Base book: Stub Revolver

Pistol 30m S/-/- 1d10+3 I pen0 clip 6 2Full Reliable 1kg cost 40 plentiful

Book of Judgement: Scalptaker

Pistol 30m S/-/- 1d10+3 I pen0 clip 6 2Full Reliable 2kg cost 40 plentiful

Base Book: Hand Cannon

Pistol 35m S/–/– 1d10+4 I 2 5 2Full — 3kg 65 Average

The Inquisitor's Handbook: Stormchild

Pistol 35m S/–/– 1d10+4 I 2 5 2Full — 3kg 65 Average

I don't even want to try to compare other guns...

First: The Scalptaker is also in the IH. And yes, it has no other reason to exist than for fluff.

Second: The Stormchild can as written on page 118 be used in close combat as a club without damaging the weapon itself. Comes in handy to punch the other with the usual 1d10+SB once you run out of bullets.

Are there bad copies?

Yes, like the Scalptaker.

But not every one is once you read the full description.

It's a galaxy of guns, some are similar some are different some are better some are worse. It's all about what you make avaliable to them.

It's a galaxy of guns, some are similar some are different some are better some are worse. It's all about what you make avaliable to them.

The "galaxy of guns" argument was my first thought as well, but when you think about it there's no good reason to actually include identical profiles whose only difference is the name in multiple books of the same product line. After all, "galaxy of guns" goes for 90% of all weapons in the books, yet would we actually like to see 90% of all weapons having one, two or more twins taking up valuable space in a publication you paid good money for?

"Galaxy of guns" means, to me, that the GM (or a player. if they are pitching an idea/suggestion) should feel free to come up with identical or only slightly different profiles for weapons just using a different name and a different background/description - kind of like comparing a CZ 75 to its Springfield P-9 clone.

It does not mean a license for the publisher to unnecessarily reprint material we already have (Emperor knows, the books are full of that anyways, including the typos that get carried over from one game to another).

That being said, I am absolutely sure that this was an unintentional side-effect of what appears to be an inability to keep track of already published equipment. Maybe they don't have a database that compiles all weapon profiles into a well-ordered list that would allow spotting similar wargear. Or maybe, if it does exist, whoever wrote those stats just didn't bother to look.

Either way, it's not that big a deal. We should probably be thankful that with so many books and so many guns, there seem to be very, very few examples of actual "twins".

There's "galaxy of guns" and there is padding your weapon section. Maybe I'm spoiled from to much Shadowrun/cyberpunk "shopping catalogues" but they could have come up with something a bit more diffrent. I'm, not asking for bordrelands levels of variet-ah screw it, I am! More diffrent guns please!

Maybe I'm spoiled from to much Shadowrun/cyberpunk "shopping catalogues" but they could have come up with something a bit more diffrent. I'm, not asking for bordrelands levels of variet-ah screw it, I am! More diffrent guns please!

Now that you mention it, perhaps "point buy" rules for building your own guns (the player adding or removing levels of availability and cost allowing various traits and increases/decreases for damage/pen/range/capacity/etc) could be fun. Shadowrun has this, and GW once did this for 40k TT vehicles.

See Black Crusade Minions to get a vague idea on how such a system could work here, too.

Maybe I'm spoiled from to much Shadowrun/cyberpunk "shopping catalogues" but they could have come up with something a bit more diffrent. I'm, not asking for bordrelands levels of variet-ah screw it, I am! More diffrent guns please!

Now that you mention it, perhaps "point buy" rules for building your own guns (the player adding or removing levels of availability and cost allowing various traits and increases/decreases for damage/pen/range/capacity/etc) could be fun. Shadowrun has this, and GW once did this for 40k TT vehicles.

See Black Crusade Minions to get a vague idea on how such a system could work here, too.

Only war has a section about local variants for weapons (and other items)

How about :

"gangmarked" guns, that give you bonuses on fellowship when dealing with that (or other local) gang(s) when you reveal you carry such a weapon. (Like the one Eisenhorn has for instance.)

Local variants that come with inbuilt "extras"

Venator Handgun

Pistol 35m S/–/– 1d10+4 I 2 5 2Full, expanded magazine, fire selector

Vansaar stubpistol

Pistol 40m S/–/– 1d10+4 I 2 5 2Full, fluid action

It's a galaxy of guns, some are similar some are different some are better some are worse. It's all about what you make avaliable to them.

The "galaxy of guns" argument was my first thought as well, but when you think about it there's no good reason to actually include identical profiles whose only difference is the name in multiple books of the same product line. After all, "galaxy of guns" goes for 90% of all weapons in the books, yet would we actually like to see 90% of all weapons having one, two or more twins taking up valuable space in a publication you paid good money for?

"Galaxy of guns" means, to me, that the GM (or a player. if they are pitching an idea/suggestion) should feel free to come up with identical or only slightly different profiles for weapons just using a different name and a different background/description - kind of like comparing a CZ 75 to its Springfield P-9 clone.

It does not mean a license for the publisher to unnecessarily reprint material we already have (Emperor knows, the books are full of that anyways, including the typos that get carried over from one game to another).

That being said, I am absolutely sure that this was an unintentional side-effect of what appears to be an inability to keep track of already published equipment. Maybe they don't have a database that compiles all weapon profiles into a well-ordered list that would allow spotting similar wargear. Or maybe, if it does exist, whoever wrote those stats just didn't bother to look.

Either way, it's not that big a deal. We should probably be thankful that with so many books and so many guns, there seem to be very, very few examples of actual "twins".

If they don't have a 'master list', that's (a) shortsighted at best, (b) downright stupid, considering the fan-compiled master lists are accurate and easy to use, and something similar or better shouldn't have been that difficult for FFG to put together in-house.

On the other hand, I'd have to agree, the number of outright duplicates/clones (within a single game line) is small. The problem with reused names and different stat profiles is slightly larger, especially when expanding to cover other game lines.

The problem with reused names and different stat profiles is slightly larger, especially when expanding to cover other game lines.

I guess that's more of a problem with the studio apparently being unwilling to truly commit to whether the product lines should be regarded either as isolated stand-alones all with their own rules and profiles (makes the most sense given how they've adapted things to each game), or as fully compatible and interconnected relatives where you can just migrate things from one game into another (given how this keeps being suggested as an option in certain text boxes).

This current "in-between" condition results in a weird pseudo-status that I think may evoke false expectations in a lot of players (and, more dangerously, GMs).

The same items and NPCs having different profiles is only logical if we keep in mind that all the games have a unique thematic approach, with rules hand-tailored to evoking different styles of narration. And in some cases it was even a result of player criticism, like player lobbying in Only War leading to all las weapons having a charge slider, instead of just one in Black Crusade, and none in Dark Heresy. *shrug*

My problem with weapon stats in WH40KRP games is that there is no mechanic that encourages 'characterful' weapon choices like many of the characters in 40k fiction; instead the most powerful weapon in each category as the default 'right' choice. The long-running character Kal Jericho, for instance, uses twin laspistols in his stories, yet these are flat-out joke weapons in WH40KRP .

Also, people play WH40KRP specifically because they like the 40Kverse, so new weapons that render the iconic weapons of the setting statistically obsolete are a constant source of irritation for me.

The problem with reused names and different stat profiles is slightly larger, especially when expanding to cover other game lines.

I guess that's more of a problem with the studio apparently being unwilling to truly commit to whether the product lines should be regarded either as isolated stand-alones all with their own rules and profiles (makes the most sense given how they've adapted things to each game), or as fully compatible and interconnected relatives where you can just migrate things from one game into another (given how this keeps being suggested as an option in certain text boxes).

This current "in-between" condition results in a weird pseudo-status that I think may evoke false expectations in a lot of players (and, more dangerously, GMs).

The same items and NPCs having different profiles is only logical if we keep in mind that all the games have a unique thematic approach, with rules hand-tailored to evoking different styles of narration. And in some cases it was even a result of player criticism, like player lobbying in Only War leading to all las weapons having a charge slider, instead of just one in Black Crusade, and none in Dark Heresy. *shrug*

To be fair, DH, RT and DW can mix and match as they do have, as base, the same basic weapon tables in the armoury section, with DW adding the Astartes Grade weapons.

A lasgun is a lasgun is a lasgun after all. Patterns may change the power output, range, firing modes, but it,s pretty much the same gimmick.

The whole system began to fall off, according to me, with Black Crusade/Only War.

In B.C. the setting was because the Heretics were not bound by the Mechanicus’s dogma about not fiddling around with the machine spirit. Unfortunately, the way char gen is made, skills, attributes and talents are bought, and how combat changed dramatically, this previous concept of being able to merge game systems is no longer valid, if only with extensive work from a willing participant.

In Only War there was the Triplex pattern, but whining from the forums forced the hands of the powers-that-be and they added that power setting to ALL personal las weapons, with no ‘in universe’ reason to suddenly have lasguns with that option (because I guess people wanted to play guardsmen, but still be able to one-shot an Ork). But again the combat and advancement system differs from the original stock and therefore cannot really be mixed.

BC/OW also weaken the effects of critical hits (a weak crit effect, or if you make no damage a wooping automatic 1 wound, wow!) so while in DH/RT/DW, you could always one shot a CSM with a good roll with your trusty generic-pattern lasgun (rare, but a possibility), you’ll only give him a minor annoyance in BC/OW, worse case he’ll may drop his weapons..maybe?

My problem with weapon stats in WH40KRP games is that there is no mechanic that encourages 'characterful' weapon choices like many of the characters in 40k fiction; instead the most powerful weapon in each category as the default 'right' choice. The long-running character Kal Jericho, for instance, uses twin laspistols in his stories, yet these are flat-out joke weapons in WH40KRP .

Also, people play WH40KRP specifically because they like the 40Kverse, so new weapons that render the iconic weapons of the setting statistically obsolete are a constant source of irritation for me.

As for Kal, I always saw his laspistols as being

1-High quality (He is a noble from the Spire after all)

2-as no one seems to have any real form of armour apart from leathers in the Necromunda underhive, laspistols cut right through this like hot knife through butter.

3- Granted, I haven’t read his adventure past Necromunda, so don’t know how he managed, but he’s also the hero, so he is allowed to bend the rules, thanks to writer’s FIAT.

To be fair, DH, RT and DW can mix and match as they do have, as base, the same basic weapon tables in the armoury section, with DW adding the Astartes Grade weapons.

A lasgun is a lasgun is a lasgun after all. Patterns may change the power output, range, firing modes, but it,s pretty much the same gimmick.

Nah, stats have been changing since forever...

The first appearance of Astartes weapons was a 2d10 bolt weapon in the PtU adventure book. This is consistent with the so-called Angelus bolt carbine (which also uses Astartes ammo) in Inquisitor's Handbook.

Then Deathwatch came, and with it Astartes bolters that did 2d10+5.

Then Deathwatch received an errata with an optional (!) weapons table that changed bolters to 1d10+9, ostensibly to "speed up dice rolling and combat" rather than to fix balancing issues.

Only with the recent Daemon Hunter supplement did these 1d10+9 bolters actually find their way into Dark Heresy, which ... I suppose means that there's now two weapons both shooting the exact same Astartes miniature missiles, but magically causing different amounts of damage.

I'm pretty sure I can find more examples like that. Bottom line is that to me it is obvious that the designers look at equipment and rules for each game individually , and this is how we should receive them. Movie Marines make sense in Deathwatch, but not so much in Black Crusade, so they're different there, too.

Regarding Kal Jerico's laspistols, I think this is chiefly a problem of my old enemy in DH (etc), Toughness-as-Armour, where even your rank-and-file Guardsman in flak gets complete immunity to 7 points of damage, giving them a 50% chance (barring Righteous Fury) to shrug off a laspistol blast before even incurring a single Wound.

Very likely also the reason for why the authors felt Astartes weapons had to be buffed, by the way (1d10+5 Pen4 vs TB8/TB10 + AP8 .. enjoy your firefight between SM and CSM).

Nah, stats have been changing since forever...

True, but I don't really buy the argument that these changes are meticulously calculated to function perfectly within each game line and are thus incompatible across systems; I think they are just examples of different groups of writers stumbling around trying to find the 'sweet spot'- and consistently failing.

Since there is no 'challenge rating' system in any WH40KRP game prior to DH2 , it has always been incumbent upon the individual GM to 'crunch the numbers' and try to determine for themselves what constitutes a reasonable challenge for a group of PCs; weapon stats are just another part of that equation. There is no true baseline that says " This is balanced for Rank X characters" and " This isn't".

Speaking of which: has anyone used the challenge rating system from DH2 , and if so, how well does it work?

Very likely also the reason for why the authors felt Astartes weapons had to be buffed, by the way (1d10+5 Pen4 vs TB8/TB10 + AP8 .. enjoy your firefight between SM and CSM).

Wait, " a blind hog looking for acorns" Wouldn't a blind hog be just as good at finding acorns as one who can see, since they smell the acorns and- ah whatever...

Annyway- This is why we have Vengeance rounds for bolters. ;-)

True, but I don't really buy the argument that these changes are meticulously calculated to function perfectly within each game line and are thus incompatible across systems; I think they are just examples of different groups of writers stumbling around trying to find the 'sweet spot'- and consistently failing.

The way I see it, the games feature different styles of narration/atmosphere, and thus different "power levels" tuned to these styles of narration. It's like the difference between movies like Saving Private Ryan and Rambo. Both fun in their own right, but obviously on entirely different levels of grittiness and plot armour. In the same vein, we have Only War versus Deathwatch.

This is why in spite of overall similar d100 basics, some mechanics (such as Demeanours) are unique to a game, whilst others (such as Hordes) are only present in an altered form to accommodate for the differences.

Sure, there are other differences (such as psyker stuff) that are more a sign of an ongoing evolution from one system to the next, but in the end, there are too many unique perks to each of the games that feel way too tailored towards a particular product to have everything just be an accident or coincidence.

As such, the writers have actually doing a good job in customising the system towards the individual games, because the end result really does appear to resemble the theme of the book. People just shouldn't apply expectations to the books that were not part of the actual design goal. That'd be like complaining that Rambo is unrealistic. That may be so, but that's kind of the point of a movie like that, isn't it?

Since there is no 'challenge rating' system in any WH40KRP game prior to DH2 , [...]

Well, there was. It just wasn't very structured, and I think it got dropped somewhere in the middle. But doesn't anyone remember the "Hereticus Extremis" etc Threat Ratings?

Yeah the bestiary entries had a rating for the NPCs, just that it was...'generic', as it all depends on factors; a scum could be Hereticus Minoris..until he's got 200 meters between you and him, and he's got an autogun...but again, it was wide a bit; most NPCs were minoris or the notch over it, with the Deamonhost and some chaos beasts being higher.

I also had a small bit about the Astartes weapon, but its,a t work, will post later.

'Ere we go 'ere we go 'ere we go!

To be fair, I do partially recall that the whole Astartes Bolter damage raised a crapstorm of biblical proportion back in the day; everything from manufacturing standards, to weapon size to the quality of material past into the grinder to explain (or debulk) why an Astartes Bolter suddenly did more damage than a ‘standard’ bolter.

Frankly, I like 2d10 or even 2d10+5 for an Astartes bolter, but it appeared that since the Devastator can managed to force multiply his damage, it got abused so the errata got born…..now an Astartes boltgun does as much as a Vox Legi Arbites Shotgun (plus it got scatter, quite useful when close)

Well, there was. It just wasn't very structured, and I think it got dropped somewhere in the middle. But doesn't anyone remember the "Hereticus Extremis" etc Threat Ratings?

Those weren't nuts-and-bolts 'challenge ratings', they were purely narrative- a measure of how seriously the big =][= took a specific threat to the Imperium.

To be fair, I do partially recall that the whole Astartes Bolter damage raised a crapstorm of biblical proportion back in the day; everything from manufacturing standards, to weapon size to the quality of material past into the grinder to explain (or debulk) why an Astartes Bolter suddenly did more damage than a ‘standard’ bolter.

Frankly, I like 2d10 or even 2d10+5 for an Astartes bolter, but it appeared that since the Devastator can managed to force multiply his damage, it got abused so the errata got born…..

Yeah, I remember participating in that one... Though that was before I adopted my current stance of treating the different games as isolated instances, and hearing how "canon" in 40k works from the people who are writing it rather than the commonly held assumptions of the fans.

I think 1d10+9 is actually better than 2d10+5, simply because of how TB+AP work in these games. It's much better to consistently break through these massive layers of resilience even if you only cause minor injuries, rather than having a greater range (2d10+5) where sometimes more damage gets through, but other times your attack is wasted completely because of lower minimum damage.

Vox Legi Arbites Shotgun

Hahah, you're opening a whole 'nother can of worms with this one!

Those weren't nuts-and-bolts 'challenge ratings', they were purely narrative- a measure of how seriously the big =][= took a specific threat to the Imperium.

Oh, alright. I admit I didn't follow/analyse it too closely. It still sounds like a good indicator, but more along the lines of what kind of threat to use in general, rather than balancing individual encounters.

Vox Legi Arbites Shotgun

Hahah, you're opening a whole 'nother can of worms with this one!

Real Arbites use Best Quality combat shotguns, loaded with Executioner rounds (from Ascension ). Anyone who says otherwise is bad and wrong and bad .

...or a Vox Legi of common/higher quality loaded with executioner rounds

Eh, Vox Legi is okay, but I like the Skitarii Vanaheim Assault Shotgun; more range and full auto. Also, the Rend pattern shotgun is good, it has Tearing, and also can be used full auto.

Hello Eltavion,

There is also the Carnodon (Inquisitor's handbook, produced in Hive worlds)

35 meters range, s/3/- 1d10 + 4 , pen 2 , clip 6, full action reload, accurate

In my opinion, its a weapon of choice if you wield two weapons and have a solid munition pistol training.

I have a tech priest who is going to make a twin pattern weapon out of two Carnodon pistols. This is going to be an ass kicking weapon.

How precisely are you going to make a twin-linked revolver ? Hmmm?