DoS replaces the d10 in the base damage of weapon. Each d10 prior is a multiplier of this amount. 1d10 is DoSx1, 2d10 is DoSx2 etc. Fixed additional damage depending on weapon type and variants. Pen affects both armour and TB.

Thoughts?

Holy crap, I had forgotten all about the 'switch DoS for Damage roll' rule!

Still, that's a bit underwhelming unless you are armed with a truly powerful weapon in the first place. What about a variation where you add DoS to the damage roll? On solid hits that would effectively negate most 'skin armour', without significantly increasing the chance of a nameless 'mook' one-shotting a PC (due to their generally low BS).

But that would require altering the Accurate rules- maybe have Accurate double DoS when an Aim Action is used...?

Modern games get around this kind of weirdness by rolling only once for an attack.

Depending on your definition of "modern game"...

I know about the DoS to minimal damage rule. Still, DoS don't tell everything there is to know about the attack. No matter how many DoS you roll, if you deal no damage or low damage, then clearly you didn't just shoot the guy right between the eyes, because that tends to be lethal even with the weakest weapons this game offers.

'cpet if you have a bad damage system that can't handle a (supposedly) lethal shot . IfyouknowwhatImean.

Lethal shots aren't that common in actual combat. Which is what the damage system simulates, I'd say.

DoS replaces the d10 in the base damage of weapon. Each d10 prior is a multiplier of this amount. 1d10 is DoSx1, 2d10 is DoSx2 etc. Fixed additional damage depending on weapon type and variants. Pen affects both armour and TB.

Thoughts?

Apart from the obvious statement that I don't consider such a change necessary in any way...

The basic idea of DoS being solely responsible for calculating damage is certainly workable. The multiplier values you propose aren't when considering the current weapon stats (off which your idea works), the range of Characteristic values for both the PCs and enemies, as well as the ranges of armor and Toughness boni existing within the system. You'd have to rework a lot of math to make this possible.

This will also get weird with fast-firing weapons (i.e. those capable of firing in semi-/full-auto) as well as with Accurate weapons.

There's no point in keeping Penetration at all if you want it to reduce Toughness as well as armor. The whole point of having it as a separate value was to represent the fact that some weapons are great at punching through armor without necessarily being that devastating to the fleshy bits inside. Take that notion away, and what justification do we have for keeping Pen at all?

Because armour piercing rounds may punch through something nicely, but they don't make as big of a mess as flechette.

I don't see how one would have to redesign plenty of stats to make it work either. With a BS of 40 base, I've reached an effective BS of 120 with relative ease.

Full auto and semi auto, as written, are something I dislike anyway. They were actually a lot more realistically done in DH1. I'm more than happy to revert to that kind of auto-fire, especially because if you use DoS, instead of d10, aiming is suddenly worth it. (Aiming + Full Auto, however, should not be possible without a tripod or power armour.)

Alternatively, I can see DoS affecting the zone hit. 1-3 DoS Chest, 4-5 limb, 6+ Head or unarmoured point if present.

And yes, at this point, I'm just tossing alternate mechanics out there.

The issue with DH1 (and RT and DW) full auto was that it was too good (there was 0 reason not to use it if your weapon of choice had full-auto, doubly so with the Auto-stabilized trait in play) while being equally unrealistic (full auto offered same bonus as the Aim action meaning that even at long range spraying and praying with a heavy bolter was usually more effevtive than sniping)

There I'd have to disagree. The disadvantage to Full Auto was the ammunition waste - and if this was not a concern for the players, then I suspect this was mostly due to carriage limits not being enforced by the GM. A full-auto attack with the heavy bolter means 10 rounds at +20 BS, whereas an aimed attack means 1 round for +10 BS. Yes, technically this gives you a "free" 2nd hit compared to the aimed attack if you roll the same success, but in the case of the heavy bolter this also means 8 rounds gone to waste.

Autoguns were great, but even in the original system, single shot weapons had their place. Having to reload an autogun every three clips' worth of full auto was very taxing on ammunition supplies and only made it worth it for us when facing multiple opponents that had to go down quickly. As for the sheer damage potential, just aim for a place not covered by armour. It might even be more efficient than just holding down on the trigger.

Otherwise, I do like the scale with the amount of bullets fired, as long as one can't aim -and- full auto.

Most of my experience with full auto was in RT/DW (I deeply disliked DH1 due to imbalanced psykers and tech-priests) where between marines, power armor and suspensors weight was no issue (we did roughly track it).

I do suspect you are somewhat exagerrating the ammo weight issue in DH. It's unlikely to see a party with nobody with a high str since IIRC Point Buy wasn't even an option and also frim myexperience you don'tneed that much ammo. For much of my last RT campaign I've played a Tau relying on a burst cannon (10 ROF) with a 200 rounds backpack. I've ran through several large-ish dungeon crawls and I've never needed to reload.

That's not the only thing that's being exaggerated in this thread tbh, but who am I.

Guess I'll hit my own hand with a hammer now and like it, in the meantime.

DH1's weight system was pretty bad. I distinctly recall we scrapped it in the second session, when we found out that carrying two guns while wearing flak armour put an average strength human over capacity.

I do suspect you are somewhat exagerrating the ammo weight issue in DH. It's unlikely to see a party with nobody with a high str since IIRC Point Buy wasn't even an option and also frim myexperience you don'tneed that much ammo.

Carrying capacity is not only a question of weight but also common sense in terms of actually storing the item, though. Your Space Marine may be able to lob a literal ton of bolt shells around with this RPGs lulzy carrying rules, but where would he store them? Obviously, this comes down to personal interpretation and how badly a player wants the cheese, but personally I don't think I ever had a character who took more than four reloads for a given weapon (I tend to go with 2-3 for the primary weapon, 1-2 for sidearm), but if you have players running around with ten or more magazines, I'd say the GM is well within their rights to ask questions.

The rest just comes down to when the character will actually be able to restock on ammunition for their guns. With projectile weapons in particular, in the galaxy of 40k there will be a gazillion different calibers, sizes and shapes, all produced for guns that are popular locally , but perhaps not for what your players are carrying. Indeed, some worlds may not offer modern guns at all, or will have them on a tight lockdown, and the same will go for their ammo. And that is before we even get to the question of "how often do your players find time to shop between combat encounters".

This is why las weapons should be popular in spite of their (comparatively) crappy damage!

I'm not discounting that all of this will be very much up to the individual group, so experiences will be subjective.

As for Deathwatch, it should also be kept in mind that this is a high-powered "Movie Marines" game with some pretty insane abilities for the player characters, where the efficiency of full-auto surely fits in with the rest of what's happening there?

For much of my last RT campaign I've played a Tau relying on a burst cannon (10 ROF) with a 200 rounds backpack. I've ran through several large-ish dungeon crawls and I've never needed to reload.

But surely you must have come pretty close to emptying your ammo supply? RoF 10 with 200 rounds means 20 attacks, which doesn't sound like a terrible lot for a "large-ish dungeon crawl".

The big drawback of the backpack is that you don't get to reload. Once it's empty, all you are left with is a lot of dead weight. Unless you have another backpack stored in a vehicle nearby.

DH1's weight system was pretty bad. I distinctly recall we scrapped it in the second session, when we found out that carrying two guns while wearing flak armour put an average strength human over capacity.

The weight system is funny everywhere (though rifles and their ammo can be quite encumbering!). Deathwatch Space Marines get to juggle Terminators.

Like Toughness Bonus, this is just one of the basic mechanics that just don't scale very well, imo.

[edit-addendum] I just remembered I suggested a rough draft for alternate firing modes some time ago, where additional bullets were not rolled for individually, but merely added a set amount of bonus damage (I think it was +2 or +3) IF the first round managed to inflict a Wound or Critical Injury. This had the double effect of lowering total damage a bit (as 2 would be below the average damage of the individual hit), whilst simultaneously also resulting in fewer dice rolls.

I think I still prefer the aforementioned +2-BS-per-shot before such an abstracted model, but maybe someone else finds the idea to their liking?

An average human in DH1 can carry 36 kg on them without any visible effort ("average" meaning SB and TB of 3 each, which is an average value you can get out of chargen).

A loaded autogun weighs 3,5 kg, almost exactly 10% of that average carrying capacity. It holds 30 bullets in it.

Per the rules, a fully loaded magazine weighs 10% of the weapon's mass, so 0,35 kg for the autogun - in more meaningful terms, it means ten clips weigh as much as the loaded gun.

So, carrying an autogun and ten spare clips weighs 7kg, or slightly less than 20% of what an average human can carry without a problem.

Loaded autogun + ten spare clips = 330 bullets carried. This is about the amount modern human soldiers carry into battle. And, again, it's roughly 20% of what an average Joe Grimdark can carry on himself at a given time with no penalties. There's plenty of space for some armor, a couple grenades and corpse starch rations, and what have you.

And before somebody asks about the economical aspect, 330 autogun bullets cost 16,5 Thrones, which isn't that big a deal even for Rank 1 DH1 characters.

So, please tell me again about the downside of having to waste ammo.

Most of our combats had a tendence to be quite lethal so they usually lasted 2-3 rounds on average (with 5-6 for boss fights). Not to mention the use of different guns for different circumstances (even if burst cannon was main weapon I had other stuff for tanks and the likeband also a few grenades). I did come pretty close more than once though. And in DH1 las (well Hellguns) were probably the best weapons.

I also find 2-3 reloads a bit few. Most war stories I've read have soldiers at about 5-6 minimum (some within easy reach others stored in backpack).

Untlimately my problem is not with full-auto being too good vs enemies (they have full-auto too) but too good vs semi-auto and single shot.

I'm imagining someone trying to investigate a heretical cult while walking around loaded for an imperial guard campaign.

I'm then imagining what I'd do to players that dense in my campaign.

So yes, ammunition is a concern. You can't always bring an endless supply with you as an acolyte. Never mind it takes time to reload most high RoF weaponry. If you can survive a couple rounds of not being able to shoot back, the encounter's too easy and I do wonder why you bothered rolling at all.

The idea is to finish a combat in one clip, which most weapons are able to do. It also takes less time to reload most full-auto weapons than most single shot ones.

I really have a hard time imagining a situation where you could be investigating a cult with a sniper rifle but not with an autogun and 5-10 clips (since the initial discussion was about full auto vs single shot at long range).

So, please tell me again about the downside of having to waste ammo.

You could read the post above yours that already dealt with the issues you raised.

I also find 2-3 reloads a bit few. Most war stories I've read have soldiers at about 5-6 minimum (some within easy reach others stored in backpack).

Depends on the mission. I was only given three magazines total, so I may be a bit biased due to my own experience. Though that was just a perimeter protection assignment and I've heard infantry in a warzone carries more ( this seems to be a pretty good topic).

A problem with real world comparisons is the storage, though. Modern soldiers carry tactical vests with MOLLE pouches, but I really don't see this sort of stuff in 40k. It just isn't the style of the setting, as useful as it might be. The most I could see is stuff like Valhallans with cartridge bandoliers, but ... where does a Space Marine put his spare mags?

What do you think about the suggested change to make the BS-bonus depend on the amount of shots fired, btw?

The idea is to finish a combat in one clip, which most weapons are able to do. It also takes less time to reload most full-auto weapons than most single shot ones.

The single shot weapons whose reload action takes longer than a single turn tend to sport considerable damage, though. And a single attack with lots of damage usually is better than lots of shots with a little damage, due to the absorption.

What weapons are you comparing, specifically? Is this special cases, or are we talking about common tools?

That's a good point, but how about "both don't suit the situation and both players should look for something else"?

Or alternatively, the sniper may have the option to cover their team from afar (SWAT-style), whereas the guy/gal with the autogun actually needs to get inside without raising suspicion.

A problem with real world comparisons is the storage, though. Modern soldiers carry tactical vests with MOLLE pouches , but I really don't see this sort of stuff in 40k. It just isn't the style of the setting , as useful as it might be. The most I could see is stuff like Valhallans with cartridge bandoliers, but ... where does a Space Marine put his spare mags? ;)w?

This is exactly what the combat vest is, which I'm pretty sure has existed since DH1.

This is exactly what the combat vest is, which I'm pretty sure has existed since DH1.

Hmm, I would have interpreted it as a more WW1/WW2-style webbing.

I can see how someone could arrive at a different interpretation ... especially in this context. But given the images we've seen of the setting, which do you think fits better into the world?

Another factor might be clip size: even if you take the modern US Marine approach, from what I've heard they carry two magazines per ammo pouch, as M16/M4 strips are fairly thin. A G36 magazine on the other hand needs an entire pouch all on its own, and "bulky" certainly fits to 40k. Bolt shells are cal .75, which is essentially shotgun-slug-sized. You thus likely won't be able to stuff several bolter magazines into a single pouch either.

I really don't think it makes a difference. I've never had anyone ask what exactly a combat vest looks like in any game I've run.

So, please tell me again about the downside of having to waste ammo.

You could read the post above yours that already dealt with the issues you raised.

Carrying 300 bullets is something Warsaw pact soldiers do normally - and that's the ones equipped with assault rifles, heavy gunners carry one thousand or more bullets. In any situation where you can carry a long weapon without jeopardizing the mission due to non-tactical considerations, you can carry a backpack as well.

Why would ammo compatibility be a problem in a setting where all production is governed by galaxy-spanning organizations? They could figure out unified lasgun charge packs, but can't figure out standardized cartridges? It doesn't hold up.

All in all, you used the term "dealt with" very loosely

I'm imagining someone trying to investigate a heretical cult while walking around loaded for an imperial guard campaign.

I'm then imagining what I'd do to players that dense in my campaign.

So yes, ammunition is a concern. You can't always bring an endless supply with you as an acolyte. Never mind it takes time to reload most high RoF weaponry. If you can survive a couple rounds of not being able to shoot back, the encounter's too easy and I do wonder why you bothered rolling at all.

Most non-heavy full auto weapons tend to hold enough ammo for two to three rounds of continuous fire. Carrying two spare clips should let you last for one entire encounter easily, and it's not hard to conceal an autopistol and two clips.

Unless you're in a very high security setting (say, an audience with an important person), or are actively aiming to project an air of harmlessness, this isn't an issue. If you are in such a situation, yes, you're probably reduced to a compact pistol and maybe one spare clip hidden on you - but in such a situation, engaging the enemy should be your very last choice.

In any situation where you actually can, and should, bring out the big guns, the ammo is not a concern.

It's not a concern, until you need to spend more than a round reloading. Once the actual shooting starts, the reload time is more of a factor than the number of bullets you're carrying.

It's not a concern, until you need to spend more than a round reloading. Once the actual shooting starts, the reload time is more of a factor than the number of bullets you're carrying.

In DH1 core, the only weapons capable of full auto that also had reload time in excess of one round were the heavy stubber and the heavy bolter. Heavy bolter holds enough ammo for six rounds of constant fire, and the heavy stubber holds a whopping 20 rounds' worth of hurt. Either way, reloading in combat should not be a concern.

Honestly, I think it would be a lot better to just abstract it out to a "slot" system where everyone has a certain number of small slots on their person to hold things (medium items take two slots, large items three) which can be increased with backpacks or pouches or long coats or what have you. Each slot/item you write on top of it where the item is held. This both tells you how players are hiding items and makes it easier to have an idea of inventory. And you don't need any dumb carrying capacity shenanigans. Just roll strength to lift heavy things (and don't bother with a weight table, just tell how much the average person can lift and roll with added difficulty for weights far above that).

Suddenly all the nonsense about carrying capacity and pocket dimensions for ammo clips is gone and the only thing lost is piddly "well my guy can carry 10 kg more than yours OH HOW IMMERSIVE IN THIS GRIMDARK WORLD."

Why would ammo compatibility be a problem in a setting where all production is governed by galaxy-spanning organizations? They could figure out unified lasgun charge packs, but can't figure out standardized cartridges? It doesn't hold up.

Which galaxy-spanning organisation is governing the production of some random underhive's gun shop or a sanctioned manufactorium as long as they are paying their fees? The rulebooks talk about a "galaxy of guns" and throw like a million local gun patterns at us. If individual planets have their own gun models, why shouldn't they have their own ammo specs as well?

The AdMech doesn't care as long as the manufacturer adheres to its religious mantra. If they are even aware of the maker.

I wouldn't even be so sure about unified lasgun charge packs - though I am of the opinion that they'd have a unified adapter, making sure they can all be plugged into the same generators and energy distribution nodes. The only projectile ammunition type that has ever been mentioned to be standardized is bolt shells, and those are described as being so hard to get anyways that it may just as well be the same here.

It's not a concern, until you need to spend more than a round reloading. Once the actual shooting starts, the reload time is more of a factor than the number of bullets you're carrying.

Hmmh this probably wouldn't apply to the heavy weapons with backpack supply, but I'd say they come with other issues.

It does make me wonder if perhaps the designers meant the autogun's ROF of 10 as a drawback rather than an advantage, though...

What do you think about the suggested change to make the BS-bonus depend on the amount of shots fired, btw?

That would be an interesting idea IMO. On average you hit with 5-6 bullets on a full auto burst from my experience. The rest is just 'clip size tax' giving it a role would be good.

The single shot weapons whose reload action takes longer than a single turn tend to sport considerable damage, though. And a single attack with lots of damage usually is better than lots of shots with a little damage, due to the absorption.

What weapons are you comparing, specifically? Is this special cases, or are we talking about common tools?

Let's see (quick skim through WH40k Roleplay Armory) (number of rounds you can fire the weapon before reoadingand reload time):

Autopistol (3 rounds, reload Full) vs. Hand Cannon/Stub Revolver (5/6 rounds, reload 2 Full); little damage difference

Autogun (3 rounds, reload Full) vs. Hunting Rifle (5 rounds, reload Full), no damage difference (except Accurate)

Lasgun (20 rounds, reload Full) vs. Long Las (40 rounds, reload Full)

Other weapon categories don't really have comparable full-auto and single shot guns (in DH core at least).

That's a good point, but how about "both don't suit the situation and both players should look for something else"?

Or alternatively, the sniper may have the option to cover their team from afar (SWAT-style), whereas the guy/gal with the autogun actually needs to get inside without raising suspicion.

Except the autogun guy can cover from afar just as well,if not better. Full Auto gives him +20 BS as well, and depending on roll/target specifics he can (and probably often will) outdamage the sniper.

Sniper (with hunting rifle) aims, autogun guy full auto vs a target of t3 with no armor (or enough armor to be fully penetrated by manstoppers; typical cultist).

0 DoS: both score same 5.5 damage, sniper having used just 1/5 of his clip (autogun 1/3)

1 DoS: autogun 11 damage, sniper still 5.5

2 DoS: autogun 16.5 damage, sniper 11

3 DoS: autogun 22 damage, sniper still 11

4 DoS: autogun 27.5, sniper 16.5

5+ DoS: autogun damage keeps increasing, hunting rifle has reached it's maximum 2d10 from accurate.

There are of course situations (most extreme being when a target can't be hurt by 1d10+3 pen 3 from manstopper autogun but can be hurt by 3d10+3 from accurate hunting rifle with manstoppers, but in general I've found spray&pray works better than accurate shots, even at long range.