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.

One thing that really annoys me in games is that you can only centre a blast on top of a certain models head. My proposal is that the controlling player can choose to centre a blast on top of a models head and scatter the normal 2D6, however they could also choose to centre it over a point in order to cover more models from a certain unit etc etc, but it should then scatter 3D6. Note that both of the scatters should still minus the models BS

e.g. SM devastator plasma cannon fires at a point rather than over a models head and so therefore it rolls 3D6 scatter taking away the 4 inches for the BS

I'm absolutely on board for something like that. It is the primary reason weapons like Frag Missiles and Plasma Cannons aren't worth their points, even though they're sound in theory.

Frankly, I have to say I like the idea as well. There's a reason that I have come to hate small blasts. You only ever seem to hit 2 or 3 models at best with a direct hit. Direct hits should yield greater utility than a lucky scatter onto 4 or 5 guys. Then single blast weapons like those SF mentioned would be actually worth their points, and we wouldn't have to rely on multi-shot blasts like Wyverns and Executioners so much.

If I'm not mistaken, you aren't actually required to put the blast on a model's head or even to center it over the base. I'm pretty sure you just have to put the center of the blast over a model in general. So that helps.

I do like the idea of being able to target a location rather than a unit, but here are a few thoughts:

*Would you still have to declare a unit as the "target" even if you don't center the blast on them? How would this interact with Jink, invisibility, etc.?
*Do you have to actually put any enemy models from the "target" unit under the blast when you fire it? Or could I declare an enemy on the left flank as my target, then put the blast over a unit on the right flankf or jink shenanigans?
*Why does aiming at a general area make you scatter so much more than normal? I'm pretty sure artillery isn't normally aiming for a single guy's face. I"m pretty sure they just go for a general area and trust in the size of the blast to do its job.
*Would it be problematic to simply say, "A blast weapon must be placed such that the blast covers at least one model from the target unit, but may otherwise be placed as the controlling player sees fit"?

Wyldhunt wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, you aren't actually required to put the blast on a model's head or even to center it over the base. I'm pretty sure you just have to put the center of the blast over a model in general. So that helps.

I do like the idea of being able to target a location rather than a unit, but here are a few thoughts:

*Would you still have to declare a unit as the "target" even if you don't center the blast on them? How would this interact with Jink, invisibility, etc.?
*Do you have to actually put any enemy models from the "target" unit under the blast when you fire it? Or could I declare an enemy on the left flank as my target, then put the blast over a unit on the right flankf or jink shenanigans?
*Why does aiming at a general area make you scatter so much more than normal? I'm pretty sure artillery isn't normally aiming for a single guy's face. I"m pretty sure they just go for a general area and trust in the size of the blast to do its job.
*Would it be problematic to simply say, "A blast weapon must be placed such that the blast covers at least one model from the target unit, but may otherwise be placed as the controlling player sees fit"?

Some really interesting points here. It is not until you start thinking about changing the 40k ruleset that you realise just how complicated it is. I was thinking that your last one could well be an idea perhaps if the blast covers two units you can target the unit and they can take jink saves etc, but any other models caught under the blast not from that unit cannot take cover? This could represent little time to react sort of thing. However the blast HAS to cover at least one model from the target unit. Of course if you are trying to catch two units under one blast so that one does not get its jink save, you're likely to be covering less models in total anyway, due to space bewteen the seperate units, so it sort of balances itself out I guess?
And yes artillery doesn't usually aim for one guy's face but that is sometimes the way it seems in 40k