PDA

View Full Version : why not....



Konkreter Soldat
14-08-2006, 20:35
I was always curious why cant the people in a squad that didn't move fire without the normal restrictions seeing as they didnt move? Well in my eyes some of the men are staying a bit further back and watching the enemy as the others get into a better position. Please tell me if this sounds ludacris or if you've thought this yourself.

Malphax
14-08-2006, 20:40
Because on the first turn you could put your lascannon guy at the very front tip 2" in front of everyone else, and then be able to move the entire squad around him and let him still fire. There are enough units that can fire heavy weapons on the move that this would just be silly.

Also, it's spelled "ludicrous."

bob syko
14-08-2006, 20:42
Also, it's spelled "ludicrous."

That sounds really bitchy.

grg3d
14-08-2006, 21:07
Why not have the heavy be able to shoot a diffrent target worthy of his weapon ie. TANK in stead of the squad?
Wait I know...It speeds up the game :p

RampagingRavener
14-08-2006, 21:54
No, that'll be game balence. If a squad of Marines is able to pop an Ork vehicle with its Lascannon, then mow down the boyz with their bolters, then Heavy Weapons would need a huge points increase. At the moment, the disadvantage that squads can't split fire keeps the cost down.

LarryS
15-08-2006, 12:39
Personally, I liked the rules from 2nd edition that allowed special and heavy weapons to target units separately from the rest of the unit. It doesn't seem unlikely that the marine w/ the msl launcher would target an armored unit while the rest of the squad fires their bolters at units they can effect. Makes more sense than "brother Fred wants to shoot the wraithlord, so everyone else take a break...":wtf:

Yeah, I know - "game balance"...:eyebrows:

And don't get me started on overwatch...:mad:

WolfofMibu
15-08-2006, 13:25
Because if they did that, they'd have to script the rules so that each model targets its own target. Nothing else would make sense. If they did that, battles would be even longer and more convoluted than ever, because of shenanigans. It's ok for kill-teams, but not for actual games.

Killgore
15-08-2006, 13:32
oh no, its degraded into a 2nd ed vs 4th targeting rules debate

Well I'll wade in here,

I'm sorry but the targeting rules of 3rd and 4ed are compleat rubish! 2nd ed was far more interesting in the way your squads could do more things, throw grenades? yes please, split your squads firepower? marvelous!

I hope when 5th ed rears its head GW deside to bring back some of the gems of 2nd ed in an improved form

azimaith
15-08-2006, 14:16
If they add in splitting fire vehicles, monstrous creatures, and the like would need a massive buff. Splitting fire in normal squads would be death knell for tyranid armies.

RampagingRavener
15-08-2006, 14:20
It would stuff most light infantry/vehicle armies badly as well as Tyranids, and it would probably make the game less tactical. Instead of having to make descisions over what to target (do I shoot the monster/vehicle and waste the bolters, or the infantry and waste the lascannon?), you just do both and win. Fortunatly, I'm safe in the knowledge that such things are highly unlikely to worm their way back into 40k for a long, long time.

Bookwrak
15-08-2006, 15:18
I know that my IG army would _love_ being able to move and shoot, and not have to sacrifice their heavy weapons in order to try for a better fire lane.. That'd be a good deal more Lascannons, Heavy Bolters, and whatnot able to fire every turn.

Helicon_One
15-08-2006, 17:36
The answer: Because 40K is a game based on the actions of units, not individuals, and so the whole squad acts in the same way.

Tim

The_Outsider
15-08-2006, 18:40
Exactly, its not a skirmish game.

Its the way it is because of game balance, the time factor and keeps the points costs consistent.