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 tripped on this idea the other day while looking at a few of the Imperium's vehicles.
Most of the weaponry are set up as primary like the Predator's Autocannon or twin-linked Lascannon, secondary like any any vehicle's side sponson weapons and tertiary like various pintle-mounted weapons. Usually, the primary is the greatest threat, with the secondary as a close second and the third being more of an annoyance.
Why not change the movement/shooting rules to the following:
at 0 to 1/3 of vehicle's maximum movement: all weapons may fire normally
at 1/3 to 2/3 of vehicle's maximum movement: all weapons may fire normally, except tertiary weapons which much re-roll successful hits.
at 2/3 and more of vehilce's maximum movement: only the primary weapon may fire normally, all other weapons much re-roll successful hits and tertiary weapons may only fire at half range.
If a vehicle turbo-boosts or anything similar, it may not fire any weapons.

That would allow players the mobility that their tanks should have while still forcing them to decide between fire and maneuver. The idea being that the main gun would have the best stabilization equipment, the secondary weapons would likely have similar equipment, but not to the same extent and tertiary weapons are little more than mounted machineguns with little to no stabilization. So, each weapon system would be affected by movement in varying degrees, and personally.. it just makes more sense than a side mounted lascannon not being able to fire while a heavy bolter in the same position can.

Wow, it's such a great idea for a rule that no one has any input on how to improve it or criticism condemning it's creation.

Wow, it's such an original idea that it needs its own thread instead of going in the existing thread on this topic.

No. Not really.

tegeus-Cromis wrote:Wow, it's such an original idea that it needs its own thread instead of going in the existing thread on this topic.

No. Not really.

Ow.. you sarcasm cuts.. but I suppose it's warranted given the level of sarcasm my second post had.

Anyways, I understand that there is a LOT of people proposing different solutions to the defensive weapons rules, I just didn't want to catch hell for de-railing a thread someone started about their own answer. It's kinda a "damned if I do, damned if I don't" situation.. If it is that redundant then all I can really say is "if that many people have come up with this idea, why hasn't GW thought of it?"

Anyways, I understand that there is a LOT of people proposing different solutions to the defensive weapons rules, I just didn't want to catch hell for de-railing a thread someone started about their own answer. It's kinda a "damned if I do, damned if I don't" situation..

That's true to an extent, but in this case, lots of people have posted their ideas on that thread. It wouldn't be out of place for you to do so. At any rate, you should be able to understand why no one wants to respond to your idea. We're all talked out already.

themandudeperson wrote:[If it is that redundant then all I can really say is "if that many people have come up with this idea, why hasn't GW thought of it?"

I don't understand why we always assume that GW just puts rules in for the hell of it. I'm pretty sure if a bunch of players on a forum can think of something, the dev team can and has. The more likely situation is that for whatever reason they have decided on the rules written in the book and I don't really see a reason to change that just because we don't like the sounds of it. What amuses me even more is that people have already decided that they don't like rules that they haven't even seen. The playtest PDF is a fossil and likely the actual rules will be substantially different. But hell, I guess it gives us something to bitch and moan about.

themandudeperson wrote:"if that many people have come up with this idea, why hasn't GW thought of it?"

They probably thought of it, and did some testing, and came to the conclusion that the *game* was better when they limited Defensive Weapons to S4 or less.

That is, as designers, they have the responsibility to *all* players and *all* Codices, not just the Imperials or what has been sold to date. That is, things that have been sold are a sunk cost, and simply don't need to enter into consideration in terms of forward design. And the universe is more than Space Marines.

So yeah, GW probably thought about it, and rejected it because they wanted to make a strong statement about how 5th was different from 4th (which was not hugely different from 3rd).

Wouldn't the faster you move make the main gun fire less acurately? Seeing as yes it may have better stabalizers, but its also usually very heay and slo to turn. And if you are speeding over rough terrain then you probably couldn't track a target very well let alone hit the darn thing. If anything its the side sponsons that should get it. Cause thats their job. (though what you are getting at is generally represented better by strength reliant classifications seeing an earthshaker is harder to move than a twin mounted assault cannon)

Dakkaladd and JohnHWangDD-
That comment was based off of what tegeus-Cromis said about the subject having already been thoroughly discussed. I made the comment believing that other folks had suggested similar defensive weapon rules as I hadn't read the other thread before the time of posting. Being that I have, I'd like to withdraw that statement, if I may..
JohnHWangDD-
As far as my test rule catering to Imperial vehicles, my mentioning them was simply taking note of GW's designs for vehicles in general, not just Imperial vehicles where I first noticed the trend. Just about every vehicle has a weapon that could easily be considered it's primary weapon and can be potentially upgraded to carry weapons that can be considered secondary and tertiary.
Eldar Falcons for example would consider their turret's pulse laser as their primary weapon with either their other turrets being considered secondary or possibly tertiary weapons.
One exception I can think of readily is the Dark Eldar Ravager where it can be equipped with 3 identical weapons, in this case I'd say one counts as that primary and the others count as secondary.
Ratbarf- Eh.. I never said it was without it's flaws, but in my mind's eye I see whoever's directing the vehicle's movement being in control of the main weapon as well (whether this is true or not, I don't know.. my fluff-fu is weak). So, they'd know when to expect bumps and sudden changes in directions while the gunners for the side sponsons or pintle mount weapons (secondary and tertiary weapons) will either have less stabilization or not be able to predict the vehicle's movement as readily and thus not be able to aim as well. Anyway.. that was the idea behind my original approach anyway.

Ok, onto some constructive criticism or at least talking about the topic at hand. On the surface, it seems like a reasonable idea. My concern, however, is that it seriously promotes single gun platforms. Things like the Russ’ without sponsoons would really do well under this system since it only ever fires one weapon anyway. Same goes for chimeras, hell hounds, predators without sponsoons, and fire prisms. All of these tanks have one main weapon (and possibly a tertiary weapon) so it means that they can zip around the field at 2/3 speed all the time and never worry much about slowing down while their more diversely armed counter parts will need to slow down or stop completely in order to bring their fire power to bare. All of a sudden basilisks, whirlwinds, and Russ’ are mobile while triple las preds and ravagers are forced to be static.

Phoenix wrote:Ok, onto some constructive criticism or at least talking about the topic at hand. On the surface, it seems like a reasonable idea. My concern, however, is that it seriously promotes single gun platforms. Things like the Russ’ without sponsoons would really do well under this system since it only ever fires one weapon anyway. Same goes for chimeras, hell hounds, predators without sponsoons, and fire prisms. All of these tanks have one main weapon (and possibly a tertiary weapon) so it means that they can zip around the field at 2/3 speed all the time and never worry much about slowing down while their more diversely armed counter parts will need to slow down or stop completely in order to bring their fire power to bare. All of a sudden basilisks, whirlwinds, and Russ’ are mobile while triple las preds and ravagers are forced to be static.

Isn't that what the whole "defensive weapon" issue is all about? making player's heavily armed vehicles decide between mobility and firepower? Anyways, we can still make some corrections. One amendment I'd like to suggest would be that Ordinance weapons can only move 1/2 distance and still fire as a possible stop-gap to keep whirlwinds and demolishers from riding all over the table firing their weapons like crazies.

That's already the case. A Vindicator can only move 6" and fire its Demolisher Cannon, and its shot scatters +1D6 if it does so. And you can't fire an Ordnance Barrage weapon and move at the same time.

Nurglitch wrote:That's already the case. A Vindicator can only move 6" and fire its Demolisher Cannon, and its shot scatters +1D6 if it does so. And you can't fire an Ordnance Barrage weapon and move at the same time.

I meant that in addition to the other rules suggested as a means to keep Basilisks and the like from becoming super mobile which doesn't fit at all.. I think Phoenix was worried that the movement changes suggested would allow Ordinance weapons to be fired as "primary weapons", which I agree needs to be addressed. Outside of that, I see most vehicles functioning in a manner consistent of their roles except for maybe fast vehicles. I haven't really thought through how to address the amount of punch they'd lose doing things this way..

Then I suggest that you should diagram out what the regular rules do, and then do the same to your proposal, because that will help you think it through.