Some hate

To be honest, I don't see the problem with snap fire. It's a simple mechanic and I don't see how it can possibly add 50% (or even 5%) to the length of a game.

Because it's a mechanic that's practically designed to waste time.

There's never any disadvantage for not snap-firing. So, both players are going to be doing it whenever you have the opportunity - which with overwatch, jinking, crew shaken/stunned, moving heavy weapons, regrouping, going to ground etc. is going to be pretty damn often.

I'm amazed that you think it somehow doesn't add a lot of extra time to a game.

Although if you want to see a more extreme example of time-wasting, try charging a 40-man guardsman squad with heavy and special weapons and at least 1 attached character.

The Shredder wrote:

There's never any disadvantage for not snap-firing. So, both players are going to be doing it whenever you have the opportunity - which with overwatch, jinking, crew shaken/stunned, moving heavy weapons, regrouping, going to ground etc. is going to be pretty damn often.

Why would there be a disadvantage to snap firing? Snap firing is the disadvantage! And I don't get why players snap firing at any opportunity is a bad thing. The alternative is that you don't get to fire at all, which is rather unexciting.

Quote :

Although if you want to see a more extreme example of time-wasting, try charging a 40-man guardsman squad with heavy and special weapons and at least 1 attached character!

Doing anything with a 40-man guard squad is an extreme example of time-wasting. Blame the blob rule, not snap firing!

Count Adhemar wrote:

Why would there be a disadvantage to snap firing? Snap firing is the disadvantage! And I don't get why players snap firing at any opportunity is a bad thing. The alternative is that you don't get to fire at all, which is rather unexciting.

IMO, not getting to shoot is far better than snapfiring. Of course it's less exciting - because you're not doing anything. But, it also means that you're not wasting time fishing for 6s, and can get on with doing other exciting things that will have a more meaningful impact on the game.

Count Adhemar wrote:

Doing anything with a 40-man guard squad is an extreme example of time-wasting. Blame the blob rule, not snap firing!

The blob rules aren't the reason the squad is getting an extra shooting phase in the enemy turn.

The Shredder wrote:

Count Adhemar wrote:

Why would there be a disadvantage to snap firing? Snap firing is the disadvantage! And I don't get why players snap firing at any opportunity is a bad thing. The alternative is that you don't get to fire at all, which is rather unexciting.

IMO, not getting to shoot is far better than snapfiring. Of course it's less exciting - because you're not doing anything. But, it also means that you're not wasting time fishing for 6s, and can get on with doing other exciting things that will have a more meaningful impact on the game.

I think we may have to agree to disagree on that. I much prefer the tactical options available by choosing whether to shoot at reduced effect or erm...do nothing.

The Shredder wrote:

Count Adhemar wrote:

Doing anything with a 40-man guard squad is an extreme example of time-wasting. Blame the blob rule, not snap firing!

The blob rules aren't the reason the squad is getting an extra shooting phase in the enemy turn.

No, but they're the reason it takes 4-5 times longer to resolve!

Count Adhemar wrote:

I think we may have to agree to disagree on that. I much prefer the tactical options available by choosing whether to shoot at reduced effect or erm...do nothing.

But that was my point - it's not a choice because there's no reason not to snapshot when you can.

There are no tactical decisions offered by overwatch because choosing to do so carries no cost whatsoever. If it meant you couldn't attack in combat or reduced your shooting next turn, that might carry some weight. But, as it stands, it's just rolling extra dice.

With regard to vehicles, you could argue that it makes jinking more attractive, but there's still the issue of crew shaken/stunned - which again offer no tactical decisions whatsoever.

Also, I dislike that it utterly disregards the unit's BS. If it was a flat -2 penalty, then that might be more interesting. But, when everyone snapshots at BS1, it's just a lot of faffing about.

There are plenty of units that can modify Snap Shots, though. As a former Tsu player, (and still a Salamanders player!) I love Snap Shots.

My Salamanders taught me that Twin Linked Snap Shots should be a Campbell's soup flavor, because they're mmm-mmm good.

I must be in the minority then, because I think snapshots were one of the absolute worst additions to the game.

Snapshots would be cool if it was a little more different.
As a matter of fact: Elite armies get punished by snapshots while cheap horde armies just dont care.

Klaivex Charondyr wrote:

Snapshots would be cool if it was a little more different.
As a matter of fact: Elite armies get punished by snapshots while cheap horde armies just dont care.

I agree with this - it's kind of comical to me how good Orks are at snapfiring, as all their weaponry and point costs are practically built to exploit the "penalty".

Yup. Orks only take a 50% loss of efficiency shooting at airborne targets. Dark Eldar etc take a 75% loss. Maybe our topknots weigh our heads down, preventing us from looking up properly?

I rant about it in excruciating detail here so I won't go on.

That's kind of the point, though. There are tons of orks and few of us. A horde of fifty orks should hit more than five trueborn when everyone is just firing willy nilly.

Jimsolo wrote:

That's kind of the point, though.  There are tons of orks and few of us.  A horde of fifty orks should hit more than five trueborn when everyone is just firing willy nilly.

Does not wprk out. I can also field 20 Kabalites. They still suffer more from having to snapshot than 15 orks.

Whilst I don't necessarily disagree that snap fire could be a modifier to BS rather than a set value, isn't there also a point of view which says it really doesn't matter how good a shot you are, there are times when you rely on pure luck?

I don't think "there are times" refers to every 3rd occasion.
Also you have to be a good shot to know the difference between luck and skill AND to get to a level where luck can help you out a bit.

Also, do we really want situations where, for example, a Bloodthirster is taking out flyers with it's whip on a regular basis, or a Vindicare is shooting down one flyer or invisible unit per turn or killing off IC's just with overwatch?

Count Adhemar, I normally agree with virtually all your posts, but that's just a load of piffle.

A Bloodthirster's whip is S6. Even if it can hit a flyer, it still fails to so much as glance even our armour-less fliers 50% of the time, and can't even penetrate any of the AV12 fliers. I hardly think he'll be swatting fliers from the sky left and right.

With regard to the Vindicare, he can only pick off an IC if said IC was also at the front of the squad.

If anything, that's more a reason to keep the rules about precision shots and such not working on Snapshots.

Although, honestly, I think the assassin rules are awful in general.

Count Adhemar wrote:

Also, do we really want situations where, for example, a Bloodthirster is taking out flyers with it's whip on a regular basis, or a Vindicare is shooting down one flyer or invisible unit per turn or killing off IC's just with overwatch?

In the context of a game were pistols are killing flyers? In the context of a game where Barrage weapons are pinpoint accurate sniper tools?  In the context of a game where a Wraithknight could headbutt a plane but is not allowed to do so?  In the context of a game where people are assaulting vehicles in close combat that drive by at full speed?

Yep... with that context provided I actually have not a lot of trouble with a big ass and expensive bloodthirster gutting a flyer with his whip (which is basically half the lenght of said flyer) or a highly trained assassine that does not just desperately "spray and pray"

I should perhaps have been slightly more specific, I was referring to the Bloodflail (S7, AP2, Assault D3), which (assuming anything up to a -5 penalty on BS for snap shots) hits on a 2+ and has a 50% chance to penetrate our flyers on each hit. Similar situation with the Eldar Avatar (or any of the Phoenix Lords with a halfway decent gun) and I'm sure there are other situations that are equally silly, like a Herald of Khorne manning a gun in a fortification.

Fair enough on the Vindicare. I'd forgotten that snap fire cannot be precision shots.

At the end of the day, I don't really see a problem with the existing snap fire either as a concept or as a mechanic.

As a concept, it gives me options where there would otherwise be none. Do I stay still and fire at full effect, move and fire at reduced effect or run/flat out and not fire at all?

As a mechanic, if it is changed to a penalty to BS then what would be considered a suitable penalty? A large penalty, say -4, would have pretty much the same effect as the existing mechanic for all but the most extreme examples (some of which I've already mentioned). A small penalty, say -2, would be insufficient to represent the difficulty and wouldn't be worth implementing. It also gives a boost to the armies that are best at shooting at a time when shooting is already far, far superior to assault.

Basically, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I'm with Count. I don't have a problem with the current Snapshot mechanic.
The only unit that I found really falls prey to it is Wyches, and they already blow.
Grots laugh most snap fire off, Incubi have decent armour, Archon can tank if needed.
I like havin the chance to snap fire, so I can't really complain when I get snap shot at.

Count Adhemar wrote:

I should perhaps have been slightly more specific, I was referring to the Bloodflail (S7, AP2, Assault D3), which (assuming anything up to a -5 penalty on BS for snap shots) hits on a 2+ and has a 50% chance to penetrate our flyers on each hit.

Ah, I see.

But, even then, we're talking about models that cost 400-500pts here. Is it really so terrible that they have a useful anti-flier role?

Count Adhemar wrote:

As a mechanic, if it is changed to a penalty to BS then what would be considered a suitable penalty? A large penalty, say -4, would have pretty much the same effect as the existing mechanic for all but the most extreme examples (some of which I've already mentioned). A small penalty, say -2, would be insufficient to represent the difficulty and wouldn't be worth implementing. It also gives a boost to the armies that are best at shooting at a time when shooting is already far, far superior to assault.

I would go with a -2 penalty. -1 isn't enough and anything more would be identical to snapshots in about 95% of cases.

With regard to snapshots giving a bonus to shooty units when they're too strong already, why then are you so opposed to the idea of removing snapshots? Wouldn't that help regress the balance a little? (And, you never know, we might actually get some proper rules for fliers... )

Count Adhemar wrote:

Basically, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

That's the point though - from my point of view, snapshots *are* a broken mechanic.

Quote :

A small penalty, say -2, would be insufficient to represent the difficulty and wouldn't be worth implementing.

Speaking of difficulty...
It is easier to shoot a running grot with a stationary missile launcher than it is to hit a stationary Titan with a lascannon that moved. Which is obviously the same difficulty to hit a zooming flyer with a lascannon that moved.
Yep... difficulties make sense.

It's also a bit weird that firing a pistol at a charging enemy is just as difficult as firing a lascannon at them.

Klaivex Charondyr wrote:

Quote :

A small penalty, say -2, would be insufficient to represent the difficulty and wouldn't be worth implementing.

Speaking of difficulty...
It is easier to shoot a running grot with a stationary missile launcher than it is to hit a stationary Titan with a lascannon that moved. Which is obviously the same difficulty to hit a zooming flyer with a lascannon that moved.
Yep... difficulties make sense.

In the context of a game system that does not operate modifiers for shooting there will always be situations like this. The fact is that the designers, for whatever reason, elected not to have a list of modifiers as there was in some earlier editions. Presumably this was either to speed up the game (which it does) or because it may have been too complex for some players. Whining about that is about as useful as whining about them choosing to use D6's in game rather than D10/12/20 or whatever. Nor does it alter the situation that the snap fire mechanic fits in the context of the rest of the system. If you change one, then you would need to change the other, which would lead to further changes and eventually a complete overhaul of the game system. Would that be a bad thing? Depends on the end result but theoretically no. I'm pretty sure that I can design a more coherent system for a 40k-style wargame without making it too complex. Is it ever going to happen? Highly unlikely as any changes to the system are more likely to go down the simplification route rather than making it more complex.

Definetly 'no escape' rule
Al my opponents have lots of flamers. Thats hurts alot