Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
Inspired by the 'BB throw range template.'
I think I have found a simple way of implementing a more graduated 'ballistic skill' and 'distance modifiers' mechanic.
My idea is to use 'range bands'.
Mark off equal distances on a 'measuring stick.'(Or just measure with a tape measure.)
Measure between the shooter and the target, count the 'range bands', this is the score the firer has to roll equal to or over to score a hit.
EG 6" range band,
Distance .Roll to hit.
Up to 12".2+(2 range bands.)
12 to 18".3+( 3 range bands.)
18 to 24" 4+(4range bands)
24 to 30 5+(5 range bands)
30 to 36" 6+(6 range bands.)
We could then give each BS a 'range band size.'
BS 2, 5 "
BS 3, 6"
BS 4, 7"
BS 5, 8"
This way at short ranges the hit roll is low for all shooters,but at longer distances the chances to to hit of lower BS drop of quickly.
up to 16 " 2+.
16 to 24" 3+
24ot 32 " 4+
32" to 40" 5+
40" to 48" 6+
Up to 10 " 2+
10 to 15" 3+
15 to 20" 4+
20 to 25 " 5+
25 to 30 " 6+.
Positive modifiers simply add to the to hit roll dice result.
Negative modifiers simply add to the to hit score requirment.
What do you think?
This will not just 'slot into current 40k'.But may be useful mechanic if we are doing a re-write of the 40k game rules.
This was tried, or a version of it anyway, back in 2nd edition. It just makes a full-size game that bit too unweildy, Necromunda is the game for this kind of detail, or Inquisitor if you really want to get into it.
it is a good set of rules, though, and well thought out. I just think it's too cumbersome for a game where you might have 50-100 models firing.
But, I'd say, if you're going into this sort of detail, you'd have to make it different for different weapons, or at least different types, and that's where 2nd ed went sticky...
I don't mean to sound harsh, and if you're set on re-writing 40k, then these will work. I just think they'll slow the game down too much.
Last edited by Wolf Lord Herby; August 12th, 2008 at 21:37.
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC
I thought 2nd ed just had the current BS system but with LOTS of modifier, EVERY weapon had its own set of range modifiers for short and long range!
But my memory is not as good as it was....
Any how , IF we shift the emphsis to UNIT interaction rather than model focused
(Because I dont have any minatures to market).
There are fewer interactions to concider, so we could make them more detailed.
Thanks for the feed back,it is much appreciated.
Ill keep posting alternative mechanics , see what you guys think.
I'll admit that I've never played 2nd ed, I'm just going by what I've heard.
Good luck with making your more detailed game, btw. The only problem I'd be wary of is slowing the game down too much.
If you do make it more detailed, I feel you really do need to lower the model count.
This is why Necromunda, the next GW game up in terms of detail, only has at most a dozen of men in each side, and Inquisitor, the most detailed game, has at most 4.
So, maybe, rather than marketing it as re-doing 40k, you could make it more of a combat-patrol level game, with 3 or 4 squads a side? I don't know how that fits in with your plan, and feel free to totally disregard the suggestion, lol.
EDIT: Having re-read your post, I think I actually understand what you're saying, lol.. Making each unit, effectively, a model, which I think is what you're suggesting, would be a nice way around the problems I've mentioned. Reps for the thinking-things-through, and good luck! This looks like it could make quite a good alternative games system.
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC
In current 40k , multiple model units have to keep coherancy and move together.They have to shoot at/assault the same target.
The 'in game effects' of multiple model units ARE simiar to an individual multiple wound, multiple attack, single model.(Just on a variable sized base.)
Well thats my reasoning about shifting the focus to the unit level anyway.
At least you seem to understand what I am trying to do.This is quite encouraging.
Have you ever looked at the rules for Epic? Because I think, if you follow your rules to a logical conclusion, you will ultimately end up with using a single stat line to represent each squad, similar to the mechanics of Epic.
You can dl the rules here: Games Workshop Specialist Games
Might be worth a look.
These are official, btw, if you're worried by that thread in general discussion.
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC
Yes I am familiar with Epic/Space Marine/Net/ and Armageddon versions.
But I would want more unit detail than is currently in Epic Armageddon.
E.A focuses more on command than unit capabilites.(As it should at the battalion to regimental level.)
I propose to reduce action set size,and increase the amount of detail of unit capabilities.
EG rather than reduce everthing to a single dice roll,
Give weapon damage effects as value and type.
And the armour rating is simply subtracted from the damage value to give the saving thow required.
EG Heavy bolter 6 AP. Orks Mob AR 2
Orks need to roll (6-2=4) over 4 to save(5+)
(I quite like the targeting mechanics used in Starship troopers.)
I would still use the AP/AT/AA weapon effects decriptions.
BTW ,I dont care about how 'official' rule sets are.
My group play Stargrunt II, Xenicide, Infinity, No-limits,etc, rule sets using 40k minis....(Manily because the rules are free to down load.)