Snipers

[Redbaron997]

Do snipers no longer hit on 2+?

 

Just wanting to make sure as that rule seems to now be gone from the Main Rule Book.

[nighthawks]

sniper weapons now use the firer's BS to hit.

[rat of vengence]

Scout snipers are nerfed in my opinion. 4+ to hit, 4+ to wound. 10 snipers will get an average of a whole 2.5 wounds on anything. Against marines, the odds are they wont even fail an armour save...

 

There is rending though...

 

RoV

[rekrulcinam]

There are also the occasions where you cause 3 unsaved wounds on a nightbringer with only 5 guys in one turn.

[General Retreat]

I can't tell if they love scouts or hate them. WS/BS reduction - makes sense. Sniper rifles not having any bonus to hit - no sense to me. Isn't that the point of a having a long (sniper) rifle with a high magnification scope in the first place? To make it easier to hit something at range? And also by the current rules, the "power" of the sniper shot (if you boil down the math) is always going to be the same as the toughness of it's target (wounds on 4+). So by that logic, a snipers primary targets should be high toughness models. A Marine firing a boltgun at an Avatar of Khaine will hit on 3+, wound on 6+. If a sniper fires, he hits on 4+, wounds on 4+. However, the same scenario vs. a Tau Firewarrior: the marine hits on 3+, wounds on 3+; the sniper hits on 4+ wounds on 4+. How does it become harder for the sniper to hit and wound when firing at an infantry model, who, by all rights, should have a fist sized hole in his torso from a sniper round?

 

In my opinion, this is backwards. A sniper rifle should all but guarantee a hit, it should have long range, be single shot, bypass most infantry armor, and still fall into the category of small arms. The way it sits now, it's a weak and non-AP (yet rending, yah nerf) boltgun with 1.5x the range against standard T3 infantry, and a massive Str 10 (Hammerhead Railgun) shot against anything T10. Essentially, if you fire at anything under T5, the only reason should be to try for that pinning shot, or the use of the heavy weapon, which is wasteful.

 

I guess there's probably a good balance reason for this, but I too long for the days of 2+ hits on a sniper rifle. I would have been happy with SR's being Str 5 AP 4 36" Heavy, Pinning, Rending, with a special rule (Wargear: Sniper Scope?) to hit on 2+. That would mean no more easy time against MC's, Demons, etc, but it would make a heckuva lot more sense, in my opinion.

[Mordekiem]

All very interesting guys, but what the heck does it have to do with the question asked and the rules of the game? :whoops:

 

As for the orignal question, no, sniper weapons no longer hit on 2+ and instead use the firers normal ballistic skill.

[The Nephilim]

Personally, I think is the best news ever. Sniping isn't just the gear. If you're not that good of a shot, don't have the proper training, the best rifle and the best scope isn't going to help you.

[General Retreat]

True, but no matter how good a shot you are, without a scope, how are you going to pick out an enemy 1.5 kilometers down-field?

[Souchan]

By being a genetically engineerd superhuman marine^^

 

(Or be called Telion who is all that and a bag of crisps)

[General Retreat]

I think the most confusing thing for me coming into SM was the role of the sniper scouts. In any other context, I think of snipers as being a superior anti-infantry unit, used to pin down and pick off infantry quietly from range. However, in 40K, they are best used picking on large, high toughness models. Sure, they have pinning, but with a low casualty rate, lack of serious AP, and loosing efficiency by firing at T3 or 4 models, they are clearly best used against big baddies where wounding on 4+ is impossible by other units.

 

Again, taken out of context, who would assign snipers to shoot at a huge demon or war walker? Why would they engage a target that far outclasses them, being very light infantry? Wouldn't you (once again, just thinking logically here) intuitively use anti-tank weapons on the big guys, and precise suppression fire on infantry?

[Mal]

AhhI think I see where your getting confused here... you believe GW make use of common sense and logic....

[Praeger]

Actualy it DOES make sense when taken in a broader view.

 

The "roll to hit" is not the actualy chance of hitting - its the chance of FINDING the target

 

This roll incorporates the enemy moving around, hidden behind cover, ducking weaving etc

 

the "to wound" roll isnt actually wounding them.

 

No, this roll is the actual chance of the weapon hitting them. The chance the round could effect them etc. (in this case the sniper rifle make more logical sense - a bolter with a scope vs a sniper rifle with a scope should have the same chance of "hitting" (finding) the target while the sniper rifle being more precice will have a greater chance of "wounding" (hitting) the target in the corect location)

 

The "armour save" isnt just the armour they are wearing.

 

No, this save is the armour PLUS the units actual toughness and ability to ignore wounds.

 

 

- yes I realise that this means all terms are in the wrong place, but when you think about it like this the whole process does make a bit more logical sense.

[HiveFleetEzekial]

And it is GW.... IIRC, the last time they ever made rules that made sense (and had fluff to back it up) was in 2nd edition. Not so much, since then. They 'know' why things work as they do, doesn't matter about everone else.

 

(not to start another tangent here, as it's been done enough and there are plenty threads to search for it... this could be one good reason why they made such a drastic change in the wording of Pinning weapons. Give some kind of balance back to them.. but again 'it's GW' so, only they know for sure :cuss they're doing and why)