PDA

View Full Version : lucky shot rule



orksorksorks
06-02-2008, 20:27
anyone else miss the lucky shot rule where a grot could pop a leman russ.... id love to get it back for 5th ed.

Klozkoth
06-02-2008, 20:41
I wouldnt mind having the overheating rule back on the assault cannon. Imo if you have such bad luck that you roll 3 1's you deserve to not have it work lol but lucky shot would be nice, even if it would make tank hunting squads very slightly less useful

orksorksorks
06-02-2008, 20:45
i miss the quirky stuff like this.... id forgotten about the overheated assault cannon :P

MaliGn
06-02-2008, 21:19
Man, I just miss sustained fire dice, risky risky Assault Cannons... up to nine shots, but just as much chance of jamming, exploding and killing yourself!

Imperialis_Dominatus
06-02-2008, 21:30
Because tanks need to be just that much easier to pop.

marv335
06-02-2008, 21:52
Man, I just miss sustained fire dice, risky risky Assault Cannons... up to nine shots, but just as much chance of jamming, exploding and killing yourself!

I'll take the "exploding on triple 1" on assault cannons if I get S8, 3d3 shots, and d3 wounds caused per wounding hit.

;)

Stormhammers
06-02-2008, 21:59
I deffinately miss the lucky shot rule, I agree, they should have more quirky rules such as that. The assault cannon overheat would be nice too. 40K in it's current from is too simple in many respects.

orksorksorks
06-02-2008, 22:27
Because tanks need to be just that much easier to pop.

they're sorting out tanks for 5th edition.... im just saying my favourite moments in 40k aren't when ive slaughtered the opposition, its when a couple of grots have taken down a terminator or a warbuggy is shot by 7 imperial guard autocannons/lascannons and survives.

Stormhammers
10-02-2008, 04:53
another rule they should bring back is the tank crew rules. When a tank is destroyed, if it has crew escape hatches, they can get out and field something like 1d3 riflemen. I picked up 6 of the short-lived models, it would be nice to use them again

MegaPope
10-02-2008, 08:24
Frankly, no.

Remember, that rule only applied to the very first Armoured Company list in Chapter Approved 1 - the one where you got three Leman Russ as one Troops choice.

I don't think anyone wants to see that list again, and so Lucky Glancing Hits has also gone the way of the dodo...and good riddance.

Dragonlv8
10-02-2008, 08:30
Personally Tanks being strengthened looks good in my books, as 1 lucky shot kills a tank = 100+ points gone from 1 shot.
That alone makes me want to field an all infintary force.

tortoise
10-02-2008, 11:58
GW have a habit of 'counterbalancing' very powerful things with slight chances that they will go horribly wrong. This is poor rules writing. No one who takes the game even slightly seriously wants to lose because their most powerful unit got killed in the first turn by something that was 100/1 chance.

Imperialis_Dominatus
10-02-2008, 13:15
GW have a habit of 'counterbalancing' very powerful things with slight chances that they will go horribly wrong. This is poor rules writing. No one who takes the game even slightly seriously wants to lose because their most powerful unit got killed in the first turn by something that was 100/1 chance.

Or their Dread with a Plasma Cannon turned on their Chaos Marines and decimated them for three straight turns. Or their Spawn failed to do anything to justify their points. Etc. etc.

EDIT: Or the Possessed rolled Scouts. :wtf:

Xenobane
10-02-2008, 13:59
GW have a habit of 'counterbalancing' very powerful things with slight chances that they will go horribly wrong. This is poor rules writing. No one who takes the game even slightly seriously wants to lose because their most powerful unit got killed in the first turn by something that was 100/1 chance.

Actually, it's partially a game of chance, which is what the rules are supposed to reflect. It's supposed to be fun. Why shouldn't 1/100 chances happen? Why shouldn't players have to take into account such risks?

Imperialis_Dominatus
10-02-2008, 14:01
Actually, it's partially a game of chance, which is what the rules are supposed to reflect. It's supposed to be fun. Why shouldn't 1/100 chances happen? Why shouldn't players have to take into account such risks?

Trouble is that they do take those risks into account, and build their lists accordingly... perhaps leaving behind the offending units.

Cirenivel
10-02-2008, 14:41
Actually, it's partially a game of chance, which is what the rules are supposed to reflect. It's supposed to be fun. Why shouldn't 1/100 chances happen? Why shouldn't players have to take into account such risks?

Because no matter how many lasguns you shoot at a leman russ or land raider, you shouldn't be able to kill it. That's the point of them, they're supposed to be impervious to small arms fire.

Cirenivel

tortoise
10-02-2008, 16:27
Actually, it's partially a game of chance, which is what the rules are supposed to reflect. It's supposed to be fun. Why shouldn't 1/100 chances happen? Why shouldn't players have to take into account such risks?


Because, as I stated in my original post, its poor rules writing. Risk can always be taken into account (don't want your psyker to fail a perils of the warp test? then don't use him this turn) but that doesn't mean it makes for a fun game. Such rules are not fun because they detract from the importance of your decisions and put victory or defeat into the lap of chance. And a good table top game puts victory or defeat into the player's hands.

A tabletop game has variables and these are taken into account by the random nature of dice rolling.

A good way to use variables is this- roll a dice, if you get a certain score, you get a hit, otherwise you miss.

A poor use of variables is this- roll a dice,if you get a 6 you get 10 hits, if you score a 4 or 5 you get 1 hit, if you score 2 or 3 you miss, if you score a 1 your whole squad dissapears.

These are poor because the results achievable are not commensurate with the level of chance that they may happen. Too many 40k rules are essentially similar to my second (exaggerated) example.

If you look at it another way- GW (and many 40k apologists) like to compare 40k to chess. Chess however is a game with no variables whatsoever and yet is considered the most 'tactical' game ever invented.

Warhammer fantasy has less variables than 40k. For example, if you charge a unit in the flank you know you will get that +1 to combat resolution etc. There are still variables involved (the unit may pass its break test etc) but with the modifiers in fantasy more control over those variables is given to the player. Fantasy is generally considered by those who play both systems to be a better game than 40k and indeed IMHO it is.

Vaz84
10-02-2008, 16:44
If we had a D10 system, I could see a 10 to hit being a lucky shot, but with only 6 variables it would happen far too frequently.

Santiaghoul
10-02-2008, 17:33
You know that 1/100 chances happen 9/10 times. - Terry Pratchett

El_Phen
10-02-2008, 18:17
You know that 1/100 chances happen 9/10 times. - Terry Pratchett

You're thinking of 1/1,000,000 chances. Or the reliability of a wizards staff at defeating 'orrible things from the Dungeon dimensions.

Super Ninja
10-02-2008, 20:41
This "lucky shot rule" sounds terrible. A grot should not be able to kill a leman russ. ever. they're grots, ok? they are not supposed to be able to kill tanks. ever.

xibo
10-02-2008, 20:45
I'll take the "exploding on triple 1" on assault cannons if I get S8, 3d3 shots, and d3 wounds caused per wounding hit.

;)
I'll let you do that any day... if i get back 96" ASSAULT d3 autocannons and 60" guess range grenade launchers...

ONTOPIC: Isn't the assault cannon's rending ability it's lucky shot 'feature' ( <- such as in 'bug' ) ?

Vaktathi
10-02-2008, 20:50
anyone else miss the lucky shot rule where a grot could pop a leman russ.... id love to get it back for 5th ed.

No.

Ground vehicles need a survival upgrade, not silly rules to make them easier to kill, particularly the Leman Russ. Furthermore that was only for the *first* iteration of the Armored Company. It's not something we need to have back. Heavily armored battle tanks are there for a reason, not so that everyone gets wannabe-gauss shots at them.

FeetOfClay
10-02-2008, 20:54
Lucky shot would be cool, but (as has already been mentioned) a 1 in 6 chance is far too often, so something special would be cool (I've got no ideas though).

Oh, and anyone who plays this game shouldnt be allowed to take it seriously;)!

tortoise
10-02-2008, 22:17
Why? Are people not allowed to enjoy things in their own way in your world? Taking a game seriously doesn't mean you don't play to enjoy yourself, it means you're able to play a ruleset where the course of a game is determined by your considered actions, not by some entirely arbitrary result of a dice roll. How many people used to complain that the dice roll for 1st turn used to determine the winner in 40k back in 3rd ed? Or were they just taking it too seriously?

FeetOfClay
10-02-2008, 23:14
For gods sake, it was a joke.

One.Fit.Outcast.
10-02-2008, 23:25
That'd be pretty funny really, but the chances should be less than 1 in 6 if it was seriously going to be put back in. It'd lead to awesome moments like playing LOTR once with a friend, instead of hitting my hero on 1 wound about to kill his last hero, a bow shot rolled a 3 on an in the way roll and hit a tree, so I declared that the offending tree could be killed be rolling a 6 followed by a 6... you all know how this ends XD

tortoise
10-02-2008, 23:35
For gods sake, it was a joke.

My apologies, I reacted too strongly.

Commander Duskstorm
11-02-2008, 00:16
In my opinion tanks are already too vulnerable. It seems every race has some cheap little squad of nobodys that can fire at a tank and annihilate it in 1 shot. I think tanks should not only be harder to kill (whether you make them tougher or make the damage chart less likely to be a destroyed result) but they should be able to fire all their weapons at different units all the time, their supposed to be stable firing platforms. How is it a tank from the present can fire, while travelling full speed over the roughest terrain it could possibly drive over, but a future tank can't fire at all while travelling full speed?

One.Fit.Outcast.
11-02-2008, 11:23
Be realistic people, tanks should not be the immovable objects you seem to be suggesting they are! If everything was as tough as a monolith then people would rush for massed tank armies especially for apocalypse. No, they are well-ruled as they are, perhaps some weapons should even be stronger or have a higher chance of hitting an exposed fuel tank or ammo supply. If you're going to be realistic then you would have to say, at present tanks may be tough but they are by no means inpenetrable, they can easily be destroyed by mines, aircraft, other tanks or men with anti-tank weapons. 40k years into the future therefore surely anti-tank weapons will be far more developed in comparison to their armour which will no doubt be better but not to the same level. Think of the importance of castles after the development of cannon...

Imperialis_Dominatus
11-02-2008, 21:34
Yeah, but they're not exactly fantastic now. Suggesting a Grot should be able to pop them is a sickening lack of good taste and a slap in the face to Guard especially, but also to everyone except Tau and Eldar (and their dark cousins). Frankly, I think they do need a boost.

oceansoul
11-02-2008, 22:34
Do the words Gods No! convey my feeling on the subject of bringing back the lucky shot rule (although given this is 40k it should probably be God-Emperor No), I would prefer them to bring in a better scale of armour values instead of the six value, seven if you include VDR vehicles, set currently used. I'd also like to see tanks that are completely immune to small arms (and that includes bolters) but I doubt that we'll see that again as it would lead to marine players whining that their basic weapons can no longer hurt MBTs.

Goruax
11-02-2008, 23:07
Oh, I almost made a pants-mess when they took away Lucky Shot!
Dear lord it was a terrible thing that they created.

"Oh, I have 7,000 lasguns, let's fire at that Chaos Warlord Titan!"
"Right on Sarge!"
- Ten seconds later -
"Hurrah! Good job we paid off GW!"

Deadmanwade
12-02-2008, 09:42
You could bring back the luck shot rule, so long as tanks get a rule whereby if they are still mobile at the beginning of their turn, all enemy units which dont have a 1+ save are immeadiately wiped out.
Or how about grots can kill tanks on a lucky hit, but grots now cost 150 points per model (about the same as a dev squad)
Or how about NO.
Some units (firewarriors) can kill rhinos easily with small arms fire. Some units can kill MBT's with small arms fire if they shoot at the rear armour.
Having ANY unit being able to kill ANY tank despite its armour value or the points value of said model....:cries:
Sure, it may be funny for a grot to kill a Land Raider (once, if you see it happen to someone else), but last time I checked this wasn't Warhumour 40k. I like to have fun when I play but that's just extracting the urine. The rules aren't very accurate, they're pretty abstract and confined to a d6 system. Even with a d100 system, I wouldnt expect to see a lasgun kill a tank though. Even in terms of modern warfare, an assault rifle is going to do squat versus the front armour of an MBT (unless it has a built in GL and even then its dubious)

The_Outsider
12-02-2008, 10:11
While its a cool rule - its too unwiledy to implement as a core rule.

Lets take the shokk attack gun, rolling a 12 for it is the closest we really have and if such a rule where to be implemented it would be along those lines (and rending is also partly meant to demonstrate this).

the nightbringer
12-02-2008, 11:29
With lucky shot and grots been so cheap odds can be so close to certain it renders anti-tank units useless.

orksorksorks
12-02-2008, 11:53
geez... people are getting pretty worked up.... i diddnt mean rending! i meant something like if a squad is shooting at a tank, the squad can roll 2 dice and if they get double 6 they get 2d6 armour penetration plus the base strength (for grots thats 3).... therefore if a grot does shoot down a landraider it really is lucky!

1/6*1/6*1/12*1/2 its like one in 700... now thats lucky!

i think it would be cool....

The_Outsider
12-02-2008, 12:16
i think it would be cool....

"Cool" and "balanced" don't always work together.

The simple fact is, if something like a grot can kill a LR - no matter how improbable its gonig to cost points.

Points spent on a basically useless rule, so its not case of "lolzorz that was epic" itsm ore of "why does my spine gaunt cost 8 points?"

Kriegschmidt
12-02-2008, 12:32
I think for one-off, friendly games where you want to completely muck about it would be fun. But there would definitely have to be a possibility of heinous bad luck to counter it. Like weapons blowing up! (oh, plasma weapons already do....)

Or mid-game random events like Chaos General Scragbot's mother-in-law calling ;)

Ronin_eX
12-02-2008, 18:03
Man, I just miss sustained fire dice, risky risky Assault Cannons... up to nine shots, but just as much chance of jamming, exploding and killing yourself!

Because I'm a dirty rules lawyer I will just chime in and say that when firing on full auto it was actually up to 10 shots. A common rules mistake is not adding the one normal shot the weapon gets when firing (it makes SF weapons a lot better in most cases). Many people tend to forget this when they compare the Chaos Combi-bolter to the Stormbolter as well.

Sustained fire dice were a nice risk mechanic with rapid fire weapons that I kind of miss. It was just one more slightly random thing that could make for a very interesting game. 2nd edition had a lot more chances for cool things to happen.