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.

Lethality has been a pretty pervasive issue for a while now. Most solutions based on tweaking stats and points in order to reduce the strength a unit can put out. The problem with this is either a Sisyphusian effort of trying to ensure the stats and points line up, while failing to solve the actual problem: That if you want to keep something alive, the only way to do so is either hiding it inside a vehicle (which makes it a non-entity on the board) or having the Character keyword.

the underlying mechanics of this related to Effectiveness vs Efficiency. Effectiveness is the "true" capability of something, based wholly on the stats as is. A tactical marine squad can unleash 20 BS 3+ str 4 shots in the shooting phase, vs a squad of guardsmen's bs 4+ str 3, making the tac marines more Effective at shooting. But because you can take several guardsmen for the same cost, this begins to even out and in the right context outstrips the marines in different ways. Theoretically the difficulty of getting those guardsmen in the right position would make it harder to get that full efficiency, but because of the range in which shooting is done and the method of activating shooting attack there little risk for over/underkill or efficiency lost.

So my proposal is to bring back a rule that has been absent since 5th edition: target priority. Changed to be more appropriate for current rules, the idea is thus:

During the shooting phase, if a model is targeting the nearest eligible enemy infantry/biker/artillery unit, or the nearest eligible enemy Vehicle/Monstrous Creature, the unit moves on to resolution of the attack (aka rolling dice). If any models do not do so (as in, targeting a unit that isn't the closest infantry/biker or vehicle/monstrous creature, the unit must roll two 6 sided dice, if the combined result is equal to or less than the unit's highest leadership, those models may fire at their chosen target as normal. if not, the models must instead fire at the nearest eligible enemy infantry/biker/artillery unit, or the nearest enemy Vehicle/Monstrous Creature with a -1 to hit rolls.

At the basis of it, if you try and shoot something other than the closest thing, there's a chance you lose out and make a weaker attack as a cost.

In addition, I would add
When a unit attempts to make a Target Priority test, if an enemy unit is within 6 inches of that unit, the test takes a -2 penalty

The advantage of this is:
Breaks ups efficient firepower on a single target, since there's now a chance the attack hits an unwanted target. less "I just hit it until it's dead"
it makes positioning and leadership more important, if you want to ensure your attacks hit what you want you need to put them where it's useful. Also gives you more tools to force that, either with positioning or with rules that discrease leadership.

A few notes for rules changes:
Anything that ignores the Character protection should also ignore Target Priority
Line of Sight ignoring weapons would also ignore Target Priority. This might be too strong for weapons that are already very good, but LoS ignoring weapons need a rework anyway (maybe a unit can preform an action that lets a los ignoring weapons function)
Stuff that's meant to effect morale tests for hordes(like Mob Rule and Synapse) should probably not effect Target priority, since horde's lower leadership makes sense for fearlessness =/= discipline. There are some places where this could happen, such as the commassar's summory execution.
Some armies should have ways to either make target priority tests easier or even ignored, but should be limited in some way (like tau marker lights or Ad mech enhanced data tether)

Any thoughts?

In concept, I don't like it.

Taking away player choice does not, in general, make for a more fun game.

In execution... It'd need playtesting, and there's still an issue with leafblowers having enough shooting power to just wipe the nearest units and then the further ones, without any risk.

It would make a lot of long range weapons feel really awkward. For example all those IG tanks with 48-72" range like LRBT, LR Vanquisher, Destroyer Tankhunter, Macharius family, Baneblade family etc. that are clearly designed to reach out across the board would suddenly really struggle to do so.

Also units that buff Leadership would become much stronger. The most extreme example I found glancing around was DKOK Marshal Karis Venner who has LD9 that he gives to ALL FRIENDLY units within 12". And he can be buffed by a DKOK regimental standard (+1) and platoon standard (another +1). Put him into the IG defense line that grants +1 LD and everything around him has LD12 and can shoot whatever it wants, while highly elite armies might still struggle

Edit: but on that note it would be pretty hilarious to see armies like SM, SoB and Custodes include a tiny DKOK marshal + infantry squad (platoon standard) + command squad (regimental standard) because they don't dare shooting at anything else than the closest enemy reliably unless the big strong Kriegers are nearby to inspire their courage!

I want to like it. I think there's a way to make it work. But I don't think it's quite there as you've presented it.

I'm picturing my expensive 3 dark lance ravager moving into position to fire at the enemy gunline. Its job is to help kill the enemy tank commander. It's a significant part of my entire army's anti-tank. And oh, look, it randomly decided to shoot the screen of guardsmen in front of the tank commander. With its 3 anti tank guns that will kill at most 3 guardsmen. It basically lost its shooting because it failed a leadership test, and there was nothing I could have done differently to bypass that test or improve my odds of passing it.

It's maybe even worse for my fire dragons who have to get close to the enemy and usually only get one turn of shooting before they're wiped out. And it's going to look really silly when my deepstriking kabalite warrior blob or swooping hawk squad insist on putting strength 1 and 3 shots into a T7 vehicle instead of the infnatry squad right next to them. And it's really bad for armies like Tau that live and die on their shooting phase.

Having target priority be "always on" means that you'll be likely to fail a check a few times in a given game. I don't think it's going to feel like an improvement on realism or on tactical decision making; I think it's going to feel like a an artificial, gamey extra failure point to the attack process.

So as an adjustment, what if target priority only kicked in while there's an enemy unit within X"? With X being something like 9", 12", or 15". The idea being that your forces can pick out targets intelligently at a range, but having an enemy in your face is too distracting to focus on lining up an ideal shot across the table. That would help with the ravager scenario, but not so much with the fire dragon or kabalite scenarios. It seems like units with short-ranged weapons should maybe be exempt from target priority. Their job is to pick out key targets in the middle of the fray. It doesn't seem right that a fire dragon squad would have a significant chance of just not shooting at a tank because they got distracted by a guardsman.

Other random thoughts:
* How does this rule work if you're equidistant from two different targets? If my kabalite warrior blob's left flank is 9.1" from a tank and 12" from some infantry and the opposite is true for my right flank, how does target priority work? Edit: And note that ideally I'd want to split my unit's fire by putting my blasters and lances into the tank and my splinter rifles into the infantry.

* LoS ignoring weapons ignoring target priority seems a bit odd. A team of mortars isn't distracted by the berzerkers bearing down on them, but a lascannon team is? My night spinner can ignore the berzerkers, but my fire prism might randomly turn to shoot them?

* Having LoS ignoring weapons require an action to ignore LoS is a cool idea. Now how big of a points decrease are we going to apply to such weapons given that we're adding an action tax to them to use their special rule?

* I see where you're coming from on not having Synapse impact target priority. However, many tyranid units have pretty crummy leadership. And on a related note, this does create a some pretty big have and have nots in regard to Leadership and shooting. Necrons will almost never fail a priority test. Guardsman heavy weapon teams will only shoot their preferred target about half the time (Ld7 with a sergeant iirc). Eldar and marines will be relatively good at shooting what they want, but I hope your lootas didn't plan on shooting an important target.

TLDR; I like the concept, but how do we make it fun/interesting instead of annoying? As written, it mostly just creaets another failure point in the attack process. My ravager shooting lances at guardsmen does me about as much good as having it roll 1's to hit.

JNAProductions wrote:In concept, I don't like it.

Taking away player choice does not, in general, make for a more fun game.

In execution... It'd need playtesting, and there's still an issue with leafblowers having enough shooting power to just wipe the nearest units and then the further ones, without any risk.

In my opinion, this actually adds to the choices a player can make. Pushing units up to divide fire on different units, units actually being able to tank for other units without relying on stratagems and special rules, wounded units having a chance to fall back rather than mearly accepting they will die next time something shoots at them. Speaking from experience with a lot of Heralds of Ruin, this does not take away from the choice of the the player and the one thing is does negatively effect it by adding a risk to part of that choice. Nothing stopping you from shooting the other guy, there's just a risk you might fail. Which does have precedent already in the game in the form of random charge rolls.

Of course this doesn't do much to stop the raw damage some armies can do, but I don't think this will fix everything, just one of the problems.

Pyroalchi wrote:It would make a lot of long range weapons feel really awkward. For example all those IG tanks with 48-72" range like LRBT, LR Vanquisher, Destroyer Tankhunter, Macharius family, Baneblade family etc. that are clearly designed to reach out across the board would suddenly really struggle to do so.

Also units that buff Leadership would become much stronger. The most extreme example I found glancing around was DKOK Marshal Karis Venner who has LD9 that he gives to ALL FRIENDLY units within 12". And he can be buffed by a DKOK regimental standard (+1) and platoon standard (another +1). Put him into the IG defense line that grants +1 LD and everything around him has LD12 and can shoot whatever it wants, while highly elite armies might still struggle

Edit: but on that note it would be pretty hilarious to see armies like SM, SoB and Custodes include a tiny DKOK marshal + infantry squad (platoon standard) + command squad (regimental standard) because they don't dare shooting at anything else than the closest enemy reliably unless the big strong Kriegers are nearby to inspire their courage!

I can understand the negative effect on long ranged weapons, and certainly if there's any unit that should ignore Target priority outright it's Titantic units.

Making leadership buffs more powerful is intentional, of course, but I do find it funny for DKoK to get a big use of it, even if unintentionally I think in terms of reliability, a tactical marine squad only fails, what, 28% of time,? Assuming no other change, which I'm not opposed to.

Wyldhunt wrote:I want to like it. I think there's a way to make it work. But I don't think it's quite there as you've presented it.

I'm picturing my expensive 3 dark lance ravager moving into position to fire at the enemy gunline. Its job is to help kill the enemy tank commander. It's a significant part of my entire army's anti-tank. And oh, look, it randomly decided to shoot the screen of guardsmen in front of the tank commander. With its 3 anti tank guns that will kill at most 3 guardsmen. It basically lost its shooting because it failed a leadership test, and there was nothing I could have done differently to bypass that test or improve my odds of passing it.

It's maybe even worse for my fire dragons who have to get close to the enemy and usually only get one turn of shooting before they're wiped out. And it's going to look really silly when my deepstriking kabalite warrior blob or swooping hawk squad insist on putting strength 1 and 3 shots into a T7 vehicle instead of the infnatry squad right next to them. And it's really bad for armies like Tau that live and die on their shooting phase.

Having target priority be "always on" means that you'll be likely to fail a check a few times in a given game. I don't think it's going to feel like an improvement on realism or on tactical decision making; I think it's going to feel like a an artificial, gamey extra failure point to the attack process.

So as an adjustment, what if target priority only kicked in while there's an enemy unit within X"? With X being something like 9", 12", or 15". The idea being that your forces can pick out targets intelligently at a range, but having an enemy in your face is too distracting to focus on lining up an ideal shot across the table. That would help with the ravager scenario, but not so much with the fire dragon or kabalite scenarios. It seems like units with short-ranged weapons should maybe be exempt from target priority. Their job is to pick out key targets in the middle of the fray. It doesn't seem right that a fire dragon squad would have a significant chance of just not shooting at a tank because they got distracted by a guardsman.

Other random thoughts:
* How does this rule work if you're equidistant from two different targets? If my kabalite warrior blob's left flank is 9.1" from a tank and 12" from some infantry and the opposite is true for my right flank, how does target priority work? Edit: And note that ideally I'd want to split my unit's fire by putting my blasters and lances into the tank and my splinter rifles into the infantry.

* LoS ignoring weapons ignoring target priority seems a bit odd. A team of mortars isn't distracted by the berzerkers bearing down on them, but a lascannon team is? My night spinner can ignore the berzerkers, but my fire prism might randomly turn to shoot them?

* Having LoS ignoring weapons require an action to ignore LoS is a cool idea. Now how big of a points decrease are we going to apply to such weapons given that we're adding an action tax to them to use their special rule?

* I see where you're coming from on not having Synapse impact target priority. However, many tyranid units have pretty crummy leadership. And on a related note, this does create a some pretty big have and have nots in regard to Leadership and shooting. Necrons will almost never fail a priority test. Guardsman heavy weapon teams will only shoot their preferred target about half the time (Ld7 with a sergeant iirc). Eldar and marines will be relatively good at shooting what they want, but I hope your lootas didn't plan on shooting an important target.

TLDR; I like the concept, but how do we make it fun/interesting instead of annoying? As written, it mostly just creaets another failure point in the attack process. My ravager shooting lances at guardsmen does me about as much good as having it roll 1's to hit.

The rules as written already prevents that particular situation from happening, since vehicles/monsters are split off from infantry when targeting. As long as the tank commander is still the closest, no test is needed. And as I said, more mechanics would be added that make them easier as there would be some to make it harder (Marker light seems like a good way to allow units to auto pass target priority tests).

Making it distance based would add a good layer to it, but the main issue would be that the main point of having a rule like this is cutting down on some of the efficiency a first turn alpha strike can do and if the unit is back just a little further then it does very little during the most important turn in the game.

if a target is of equal range, then you can target either. And when split firing, it should probably better to measure what's "closer" per model.

Los Ignoring weapons is a bit of an issue, since on the one hand they should still be concerned when units threaten them like everyone else, but old "barrage" weapons whole point is hitting things far away and hard to hit things up close (min ranges maybe should be a thing again...). It's something I'd have to think more on, but at it's core being able to hit something out of LoS is a fairly strong ability already, and something needs to curb that slightly. perhaps it's better than they're more inaccurate if firing without a spotter, but that hits the issue of the mod cap. It's not necessarily the main point of the thread.

With Leadership woes I think it's a bit more varied than just haves and have nots, since . Tyranids would have a problem with that, but it would give stuff that do have a better leadership more use (since I believe those units in particular don't see as much use). More pertantly, it would be appropriate for there to be some rule that gives a nid unit a breifly higher Ld, like "Assuming Direct Control" or something. As for orks (as an ork player), that seems completely appropriate! ork priorities is "Shoot loud guns, Dakka dakka dakka!" and "Blow something up! Boom!" and thinking is the thing the warboss does.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

The rules as written already prevents that particular situation from happening, since vehicles/monsters are split off from infantry when targeting. As long as the tank commander is still the closest, no test is needed.

I'm re-reading the rule. Maybe I'm just tired, but I'm missing the bit that says that. Is the rule saying that, if I fail a priority test, I can still fire at my original target (the tank commander), just with a -1 to hit penalty? I was reading it as saying that a failed test meant I had to change targets to the closest unit AND took the -1 to hit penalty.

And as I said, more mechanics would be added that make them easier as there would be some to make it harder (Marker light seems like a good way to allow units to auto pass target priority tests).

Such mechanics could be cool. Markerlights, as you pointed out, seem like a natural fit for this. I'm still a bit tentative though. If you add a lot of unique rules that let you basically ignore target priority, then it makes me wonder if target priority should even be a thing. If you add a lot of rules that make target priority tests harder to pass, then it increases my concern that they'll disrupt gameplay in an undesirable way.

Making it distance based would add a good layer to it, but the main issue would be that the main point of having a rule like this is cutting down on some of the efficiency a first turn alpha strike can do and if the unit is back just a little further then it does very little during the most important turn in the game.

Alpha strikes are an issue in 40k, but also some armies rely on striking first and striking hard (Cobra Kai!). The ravager example is a good one. Drukhari die when you shoot at them. Part of their playstyle is hiding behind terrain before their first turn, then using their mobility to pop out and concentrate fire to destroy a key target ASAP. If they're prevented from concentrating fire, then there's a good chance they're just going to get deleted on the following turn. Probably by the thing they didn't kill.

Also, an army like guard can probably throw out target priority screens more efficiently than my drukhari. For about 50 points, they get around 10 wounds to my 5 with the same toughness and armor save.

if a target is of equal range, then you can target either. And when split firing, it should probably better to measure what's "closer" per model.

If it's per model, does that mean that you end up being forced to take a target priority test on a model-by-model basis? Say I'm fielding a 10 man scourge squad. I have 4 anti-tank guns on my left wing and 6 anti-infantry guns on my right wing. There's an enemy vehicle on my right and some enemy infantry on my left. Do I roll 10 tests (1 per scourge) so that my poison can shoot left and my anti-tank can shoot right?

Los Ignoring weapons is a bit of an issue, since on the one hand they should still be concerned when units threaten them like everyone else, but old "barrage" weapons whole point is hitting things far away and hard to hit things up close (min ranges maybe should be a thing again...). It's something I'd have to think more on, but at it's core being able to hit something out of LoS is a fairly strong ability already, and something needs to curb that slightly. perhaps it's better than they're more inaccurate if firing without a spotter, but that hits the issue of the mod cap. It's not necessarily the main point of the thread.

Fair enough. Probably warrants its own thread if you're interested in talking about it.

With Leadership woes I think it's a bit more varied than just haves and have nots, since . Tyranids would have a problem with that, but it would give stuff that do have a better leadership more use (since I believe those units in particular don't see as much use).

Leadership buffs are you usually pretty underwhelming, but they're also the weaker portion of subfaction rules for factions like Ultramarines and (iirc) Kabal of the Black Heart. Which are both probably not in need of a buff. Not that there aren't other leadership buff sources out there.

As for orks (as an ork player), that seems completely appropriate! ork priorities is "Shoot loud guns, Dakka dakka dakka!" and "Blow something up! Boom!" and thinking is the thing the warboss does.

Aye, but the ladz iz kunnin' enuff ta know that they can't get into a propuh scrap if da 'umie tanks krump 'em wiv dakka 'fore dey can get close. 'Sides, da boss told the tank bustas 'e wanted 'em 'ere specifically to wreck da 'umies dakka. He don't need 'em wastin' anti-tank dakka on the 'umies standin' around in the open.

Another thing just to mention it: what about weapons with two weapon profiles like imperial missile launchers? Would they have to shoot at the nearest infantry OR vehicle?

And regarding possible screw to adjust: it shouldn't be too difficult to just increase the LD of vehicles that should be able to ignore that, like Tank Hunters. Or just per those count as snipers.

So basically you want to give the entire game the instinctive behavior rule.

If a nid unit is not in synapse it can only target the nearest enemy unit.

How do you see this working with nid units that tend to have 5-6 ld scores? What about when they are in synapse?

IIRC in 4th edition you could fire against units that weren't closest ones only by passing a test, maybe a morale test. It was a disaster and was removed in the following edition.

Do you want less lethality? Halve units' damage output, remove re-rolls and fire-fight twice mechanics, remove deepstrike and outflank.

A little late to the show...

But the biggest thing we've house ruled to change lethality is "declared fire."

Essentially, before resolving your shooting attacks you declare all of your intended targets, then check for Range/LoS and resolve attacks.

Of course, we're playing in the context of 5th edition (ProHammer), so units also can't freely split fire on a model-by-model basis (which is a big boost to firepower!).

People always contend that declared fire takes too long, but it's actually QUICKER than normal shooting because you aren't re-prioritizing your shooting after every single attack based on the results of each attack. You just have to decide all at once where to allocate fire.

Declared fire is more skillful and adds a bit more risk/uncertainty to the game. You having to ride the line between overshooting something (and wasting shots) and undershooting (not doing enough damage to impact unit effectiveness).

Of course, 5th edition also has much different morale impacts, so you aren't just automatically removing extra models after failing morale tests (which further accelerates lethality).

 Mezmorki wrote:

People always contend that declared fire takes too long, but it's actually QUICKER than normal shooting because you aren't re-prioritizing your shooting after every single attack based on the results of each attack. You just have to decide all at once where to allocate fire.

My concern would be tracking which shots are going where. Even ignoring split fire (which could easily double the number of shooter-to-target relationships in some lists), how do keep track of what's shooting where? Neither creating labeled tokens for all my units nor laying a yarnball's worth of string across the table seems like it would be very elegant for something like my drukhari army. I'm sure you guys have found a solid workaround.

Declared fire is more skillful and adds a bit more risk/uncertainty to the game. You having to ride the line between overshooting something (and wasting shots) and undershooting (not doing enough damage to impact unit effectiveness).

To be fair, it's not necessarilyl "more skillful" so much as skillful in a different way. Your declared fire approach rewards a strong grasp of mathematics and an understanding of when it's important to overcommit to make sure something dies. The official rules reward being able to know when you've done enough damage to a target to safely leave it be, knowing when continuing to pour fire into a given target is no longer worth it, and being able to identify "next best" targets for your remaining units if your first few shots over/under perform.

We haven't needed to track what shots were going where. We just talk through it so both players are aware, and then go back to resolving it. On any given turn, 2/3rds of the shooting is usually pretty obvious what should be shooting at what, so it isn't hard to mentally keep track of it.

I could see unscrupulous players trying to abuse this, but it isn't an issue with our group. We tend to be very forgiving of mistakes or if people overlook things and don't get worked up. So in our experience, we haven't needed to keep track of things with tokens or whatever.

As far as the skill aspect, yes, it's certainly "different" skills. I guess I've played so many games, for so many years, that have the normal "optimize shooting priority" at their core that I'm just tired of it it. I find the standard approach to be an exercise in solving the optimal order, and not really about having to make tough calls that grapple with uncertainty directly. I like the latter much more, but YMMV of course.