, that makes it more accessible, for preschoolers who won't read the rulebook anyway and just make up gak as they go along. Hell, from what I've seen, even folks in their 30s tend to do the same when it comes to 40K. Having a more robust and engaging ruleset may convince some people to actually read the rulebook. I know it's a slim hope, but I have noticed that 40k-exclusive players tend to be a bit on the dimwitted side compared to pretty much everyone else (yes, even the smelly guys playing Blood Bowl in the corner).

ChrisWWII wrote:My claim was based on knowing that a rifle must be properly sighted in order to be accurate, and its sights adjusted so that the bullet hits directly where you want it to at a certain range. If the target changes its range, you must then adjust your sights to compensate. Now, granted this only has an affect of inches over a hundred yards, but still. If you've got a gun sighted at 100 yards, and your being told to shoot at a target 150 yards away....that's going to throw off your accuracy. Part of why most soldier aim for center of mass...even if you're a few inches off you still hit them. But how is a poorly trained Guardsman gonna know that? More importantly...does a lasgun even have iron sights? o.O

Now, of course, I'm not a trained rifleman or a soldier, and if one could come along and tell us more about sighting a weapon as well as the impact range has on accuracy in the military that'd be awesome.

I'm trying to find a debate acceptable article for this....but I'm only finding blogs and stuff right now. I'll post a proper article when I find one.

Quite.

If you had to resight your rifle every time you switched from 100 to 150 yards or whatever, then rifles would be pretty crappy weapons on the whole. As you say, center body mass shots kill regardless and the drift is really minimal at such ranges. In fact, many modern sights just have increments so you can instantly adjust for any number of distances. Hell, I have pistols with multistage sights like that. A guardsman with the most elementary training would be adequately prepared for this task. And the point is moot anyway since a lasgun's "ballistics" (for a lack of a better term) are completely different and would not be affected by wind or gravity.

Given that you have actually fired guns for a period of time, and have experience with the topic, I will concede my points about sighting and range determining for you. I admitted I'm not trained, and have limited experience, and I was arguing as a layperson. I'm more than happy to bow out to someone with real experience.

Now, onto game mechanics......Well, you already can do that form of pre-measuring by using a unit with a crappy gun (Guardsman with lasguns) to get a range estimate for a bigger, more important toy (Heavy Weapons Squad with autocannons). If we accept that (which no one views as cheating), then there is no need whatsoever for either an upgrade as I suggested, or for pre-measuring as you suggest. I also don't understand why you think having a targeteer would be 'cheating' ? Even in a fluff sense, the guy with the targeteer wouldn't just be using it to sight for himself. He'd be shouting out range and whatever other information his comrades need, thus the squad, and most units near him in a vague sense get the benefit.

It would not have to unbalance it, if GW actually puts some effort into the rules, then we can get a good balance. I have no idea what balance changes those might be, but I'm sure it could be possible to see a properly balanced targeteer system.

On the topic of 'cheating' within movement. I think that's a factor with any wargame that uses models in loose formations like Warhammer 40k. No doubt some of the more stringent movement in Fantasy is because most major units are on bases, and instead of having to measure for 10 or more models, you only have to measure once for a whole bunch. I can tell you for sure, that I only measure for one or two models when I'm moving my Guardsmen, and then move the rest up behind them. Did some move more than 6"? Probably. But I value a game that runs fast and efficiently over one where I spend my time measuring for each individual guy.

Sorry, I meant if you can shoot something as 'can you shoot, hit and hurt the enemy'. I can do basic arithmetic easily, but on this, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. I play 40k so I can kick back, relax, and enjoy killing some heretics in the name of the God-Emperor. While I could easily do the math, I'd prefer not to for the sake of fun. Obviously, we differ in opinion on this, and aren't going to be convincing the other any time soon.

And I enjoy the open ruleset. It makes it very easy to convince people to join, excluding pre-schoolers. Some people are perfectly intelligent, but get a headache trying to learn all kinds of variations that come with a more complex ruleset. I'm very pleased with simpler rules, and I wouldn't want them made more complicated just to make the game more exclusive.

I don't want to make the game more exclusive, merely more engaging. But of course you're right that this is a very subjective aspect of the game.

By the way, what's with all the Russian stuff? The "k" is unnecessary in that sentence.

Eh, I'm a slight Russian culture/history nut who themed his IG as a Soviet Shock Army. Since I don't speak Russian (yet!) I had to use google translate to get the Russian of my army's battlecry....

It no doubt came out horribly, HORRIBLY for anyone who actually speaks Russian. It allegedly says: "For Emperor and Union!" but who knows?

Haha, no, it says "Death to the enemies of humanity". The 'k' is an out-of-place preposition.

You want "За Союз и Императора!" if you want to say "For Union and the Emperor!" I know I flipped the words, but it flows better than way when screaming in it in battle.

Woops, I suppose I should ask for that to be changed, shouldn't I? I could've sworn I had it as the latest one. Ah well. Thanks for the heads up!