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.

There are a few things that strike me as odd concerning blast and barrage rules.
* Would allocation for blasts is done via closest visible model. This creates odd scenarios, suppose a unit is stretched across a building with some models visible to the left of the building and some to the right. A single blast would kill models on opposite sides of the building first, before units adjacent to the original target, but out-of-sight to the firer.
* A unit can be in cover, and the attacker can throw a grenade over the cover, yet they get a cover save because the guy who threw the grenade has a barrier between his eyesite and his target, which the grenade is sitting right next to.
* An independent character by himself may receive a single wound from a battle cannon, but if he is leading a squad of infantry, he may find that he has 6 or more wounds coming at him from the exact same battle cannon.

These are probably obvious revisions, but I'll say them any ways.

I would make the following revision:

* Rule Description: [ X, Y Blast ]
The firing weapon may select X targets. For each target, pick a single visible model and then place a blast marker over that model. Roll scatter dice as normal, and move the marker accordingly. Every model under the blast marker adds Y wounds to the wound pool. Allocate Y wounds from the wound pool to each model in the target unit, starting from the model closest to the blast marker center and moving outward until all unsaved wounds have been allocated. Cover is calculated using the center of the blast marker at ground level as the origin of the attack. A model that is under the template, but no line-of-sight exists between the center of the blast marker and the model, cannot have a would allocated to it, and a further model must be selected. Any wounds in the wound pool that remain after all visible models have had Y wounds allocated to them are wasted. If a model dies before all Y wounds are are resolved, the excess wounds are wasted.

* Rule Description: [ X, Y Barrage]
As per the Blast rules with the following changes. All barrage weapons have the pinning special rule. A barrage weapon may fire as a blast weapon, provided that the target is at a range greater than the minimum range of the weapon, and within the maximum range, and line-of-sight can be established between the firer and the target. A barrage weapon may also choose to fire at any valid target (night-fighting targeting restrictions still apply) within maximum range by using a ballistic trajectory and having the attack come crashing down upon its target. When firing a barrage attack in this manner, ballistic skill may not be subtracted when rolling to scatter, and all shots hit ruins and structures at their upper-most level. E.g. a barrage attack may not target the 1st floor of a 3-story ruin, the attack must be at the 3rd level.

A few example weapon profiles:
[1, 2 Small Blast] = A small blast marker is used, and scattered as normal. For each model under the template, the wound pool is increased by 2. Allocate two wounds to each model from closest to furthest from the blast marker center and roll saves.
[1, 1 Large Blast] = A large blast marker is used and scattered as normal. For each model under the template, the wound pool is increased by 1. Allocate one wound to each model from closest to furthest from the blast marker center and roll saves.
[3, 1 Small Blast, Twin Linked] = Three targets may be selected and a small blast marker is used as normal. For each model under each template, the wound pool is increased by 1. The "Twin Linked" special rule allows scatter rolls to be re-rolled, similar to existing blast rules.

I've always thought that the best way to do cover with blast weapons was to make a single cover save. If it passes, than the shot detonated on a tree or something. If you fail, then resolve it as normal.

Unfortunately, that can bring about double saves and the like if you don't word it carefully.

I'd much rather;

Blast (x+)

After rolling to hit and for cover, a weapon with this rule rolls 1d6 for each model in the target unit. For each x+ it scores a hit. For instance, Blast (5+) scores a hit on a 5+

Yes, the blast/barrage rules are stupid. But that's because all of the wound allocation rules are stupid. For example, the front model getting "hit" multiple times by a battlecannon because of the squad behind them. Obviously stupid, but it's also pretty stupid that if I have an IC with a re-rollable 2++ standing in front of a guy with a melta gun and no save my entire squad has to shoot the tank character first instead of just ignoring him and shooting the melta gunner. So IMO if you're going to change the rules for blast/barrage weapons you need to also change all of the other rules.

And if you're not going to make a comprehensive fix to the idiotic wound allocation system the only thing needed for barrage weapons is to remove the confused mess about direct vs. indirect fire and go back to the 6th edition rules where minimum range is a hard limit and direct fire means shooting your Basilisk's gun like a standard blast weapon.

* Rule Description: [ X, Y Blast ]

This is really broken. Yes, it makes it a bit harder to stack up wounds on single models but it turns every blast weapon into a sniper rifle. Barrage sniping is stupid enough when it's limited to a handful of barrage weapons, the last thing we need is every Riptide/LRBT/etc sniping characters out of squads.

* Rule Description: [ X, Y Barrage]

This keeps the confused mess of direct vs. indirect fire and makes no sense. The minimum range on a barrage weapon represents the fact that you can't fire in a high arc against a target too close to the gun (you need a very high angle and most guns can't elevate to 85* to do it), so shooting with the barrage rules inside minimum range makes no sense. Meanwhile having that minimum range limit on a normal blast shot makes no sense because you're not firing in a high arc anymore, you're just pointing the gun at the target and shooting.

if I have an IC with a re-rollable 2++ standing in front of a guy with a melta gun and no save my entire squad has to shoot the tank character first instead of just ignoring him and shooting the melta gunner.

I think the focus-fire rules were 6th edition's attempt to fix this problem. The shooting squad would do a focus fire on 3+, the 2++ guy would be skipped and the entire squad would pump their shots into the melta guy.

* Rule Description: [ X, Y Blast ]

This is really broken. Yes, it makes it a bit harder to stack up wounds on single models but it turns every blast weapon into a sniper rifle.

Good point, this does introduce at least part of the barrage sniping problem to blast weapons. Though it is not nearly as extreme, as a character caught in a [1, 1 Large Blast] would receive only a single wound. However, I think this is a fair compromise. I think that if a tank shell lands next to a guy, it is fair that he sustains a wound. This position is more reasonable than the current one where I can throw a grenade over a wall, yet the guy behind the wall gets cover because I cannot see him clearly as the grenade goes off. Also, the limit to Y wounds per target would greatly diminish the problem of barrage sniping (piling up all wounds on a single character until he's dead) while still keeping it reasonable.

* Rule Description: [ X, Y Barrage]

This keeps the confused mess of direct vs. indirect fire and makes no sense. The minimum range on a barrage weapon represents the fact that you can't fire in a high arc against a target too close to the gun (you need a very high angle and most guns can't elevate to 85* to do it), so shooting with the barrage rules inside minimum range makes no sense. Meanwhile having that minimum range limit on a normal blast shot makes no sense because you're not firing in a high arc anymore, you're just pointing the gun at the target and shooting.

Agreed. The better rule would be:

* Rule Description: [ X, Y Barrage]
As per the Blast rules with the following changes. All barrage weapons have the pinning special rule. A barrage weapon may fire as a blast weapon, provided that the target is within the maximum range, and line-of-sight can be established between the firer and the target. A barrage weapon may also choose to fire at any valid target (night-fighting targeting restrictions still apply) further away than its minimum range and within its maximum range by using a ballistic trajectory and having the attack come crashing down upon its target. When firing a barrage attack in this manner, ballistic skill may not be subtracted when rolling to scatter, and all shots hit ruins and structures at their upper-most level. E.g. a barrage attack may not target the 1st floor of a 3-story ruin, the attack must be at the 3rd level.

I think the main issue with your ideas is that it would be too time consuming in an already slow game. My honest suggestion would be to deal with it, the rules have to be semi-realistic, or at least intuitive, and not eat up too much time, which is a careful balance. Also, while taking casualties from the front may seem counter-intuitive, it is better than constantly being shot out of cohesion and having to spend a movement phase trying to get back into cohesion.

 rabid1903 wrote:
I've always thought that the best way to do cover with blast weapons was to make a single cover save. If it passes, than the shot detonated on a tree or something. If you fail, then resolve it as normal.

The main issue with that is that it nerfs blast weapons, and particularly large blast weapons like nothing else. If a battlecannon fires at marines in cover, it has a 50/50, same as a plasma cannon, despite having fewer potential wounds, the plasma cannon still gets the same number of cover saves as the battle cannon. Also, cover doesn't always represent a miss or the shot itself hitting something else. A marine that makes a cover save could have been hiding behind a tree, while one who didn't was in the open or hiding behind a bush and still got riddled with shrapnel.

I think the main issue with your ideas is that it would be too time consuming in an already slow game. My honest suggestion would be to deal with it, the rules have to be semi-realistic, or at least intuitive, and not eat up too much time, which is a careful balance.

A very fair and reasonable point, and perhaps my suggestion leans too heavily towards realism (I use the term loosely here) at the expense of speed. How about if the rule is modified so that all the dice rolls are grouped up by saving throw, all wounds rolled at once, and then have unsaved wounds distributed from the blast center, outward.

Consider this example:

A [ 1, 1 Large Blast], AP -- ] weapon scores a direct hit on a unit of imperial guardsmen with a heavy-weapons team (2 wounds). Eight guardsmen (5+ cover) are below the template, but three are behind an Aegis defense line and have a 4+ cover. So five 5+ saves are rolled and three 4+ saves are rolled. A total of 4 unsaved wounds are scored. Each model in the unit receives 1 wound, starting from the closest to the blast marker to the furthest. So if the heavy-weapons team was at the center of the blast, it would receive 1 of the 4 wounds, and the remaining 3 would be given to the 3 closest guardsmen.

This system would be faster to roll than the previous one, which required a separate roll, model by model. It would also solve most of the original problems presented and be within reason for realism (people closer to the blast center get wounded and it doesn't "skip over" models).

Better?

madric wrote:
I think the focus-fire rules were 6th edition's attempt to fix this problem. The shooting squad would do a focus fire on 3+, the 2++ guy would be skipped and the entire squad would pump their shots into the melta guy.

You can only focus fire against cover saves, not invulnerable or armor saves. And you can only focus fire on a save number, if the entire unit has a 2+ cover save with only one model getting the re-roll you can't focus on the re-roll model.

Though it is not nearly as extreme, as a character caught in a [1, 1 Large Blast] would receive only a single wound.

You're forgetting about instant death. Sure, frag missiles aren't going to do much, but LRBTs/Riptides/etc only need one wound to kill (most) characters. And of course upgrades are usually only one-wound models, so you get stupid things like a LR Executioner removing all the special/heavy weapons from a squad in one round of fire.

When firing a barrage attack in this manner, ballistic skill may not be subtracted when rolling to scatter, and all shots hit ruins and structures at their upper-most level. E.g. a barrage attack may not target the 1st floor of a 3-story ruin, the attack must be at the 3rd level.

The rest is good, but this needs to change. There's a reason the barrage rules have the shell land on the highest level under the center of the template. Otherwise you have absurd situations like a ruin having a tiny 1"x1" top "level" that must be targeted while models standing on the bottom level with no roof over their heads are immune to barrage weapons.

You're forgetting about instant death. Sure, frag missiles aren't going to do much, but LRBTs/Riptides/etc only need one wound to kill (most) characters.

You are correct, this does create a serious loss of control for the target of the blast weapon and would seriously hinder the value of characters in combat. Though this may be more "realistic", it would definitely be less fun for people who put so much care and attention on these leader characters.

Maybe my proposed rule could allow for speed, fun, realism, and intuitiveness all at once by tuning the "Look Out Sir" rule. If any kind of wound allocation to characters is considered game-breaking, then "Look Out Sir" should be automatic as long as a model of his unit is within 3" (this could also considerably speed up rolling). If leaders should be allowed to be in risk no matter where they are standing in the unit, even at the cost of game speed, then "Look Out Sir" may not always pass and can use current rules.

As a side-note, if "Look Out SIr" were to automatically pass, a new role for Bodyguards in my Company Command Squad would have to be found.