Hi,

I was wondering since one of my pc's choose a Refractor Field in Rogue Trader (Noble Seneschal) as his starting acquisition how does a refractor field work against multiple hits from autofire.

The rules say it negates the "Attack" which would indicate it would also negate multiple hits from autofire with a single roll.

So the question:
Does someone wearing a Refractor Field is hit by one attack causing say 3 hits have to roll 3 times or just once?

Your talking about the Ascension Refractor field right ?

I'd say that each attack corresponds to a single BS or WS roll. So when they get hit multiple times by the same attack (eg a full auto burst), they only get one roll of the force field that will either stop them all or let them all through.

Bilateralrope said:

That would definitely cut down on rolls. Might also do the same thing as with Dodge; a successful activation negates 1 hit, while each extra degree absorbs another. Though, the fields with the lower "thresholds" would not be able to negate as many hits, it makes a kind of sense, as their lower ability should indicate they are less capable of absorbing hits. And, yes, this would still mean that the refractor field is more likely to overload the more it absorbs.

-=Brother Praetus=-

This actually came up in the last session in my campaign. Many hellguns fired at PCs. What we settled on to avoid dozens of rolls of D10s was to roll once per round per PC's refractor field.

Brother Praetus said:

Does it feel right to you that a burst from an autogun has a higher chance to get through a shield than a meltagun shot ?

I don't, which is why I prefer having the field either block all the hits or it blocks none.

Decessor, it sounds like your using the Inquisitors handbook refractor field. Personally I'd suggest making the players switch to Ascension force field rules.

Bilateralrope said:

Actually, yes, to me it does feel more accurate. The sheer volume of fire seems that, to me, it would be able to cause a field to short out or become overloaded faster than a single powerful blast. The field is going to flicker to keep up with absorbing incoming fire, whereas the one intense blast is more likely to be stopped. This is just my thoughts on the matter. If you don't agree, then don't use it. Also, most PC's are going to hedge their bets some, and will likely have some form of armor in addition to a field generator on their person.

Think of it in terms of the miniatures game. A melta hit against a 5+ invulnerable save only has to be rolled once. That same save; barring an armor save, would have to be rolled for each and every hit from something like a Leman Russ Punisher's main gun; a Heavy 20. So, yes, I most definitely feel full auto would seem to have a better chance of overpowering a field through shear volume of fire; a quantity over quality comparison. Whether you agree with my assessment or not is your choice.

-=Brother Praetus=-

Bilateralrope said:

The argument could be made that since the burst isn't hitting only one spot, it has a better chance of at least one bullet finding a weak point in the field.

Yeah, I pulled refractor fields from Inquisitor's Handbook since Ascension wasn't out when I started my RT campaign. With Ascension, I was considering either changing over to the new rules or making the "new" patterns of field available to buy. But this campaign is nearing its end so I'm going to leave the matter alone. At least until the Ascension campaign.

On a side note, the IH refractor fields work a lot more like the "reductor fields" mentioned in the Lexicanum page: wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Refractor_Field

A much more rare variation of this technology is the Reductor Field, which, rather than try to stop projectiles, tries to cushion their impact to a point where they are of no danger to the wearer. Commissar Yarrick is known to wear one.

Brother Praetus said:

This is what we do in our groups... works well I think