Height advantage

[YorkNecromancer]

I've been playing a lot of 'XCOM: Enemy Within' recently, and aside from making me really reeeaaally want a 40K-themed XCOM game, it got me thinking.

One of the mechanics I personally really like is height advantage - that is, if you're higher than your target, you get bonuses to hit. I think this would be a nice little addition to 40K. Say +1 BS if you're one 'level' above the target (i.e.: on a hill, on the first level of a building) +2 BS if you're two 'levels' above, up to a maximum of +3. It would require players to agree how high each 'level' on the battlefield was prior to the game's start, but that's no different to anything else scenery-wise.

What do people think? Other than that a 40K-themed XCOM game would be the greatest game ever made. Which it would be.

[Tyrendian]

well XCOM 2 is supposed to get extreme modding support, so I highly doubt a 40k mod will be long in coming.

a buff to BS from height advantage is waaaay to powerful on armies like Guard or Orks that rely on bad odds to balance out their ridiculous amount of shots - or it can be downright meaningless if you're, say, an Eldar Aspect force that has BS5 naturally. So that's not a very good option in my opinion. An alternative that actually makes a lot more sense as well (being higher up doesn't magically make you the ultimate sniper after all) would be a modification to cover saves based on height - but I'd still make it just -1 to cover for a seriously significant amount of difference (say two stories of an average building).

[Charon]

Why not just bring back 2nd edition "to hit modifiers"?

[Denzark]

Yorkie - a couple of things. Firstly I have seen in other threads that you do not like save modifiers - but you would go for this - what's the difference?

Next, why a modifier to BS? To my knowledge firing from on high doesn't make the shot easier. Actually the bullet may go further - but that's sniper stuff where you are aiming so high above your target you can't see him in the sight picture - it doesn't transfer well to the close range firefights of 40K.

Finally, I always had it in my head that one edition - maybe RT and/or 2ed - gave a modifier in close combat if you were higher up than your opponent. I can get with that as assaulting uphill is a biatch and it reflects some reality.

[YorkNecromancer]

I'd still make it just -1 to cover for a seriously significant amount of difference (say two stories of an average building).

Ooooooh, that's a much better idea. Nice! :)

[Wolfshade]

I've been playing a lot of 'XCOM: Enemy Within' recently, and aside from making me really reeeaaally want a 40K-themed XCOM game, it got me thinking.

One of the mechanics I personally really like is height advantage - that is, if you're higher than your target, you get bonuses to hit. I think this would be a nice little addition to 40K. Say +1 BS if you're one 'level' above the target (i.e.: on a hill, on the first level of a building) +2 BS if you're two 'levels' above, up to a maximum of +3. It would require players to agree how high each 'level' on the battlefield was prior to the game's start, but that's no different to anything else scenery-wise.

What do people think? Other than that a 40K-themed XCOM game would be the greatest game ever made. Which it would be.


Why not just bring back 2nd edition "to hit modifiers"?

That was my thought when I read that.

[Mr Mystery]

Ooooooh, that's a much better idea. Nice! :)

I'd just make shots from higherer up than wot you are gain Pinning.

[mhelm01]

Finally, I always had it in my head that one edition - maybe RT and/or 2ed - gave a modifier in close combat if you were higher up than your opponent. I can get with that as assaulting uphill is a biatch and it reflects some reality.

I remember something like that too. I don't remember if it was in 2nd edition or fantasy.

[Charon]

In both.
40k gave you +1 WS, fantasy gave you +1 combat resolution.

[CoffeeGrunt]

I thought the idea was that your target is less likely to get a Cover Save due to intervening Cover if you're higher up and thus can see over it?

[Mr Mystery]

In Cityfight, attacks on the top armour of vehicles resolved against it's Side Armour value.

[Deacon Ix]

Why not just add the height to the range of the weapon?

[Mr Mystery]

Not sure what you mean on that one? You measure from model to model?

[Deacon Ix]

Say you have a marine with a bolter on top of a 6" high building the range on his bolter would be 30".

It makes sense as currently range is measures model to model so pythagoras being what it is a model on top of a structure currently has a shorter effective range than one at the bottom.

With projectile weapons (like bows in days of yore) the height does increase the range, energy weapons probably not so much but it depends upon how you fluff the tech.

[Tepogue]

Say you have a marine with a bolter on top of a 6" high building the range on his bolter would be 30".
.

And then we would end up with people building walls, to get the extra range. Tau with 36in rifles or better yet lets boost seeker missiles.

There is a reason the ranges in 40k are drastically below what they should be for the scale.

[CoffeeGrunt]

And then we would end up with people building walls, to get the extra range. Tau with 36in rifles or better yet lets boost seeker missiles.

I don't think +6" really makes a difference to a 72" range weapon...

[Deacon Ix]

And then we would end up with people building walls, to get the extra range. Tau with 36in rifles or better yet lets boost seeker missiles.

There is a reason the ranges in 40k are drastically below what they should be for the scale.

It is entirely possible that that could happen, if it did the 2 questions I would ask in that situation are:- 1) What happened to teh equal deployment of terrain and 2) do I really want to be playing against some one like that :)

The above aside I have mulled it over and as Coffee has pointed out the percentage increase on various weapons does make it a little silly (inferno pistols with silly ranges :-s)

so my revised idea would be to measure the higher models range horizontally rather than base to base which theoretically would give an advantage of a lower model.

But I realise that as I type this that it ANOTHER rule in a set which is already overly complicated and in reality I doubt I could be ars...

[Haighus]

There was the Plunging Fire strategem from the Cities of Death expansion that gave the army taking it the benefit of reducing all enemy cover saves by -1 when shooting from at least one level higher than the target (for generalisation this would be 3" higher than the model base-height to base height) and ignoring Obscured on vehicles on a 4+. That could be incorporated into the core rules quite easily I feel.

[Captain Bubonicus]

The funny thing is, firing from a greater height with a projectile weapon actually shifts the point of aim and makes it a bit harder to hit if you don't allow for it. You're forced to "aim low" or risk firing right over the target's head!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifleman%27s_rule

[Haighus]

The Rifleman's rule looks like something that only really needs to be applied to sniper weapons and maybe longer ranged battle rifle shots though, and is something I would expect to be automatically incorporated into the advanced targeting systems available to most of the myriad races of the 40k universe (Orks aren't very accurate anyway). Also not relevant to lasweaponry. Most cover not being very effective when fired at from a higher angle (such as barricades) definitely seems like a thing though.

[CoffeeGrunt]

The Rifleman's rule looks like something that only really needs to be applied to sniper weapons and maybe longer ranged battle rifle shots though, and is something I would expect to be automatically incorporated into the advanced targeting systems available to most of the myriad races of the 40k universe (Orks aren't very accurate anyway). Also not relevant to lasweaponry. Most cover not being very effective when fired at from a higher angle (such as barricades) definitely seems like a thing though.

It's a fair point though that a person from above is a smaller target than a person standing in front of you, especially if they're close. Avoiding cover is a major factor though. To be fair, 40K's a game about shooting with no proper Suppression mechanic. Pinning doesn't really qualify as it rarely goes off and is quite absent from a lot of things these days. Perhaps it could cause a bit of Cover negation and Pinning?

[Haighus]

It's a fair point though that a person from above is a smaller target than a person standing in front of you, especially if they're close. Avoiding cover is a major factor though. To be fair, 40K's a game about shooting with no proper Suppression mechanic. Pinning doesn't really qualify as it rarely goes off and is quite absent from a lot of things these days. Perhaps it could cause a bit of Cover negation and Pinning?
Fair point. Totally agreed with pinning too, it really bugs me that they took pinning away from snipers and I believe also from barrage weapons (I may be wrong on that but it seems to be gone from the barrage special rules). I got so excited when IG snipers went down to 2pts, I finally thought they may be worth it, and then they got nerfed again to match a few scant months later... :(

I feel pinning should be both much more common, and more likely to go off. Maybe not limiting units to only one pinning test per turn would help, so every additional time they suffer casualties from a unit firing pinning weapons would cause an extra test at the end of the turn. That or start to pile Ld modifiers onto the affected squad, for example: squad A fires at squad X, causes a pinning test. Squad B then fires at squad X, and would also cause a pinning test, except squad X already is required to take the pinning test, so they take the pinning test with a -1 Ld modifier. I think the multiple tests method is simpler though.

I personally think that all weapons that fire 3 or more shots should have the pinning rule, heavy bolters, heavy stubbers, burst cannon etc. I think this would allow them to fulfil their role as suppression weapons without making them too OP compared to before. Afterall, a heavy bolter isn't a great choice usually.