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.

Consider this... the bigger the target... the easier it is to hit... for example... Instead of a Marine needing the usual 3+ to hit a monsterous Creature with a ranged weapon they only need a 2+? Instead of Snapshots against Monsterous Creatures being 6+ you just need a 5+? Or maybe instead of adding to BS, provide a reroll or something?

I was thinking about this after reading a 'random charge is the worst rule in 6th ed' topic...

I was reading through the thread and was thinking to myself that I like the random charge distance.
Then I got to thinking what do I think is the worst rule in 6th ed? I was thinking non-skyfire shots to flyers being snapshots kind of sucking... big targets like that should be easier to hit, I was thinking.

Then I got to thinking what if there was a general 'size affects hitting' rule...

What do you folks think? Maybe it would would make shooting overpowered?

It would add a nice element of realism to the game, but it would be hard to implement, there would be lots open to interpretation. One could argue that the size of a defiler matters and one could argue it doesn't because there's so much extra unnecessary space. Also range should impact it slightly as shooting a carbides from farther away is going to be harder than up close

Redhawk wrote:
It would add a nice element of realism to the game, but it would be hard to implement, there would be lots open to interpretation. One could argue that the size of a defiler matters and one could argue it doesn't because there's so much extra unnecessary space. Also range should impact it slightly as shooting a carbides from farther away is going to be harder than up close

Yeah.. I was figuring interpretation might be a thing of contention... especially with the myriad of ways people model things.

Range being and impact is an interesting idea. Games that utilize that factor are pretty fun... keeps you from getting too close or staying back and turtling. Actually, if I'm remembering correclty (and I'm probably not), doesn't Fantasy factor in range some how? I've only played 1 game of 7th and 1 game of 8th and I don't remember.

Fantasy use to when I played, but I have no clue about now. Thou I would not be surprised if it does.

As for range being a factor, that can be kinda iffy. Tanks in RL have a huge range for their main guns and some sniper rifles are good up to a Kilometer away (I would have to double check that thou), our handguns can easy be fired at targets approximently 25-50 meters away effectively, rifles farther. Considering the setting is 33,000ish years ahead of us, their weapons could possibly exceed these ranges and I would expect them to. Because of thatI don't feel range modifers are well suited to standered 40k, there is also the fact weapons, helms, etc, might have some type of range finding, etc that help limit loss of accuracy in the close range fire fights.

I've personally always considered the range of the weapons at the ranges the troopers were trained to use them to their greatest effect, not the weapons maxim range where factors like wind resistance, drop off, etc become a major issue and take greater training to compensate for.

SaintofDaemons wrote:
Fantasy use to when I played, but I have no clue about now. Thou I would not be surprised if it does.

As for range being a factor, that can be kinda iffy. Tanks in RL have a huge range for their main guns and some sniper rifles are good up to a Kilometer away (I would have to double check that thou), our handguns can easy be fired at targets approximently 25-50 meters away effectively, rifles farther. Considering the setting is 33,000ish years ahead of us, their weapons could possibly exceed these ranges and I would expect them to. Because of thatI don't feel range modifers are well suited to standered 40k, there is also the fact weapons, helms, etc, might have some type of range finding, etc that help limit loss of accuracy in the close range fire fights.

I've personally always considered the range of the weapons at the ranges the troopers were trained to use them to their greatest effect, not the weapons maxim range where factors like wind resistance, drop off, etc become a major issue and take greater training to compensate for.

The whole real scale vs. game scale when it comes to range always did kind of bother me. But at the same time I guess for playability the ranges are not so realistic... I've always wanted to play a game in a large room where ranges were extended... you'd need multiple tables you'd need freaking yardsticks to measure distances because stuff would be far away. Its one reason I've always wanted to try smaller scale model games like 15mm... sure it still wouldn't be realistic ranges but I'd be able to put things in a larger field of play or something like that.

 djphranq wrote:
Consider this... the bigger the target... the easier it is to hit... for example... Instead of a Marine needing the usual 3+ to hit a monsterous Creature with a ranged weapon they only need a 2+? Instead of Snapshots against Monsterous Creatures being 6+ you just need a 5+? Or maybe instead of adding to BS, provide a reroll or something?

I was thinking about this after reading a 'random charge is the worst rule in 6th ed' topic...

I was reading through the thread and was thinking to myself that I like the random charge distance.
Then I got to thinking what do I think is the worst rule in 6th ed? I was thinking non-skyfire shots to flyers being snapshots kind of sucking... big targets like that should be easier to hit, I was thinking.

Then I got to thinking what if there was a general 'size affects hitting' rule...

What do you folks think? Maybe it would would make shooting overpowered?

And vehicles went extinct.

And how would you solve vehicle cover, this vehicle is in a forrest, friendly models infront of it, its a landraider and only 25% is visible?

Bishop F Gantry wrote:

 djphranq wrote:
Consider this... the bigger the target... the easier it is to hit... for example... Instead of a Marine needing the usual 3+ to hit a monsterous Creature with a ranged weapon they only need a 2+? Instead of Snapshots against Monsterous Creatures being 6+ you just need a 5+? Or maybe instead of adding to BS, provide a reroll or something?

I was thinking about this after reading a 'random charge is the worst rule in 6th ed' topic...

I was reading through the thread and was thinking to myself that I like the random charge distance.
Then I got to thinking what do I think is the worst rule in 6th ed? I was thinking non-skyfire shots to flyers being snapshots kind of sucking... big targets like that should be easier to hit, I was thinking.

Then I got to thinking what if there was a general 'size affects hitting' rule...

What do you folks think? Maybe it would would make shooting overpowered?

And vehicles went extinct.

And how would you solve vehicle cover, this vehicle is in a forrest, friendly models infront of it, its a landraider and only 25% is visible?

I would think the cover would cancel out the bonus I mentioned.

Would not work, D6 system is too inprecise. Replace it with D20 or D10 system and I'd be happy to agree with this.

I kind of like that about the D6 though for a game like 40k.

Though, a system that utilized D20 or D10 I still totally would get behind too for if I wasn't in the mood for 40k.