@Reverent Mort

I changed my statement from sniper to designated marksman. Perhaps you're not aware of the difference. A sniper is a stealth specialist, attacking from long range. A DM is a part of a standard infantry unit, usually with additional training and a different weapon from the rest of his squad or platoon. The sniper operates largely alone, without support, and usually fades or at the least displaces after every shot. A DM is there with the regular infantry, primarily to add additional combat options to his unit. It means he usually operates at closer ranges, and is rarely as reliant as the sniper on stealth, since he can rely on his unit to support him.

Most RPG firefights are close range, making a "sniper" type character more of a DM.

And in the current system, a DM is at a severe disadvantage for the many reasons I've already stated.

I am aware of the difference. I also, however, doubt the applicability of a modern military role's application in a world which features man-portable artillery level firepower, tank-level personal armor and people who set things on fire with their minds. However, if you do wish to apply the role, do note that most use semi-automatic weapons, not single fire. Aka they don't single shot.

Also, you only fight in close range IF the players aren't pro-active in their combat encounters. Which most players are. If you play a sniper/DM, you do your best to make sure you have advantageous situations, or you make them. Just like a close combat character does his best to get as close as possible, a long range one does his best to get some distance, cover and, yes, surprise. If they don't see him pop up, rifle at the ready, they don't get a dodge. Simple. As. That.

Reverent Mort, I find it it surprising that you do not see the irony in all your suggestions. Ironic, because all your suggestions are work arounds for a short coming in the rules.

It's not a shortcoming of the rules, it's a difference in application. For example, the phrase "A character must be aware of the attack" in the evasion section has some massive implications. For one, you can't dodge what you're not seeing. Which means everything from shots from hiding to attacks from the side to attacks from people they're just not paying attention to. Which, in the frantic chaos of combat, is not that hard to achieve. People rarely stand in straight lines facing one another while taking turns firing from behind cover. If a target is engaged in melee, chances are he's not constantly glancing to the sides of his opponent to check if someone's aiming a rifle at him. Even being pre-occupied by the big guy with the bigger, louder gun is enough to allow his DM buddy to pop the distracted fool in the noggin'. No stealth roll needed. And if he doesn't have any loud, full-auto weapon buddies around, why the **** ain't he hiding half a mile away while stacking aim actions?

First off, stealth may not have a game rule range limitation but if your GM let's you get away with ducking behind some handy cover when a fight breaks out, twirling your cameleoline cloak around you and then getting a "stealth" shot off then he's a kinder GM then I am. Even in the event of a true sniper shot, any survivors are far, far more difficult to hit once alerted (and ducking for cover...). Once the surprise round is over(if there even is one), the chance of getting a "surprise" shot on an enemy is much, much more difficult...even for a stealther. Not impossible, but definitely rare.

Testing stealth is a free action when you move (which people often do in combat), so it's a completely viable move in combat. The fact that you don't allow it (especially in a world which features what amounts to invisibility cloaks) is not a failings of the rules, merely a product of your play style. Just like saying "nobody can react fast enough to avoid a gunshot, ergo you can't dodge any ranged attack featuring them" isn't a failing of the dodge rules, merely an exceedingly harsh interpretation of them.

And once again, just because you know you're being attacked doesn't mean you know from where or when it's coming. If you don't, arguing that you can avoid it strikes me as rather silly. Just because you're out of the surprise round does not mean everybody develops total battlefield awareness. And since people generally don't develop total battlefield awareness (unless they're psykers), it's usually not that hard for a skilled stealther to displace in the noise, distractions and panic of a gunfight. And then position himself somewhere else, take a deep breath and shot some unprepared unfortunate between the eyes.

For the heavy stubber/DM combo, that is clearly a case of making up for a short coming in the rules. In any case, my players already do this to maximize the damage gained from Accurate whenever they can. The difference is that the DM character(s) can choose to act on a good initiative roll instead of being forced to wait for their buddy in order to be effective. When the DM is alone or the only one firing at a target, he is also not at the mercy of a 40-70% dodge roll.

If the DM is alone or wants to act alone, then he should act like he is alone. Which means not taking a weapon who's greatest strengths are accuracy and range into a close quarters encounter against aware enemies. If you have a rifle, you don't wade into 50 meters from an enemy with a knife. You shot him from as far away as you can. From hiding. Because that's the strengths of your weapon. Once again, you're arguing a weapon is weak when not used like it should be. This is a feature, not a bug. Just like how swords don't work from a mile away, by design.

And for your tactics suggestion, I just want to point out that IF you can flank you SHOULD flank because it gives you an advantage or it overcomes an enemy advantage (like cover). You shouldn't do it because its the only way you can reliably do damage. Also, only the first shot is a surprise shot, after that you're most likely back to having to deal with dodge.

The only surprise shot, yes. The only unexpected or unseen shot, no. Once again, apart from a small subset of mutants, enemies don't tend to have eyes on the back of their neck. Even the ones that do can easily be distracted in combat, which is not neat nor quiet, thus allowing assholes with accurate weapons to take unforseen potshots to people's skulls with some regularity.

Oh and your comment about putting on a suit of power armor and wading into close combat is pure foolishness. We're not talking about using a sniper rifle as a bludgeon. However it does bring up yet another valid point about the lascannon (and single shot weapons). Space Marines suit up in power armor all the time, and wade into combat at all ranges. Want to venture a guess which heavy weapon is favored by Deathwatch Devastators? I'll give you a hint: Its not the lascannon. Your comment about the naked, unarmed close combat character is even less valid and exaggerated. Its also got nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion concerning the game mechanics of single shot versus SA/FA.

It's rather apt, actually. Let me break it down. Accurate weapons work best when they negate dodge. Dodge is negated by making attacks that are not seen coming, which means being subtle. Not hidden beneath a cloak and cover, just not obvious so that they notice you're about to shot them. Wearing a suit of armor that's both large and loud, all while wading into the center of combat, makes you neither unseen nor subtle. When a guy walks towards you in power armor and points a gun at you, you do two things. You notice him, and you dive for cover.

Also, I meant close combat as in the close quarters combat, not melee, for clarification.

Likewise, the melee example was an analogy, so let me explain it. The naked red charging man is a bad character in terms of tactical design. He is badly built for his intended role, he takes several steps to negate his own advantages and he is, in the end, not gonna do very well at what he is, ostensibly, meant to do. Just like a single shot weapon wielder who makes himself incredibly obvious, closes range and proceeds to systematically negate the strengths of his chosen armament. The rules should not be altered to facilitate their lives. Just like the rules shouldn't be altered to allow a low BS to hit as often as a high BS or a melee character to attack from a range equal to that of a sniper.

As for the Devastator, can you guess which the most common enemy of the Devastators? I'll give you a hint, it's usually not lonesome vehicles. They pick the weapon that suits the job. Usually their job is mowing down multiples of relatively weak infantry. Lascannons don't do that very well.

In short, I like giving my players options. I like it that the Lascannon is actually a dangerous weapon (Though that particular weapon has had a few revisions in my game, along with the missile launcher. An Anti-Vehicle trait for certain weapons would be appropriate imo). I like it that Accurate weapons can keep up with FA/SA weapons to a certain extent, and under the right conditions. I like it that an Accurate weapon can have its bonus damage reduced by a dodge roll, even if that dodge wasn't quite enough to negate the hit entirely.

I do too. Only you didn't, really, did you? Now the equally beneficial action for both a heavy bolter user AND a hardcore single shooter is to point and shoot. There's no unequal incentive to take any specific action or favor any unique approach, they both benefit equally from wearing the heaviest, noisiest armor and wading into the same short range for that bonus to hit. Now the only difference between full-auto and single shot has been reduced to whether you want your extra damage to come in d10's to the same roll or separate rolls with the ability to hit more than one target. Any sort of flavor or tactical difference has been greatly diminished, almost all mechanical personality in weapon choice is gone and now the only real difference is the damage roll. Now the most beneficial choice for a sniper is terminator armor, just like it is for the las cannoner, the rocket launcher wielder and the auto-cannon user.

Sure, they can still try and play the marksman, but much of the incentive to do so is now gone. They do just fine, if not better, by just waltzing in right alongside the full-auto Rambo guy. And, personally, when they people I play with decide that's the character they want to play, they pick up a bandana and a heavy bolter, not a sniper rifle and camo cloak.

@Bladehate

Of course a jeep has less to fear from a lascannon than a tank. That's why the classic weapons against light vehicles are heavy bolters and autocannons (auto-fire weapons that can negate the dodge), while the lascannon comes out to play with uncle Russ and his bigger brothers - unless you manage to shoot from ambush, in which case you'll almost certainly one-shot the dodge-less jeep.

Once again, it's the red-painted-man syndrome: When you have something that is specialized to deal with one situation, you use it in that one situation instead of complaining it's useless in others. For snipers, that situation is shooting unaware targets from long range. For lascannons, it's shooting large, heavy targets that autocannon shells plink off from.

I personally disagree Cifer.

If you want to specialize a weapon(s), you address that weapon specifically by giving it the traits that fit the role it should fill. This already exists in the game, and there is no reason not to use the existing traits or add new ones based on what suits your needs.

You don't do it by making the single shot/dodge rule mechanics slightly odd.

As for the Heavy Bolter and ACs, the HB is primarily anti-infantry, but also very good against light vehicles. The ACs are a bit heavier, but also some of the most brutal anti-infantry weaponry in the game (The Reaper is particularly nasty). Again, these weapons are far more versatile then the lascannon and the AC in particular pays only a small price in raw damage for that versatility. Against anything but the heaviest of targets I would use the Reaper over the Hellhammer, just for the extra hits and the increased likely hood of getting a hit through.

Speaking of the Reaper, or more specifically the twin-linked trait, under the current rules for dodge/ss, this trait must become a "must have" for every sniper or DM. Even on Single Shot, the additional hit means anyone without Step Aside is suddenly in trouble. Personally I think its goofy that every serious sniper should be forced ducktape two rifles together (In fact, in my game Accurate and Twin-Linked are mutually exclusive), but hey, the rules allow it and its the best way to overcome the mechanics limitations. Just go to your nearest Heretek and boom, you too can have a sniper rifle with SA fire...rules legal! Oh, and if both shots hit...double Accurate bonus!

The above statement is mostly to point out that the rules are not always the only or even the best way to do things. There are holes and gaps in even the best system, and while it may not bother some, it can and does bother others. I'm sure there are parts of the rules that I don't mind that others detest. I would not be surprised to see Accurate and Twin-linked being addressed somehow though, or at least clarified.

Single shot versus dodge is a bit more then just an over sight though. It addresses the core mechanic of the game, and it does it by disconnecting the ability of the attacker and the ability of the defender from one another. When you attack with single shot, you're not rolling against an enemy striving to overcome his ability to duck, you're rolling against yourself and any modifiers. Even worse, when you roll to dodge, the skill of your attacker has no bearing whatsoever on your roll. You're not sweating bullets because he just rolled an 07 and he's got a BS of 63. All you care about is hitting your own Dodge mark.

I find that jarring, disconnected and not very dramatic. Again, just a personal preference but I don't think I'm alone in it.

Reverend mort said:

A nice reply, and I can completely see your side of things. You clearly feel that the mechanics in place encourage players to use a variety of equipment and tactics.

I disagree with you however. In my opinion, the current rules actually encourage players to go with what works best for dealing damage: Multiple melee attacks, SA/FA weapons and psykers.

Accurate does help even the score a bit, but its still a gimmick, largely thanks to the ss/dodge mechanics.

I can't back this statement up, but I wouldn't be surprised if it holds true: As players grow in experience and knowledge of the system, they tend to put down the longlases, the stalkers and the needle rifles and pick up other weaponry. Or just play a heavy melee or psyker. In the current rules, if you choose to play a sniper its more for RP reasons then because you want to be effective. Not that you can't be an effective sniper, its just far more limited then other options within the system.

And I think that's a shame. Player variety should come from player choices, not because of rule limitations...at least as much as a system can possibly allow that.

You say making this small mechanics change would suddenly make the game terribly bland, this tiny change would suddenly break everything. I don't see how it does that personally. I feel not making the change has more of the opposite effect as intelligent players are encouraged to not use single shot weaponry.

Bladehate said:

Er, what? Isn't the extra hit from Twin-Linked dodgeable as any other multiple hit attack (i.e. through DoS on Evasion roll)?

Morangias said:

That's one interpretation but not clearly stated.

Although I agree with you that its probably the intended way to handle the defensive aspect.

But it does bring up an interesting point though about the attacker. Is it considered a single shot or a semi-auto attack for the purpose of the attacker and the Accurate weapon trait?

Even if a GM ruled against it, it would still mean that a twin-linked sniper rifle would be the weapon of choice for a marksman. Single shot for when he can be sure of the shot, and SA the rest of the time. While I would probably rule against allowing Accurate and Twin-linked on the same single shot attack, I logically and in terms of rules mechanics can't see any reason to disallow them, other then the fact that I think a double barrelled sniper rifle is silly as heck.

But again, all this jumping through hoops to deal with a hokey mechanic really shouldn't be necessary...

@Bladehate

You are aware that under the normal BC rules, there is no possibility to give a weapon Twin-linked? It's a weapon quality, not an upgrade. Thus, since there are currently no rules on how a normal weapon behaves when twinlinked and since there is no official weapon that is both twinlinked and accurate, any such contraption requires a houserule anyway.

As for the damage comparison: At around frontal-Rhino level, the Lascannon pulls ahead of the Reaper if you can't reliably hit with all five shots. Anything bigger and the AC loses much of its appeal as you just won't go through the armour at all. At that point, the choice is between the lascannon and nothing.

In the current rules, if you choose to play a sniper its more for RP reasons then because you want to be effective. Not that you can't be an effective sniper, its just far more limited then other options within the system.

Yes and no. Yes, it's more limited than an allround weapon - that's why that weapon is called allround. And still, especially with BC, it's all about picking your fights. Who cares about your ability to shoot your way into a military base when you can just as easily snipe the commander of the local PDF on a parade, then slink back into the shadows?

The crafting rules from Tech-Use are quite broad Cifer. They may not explicitly state "here is how to make every conceivable item" but they certainly give the GM and the player a place to start for making custom gear. I would think that a large part of the Heretek's appeal is to be allowed to do just that...

And Cifer, you keep talking about the lascannon versus vehicles as though its relevant. The point isn't so much that the Lascannon is the only effective weapon against tanks, the point is that single shot weapons are more limited then they should be. The fact that for most of the foes and situations in the game an SA/FA ranged weapon is superior to a single shot weapon is in my view a problem.

Bladehate said:

Yes, full-auto weapons are more versatile and useful in most combat situations. That's why almost every standing army in the world hands them out to their general infantry. It's why even your Designated Marksman tends to use semi-automatics rather than bolt actions. In the hands of the semi-trained pro, it's the superior choice. It's versatile, it's well-rounded, it's relatively easy to use efficiently.

Yet the sniper's the guy that everybody admires and fears. Because he has precision, accuracy, surprise, stealth and sheer, raw terror on his side. He might not kill a million guys, but he kills the guy in charge of all of them, and does just as much damage.

And, in BC, this is roughly the same. Full-auto weapons are more versatile, by design. But single shot weapons hit where it hurts, especially when used with the skill they are meant to be used with. You keep comparing them to full-auto weapons in a close range brawl. This is not their area of use. PERIOD. If you are dragging a single shot weapon into a full on warzone and telegraphing your attacks you are, to be blunt, doing it wrong. Single shot weapons are meant to be used to pick off priority targets by pro-active users, not as a general purpose weapon by close range combatants.

And trust me, as the guy who plays a kroot sniper in a RT game using all the BC rules, a well-designed sniper does far, far more damage than the full-auto crowd when he knows what he's doing. I've never felt the dodge rules hit against me because, tbh, they never apply to me. My opponents don't get their dodge, because I'm 200 meters away under cover with a pimped out pulse rifle, taking my time and picking off their big guns while dealing a solid 4d10+3 points of damage with near certainty.

You keep wanting to equalize them and make them equally viable choices in the close range battle, but the entire point is that they aren't meant to be. Certain weapons excel in certain areas, and the single shot crowd's area of expertize isn't close quarters. That's the domain of the full-auto. And yes, a lot of gm's tend to pick that as their preferred range of engagement because that way almost everybody gets to participate in combat, but that's a problem for the passive characters who don't personally initiate combat on their own terms, which is the entire point of the sniper. When you do initiate, when you engage and plan, accurate, single shot weapons DOMINATE the field. Just like in real life!

To smudge the differences between the full-auto and single shot is to make them so samey that, really, why have both anyway? With your change, their rule application becomes so similar that the choice is down to how you want to apply your damage roll, which is doing a great disservice to the entire idea of them being different. They are different to encourage different applications. By removing that difference you are removing the incentive to actually play to your style. Why bother with stealth and cover when you might as well just wade in with your sniper rifle into short range engagements and lose nothing in the process?

Lastly, there's no rule against carrying more than one weapon. It's called a sidearm, or a backup. Sure, you might not be able to lug around both a lascannon and a heavy bolter, but there's nothing prevent your sniper from having a bolter on his hip. Different situations call for different weapons, and having one do everything isn't how the game is meant to work.

Also, on the topic of the lascannon. Of course it matters! The lascannon is an extremely specialized, Anti-tank weapon! It's not a general purpose weapon, it's not meant to pull double duty as a sniper rifle and it's not meant to handle infantry. Yet you keep bringing it up as an example of single shot weapons failing in the anti-infantry area. Cipher's entire point is that, in the area it's meant to be used in (anti heavy armor) it not only works, but excels with excessive force over anything else, including full-auto weapons. It does work. It only doesn't work like you want it to, because it's not meant to.

@Bladehate

Of course the crafting rules are broad, but at the point where you leave the normal items, you're going to have to talk to your GM - who, just as you noted before, might not be in favour of Twin-linked Accurate weapons. I'm not quite understanding where you're coming from here: You note that Accurate Twin-Linked weapons are quite powerful, then go on to say that you would houserule against them, when in fact there is no such weapon in the game and you would have to put a houserule in place to allow them.

As for the vehicle rules, it was you who referred to them in the first place, noting the lascannon as an example of why unopposed dodge for single shots is a bad thing. To which I reply: The primary targets of a lascannon don't dodge all that well and at a certain armour level the lascannon has no competition (besides possibly meltaguns) anyway. Thus, its niche is preserved and it's not an example for the dodge rules unbalancing things.

The second application for single shot weapons (true sniping) negates dodge altogether.

The third would be low-level combat - the +10 to hit is quite practical if because of bad skill or circumstances your BS is somewhere around 30 or lower. In that case, your opponent hopefully is just as bad as you are, otherwise you're not likely to stand much of a chance either way.

Only in a combat where you have a high BS, your opponent has a high dodge value, you're both aware of each other and there are no other special circumstances involved do FA and SA weapons have an advantage. Which, IMO, is as it should be - that's why people bothered to invent them after all and why war became that much more of a meat grinder after it.

The lascannon is not in fact a specialized anti-vehicle weapon, by the rules. There is nothing that actually makes it specifically anti-vehicle in any way whatsoever...again, by the rules.

What it is, is the most powerful single shot weapon in the game in terms of raw damage. And yet its use is rare...and yes, even against tanks there is a good chance of a dodge negating the hit, with a decent driver.

@Reverent Mort

You exaggerate the effects of the change to suit your argument. You also put words in my mouth, again to suit your argument. You also admit that you play in a group where the concept of stealth and obtaining undodgeable shots are very broad. I don't really want to get into an argument about what Dodge is (Mystical zen power? Or just face diving the ground when you get shot at?), but the simple fact is that even if you can't see a shooter, if you know there IS a shooter you're much, much harder to hit. I'm happy for you that you are always at 200 meters, in stealth, with your sniper rifle but that's not necessarily typical, nor does it really address the core issue of single shot versus dodge.

This change does not make every weapon the same, nor does it invalidate the use of tactics or any of the other things we've discussed. The only thing it does is add more interaction into the attack/dodge process of single shot, slightly boost ALL single shot weapons at all ranges and slightly nerf dodge.

The bottom line (to both of you) is that neither of you have really addressed what I consider to be the core issue: When you use single shot or even a single melee attack, you do not actually fight an enemy. You merely roll against your stats, apply the appropriate modifiers and look at the outcome.

More seriously, when you defend against a single shot, you do not care how well an enemy rolled or how skilled he is. You look at your stats, roll your dice and go with it.

Personally, I don't see a reason to go with a system like that when there is a minor, easily applied fix that actually makes WHAT you rolled on your attack and dodge rolls relevant...not just that you scored under your BS or Dodge value. And no, despite your protestations to the opposite...the sky does not fall when you apply this change. All weapons do not suddenly become the exact same stat block and the world does not end.

Reverend mort said:

There is no pulse rifle in BC? Can you give the stats and how you pimped it out?

Lecram said:

You can find the official stats for Tau weapons here . They're for Deathwatch, but most of the new tables there are consistent with BC, so I reckon Tau weapons can be ported whole cloth.

We used the pulse rifle from Rogue Trader Into the Storm. Also of note, the following weapon has been excessively pimped to represent it's wielder's fetishistic fondness of it, including having several traits added to it due to various deals with weapon makers and xeno weapon dealers. The original weapon is far less intimidating.

Best-quality Custom Krootified Pulse Rifle (Into the Storm)
Range: 250m Rof: S/2/4 D: 2d10+3 E Pen: 4 Clip: 45 Rld: Half
Special: Gyro-stabilised, Reliable, Accurate, Storm, Silencer, Omniscope, Motion Predictor, Extended Magazine, Pistol Grip, Recoil Baffling

It's also got wooden grips and Kroot style pointy bits.

@BladeHate

The lascannon is not in fact a specialized anti-vehicle weapon, by the rules. There is nothing that actually makes it specifically anti-vehicle in any way whatsoever...again, by the rules.

How about the extreme damage and the high penetration that are both wasted on any remotely human target? I don't think there needs to be a special rule for it. In fact, I like it much better when generic rules (RoF, Damage, Pen) also fit the special case because of how binary most special rules are. If there was an Anti-Vehicle trait and the lascannon got it... would the autocannon get it too? After all, it is commonly used against light armour. As is the heavy bolter and a few xeno weapons. So should we make them all the same? Invent different levels of the anti-vehicle trait? Actually, I like what happened in BC with the lascannon best: The normal stats of a weapon dictate its job. High damage, high pen, single shot makes it crappy against hordes - even though it has no "crappy against hordes" trait. And those same values make it powerful against heavily armoured enemies with a comparably bad dodge value.

Cifer +1. Sometimes, things are obvious enough that you don't need to state them outright.

On that note, I think weapon statlines in BC are a definite improvement over previous systems. Right now, virtually every weapon has something that makes it worthwhile, even if it's just "best choice at Availability X" or "really good idea to cheaply arm your shock troops with".

"a lascannon is a weapon for destroying tanks, not mowing down large numbers of infantry."

Pg 349, under "damaging a horde". Not a rule, but hey Books says so!


You exaggerate the effects of the change to suit your argument. You also put words in my mouth, again to suit your argument. You also admit that you play in a group where the concept of stealth and obtaining undodgeable shots are very broad. I don't really want to get into an argument about what Dodge is (Mystical zen power? Or just face diving the ground when you get shot at?), but the simple fact is that even if you can't see a shooter, if you know there IS a shooter you're much, much harder to hit. I'm happy for you that you are always at 200 meters, in stealth, with your sniper rifle but that's not necessarily typical, nor does it really address the core issue of single shot versus dodge.

It may not be typical, but it IS the strength of the weapon. Likewise, it's not always that combat is within melee range. Even when it's achieved during it, it rarely starts off already at it. Should the rules be adjusted so that the melee guys don't get penalized for that, instead of having to actively work to gain the advantage (aka close distance)?

As for stealth, we play BY THE RULES. Within the confines of stealth and dodge, there are no house rules in play. The fact that your interpretation of the rules differ from ours does not make my argument about how things "should" work any more or less valid than yours. The only difference is that while you solve your problem with a house rule, we solve ours by reading the rules and applying our perspective to them. My argument is thus that the rules already provide a way for the users of single shot weapons to get their hits in, by playing to their strengths, just like melee guys have to find ways to get in range. This provides a more diverse, challenging and engaging game rather than merely having house rules level the playing field so that all things are more similar, thus removing some of the flavor and unique approach to combat that various weapons encourage and provide in favor of a more samey experience.

This change does not make every weapon the same, nor does it invalidate the use of tactics or any of the other things we've discussed. The only thing it does is add more interaction into the attack/dodge process of single shot, slightly boost ALL single shot weapons at all ranges and slightly nerf dodge.

It does, however, discourage them. Why waste time, energy and actions on moving into cover, getting stealth rolls etc when you can gain a similar advantage by taking your sniper rifle/lascannon/bow, closing to short range and firing away? It removes incentive, which changes how the game plays. In my opinion negatively.

Also, it boosts lascannons quite extensively. I know you mentioned other houserules to that weapon, but something capable of dealing a MINIMUM of 25 points of damage with 10 points of penetration suddenly becoming rather hard to dodge is a real gamechanger. That's enough to almost put Space Marines straight into critical. And with an opposed test (to which a lascannon guy can get +30 to by merely taking a half-action aim within 150 meters) suddenly being needed to avoid it, it becomes an absolute beast in anything. Screw full-auto, with all the bonuses you tend to get for single fire, why deliver many hits when you can deliver one, truly devastating monster blast that knocks anything but space marines (armor doesn't matter, they might as well be naked) straight into giblet territory?

The bottom line (to both of you) is that neither of you have really addressed what I consider to be the core issue: When you use single shot or even a single melee attack, you do not actually fight an enemy. You merely roll against your stats, apply the appropriate modifiers and look at the outcome.

More seriously, when you defend against a single shot, you do not care how well an enemy rolled or how skilled he is. You look at your stats, roll your dice and go with it.

Personally, I don't see a reason to go with a system like that when there is a minor, easily applied fix that actually makes WHAT you rolled on your attack and dodge rolls relevant...not just that you scored under your BS or Dodge value. And no, despite your protestations to the opposite...the sky does not fall when you apply this change. All weapons do not suddenly become the exact same stat block and the world does not end.

So? Increased fidelity does not equal quality. And to move away from catchy arguments, characteristics are not the only determiners of skill. Talents play a huge part as well, as do skills. A skilled melee combatant represents his skill with talents, like swift or lightning attack. Or, in melee, more commonly with feinting, using his most likely superior weapon skill to utterly bypass your defenses (a combat move that your house rule severely nerfs). This is actually especially true for melee guys, who face no penalty for picking up swift attack (or any number of other defense bypassing methods such as counter attack) because a lot of their talents are equipment independent, or at least less tied to it.

In ranged combat, yes, this is less of an easily solved situation (barring the number of counters I've already ranted at length about). But, with your system, it creates an... interesting reality. Which is that if you're standing in an open field with a man 20 meters away from you, holding a handgun, his one shot is actually harder to avoid than it would be if he'd been armed with a gatling gun and unloading as fast as he could. Seems a bit... odd to me.

As it is, the skill and type of weapon determines the likelyhood of someone hitting you. While your skill at dodging determines how likely you are to avoid it. The level of "skill" of both parties determines the outcome here. The fact that it's not an actively opposed test doesn't mean that individual ability doesn't play a factor. It merely means it sacrifices some fidelity for speed of play, and that it creates a situation where single shot weapons are encouraged to approach combat from a different angle than that of the fully automatic weapon wielders.

That or carry more than one weapon, and thus pick the tool most fitting for the job. You know, like how close quarter combatants usually don't use handguns if they can bring fully automatic assault rifles.

Reverend mort said:

Since I'm waiting for an important e-mail anyway, and the boards are pretty slow, I thought I'll back this statement with some simple math.

Basically, when you fire a single shot at someone, and he's eligible to try and dodge it, your chance of actually hitting him is:

A% * (100-B)%

Where A is your BS and B is his Dodge Skill.

So, if we have a guy with 30 BS trying to shoot a guy with 30 Dodge, his actual chance of hitting is:

30% * 70% = 21%

Now, the same BS 30 guy trying to shoot someone with 60 Dodge has a chance of hitting equal to:

30% * 40% = 12%

On the other hand, if a guy with 60 BS tries to nail someone with 30 Dodge, he's looking at a meaty (60% * 70% =) 42% chance to hit.

As you can see, skills on both sides do factor into single shots.

@Morangias

While you're at it, could you do some comparisons between Single Shot, SA and FA for varying levels of BS and Dodge, both from the point of view of "hitting at all" and "hitting with average number of bullets"?

Cifer said:

Huh, that's more difficult, and I'm not really much of a mathematician. I'll see what I can do.

By the way, I already failed my math in the above example, as I forgot to count in the +10 for single attack in BC. All probabilities must be adjusted accordingly, so:

BS 30 vs Dodge 30: 40% * 70% = 28%

BS 30 vs Dodge 60: 40% * 40% = 16%

BS 60 vs Dodge 30: 70% * 70% = 49%

BS 60 vs Dodge 60: 70% * 40% = 28%

Now, since I've already gone there, why not make a table out of it?

It seems from this table that as one's Dodge skill increases, increases in BS offer diminishing returns on the final chance of scoring a hit. Specifically, for each further 10% chance of dodging, increases in BS yield 1% less for each 10% added to the Characteristic.

The table doesn't cover all possible values, mostly because going over 100% of either skill complicates the math.

I might add in breakdowns for full/semi auto, if I figure out how to calculate them.

@Morangias

I wouldn't call it "failing" your math - your numbers work perfectly well as long as you consider the BS given to be the adjusted BS. There are other modifiers after all, distance and aiming probably being the most common.

Yeah, probably should have kept the previous formula for that chart, as it would have been more universal. Huh...

OK, another take, this time the BS column means "actual rolled BS value with all applicable modifiers included". Meaning, if you have BS of 30, but take a Half Action to aim (+10) and then fire a single shot (+10), you need to look up the probabilities in the BS 50 line.

@Blackblade:

I'm just curious how you'd handle an opposed dodge/BS role with an Accurate weapon. Lets say I get 4 degrees of success(which equates to 2 extra d10's), but my target dodges and gets 2 degrees of success. Do I hit for +2d10 or does his one or two successes negate some of my successes? In which case I'd only deal an extra d10.

I think doing it either way is a valid way of doing it. I agree that it does change the FEEL of certain weapons depending on how you do it.