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.

I'm curious what edition of the rules had the shooting rules you enjoyed the most? What about it did you like? Fairness? Detail? Simplicity or speed to resolve? Less ambiguity?

I'm working on building a hybrid hammer rule set (mostly based on 5th edition) but want to see if there are some rules or approaches for resolving shooting form other editions that would be better to incorporate.

Have at it. Thanks!

Define shooting rules. Do you mean weapon profiles? Vehicle AV stats and facings? Line of sight rules? You're asking a big question considering the game almost totally revolves around ranged combat.

I like the freedom of splitting fire of 8th, the target priority rules of 4th, and the hit-modifiers of 2nd.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Define shooting rules. Do you mean weapon profiles? Vehicle AV stats and facings? Line of sight rules? You're asking a big question considering the game almost totally revolves around ranged combat.

What Im asking about is the standard process for how shooting is resolved. For now, ignore vehicles and stuff like specific weapons profiles. What I'm getting at includes:

- what determines line of sight
- how are targets selected
- what weapons can fire
- how are shots taken by a unit sequenced/selected
- how are cover saves or other saves determined
- how are wounds allocated and rolled - and ultimately casualties determined
- how are wounds on units with mixed toughness/cover/saves determined

No contest: 2nd!

In all later editions not even simple math was required to find out the to-hit-score.

None, all are an objective downgrade from THAC0

Not 8th, because 9th rules are better.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I like the freedom of splitting fire of 8th, the target priority rules of 4th, and the hit-modifiers of 2nd.

+1 to this. Modifiers for range and obscurement are a useful addition, target priority was a mechanic that made elite armies actually feel well-trained and not just stronger/tougher/more accurate, and split-fire is a must-have for how schizophrenic armaments tend to be.

I'll also throw in that I personally prefer abstract LOS (ie not TLOS), and armor save modifiers rather than all-or-nothing.

Different editions have had different strengths and weaknesses.

Question - I've seen a lot of people in other threads say that they like 5th edition rules, but don't like the "wound allocation shenanigans." What exactly are they referring to here?

FWIW, I'm working on some hybrid rules that:

- Use TLOS but with a few adjustments (e.g. 6" or more of area terrain blocks LoS) (4th-5th rule hybrid)
- Can't check range (3rd/4th/5th)
- Lake a leadership test to split fire in the unit (only one split is allowed)
- Snap fire shots allowed (6th/7th)
- Instant death deals D3 wounds
- Some sort of logical wound allocation (only kill models that are visible, etc. - still need to work on this) - 8th ed might work
- Cover saves allowed on a model-by-model basis
- Casualties removed from among any like save models
- Go to ground with snap fire (6th/7th)
- Cover saves like 4th or 6th (3+ fortifications, 4+ hard, 5+ soft)

 Mezmorki wrote:
Question - I've seen a lot of people in other threads say that they like 5th edition rules, but don't like the "wound allocation shenanigans." What exactly are they referring to here?

FWIW, I'm working on some hybrid rules that:

- Use TLOS but with a few adjustments (e.g. 6" or more of area terrain blocks LoS) (4th-5th rule hybrid)
- Can't check range (3rd/4th/5th)
- Lake a leadership test to split fire in the unit (only one split is allowed)
- Snap fire shots allowed (6th/7th)
- Instant death deals D3 wounds
- Some sort of logical wound allocation (only kill models that are visible, etc. - still need to work on this) - 8th ed might work
- Cover saves allowed on a model-by-model basis
- Casualties removed from among any like save models
- Go to ground with snap fire (6th/7th)
- Cover saves like 4th or 6th (3+ fortifications, 4+ hard, 5+ soft)

in 5th, you could take a unit of multiwound models, like say, Nob Bikers.

Lets say they get shot 10 times.

I say "Ok, the first wound will be on nob biker 1. He passes. He passes, oh, he fails.

Now, instead of taking the second wound on him, I will move on to nob biker 2. He fails.

Ok, fifth wound is going onto nob biker 3..."

and so on, and so on, until my whole squad of 10 nob bikers each has 1 wound on them, and only THEN do I have to start killing them.

the_scotsman wrote:


in 5th, you could take a unit of multiwound models, like say, Nob Bikers.

Lets say they get shot 10 times.

I say "Ok, the first wound will be on nob biker 1. He passes. He passes, oh, he fails.

Now, instead of taking the second wound on him, I will move on to nob biker 2. He fails.

Ok, fifth wound is going onto nob biker 3..."

and so on, and so on, until my whole squad of 10 nob bikers each has 1 wound on them, and only THEN do I have to start killing them.

Awesome - thanks for clarifying that.

So if I'm creating a house-ruled version of 5th, would the big thing to change/account for here just to make sure that if unsaved wounds are allocated to a multi-wound model, that all subsequent wounds must be allocated to that model until it dies.

5th ed.s wound allocation rules could easily have been fixed with the addition of a couple of extra sentences - make wounded models have to take wounds first; limiting wound spreading, and have wounds be allocated one AP group at a time (so you allocate all the AP 1 wounds, then all the AP 2 wounds, then AP3 and so on); which would limit the ability to stack attacks which ignore saves on a single guy.

5th's system was much better than just having the defending player choose who died, since it incentivised larger units to avoid specialists having to have wounds allocated to them, and was better than the closest models taking hits first because it avoided one model being able to tank for a whole unit, or mortars being the best sniper weapons in the game.

For me its the one edition where I had a vague understanding of the rules but could still have a blast playing it.

Whichever that one was, I want to back to it. Now? The game's lost its magic, it's plastic on a table and things are sometimes painted.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
5th ed.s wound allocation rules could easily have been fixed with the addition of a couple of extra sentences - make wounded models have to take wounds first; limiting wound spreading, and have wounds be allocated one AP group at a time (so you allocate all the AP 1 wounds, then all the AP 2 wounds, then AP3 and so on); which would limit the ability to stack attacks which ignore saves on a single guy.

Those suggestions are a perfect starting point for my tweaked rules.

What do you think about another tweak which is that wounds can only be allocated to VISIBLE models (i.e., are in in LoS according to LoS rules and within the weapon's range)? This makes the shooting more of a hybrid between 5th and 8th edition. You have to allocate the wounds across more models, but you don't have to allocate wounds to units outside of LoS.

5th's system was much better than just having the defending player choose who died, since it incentivised larger units to avoid specialists having to have wounds allocated to them, and was better than the closest models taking hits first because it avoided one model being able to tank for a whole unit, or mortars being the best sniper weapons in the game.

the target priority rules of 4th

I'm blanking on those - can you refresh my memory?

No contest: 2nd!

Much as I loved 2nd ed over all, I think the target priority was a bit pants. Having to shoot at the closest visible unit got pretty problematic/unrealistic. It's one of the reasons the early Necrons (even with a severely limited model range) were so tough. Toss a Scarab out in front of your Warriors - that single tiny model will now tank shots for them. I think the priority rules were maybe just a bit too inflexible.

 Mezmorki wrote:
Question - I've seen a lot of people in other threads say that they like 5th edition rules, but don't like the "wound allocation shenanigans." What exactly are they referring to here?

5th's rules get my vote.

The wound allocation thing is blown out of proportion. There were precisely a handful of units that could take advantage of it, out of hundreds. Although they were common, they were not as ever present as the usual "meta bending" units are today. TWC, Nob Bikers, Bloodcrushers and GK Paladins were really the only units that could exploit it. Other units could like DW Termies or Wolf Guard but they lacked the multiple wounds to do to the fullest extent.

I really miss some old shooting rules

"Can't kill models past your guns range"
"Can't kill models you can't see"

I do NOT miss some of the shooting rules like

"Kill the closest unit to the firing unit"
"If you lose your Special weapon, well you lose it"

So IDK what edition is best, many has some rules i like but also rules i don't like.

Tycho wrote:

the target priority rules of 4th

I'm blanking on those - can you refresh my memory?

A unit had to pass a Ld test to not shoot the closet visible target. Regardless of if they could harm it or not.


Another good part of 4th's shooting rules was only models in range and LOS could be removed as casualties. Made positioning quite crucial, recall losing many a Meltagunner to them being the only one in range for some return fire.

 Grimtuff wrote:
Another good part of 4th's shooting rules was only models in range and LOS could be removed as casualties. Made positioning quite crucial, recall losing many a Meltagunner to them being the only one in range for some return fire.

Takes squad of lascannons.
Parks rhino to the left
Parks rhino to the right

"Well would you look at that, your warlord is the only model I can see"

A.T. wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Another good part of 4th's shooting rules was only models in range and LOS could be removed as casualties. Made positioning quite crucial, recall losing many a Meltagunner to them being the only one in range for some return fire.

Takes squad of lascannons.
Parks rhino to the left
Parks rhino to the right

"Well would you look at that, your warlord is the only model I can see"

It was far more difficult than that. Independent characters could only be shot if they were the closest model. Period. Regardless of coherency to any other nits on the board. Distinctly remember a single Blood Claw on the other side of the board saving my Wolf Lord's life as he was closer to the Falcon that was going to shoot him.

It was in that edition (or it might have been 5th), where the Tau's infamous "Fish of Fury" tactic came in, where you'd park a pair of Devilfish with their sides facing the enemy and the Fire Warriors behind them. The skimmer's flight stand did not block LOS for the Tau and it also prevented them being charged as the Devilfish were in the way.

A unit had to pass a Ld test to not shoot the closet visible target. Regardless of if they could harm it or not.


Another good part of 4th's shooting rules was only models in range and LOS could be removed as casualties. Made positioning quite crucial, recall losing many a Meltagunner to them being the only one in range for some return fire.

Thank you! I remember that now. Wasn't a big fan of the leadership check (especially since it would happen whether you could hurt that target or not), but I did like the "only models in range and LOS" part. I had completely forgotten about that. I think it would be a great addition to 9th's rules to bring that back.

the_scotsman wrote:

in 5th, you could take a unit of multiwound models, like say, Nob Bikers.

Lets say they get shot 10 times.

I say "Ok, the first wound will be on nob biker 1. He passes. He passes, oh, he fails.

Now, instead of taking the second wound on him, I will move on to nob biker 2. He fails.

Ok, fifth wound is going onto nob biker 3..."

and so on, and so on, until my whole squad of 10 nob bikers each has 1 wound on them, and only THEN do I have to start killing them.

I don't think that's quite correct.

You had to allocate all the wounds to models in the unit before you rolled saves. And as far as possible, each model needed to have the same number of wounds allocated to it.

So in the example above, all 10 wounds would have to be allocated before you find out which Nobz make their initial saves.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:
Question - I've seen a lot of people in other threads say that they like 5th edition rules, but don't like the "wound allocation shenanigans." What exactly are they referring to here?

5th's rules get my vote.

The wound allocation thing is blown out of proportion. There were precisely a handful of units that could take advantage of it, out of hundreds. Although they were common, they were not as ever present as the usual "meta bending" units are today. TWC, Nob Bikers, Bloodcrushers and GK Paladins were really the only units that could exploit it. Other units could like DW Termies or Wolf Guard but they lacked the multiple wounds to do to the fullest extent.

I would agree with this. Certainly I'd take 5th's rules over many of the ones that came after it.

Correct. If you had 10 Nob Bikers and they were all equipped differently you could allocate 1 wound to each, then you roll saves.

5th edition had a weird and unnecessary wound allocation mini-game where you would gather together a big pile of differently coloured dice and try to strategically allocate them around the squad.
It got to the point where you wouldn't shoot with pintle weapons on things like predators because if there were two differently armed guys in the target squad you could be sure one of them would be making a pair of saves against the bolter while the other poor sod gets all three of the lascannons to the face.

 Grimtuff wrote:
It was in that edition (or it might have been 5th), where the Tau's infamous "Fish of Fury" tactic came in

Fish of fury was used in 4th.
The character thing in 4th specified the closest target rather than closest model. Though I may be remembering 3rd where the character just had to be 6" away from the nearest visible enemy unit.

A.T. wrote:
5th edition had a weird and unnecessary wound allocation mini-game where you would gather together a big pile of differently coloured dice and try to strategically allocate them around the squad.
It got to the point where you wouldn't shoot with pintle weapons on things like predators because if there were two differently armed guys in the target squad you could be sure one of them would be making a pair of saves against the bolter while the other poor sod gets all three of the lascannons to the face.

Could this have been averted if, for instance, once you have all the wounding hits determined, the attacker chooses a group wounds associated with a particular type of weapon for the defender to allocate, and then chooses the next group of wounds to allocate, etc. until each model has one wound allocated (wrapping around for a second or third round if needed). Once all wounds are allocated, groups of units with like saves (cover, armor, etc.) take their saves all at once and the defender removes casualties of their choice from within that group. This is sort of like the mixed-armor save rule from 4th edition but not reliant on determining a "majority" save and allocating that first.

Seems like the above could work. It gives the defender a degree of choice over what exact models are killed, since you'd be removing casualties from a group of models rather than having a specific model failing a save meaning that exact model has die. It also wouldn't let you game the allocation system as much. Units with invulnerable saves could chose to take heavier hits in hopes of preventing an auto-kill, at the risk that if they fail the casualties would have to come from the models using the invulnerable save, and so on.

EDIT: And would want to add a step that if a group of models take a wound and you apply a wound on a multi-wound model, you have to apply subsequent wounds in that group onto the already wounded model in order to kill it.

Thoughts?

4th had that rule, it was called "torrent of fire" (or blows for HTH). If you caused more wounds than there were members of a squad, you could allocate one to a specific model.

Armor Pen of 2nd edition was a hoot and a half. Generally it was S+Damage+D6 and damage could have been anything from D4 to D12 or some such.

A Chainfist was something like three different sized dice rolls including a D20 plus a big huge Strength number and you were trying to pen 25+ on some of the bigger front armor.

The rule I really miss from 2nd Edition was psychology though.

 Mezmorki wrote:
Thoughts?

Mixed save units always throw a few wrenches in the works, but armour save does make more sense as a group than equipment and 'defender selects' is usually the fastest approach, at the cost of random special weapon casualties.

Alright, I've been cooking away on something that I wanted to share for feedback:

Hybrid Hammer Shooting Rules

Pulls in various bits from other editions, but based on 5th edition in case I left something out.

The crux of the whole thing is that I'm trying to make a unified shooting process that applies in all situations. No separate processes or methods for complex units, mixed armor saves, etc. I want to strike a balance between (1) being fast and logical to resolve; (2) giving players some flexibility over which models are ultimately killed without it being too cheesy; (3) adding a bit more realism/fidelity to the mechanics (i.e. can't kill models that were totally out of sight and/or out of range).

While defenders get more flexibility to limit losses to special models, shooting units get more flexibility to split fire (within limits), heavy units can still snap fire, and cover saves for "soft" cover (woods, etc.) are toned down to 5+ (not 4+). Hopefully it doesn't mess with the balance overall too much, streamlines things a bit, and is a nice blend of shooting rules.

More thoughts?