I know the one I play face to face here in town does not. None of the folks I play with like those alternate stats. I know the game I will run online will use the base Deathwatch stats.

So how many folks actually like the alternate rules, and can you tell me why? Not starting anything, I'm just curious as to other's opinions on how they work out with the base rules, especially considering the monster stat lines that use the base rules are not changed other than the Nids (eg the Mark of the Xenos book is not yet included)

My group dosen't use the alternate rules. But that's because most of the player like being ubber killers.

Personally I like the new weapon stats.

I'm using the new stats in my game. I've read exhaustive opinions on the matter on this forum, but in the end, I feel that it makes it more enticing to take specialist weapons (particularly the meltaguns' double penetration at close range rule - that's great). Of course, I had to house rule the Thunder Hammer, but that's really the only noticeable problem I've encountered thus far. Sure, you might need to scale back an encounter, but at the same time, you might need to scale UP an encounter to combat the pre-errata Heavy Bolter, so no biggie there.

We tried and have simply given up!

Not big Fans of the original stats for the same reason as most (overpowered HB, unbalanced SB and low stats for everything except Bolters), we hoped the new stats will bring more fun but the opposite was the case. Hitting anything becomes a question of lucky dice-rolling instead of skills up to the point that it doesn't makes any difference if you had BS 50 or 60. So why waste any XP on this attribute? Weapons from DH-Crossover-PCs are suddenly more powerful than Astartes weapons. PC can't use Supressing Fire with Basic Bolters anymore which means the Fire Support Attack Pattern becomes nearly useless. To make it short everytime we used the optional rules we found something new which didn't work with the existing rules.

Heck yes. I'd never consider going back to the old stats.

The new stats are great and give players more options. Under the old rules, storm-bolters and HBs were simply no-brainer 'best' weapons. Dull. Now people can pick up other weapons that they've liked the look of for 20 years of TT gaming without gimping their characters.

I really can't understand people not wanting to change. 'We're nerfed you made us suck' is really a nonsense, considering that most weapons are BETTER and that fights are exactly as hard as GMs want them to. Clinging to a broken rule just because it makes a PC 'better' just isn't something that I'd want to do.

Kain McDogal said:

Err... it makes a 10% difference.

My group has switched to the new stats, and so far everyone agrees they are far more reasonable. Personally, I often felt the game lacked any sort of tactical sense with the old stats in place. You could basically run and gun your way out of most any situation. Now, for protracted battles, cover becomes more important, as the things you are fighting will actually be able to return fire for a change. There are a few minor inconsistancies, like the thunder hammer as was pointed out before. This is easily house ruled though. All in all, our group is enjoying the new stats

All my players have decided to use the new stats. The only thing I as a GM have kept is the original RoF (yes even for the HB, luckily my Dev. player has taken a HF for my current mission.) I can report how this works out if people want.

Siranui said:

What are 10% with semiautomatic Fire? Yes, one Degree of Success equals zero hits!

But more importantly, when everything depends on luck it doesn't matter what your actual skill is. Of course 60% is better than 50% but is this worth 3500 XP for a Tac under the new rules?

Maybe our Characters are to far developed (Rank5 to 6) and may be a new Group will invest their XPs differently under the optional rules, but for us the old rules, as broken as they are, work a lot better than the new ones. Thankfully every book which makes use of personal weaponry has been already released with the old stats printed.

Kain McDogal said:

No, with Semi-auto and Full-auto alike, characters score a single hit, plus additional hits based on degrees of success. One Degree of Success on Semi-auto is one hit, not zero.

To the matter at hand: I implemented them immediately upon Errata 1.1 being released, having wanted to use them since I first saw them some time before (to provide early feedback on them - it's why my name's in the Errata), and haven't looked back since. Nor have my players - they're quite comfortable with the damage they deal with the alternate stats, even if it is lower than it was. I'll be slowly adding elements of the Black Crusade ruleset to my campaign as well, now that Broken Chains has revealed some of the new rules (I've got to hold back on some things for a few months longer, but the alternate weapon stats work a fair bit better with the altered single/semi-auto/full-auto rules from Broken Chains, as the lack of a full-auto value on a weapon isn't such a drawback).

N0-1_H3r3 said:

You know what I mean! Of course equal to or less on a BS test is always the first hit, but after this only every two Degrees of Success score a hit on semiautomatic. So 10% equal zero hits compared to automatic fire.

Since the HB is more like a HB and less like Zeus' lightning, I can kill stuff before the dv finishes them off.

We are using thew new stats and my players are also really happy about that (though the Storm Bolter still is probably the most favored weapon here so far)

Kain McDogal said:

If you want to be precise, it equals half a hit Not zero.

But even more precisely, it also equals 10% more chance to hit (if you roll a 70, you'll be happy you had BS 60 + 10 by semi-auto). Which is golden.

Yes, by RAW, Semi-Auto is only used when you want to avoid ammo loss, which is...Never. Should we be satisfied with that? I think not. And if a weapon gets SA and no FA, well SA is still better than single shot when you want to try and land some hits at range on an enemy.

"So stop crying like a sissy, get your ****s out, take your bolter and kill those Xenos for me, you scumbag Neophyte! And the next time I hear you complaining about the Emperor's gifts, I'll kick your f***** ***!"

I'm not using them yet, only because I don't have a DW game yet. I will be using them whenever we do start up a game. I think it helps unify the systems, making DH and BC feel more like the same system. Especially with what I hear of the Grey Knight stats.

I'm using them for the most part. I've house ruled a few issues such as allowing Bolters to still perform suppressive fire, and I've also raised the ROF on basic and pistol weapons to reflect their original max ROF. So for example, my Bolters are S/4/- All in all, it seems to work for me.

I'd adjusted the 2-dice tearing weapons to being a 1-dice tearing weapon with only one-rightous fury dice months before the errata. It was a much simpler alternative to making NPC's with ludicrous amounts of hit points, just so they'd be able to survive the first volley, there was no complaints from players. It just is what it is for a reason, not to detract from their fun. Now they actually have a reason to aspire to carry some of the other weapons.

My group is now using the alternate weapon stats, and despite some initial grumbling from my storm bolter loving tactical marine before he actually tried them out, they seem to be quite happy with them.

He didn't seem to have any problems with excessive ammo wastage or lack of hits, DA tact with BS 60ish, sig wargear master bonus, motion predictor (houseruled for semi auto I think), bolter drill or a squad mode and an aim or size/range mod he routinely hits with 6 bolts or more.

Kain McDogal said:

No: Half an extra hit. Or 1 if your weapon has storm quality, over average.

The whole game is luck. What's the point in spending XP on any stat, then?

All that's different is a 10% less chance of hitting. And nearly every weapon has lost autofire. Seeing as players are shot more often than they shoot generally (as they are outnumbered), this is actually an advantage for the players, not a disadvantage.

Not that 10% makes much difference with a BS of at least 50 to start with, targeting, size mods, squad mode stuff... It's pretty easy to hit the +60 cap.

The only thing that's not been well received is some old hands complaining that the Godwin's SA RoF is supposed to be 4 by old canon, rather than 3.

Siranui said:

Maybe it's because all of our player's have some kind of military background, but we prefer fast and deadly combat.

We are used to the fact that the outcome of a firefight often depends on who spotted the other first and we really hate John Wayne Films where it takes half an hour to resolve a fight.

Not because it's more realistic but we simply like the style: Everything is quiet, suddenly an ambush, Bolter Rounds fill the air, shouting, setup for another attack, body count, move on.

What's that really got to do with the changes, though? They don't make combat less deadly. Or make it last any longer in my experience.

They just make combat slightly less deadly for those on the receiving end of bolters.

Don't your players want to TRY other weapons that are iconic, such as plasma cannons, meltaguns and suchlike. Are they that determined to have a gun that's clearly better than everything else that they're happy to discard 20 years of liking plasma guns or whatever simply to have a weapon that's unbalanced?

We have been using them, but with the house rule that certain weapons can still use suppressing fire even though they are now Semi-Auto only (most of the ones that used to be full auto before). They work fine.

I can't say anything about the new Melta/Plasma/Flamer/HTH weapon stats as we've not used them yet, but we've been using the alternate Bolter stats for a long time now (I'm not breaching any NDA's when I say my name is one of the names credited on the errata). I was against new stats for Bolters at the start, but after several games with the old stats and many more with the new ones I was convinced that the changes were necessary. I'm very glad they're in the errata.

The game is better with them (now they just need to fix the RoF mistakes, like the Combi-Weapon, give Storm Bolters Full Auto again as well as fix the Thunder Hammer so it's not the ultimate weapon of doom, and we'll be fine).

BYE

H.B.M.C. said:

Where is the point to give the SB Full Auto again? This was one of the reasons the whole thing started. I gues nobody had any problems with the Basic Bolters under the old rules, but the SB outclassed everything at 20 Req.

You could give it Full Auto (RoF 4?) BUT not Storm quality.

Sounds like a good deal, and Storm is a really annoying quality anyway

The SB would still far outclass the normal Bolters that way (w00t moar hits!), but not be completely silly.

Taking 'Storm' away from the Storm Bolter wouldn't make any sense. The amount of D10's the Storm Bolter got was a huge problem. Removing 1D10 goes a long way to fixing that.

BYE