Hi, fellow beta-testers.

It might have been debated before (especially in the Only War section, but the context is different and the search function not all that good), but there's something that bothers me in the current armory.

Basically, why would anyone use a heavy bolter instead of an autocannon? I see only disadvantages to the former.

-The average damage per shot is 15 for a heavy bolter, 24.5 for an autocannon. That's before taking toughness and remaning armor into account, both of why favor the autocannon more.

-Firing the heavy bolter always brings a -10 penalty, because it can only be used in full auto burst. Autocannon can either be used with a +10 bonus on a single shot, or +0 with the possibility of extra hits.

-On a TB 4 enemy with no armor, on a roll that's 40 points under your WS (DoS 3 for the heavy bolter, 4 for the autocannon), you deal 44 damage with the heavy bolter and 61.5 with the autocannon. Only with truely exceptional rolls will the heavy bolter deal more damage.

-They weigh the same, have the same availability

-Autocannons are reliable. Tearing has already been factored in the damage and doesn't allow the heavy bolter to outperform autocannons.

The only thing that heavy bolters bring is supression fire, but I don't see it as sufficient to balance all the areas where it lags behind.

Any thoughts about this? Is there something that I'm missing? What balance fix would you suggest?

(Similarly, I think the heavy stubber could use another point of damage. It's a rare heavy weapon that weighs 30kg. Alternatively, its availability could be improved a bit.)

Heavy Bolters are (IIRC) the second weakest heavy weapon. It's only advantage over an auto cannon is maximum number of hits, generally useful only if you're up against a large number of weak opponents.

Even then, you need an impressive roll, which doesn't happen very often.

So, is the heavy bolter to weak, or are the more powerful heavy weapons too strong? Or a combination of both?

Even then, you need an impressive roll, which doesn't happen very often.

So, is the heavy bolter to weak, or are the more powerful heavy weapons too strong? Or a combination of both?

To be honest, I think what we're seeing is just an artifact of the differences in rules-systems.

in the TT, you roll seperately for each potential hit/wound. In the RPG, one attack roll can (and often will) cause multiple hits/wounds.

Worse yet, penetration works very differently in the RPG vs the TT game.

Converting between basic resolution principles is generally not very easy, and fairly impossible without making certain assumptions. Sadly those assumptions ususally aren't made explicit and may well not be true in your game - they certainly aren't in mine.

That said, even in the TT, the heavy bolter in kinda the poor cousin of the heavy weapons in my experience (and completely ignoring the sad joke that is the heavy stubber).

Except against certain troops like fire warriors, ork boys and possibly the newcrons, :-/

I think that the problem is that they nerfed autofire weapons twice. They use to be too powerful (+20 to hit AND multihits, with each hit comparable to a single shot weapon), but they've reduced both the base damage AND given them a -30 to hit. They should have chosen one or the other.

Damage output compared together, they are what almost as they should be, imo..

The difference is, as someone pointed out, deals more damage on large numbers (horde magnitude), which is quite an advantage in some situationens.

Sure the autocannon will oneshot most targets, but are limited in RoF.

Back in the days, Heavy stubbers were never acquired, and heavy bolters almost the same.

On TT, none fields those weapons except if it has to due with Fluff of the army..

The weapons are fairly accurate translated into 40K roleplay stats. Damage for the autocannon is a bit too high though. On the danger of becoming repetitive, compare to

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/37819-adjusting-dw-weapon-stats-more-to-the-40k-tabletop-stats/

I did this for DW. Now you can assume Astartes weapons to have about +4 damage. If you add that to the HB stats you arrive at the HB stats of the DW errata 1.1. Doing this comparison you can also see that the auto cannon is 2 points too powerful. Not a big deviation and these are approximate values anyway.

Also I wouldn't discard ROF. The basic lesson is that numbers of shots hitting is a damage multiplier. You should never forget that there might be talents or special abilities that add to damage. In general, FFG isnt conservative enough with those damage bonuses; +4 damage is a huge deal for high ROF weapons. But yeah, the autocannon does higher damage but has less ROF. This exactly as it should be. If you're still concerned, reduce damage of AC by 2 or 3 points.

Alex

PS As an aside note, I think the to-hit nerf for full-auto is too hard. This was created in the context of DW and BC where you had Astartes who hit everything anyway. But Dark Heresy characters traditionally need good bonuses to get anything done! Acolytes will suffer from this, especially those who dont have good BS and have relied on the full-auto bonus to hit anthing with their autopistol.

The difference is, as someone pointed out, deals more damage on large numbers (horde magnitude), which is quite an advantage in some situationens.

Depending on which version of the mass combat rules you use (ie. the horde rules from DW I think?), the damage type of the HB being Explosive matters as well. A little bit.

The weapons are fairly accurate translated into 40K roleplay stats. Damage for the autocannon is a bit too high though. On the danger of becoming repetitive, compare to

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/37819-adjusting-dw-weapon-stats-more-to-the-40k-tabletop-stats/

Wow, dude, this conversion of yours is awesome! if the plasma gun had 3D10+10 damage, I would totally consider it a worthwhile special weapon .

On the topic of the poor Heavy Bolter:

Sadly, the HB is quite an useless heavy weapon. Its only advantage is that it is easier to sell a Bulging Biceps guy firing a HB from a standing position than the same thing with an AC.

The difference is, as someone pointed out, deals more damage on large numbers (horde magnitude), which is quite an advantage in some situationens.

Depending on which version of the mass combat rules you use (ie. the horde rules from DW I think?), the damage type of the HB being Explosive matters as well. A little bit.

There are no horde rules in Dark Heresy. I'd like to see the Heavy Bolter useful in a classic context.

The weapons are fairly accurate translated into 40K roleplay stats. Damage for the autocannon is a bit too high though. On the danger of becoming repetitive, compare to

http://community.fan...tabletop-stats/

Yes, but the issue is that AP is actually the anti-infantry power, and Str the anti-vehicle power. Surprisingly, it woukd work much better if you assigned the Pen to the Str attribute and Damage to the AP attribute.

But yeah, the autocannon does higher damage but has less ROF. This exactly as it should be. If you're still concerned, reduce damage of AC by 2 or 3 points.

I did some theorycrafting (I wrote some data analysis code and tinkered a bit with the weapons' values to look at what would happen), and it turns out that rate of fire doesn't matter all that much. The issue is that with that -10 penalty they gave to full-auto, unless were talking about very high (80+) effective BS, you'll get close to as many hits with semi-auto fire as with full-auto. And in practice, in every situation, Heavy Bolters are behind. Not just a bit: a lot. Because these "extra hits" only come into play into rare situations and don't contribute much to the average damage.

The problem with the Autocannon is that it's supposed to be a decent versatile weapon to take care of infantry (including very heavy) and vehicles, but outperformed by specialized weapons in both cases. That's not what it is.

Here are the results of my Theorycrafting (I've included the MP Lascannon from Only War. BS is effective weaponskill, modified for anything that's not due to burst fire):

BS: 50 Armor: 5 TB: 4

I dunno, but I guess a dedicated anti-vehicle weapon should kill a person outright. I mean, it is not like you can take anti-tank missiles with impunity just because they are meant to destroy vehicles, right?

A dedicated anti-vehicle weapon shouldn't be able to reliably hit people, but a MPLascannon does. You don't use an Exocet (or TOW) missile on infantry. In the TT game, the reason why you don't use a Lascannon on infantry is that it's a waste of a powerful weapon - you're only going to kill a single mook. But in Only War and Dark Heresy, the burst fire rules are such that the only usefulness of burst fire is against hordes...

If the Lascannon was really as good as it is on paper, considering it has the same availability as both the AC and the HB, the imperium wouldn't use anything else. Neither would the players...

Frankly, the problem is that the burst fire "fix" broke burst fire in new and innovative ways.

I dunno, but I guess a dedicated anti-vehicle weapon should kill a person outright. I mean, it is not like you can take anti-tank missiles with impunity just because they are meant to destroy vehicles, right?

There's a tendency to want to make all things good or at least viable, and perhaps the best way to achieve that is to specialise the function of everything.

Personally I don't necessarily think that's a good idea. I like that fully automatic weapons are easier to hit with and tend to do a lot more damage. And that anti-vehicle weapons are utterly devastating against individuals, if they hit. But most people - my own 40K group included - disagree with me.

EDIT:

That, and the hit rolls and damage work in the system.

It'd be great if the system represented how difficult it would be to snipe individuals with a lascannon, and if body fat wasn't superior to armour. But alas...

Wow, dude, this conversion of yours is awesome! if the plasma gun had 3D10+10 damage, I would totally consider it a worthwhile special weapon .

-4 for a non-Astartes grade plasmagun though. So about 3d10+6. The plasmagun instead has 2d10+7 on maximal. That's... underwhelming. The DW plasmagun also has too low damage (as mentioned in that post) but at least it has Pen 12 on max with errata'd stats.

There are no horde rules in Dark Heresy. I'd like to see the Heavy Bolter useful in a classic context.

The same thing applies: distribute hits. Against normal combatants a single Heavy Bolter hit will put them out of combat (if you have a reasonable GM, that is).

Yes, but the issue is that AP is actually the anti-infantry power, and Str the anti-vehicle power. Surprisingly, it woukd work much better if you assigned the Pen to the Str attribute and Damage to the AP attribute.

The system is what it is though. I have been merely corelating stats in the TT with existing DW stats (pre-errata, btw; you will note that the DW errata 1.1 stats are more or less based on the considerations in that thread). This should give everyone the right idea where a weapon is supposed to fit in.

I did some theorycrafting (I wrote some data analysis code and tinkered a bit with the weapons' values to look at what would happen), and it turns out that rate of fire doesn't matter all that much. The issue is that with that -10 penalty they gave to full-auto, unless were talking about very high (80+) effective BS, you'll get close to as many hits with semi-auto fire as with full-auto. And in practice, in every situation, Heavy Bolters are behind. Not just a bit: a lot. Because these "extra hits" only come into play into rare situations and don't contribute much to the average damage.

To be honest, I think you got it wrong. The standard Dark Heresy scenario puts you against a bunch of cultists/mutants/hereteks with a TB of 3 or 4 and 0-5 AP. Your Lascannon is less effective than an autopistol against those. Occasionally you will fight warp spawn/daemons/xenos/heretics who may have a soak 2 to 5 points higher. It sounds like you are fighting a 40K battle against tanks and Chaos Space Marines with PC Acolytes here.

Against a bunch of light infantry, every Heavy Bolter hit will cause a combat casualty; even if the target isn't dead, they will reconsider fighting (being heavily wounded) unless they're cult fanatics or are having a commissar right behind them. So distribute shots and make full-auto ROF and suppressive fire count.

Alex

Against a bunch of light infantry, every Heavy Bolter hit will cause a combat casualty; even if the target isn't dead, they will reconsider fighting (being heavily wounded) unless they're cult fanatics or are having a commissar right behind them. So distribute shots and make full-auto ROF and suppressive fire count.

Alex

Against a bunch of light infantry, Autocannons and MPLascannons outperform every other weapon, including the heavy stubber and the heavy bolter, because the problem is you don't actually score (enough) extra hits with automatic fire, and you actually lower your chances to score any hits! Also, the heavy bolter doesn't cause 1-hit kills reliably. 15 damage average against TB4 is often not enough to cause critical damage on anything but the wimpiest enemies.

This should give everyone the right idea where a weapon is supposed to fit in.

My point is that the system doesn't actually place weapons where they are supposed to fit in. The fact that you found out what conversion table they used doesn't mean they didn't botch the conversion. Also, that conversion made sense with the old burst fire rules. Now? Not so much.

Frankly, the original burst fire system (DH 1.0, before errata) was superior to the current one. Auto-Fire weapons could hit more easily and score extra hits reliably (good against small, elusive but wimpy targets), while single shot weapons had more power and were appropriate for tougher, bigger targets. The main problem was that while it was possible to balance weapons with each other (and make single-shot weapons stronger based on their damage values), for a single weapon with multiple firing modes Full Auto was always the best option. Instead, we now have a situation where fully automatic weapons are basically only good at horde-munching (which only exists in specific situations of specific games) and supressive fire, in which the damage code isn't all that important because you don't really hit much anyway.

The solution would have been to keep the old system (+20% to hit on Full Auto, +10% on Semi Auto, 1 extra hit every 2/3 degrees of success respectively - that was before they made it too strong) and to implement some incentive to use single-shot or semi-auto from time to time.

A possible fix to the old system I came up with is to create a stat call "recoil", which starts at 0 in a battle, and is increased by 2 at the end of every round in which Full Auto was used and by 1 if Semi Auto was used instead. When shooting, recoil brings a penalty of 10 times its value. Recoil resets when the shooter spends a round without firing. You can only use the aim action if recoil is 0.

With that fix, Full Auto actually DOES hit more easily (which it should, because a Full Auto's first shot should be more or less as accurate as a single shot, especially since the low ROF in Dark Heresy indicate a series of small, aimed controlled bursts rather than 5 seconds of clip-emptying) and scores more hits reliably. Which makes it a good anti-infantry mode. But it also tends to generate recoil, which quickly affects aim, which is an incentive to use single shot instead - you can fire reliably every round.

It sounds more like a problem with weapon damage. If every weapon caused more damage (like, the HB could one-shot people easily) the "bigger" guns would lose edge as their damage would move to the "unnecessary overkill" category when firing at "soft" targets.

Against a bunch of light infantry, every Heavy Bolter hit will cause a combat casualty; even if the target isn't dead, they will reconsider fighting (being heavily wounded) unless they're cult fanatics or are having a commissar right behind them. So distribute shots and make full-auto ROF and suppressive fire count.

Alex

Against a bunch of light infantry, Autocannons and MPLascannons outperform every other weapon, including the heavy stubber and the heavy bolter, because the problem is you don't actually score (enough) extra hits with automatic fire, and you actually lower your chances to score any hits! Also, the heavy bolter doesn't cause 1-hit kills reliably. 15 damage average against TB4 is often not enough to cause critical damage on anything but the wimpiest enemies.

And normal human enemies fight unless killed or knocked out? Is that how you run DH games? Enemies never surrender or flee? What would it take for a normal cultist or mutant or whoever to cease fighting?

My point is that the system doesn't actually place weapons where they are supposed to fit in. The fact that you found out what conversion table they used doesn't mean they didn't botch the conversion. Also, that conversion made sense with the old burst fire rules. Now? Not so much.

Frankly, the original burst fire system (DH 1.0, before errata) was superior to the current one. Auto-Fire weapons could hit more easily and score extra hits reliably (good against small, elusive but wimpy targets), while single shot weapons had more power and were appropriate for tougher, bigger targets. The main problem was that while it was possible to balance weapons with each other (and make single-shot weapons stronger based on their damage values), for a single weapon with multiple firing modes Full Auto was always the best option. Instead, we now have a situation where fully automatic weapons are basically only good at horde-munching (which only exists in specific situations of specific games) and supressive fire, in which the damage code isn't all that important because you don't really hit much anyway.

The solution would have been to keep the old system (+20% to hit on Full Auto, +10% on Semi Auto, 1 extra hit every 2/3 degrees of success respectively - that was before they made it too strong) and to implement some incentive to use single-shot or semi-auto from time to time.

A possible fix to the old system I came up with is to create a stat call "recoil", which starts at 0 in a battle, and is increased by 2 at the end of every round in which Full Auto was used and by 1 if Semi Auto was used instead. When shooting, recoil brings a penalty of 10 times its value. Recoil resets when the shooter spends a round without firing. You can only use the aim action if recoil is 0.

With that fix, Full Auto actually DOES hit more easily (which it should, because a Full Auto's first shot should be more or less as accurate as a single shot, especially since the low ROF in Dark Heresy indicate a series of small, aimed controlled bursts rather than 5 seconds of clip-emptying) and scores more hits reliably. Which makes it a good anti-infantry mode. But it also tends to generate recoil, which quickly affects aim, which is an incentive to use single shot instead - you can fire reliably every round.

Too much bookkeeping. Also, I still think you got it wrong. With a HB you normally need only one bolt on target. If you are fighting against fanatics who fight until death, you might need two. Besides, in DH a heavy weapon is generally only required against the really BBEGs. My DH Scum is Rank 5 and he has never used a heavy weapon, doesn't even have the required skills for any. He uses auto-pistols and his Nomad rifle usually.

As for auto-fire rules, I don't like the newer modifiers either. For my next game, I have been considering a simple switch (+0/+20/+10) from the old rules instead. In DW, full-auto fire needs a slight nerf because of the impressive Astartes stats and bonuses. DH character, as mentioned, need bonuses such as from full-auto.

Alex

I understand that this is a very minor point (more so if your firefights tend to be short), but I just wanted to mention: a heavy bolter will fire at full auto for 10 rounds and then need a full action to reload. An autocannon at semi-auto will fire for only 6-2/3 rounds and then need TWO full actions to reload. Probably not enough to make it worthwhile in most cases, but it's something at least.

I'm also proposing a new rule:

All heavy weapons are Inaccurate and cannot be used for Called Shots against targets that have a size modifier of +0 (Average) or lower. Blast or flame template weapons are, of course, not affected by this rule.

(I might consider +10 or lower but that would mean aiming at Land Speeders is pointless...)

Alex

Even then, you need an impressive roll, which doesn't happen very often.

So, is the heavy bolter to weak, or are the more powerful heavy weapons too strong? Or a combination of both?

To be honest, I think what we're seeing is just an artifact of the differences in rules-systems.

in the TT, you roll seperately for each potential hit/wound. In the RPG, one attack roll can (and often will) cause multiple hits/wounds.

Worse yet, penetration works very differently in the RPG vs the TT game.

Converting between basic resolution principles is generally not very easy, and fairly impossible without making certain assumptions. Sadly those assumptions ususally aren't made explicit and may well not be true in your game - they certainly aren't in mine.

That said, even in the TT, the heavy bolter in kinda the poor cousin of the heavy weapons in my experience (and completely ignoring the sad joke that is the heavy stubber).

Except against certain troops like fire warriors, ork boys and possibly the newcrons, :-/

The HB is actually (marginally) superior at killing marine-types in the TT than the autocannon is. (1/3 chance vs. 5/18 chance if fired at BS3.) Shorter range though IIRC,

The HB is actually (marginally) superior at killing marine-types in the TT than the autocannon is. (1/3 chance vs. 5/18 chance if fired at BS3.) Shorter range though IIRC,

Those are average number of kills, not probabilities of scoring a kill, but that's a detail.

But indeed, you're right. My bad.

Remember if you use the horde rules you get a +30 for firing against a horde with a magnitude of 30 or more, so it completely offsets the -30 penalty to fire it.

The HB is actually (marginally) superior at killing marine-types in the TT than the autocannon is. (1/3 chance vs. 5/18 chance if fired at BS3.) Shorter range though IIRC,

Those are average number of kills, not probabilities of scoring a kill, but that's a detail.

But indeed, you're right. My bad.

Having nothing better to do with an hour, I did the math, and the HB performs better (either significantly or slightly) against all forms of infantry than does the AC. In fact the HB is the best heavy weapon, period, against all forms of infantry (except possibly a frag missile against tightly-packed blobs) with the exception of the plasma cannon. The AC is a light-vehicle/Monstrous Critter killer and is mediocre against infantry.

In fact, the autocannon does not perform significantly better against infantry than do lasguns, leaving range out of the equation (which is admittedly a big, big, omission):

Consider: Two Guardsmen (= 2 lasguns) becomes 1 autocannon heavy weapons team in TT (you exchance 2 GM for an HWT, in other words). Assuming that range is short, the two lasgun guys get 4 shots vs. the HWT's 2.

If shooting at marines (T4 Sv3+) with BS3, the math looks like this:

Lasguns: 1/2 x 1/3 x 1/3 = 1/18 x 4 = 4/18 = 2/9 = 0.22. If you FRFSRF that, it becomes 1/18 x 6 = 1/3 = 0.33

Autocannon: 1/2 x 5/6 x 1/3 = 5/36 x 2 = 10/36 = 5/18 = 0.28.

In other words, at short range (admittedly a big factor), lasguns (or rather the two lasguns that you would need to get rid of to get an autocannon) are only marginally worse than autocannons against heavy infantry, and superior given FRFSRF.

An HB on the other hand gives you

1/2 x 2/3 x 1/3 = 2/18 = 1/9 x 3 = 3/9 = 1/3 = 0.33.

That is, the HB is 150% as good as the lasguns in normal circumstances and identical with them given FRFSRF.

OK. This has been a long digression . From which I extract two things. 1) in TT, if you are planning on going up against infantry of any sort and not vehicles or Monstrous Critters, ALWAYS take the heavy bolter over the autocannon. 2) FFG is not modelling the TT weapons effectively at all.

Excellent.

Also: 3) I should do my math rather than trusting "intuition" with regards to weapons

Excellent.

Also: 3) I should do my math rather than trusting "intuition" with regards to weapons

That a pair of lasguns outperforms an autocannon (assuming you have a FRFSRF order going on at 12" range or less) really surprised me.

Really now that I think of it, when you are shifting two GMs to a HB or AC HWT, what you're getting is more an increase in range than an increase in damage output, at least as far as infantry are concerned.

BTW ACs will Instant Death T3 multi-Wound models, so they do have that niche advantage (that is, Necron Scarabs and IG, Eldar, DE, and SoB Indendent Characters),