Altering Ballistic Skill

[jahred]

This idea came to me as I read the Warhammer Historical book: The Great War. I don't know how many people are familar with Warhammer Historical or their line of books so, here is a link to the website regarding them:

http://www.warhammer-historical.com/

Anyway, the main thing with Warhammer Historical (almost obviously) is that they are conversions of the Warhammer ruleset in order to play Historical games with a few minor differences. One of the main differences in Warhammer Ancients compared to Warhammer Fantasy is that heavy armour gives you -1" movement. As this example shows, the rules are 98% compatible with normal warhammer rules with some minor tweaks and changes in order to suit historical gaming more (as well as the complete removal of magic).

Now, back to my main point. As I was reading the Great War rules, I noticed that instead of having a Ballistic skill as such, instead, it had been altered to a 4+ with elite units getting a 3+ rating and poor quality troops getting a 5+ rating. By doing this, the book had removed the need to put in a balistic skill chart as well as cleaning up the mechanics that it originally worked on (i.e 1=6+, 2=5+). My first reaction was "Wow, this is different but it makes sense" and my second was "Why doesn't 40k do this?". Ballistic skill currently in 40k serves no real purpose, there are no bonus' or minus' for long range or short range shooting, cover provides you with a save rather than a hit modifier and rapid fire equals more shots at the same rating. So, in other words, its a very redudant skill compared to in Fantasy where such modifiers still exist.

So, why hasn't 40k completly removed BS as a numerical skill and replaced it with this simple 2+, 3+, 4+ system? Whilst I can understand arguments that it means that there won't be a solid coherent ruleset against the two lines. It just seems odd that 40K still uses a mechanic that the game doesn't ultilise anymore as it was once intended.

So, what do other people think? It should remain as it is? It should adopt this simplier version? Or, that 40k should have shooting modifiers put back into it?

Edit - 1) They have also altered WS like this as well but I think its more pertinent with BS and 40K
2) An example statline is: WS BS S T W I A LD
4+ 4+ 3 3 1 3 1 7

[Cryl]

40k as a game seems to stay as far away from modifiers as possible, it's all about the absolute. Shooting either hits or misses based on one stat (multiple shots give no penalty, nor does range or cover), AP is the other perfect example, why does one weapon completely ignore my armour the other only slightly less powerful one gives me a full armour save with no reduction in its effectiveness? The answer is speed and ease of play even though it makes less sense than modfications would.
Modifiers aside I agree the mechanics of the current BS system add nothing to the game... I'd add that if this was to be overhauled (a mechanic like LotR would work better) then they should also look at WS... the table makes little sense at the extremes WS10 vs WS2 being a good example.

[jahred]

40k as a game seems to stay as far away from modifiers as possible, it's all about the absolute. Shooting either hits or misses based on one stat (multiple shots give no penalty, nor does range or cover), AP is the other perfect example, why does one weapon completely ignore my armour the other only slightly less powerful one gives me a full armour save with no reduction in its effectiveness? The answer is speed and ease of play even though it makes less sense than modfications would.
Modifiers aside I agree the mechanics of the current BS system add nothing to the game... I'd add that if this was to be overhauled (a mechanic like LotR would work better) then they should also look at WS... the table makes little sense at the extremes WS10 vs WS2 being a good example.

Excellent points, I hadn't considered how armour saves fit in this as well since they are also examples of an absolute system.

How does LotR's work with regards to BS? I don't know the mechanics of that game!

[Cryl]

WotR uses a shoot value, which is 3+, 4+, 5+ etc and that's the value you need to score a hit, for shoot values below 5+ you get an accuracy bonus (which in the mechanics of that game gives you more rolls to wound, the idea being that the better archers can get more arrows in the air faster) but the strenght of the shots is reduced by 1 over half range, very significant as most shooting is only S2 to start with. It's similar in the LotR SBG.

For 40k you'd need to change the way that accuracy works since the mechanics are different but the principle of shoot values is sound enough. It's effectively what we have now just called BS and given a value instead!

[entendre_entendre]

i've always wondered why i need to roll to hit a vehicle that's less than 6' away (broad side of a barn much?), i mean, if you can't hit that, you shouldn't be here! i thought about adding +1 to hit @ 6'' or less due to the target being so close, but i don't play with a regular group, and strangers tend not to go with new rules so much :(. also the ws chart doesn't really make much sense, it shouldn't be so generous, as ws10 is really redundant now.

[Valkerie]

40k as a game seems to stay as far away from modifiers as possible, it's all about the absolute. Shooting either hits or misses based on one stat (multiple shots give no penalty, nor does range or cover), AP is the other perfect example, why does one weapon completely ignore my armour the other only slightly less powerful one gives me a full armour save with no reduction in its effectiveness? The answer is speed and ease of play even though it makes less sense than modfications would.
Modifiers aside I agree the mechanics of the current BS system add nothing to the game... I'd add that if this was to be overhauled (a mechanic like LotR would work better) then they should also look at WS... the table makes little sense at the extremes WS10 vs WS2 being a good example.
One of my favorites; a hellgun is strength three with AP 5. A Multilaser is strength six with AP 6? Twice as strong with half the AP.

[DarkLink]

AP is the other perfect example, why does one weapon completely ignore my armour the other only slightly less powerful one gives me a full armour save with no reduction in its effectiveness?

I'll note that this is actually very close to how real body armor works. Body armor is rated to stop a certain level of projectiles. For example, our soldiers mostly wear Lv IV body armor with carrier plates, which are rated to stop projectiles up to a 7.62x51mm NATO round if I recall correctly. With body armor, either the armor stops the round (in which case you may still be bruised, but often in the adrenaline of combat soldiers and Marines will fall down from the shock but not even notice the bruise, or not even realize they've been shot at all), or the bullet punches through the armor (which then causes injuries, usually very sever ones). Flesh isn't very resistant to bullets, so if a bullet does get through the armor, you're in trouble.

[BuFFo]

40k is fine without armor modifiers.

Orks had them for almost a decade, and it never made any sense.

Either armor will stop a certain projectile, or it won't. There are no gray areas here. Failing an armor save could mean anything you want it to.

I was stationed in Iraq, and I was in a convoy when a friend of mine was hit in the head with an RPG (rocket propelled grenade) in the head. His Kevlar Helmet actually forced the rocket to ricochet 'up' a few feet before the rocket detonated.

Yes. A man was hit in the head with a rocket, the rocket bounced upwards, blew up, and he lived. Sure he has hearing lose, but he lived.

He passed his armor save, but I am sure if the rocket hit any where else, his armor save would have been negated.

lol.

If you want Shooting Modifiers, play Tau. .... If you want to win games, don't play Tau lol....

[Gregory]

jahred, I see what you mean. The current BS system is completely redundant because all you're doing is taking that number and finding another number that's always the same. It's a direct one-to-one translation, so what's the point of the intermediate step? Who knows...

[energongoodie]

You should get a copy of 40k rogue trader. I think you would like it. Weapons had close range/long range modifiers, armour modifiers etc. It's a great read.

[Denzark]

Rogue trader modifiers worked well and made sense - but also modifiers for assault worked.

[Duke]

Sure RT modifiers (And 2nd ed modifiers) worked great during that time. But also RT was much more Role playing based than a full on battle sim. For efficency sake I don't like modifiers, less to remember.

Duke

P.S. If I were to see a chart changed it would be WS, not BS.

[Denzark]

Sure RT modifiers (And 2nd ed modifiers) worked great during that time. But also RT was much more Role playing based than a full on battle sim. For efficency sake I don't like modifiers, less to remember.

Duke

P.S. If I were to see a chart changed it would be WS, not BS.

I would agree with a ws adjust - why is it someone with twice the weapon skill has a 2/3 chance to hit the opposition, that get a 50/50 chance to hit back - case in point last week my opponents tac squad hitting my gretaer daemon.

But remember the days of parrys, fumbles, -1 for higher up opponents, etc? As a lot of people are playing this sort of thing in Space Hulk and not complaining about the pace I don't knwo...

[Crae]

HEHE.....guys...theres a actual reason or two for BS instead of a X+ stat. First of, Bs modifies the scatter dice on blast templates. Second of there is a nice little charter on page 18 of the rules book that tells you how high Bs, gives you a reroll on 1.

Ws is not replaceable, since it matters when you figure out what you need to roll compared to your opponent. So the system really has its reasons for being as is.

-Crae-

[jahred]

HEHE.....guys...theres a actual reason or two for BS instead of a X+ stat. First of, Bs modifies the scatter dice on blast templates. Second of there is a nice little charter on page 18 of the rules book that tells you how high Bs, gives you a reroll on 1.
-Crae-

However, the mechanic as it currently stands only works for those two exceptions. The first one could be easily modified by saying that the weapon scatters 2d6-3" (or 2d6-4" for Dark Reapers Missile weapons for example) whilst the second could be an additional rule *hits on a 2+ with reroll*. Saying that, so very few characters actually have that ability that its almost meaningness anyway. Certainly not enough to still keep on using BS in its current incarnation IMO.

As for WS, it also needs to be tweaked but I'm not too sure how.

[Cryl]

modifiers for assault is a good point, why does a guardsman with a knife have the same "armour penetration" as a space marine captain with a chainsword... seriously this thing is a chainsaw that's made into a massive sword being swung about by a genetically engineered psycho indoctrinated very experienced killing machine!

[Wolfshade]

I remember 2nd edition and it all got rather complicated, roll to hit include modifiers half range, weapon specific special rules, target behind heavy cover etc, rolling for damage, wounds save modifiers all very complicated, well written and understandable but still not an easy mechanic.

Warrior X only hits his target 1 in 6 times regardless of what is happening around them. Having the BS modified by the targetee's actions is similiar (though not the same as) giving the shooting player the opponets dice to roll for the save. The cover save can be thought of a similiar fashion, in 2 in 6 times I can hunker behind this bunker and avoid damage.

The way in which there is the 3,4,5+ shows that in WH the accuracies of the troops are all similiar, in 40k this difference is pushed out even further to take into account those who can't shoot and those who are such awesome marksmen that they need to roll 3+ on 2D6. Most of the troops can be grouped into the various forms of elite, normal, bad, etc for shooting purposes, but then you have aliens/technology which then further complicate the issue

[Crae]

However, the mechanic as it currently stands only works for those two exceptions. The first one could be easily modified by saying that the weapon scatters 2d6-3" (or 2d6-4" for Dark Reapers Missile weapons for example) whilst the second could be an additional rule *hits on a 2+ with reroll*. Saying that, so very few characters actually have that ability that its almost meaningness anyway. Certainly not enough to still keep on using BS in its current incarnation IMO.

As for WS, it also needs to be tweaked but I'm not too sure how.

So is it easier to write (for SM devastators with a signum)

To hit 4+ /blast 2d6-4 scatter
Signum allows a single unit to hit on a 2+/Blast 2d6-5 scatter

or in case of that scout sergeant that has BS 6 and is allowed to not fire so another can use his BS it gets even more complicated.

BS is a simple stat that containes several rules while using very few words to describe it.
Same example as above.

BS 4
Signum allows a single unit to shoot with BS 5

On top of that it sucks to have to modify stat lines since we all ready use X+/X++ for saves and the current stat line has been as is for a decade or two now. I am usually not very conservative, but changing the current stat line just results in even more confusion then keeping the current.

If you absolutely had to change it it should be BS 2 (2+ to hit) BS 3 (3+) and so on, at least the Grots would look great on paper, but the stat line wouldn't tell much about the strength of the unit any more. Generally speaking the current stat line provides with a quick over view of how good a unit is.

Ex. 1
4 4 4 4 1 4 1 8 /3+ - Aka a space marine compared to
4 2 3 4 1 2 2 7 /6+ - Aka. an Ork.

Intuitively any player can see that the general stat line of the marine is better then the ork.

Ex. 2
4 3+ 4 4 1 4 1 8 /3+
4 5+ 3 4 1 2 2 7 /6+

Now what ?

Ex. 3
4 3 4 4 1 4 1 8 /3+
4 5 3 4 1 2 2 7 /6+

What about now? What does this say about the two types of models ?

Ex. 1 = stats go up the more powerful they are, saves decrease the more powerful they are.

Ex. 2/3 = Stats go up the more powerful they are, except for Shooting. Saves decrease the more powerful they are. + added rules for scatter that needs to be listed.

So why not just stick to Bs ?

What about Initiative ? It is as redundant as Bs since it only describes who goes first in close combat and is used for a single psy power or two. So why not just make is 1 is the fastest since it is the first and then go down the line to 10 as the last ? or better make it A B C D, A is faster then B and so on ?

Or saves...why not handle them by giving them increased numbers or letters?...Armour A gives x amount of save, unless hit by a AP A weapon.

A indicates the max amount of save you can get (aye. 2+).

A=2+ B=3+ C=4+ D=5+ E=6+

/ indicates an invulnerable save.

A/D would be terminator level armour with a 2+/5++ save

B/C is a spacemarine commander.

C/D is a warlord with 'eavy armour and Cybork upgrade.

We could even increase that to F and make it FnP

A/D/F is a warlord in Mega armour and cybork in a FnP Nobs mob

We can keep complicating it and end up back in 2nd edition. Modifiers in a D6 system is a really bad idea, since each modifier means 16% decrease in something. In general a -1 to armour and we are back to ork Choppas and Chain axes modding armour saves to max 4+. favours the masses to much (or in the case of space marine haters, chainswords are so typical marine ubber powerness...nerf nerffffff....GW are soo in love with those gay marines....lets go gay bash some of 'em) and I want to hear all the lootas scream when they go from hitting on a 5+ to a 6+ :) if you added a modifier there.

Chainswords that add +1 str might be a possibility since they are really an anti flesh weapon, but then so many other weapons should have + something too and we are back in 2nd edition again.


Damn...I didn't want to go into ramble mode....now see what you did....grrrrr.... :)

[Duke]

Ok, Im going to have to jump in on this one a little more I think...

Im going to mostly talk about WS...

My porblem with WS is exacltey what DENZARK pointed out. I think it silly that an Avatar only hits a guardsman 66% of the time! Meanwhile that lowly Guardsman hits the Avatar 33% of the time.

So your telling me that if I were to fight an Avatar I would actually land a blow 1/3 of the time? What a wuss!

I don't suggest much change to the WS chart, except that there should be a "hits on a 2+" and a "hits on a 6+" There should also be rerolls to hit for extreme WS (Like BS of 7+) Something like use the chart for the first dice and then reroll failed based on your extreme WS (WS 10= reroll to hit on 4+)

Duke