Damage application from full/semi bursts.....(TB and AP)

By scscofield, in Dark Heresy Rules Questions

When a character shoots a target with multiple bullets does each hit have the AP and TB applied to mitigation?

Also, I had my players go up against a gun servitor the other night. The servitor had ROF of -/4/20. My question is how is it possible for it to actually hit with 20 bullets? Is there some rule that increases the amount of hits from auto bursts? I just had it do 4 round bursts because I did not want to take the time to hunt for the rules on it but I am still curious about it.

When a character shoots a target with multiple bullets does each hit have the AP and TB applied to mitigation?

Yes. Each hit is reduced by AP and TB.

Also, I had my players go up against a gun servitor the other night. The servitor had ROF of -/4/20. My question is how is it possible for it to actually hit with 20 bullets? Is there some rule that increases the amount of hits from auto bursts? I just had it do 4 round bursts because I did not want to take the time to hunt for the rules on it but I am still curious about it.

Where did you get this servitor from ?

I know of nothing that has a rate of fire above 10. Are you sure this wasn't x/x/10 with storm ?

If it had a BS modified to 191 and rolled a 1, it would be able to hit with all 20 shots.

DH Core page 340

And your response of math in regards to it is why I am asking this, it just seems that I am missing something.

I always assumed that rates of fire this high were deliberate, to suggest that it is impossible to hit with every bullet.

In a way it makes sense, spray and pray is inherently wasteful, and some large portion of the bullets fired are unlikely to hit the target. I presumed that larger ROF's than it is possible to achieve successes exist to balance the expense of going full-auto against the benefit.

scscofield said:

DH Core page 340

And your response of math in regards to it is why I am asking this, it just seems that I am missing something.

scscofield said:

DH Core page 340

And your response of math in regards to it is why I am asking this, it just seems that I am missing something.

Normally I would call this a typo. But I see that you are using the errataed version. You might want to ask FFG about it, since it looks very odd.

Personally if I was using that enemy, I'd house rule the rate of fire for FA to 10. Maybe up the clip to 60 and add Storm, because this weapon is two autoguns firing at once.

At Last Forgot: The unerrataed version had a ROF of S/6/20, with 2d10+6 damage. The weapon is called a "twin autogun" and had twice the ROF and damage of an autogun. Sounds like someone at Black Industries wasn't thinking when they wrote the original version. Then only part of it was fixed by FFG when they released the errata.

With a ROF of 20, it would only get off 1 round of full auto. It wouldn't have enough remaining ammo for a second.

I think I am to treat it like a dual shot issue next time if I use that mob again because of the whole twin part.

scscofield said:

I think I am to treat it like a dual shot issue next time if I use that mob again because of the whole twin part.

That's exactly then way I handled it. I used the pre-errata version first against rank 8 acolytes, but I quickly realized something was off as the damage was insane. After checking the post-errata version it struck me as extremely underwhelming... normal autogun damage . 20 ROF and 30 round clip`?

So I used the mechanics of Dual Shot... I allowed the PC in question to get double armor against each 2d10+6 hit - which turned an autokill into just some damage, not even a critical.

As an option you could use the Twin-linked rules from Ascension but I'm not sure how well they translate to Autofire weapons.

Friend of the Dork said:

As an option you could use the Twin-linked rules from Ascension but I'm not sure how well they translate to Autofire weapons.

Storm would be more appropriate.

Bilateralrope said:

Friend of the Dork said:

As an option you could use the Twin-linked rules from Ascension but I'm not sure how well they translate to Autofire weapons.

Storm would be more appropriate.

I thought those were for Bolters only. The difference is also that Storm has synchronized barrels while Twin-linked are just two barrels firing. Thus the latter has alot more spread at range, which is often the point. For example, a flakvierling has 4 barrels to increase the volume of fire as well as the "area of effect" so to easier hit airplanes.

Although I suspect the only reason these servitors have two-barreled autoguns is because they look tougher ;) I would think they would generally have been better with Heavy Bolters or maybe just a Heavy Stubber.

The errata'd version gives -/4/20, 90m, 1d10+4 I, Pen 0, Tearing, Clip 30, Reload Full. It also has Auto-Stabilised, so it *can* do and SA and FA in the same turn, but he'd more likely move at Half and SA at a single target/FA at a group.

With it's BS of 30, it'd get 40 for SA and 50 for FA, so a maximum of 2 hits for SA and 5 for FA out of 24, if he rolls 10 or lower on both dice. To make it fair, I'd spread out as many of the hits on as many targets as possible, giving them a better chance to Dodge.

I'd also deny them the ability to aim - being a mindless being only capable of following orders, and it is unlikely that the one in charge would order ''make sure you aim before you fire'', or make use of suppressive fire, or of any tactical actions requiring independent thought unless ordered to do so.

The situation was it was set to guard a entryway at the end of a hallway. My acolytes have bad habit of charging into things because their first few missions were against unarmored low armed nothing mobs. They kicked the door in and saw a glint of light in the dark room. They followed their usual method of opening fire and I was going to have it open up on them with full auto. I did not plan to kill them or anything with it, it was more of a wake up call type thing. The ROF and low BS for a ROF like that threw me though. I think they still learned a little caution, will just have to see what happens next week.