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.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Mind clarifying your position a bit?

The point is that you need to have a reason to propose a rule. If it's a new unit, you need to have a solid concept for the fluff and model before you start making up rules. If it's a balance change you need to have a thorough understanding of all of the rules involved and a compelling argument that a problem exists and needs to be changed. So far the entire argument for changing the barrage rules is based on not understanding the barrage rules and/or "I'm afraid of this, make it go away". And that's not even close to a good starting point for proposing changes.

I'm not afraid of it, I've explained my reasoning. Movement is skill. LoS Blocking is an aspect of movement. Barrage weapons ignore this element of movement and so reduce the skill inherent in the game. Ergo, I'd be happy if they were altered so that they did not do this to the same extent.

Thats my reason. The reason is based on personal opinion which you are welcome not to share, but its still a reason and a perfectly valid one.

Anyway, as motyak said, it's a pointless discussion and I'm not one to have an e-argument for the sake of arguing. Cheers for clearing up some of the barrage weapon myths though.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Barrage weapons ignore this element of movement and so reduce the skill inherent in the game.

Just like deep striking and outflanking units ignore this aspect by hitting you from the other side of the LOS blocker and seeing you just fine. Ban deep striking and outflanking, along with any fast units that could just move around it?

Also, every skill has a counter. Why is it a problem if one of the counters to using LOS blocking terrain is a weapon type that is fairly rare and not always very effective? So far it just sounds like you just want to remove that counter instead of making different strategy or list building choices to deal with it.

(Kind of like your solution to not being able to see over an ADL with your chosen unit is MFA, but that's a different subject...)

Some of the posters here (and I'm not naming names or pointing fingers) may want to re-read what insaniak posted here.

Its more the principle than anything else. LoS blocking terrain is as rare here as it is in the rest of the world. But with this rule it is as though GW has gone "what? you want to *add* this gak to our game? lolnope"

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dakkamite wrote:

(Kind of like your solution to not being able to see over an ADL with your chosen unit is MFA, but that's a different subject...)

Oh no you didn't, Mr "Accepted Convention".

With regards to the ADL, see;

 Sleg wrote:
I only play 40k to have fun - the rules are just a guide to play.

This is why certain individuals are completely wrong when they call me a "WAAC powergamer" or someone who "MFA". I play like this 99% of the time, and that other 1%, well, it just so happens here in NZ, we're super laid back even at tournaments ~ 100% non-GW model acceptance, blatant counts-as, a certain degree of 'take-backs', and fiddling with the rules for reasons of common sense are the norm not the exception.

Ergo, when I asked the TOs of two seperate tournaments about the Aegis I got an overwhelming "sure, makes sense to me". If the TOs of NZ tournaments are fine with it, then that is clear indication that the norms of competitive play in my area have not been breached and what seems to cause a personal affront to certain members is in fact, totally ok, meaning they need to clear the sand outta their vags and deal with it.

Anyway, this is well and truly off topic and like posts from several members have indicated, I don't think this thread is going anywhere productive.

I don't really care about whether or not you play your games with S3 AP6 bolters or AV10 Land Raiders.

Just don't come onto this forum and expect us to say its a good idea.

The point of this forum is to suggest changes to the main game that you think make sense. However, after four pages, the Barrage and Multiple Barrage rule is still being misunderstood, and understanding what you're changing is key to literally everything you do ever. You simply cannot come into this forum, suggest taking out a major rule, and expect it to go over well. Especially if we realize you don't know what you're talking about.

If you starting talking about how you got facerolled by Dark Angels in LRCs so they should be AV13, the LRCs don't need to be changed, something you're doing (or not doing) does. Sure, the game and rules are malleable, but so are your tactics. If you're tired of Land Raiders, spam deep striking Melta weapons. If you hate barrage weapons... well, spam fast/deep striking/outflanking Melta weapons.

Asking for tips on how to beat a certain type of unit goes over a lot better and makes you a better player than proposing taking out a rule. Overcoming a challenge is what makes the game fun, not taking out rules because they hurt your chances of winning.

Now can we please lock this thread?

Ahh lol, I'm sorry but I do find some humour out of these threads...

Anyway from what I've felt, barrage is situational. Sometimes its awesome sometimes its not, just like most things. It's just that it's worse for some and with things like the orks codex, it is more problematic than other things. For example, a manticore is yes a disheartening sight when I have orks on the table, but with marines, no more problematic than anything else.

If you really feel there should be some changes these would be my 2 proposals:
- my main issue is a sniping aspect of it, and whilst it makes sense for hits to be resolved from the centre the fact that it hits as much as any other template in LOS doesn't make sense to me.
So...
- as said before, it always scatters when out of LOS and if a hit is resolved then the BS modifier is added. When in LOS fires normally, unless its some type that has to always fire indirectly. So it would work like a variation of the orbital bombardment.
- or have it as it is, but make it that the owning player allocates the wounds to the models hit. So just like old 5th ed rules for blasts. Not as fluffy I feel, but still resolves the issue and doesn't screw them over so much since they can still hit.

Or otherwise just field a biker army and dakkajets. Can't hit fliers and bikers still get a 4+ cover and its not like they're 50pt nob bikers, just 25pt regular joes. They'd only get a turn of shooting as well + large bases = few hits.

 Dakkamite wrote:
LoS blocking terrain is as rare here as it is in the rest of the world.

So why don't you fix your terrain problems instead of trying to change the rules? Just like with the MFA stuff it seems like your first response to inconvenience is to change the rules to remove it.

But with this rule it is as though GW has gone "what? you want to *add* this gak to our game? lolnope"

You realize the barrage rules have been pretty much the same for a long time, right? This isn't anything new.

I like Dakkamite, but I only play Orks so as a fellow Ork player I have to ask why in the heck are you against the Current Barrage rules?

The Lobba is the only thing outside of Character Pecision shots that Orks have that some what gives us a Sniper. Don't ruin our only quasi-Sniper weapon!!!

Gotta ask then McNinja, where do you go to discuss custom campaign rules, or unique characters or units you've come up with? Or dare I say it, a fandex for Tyranids? Theres nothing at all in here that I can see that suggests it must be only rule changes for the main game - because sure as gak GW will never adopt a single idea from this place, meaning you'll never get to use that fandex, or that character, without your opponents explicit permission, making it homebrew 40k rather than the real deal. And if its already homebrew 40k, if your already changing the rules of the game in one way, whats wrong with proposing alterations of a different nature?

it seems like your first response to inconvenience is to change the rules to remove it.

If I don't like something in my games, I don't see why I should be forced to tolerate it if it can be removed. And I mean 'don't like', not 'can't beat' - Orks suck verses AV 14, yet I've never attempted to remove it as I see it as a reasonable aspect of the game. Flame templates eat us alive... yet I take no issue with them because they're only deployable at close range.

I see this as no different than requesting a "no fliers" or "casual list only" game ~ taking 40k and fixing the issues that I have with it so that I enjoy it more. Likewise in such games should the other guy dislike something about the game I will remove that as well (few weeks ago, we ran "no vehicles" so my opponents Thunderwolf Cavalry list would be viable), and we can both have a better time of it; the strength of games like these as opposed to, say, computer games, is that we have full creative control over the game, and theres absolutely no reason why it should be taken 'as is' and not improved upon if the improvements lead to more enjoyable gameplay.

 PipeAlley wrote:
I like Dakkamite, but I only play Orks so as a fellow Ork player I have to ask why in the heck are you against the Current Barrage rules?

The Lobba is the only thing outside of Character Pecision shots that Orks have that some what gives us a Sniper. Don't ruin our only quasi-Sniper weapon!!!

Bro, you ever tried the Grot Bomm Launcha? Take a Lobba and give it a bigger blast, re-roll scatter dice, and Kannon krak round stats. You want a sniper weapon? How does 10x S8 AP3 hits on a character until he keels over sound?

And at the same time, sniping all of your opponents non-terminator HQ in turn one... its not something that lends itself well to friendly games as Sleg said.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Gotta ask then McNinja, where do you go to discuss custom campaign rules, or unique characters or units you've come up with?

Right here. You do realize that their complaint was about poor quality proposed rules, not the idea of proposed rules itself, right? The problem with your proposals isn't that their new rules, it's that they're bad ideas.

If I don't like something in my games, I don't see why I should be forced to tolerate it if it can be removed.

Because your opponent is playing the game too. Why should they have to take a nerf to their barrage weapons just so you don't have to put in the effort to come up with a counter strategy?

And at the same time, sniping all of your opponents non-terminator HQ in turn one... its not something that lends itself well to friendly games as Sleg said.

Well yeah, playing with loaded dice isn't going to make you very popular.

(That is the only way you're sniping all those HQs.)

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dakkamite wrote:
LoS blocking terrain is as rare here as it is in the rest of the world.

So why don't you fix your terrain problems instead of trying to change the rules? Just like with the MFA stuff it seems like your first response to inconvenience is to change the rules to remove it.

But with this rule it is as though GW has gone "what? you want to *add* this gak to our game? lolnope"

You realize the barrage rules have been pretty much the same for a long time, right? This isn't anything new.

can't believe I'm agreeing with Peregrine, but...

Many of your proposals into changing the game seem to only benefit one person: you. Ever ask aIG player if he hates barrage? or ask your opponent how they like your attempt to model walking cover with a custom model?

If the rules don't agree with your play style, you may need to find a new game. Otherwise, adjust your tactics, that may end up working better than changing the rules to fit the way you play.

Dakkamite wrote:n 'don't like', not 'can't beat' - Orks suck verses AV 14, yet I've never attempted to remove it as I see it as a reasonable aspect of the game. Flame templates eat us alive... yet I take no issue with them because they're only deployable at close range.

I see this as no different than requesting a "no fliers" or "casual list only" game ~ taking 40k and fixing the issues that I have with it so that I enjoy it more. Likewise in such games should the other guy dislike something about the game I will remove that as well (few weeks ago, we ran "no vehicles" so my opponents Thunderwolf Cavalry list would be viable), and we can both have a better time of it; the strength of games like these as opposed to, say, computer games, is that we have full creative control over the game, and theres absolutely no reason why it should be taken 'as is' and not improved upon if the improvements lead to more enjoyable gameplay.

The only thing that's changed about barrage weapons in like...3 editions is the wound allocation rules, aside from that, they're the same as they've always been, were you so against such weapons in previous editions?

Bro, you ever tried the Grot Bomm Launcha? Take a Lobba and give it a bigger blast, re-roll scatter dice, and Kannon krak round stats. You want a sniper weapon? How does 10x S8 AP3 hits on a character until he keels over sound?

We're also neglecting to mention that these are 1 shot weapons on an AV10 open topped 2HP buggy, and you can't even take 10 of them. Your character still gets Look Out Sir! rolls, plus any cover saves for terrain they are in, and you generally have to manage a Hit for it to work at all, assuming the character isn't in a transport or in reserve or something. If you know you're facing those, then you can hold your character in reserve to give you time to engage the platforms, put them spread out and in area terrain, etc.

As a Tyranid player, I use Biovores. As an Eldar player I've used the Nightspinner since it had an official GW model. In my experience (due to my dice luck), the Nightspinner is one of the few ways to slow down a foot-slogging Green Tide (I can hit, I just can't wound...). I don't use Barrage to model snipe, I use to inflict massive casualties (or not...) slow down the enemy or just get more targets on the board.

If my opponent wants to play with his Manticores or his Vendettas or his Helldrakes *that* much then honestly, theres plenty of other people they can do so with and that doesn't bother me at all. All of my games are prearranged, and all of them are noncompetitive; so its not like I'm rocking up to a FLGS and saying "play it like this or feth off, scrub" and people are free to accept, reject, or negotiate the game like adults well before it happens.

I'd be interested to know, as to why you guys consider wanting a "no barrage weapons" or "nerfed barrage weapons" game to be any different then wanting to play "no fliers" or "no named characters" or "no vehicles" in a game? Or to play Kill Team, or Zone Mortalis, a previous edition of the game, unique or campaign missions or some kind of custom gametype I've come up with myself?

The most recent tournament at my club was "no fliers", and I actually played played No Vehicles the other week, at my opponents request. A tournament coming up in a month is "no forgeworld" and has a restricted force org. Fantasy tournaments in the country also routinely put all sorts of restrictions on the game; maximum HQ point cost, maximum X of any unit type, cannot use this spell or that item ~ is any of this wrong in any way? Its all changing the rules to the preference of a player or TO to remove stuff they don't want in the game, exactly what I'm doing here.

were you so against such weapons in previous editions?

Only started playing this edition. Given what I've heard about Parking Lot edition, I imagine their barrage rules would be even worse somehow.

and you can't even take 10 of them

Its not one hit per shot, its multiple hits as far as I can tell (score ten hits on a unit, resolve them one at a time against the nearest model... the HQ). 5+ HIT chance, lots of hits with modest scatter, and a re-roll if it all goes wrong, alongside the newly discovered multiple barrage rules means that this would be happening alot. Roll well and you could certainly put more than ten of these hits on HQs across the board. And some people don't like the idea of their HQ being nuked in this way, if he has to die, better to die amidst a pile of the enermy's dead.

No vehicles? The Hive Mind loves this idea - much easier to get the deliciousness when you don't have to crack open a tuna can first...

 Dakkamite wrote:
If my opponent wants to play with his Manticores or his Vendettas or his Helldrakes *that* much then honestly, theres plenty of other people they can do so with and that doesn't bother me at all.

I see, so your starting position for negotiation is "I don't want to have to figure out a way to beat your list, so I won't play you unless you remove everything that's hard for me to deal with".

I'd be interested to know, as to why you guys consider wanting a "no barrage weapons" or "nerfed barrage weapons" game to be any different then wanting to play "no fliers" or "no named characters" or "no vehicles" in a game?

I don't think it's any different. I hate all of them.

is any of this wrong in any way?

Yes, all of it is. Those rules are almost always made by people who respond to every loss by blaming "overpowered" rules and insist on banning anything that their current list would have problems with instead of learning how to deal with it and win.

alongside the newly discovered multiple barrage rules

You mean the multiple barrage rules that make your barrage weapons worse than if you were allowed to just shoot them individually like multiple blast weapons?

Roll well and you could certainly put more than ten of these hits on HQs across the board.

And then after 2+ LOS and any invulnerable/area terrain saves the characters have you might kill one, as long as it has 3+ or worse armor. How exactly is this a problem?

And some people don't like the idea of their HQ being nuked in this way, if he has to die, better to die amidst a pile of the enermy's dead.

Too bad. I want my Leman Russ to kill enemy after enemy while everything bounces off its armor, but I'm not going to demand a ban on melta and drop pods because my opponent disagreed and killed it with a pod of comb-meltas.

Or a Terminator sneaking up to the rear and going dakka dakka with an assault cannon.

You have to admit, the Leman Russ has some hilariously weak rear armor.

 Kain wrote:
Or a Terminator sneaking up to the rear and going dakka dakka with an assault cannon.

You have to admit, the Leman Russ has some hilariously weak rear armor.

Leman Russes have the best rear armour of any tank short of a Land Raider/Monolith, don't they? (some patterns anyway).

 motyak wrote:

 Kain wrote:
Or a Terminator sneaking up to the rear and going dakka dakka with an assault cannon.

You have to admit, the Leman Russ has some hilariously weak rear armor.

Leman Russes have the best rear armour of any tank short of a Land Raider/Monolith, don't they? (some patterns anyway).

10/11, just like everyone else save for superheavies.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dakkamite wrote:
If my opponent wants to play with his Manticores or his Vendettas or his Helldrakes *that* much then honestly, theres plenty of other people they can do so with and that doesn't bother me at all.

I see, so your starting position for negotiation is "I don't want to have to figure out a way to beat your list, so I won't play you unless you remove everything that's hard for me to deal with".

Your just ignoring my posts now. I've said multiple times that I put up with everything but barrage weapons.

I don't think it's any different. I hate all of them.

Yes, all of it is. Those rules are almost always made by people who respond to every loss by blaming "overpowered" rules and insist on banning anything that their current list would have problems with instead of learning how to deal with it and win.

Well that explains it. Your hell-bent on playing 40k 'as-is', and thats fine if thats how you and your opponents want to play. Just don't try to force that on me.

 Kain wrote:

 motyak wrote:

 Kain wrote:
Or a Terminator sneaking up to the rear and going dakka dakka with an assault cannon.

You have to admit, the Leman Russ has some hilariously weak rear armor.

Leman Russes have the best rear armour of any tank short of a Land Raider/Monolith, don't they? (some patterns anyway).

10/11, just like everyone else save for superheavies.

Who else has 11?

edit: oh yeah Necrons don't they. I always forget about them.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Your just ignoring my posts now. I've said multiple times that I put up with everything but barrage weapons.

Wanting to nerf/ban barrage weapons or you won't play is just as bad.

(And of course I'll note that this "one" thing is after you've MFAed your way out of some other annoyances.)

Well that explains it. Your hell-bent on playing 40k 'as-is', and thats fine if thats how you and your opponents want to play. Just don't try to force that on me.

You're right, I think it's better to play the game as-is than to nerf your opponent's army because you'd rather not have to learn how to counter their strategy.

Sounds like you and I have a different idea of "fun" then, because that sounds boring as hell.

You know what else sounds boring as hell? Changing the rules so that characters can only die "heroically" because you can't figure out a way to get your character into combat.

I'm also an Ork Player and have used Lobbas. Basically, I play friendly games and we follow the rules as long as it doesn't interfere with having fun. We as a group, agreed on how Barrage should be played and yes it's an interpretation as best we can follow, RAW.

If the rules are used the way some of you see them, I would vote to ban it from the game. Barrage in my mind walks a thin line between being useful and nasty.

Yes, there are players that can't play unless they are follow the rules in their strictest sense. Unfortunately for them, they become bystanders and if I'm busy in another game or planned to test something, all they can do is watch in silence.

I never want to be that player. I currently do not play for money or prizes like I did 20 years ago and I was a nasty player (I sometimes think hey wrote the fair sportsmanship thing because of me). The sad thing was I wasn't even having fun playing. Now I'm older and probably a little less wiser, but I will walk away from a game that isn't fun. I will shake my opponents hand and pack up my figures. My opponent can count it as a win all they want, but I will not play them again.

For those of you on the "DONT take my wonderful Barrage away" - uh Mcfly! We aren't doing that this is a place to discuss if you want to defend Barrage, then defend it - I will ignore anyone that tells me, here in Proposed Rules, that I need to read the rulebook and not tell me what their issue actually is.

I only come here to have a few laughs, get some ideas, play the game, and come back here to tell you about it. If you are just trolling with nothing to contribute to the discussion, find another thread and Rules Rage all you want there.

Jesus, the discussion goes round and round in circles with you Peregrine, doesn't it? You just can't accept the fact that some people want to do things their way and not yours.

Kind of sick of being told "it's my way or the highway" by some dude on the other side of the world who isn't happy that I play the game differently from him. But I guess thats just the 'accepted convention' of dealing with someone like yourself, though in this case, I'm sure more than 24% of people would agree with it.

So Dakkamike, what exactly do you want?

I see you making a huge fuss against people who disagree with you, and for what? I mean, what purpose is it serving at all?

And for the record, Peregrine is spot on, in my opinion. You're free to house rule anything as you want, but when you post something on a forum, you are not protected from people telling you that they think it is bad.

Nope. I think you will find more people who play the rules as written and figure out how to modify their tactics rather than whine about how a rule sucks and figures it should be changed. Barrage seems to work fine for everyone else but you.

 Dakkamite wrote:
You just can't accept the fact that some people want to do things their way and not yours.

I can accept it. I like the idea of inventing new units/scenarios/etc. You're confusing my dislike of your specific bad ideas with a "I hate house rules" policy.

Kind of sick of being told "it's my way or the highway" by some dude on the other side of the world who isn't happy that I play the game differently from him.

If you don't like criticism of your ideas then don't post them on a forum. Part of having a proposed rules forum instead of a proposed rules "post your cool rule for everyone to praise" is that you discuss the proposed rules, and when you post a terrible idea that is pretty much just "I don't want to figure out how to beat this, make it go away" you should expect to have people tell you it's a bad idea.

I was going to go on another tangent but I have to say this is the Proposed Rules Forum, not Make the Call. Here we ONLY talk about changing the rules, New Ideas, and possibly things we haven't even tried before.

SO everyone that is stuck on "That's the way it was written and that's the way it should be" you are in the WRONG place - go Rules Rage on any other forum except Proposed Rules.

If you like the current rules - I would finally like to know why, "because I said so" is not a valid argument, it's not even an argument.
I like Barrage Because it allows me to Sniper in an army list that doesn't have snipers - very valid. How does Dakkamite's Proposed Rule for Barrage effect your ability to snipe? If you don't care about Dakkamite's proposed rule - Do NOT respond to this thread!

 curran12 wrote:
So Dakkamike, what exactly do you want?

I see you making a huge fuss against people who disagree with you, and for what? I mean, what purpose is it serving at all?

And for the record, Peregrine is spot on, in my opinion. You're free to house rule anything as you want, but when you post something on a forum, you are not protected from people telling you that they think it is bad.

I've never asked for that protection nor expected it, and I have no issue with people disliking my rule. Look through my posts, I must have said it a dozen times by now. Its people who think they can tell me that I cannot use it that I take issue with. This is two different things, one is "I dislike the rule and wouldn't use it", the other is "it's my way or the highway".

As for kicking up a fuss, I have on multiple occasions tried to end the conversation and mentioned how pointless this thread is, only to have it dragged on by others. If someone makes a snide comment about my "modelling for advantage", you can bet your ass I'm going to reply to that person.

Nope

You think its not ok for some people to play the game differently than you? I personally find that opinion disgusting, but your entitled to it.

You're confusing my dislike of your specific bad ideas with a "I hate house rules" policy.

You've specifically told me that you *do* have a "I hate house rules" policy:

 Peregrine wrote:
I don't think it's any different. I hate all of them.

Anyway, contradictory statements aside, if you've got no problem with my playing the game how I like then I've got no problem with your disliking the way that I play it. Which means providing you abstain from anymore jerkass comments then this fruitless conversation can end.