The Ninth Gate: Shooting

This is the Ninth Gate, my hapless attempts to predict what 9th Ed 40K might bring us! Remember - I've got an excellent track record for wrong-headedness.

This time round, it's the Shooting Phase. Pew pew pew! We'll also look at wounding mechanics, because they usually first crop up in the round when the gunning starts.

Bang! You're Dead!

In olden days, when Ye Warehaymer Two Score of Kaye was being played by monks and kings all across Europe with carved bits of bone and dice made of pigs' bladders, the shooting phase was very much as it was now. Except it was harder, had more maths, affected the movement phase terribly and had all kinds of fiddly rules that made the game slower than it is today.

Templates! Remember them? Now, I was very sad to see them go at first. But let's be honest, did you really enjoy keeping your models spread as wide as possible at all times to avoid the inevitable pie-plate of doom? Or did you play against one of those guys who would only ever put the template down over a squad leader or heavy weapons guy, the better to snipe your best toys off the table?

Yeah, we're well quit of those rules. Not that I don't still miss templates, but that's why I collect Necromunda - they're alive and well over there, thanks! The random d6 shots for template weapons is only okay, though, I'd say. It feels like a stop-gap measure that sort of works for now, but I'd love to see something better replace it, but I'm not sure what.

Rolling once to hit and then rolling the number of hits wouldn't help, it's even swingier. Some guns give you a bonus to hit against more models, but that's a stingy sticking plaster if your huge cannon only gets a single shot in anyway. 

Roll once to hit against each model you can see? That's clearly crazy. Shoot again each time you kill a model? Too long-winded. Maybe this just doesn't have a better fix than what we got - it's a better system than earlier ones, I think. Maybe a few guns just need a tweaked number of shots. Battle cannons could use d3+3, for my money, and feel a bit more like the tank blaster I thought I paid for. 

Ballistic Skill is simpler and better these days, no more the five minute maths pause as you apply all the correct modifiers and then look up and down a table. All they ditched was the table, after all! Much better.

Same deal for toughness and weapon strength, the easy formula does everything the old tables did in less time. Why didn't we all think of this sooner?

So this has all been good news. But is there any room for improvement?

Sigmartial Prowess

Age of Sigmar has even further simplified the strength v toughness test. Every weapon there has a set number on which it causes wounds, so for example a Chaos Warrior's axe will knock a hole in you on a 4+ regardless of whether you're a dragon or a dragoon.

Now, some theorists are saying that this is likely to get ported in to 40K at some point. It wouldn't be a popular move, I suspect. In a game where tanks are generally twice as tough as troops, the strength of weapons and their specialised application is a real charm in the game.

Hear me out, though - there's a reason lascannon are strength 9, after all. They will almost always wound their chosen tanky targets on a 3+. Wouldn't it be simpler to just leave it at that, take any vestige of working numbers out away?

Me, I hope not. It just makes too much sense to have guns wounding different targets on different numbers, even more so than in a game where titchy goblins poke towering giants with sticks. That temptation to use your multi-melta to boil the last Tac Marine in your opponent's squad to claim an objective instead of the distant menace of a Rhino full of assault troops that it's designed to handle is a fun part of the game.

Likelihood of Change: 10%. Please don't, GW, the rules don't need to be any simpler

Look Out, Sir!

The way that characters can hide these days is a good thing. There are ways round it, they seem to work as intended and it seems immersive.

Is the same true of taking off specific models in a squad?

Look, we've all heard the arguments. You kill every last member of the team except the guy with the missile launcher. Or you keep shooting each guy who picks it up. Or the plucky sergeant somehow struggles through the hail of fire to avenge the loss of his rookie squadmates. It's narrative! It's heroic and exciting! It's twenty points you paid for the missile launcher that don't get wasted!

So in general, I'm a huge fan of letting the controlling player decide who lives. It's quicker, fairer and more fun.

But just once in a while, I think there's something to be said for letting the shooter pick the targets. Master snipers like a Vindicare, perhaps, or a Death Jester - characters themselves who are marksmen. A mechanic somewhere, not for the many but for the few, and possibly gated behind multiple Command Points, that would let you pick off the model you really need to kill.

Too much of a Dispel Scroll, I hear you cry. A crutch for people who just can't focus their fire! True, I can see that. But as a rare and expensive ability, I think there's a place for it.

Think about shooting at a unit when half of them can't be seen. That one plasma gunner squandering his unit's save bonus by standing out in the open. You ought to take off visible models first, I'd say, it somehow really bugs me that you don't!

Likelihood of Change: 1%. I don't really see this changing, it's more of a pet peeve than something that needs a fix!

Invictus

Ah, the Invulnerable save.

This should have a flat cap, across the game without exception, of 4+.

Talk me down, I dare you. Tell me your ubiquitous Smash Captain who I can barely shoot through his screening troops anyway really needs a 3+. Or your gigantic Knight Valiant, who will take most of my army most of the year to slowly grind down to half wounds. Or a squad of Zoanthropes, who can take a bath in the small arms fire that would otherwise finish them.

3+ saves (and let's be thankful 2+ is very rarely seen these days!) aren't fun to play against. There are of course ways round them, and multiple wound weapons help the balance. But they don't even it out enough.

I can just about deal with it in systems where there's a cost for such power, like some of the T'au suits who can take mortal wounds to boost their saves. The rest of the time, it's somehow become a massive annoyance to me. The amount of firepower it takes to deal with such models is disproportionate.

4+ is plenty. Anything more than that is a crutch for people who need reliability in a game system that entirely revolves around chance. There are plenty of other ways to avoid getting shot off your horse instead of a loaded dice roll.

Likelihood of Change: 33%, the FAQs have shifted in favour of less invuln over time. 

Double Damage

Bolter Discipline, you know I'm looking at you right now.

Funny, only a year ago I was delighted to see the changed rules that gave the Bolter its big boost back. The iconic gun of 40K was great again! Hurrah!

Then somehow they just didn't stop fixing marines, and it all got a bit out of hand.

Rapid Fire is a decent rule. Once upon a time, it meant you had to keep still, and I'm glad that's gone. Having it range dependent, that's fine. Having marines that can get the best of both worlds also works, as does letting bikers and terminators get their extra shots all the time.

But it's at the point now where the Bolter in marine armies feels like an entirely different gun to anybody else's. It wouldn't entirely surprise me to see the Rapid Fire rule stay in place for most existing weapons, and Marine Bolters get a different classification, one that keeps all these new rules in place.

Bit pointless calling them Rapid Fire and then letting them work entirely differently, is what I'm saying. I'd consolidate my rules.

Likelihood of Change: 70%, it's just for simplification!

Overall, the shooting phase is pretty much fine and isn't likely to change or go away, I reckon!

Next time, I'll be moaning about the Charge and Combat phases. Twin linked grumbling!