The electro-flail.and the flail of chastisement are entirely different. The latter is the low-tech weapon that is absurd overpowered, especially with Mono added.

The electro-flail.and the flail of chastisement are entirely different. The latter is the low-tech weapon that is absurd overpowered, especially with Mono added.

My bad. I mean Flail of Chastisement. Which I should apparently use. on myself.

For shame, Flail-Bot. For shame.

Radwraith; there is also the size of the weapon; if its bore than two meter longs, if the weight isn't well dispatched, you can't fire it on the run without failing your shoot.

But in the DH, weapons are wayyyy too heavy anyways.

Alexel: That wasn't me. I think you may have just looked at the avatar and assumed. That being said, I agree, weapon weights are wayyy off!

Cleanse with Fire seems pretty bad to me because let's say you've got a WP bonus of 4. You reroll 40% of the rolls, so the chance of a jam is actually 1/6. Why does being better with a Flamer make you more likely to jam it?

In general that rule with Spray weapons seems so silly. Why not just roll a d100 just to see if there's a jam? At least that has nothing to do with the damage.

I realize this is a bit of thread necromancy, but seeing as this book will probably never receive official errata, I feel the need to revisit the issue of the Snapper rifle. I see some people have accepted the weight, rationalizing that the gun is basically 8 muskets welded together, but from what I see that isn't true at all.

as per the weapon description, the snapper is : "functionally similar to a musket... [and] features a rotating cylinder that holds eight individual shots."

A rotating cylinder. NOT 8 separate barrels. Plus the gun deals the same damage as a musket. So based on that, I'm concluding that this is basically a musket with a revolver-esque loading mechanism.

Idk how we can justify that weapon weighing 45kg when a musket only weighs 7. I don't care WHAT it's made of, 45kg for a musket-sized weapon is insane. Especially when you realize that that makes the Snapper literally the heaviest weapon in the entire game, even compared to Heavy weapons that include a backpack ammo supply in their weight profile. The gun is heavier than a suit of Light Power Armor! It's simply ridiculous. It HAS to be a mistake.

On 5/13/2015 at 7:45 AM, cps said:

That's the kind of shoddy FFG editing I've come to know and love. Bravo.

Similarly, one of the supplements refers to the "warp weapon" quality without explaining what it is... that weapon quality is found in the core rulebook of Black Crusade. Lol.

Just now, Douglasrad said:

Similarly, one of the supplements refers to the "warp weapon" quality without explaining what it is... that weapon quality is found in the core rulebook of Black Crusade. Lol.

It's not weapon quality, it's a trait and it's on page 139 of DH2 Corebook.

8 minutes ago, Jargal said:

It's not weapon quality, it's a trait and it's on page 139 of DH2 Corebook.

Ah. That explains it. I'll chalk that confusion up to the supplement failing to mention that. Also, it IS a weapon quality as well as a trait in BC. That's why I was expecting to find it in that section.

3 minutes ago, Douglasrad said:

Also, it IS a weapon quality as well as a trait in BC.

Only in BC. In DH1, RT, DW and OW it's only a trait.

2 minutes ago, Jargal said:

Only in BC. In DH1, RT, DW and OW it's only a trait.

K? It's still an amusing example of shoddy editing. Especially since the book refers to "warp weapon" (as in the BC weapon quality), rather than "warp weaponS", with an "s" (as in the trait).

Best thing they could've done was include the quality in the supplement, since it's the first and only DH2 book that provided weapons with that quality. For the most part I love these rulesets, but I don't love the tendency to send you search for information that is in a totally different book, or in a totally different section, like the exp cost for talents being listed in a totally separate section from where you can find their associated aptitudes. Lots of flipping back and forth when my players are leveling up lol.

its just funny to notice the strange editing and occasional evidence of copy-pasting. For example: the core rulebook lists and describes the "Lance" weapon quality. Maybe I'm crazy but I've not found a single weapon in ANY of the DH2 books that uses the "Lance" rules.

A lot of text for books is made by blind copy-paste from previous editions/gamelines. It's a good old FFG tradition. You can find "Lance" weapon at page 362 of Only War corebook, for example ;-)

Also, more on topic here, and related to concerns of possible typos on the weapon-charts, should the Castigator Heavy Crossbow really have a clip size of 14? Cuz none of the other crossbows have loading mechanisms like that, and the weapon description doesn't say anything about it being a giant repeating crossbow. That clip size combined with concussive (2), reliable, scarce availability, and the added bonus of automatically knocking anyone up to and including the size of an armored space marine prone if you deal ANY damage at all... just seems poorly balanced. I'm thinking the 14 is supposed to be a 1. God I wish FFG still had the rights to this stuff. I want some official updates lol

4 minutes ago, Douglasrad said:

I want some official updates lol

We want some updates for DH1...

5 minutes ago, Jargal said:

We want some updates for DH1...

Doesn't that one already have like 20 books? ?

On ‎14‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 0:08 AM, Douglasrad said:

as per the weapon description, the snapper is : "functionally similar to a musket... [and] features a rotating cylinder that holds eight individual shots."

A rotating cylinder. NOT 8 separate barrels. Plus the gun deals the same damage as a musket. So based on that, I'm concluding that this is basically a musket with a revolver-esque loading mechanism.

It's basically a "Puckle's Defence". Those things were pretty crude and heavy. 45kg sounds a bit on the heavy side, but definitely 'heavy weapon' mass sounds more appropriate than 'basic weapon'.

As a rule, if you can't make anything better than a flintlock musket, you haven't the materials tech/craftsmanship to make a well-sealed moveable breach. So the 'revolver cylinder' ends up being bloody massive and held in place by something looking like an industrial clamp, rather than the spinning pepperpot of a colt-era and later design.

German 8-wheel musket with matchlock. Each chamber has a separate shelf, closed with a sliding cover. Specifically, this musket was made in 1580.

1 hour ago, Jargal said:

German 8-wheel musket with matchlock. Each chamber has a separate shelf, closed with a sliding cover. Specifically, this musket was made in 1580.

There we go. Cuz the weapon description calls the snapper "the pinnacle of black powder engineering". This looks like a pinnacle, more than that big crude cannon.

On 11.10.2016 at 6:54 PM, RMcD said:

Cleanse with Fire seems pretty bad to me because let's say you've got a WP bonus of 4. You reroll 40% of the rolls, so the chance of a jam is actually 1/6. Why does being better with a Flamer make you more likely to jam it?

In general that rule with Spray weapons seems so silly. Why not just roll a d100 just to see if there's a jam? At least that has nothing to do with the damage.

Well, yeah, it's silly. I guess, it's for the same reason why most weapons don't use a separate test: "OMG ONE MORE ROLL"! Which IMO isn't such a big deal when there are not 5 different dice, but only one.

I agree that it's derp, but how did you end up with 1/6? 0.1+0.4*0.1 = 0.14 = 1/7.14, not quite as bad. Also, "reroll results lower than WpB" means 40% would be for WPB 5. If you don't mind extra rolls, this could be fixed by changing it to "may take WP test to reroll damage", which obviously includes rerolling all jams. This would hit the weightier component - reduce the jam probability from plain 0.1 on the first roll to 0.1*(0.6+0.40*0.1)=0,064 (jam and failed WP test or jam on both rolls), plus jam on the second roll alone 0.4*0.40*0.1=0,016 (assuming you won't reroll other 5+ results anyway), for total 0.08, which is only 4/5 of 0.1 baseline, so there would be noticeable improvement.

Or for simplicity give it "Proven (WpB-1)" or even "Proven (WpB)", it's not such a big deal.