Siranui said:

If I remember correctly the accepted practice for removing a stuck bayonet was to pull the trigger...

As an interesting note, crossbows are still used in modern military forces today.

In the course of my training I learned that most police officers are taught that someone with a knife is dangerous out to 15-20 feet, because in the time it takes for a police officer to draw and fire their weapon, the person with the knife can cover that distance.

Firearms are accurate by themselves, but once real life starts to intrude it gets a little more interesting. In the one example given of ***** shooting with 95% accuracy, that's quite good but when you're using a shotgun to hit something on a mathematical arc that isn't shooting back you're dealing with a completely different scenario than combat.

Siranui said:

To be fair to cops. There was an article on how most cops aren't trained in lowlight situations and the majority of shootings occur in low-light situations. Which accounts for the low accuracy and criminals aren't professional soldiers and more importantly pistols are not rifles there is a substantial difference in accuracy with both weapons. And the only reliable paper I read was talking about suppresive fire which is one of the more widely used tactics. And all the other stats I saw were based on insurgency style wars like Vietnam or Iraq which did not have established battelines and the enemy blending in with the population or terrain. In that situation accuracy is going to decrease substantially. And the last used of the Bayonet charge was in 2003 against insurgents with poor morale. Not disciplined troops and if I remember correctly they didn't even stab the enemy the insurgents just retreated. I am also well aware of the difference between bows and muskets. However if you remember your American civil war history the advent of the widespread use of accurate rifling attributed to the high causality rates on both sides because they were still using Napoleonic tactics and standing in a line. Rate of fire was not increased substantial between muskets and the civil war rifles of the time. In fact unless they were breach loaders they would actually take longer to load. However because of the accurate fire both sides were capable of inflicting on each other the favored tactic by the end of the war was to fortify a location and wait for your enemy to come. Unless you were Grant then you just through men at it until you won. Europeans didn't learn this lesson until ww1 which agreed the rate of fire the machinegun possesed was a major factor in the establishment of battlelines, the accuracy of the rifles of the time also played a major factor.

I am willing to concede that combat is abstract in this game. I just wish they had a bigger modifer of shooting in combat and higher base ballistic skills. which agreed is not for everyone. In fact you get such a benefit for autofire or semi-auot burst that moving base ballistic skills wouldn't be worth it anyway. I agree that DW and RT are fine the way they are now with how they have the system set up. I just don't want to see a decrease in accuracy.

It's not the accuracy that made the American civil war battles deadly, it's the deadliness of the projectiles.

When an arrow gets stuck in your arm, it hurts like hell, and you may be out of order, but you won't die, unless you wait for it to get really nasty and let the blood flow freely, which is kinda stupid.

When you take a bullet in the arm, the blood loss is much more important, and you have a very good chance to die from that if no one takes care of you.

And, really, the modifiers for semi- and full-auto are justified. It is incredibly easier to hit a target when you let a whole burst go than to hit it with one bullet. That's why soldiers train at single shot (that, and it costs less ), but use auto bursts and suppressive fire in real battles...

But I don't see why you're talking about a decrease in accuracy. Where is that supposed to come from?

Usually full auto is a pretty ineffective way to hit a target due to the recoil. DW kind of takes a perverse view of this and it very rarely makes sense not to use full auto if you have the option to. The only reason I can think of to fire my bolter on anything other than full auto is ammo conservation and a very small change in the odds of a jam.

People have made good arguments for both sides. I will point that the ammo expenditure by soldiers is mostly down to suppressing fire where the goal isn't so much to hit the enemy but to make him dive for cover and stop shooting back. Take away all of those shots and accuracy goes way up.

Accuracy may not have played a huge role in making the gun the dominant weapon, but it is a major factor in the gun's deadliness especially when looking at modern weapons. Deathwatch Space Marines are supposed to be highly experienced and extremely well-trained. If you want a parallel to our world, don't look to police or even regular soldiers. Probably one of the best examples I can give is to look at snipers today - it wasn't long ago three Navy SEAL shooters delivered three perfect head shots to three Somali pirates. While they were on a ship, no less. That's what accurate weapons, great training, and taking a moment to aim lets experienced soldiers do, so even with other modifiers it seems fitting that such feats are possible in the game.

One could easily argue that Marines can see in the dark, and are completely fearless, so that few of the reasons that we miss on the field today are applicable to them. But it makes for a kind of dull game if every shot succeeds on a 99%, and that piling 50% of XP into BS makes you barely a better shot than the AM who never spent a point on it.

Firearm accuracy in games is built on 'gamey' mythology. RPG design has certain axioms that were perhaps ill-formed fact-wise, and have become even more shaped by the needs of a game system and further from reality (heck, I'd love to be able to reload a rifle in 3 seconds!). But generally, it's best that it's pretty tricky to hit without being too hard. That way, players don't get frustrated by missing all the while. More crucially, the bad guys miss a lot, and the PC's invariably better training (in pretty much any game) gives them a statistical advantage when trading fire that would be mostly mooted if shooting was 'too easy' and the bad guys were hitting 90% of the time, compared to the players 100%.

Digression:

RogalDorn said:

You can't just wave a hand and attribute it to a single cause, tohugh. The FBI paper certainly doesn't do so, but does point towards low lighting as a contributing factor. And at 20 yards or less there is no real difference in the accuracy between a handgun and a longarm when you're trying to hit a person-sized target, so that's a moot point, really.

Errr... there's no real difference between a non-regular guy hiding in cover and a regular one. And as to 'blending in with the population', are you inferring that when there are non-combatants wandering around in the firefight that US forces fire far more ammunition?! One could also perhaps argue (and I can't say that I really agree) that asymetric warfare tends to take place at shorter ranges of engagement, so should perhaps result in higher accuracy...

Yup. But the bayonet charge is not dead. How about we take it back another 20 years to the Falklands, where bayonet charges were also used, but this time against infantry equipped with automatic weapons? I'm not saying it's a great idea, but the bayonet charge is not dead, no matter what USMC thinks (bayonet drill is -I believe- no longer part of basic training there).

Use of fortification and trench warfare was hardly a US invention, and hardly something that took until WWI to take off. Napoleonic warfare also featured such tactics, as did the Boer War and other conflicts of the C19. Those 'high casualty rates' on ACW battlefields were very much the norm in Europe, and had been for a hundred years, yet they changed nothing there. It really wasn't accuracy that changed the paradigm, especially given that line of sight of black-powder battlefields seldom -once action had started in ernest - rarely exceeded the range of the smallarms employed. Remember that rifles were also on the battlefield prior to the ACW, yet generally unpopular because of the lower rate of fire... which states much about the perceived priority of rate of fire over range. It was volume of fire that made the difference. Advance in column was a very valid tactic prior to the advent of breach loaders and machineguns, even in the face of massed rifled musketry. It stops being a valid tactic when there's a gatling gun in front of the formation, when riflemen can put down ten rounds per minute, instead of three, and your men die faster than you can walk them forward.

All I'll say is that I played WFRPG when it first came out back in the day. We were happy with a 30-40% chance of hitting, so compared to that DW is astoundingly easy as far as hitting things goes.

30-40%! You don't know how lucky you were! In my day we were made to play halflings with one arm and a spoon for a sword!

Heh... Halfling with a sausage picture. Heh. *childish giggles*

Siranui said:

Haha. We didn't take the game too seriously and just had fun with it. I think our first starting group was 3 Halfling Rat Catchers and a surly Dwarf Troll Hunter. Three guesses on who dominated combat (if it takes you more than one, I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul).

Brand said:

The Rat?

Seriously, I know how good those Dwarf Fighter types are, I played one once.

Alex

ak-73 said:

The small aggressive dog rat catchers start with clearly

I don't think it's worth overly worrying about realism in any RP games, rather internal consistancy. IMHO the overly favourable autofire rules have kind of haunted 40K rpg from the start, hits per successes in particular.

After reading through the thread, I've reached a few conclusions:

1) It feels that the new stats are good, albeit they probably take things too far. I'd keep a full auto setting for bolter-type weapons that have it at the core (at 5 hits, probably, for normal bolters). The new damage seems reasonable.

2) The new weapons don't make me feel that marines will be gimped, it just won't be a no-brainer to use bolters. It feels better, overall.

3) It's going to be hell for FFG to have published these, and said they're optional. Now, people will be asking them to publish alternate versions of all weapons from future supplements so that they fall in line with these. I wonder if they'll actually do that (it wouldn't surprise me). I guess time will tell.

4) Frankly... Screw realism if it gets in the way of fun.

5) For those saying that on the TT a heavy bolter will kill a marine most of the time... A BS4 marine with a HB (S5 AP4 Heavy 3) shooting another marine will kill him 0.43 of the times (3 shots x 0.66 chance to hit x 0.66 chance of wound x 0.33 chance of him failing the save). That's not even half of the times, and in the case of the RPG, a marine was a guaranteed kill with a HB, unless rolls were abysmal.

Just my two thrones.

I'd recommend NOT allowing normal bolters to continue to use full auto, as without changing it to semi-auto, nothing really changes and the storm bolter is still blatantly the finest choice, and all the other changes are drastically undermined. Having tested the changes: They work pretty darned well, and players are now considering taking something other than storm bolters.

We've played with the new bolters and none of my players were upset about the changes. They felt the HB got hit pretty hard but on the other hand only the guy who consistently cheated on his dice rolls was getting more than 5 or 6 successes with the HB anyway. They felt the Devestator got hit pretty hard with the change to UD, but I like it because it makes the game faster.

We had the Devestator with Heavy Bolter and Metal Storm rounds fire at a mag 30 horde of Orks and he managed to knock 15 magnitude off of it. Clearly not as good as before, but still not bad. The other Marines with Bolters were still consistently hitting with 3 rounds. A starting Marine has such a high BS it's almost impossible not to get at least 3 DoS.

You need 4 to hit with your 3 rounds onf Semi-Auto

After some checks and tests with my group the new dmg system doesn't perform that bad compared to RAW but we we figured the best way to keep the game closer to codex standards with this new dmg the HB will keep RAW RoF and the bolter will have full auto at 5. the reason being that even tho on a storm weapon is will perform like an HB, by codex the SB is a weapon reserved to Captains, Terminators and Sternguard Vets. Rank and file SM whould not and should not have access to said weapons (infact they require a certain amount of reknown to be claimed) and once you join the rank of the Sternguard there are no more heavy weapons. Now that might make DW a little more complicated BUT as Ultramarines always says, so it's written in the Codex so it shall be.

I still believe tho that plasma and melta needs at least 1 more dice of dmg, but that's just me.

Lucius Valerius said:

"...once you join the rank of the Sternguard there are no more heavy weapons"???
That is very wrong, I fear.

Also ROF 5 makes the SB too good compared to the HB.

Alex

Siranui said:

I think there was someone who had a solution to this problem: upping the SB's Req!

OMG this will put it out of reach of Signature Wargear which means not every Rank 1 SM can have one, so it's better to nerf all other Bolters including the SB to make sure they only hit ones a week, which is okay as long as everyone can requisition them, because it is so cool to have something which looks like a SB but has the stats of a pop-gun. Makes much sense.

I'm not opposed to the optional weapon stats in general but one look into MotX shows me Semi-Auto Bolters will have a very difficult time against the new baddies, which can't be compensated by most other weapons except for HB's under the new stats.

Lucius Valerius said:

They do if you don't change the Bolters RoF... Works fine if you do, coupled with changing the appallingly useless Volatile trait to 'Potentially causes Rightious Fury on a 9-10'

ak-73 said:

Yeah right, I didn't had the codex with me when I posted and since I never used sternguard withanything else but melta or combi-something I compleatelly forgot. And what was the last time you saw a strernguard with anything but plasma/melta or combi ? I have honestly never saw a sternguard frielded with heavy weapons but anyway.

Stormast said:

I know, but based on game play my players have an easy time hitting 3 DoS. I realize this means one round is missing and that if they kept full auto this would be 4 rounds hitting. You'd need 4 DoS to hit with 3 rounds with the new rules, so overall my players are hitting with half as many rounds as they used to. For Rank 1 Marines hitting with 2 Bolter rounds isn't bad (in my mind). This will get better as their BS improves and they put more skills into it. It also gives them a solid reason to upgrade out of Bolters.

Lucius Valerius said:

I actually field my Sternguard with Heavy Flamers.

Balodek said:

AND to get a +10 to BS tests if they want to stick to Bolters. That's what is cool with those rules: it all becomes choices, and no-brainers disappear. Bolters don't suck, how could they? But they are interesting. A Marine hitting with "only" 2 Bolts will find it really different from before, when it was that easy to go full-auto and go on a rampage. And then he'll be thinking, and weighing his options. Or even (whoa!) chose his gear according to the mission (moar dakka bolters against Orks, moar pew pew plasmas against Tyranids, moar fschiuuuun melta against Taus?).

Screw that. If we're fighting Tau, I'm taking a sniping weapon. No, I'll just stay in orbit and nuke the continent from the ship.

After all, it's the only way to be sure.

After reading all you posted in the last few weeks I want to comment on some issues:

- TT vs. DW: I think its important that the "feeling" of TT AND Novels should influence DW Armor/Weapon Power Levels. It should be exactly "in between" because otherwise Novel Fans OR TT Fans will always get this "hmm, thats not a Space Marine like I imagine him to be"-Feeling.

Some things are broken: Armor rules as they provide "auxiliary negateable toughness" - especially when using tanks who die sooner than SM: Imagine a rk 8 Techmarine with around 18 Armor (Flesh is weak, Machine Trait, Armor Monger, Armor) and possibly 60 Toughness, 30 Wounds. I don't have my RoB with me but I think that he survives much better than most tanks against any weapons. I mean, he dodges at -0, you don't get +20 to hit him...

SM>Tanks may represent "TT Heroes" but I don't like it. Most of my players disembarked from Rhinos, Bikes or Speeders in a hurry as soon as they were fired upon: The Tank doesn't protect marines, in the contrary: Its highly dangerous to be in it. When being fired upon in a Land Speeder, I'd pray for the shots to hit me and not the Vehicle .

Solution: Very hard to find. Alternate Armor Rules have their own problems. Tanks need to have much more Armor, possibly a "Critical Hit System" with a similar feel as the TT had - Wound Systems won't work on tanks. I mean why is the next small hit in the back an automatic killer after the Tank sustained a direct hit in the front from a Turbolaser (bringing it to critical 6 or 7)? Abstraction doesn't excuse these situations. Much work to be done.

I personaly am working out alternate Vehicle Fighting Rules complete with Armor Values, a new Armor System and Weapon Stats ("Tankbuster"-Trait to balance some Weapons such as krak missiles or letting Burst Weapons score multiple hits against armor) but thats just me . Playtesting will take forever till the rules are solid.

- Autofire broken?

I suggest the following house rules: Anybody not using a mounted weapon, bipod or tripod or space Marine Power Armor score one additional hit per 2 successes. Keep the +20 to hit because overwatch and suppressive fire would be too mighty otherwise. That doesn't change much for DW but will add constistency (and a SoB with Storm Bolter will hit much less often than a SM unless you grant her the same rules. This way, most people will usually only waste Bullets when trying to hit single Targets in normal Combat Situations. If I remember my Army Training right, our instructor told us to use the automatic setting on our G3 Battle Rifles only when defending against charging opponents - automatic infantry fire was even called "sturmabwehrfeuer" when not using MGs. This would work fine in DW: A charging enemy in point blank range would be extremely easy to hit. He won't dodge much especially when fired upon by multiple persons. Chances are good to score many Hits.

- Bolter and Autofire

If you use the new stats and old RoF Bolters are still "über" - you would then have to scale Plasma and Melter up (thats what I did) or decrease damage further. Bolters should retain the opportunity to use Suppressive Fire in my opinion.

Another option: Scale down Autofire alltogether (as stated above), or keep the old RoF and nerv the "Storm Quality" if your only problem is with the Storm Bolter - one additional hit every 2 successes or something like that. That way your HB hurts hordes that grant you to-hit-bonuses but are no longer SM Killers like before.

I suggest scaling the Plasma weapons up slightly (to 3W10+6 Pen 10 or something like that), disallowing or rebalancing RoB Weapons (such as this full-auto-plasma-thingy), adding significant damage to Melter Damage (a melter at close range should be more dangerous for a space Marine than a Plasma Pistol) so that they "feel right". Bolters are now much more versatile, do more damage to hordes (even without metalstorm), can suppress enemies and kill much more small critters. Plasma are your weapon of choice in ranged exchanges with heavy Infantry (Tyranid Warriors, Chaos Space Marines, Tau Battle Armor and the like) and Melter offer an extra anti-armor punch together with awestome short range stopping power. My devastator player playtested Lascannon, Multi-Melter and HB until now and we think that the Heavies work just fine right now.

- Storm Bolter

It just doesn't feel right to equip an entire squad of DW Marines with Storm Bolters. It may be canon but i only see one possible Option: Restrict their use!

If you nerv Storm Bolters you nerv Standard Terminators - and that doesn't feel right: They can't dodge, have less Armor than many other experienced Marines (Artificer Armor, Flesh is weak etc.) AND use a Weapon that is inferior to a Plasmagun? I don't like it. Awesome short range Firepower, the option to suppress enemies, possibly with the downside that you need a great many hits to kill the "big guys" is what represents the weapon best. Another option: Restrict its use to Distinguished Status, require Terminator Honors to use it or something like that. You could also state that the kick of these monsters is so big that you suffer recoil penalties when not in Terminator Armor.

- Thunder Hammer

Again, the only option to see marines who use Power/Chain Weapons after reaching Distinguished Renown level is to limit their deployment. Players aren't stupid: Once they see that the only viable Melee Option is using TH+SS or even deploy with 2 TH they will possibly do it. It's the game developers job to balance out the options, if they didn't its the GMs turn.

My suggestions: no Strength increase, require the use of 2 Hands (may not be canon but works!) or Terminator Armor or reduce damage considerably. Nerv "Concussive" by limiting the penalty to the Toughness Test to -10 or -20. I actually playtested this: My Techmarine just loved the TH, even when I restricted her to a pistol as sidearm (no TH + Basic Weapon) - the Damage, Concussive Quality etc. are that good.

Accuracy: The topic was already discussed quite excessively. Just my 5 cents: Good Accuracy Rules are rules that work. They need not be overly realistic. DW/DH works just fine: It's one of the few settings with adequate Cover, Called-Shot and Semi-Auto Rules. Fights are not too long (low accuracy will result in extreme long battles, especially in a system where you can dodge bullets) and not too short (hitting a moving target at maxrange is no sure shot, even for a SM). Dodge may seem unrealistic but it is a good mechanic to represent defensive movement.

- Suppressive Fire:

I just wondered how you should apply the SF Rules to space Marines: Most Weapons are completely harmless to Spacemarines. Image a Squad of SM charging a Guard outpost (no Horde Rule): 2 Heavy Stubbers rain pebbles at the Marines (they can't actually hurt them bad), some Guardsmen use the typical spray and pray tactic while pissing themselves and allthewhile they get hammered by SM Bolter Fire (using the "shoot on the run rules").

In normal gameplay the Spacemarines will take forever to kill them: 2x -20 rolls on WP (even with the allowed reroll) are almost never made. So what happens? The Spacemarines run for cover, once in a while one makes his WP rolls and charges a little bit closer. Kinda succs since SM are meant to be fearless. One aspect of fearless is "walking through a light metal rainstorm".

Suggestion: Replace the -20 Penalty by a variable penalty that takes the chance to be killed by the attack into account. Fire from a SM HB on Guard units? roll -30 or even at -40. Autopistol fire on a Space Marine? Don't roll, he only wants to play...

Martin