Extended range basic weapons

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.

**Phoenix**

Problem:

40k is almost completely dependent on doing damage with heavy and special weapons. If you keep a tally over a couple of games, you will see that ~75% of all casualties in 40k games are caused by heavy weapons, special weapons, power weapons, or other non standard forms of attack. Basic weapons like bolters are only used to any significant effect in mech lists that specifically focus on bringing them to bare. Heavy weapon range and effectiveness is so out of line with basic weapons that most lists focus on how to cram in as many as possible and their points cost is so low that it's not cost prohibitive to do so. Special weapons are in much the same boat. Look back on all the threads that argued 6 man las plas squads to death (a set up so broken that even GW realized it needed to be nerfed). Why didn't people just go with 5 man squads? Well they didn't because that 6th guy meant that the squad was still scoring after losing 3 guys. It also meant that there was another power armored wound there to be lost before you lost the plasma or the las cannon. No where did anyone ever argue for the extra fire power that 6th man could contribute to the squad. You also didn't hear about him adding assault power either. He was a warm body to act as a bullet sponge since everyone knew that's all he was good for because he didn't have a heavy or a special weapon.

Solution: (or at least one possible solution)

Extend the range of basic weapons. As things stand the superior range of heavy weapons means that you are basically required to use them for ranged killing. Basic guns require you to be so close to the enemy to fire that you have to put yourself in danger of being assaulted. This becomes less of an issue if basic weapons can be effective at ranges similar to those of heavies. With that in mind, I would propose that most (although not all) basic (not special) weapons get a range increase of ~6". Heavy weapons will still be useful because they will still provide superior killing power as well as anti tank ability. Note: at this point, rapid fire range still set at 12".

So a partial list of weapon ranges might look something like this

Bolter 30"

Storm bolter 30"

Las gun 30"

Shuriken Catapult 24” (for both guardians and dire avengers)

Puls Rifle 36”

Shoota 24”

Kroot Rifle 30”

Las blaster 30”

This would make it possible to effectively use basic weapons without requiring a transport. On the other hand though, it would not invalidate the use of transports since you still need to be up close to rapid fire.

Thoughts?

**Makaleth**

Hmm,

I think i've heard this proposal before
:-)

Totally agreed,
the boost required for general/basic weapons is nigh mandatory if you want to move from basic squads models being wounds to hide heavy/special weapons.

As you have mentioned before, the majority of points for a model is not contained within the gun that it is weilding, but the almost total ability of offensive potential comes from the weapon that it is holding.

I don't think transports would be invalidated at all because the need for these wasn't always to get basic weapons into close range, they were often for getting things into assault range (and of course that useful rapid fire option).

I definately like the proposal,
and no-one so far (out of the few people that have heard it) have replied saying it was over powered or odd,
just...

you know, that would probably help balance stuff out.

**Tacobake**

75% seems awfully high to me.

Still a cool idea.

**GimpMaster**

as a multi-army player...

i absolutely despise the idea of longer ranged basic weapons...

from my chaos armies point of view....pffft sure extra range...don't care bolters don't do anything to me or for me much unless im shooting squishies...

as a tyranid player....oh heck no...
my gaunts get obliterated enough if i do not get first turn from all the heavy weapons fire coming at me...atleast i have the option of being out of range of those darn bolters....extend the range by 6 inches and thats 40 or 50 more gaunts that are just going to get shot to hell...

it would make first turn completely decisive in tournament settings (With slack terrain and all that)

and thats from a tyranid player...just imagine what the current ork codex players feel (well until january..heh)

**Personification**

The reason everything is like that is because the majority of players set their armies up with 6 guys and a heavy weapon and then deploy them as far away as possible. Mainly because if it's not AP3 or better seems like people discount them. Me even when playing SM's I get into bolter range with full tac squads and let them rock. Then again I'm a psycho who takes heavy bolters all the time, and uses special units for anti-armor.

**tegeus-Cromis**

Personification, it's easy to dismiss things by saying, "Oh, it's only like that because everyone does X", but you have to ask yourself why everyone does X. People are not, on the whole, irrational; if everyone is taking 6-man las/plas and deploying far away, there is probably a reason for it. That reason is that the current system rewards such behaviour. Sure, everyone could just decide to play your way, but this won't happen unless it is worthwhile to do so. No slight meant to your generalship, but it is usually not worthwhile to do so.

**Personification**

I've yet to see that style of army in the top 4 at any tournament I've been too, and I've been to a good many in several different stores in several states.

Everyone doesn't do that either and every competitive SM army I have ever played or played against is not constructed that way.

**tegeus-Cromis**

Maybe you should look at battle points instead of top 4. There aren't many top 4 mech Eldar, either.

Well clearly "everyone" was hyperbole. At least one DWing player exists, which is enough to make the claim "everyone fields 6-man las/plas SAFH" untrue. What I meant, of course, is that it is the dominant paradigm, and that a majority of players operate under it. If this was not the case, your own explanation ("The reason everything is like that is because the majority of players set their armies up with 6 guys and a heavy weapon and then deploy them as far away as possible") would not work. . . .

**Phoenix**

Posted By GimpMaster on 08/30/2007 4:23 AM
as a tyranid player....oh heck no...
my gaunts get obliterated enough if i do not get first turn from all the heavy weapons fire coming at me...atleast i have the option of being out of range of those darn bolters....extend the range by 6 inches and thats 40 or 50 more gaunts that are just going to get shot to hell...

Flesh bores, spine fists, and possibly some other nid weapons would benifit from the increased range as well. It means you guants might actualy shoot back.

**Personification**

The majority of people do not play tournaments. At the local bunker there are probably 50 players out of that around 15 might come to a tournament. Go up there and play and you'll see 6 man las/plas, ML/plas, PlasC/plas all day long when everyone is just gaming.
Go up there during a tournament and you might see 1 like that. And this is a store where there are no army comp scores at tournaments so battle points or not mech eldar is not in the top 4 neither is mech tau. The only "cheese" list as people call them you'll see is Nidzilla in the top 4.

75% is only IF you play the 6 man las/plas setup. Otherwise if I play Dark Eldar it doesn't stand as most of my killing is done in CC, and from vehicle weapons. If I play Tyranids it's done from shooting weapons with 18" range and no AP, and CC.

What you will see in the top 4 regularly...
Tyranids both regular and Nidzilla
Eldar super shooty style
Tau with lots of firewarriors, and suits
Nurgle
Orks
Necrons
Dark Eldar

However funny enough it's about the same 6 people who no matter what army they bring are in the top 4. I've won twice with Tyranids, and once with Dark Eldar. My friend has won 3 times with Eldar. Another guy has placed with both Necrons, and Orks. The Nurgle guy is always up there in the running.

I went to texas I saw mech Tau, mech eldar, the assault cannon list of doom, etc. Top 4 were Eldar, Slaanesh, mech SM, and Eldar again.

**Phoenix**

Posted By Personification on 09/02/2007 11:44 AM
75% is only IF you play the 6 man las/plas setup. Otherwise if I play Dark Eldar it doesn't stand as most of my killing is done in CC, and from vehicle weapons. If I play Tyranids it's done from shooting weapons with 18" range and no AP, and CC.

That 75% figure includes anything that isn't a basic weapon, so almost anything on a vehicle that isn't a bolter, shuriken catapult, or other similar basic weapon counts towards it. In hand to hand, anything that isn't a "roll ws vs ws, wound on str vs t, and allows an armor save" would be a special weapon (power weapons, rending attacks, power fists, agonizers, witch blades, melta bombs, monstrous creature attacks, etc.). I'm not just talking about infantry here either. And anything mounted on a monstrous creature is difficult to classify as a basic weapon due to the extreme strength values and rates of fire they have.

So again I think the figure still stands, but keep a tally in your next game and see how it goes (and keep the tally for both sides).

**Triggerbaby**

Extending the range of basic weapons would make 40K a very different game.
Assault armies would, for the most part, cease to exist. As 40K stands at the moment, few assault builds can survive the volume of fire from a well-played gun line. Increasing the range of basic weapons would really put them out to pasture.
With less assault, the best strategy for the average unit is to simply plop them in cover and shoot until there's nobody in sight. With less reason to maneuver your models, the average game of 40K would become much more static. This in itself is a major change, but it could lead to all sorts of developments: since the movement and assault phases would be minimized, you could effectively cut the time for a game in half, or a third. Or you could play games with a lot more rounds, meaning more complex objectives. Or you could take a lot more models in the average game and have it last the same amount of time.
Finally, less emphasis on assault means less characters as characters generally add to a unit's close combat ability rather than its ranged combat abilities. Characters provide some of the best modelling opportunities, so less characters means less interesting armies to look at.

40K with long-range standard weapons is an entirely different game. I think a better solution would be to shorten the range of special and heavy weapons. Or increase basic weapon ranges but allow units to move faster.

**Corpsman_of_Krieg**

If standard weapons suddenly got a 6" range boost, assault armies would definitely need a counter to give them half a snowball's chance.

In Epic, units can move double their normal distance and shoot with a penalty, or can move triple the distance and not fire at all. Wouldn't it make sense that a squad of Marines with bolt pistols and close combat weapons (who plan on running straight towards their opponents in order to get into Assault) would be able to move faster than a squad of bolter Marines who plan on shooting accurately in the same turn?

Infantry should be able to move 9" and not fire with any weapons (or the regular 6" with the usual 'may shoot but counts as moving') if a 6" range boost is given. Otherwise we should say goodbye to every assaulty army under the sun.

CK

**Phoenix**

Funny enough, I don't see mobility being marginalized that much. Since the range increase only extends to basic weapons, units in transports are almost completely unaffected by the increased lethality of basic weapons since the only one that can affect a transport (as far as I can tell) is the puls rifle vs rhinos. Gauss weapons may or may not get the increase depending on how it play tests out. So transport based assault units are just as viable as before. You are also still going to need units to capture objectives as well so getting them there remains a requirement.

Assault units would be taking a hit however due to the increased fire they would be subjected to. This would have to be balanced out with either a point reduction on their side or an increase in the lethality of hand to hand combat.

Another possibility to balance out the usefulness of heavy/special weapon with that of basic weapons would be a broad sweeping increase in the point cost of such weapons. If plasma guns were 30 points each we might not see one in every tac squad...maybe.

**Zathrithal**

Plasma guns have the same range as a bolter, that point is pretty moot. All that increasing the points cost of Lascannons and Plasma guns would do is make nidzilla and mech lists even harder to beat. I suppose it would bring back the age of tanks that seems to have passed though. In the end, by making heavy weps cost more, you are giving the advantage to vehicles and monstrous creatures like gunfexes, not the infantry man with small arms.

I agree with what most others have said on this thread. Sure, it would increase the power of the average trooper over the special weps guy, but at the cost of destroying assault armies. Not all assault armies have transports or use transports. Horde orks would be dead. Mass gaunts would be dead. The list goes on and on.

Shooty armies already are better than most assault armies, there is very little need to give them another edge.

**Phoenix**

Posted By Zathrithal on 09/08/2007 1:02 PM
Plasma guns have the same range as a bolter, that point is pretty moot. All that increasing the points cost of Lascannons and Plasma guns would do is make nidzilla and mech lists even harder to beat. I suppose it would bring back the age of tanks that seems to have passed though. In the end, by making heavy weps cost more, you are giving the advantage to vehicles and monstrous creatures like gunfexes, not the infantry man with small arms.

I agree with what most others have said on this thread. Sure, it would increase the power of the average trooper over the special weps guy, but at the cost of destroying assault armies. Not all assault armies have transports or use transports. Horde orks would be dead. Mass gaunts would be dead. The list goes on and on.

Shooty armies already are better than most assault armies, there is very little need to give them another edge.

A couple of points to make here about the two possible rule changes.

1) If the range increase went into affect, bolters would have a 30" range and plasma guns would still be 24"

2) If the point increase went though nidzill would be a much less viable list because dakka fexes wouldn't be able to be crammed into elite choices anymore due to the increased cost of their weapons. That or they would have to take the smaller basic weapons like flesh bores and spine fists or be retooled in other ways. This might just take them out of elite slots and fill up the heavy slots, but that in turn limits the number of big bugs hitting the table.

3) An increase in the cost of heavy weapons would not make tanks particularly more viable since their cost would be increased due to the heavy weapons they have.

4) Massed orks and gaunts on foot would need looking at and probably need some point adjustments to make them more viable, however, they might be somewhat useful as shooting units if the range of their weapons gets increased.

5) While massed foot orks and gaunts take a hit from the increased weapon range, I'm having difficulty coming up with the list that goes on and on. What other armies take huge hits from an increase in weapon range?

**Zathrithal**

My point was that the amount of rules changes forces a change to every entry in every codex. Hordes have to be changed around. Meltas are less effective because you are much more likely to die before you get close enough to use them. Necron gauss rifles would destroy everyone with ease. Tau have a 36" Str 5 weapon on their average trooper. Regular Space Marine tac squads don't have a shot in hell of charging anyone. GW has said clearly that they want the game to center around close range firefights. This means rapid fire range and assault. With all the new codexes, they are trying to limit the power of "sit back and shoot" armies. GW hasn't even finished rereleasing all the codexes yet, why would they make a change to invalidate everything they just sent to print?