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.

Remove the Grenades stratagem.

New weapon rule: Grenade

When a unit attacks, only one model can use a Grenade weapon.
Furthermore, when a model shoots, it cannot use both a Grenade weapon and another weapon.

This rule can be applied to both melee and ranged weapons.

Some examples:

Marine Krak Grenade [Grenade]
Range.....8"
A.............1
BS...........3+
S.............7
AP...........-1
D............1d3

Guardsman Frag Grenade [Blast, Grenade]
Range.....8"
A.............1d3
BS...........4+
S.............3
AP...........0
D............1

Melta Bomb [Grenade]
Range.....Melee
A.............1
WS..........5+
S.............9
AP...........-4
D............1d6+2

Eldar Plasma Grenade [Blast, Grenade]
Range.....8"
A.............1d3
BS...........3+
S.............4
AP...........-1
D............1

Yep! I like it! If we wanted to nitpick specific stats, I could see some tweaks to the profiles you've listed, but the rule itself is simple and should work without issue. Basically gives units a way to hit a little harder once they get in close.

Some possible tweaks to the listed profiles:

Krak Grenade: I could see an argument for going as high as S10 with this. You're still going to be failing to make the damage stick more often than not, but the higher Strength makes it feel a bit better to use. Damage d3 is probably about right. Low/random enough to not make units with this grenade that much more lethal, but with a chance of doing enough damage to noticably contribute against a tank or get lucky and take out something like a terminator.

Frag Grenade: I'd be tempted to up the attacks a bit. Even just making it a flat 3 attacks with blast would give it enough attacks into a big target to help it feel meaningful/worth considering shoving a squad forward in a chimera, but not so strong that it suddenly make guardsmen short-ranged terrors. Often as not, this grenade is found money for a squad who just watched another squad of flashlight-wielders get shanked, so no need to make this one crazy. That said, I'd also be tempted to raise it to S4. Against eldar, it's still few enough attacks with bad enough AP to not be a game changer, and against hormagaunts you're still not clearing out the squad with it, but it will feel better fishing for 3s and 4s than 4s and 5s on the to-wound roll.

Meltabomb: Given that this is presumably getting used in place of a sergeant's power fist or similar, is more specialized, and is a single attack with bad WS, I'd probably up the Strength and/or damage of this quite a bit; probably tweaking it in the context of what squad/army it's in. You don't want to give up multiple fist attacks into a predator only to realize you're hitting on 5s and wounding on 5s.

Eldar Plasma Grenade: Feels about right to me. Could probably get away with de-randomizing the number of attacks. A flat 2 or 3 is probably fine.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Yep! I like it! If we wanted to nitpick specific stats, I could see some tweaks to the profiles you've listed, but the rule itself is simple and should work without issue. Basically gives units a way to hit a little harder once they get in close.

Some possible tweaks to the listed profiles:

Krak Grenade: I could see an argument for going as high as S10 with this. You're still going to be failing to make the damage stick more often than not, but the higher Strength makes it feel a bit better to use. Damage d3 is probably about right. Low/random enough to not make units with this grenade that much more lethal, but with a chance of doing enough damage to noticably contribute against a tank or get lucky and take out something like a terminator.

Frag Grenade: I'd be tempted to up the attacks a bit. Even just making it a flat 3 attacks with blast would give it enough attacks into a big target to help it feel meaningful/worth considering shoving a squad forward in a chimera, but not so strong that it suddenly make guardsmen short-ranged terrors. Often as not, this grenade is found money for a squad who just watched another squad of flashlight-wielders get shanked, so no need to make this one crazy. That said, I'd also be tempted to raise it to S4. Against eldar, it's still few enough attacks with bad enough AP to not be a game changer, and against hormagaunts you're still not clearing out the squad with it, but it will feel better fishing for 3s and 4s than 4s and 5s on the to-wound roll.

Meltabomb: Given that this is presumably getting used in place of a sergeant's power fist or similar, is more specialized, and is a single attack with bad WS, I'd probably up the Strength and/or damage of this quite a bit; probably tweaking it in the context of what squad/army it's in. You don't want to give up multiple fist attacks into a predator only to realize you're hitting on 5s and wounding on 5s.

Eldar Plasma Grenade: Feels about right to me. Could probably get away with de-randomizing the number of attacks. A flat 2 or 3 is probably fine.

Krak Grenade is better than a Bolter into MEQ and TEQ, so that feels fine at S7.

Frag is better than a Lasgun if Blast does anything, and is better than a Bolter's two shots with just a Blast bonus of 1 into GEQ (equal into MEQ or TEQ).

Meltabomb... Replacing ordinary CCWs it's more than potent enough, but replacing a Fist maybe not.
But, given that Primaris Marines never had Meltabombs, you'd have to decide who gets them, and could easily give them to an ordinary squadmate.

Krak/frag: Not opposed to keeping them as listed. I just wondered if it might be better to give them a tiny bit more kick to help justify the extra rolling. Kraks are probably okay as-is (potentially one-shotting a multi-wound model and doing potentially 3 damage into a vehicle while wounding on +1 compared to a bolter.) Frag seems like it might be mathematically *really* close to weapons its replacing, possibly leading to players feeling it isn't worth taking the time to resolve.

Meltabombs are tricky, yeah. In the case of marines, I kind of like the idea of just making them an option for most sergeants. *Possibly* in the slot of a power weapon or non-bolt pistol. So sergeants could choose to have a more generally useful melee weapon, or they could take the more specialized meltabomb.

If it takes the slot of a power sword/fist, then it's probably justifiable to let the meltabomb either hit or wound better. Giving up a sword or fist to fish for 5s twice with a single attack wouldn't be super appealing even with the better damage.

If it's an option most sergeants have *in addition* to their other gear, then leaving people fishing for 5s makes more sense but still might feel bad in the moment; you'd need 9 meltabombs to force a single save against a T10 target.

If you make it a thing the whole squad has (but only one guy can use at a time per your rules above), then it's less feels bad and more just found money when it happens to work. Of course, at that point you'd probably see slightly weird stuff like having one guy give up his 2 or 3 meh ccw attacks for a single meltabomb attack into infantry targets.

Between those options, my inclination is probably to make meltabombs a sergeant-only thing and to let sergeants take it if they pass up either a plasma pistol or a power weapon. Then make it hit and/or wound a bit better. Failing to land a hit with a single-attack weapon 2 out of 3 times seems pretty frustrating. Finally landing a 5+ and then failing a second 5+ because your target is T10 double so. And if you get through those first two hurdles and your opponent doesn't fail an invulnerable save, you might still end up only doing as much damage as a lucky krak grenade.

Seems good to me.

I kind of think as much as the abstract nature of grenades in 3rd was a step too far, there was some value in it.

Grenades are obviously damaging weapons, but they're not particularly practical in modern warfare so are only used in very specific instances.

So i suppose I think that seeing them as an ability rather than a weapon might be a better way to model them given how they're actually used.

 Hellebore wrote:
Seems good to me.

I kind of think as much as the abstract nature of grenades in 3rd was a step too far, there was some value in it.

Grenades are obviously damaging weapons, but they're not particularly practical in modern warfare so are only used in very specific instances.

So i suppose I think that seeing them as an ability rather than a weapon might be a better way to model them given how they're actually used.

What kind of abilities do you think would be appropriate?

Edit: Also, 40k isn't modern warfare. If you have ideas for nifty abilities, I am 100% listening, but I'm okay if things feel relatively archaic. That's part of the 40k aesthetic.

It's more that firing your automatic rifle is going to be a better option that throwing a grenade, even for a superhuman.

So the question is, when is using the slower, shorter distance and less accurate grenade weapon going to be more useful than just shooting someone?


For the anti infantry weapons, perhaps its still a charging or being charged weapon, its just that it does attacks rather than affects initiative like in 3rd ed.

Maybe grenades can be used in overwatch at base BS? They are good reactive weapons.

 Hellebore wrote:
It's more that firing your automatic rifle is going to be a better option that throwing a grenade, even for a superhuman.

So the question is, when is using the slower, shorter distance and less accurate grenade weapon going to be more useful than just shooting someone?


For the anti infantry weapons, perhaps its still a charging or being charged weapon, its just that it does attacks rather than affects initiative like in 3rd ed.

Maybe grenades can be used in overwatch at base BS? They are good reactive weapons.

That's an interesting idea. Could tie into something Wyldhunt has suggested, where Overwatch isn't a strat and instead is just a weapon ability.

Yeah something like that.

It's a case where abstraction favours a 'truer' usage, while also avoiding the weapon needing to balance against other weapons because it's not being used in a conventional way.

Grenades aren't useful in modern warfare because modern warfare is mostly about artillery and aircraft and drones (to the point even tanks are kinda sidelined these days between peer opponents) with infantry serving mostly to hold ground, call artillery/air strikes, take buildings (the one scenario grenades are useful) and suppress other infantry at long range.

It is evident 40k warfare isn't like modern warfare, and if you consistently have close range firefights and even melee combat then grenades become very damn useful and damaging.

Trying to model grenades realistically in 40k brings up huge issues with the time and distance scales. A single grenade should be able to kill 10+ models given how closely packed together they are, but conversely that tank driving at 30mph should have already run you over since you were standing 100 feet in front of it.

And if a regular grenade gets a big explosion how come a fully automatic rifle can only shoot twice? Why would anyone in this world bother to carry a rifle and not just a sack of grenades?

I think it's better to treat them more thematically.

I do feel like grenades kind of fall into two camps: the ones that hit hard enough to make sense as actual weapons, and the ones that struggle to feel worthwhile as weapons.

So things like meltabombs, haywire/emp grenades, and krak grenades have historically felt pretty good to roll as weapons.

Frag/plasma (even though plasma managed to justify itself better) kind of struggled to not overlap weirdly with the small arms options of their owners, but they were quite useful when they were special rules/"tools" rather than "weapons." "Defensive grenades" only ever existed as special rules unless I'm forgetting something.

And then you've got the weird in-between phantasm/torment grenade launchers...

So maybe it would be better to pursue grenades as weapons for the grenade types that hit harder and as special rules where needed for the other scenarios.

That said, I'm not sure if there's much need for plasma/frag grenades at the moment. If we turned them into a special, it would have to be a special rule that gets handed out to half the marine and eldar units out there.

Adding Indirect Fire to Frag/Plasma may make them ever so slightly desirable; though very situational.

There's no reason some grenades could not be 'weapons' as described above, and others be 'abilities' of the unit - things like smoke for example.

 Kcalehc wrote:
Adding Indirect Fire to Frag/Plasma may make them ever so slightly desirable; though very situational.

There's no reason some grenades could not be 'weapons' as described above, and others be 'abilities' of the unit - things like smoke for example.

VERY situational, at 8" of range.

Agreed with the latter bit. Blind Grenades, Smoke Grenades, that kinda thing is better off as an ability.

IMO it's better to give them a unique role as a weapon, than to just make them an alternative weapon.

Given that virtually every trooper will be carrying grenades, they will be competing with standard weapons and so as we've seen, they either get crazy MW rules but only one unit can figure out how to throw them, or one of a variety of other rules designed to not make them too effective.

So you either end up with a worse pistol that means they are rarely ever used, or something so good the game turns into a race to see who can get into grenade range.


Another option might be to make them one shot weapons, to reflect the fact that throwing them all at once is more effective than one at a time. So the unit moves up cover and pegs all their grenades in there to bombard the enemy unit, giving them a single effective use weapon, but it can't be used again.

This is a little like the strategem, except you don't have the abstract ability to keep reusing it on the same unit over and over again.

 Hellebore wrote:
IMO it's better to give them a unique role as a weapon, than to just make them an alternative weapon.

Agreed. To give grenades a somewhat niche use (since they're a stratagem rather than a weapon), they could have a "move or take damage" rule. A bit similar to the Deathstrike missile, but with less damage (obviously) and taking place within one phase to avoid multi-turn bookkeeping or the use of tokens.

Grenades: Designate an enemy unit within 8'' of and visible to the Grenades model and not within engagement range of any units. The opposing player may then choose to move the targeted unit D6'' in a straight line in any direction. If the unit does not or cannot move the full distance, roll six D6's; for each 4+, the targeted unit suffers a mortal wound.

This reflects the grenade's delayed nature, and has tactical uses that conventional weapons lack (such as flushing a unit out of cover or getting them off an objective marker). However, if you wish to charge a unit, throwing a grenade at them beforehand can give them an opportunity to increase your charge distance, so it's not always a good idea.

.

-Guardsman- wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
IMO it's better to give them a unique role as a weapon, than to just make them an alternative weapon.

Agreed. To give grenades a somewhat niche use (since they're a stratagem rather than a weapon), they could have a "move or take damage" rule. A bit similar to the Deathstrike missile, but with less damage (obviously) and taking place within one phase to avoid multi-turn bookkeeping or the use of tokens.

Grenades: Designate an enemy unit within 8'' of and visible to the Grenades model and not within engagement range of any units. The opposing player may then choose to move the targeted unit D6'' in a straight line in any direction. If the unit does not or cannot move the full distance, roll six D6's; for each 4+, the targeted unit suffers a mortal wound.

This reflects the grenade's delayed nature, and has tactical uses that conventional weapons lack (such as flushing a unit out of cover or getting them off an objective marker, if they're low enough on Wounds that the grenade is likely to finish them). However, if you wish to charge a unit, throwing a grenade at them beforehand can give them an opportunity to increase your charge distance, so it's not always a good idea.

.

I want to avoid Mortal Wounds with grenades, though.
A Grot should be easier to hurt with a grenade than a GUO.

 JNAProductions wrote:

I want to avoid Mortal Wounds with grenades, though.
A Grot should be easier to hurt with a grenade than a GUO.

Just change the rule so that it depends on the target Toughness.

"For each roll equal or higher than the targeted unit's Toughness characteristic, it suffers a mortal wound".

Historicaly grenades are used also against vehicles. It's impossible to roll 10+ on d6. So toughness is not a variant. IMHO it's work fine right now