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.

BrianDavion wrote:
a big reason why GW would rather reduce points for under performing units etc rather then massivly change the rules is it's a lot easier to adjust a single number then re-write a datasheet. Also buffing units tends to be more well regarded. if you've ever played a MMO when a major patch ahs nerfed a class you'll know how well people react when their class is nerfed,. it's a LOT easier to buff everything up in terms of avoiding complaints

...And you force people to buy more models to play the game...

There's no need to give reasonings behind why GW haven't done this sort of thing, the answer is so brief as to be written with but 3 characters; £££.

Heavy weapons used to be primarily carried on vehicles. I would be happy with the idea of perhaps -2 to hit with heavy weapons if you move, -1 to hit with rapidfire weapons if you move, no penalty for assault weapons.

I would also perhaps combine this with the rules being discussed on another thread, however, for suppression.

The jist of my suggestion there is that instead of morale casualties, a unit which fails a morale check becomes suppressed. A suppressed unit cannot be targeted by stratagems, cannot fire overwatch, and cannot use auras.

Stating that an infantry model which moves with a heavy weapon becomes suppressed would remove this silly business of "I move so shoot at -1 to hit, but have +2 because of these 2 guys nearby and I can reroll to hit because of that guy nearby and reroll ones to wound because of that other guy nearby, I have an additional -1 to AP because of this special rule and I can shoot twice because of this stratagem".

move with a heavy weapon, you fire at -1 to hit and that's that. you're only efficient at shooting with it if you stand still.

I do see the point about not being able to move and fire at all, though. That would make for a lot of stalemates.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
a big reason why GW would rather reduce points for under performing units etc rather then massivly change the rules is it's a lot easier to adjust a single number then re-write a datasheet. Also buffing units tends to be more well regarded. if you've ever played a MMO when a major patch ahs nerfed a class you'll know how well people react when their class is nerfed,. it's a LOT easier to buff everything up in terms of avoiding complaints

...And you force people to buy more models to play the game...

right, it';s win-win-win for GW

Outliers like Grots and Knights aside... as a basic concept, how about doubling the wounds of everything?

a_typical_hero wrote:
Outliers like Grots and Knights aside... as a basic concept, how about doubling the wounds of everything?

I don't think that's a good idea. You've got bookkeeping on every squad, and every new weapon would come out with 2 damage. CC hordes and short-range guns would almost always make it into range. plus tanks would become the king of the meta.

Reducing how well you shoot rather than the impact of a successful wound would achieve similar reduced mortality but without the feeling of being ineffective.

If Suppression was introduced, it could be inflicted by hits. So shoot at something to suppress them, and maybe even wound them.

As it is, the sole purpose of everything in 40k is to remove enemy models - the only way you affect the enemy's turn is your target selection. If you can inflict modifiers, restrictions and effects on the enemy without warranting huge casualties, you make the game much more tactical.

IGOUGO is a big issue so yeah, that does have a big impact on killiness.
I find that how "granular" a scale we have is rather limiting where one point on the D6 makes a 16% difference.
D12 or percentile can allow for finer differentiation in model capability so then becoming useless or OP is less likely to happen.

Sure, make the models worse but do we focus on costing or capability?
Due to the high level of randomization in the game anything that circumvents a die roll or boils it down to a 16% failure rate are the OP items.
Those deserve the focus.
The stratagem "wild" cards are what help improve odds or ignore them altogether so that is why there is such a focus of "farming" for command points.

You could readily change the CP structure or the costing of stratagems or downgrade them, those are also viable options.

 some bloke wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
Outliers like Grots and Knights aside... as a basic concept, how about doubling the wounds of everything?

I don't think that's a good idea. You've got bookkeeping on every squad, and every new weapon would come out with 2 damage. CC hordes and short-range guns would almost always make it into range. plus tanks would become the king of the meta.

Reducing how well you shoot rather than the impact of a successful wound would achieve similar reduced mortality but without the feeling of being ineffective.

If Suppression was introduced, it could be inflicted by hits. So shoot at something to suppress them, and maybe even wound them.

As it is, the sole purpose of everything in 40k is to remove enemy models - the only way you affect the enemy's turn is your target selection. If you can inflict modifiers, restrictions and effects on the enemy without warranting huge casualties, you make the game much more tactical.

Regarding the bolded part:
- Not more bookkeeping than any Primaris only army. I haven't played one myself, but I haven't read that as a problem on Dakka, so not sure if people would mind that much.
- But if you make all the basic weapons D2 (or doubling the damage, depending on what you were going for), then doubling the wounds is an excercise in futility . What I propose is to make everything twice the wounds, but keep the damage.
- A common phrase on these boards is "Unit xy is alright in CC, but the problem is getting there", so making these units more viable by almost guaranteeing them to see melee during the game would help, I think.
- I said outliers aside Units that are already *very* durable or that are supposed to be killed easily by *a stiff breeze* need to be scrutinied in detail. For your bog standard infantry... I think it could be a sleek, easy to implement way to reduce lethality.

BrianDavion wrote:
a big reason why GW would rather reduce points for under performing units etc rather then massivly change the rules is it's a lot easier to adjust a single number then re-write a datasheet. Also buffing units tends to be more well regarded. if you've ever played a MMO when a major patch ahs nerfed a class you'll know how well people react when their class is nerfed,. it's a LOT easier to buff everything up in terms of avoiding complaints

Which is a terrible way to design a game. Sometimes you have to use the nerf hammer, consequences be damned.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
a big reason why GW would rather reduce points for under performing units etc rather then massivly change the rules is it's a lot easier to adjust a single number then re-write a datasheet. Also buffing units tends to be more well regarded. if you've ever played a MMO when a major patch ahs nerfed a class you'll know how well people react when their class is nerfed,. it's a LOT easier to buff everything up in terms of avoiding complaints

Which is a terrible way to design a game. Sometimes you have to use the nerf hammer, consequences be damned.

Exactly. In this current edition I can build my list based around getting into charge range on turn 1, reliably. That never used to happen. The only times I pulled off a turn 1 charge in previous editions was when the enemy moved towards me first. With my orks I can have my battlewagons move 12+D6" and then charge (with wartrike support) up to 12", reliably 7", or pop ramming speed for a reliable 10" charge. that's 26" on average rolls, 34" (!!!) on a perfect roll (though the target can only be 12" away not 18" away).

The game has gotten so fast, and the ranges so long, that the board simply isn't big enough for it to make sense any more. why would you not react to the oncoming horde with your 240" range guns until they are within 24"?



Things need to be nerfed soon, or you may as well remove the board entirely and let any unit target any other unit - and at that point it's just a card game.

The entire answer to this thread is: Just play apocalypse the specialist game with low / normal sized games.
40k is model base centric, as a result of many design decisions, the balance or lack of varies greatly based on how the players set up the game, an what house rules or "mode" they play. (Narrative,Open,Matched, Matched+Organised Suggestions.)

So I've been thinking about the issue a bit more, and if it's unlikely that GW will ever move away from IGOUGO of entire armies, rather than per-unit activations, then the logical alternative is to limit what those entire armies can do. One interesting mechanic that sometimes made games more fun were the older forms of night fighting, which limited your range, as this could seriously curb first turn damage.


So what I was wondering is whether a possible fix for this problem would be the concept of visibility in all games.

For example, in a regular game (not night fighting) units might have turn one visibility of 18", representing the fact that they're not supposed to know exactly where the enemy are. So although a unit might have range to a particular target, it cannot shoot at it unless it, or another friendly unit, is in within visibility range of the target. This means that very long ranged units like heavies, artillery etc. will need spotters in order to fire early, and will make scout units more valuable for early spotting of juicy targets.

In the second turn, visibility might improve to 24" as the two forces meet, then from turn three onwards visibility would cease to apply.

For night fighting scenarios visibility would start out even worse, e.g- 12", and would either stay that way (pitch dark) or increase over time until the last turn (dawn assault).


This would likely make for shorter first turns (less rolling to do) but also fewer units being wiped out in the first and second turns, with the focus being on getting to superior positions, clearing out enemy scouts/spotters etc., as well as setting up firing lines to block close combat units (which become quite a bit more viable in what is currently a shooting heavy meta).

There'd probably be some balance issues, but as a bolt-on rule it's relatively simple, and it's the kind of thing that GW could theoretically add to a later edition themselves, i.e- with some specialist units having increased visibility or better visibility when night fighting etc. With this being a major part of the meta it would also discourage over-reliance on shooting, as rolling a match up set in the middle of the night would cripple you if you bring nothing else, it would also make shorter ranged and close combat units more competitive.

Just an idea.

Not a bad idea at all. The old night-fighting where it lasted for exactly 1 turn was just an exercise in moving the alpha strike out by one turn. Allowing units to target other units which have been marked would be a good option - giving units the ability to mark a target rather than fire would be an interesting way to go about increasing utility and decreasing damage - give all troops flashlights, and allow them to mark targets they can see, but count themselves as being marked. Marked targets can be targeted at double the spotting range. Tau markerlights would have advantages in this sort of thing, so they don't become redundant.

Allowing the spotting range to affect scouts would also be a good option - scouts starting outside of spotting range would be a viable approach, allowing them to sneak closer in darkness (in your suggestion, if night fighting is in place, they can be deployed anywhere over 12" from the enemy).

I wonder if you could simulate the dawn by having each player turn add 6" to the spotting distance, starting on 12", so turn 1 has 12", player 2 has 18", player 1 has 24", player 2 has 30", etc.

Deployment screens could be a pretty cool alternative to mitigate perfect alpha-strikes, and speed the game up - put the screen down so the opponent cannot see what you're doing, both deploy your whole army (except scouting units), then remove the screen and roll-off for first turn. This would add some chaos to the game, and prevent people putting down hard counters perfectly opposite each other. could be clunky to have screens, but it would be good to not even know what army you're facing before deployment. uncertainty of battle and all that!

Just write decent terrain rules that block line of sight and reduce ballistic skill and interfere with movement. Job done.

units might have turn one visibility of 18", representing the fact that they're not supposed to know exactly where the enemy are. So although a unit might have range to a particular target, it cannot shoot at it unless it, or another friendly unit, is in within visibility range of the target.

This another excellent idea. It’s good to bolt on, and it gives units something substantial to do. “Better terrain rules” are nice but they don’t add the interaction of units spotting, or of conditions changing with the succeeding turns.

 Haravikk wrote:
So I've been thinking about the issue a bit more, and if it's unlikely that GW will ever move away from IGOUGO of entire armies, rather than per-unit activations, then the logical alternative is to limit what those entire armies can do. One interesting mechanic that sometimes made games more fun were the older forms of night fighting, which limited your range, as this could seriously curb first turn damage.

OR maybe just get rid of TLOS.

 AtoMaki wrote:

 Haravikk wrote:
So I've been thinking about the issue a bit more, and if it's unlikely that GW will ever move away from IGOUGO of entire armies, rather than per-unit activations, then the logical alternative is to limit what those entire armies can do. One interesting mechanic that sometimes made games more fun were the older forms of night fighting, which limited your range, as this could seriously curb first turn damage.

OR maybe just get rid of TLOS.

That's a radical yet much easier approach which could make a serious improvement...

Units would need a "size" statistic which would be used for this, which isn't difficult. Size would be 1 (nurglings) to 10 (knights).

1: nurglings
2: Grots
3: most infantry
4: primaris, Termies
5: aggressors
6: dreadnaughts
7: rhinos, leviathans
8: landraiders, battlewagons
9: baneblades
10: Knights+

scenery would have a size rating as well, and the premise is that you can shoot through it as long as the target is larger than the scenery/intervening units and that the shooter is either within 3" of the edge of the scenery or is larger than the scenery.

It would reduce arguments, and allow models to be in whatever position they like without penalty. modelling for advantage is impossible, as long as the base is right.


I like it.

IMO the issues are, in order of severity:

1. The AP system has run amok. This was always my concern for this edition and my worst fear has come true. Armour saves do little to mitigate the creation of a fighting power delta. This is why turn 1 has become so important. Player A with the first turn has the ability to take out enough of player B's fighting power to keep them at a disadvantage. Armour saves (i.e. defense) are supposed to mitigate this from happening and prevent turn 1 from being an overwhelming advantage, What happens when your defense has been reduced to useless? You'll have little to nothing to retaliate with.

2. Stratagems. They're a fun mechanic, but they're far too problematic. They too only add to the ability of the player who gets turn 1 to create too large a fighting power delta. Perhaps the player who gets turn 1 should not be able to use stratagems to mitigate the massive advantage turn 1 presently gives? The ability to (ab)use the same stratagem over and over and over (e.g. House Raven Knight Castellan) should not be a thing. Perhaps faction specific stratagems should all be one use only?

3. An abundance of re-roll auras. These exacerbate issue no. 1 and compound with no. 2 above.

 some bloke wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

 Haravikk wrote:
So I've been thinking about the issue a bit more, and if it's unlikely that GW will ever move away from IGOUGO of entire armies, rather than per-unit activations, then the logical alternative is to limit what those entire armies can do. One interesting mechanic that sometimes made games more fun were the older forms of night fighting, which limited your range, as this could seriously curb first turn damage.

OR maybe just get rid of TLOS.

That's a radical yet much easier approach which could make a serious improvement...

Units would need a "size" statistic which would be used for this, which isn't difficult. Size would be 1 (nurglings) to 10 (knights).

1: nurglings
2: Grots
3: most infantry
4: primaris, Termies
5: aggressors
6: dreadnaughts
7: rhinos, leviathans
8: landraiders, battlewagons
9: baneblades
10: Knights+

scenery would have a size rating as well, and the premise is that you can shoot through it as long as the target is larger than the scenery/intervening units and that the shooter is either within 3" of the edge of the scenery or is larger than the scenery.

It would reduce arguments, and allow models to be in whatever position they like without penalty. modelling for advantage is impossible, as long as the base is right.


I like it.

I'd assume it's not as difficult to inplement at all. You just need line laser and LOS is drawn if there is a base to base contact. Models that measure to hull draw fron base to hull.

Intervening terrain inflicts -1 to hit, unless it specifically blocks LOS per assigned characteristic of the terrain.

 some bloke wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

 Haravikk wrote:
So I've been thinking about the issue a bit more, and if it's unlikely that GW will ever move away from IGOUGO of entire armies, rather than per-unit activations, then the logical alternative is to limit what those entire armies can do. One interesting mechanic that sometimes made games more fun were the older forms of night fighting, which limited your range, as this could seriously curb first turn damage.

OR maybe just get rid of TLOS.

That's a radical yet much easier approach which could make a serious improvement...

Units would need a "size" statistic which would be used for this, which isn't difficult. Size would be 1 (nurglings) to 10 (knights).

I wouldn't even bother with that.

 skchsan wrote:

 some bloke wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

 Haravikk wrote:
So I've been thinking about the issue a bit more, and if it's unlikely that GW will ever move away from IGOUGO of entire armies, rather than per-unit activations, then the logical alternative is to limit what those entire armies can do. One interesting mechanic that sometimes made games more fun were the older forms of night fighting, which limited your range, as this could seriously curb first turn damage.

OR maybe just get rid of TLOS.

That's a radical yet much easier approach which could make a serious improvement...

Units would need a "size" statistic which would be used for this, which isn't difficult. Size would be 1 (nurglings) to 10 (knights).

1: nurglings
2: Grots
3: most infantry
4: primaris, Termies
5: aggressors
6: dreadnaughts
7: rhinos, leviathans
8: landraiders, battlewagons
9: baneblades
10: Knights+

scenery would have a size rating as well, and the premise is that you can shoot through it as long as the target is larger than the scenery/intervening units and that the shooter is either within 3" of the edge of the scenery or is larger than the scenery.

It would reduce arguments, and allow models to be in whatever position they like without penalty. modelling for advantage is impossible, as long as the base is right.


I like it.

I'd assume it's not as difficult to inplement at all. You just need line laser and LOS is drawn if there is a base to base contact. Models that measure to hull draw fron base to hull.

Intervening terrain inflicts -1 to hit, unless it specifically blocks LOS per assigned characteristic of the terrain.

There are 3 issues with that:

1: LOS blocking terrain, with this simple solution it's impossible to hide any more.
2: small LOS blocking terrain - a 3" tall building would block LOS for infantry, but not for a knight - discuss.
3: -1 to hit is affecting the narrowest scale in 40k - from 2+ to 6+, so a scale of only 5, and there is already too much affecting this. -2 to hit is already game-changing. I would prefer -1S if there is intervening cover. a little abstract, perhaps, but on a much broader scale to affect. Shooting lasguns into cover would be S2, bolters S3. the S5 "null zone" for "useless" guns (heavy bolters, big shootas, etc.) would suddenly find a place in the game for shooting at units in cover. massed small arms would still be great if you catch someone in the open. Cover would be universally useful for all armies, rather than turning marines into terminators and orks with no saves into orks with no saves. Lascannons being S9 would be much more meaningful. S8 anti-tank will find itself needing to reposition, if possible, to avoid cover. Mobility will matter, and whilst armour facings won't return, at least there will be a benefit to moving around and getting behind vehicles!

It could be a simpler scale than I proposed (small, medium, large, extra large, being infantry, walkers/monsters, vehicles/big monsters, superheavies), but my worry is that height is more important than size. a knight can shoot over more than a baneblade. Maybe have Height instead of Size. but I certainly don't want all terrain to be treated the same.

height = units height in inches (roughly) and terrain height in inches. "Solid" rule for terrain which means it blocks LOS. you can shoot through any terrain that isn't solid, and can shoot over solid terrain when it is shorter than both you and your target.. agree what's what before the game. If there is disputes, measure the terrain and round down.

Dumb thought:
Armor save of (x)+ becomes Armor save of (x +1)+
Armor save of (X)++ becomes (X+3)++
Armor save of (X)+++ becomes (13 - (7-X)*2])+++

Take all saves on d12

 some bloke wrote:
There are 3 issues with that:

1: LOS blocking terrain, with this simple solution it's impossible to hide any more.
2: small LOS blocking terrain - a 3" tall building would block LOS for infantry, but not for a knight - discuss.
3: -1 to hit is affecting the narrowest scale in 40k - from 2+ to 6+, so a scale of only 5, and there is already too much affecting this. -2 to hit is already game-changing. I would prefer -1S if there is intervening cover. a little abstract, perhaps, but on a much broader scale to affect. Shooting lasguns into cover would be S2, bolters S3. the S5 "null zone" for "useless" guns (heavy bolters, big shootas, etc.) would suddenly find a place in the game for shooting at units in cover. massed small arms would still be great if you catch someone in the open. Cover would be universally useful for all armies, rather than turning marines into terminators and orks with no saves into orks with no saves. Lascannons being S9 would be much more meaningful. S8 anti-tank will find itself needing to reposition, if possible, to avoid cover. Mobility will matter, and whilst armour facings won't return, at least there will be a benefit to moving around and getting behind vehicles!.

1. I'm not sure what you're getting at here
2. LOS blocking terrains block LOS. Other terrain, if the laser has to be drawn thru it, inflicts -1 to hit. Being in area terrain provides +save. Knights are never subject to benefits of cover or LOS. It's simply too big for it to hide behind terrain.
3. Cap - to hits on vehicles and monsters to -1. Their size should be limiting how much it can be hidden. Then, infantries can be applied up to -2 to hit. The -hit modifers cease to function once they're within 12". Given eldar flyers that stack -hits a 6++ to show how nimble they are at dodging instead.

Given how powerful shooting is, it can afford to take some nerfs via making -2 to hit more accessible.

You could introduce in the basic rules the City of Death saves rules, And the night fighting Battle Zone rules (-1 to hit at medium range, -2 at long range.)

Complete with the excellent idea of visibility that showed up some posts above.

The issue here is that I fear that these solutions are being narrowly viewed from a perspective of MEQ shooting. There are several armies which rely on massed, poor quality shooting which would be crippled by extensive negative "to hit" modifiers.

I like the idea of medium and long ranges, but I would confer a strength reduction at these ranges instead of a BS modifier. As I said before, the "to hit" scale is too narrow to put multiple modifiers on without causing serious problems for anyone BS4+ or worse. It would also make the game less rewarding and make a lot of things feel like a wasted effort. Lascannons are long range guns, but a guardsman firing them at a tank at long range hits on a 6+? not so sure.

I would have this incorporated:

Medium range (over 1/2 range of gun) -1S
Long Range (over 3/4 range of gun) -2S

Heavy weapons can add 12" to the range of their guns if they don't move. All 36" range + heavy weapons lose 12" from their range. Vehicles always add this range even if they move, as they are more stable (but still suffer -1 to hit, unless otherwise specified).

Coaxial rules - weapons on vehicles are grouped, and must fire in groups. Turret-mounted, Fore mounted and independent. No more repulsors firing at 8 different targets.

All rules and stratagems which allow units or weapons to shoot or fight twice or when they die are removed.

Auras, with perhaps a few exceptions, cost CP to turn on. (Kustom force field and defensive auras won't cost CP, rerolling auras cost CP to use, in a 1/3CP method - 1CP for a single unit to benefit, 3CP for all within 6" to benefit).

Rapidfire confers -1 to hit. more shots, better strength, less chance. If there's a 1 wound model to kill, you may be better off shooting one shot each instead. It also means the plethora of units who can rapidfire at full range have to suffer a penalty to do so.

Charge ranges are reduced - not sure to what extent, but the speed units make it into combat will have to be curbed if shooting is nerfed as well.


An alternative is to give weapons -1S at long range and +1S at short range, making it more beneficial to close in on a target. It also means short range and cover would cancel each other out. Medium range and in the open would be as normal, and long range in cover would be -2S, so lasguns shooting at units in cover at 18-24" would be S1. lascannons at 36-48" would be S7 when shooting units in cover - means nothing to a guardsman, but then it shouldn't. means a lot to a landraider!

I see your point, but I think it would be best for the game overall if long range shooting was taken a few notches down. Due to how S v T works, it would cause disproportionate effect on the game.

The golden distance in the game is 6"~12". This is the range where double tap usually occurs, charges declarable, meltas proc, etc.

For specific 'long range' army, perhaps give it a longer 'point blank' range which ignores the -to hits, or give it more useful wargear that allows it to ignore distance (i.e. markerlight, search light, etc) when determining range which ignores negative hit modifier.

Alternatively, make cover mechanic easier to access and more stackable.

I understand the feeling that the game is too killy. But then sometimes i think it's just horde players saying that.

Like if i can't take out a blob of plaguebearers before they get their charge off then i Auto lose. Once they trap a unit, they can't be shot, and cover half the board with Obsec. There's nothing a standard gunline can do at that point.

footfoe wrote:
I understand the feeling that the game is too killy. But then sometimes i think it's just horde players saying that.

Like if i can't take out a blob of plaguebearers before they get their charge off then i Auto lose. Once they trap a unit, they can't be shot, and cover half the board with Obsec. There's nothing a standard gunline can do at that point.

And more or less forcing you to take counter melee units would be a good way to promote varied lists. It will help the game move away from game of "bring the biggest and baddest guns" vs "bring hordes mathematically impossible to down in 1 turn".

 some bloke wrote:
The issue here is that I fear that these solutions are being narrowly viewed from a perspective of MEQ shooting. There are several armies which rely on massed, poor quality shooting which would be crippled by extensive negative "to hit" modifiers.

I like the idea of medium and long ranges, but I would confer a strength reduction at these ranges instead of a BS modifier. As I said before, the "to hit" scale is too narrow to put multiple modifiers on without causing serious problems for anyone BS4+ or worse. It would also make the game less rewarding and make a lot of things feel like a wasted effort. Lascannons are long range guns, but a guardsman firing them at a tank at long range hits on a 6+? not so sure.

I would have this incorporated:

Medium range (over 1/2 range of gun) -1S
Long Range (over 3/4 range of gun) -2S

Heavy weapons can add 12" to the range of their guns if they don't move. All 36" range + heavy weapons lose 12" from their range. Vehicles always add this range even if they move, as they are more stable (but still suffer -1 to hit, unless otherwise specified).

Coaxial rules - weapons on vehicles are grouped, and must fire in groups. Turret-mounted, Fore mounted and independent. No more repulsors firing at 8 different targets.

All rules and stratagems which allow units or weapons to shoot or fight twice or when they die are removed.

Auras, with perhaps a few exceptions, cost CP to turn on. (Kustom force field and defensive auras won't cost CP, rerolling auras cost CP to use, in a 1/3CP method - 1CP for a single unit to benefit, 3CP for all within 6" to benefit).

Rapidfire confers -1 to hit. more shots, better strength, less chance. If there's a 1 wound model to kill, you may be better off shooting one shot each instead. It also means the plethora of units who can rapidfire at full range have to suffer a penalty to do so.

Charge ranges are reduced - not sure to what extent, but the speed units make it into combat will have to be curbed if shooting is nerfed as well.


An alternative is to give weapons -1S at long range and +1S at short range, making it more beneficial to close in on a target. It also means short range and cover would cancel each other out. Medium range and in the open would be as normal, and long range in cover would be -2S, so lasguns shooting at units in cover at 18-24" would be S1. lascannons at 36-48" would be S7 when shooting units in cover - means nothing to a guardsman, but then it shouldn't. means a lot to a landraider!

The range modifiers should apply not on a weapon’s base. Medium range should be 18-30 (or whatever) for all the weapons. Armies like Orks would be encouraged to play at close range to avoid penalties and doing so it would turn out as a playstyle more in line with their lore.

The same would be true for Tyr or Guard

I don't like the idea of big negatives to hit based on range. I'm a bit biased based on my army, but it also just doesn't make any sense. Artillery that has a range better measured in feet or even yards, and having primary uses in that range and ignoring LOS should not be hitting on 6's only. Tanks with long range Battle Cannons or the sniper-like Vanquisher cannon should not be hitting on 6's for a Knight in the open. Snipers should not be taking penalties for doing their job, hitting prime targets at a distance greater than the normal infantry gun. The WW1 12 inch Howitzer had a max range of over 10 kilometers, but a Basilisk with a range of 15 kilometers will have severe trouble in hitting anything further than a football field away? That's a very quick way to make all of those models or units disappear and everyone plays CC armies.

That said, I wouldn't mind things like artillery firing without LOS taking a penalty, which you could then negate with a spotter unit. That promotes strategy and counter play. Or the Killteam way of outside weapon's half range = -1 to hit. But these huge sweeping changes would be careless, and would end up wiping some armies completely out of playability. A Guard army that is next to incapable of hitting anything until they're in charge range is a dead Guard army.

And I think not putting it based on the weapon is a terrible idea. A Vindicaire Assassin's sniper should not have the same range penalties as an autogun.

I can see your points there, perhaps this will require a larger degree of finesse when it is implemented. To that end, I would suggest weapons having multiple profiles, which might mean a little more paper in the reference section, but players will quickly commit their most common weapons to memory:

Assault weapons with 18" range or less would more or less go unmolested.

Boltguns might be:

0-12" 2 shots
12-24" 2 shots at -1 to hit
12-24" 1 shot

Artillery might be

12-36" -1 to hit
>36" normal

Snipers I would allow to target characters or specific models but only at -1 to hit. you're either shooting into the mob or picking someone from a crowd - one is easier.

Longer range and cover reduce the strength of guns - every 24" is -1 to strength, and each intervening cover is -1 strength. weapons get less likely to wound the more they shoot through. it's better than modifying to hit, due to S14 existing and BS(-4)+ not existing.

"Blast" weapons ignore range modifiers. Flamer weapons ignore cover modifiers.