I was looking through First Founding today and a thought occurred to me when I was comparing the weapon stats in it to those in the DW Core. Are the First Founding weapons built/designed/scaled against the "optional" weapon errata from the Living Errata?

Just as an example, the Angelus Bolter is 1d10+9 S/3 which matches all the basic/pistol bolters in the errata, where the Core stats for standard bolters and the RoB stats for the Hesh list bolters as 2d10+5 and S/2/4. So it seems like it is.

Just wondering since I'm not currently using the errata weapon stats in my game. But since I the BA Apothecary to retcon himself into a Sanguinary Priest I'd like to know against what general set of weapon stats the FF ones are intended to scale, in case the BA winds up with an Angelus at some point or something. And if they are intended to play with the weapon errata, is there a general conversion algorithm to/from the Core-type stats?

Also, is it known if future supplements with weapons will scale solely to the errata stats?

Hi,

I think they will:

Daemon Hunter (DH) & Black Crusade uses the revised stats and so does RT: Hostile Aquisitions.
Those three books are all post Death Watch.

Santiago said:

Hostile Aquisitions uses the revised stats? We haven't played RT for some time but I'm pretty sure I haven't missed any ney new errata for it so it's purley arbitrary by FFG to confront the players with the revised stats in this way.

I'm not to very eager to play by the old stats as long as the new rules for BC are used on Talents and Actions but I think it's a poor sign of customer service if FFG makes no attempt to inform us about any changes and leaves us guessing which of the old weapon stats in RT and Into the Storm have changed because not all have their counterparts in DW or BC the same goes for the stats from MotX. That's even worse than Microsoft in it's "best" years.

Instead of given us another half-heartedly written adventure book they could publish a Weapon Supplement with revised stats for all systems but this would mean hard work of proof reading and editing instead of having fun by compiling some stories.

They could at least give us some updated errata!

I agree that the some official book should either contain the new weapon stats or they should at löeast place a prominent alink to the errata prominently into the book and make the update official. The optional stats have been in beta long enough now and I would strongly recommend going one way or the other.

Since it's been hinted at the stats getting further revision, I would assume that with errata 1.2 the new stats become official stats? Anyway, even though it's currently a mess I am grateful that FFG is trying to develop their system, correct past errors, etc.

Other game companies would have simply stuck to the over-powered bolt weapons.

Alex

ak-73 said:

Good to know. I personally have some issues with the errata'd stats, primarily the RoF changes to bolters. Since when has a bolter been a semiautomatic rifle? Since never as far as I remember - it's always been a full-auto weapon. And the RoF 6 on the heavy has made more than 1 Dev player I know argue that Devs cap out on useful stats too fast, and have very little wargear they actually need as a result. I wonder if this is true when paired with the BC changes to autofire?

And just to ask, does anyone know the conversion algorithm between Core and errata stats? I'll be using the Core stats for the foreseeable future (with a couple personal tweaks to make plasma something people might actually use) but would like to use future weapons as well, and that requires converting their damage formula over to the standard of the Core.

Wait. Are these FF stats just for Astartes bolters? If so it should not affect RT.

bogi_khaosa said:

There are a number of underlying concepts behind weapon stat design that went towards the profiles in the DW errata and the Black Crusade armoury. I can't speak for any other writers, or for FFG policy as a whole, but I personally have been working with those in mind since I first saw them, and as I wrote the Hostile Acquisitions armoury chapter, it may show through there. Plus, if memory serves, I put an Archaeotech Bolter in there that represents the old Unification-era weapons, so it's closer to an Astartes Bolter in performance, but also requires considerable strength to wield.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

And while doing so haven't you felt the need to include revised stats for weapons from older books?

Not everysone who plays RT automaticly plays BC and how should these people have acces to this crucial information?

Sorry to adress you like this but as much as I appreciate your work to adjust all systems to some common stats this whole thing has to be thought over more carefully. I don't know how the communication between writers for FFG works but it can't be that one writes with the old stats in mind while another with the new and then both works are used in the same publication First Founding for example. A RPG sourcebook is no playground where everyone can do what he likes as in a fanzine like Rifter or GearUp because official Books will be the basics for future publications and also future errors.

Why is it so difficult for FFG to use the last pages of a book for a printed errata like other companies?

Yes, I know an errata is an ever evolving thing and maybe there are enough changes which will justify a revised version every year but as long as FFG keeps on publishing W40K books they can always reprint this as well in future supplements.

Kshatriya said:

Roughly speaking it is: use my suggested weapon stats and convert some dices into static modifiers (1d10 is about +5 or +6). Just kidding, of course. (Although there is some truth to that.)

I don't think there can be a general algorithm. Some weapons got nerfed, others got buffed. At the moment it is best to make up your own stats based on the best of both worlds.

Adapting future weapons is just a matter of eye measure. As a GM you have to do the extra-work of glancing over weapon stats. But you should be glancing over stats and do some tweaking as part of mission preparation anyway.

Alex

Wouldn't the easiest soloution be to post the revised stats as an appendix in the next core type rulebook? I remember DH's player guide devoted a few pages a tte very end, which was a very helpful tool regardless.

Kain McDogal said:

That's not my decision to make.

Kain McDogal said:

It isn't crucial information - I'm talking about vague guidelines helpful (but not crucial) for determining weapon damage, rate of fire, appropriate weapon qualities... things like "have as few dice as possible for damage on weapons with a high rate of fire". Weapons in a Rogue Trader or Deathwatch book will still be designed with that game in mind - for example, if a weapon in a sourcebook includes a weapon quality that isn't in the relevant rulebook, the rules for that weapon quality will be printed nearby, and the decision of the project lead is always final and often determined long after the manuscripts are written.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

If you design new weapons with stats based on the revised versions from older books than it's as important to print the revised old stats as a new weapon quality otherwise it's hardly understandable that a new weapon with a much higher Requisition/Cost is less effective than the old one. Either the revised weapon stats are also reprinted together with the new ones (First Founding would have been a great opportunity) or designers should only be allowed to work with the old printed stats and an online supplement may be published for each new book to present revised stats for all who are interested. Now we have an uncoordinated mix of both and a not-my-decision-attitude isn't going to be a big help on this matter.

Kain McDogal said:

It depends entirely on how big an issue this actually is. Personally, I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here, so I'm obviously quite dismissive of the issue because I don't actually feel that it's particularly significant.

I didn't work on the armoury for First Founding - that had actually been done before I started work on the project, so my capacity to influence it was minimal (an admittedly unusual circumstance - normally, everything is done simultaneously). I take a "not my decision" attitude because it's not my decision. Where I see an issue during development, I'll mention it to people who can actually make a difference to it, but I cannot do more than that, because I'm not the one making the final decision and because I've got my own manuscripts to concentrate on. There are lots of things that aren't my decision that I don't have the time to worry about - where possible, I'll make my case, but to expect more than that from anyone seems either naive or greedy.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

I'm speaking only for myself but I think that weapon stats and corresponding combat rules are one of the most important things when designing a RPG based on a wargame more important than inventing funny names for planets and organizations. GM's can flash out a setting by themselves what they need are binding rules not for their group (I twist the rules how they suit us) but for the compatibility with future publications assumed these will follow the same process otherwise we don't need no rules at all. Maybe this sounds greedy to you but I guess it's our right as customers to be greedy when we pay at least 40$ for a book.

I'm unclear on something. These are _civilian_ boltguns that now do 1d10 + 9? Or is it because the Angelus, per the IH anyway, fires an Astartes bolt sheii?

If that mortal puny human bolters still do 1d10 + 5 Pen 4 I am not seeing a problem.

Kain McDogal said:

Like I said, it's not my decision to make. I'm one freelancer amongst many, and my responsibilities within that role are as follows: to do the best work I can on the projects I'm asked to work on, which averages about 25,000 words a book on 4 or 5 books a year... a small amount compared to the total quantity published each year.

I can't do more than that - it's naive or greedy to expect me to do more than that (to clarify my previous point). The only people who can make those kinds of decisions are the people in charge of each product line, the people who oversee each project. If you want to bring it up with them, this isn't the right channel.

I'm a customer too - those books that I don't work on, I have to buy if I want to get my hands on their contents, and a good chunk of the money I get from working for FFG in my current capacity goes back to them (by way of my local gaming store) as I purchase other books I want. I don't get access to materials unrelated to my ongoing assignments, so I don't get to see what's in most of the books FFG produces until it hits the shelves. Just because I contribute to some of the books released doesn't mean I'm suddenly on the other side of some great divide - I'm a paying customer as much as you are.

It might have been better to have labelled the optional stats as beta stats. And to end the beta phase after 6 to 9 months by finalizing the revised stats, then making them official. The latter is best done by putting a link to the errata at prominent location in any future 1E product and basing the future stats on the revised and somewhat finalized stats.

However the new stats probably don't scale up against vehicles too well yet. It might be better for melta to half the enemy AP instead of of doubling its own Pen. Melta weapons will become more viable against heavy vehicles this way.

Alex

I'm curious to why so many peopel say that the DW errata are optional? Sure they are optional in the sense that no one has to use the errata as published, but from the point of view of all future authors of the line they should be using the stats as revised by the errata. Otherwise that would defeat the purpose of publishing the errata wouldn't it?

IIRC the weapon errata section calls itself optional, something no other part of the errata does. There's also no indication in the errata doc that the new stats would be used as a point of comparison for future products, but with the release of FF it's clear they are.

Kshatriya said:

It says this: "This section presents a modified set of weapon statistics for Deathwatch, and is intended to offer Game Masters an option to speed up combat by reducing the number of dice rolled."

Personally I think the changes were warranted. The way things were there was no reason to ever taken anything but a bolter against almost any opponent because even against vehicles it was easy to score minor crits with 3 dice per hit landing thanks to way Righteous Fury works against vehicles. Heavy Bolters were almost as good as assault cannons.

I'm just going to note that nothing you quoted contradicted anything I said. The weapon stuff was not presented as "mandatory" errata, i.e. that future products will treat it as binding precedent. It was presented as "here's an option for people who think they have to roll too many dice" (and lol if 6d10 is a lot, play Exalted or L5R 4e or Shadowrun and then get back to me) not as "these are the official new weapon stats and we will scale future equipment against them."

As to the quality there are some I agree with and some I do not; some changes went too far and some didn't go far enough.

Kshatriya said:

Standard Bolters as they were were not too bad, but it against hordes in particular it was generally just "I hit them 4 times" every turn. The damage was also a bit silly. Originally (in Dark Heresy) Space Marine Bolters were 2d10 damage. However, that was very random, and with the new horde rules they tended to require a more reliable amount of minimum damage. The solution that was decided on was apparently to give them an extra 5 damage. This, particularly with extra ammo, tended to make any other basic weapon (plasma and melta mainly) almost pointless in anything but the most specific circumstances. Also, as the Heavy bolter had to have higher damage, it was raised to 2d10+10. Combined with the possible 10 hits, a lot of which often hit with the various bonuses that are now capped at +/-60, and the sheer number of Righteous Fury opportunities this generated (up to 30 different chances with every shot) many big enemies would get gibbed in seconds. Combining that high rate of fire with the Devastator's special ability, Hordes were also reduced to a near irrelevance.

Something had to change, and so FFG put out their "optional" rules. Heavy Bolters needed to be nerfed, particularly the RoF, but also the damage. Combined with the return to the original Righteous Fury rules (the change had been stupid in the first place), reducing it so that you had less damage dice helped partially solve the "poof! One dead HIve Tyrant" problem. This was further helped by the change to the RoF, which also meant that Hordes were less likely to disappear just by being looked at funny. However, now that it had been nerfed, all the other weapons were out of balance. The Storm Bolter now just massively outshone it. Not quite as many shots, but with Storm that didn't matter. The damage also ovbiously had to be reduced to bring it in line with the Heavy Bolter, but against hordes it would still remain better (as damage matters little as long as you can reliably expect to hurt them), unless you further reduced the number of hits it was likely to inflict. They could reduce the number of shots, but not too much or it would just get silly, so by changing it to semi-auto they can reduce the shots by less, partly balancing it against the Heavy Bolter because even though the sheer number of possible hits is not that much less, it is less likely to achieve the full number (not that they were 100% successful as it could be argued the Storm Bolter is a better weapon, at least as you get better with it, but at least it isn't always the better choice). Of course, you can't really have a standard bolter being fully-auto when the Storm Bolter isn't, so a change to Semi-auto becomes inevitable. It also makes them slightly less reliable against hordes (hitting with all the shots isn't quite as regular), and, combined with the damage nerf, makes the special weapons slightly more appealing (especially as many of them actually got some sort of boost in the updated weapon rules). The full-auto shotgun from Rites of Battle, which they didn't turn to semi-auto, is actually a bit of an issue (it is fine as standard, but if you slap Penetrator rounds into it just becomes better than the bolter).

Now, the problem was that they just described them as "optional rules". Yes, some people had less of a problem with the old stats and may have felt jipped if they were now told "Erm... we have changed the rules now", and I guess no one really wants to go "You know what? We really messed up on this quite central aspect of the combat game mechanics" and presenting them as "optional, for those who want to speed up play" (which wasn't the problem at all... in fact they sped up play by killing major enemies in a very short period of time) means you can avoid all this. However, it creates confusion with the books that have come out since. Ok, they also updated the Rites of Battles weapons. Good. However, there was at least one book (can't remember which) where it was fairly clear the weapon stats in it were for the old weapon stats, and no alternative was provided in the book or the website, and then with First Founding it has become very clear that the new stats are the ones being used by the designers (bolters being 1d10+9 or there about), following the trend from Black Crusade and Deamonhunter. However, they continue to print the old stats in the adversaries' write ups in the same book .

Oh, the Angelus fires Astartes' bolt rounds, which is why it gets comparable damage.

I can generally agree that the old bolter stats completely overshadowed meltas and plasmas, but this was a combination of too-strong bolters and too-weak plasma/melta, not too-strong bolters alone. And I agree that it was a lot easier to kill stronger enemies with bolters, though I don't necessarily feel that that has changed very much with the weapon stat changes (nids will always suffer setbacks against hellfire, for example, which is kind of the point of that ammo in the first place), except for the fact that Righteous Fury will occur less often (and I'm fine with that). I do think that changing the crunch does affect the fluff, but also while crunch shouldn't be derived from fluff, crunch shouldn't completely contradict it either. Oh and 6 hits is a turn off, I think I said it in another thread...you had to work to hit 10 hits on a heavy bolter (positioning, wargear, and other bonus stacking mostly) but 6 is really easy, there's no thrill when you actually do it.

As an aside, and I'm probably writing too much on the subject but oh well, Hordes are supposed to be irrelevant in the grand scheme. I've seen some people talk about making them nastier, but while making them challenging fights is a noble goal, in the end a Horde is not designed to be your player's longstanding nemesis or a plot-relevant enemy, so I don't feel too bad when they get mowed down, as that's entirely their job - to speed up combat and make it more cinematic, since individually slaying 20 termagants is going to be incredibly tedious, lump them together in a Horde or two and turn 10 turns of fighting them into 2-3.

They're fights that can be fun, that take time and waste ammo and let the players feel like gods for killing a huge mass of enemies, but pack enough of a potential punch where you can't completely write them off. They fulfill the same role as tarpit units in the TT: bog down enemies and cover your important stuff - elites and masters. Even pre-errata, Hordes could kill you if they had 2 rounds to do so, just by virtue of how many attacks they could make at range, undodgeability/unparryability, enhanced damage based on Magnitude, and Traits like Overwhelming added on to already not-pathetic meleeists like Hormagaunts. If anything some of their weapons have gotten stronger with the errata.

I'm not sure I had much problem with Hordes being splattered across the wall, since early on I figured out that one Horde didn't usually make a sufficient challenge, and making big Hordes didn't exactly do all that much either (aside from killing PCs in one turn...Magnitude 60 termagant horde = 6 ranged attacks per turn, all of which can be full-auto with the +2d10 bonus horde damage to each hit...yeah, ouch), leading me to believe multiple medium-sized Hordes can provide a decent challenge as long as they play relatively smart (e.g. termagants and fire warriors will seek cover and shoot while hormagaunts and kroot will move in to melee you, vespid/gun drones/gargoyles will strike from above and flit about making it hard to draw an accurate bead, etc.). To me, that represents the unity of Tau tactics or the singular genius of the Hive Mind in coordinating the Swarm in a frightfully intelligent manner.

But in the end a Horde is not supposed to be the be-all end-all combat experience; they're there to be the cannon fodder supporting a couple battlesuits or a CSM squad or a hive tyrant.

As to your comment on dubbing them "optional": yes, yes yes! =) As to the book you're thinking of, if it was DW the only ones in the proper place in the timeline between the errata and FF's release would be Mark of the Xenos or Achilus Assault, and I don't think AA had any weapon stats in it.

I have to say we quite regularly saw 9 or 10 hits with heavy bolters, particularly against hordes. Yes, now it is 6 the maximum tends to happen even more often, but at least it isn't as devastating when it did. It also encouraged a wider choice of heavy weapons (lascannons and heavy flamers mainly).

Hordes are not meant to be irrelevant. They are meant to turn things that had no chance against Marines (Guardsman and the like) into something that could hurt marines. Yes, an individual horde will never be much of a threat, but have a few reasonable size ones, or a mixture of targets, and they are meant to prove an obstacle. Yes, they could be a threat (due to the high, if random, damage) but if played correctly they just would barely achieve anything with the old heavy bolter. The Devastator would basically turn one horde into an irrelevance in one turn by themselves. They should do the lion's share of the work if armed with a HB, but with the original rules unless you had loads of hordes (which could randomly nearly kill a character if lucky, a problem which becomes more likely the more there are) or huge hordes (which are BORING ) they were not a threat at all (frenzying Blood Angel Assault Marines aside... he never tried that again).

I think it may have been the enemies weapon stats in Mark of the Xenos, which also had the problem of some massively powerful enemies, as they had to be balanced to the powerful weapons the basic rulebook provided.

To base the whole argument why the Bolters were nerfed on Hordes is really short-sighted because the upcoming errata will grant all explosive weapons (incl. all Bolters) 1 additional Hit/1 Hit (effectivley doubling the damage) not 1 additional hit/1 Attack as in the current errata. I guess this change was made as playtesting showed that with the new ROF chewing through a Horde can take an eternity on an unlucky Roll and Hordes have enough time to fight back and seriously injure the SM despite Autoguns only fire Semi-Automatic by the new stats. This way Hordes can quickly become adversaries, but they should only be obstacles!

Personally I would like to get the old ROF back and use it with the new BC rules for Automatic Fire and the Hordes Rules from the current errata, but this would mean all Weapons had to be reprinted with the old ROF and new Damage, new combat rules for DW had to be published and the attempt to balance all W40K RPG's would fail, particularly BC in itself would be more unbalanced than it allready is. In fact this would warrant a DW 2. Edition something FFG would never do as long as there are supplements for DW and crossovers to other RPG's out there.

I'm very curious if the upcoming errata will take a new approach we haven't thought of otherwise we only have the option to combine rules from diffrent books and errata to fix DW.