MagnusIlluminus wrote:
I've had another thought.
If we consider what was previously called "direct-fire" shots to instead be a template that affects an area 1cm by 1cm (can we seriously think that five troops actually hit the exact same spot simultaneously?) and give it a value based on that (rather than just a flat 2, it would be 1*1/10 = 0.1).
If the template were 2cm by 2cm, the cost would be 0.4. This might be a little more 'realistic', at least for stands of troops, or similar weapons (Heavy Bolter, etc) with high rate of fire.
[Generally speaking, a template has to cover at least half of a model or stand to affect it, thus even a 2cm by 2cm area could only ever affect one model or stand.]
For Range, if we change that to being a cost of 0.1 per cm, we can then redefine the base cost of the weapon as being the Range Value plus the Template Value. This value would then multiplied by all other factors.
For example, a standard Bolter or Lasgun weapon would then have a value of 5.4 (5 from 50cm /10 and 0.4 for a 2cm square area affected). A barrage weapon with a 100cm Range would have a base cost of 13.6 (10 from 100cm /10 and 3.6 from a 6cm barrage template). A weapon using the Small Teardrop template would have a base cost of either 5 (0 from range zero plus 5 from template), 6 (1 from Range (length is 10cm /10), 5 from Template), or 5.5 (0.5 from Range as the centerpoint of the template is 5cm from the model, plus 5 from Template).
The question then is do we price them based on the maximum distance that:
A: the closest part of the template can be placed?
B: the centerpoint of the template can be placed?
C: the furthest part of the template can be placed?
___
Yeah, I do want to adjust the template values to be a bit more accurate to their surface area. That will be done as well.
Hi!
My answer to your multiple choice question would be...
"whichever gives me the lowest cost".
If your pressing me to pick one I'd say B, but not but much over A.
Primarch