N0-1_H3r3 said:

I'm confused.

That's actually what I said.

His entire game of 40k, 6 turns, took 15-30 minutes. He factored that each "turn" could therefore be considered 2.5-3 minutes.

I said that my entire game of 40K, 6 turns, took several hours. The factored time per "turn" could therefore be considered 20 minutes or more.

My conclusion was that the values are all relative and should not be used as a factor for turn time.

SpawnoChaos said:

I think there might be a confusion of in-game time and real world time. Not sure about that myself though.

Alex

SpawnoChaos said:

It really isn't. It might be what you meant, but the actual words in the post reference the act of playing a 2,000 point game of 40k... which is utterly irrelevant from a background perspective.

From a background perspective, a turn of Epic: Armageddon represents approximately fifteen minutes of combat - that has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of time it takes to actually play out that turn, and the arbitrary values (points costs) attributed to the forces involved are completely irrelevant here. Within a single turn of Epic, formations can engage in assaults, combining close combat and firefights into an event roughly equivalent in scale and brutality to an average game of 40k. Consequently, a normal 6-turn game of 40k can be assumed to represent about 15 minutes of combat - again regardless of how long it may take to play such a game - which means that each turn represents about two and a half minutes.

This is absolutely no different to the way that a single round in Deathwatch represents about 5 seconds of action (page 234 of the rulebook), yet will take much longer to actually play out. It's the difference between time "in-game" or "in-character" (the time that passes for the characters involved) compared to real time as experienced by the players.

concerning the RoF Debate:

Why not just switch the rules for Full Auto and Burst? If you burst fire, which is more acurate, every DoS increases the hits and in spray-the-bullets-wildly mode (autofire) only every 2 DoS increase the hits.

vogue69 said:

but up to different maximums... I really like that from a first viewing actually. but there might be potential flaws I can't see

Narkasis Broon said:

It hurts full-auto only weapons enormously. Perhaps give full-auto shooting +30 to hit to mitigate that a bit.

Alex

ak-73 said:

It's balanced things a lot in my games, since I use that rule in my games since I started playing Dark Heresy. I've not come up with a single major problem in my time of swapping the DoS required for additional hits in all that time.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

Did I somehow miss in the rules where it states how long a typical engagement in the 40K TT actually represents "in game time"?

Last I checked these battles / skirmishes had no "in game" time reference.

SpawnoChaos said:

Well, firstly, the matter of "time in game" is a background matter, rather than strictly being a rules one, and thus isn't subject to the nauseatingly overbearing notion of Rules As Written. Beyond that, this is a peripheral matter

Now there isn't a direct reference to "each turn represents X amount of time" in the 40k rulebook, no, but if you reread the post you quoted, I explain my reasoning for that interpretation - Epic Armageddon (and BFG) turns have been mentioned by their respective designers (Jervis Johnson and Andy Chambers, respectively) as representing approximately 15 minutes, though that figure is meant to be very approximate. It's been the case, mentioned by those very same designers over the years, that a single Assault Phase in Epic (either Epic 40,000, or the more recent and IMO superior Epic: Armageddon) represents the events of a single game of 40k (indeed, the Epic 40,000 armylists allowed people to construct formations for their Epic armies that were almost miniature replicas of their normal 40k armies).

Consequently, as I have already stated, if a turn in Epic is 15 minutes long, and can contain within it the events of a single 40k game, then consequently, each turn in a game of 40k thus approximately represents about 2-3 minutes of violence.

Now, I don't know borithan's reasons for bringing this up, but if his reasoning is anything like mine, it's this: The actual time doesn't matter one way or the other. The point is the difference . A single turn of Deathwatch represents a few seconds of action... a single turn of 40k, by my estimations, represents a few minutes. What a character can accomplish in the amount of time represented by the form former is far eclipsed by what they may be able to achieve in the latter amount of time... indeed, assuming a 2 minute 30 second turn of 40k, a character in Deathwatch could achieve 30 turns worth of action... enough for an Ag40 Astartes to run 900 metres, or fire off a little over three and a half magazines of bolter ammunition, or completely empty a Heavy Bolter ammunition backpack.

Similar arguments can be made with regards to the abstractions of 40k in other areas - individual 'shots' being rolled for in the wargame almost never represent individual shots in background terms, enemies "killed" is little more than convenient shorthand for enemies "rendered incapable of continuing the fight"... and then there's the little quirk of scale. A miniature of a Space Marine is about 28mm tall, representing a warrior not too far under 100 times that size. yet miniature Imperial Guardsmen are of similar size, as are models of Tau, Kroot, Orks and Eldar... none of which are really in scale with their accompanying vehicles... or with the scale used for measurements in-game, otherwise a bolter would only be able to kill things about 50 metres away (if an inch of height represents just over 2m worth of warrior on a miniature, then an equivalent distance for a 24" range gun is just over 50 metres)...

The list goes on, but the point remains the same in all cases: direct conversion from wargame mechanics cannot account for the sheer number of differences in scale, be those differences ones of distance, of rate of fire or reference to time, lethality...

To best illustrate the situation, consider one situation in both games: 50 Ork Boyz (TB8, AP2, 15 Wounds with True Grit, Movement 2/4/6/12) attempts to rush towards a demi-squad of Tactical Marines (5 Marines, all armed with Bolters, assume BS 50). The Orks begin a distance away equal to the maximum range of the bolter, and there is no cover or intervening terrain. The Marines go first.

In 40k, that's 2-3 turns, depending on the Orks running. In Deathwatch, the Orks have to cross 400m of open terrain, and if running at full speed that will take them just under 35 turns. In 40k, that's about 15 bolter shots at the incoming Orks. In Deathwatch, that's closer to 100 shells, fired in up to 4-round bursts at the incoming Orks.

The post is long-winded, so I'll re-summarise: the scale differences between the wargame and the RPGs is all but irreconcilable. Direct comparisons cannot be made.

i dont want to sound like broken tape but most imba thing in end play are blood angels.

other than that if u change HB rof to -/-/6 change all other bolt weapons to s/3/- works perfectly for my group.

back to topic:

Librarians (nasty mutants, when they reach rank 8 u will understand why BT dislike those freaks)

2d10+6 pen:28 Avenging Flamer (yes... melta is dangerous... for guardsman maybe)

28AP portable cover (who need bunkers...)

or my favourite muchkin lightning of doom range:140 14d10 pen:14 blast(14)

and lets not forget: preternatural speed & might of the ancients = melee d10+34(+12 SB included) pen:22 balanced, and as free action opposed WP deal d10dam withouth AP or TB...

ak-73 said:

Full auto weapons in the real world, as opposed to movies, are normally used for suppressive fire (or Suppressive Fire). They aren't accurate, just scary.

Inquisitor sapiens potensque said:

I know but if I wanted realism, I wouldn't play DW. Perhaps Phoenix Command instead.

Alex

Like I said though, I've not had a single problem with swapping the DoS required for additional hits between SA and FA. It means, with Semi-Auto, if the first bullet hits, there's a greater chance of the others doing so too, which fits, and Full-Auto has a better chance of hitting with any bullets, but less chance of hitting with more than a couple, which also fits.

It basically means that the difference between FA and SA is whether you want to try to hit and don't mind burning through ammo to do so, or you want to risk a greater chance of missing completely with the chance of hitting several times if you hit at all.

Unless you had really low BS there would rarely if ever be a point to using Full Auto with those rules unless you had unlimited ammo.

BS31+10 for SA gives a 41% chance to hit with at least one shot, on FA it would be a 51% chance. However most FA weapons fire 10 rounds a burst so you lose your ammo really quickly.

It's more economical requires less reloading to fire SA - reloading cuts into the rounds you can shoot in which makes up for the lower chance of hitting on SA, so SA becomes superior as you don't reload as often and subsequently don't use up as much ammunition. Unless you have several hundred rounds on you FA is going to drain you in only a few rounds and then you'll be spending rounds reloading not doing anything.

This isn't true for the gimpy weapons that don't fire 10 shots on FA. This is something I've never liked with the rules - SA and FA are abstract rules in and of themselves which are completely independent of the shots being fired.

Thus you could have a weapon that had the profile S/1/1 and thus get +20 to hit with one shot.. This not only allows a higher chance to hit it also increases your ammo expenditure to hit ratio. FA 4 shots means if you hit twice you've only wasted 2 shots as opposed to the EIGHT you'd waste with other weapons.

If however the number of shots you fired reflected directly on your increase to hit, then it would balance all levels evenly. Say 2x the number of shots as a bonus. Thus someone FA with 10 shots would get the current +20 to hit, whilst someone only firing 4 rounds would get +8 to hit.

But then I'd prefer if SA was 'burst fire' and FA was 'suppressive fire' with better rules than the current suppressive fire rules, like the people in the area suffere a negative to Pinning tests equal to 2x the shots, or perhaps even the same as a negative to dodge tests as bullets are flying everywhere.

Hellebore

Just referring to fully auto as 'short burst' helps to my mind.

After all, a 'full auto' weapon that only fired 10 rounds (or 4! hohoho!) in a 5 second 'full action' is laughable. Even the most conservative fully automatic weapons fire that amount in a single second...

Siranui said:

Iirc the Mac-10 empties it's 30-round magazine in 1.5 seconds. If it had a belt feed (and ignoring heat) that would be 100+ rounds in one round.

Alex

MG-34s would be an even better example: Already belt-fed and firing slightly less than 30 rounds per second! It makes the assault cannon's 6 barrels look completely superfluous!

Assault canon mounted on dreadnought should be compared to old A-10 warthog avanger gatling cannon, 30mm, 4200 bulets per minute. u may laugh but terminator is suposed to carry same thing. Sadly its borring if your terminator super hero have ammo for 3 bursts... (btw looking at assault cannon i wonder where that 200 rounds are hiden? pocket plane?)

accept one rule of WH40k: cool>real.

boruta666 said:

Cool is a subjective judgment. One person's "way cool" is another person's "unbelievably stupid."

cool in this example mean: good fun & wh40k fluff rules.

boruta666 said:

That too is subjective. Also 40K Roleplay isn't simulationist. It's more in the Hollywood film tradition than that.

Alex

ak-73 said:

For me its rather good action book tradition not movie.

Well, as assault cannons (and indeed heavy bolters) fire on full-auto all the time, it's fairly easy to fluff each 'shot' being about 5-20/whatever in reality.

It doesn't work so well with weapons capable of firing single shots, though. Hence the idea of just fluffing full auto as a burst.

Anyone else feel that Assault cannons probably deserve the 'storm' quality and maybe a larger to hit bonus?

Siranui said:

www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp

... contains the current state of debate. Any further contribution is welcome.

Alex

Siranui said: