Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They wrote bad rules and justified them badly.

Agreed. There's no reason castra-ferrum dreads should have I2.

 Gert wrote:
I'll take imperfect over non-existent. Weird things like that are better than some of the abuses of HH 1, and if 24" Battlecannons on a Macharius (a unit that was never inculded in an actual HH list) is the price to pay for the game to have better balance and plastic kits then I'm fine with that.

"Better balance"
*Different balance I would say

The sooner GW abandons HH again the sooner the community will fix it.

Battlecannons having the same range as bolters does sound like a proper pisstake

 lord_blackfang wrote:
The sooner GW abandons HH again the sooner the community will fix it.

I believe I've seen you around on the Age of Darkness Discord? Have you checked out their set of fan-rules? Liber Spanakopita or whatever it's called.

 Snrub wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
The sooner GW abandons HH again the sooner the community will fix it.

I believe I've seen you around on the Age of Darkness Discord? Have you checked out their set of fan-rules? Liber Spanakopita or whatever it's called.

Yep that's the one. Last I looked it only had Legends that GW didn't cover themselves tho. But I bet they fix all the units if there's no hope of GW doing it.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Nah. 24" range battlecannons is stupid.

They wrote bad rules and justified them badly.

Meh, I've got 2 Macharius' and never used the Battlecannon variant so nothing has changed on that front. On the other hand I can actually used my cursed/blessed kitbashed Destroyer Tank Hunter in HH now. Plus the new rules have returned the Malcador to glory. The good is outweighing the bad.
Having played loads of the new edition I get certain complaints but anyone decrying it as completely broken or intentional sabotage gets ignored, especially if they haven't actually played the game.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
For a 24" range Battle Cannon or 36" Range Vanquisher cannon, probably not.

Well here 24" plenty. Los becomes issue sooner.

 Gert wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Nah. 24" range battlecannons is stupid.

They wrote bad rules and justified them badly.

Meh, I've got 2 Macharius' and never used the Battlecannon variant so nothing has changed on that front. On the other hand I can actually used my cursed/blessed kitbashed Destroyer Tank Hunter in HH now. Plus the new rules have returned the Malcador to glory. The good is outweighing the bad.

How wonderfully empathetic of you...

 Lord Damocles wrote:
How wonderfully empathetic of you...

How nice of you to cut off the most important part of that post. Here, I'll stick it below to remind you:

 Gert wrote:
Having played loads of the new edition I get certain complaints but anyone decrying it as completely broken or intentional sabotage gets ignored, especially if they haven't actually played the game.

If people are going to decry HH 2 as broken and unplayable because a unit that was never given a datasheet in any HH 1 book has a weird range on one of its weapon options while also ignoring the good updates made to army rules and other unit profiles, then you'll forgive me for not being empathetic.

Who's decrying it as broken?

24" range battlecannons are stupid. End of story. That you have two but don't use the BC one very often is irrelevant. I have 3, and I'd like them to not completely suck in both versions of the game thankyouverymuch.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Who's decrying it as broken?

24" range battlecannons are stupid. End of story. That you have two but don't use the BC one very often is irrelevant. I have 3, and I'd like them to not completely suck in both versions of the game thankyouverymuch.

Exactly. The fact that it was 600 points for such a bad unit is proof of either incompetence or deliberate sabotage, but how the hell did it get printed with that stat line regardless of point cost? 24" range and AP 4 small blast is absolutely ****ing stupid for a heavy tank's main guns. There is no excuse for printing such badly written rules.

Yeah, let's have this big gun only shoot as far as a bolter...would actually make real tank combat much more interesting(not that it isn't fascinating)if they were limited to 5-700m

So, they're sticking with Hold the Line being a Morale test? Okayy. At least they fixed Return Fire.

And the SA super heavies have good functional weapons......but those prices? Ugh. This doesn't bode well for Cults and Militia. They need to fix those prices.

And still no FAQ for the Exemplary Battles PDF? Grumble, grumble, grumble......

 Snrub wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They wrote bad rules and justified them badly.

Agreed. There's no reason castra-ferrum dreads should have I2.

This one really bothers me as I was hoping to field a few in my army, using Helbrutes to show that they are corrupted. They'll be extremely vulnerable in combat and could easily get cut up before being able to do anything.

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
This one really bothers me as I was hoping to field a few in my army, using Helbrutes to show that they are corrupted. They'll be extremely vulnerable in combat and could easily get cut up before being able to do anything.

It's a kick in the pants and no mistake. Boxnaughts are bestnaughts after all.
They'll still have a place in my forces too, albeit probably not past ZM levels of play, which I think they'll be more suited to anyway. Something about the Flamestorm Cannon/Missile Launcher combo just seems right for short range, tight confines corridor action.

 tauist wrote:
Battlecannons having the same range as bolters does sound like a proper pisstake

Most weapon ranges in 30K/40K are bad. All weapons with the exception of throwing grenades/flamer weapons should have unlimited range and in case of artillery a minimum range when played on your standard table sizes. Then you can apply to-hit-modifiers in increments (for example -1 for each full six inches) due to range to the target.

Yeah but we're not working on real scales here are we? So saying everything but grenades and flamers should have unlimited range is just silly.

Obviously its the targeting arrays on the battlecannon that have a restricted range courtesy of ancient rules and quirks of the machine spirits. If you have a problem with it, try argue with the local Magos about it.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:
The whole pdf is full of idiocy like 24" range heavy guns and "this tank sucks and everyone hates it when they're desperate enough to use one" for fluff.

I'm curious, which tank's fluff is that?

Dunno if it’s been mentioned, but going through my books desperately trying to blow away rule knowledge cobwebs (so, so many cobwebs), and its evident a lot of previously AP3 weapons are now AP4.

Presumably this is to add a little resilience to 30k Armies, as it even includes Plasma Weapons - though they do benefit from Breaching (4+), which is a Diet Rending, where any To Wound roll matching the parenthesised Breaching becomes AP2.

Felt worth sharing as it at least partially explains the previously discussed Battlecannon’s wussier stat line.

Not the range though. I’m not touching that one.

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:
The whole pdf is full of idiocy like 24" range heavy guns and "this tank sucks and everyone hates it when they're desperate enough to use one" for fluff.

I'm curious, which tank's fluff is that?

I assume the Malcador, I remember some fluff blurb about it being relegated to PDF, training pieces or mothballed and only brought out if you run out of other tanks.

 Strg Alt wrote:

 tauist wrote:
Battlecannons having the same range as bolters does sound like a proper pisstake

Most weapon ranges in 30K/40K are bad. All weapons with the exception of throwing grenades/flamer weapons should have unlimited range and in case of artillery a minimum range when played on your standard table sizes. Then you can apply to-hit-modifiers in increments (for example -1 for each full six inches) due to range to the target.

Agree on everything except for the -1 part. Unlimited range weapons work surprisingly well in Kill Team (its more about having a clear shot than the actual range, as it should), and HH having a bigger board can be handwaived by many weapons in HH being heavy weapons. But -1 for each full 6" feels way too punishing, it would basically negate the whole range buff to begin with. A cumulative, ever worsening to hit modifier sounds about right, it's just a matter of establishing appropriate range bands for the modifiers..

And before we get to the "uhh the ranges are supposed to be abstract" then explain to me why some unit can run up to a target almost as far as the max range of their shooting weapons in one friggin turn It just doesn't add up

If a battle cannon has a range of 24", basic infantry should have a movement distance of 2"

 tauist wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

 tauist wrote:
Battlecannons having the same range as bolters does sound like a proper pisstake

Most weapon ranges in 30K/40K are bad. All weapons with the exception of throwing grenades/flamer weapons should have unlimited range and in case of artillery a minimum range when played on your standard table sizes. Then you can apply to-hit-modifiers in increments (for example -1 for each full six inches) due to range to the target.

Agree on everything except for the -1 part. Unlimited range weapons work surprisingly well in Kill Team (its more about having a clear shot than the actual range, as it should), and HH having a bigger board can be handwaived by many weapons in HH being heavy weapons. But -1 for each full 6" feels way too punishing, it would basically negate the whole range buff to begin with. A cumulative, ever worsening to hit modifier sounds about right, it's just a matter of establishing appropriate range bands for the modifiers..

And before we get to the "uhh the ranges are supposed to be abstract" then explain to me why some unit can run up to a target almost as far as the max range of their shooting weapons in one friggin turn It just doesn't add up

If a battle cannon has a range of 24", basic infantry should have a movement distance of 2"

Well, I can´t and won´t cram all ideas into a single post. Suffice to say when you introduce to-hit-modifiers (range, cover, skills, equipment, etc.) it is a given to have also to-hit-boni from equipment/skills or just from specific weapon types (e.g. targeters, laser sights, sensor arrays, etc.). So for instance pistols could get a bonus for the first short range increment and become worse than all other ranged weapons in later increments. The six inch increment is also not written in stone and could be altered to maybe eight inch (max should be twelve inch).

If you choose to use D6s then you also need to have dice results from BS1 up to BS10 or else your set of modifiers will crash the game. Hit-modifiers will also allow units to start with a fairly high BS score (even Orks!) in their profile as shooting people at very long ranges (and possibly even in cover) is going to be really hard for everybody than the most dedicated sniper such as a Vindicare Assassin.

Give weapons a range increment and a zero range. So a bolter could be RI 8, Z 12. Then any shot over 20" or under 4" starts suffering penalties. Then you can stick in standard rules for things like pistols that double range penalties. Minimum or maximum ranges for things like artillery and melts pistols can be part of the weapon notes.
Snipers would be able to set their own zero but it would stay set even if the target moved (reaction) and couldn’t be changed for a snap shot.

… and now you need a Liber Armamentorum to cover everything.

 tauist wrote:
If a battle cannon has a range of 24", basic infantry should have a movement distance of 2"

You guys confuse absolute gun range with useful gun range. For example, WW1 era long rifle can easily reach a target 2-3 km away - there is only teeny tiny issue of almost no human being capable of making that shot without years of training, current optics, and absolute best sight/math ability in top 1% of recruits. In practice, in WW1 said gun was used at distance of 100-200 meters. That's why today big, heavy, expensive rifle bullets are completely abandoned outside of sniper rifles and modern assault rifle uses bullets half the size - why bother paying for performance if no one uses it anyway?

So, yeah, if anything realistic ranges should be short, especially if a tank has bad optics or poorly trained crew. Paper gun range is completely meaningless without ability to actually use it. Do compare range of pre-Dreadnought 280 mm guns from 1890s with the range of identical calibre of even 1930s gun - we're literally talking about 3 km vs 30 km difference, even though on paper there isn't even remotely that much, because ability to actually hit things got that much better. 3 km incidentally is also the maximum range of 7.92 mm battle rifle, so there you actually have RL example of your ""unrealistic"" HH ranges

 tauist wrote:
And before we get to the "uhh the ranges are supposed to be abstract" then explain to me why some unit can run up to a target almost as far as the max range of their shooting weapons in one friggin turn It just doesn't add up

Space marines are capable of superhuman sprint. SM covering a pistol range distance in one turn is exactly what should happen. But yeah, that doesn't explain why regular humans and other slow stuff can do that too

 Irbis wrote:

 tauist wrote:
If a battle cannon has a range of 24", basic infantry should have a movement distance of 2"

You guys confuse absolute gun range with useful gun range. For example, WW1 era long rifle can easily reach a target 2-3 km away - there is only teeny tiny issue of almost no human being capable of making that shot without years of training, current optics, and absolute best sight/math ability in top 1% of recruits. In practice, in WW1 said gun was used at distance of 100-200 meters. That's why today big, heavy, expensive rifle bullets are completely abandoned outside of sniper rifles and modern assault rifle uses bullets half the size - why bother paying for performance if no one uses it anyway?

So, yeah, if anything realistic ranges should be short, especially if a tank has bad optics or poorly trained crew. Paper gun range is completely meaningless without ability to actually use it. Do compare range of pre-Dreadnought 280 mm guns from 1890s with the range of identical calibre of even 1930s gun - we're literally talking about 3 km vs 30 km difference, even though on paper there isn't even remotely that much, because ability to actually hit things got that much better. 3 km incidentally is also the maximum range of 7.92 mm battle rifle, so there you actually have RL example of your ""unrealistic"" HH ranges

Even considering all that, the gun ranges are absurdly short in game. 100m if models are 1 inch tall should be ~50 inches in game.

Tank engagement ranges from WW2, even without modern sighting technologies and gun stabilisation and whatnot, were of the order of 200m to 800m, depending on which tanks we're talking about, which theatre of war, which period, etc. Tanks that had more penetrating power at longer ranges had a vested interest in engaging at as long a range as possible.

This is pretty pedantic, considering nobody in the GW rules team has the slightest interest in military history, or indeed any military experience at all they didn't glean from reading other 40k books or similarly distorted media. Indeed, 40k tanks are to real tanks what pugs are to wolves: the distorted wheezing products of generations and generations of inbreeding

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Even considering all that, the gun ranges are absurdly short in game. 100m if models are 1 inch tall should be 100 inches in game.

Only if you think infantry represent people who are 1m tall - if we assume a 6' infantryman is 1" tall, then 100m would work out at 54.6".

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
This is pretty pedantic, considering nobody in the GW rules team has the slightest interest in military history...

I would contend that's not true. The short ranges go back to the early days, and many of the rules writers from those early days were and are indeed greatly interested in military history. The short ranges, IMO, simply come from wanting to have a certain scale model, played on a certain sized table, but still have differentiation in weapon ranges. The game is also played in a fantastical way, with soldiers running out across open areas when in reality they'd be hunkered down in cover.

But this whole discussion started from Battle Cannons having 24" range or something, showing an inconsistency as even in the world of imaginary GW ranges a battle cannon should have a long-ish range... the discussion just wandered off into ranges generally.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Even considering all that, the gun ranges are absurdly short in game. 100m if models are 1 inch tall should be 100 inches in game.

Only if you think infantry represent people who are 1m tall - if we assume a 6' infantryman is 1" tall, then 100m would work out at 54.6".

Yeah sorry, I ninja edited my post but you must have hit reply before I fixed it. Brain too tired after work (where I ironically work as an engineer ).