AUTOCANNONS!

By nolsutt, in Deathwatch

Posted at

borithan said:

Siranui said:

Apart from heavy bolters, obviously...

You're saying that 25mm rockets are inferior to 25mm cannon? So why make a heavy bolter?

Because it is superior to a heavy stubber or a bog standard bolter. Those are the weapons they are meant to be compared to, not Autocannons. Now, I don't really see the point of bolt weapons if you are talking about just shooting humans (being totally unnecessary overkill). Its for dealing with things like orks and Space Marines who will shrug off all but the worst wounds from conventional small arms.

The main uses of the Autocannon are for swatting light vehicles (including Ork bikes and buggies as well as Eldar jetbikes) and large creatures (like the Krootox, Tau Crisis Suits, and many Tyranid creatures). Heavy Bolters are for chewing through large numbers of smaller (man-sized) targets. I suppose that some Ork Nobz do get big enough that the Autocannon might be preferred over the Heavy Bolter for dropping them quickly.

Posted at

Help me which army has Space Marine man portable autocannons? hmmm.... Chaos....exactly....HERETIC!

Posted at

2nd and 3rd ed Ultramarines, too

Posted at

major shultz said:

Help me which army has Space Marine man portable autocannons? hmmm.... Chaos....exactly....HERETIC!

Yeah, and they have bolters, bolt pistols, lascannons, power armour, and a whole lot of other equipment in common with loyal Space Marines too. You were probably going for humor, but for those that take such a thing seriously, I feel a bit of pity. I really don't see how carrying an autocannon makes you a heretic when wearing Mk5 armour actually gives you a Fellowship bonus when working with other Space Marines. Autocannons are no longer common within Space Marine armouries, but that doesn't make them heretical tech.

Posted at

Has the issue of ACs being described as being explosive grenades but it still bing an impact weapon as per the rules already been adressed?
When I first saw the I after the damage I thought "Oh, they really shoot massive projectiles?" But then I read the description and there it was, the reference to it firing explosive warheads.

Or is it differen in RoB? Don't have the book with me right now and as I said earlier the one I'll be using for my dev is the one from the IH.

To make that clear: I do NOT say it has to be X, because that would make it stronger.
I would be just as contend if they changed the description.

Posted at

They shouldn't be using explosive ammunition. I know the Inquisitor's Handbook says they do, but they fire solid ammunition (explicitly stated in 2nd edition Wargear book, and most fluff for weapons elsewhere has been copied straight from that book). There was a reference (I have forgotton where, maybe one of the Imperial Guard Codixies) to the fact that they used to have mass reactive explosive ammunition for it, but they "lost the STC" or something to that effect. It was basically a reference back to the days of early 1st edition where it got a blast template. The only time I have seen a suggestion of them currently using explosive shells is the Inquisitor's Handbook, which I just put down to to a mistake on the writer of the description. They probably either forgot the established background on them, or just didn't know it in the first place and just presumed it was identical to modern autocannons... which they almost are, so is easily forgivable. The creator of the stats, however, seems to have remembered that they are not explosive. Now, there is no really rational reason why they should'nt be able to have explosive shells, it not exactly being a complicated technology, but then it is 40k.

Posted at

Especially since the Deathwatch Errata 1-1 dropped the Heavy Bolter from 10 rounds on Auto to 6, and dropped the damage from 2d10+5 down to 1d10+12 Honestly, for the lone Devastater in a Deathwatch Team it only makes sense... In fact back in our Dark Heresey Game, My Huge Guardsman with Bulging Bicepts easilly handeled an Auto Cannon vs many big targets, including some big ugly Orks. So with the Changes to the Errata, I'm all about the Variable Nature of the AC.

Posted at

BladeCaptain said:

Especially since the Deathwatch Errata 1-1 dropped the Heavy Bolter from 10 rounds on Auto to 6, and dropped the damage from 2d10+5 down to 1d10+12 Honestly, for the lone Devastater in a Deathwatch Team it only makes sense... In fact back in our Dark Heresey Game, My Huge Guardsman with Bulging Bicepts easilly handeled an Auto Cannon vs many big targets, including some big ugly Orks. So with the Changes to the Errata, I'm all about the Variable Nature of the AC.

Baring the optional rules for the HB in mind I can see an even larger case for making the AC SA 3 rather than full auto.

Posted at

Charmander said:

Fenrisnorth said:

WOAH WOAH WOAH, THE ULTRA GETS THE DAMAGE BONUS?

Technically the rule for accurate says "Accurate Basic Weapon," so unless the Ultra specifically states it benefits from that portion of the accurate quality, no.

But the +10BS cuts your called shot penalty in half. Often times it's not about a single given bonus, be it +10 or +20, it's about stacking them together to get something nice and meaty.

To the subject of toting around autocannons, I don't see why not. They're classified (IIRC) as a mounted only weapon, so I'd expect them to be on Terminators or require bracing against some kind of terrain to be used without penalty or to use with autofire (bulging arms wouldn't help if you ask me). I'd also be in the ammo limit in the 20 range.

It is a basic weapon according to errata 1.1.

Posted at

Autocannon snipers are actually real.

First I propose the following rules to replace the current Long Barrelled Autocannon rules (same as normal autocannon). These would become 450m range (Same 50% increase as tabletop) and gain 2 penetration (more velocity of the projectile does that) and maybe gain the accurate trait (minus the extra damage).
Second, the sniper-adaptation should certainly include the accurate trait including the extra 1d10 for every 2 DoS (up to 2d10) and become single shot only with a magazine capacity of maybe 5 rounds (the one in the video holds 3). It also includes a telescopic sight by default, but may have it replaced (cost included). Bolt-action guns are generally very reliable as well.
Full stats: Basic, 450m, S/-/-, 4d10+5 I, Pen 6, Magazine 5, Full reload, Accurate, Reliable, Telescopic sight.
Reaper Autocannons for Terminators seem to be of smaller caliber and shorter range than other autocannons by looking at the CSM codex, making the stats as follows: Mounted, 200m, S/2/5, 3d10+5 I, Pen 3, Magazine 100, 3 Full reload, Twin-linked, Mono-melee attachment.
This would be a relic weapon from before the Heresy, and thus extremely rare, and perhaps even a primary objective for the Squad, just like Mk I armor would be as described in Rites of Battle.
Posted at

Alexander_Degtyarev said:

Autocannon snipers are actually real.

First I propose the following rules to replace the current Long Barrelled Autocannon rules (same as normal autocannon). These would become 450m range (Same 50% increase as tabletop) and gain 2 penetration (more velocity of the projectile does that) and maybe gain the accurate trait (minus the extra damage).
Second, the sniper-adaptation should certainly include the accurate trait including the extra 1d10 for every 2 DoS (up to 2d10) and become single shot only with a magazine capacity of maybe 5 rounds (the one in the video holds 3). It also includes a telescopic sight by default, but may have it replaced (cost included). Bolt-action guns are generally very reliable as well.
Full stats: Basic, 450m, S/-/-, 4d10+5 I, Pen 6, Magazine 5, Full reload, Accurate, Reliable, Telescopic sight.
Reaper Autocannons for Terminators seem to be of smaller caliber and shorter range than other autocannons by looking at the CSM codex, making the stats as follows: Mounted, 200m, S/2/5, 3d10+5 I, Pen 3, Magazine 100, 3 Full reload, Twin-linked, Mono-melee attachment.
This would be a relic weapon from before the Heresy, and thus extremely rare, and perhaps even a primary objective for the Squad, just like Mk I armor would be as described in Rites of Battle.

Well, it's not an auto-cannon, but it is a cannon. It's not a sniper either, technically an AMR.

Up to on the damage, RAW is still a no, so it's house rule (my favourite is to add up 1d10 for pistol and heavy weapons). I don't agree with it having a 50% extra range either, for a cannon that's got a terribly short barrel, and as such isn't going to fire a round faster than auto cannon either. Their reliable is all over the place, in DH hunting rifles aren't reliable etc.

If you were looking for an Astartes sized cannon-rifle i'd say increase the range by a bit, but not 50%, leave the pen as standard and the rest of the stat's are OK.

For the Reaper, the calliber might be smaller but still bigger than an assault cannon so I think you might have nerfed that too far.

Posted at

First of all, I'm using terms everyone can understand, hence calling it a sniper. Second, the first rifles were made with actual autocannon barrels.

Semantics aside, It's not an autocannon, it's a long-barrelled autocannon, like those found on the Hydra Flak Tank, which do actually have +50% range (from 48" to 72"). That is what I would houserule. If you want to give less range on your LBAutos, then be my guest, but they are called Long Barrelled Autocannons for a reason, so I don't get why you say they have short barrels.
You have a point on the reaper, but I think the fault lies with the AC. 3d10+6 tearing is horribly strong. Which is probably why in the 41st millennium nobody uses the reapers anymore. A few benefits it does have though is ammo conservation, a bayonet and a bit longer range with more roleplaying benefits, the same way Mk1 armor does. If you still feel it's underpowered, add 2-3 to damage, or give it Tearing too.
Finally about hunting rifles not having reliable, if I had a say in writing the book's rules, it would have. But as a GM, you can take that quality away from the proposed weapon if that is what you want.
Rather than balancing the weapon, I prefer to balance the cost and the point in the game the players can finally get it, in order to get the weapon to adhere to fluff, basic logic and/or basic realism.
Besides, you are free to make your own propositions, you know.
Posted at

Despite my nitpicking I actually agree with your stats for the most part and yes, that what I'd espect from a LBAC but looking at the current Forgeworld model (bring out a plastic kit already GW):

www.coolminiornot.com/229377

That looks to be about 20 + feet long, and I know you can't really scale these things from models and it's only a single shot version, but that seems so unwieldy even for SM's.

Posted at

I know it would look unwieldy, that's really the point. Take a look at that video, you're not going to be clearing rooms with that.

Might wanna add a rule that makes it take a full turn to get through a door, hehehe.
And yeah, I wish those cannons weren't so expensive from forgeworld, kind of want a pair of LB's on my dreadnoughts.