So currently my group is playing rogue trader, but as they love to play the 'bad' guys we'll be switching to black crusade once we've completed our rt campaign. I was looking through the black crusade book and noticed that full auto is now at a -10 to hit, and semi auto is at a +0, whereas in rt its +20 and +10 respectively, is there a reasoning behind this? My guess it has to do with the successes starting at passing the test now as opposed to having to beat the test by 10, but i want to be sure. I personally like the change, but i know my players that are used to rt rules might take exception to this, so i'm trying to get my ducks in a row before we start playing.

fourtykiller said:

The way I see it, there are two (intertwined) reasons behind this change:

1. Semi and Full Auto are now Half Actions rather than Full Actions, which makes them vastly more powerful and flexible.

2. They were already stupidly powerful in previous games, and they made full auto weapons a no-brainer choice for everyone from professional sharpshooters to lousy shots who couldn't hit the broad side of the barn otherwise. Under new rules, using single/semi/full weapons is actually a viable choice, and only people really focused on shooting can get mileage out of full auto bursts. Which makes sense both realism-wise and balance-wise.

Morangias said:

I must respectfully disagree here. I do not understand the logic of changing this rule! Throwing more lead (Or plasma or monofiliment darts or whatever) downrange in real life will generally result in a greater chance to hit something assuming the burst is controlled. This change does not make sense to me and I was wondering if it was a misprint? In every other case I believe that BC's combat mechanics are a much improved cleanup of the 40k system! What gives?

Radwraith said:

Reverend mort said:

An interesting counterpoint but still falls short IMHO. A character with the appropriate weapon talent is not "untrained" so that logic does not apply. The "Spray and Pray" approach is covered under the "Suppressive fire" option more correctly than the Burst rules. I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time accepting that full auto or semi-auto fire is a net negative! Full/semi auto burst would more seem to represent the technique of "walking" your fire onto your target and thus should get some bonus to hit.

The appropriate weapon talent does not represent a character's skill at firearms handling. It represents the basic familiarity needed to properly operate the weapon. It is, to me, the "instructional manual" of how to handle it.

Ballistic skill, meanwhile, represents a character's actual ability to proficiently handle and use ballistic weapons. This is why an extremely skilled shooter (High BS) can handle an unfamiliar weapon better than an average shooter with familiarity can. Since all the theoretical knowledge in the world can never truly compensate for practical experience.

In short, to the low BS character, who lacks the ingrained muscle memory to properly respond to recoil, muzzle climb and all the many other things required to properly handle a fully automatic weapon, firing madly is difficult. Difficult enough to warrant a penalty.

Hell, almost every army in the world teaches it's soldiers to keep their weapons on semi-automatic unless unsual situations warrant fully automatic fire. Because it's more likely to hit.

If it wasn't, and full automatic fire was the way to go, why isn't the standard issue rifle of every army that can afford it a belt-feed machine gun, rather then selective fire weaponry we have now?

This of course without touching upon the game mechanical balance issues of the decision, seeing as how you happily ignored that.

Edit: Oh, and suppressive fire does not cover "spray and pray". It covers suppressive fire, the tactical choice to shot a lot of bullets at your enemy to pin him down and keep him pinned. It does not operate on the principle "Enough bullets and one might hit", since hitting is not the goal. Ergo, not spray and pray.

Easy Mort; I'm not trying to ignore anything. I did not touch on the game balance issue simply because that is a highly subjective argument. If the designers felt that the bonuses were overmuch for game balance I could understand reducing (Perhaps halving) them. I just don't believe that the attack should carry a negative modifier. As to weapon talents vs. BS that's a whole separate issue. A weapon Talent represents what amounts to familiarisation training with a class of weapon which would ostensibly include full and semi auto usage (Since no other talent covers this.). BS (and WS for that matter) represent one's general aptitude with a class of weapons (Ranged or melee) and therefore offers no distinction between types of weapons.(Which you described very well so we actually agree there!). As to your Parallel with modern warfare: You are right about the training mentality of most modern armies and Semi automatic fire. As a Veteran myself it was my understanding that this had as much to do with a problem of wasting ammo as lack of effectiveness. The "spray and pray" you referred to earlier is also referred to as "Panic fire" in the military and is not nearly the same thing as the controlled (3,5 and 10 rnd) bursts described in the rules. Remember that the "Standard" CQB weapons of elite forces such as SEALS, Green Berets and such typically includes weapons such as MP-5, Fn/Fal P90 and Uzi's. All of which include very fast full auto settings. These units would not carry these weapons if their was no added value. (This actually supports both of our points but I include it for completeness.) In addition, Belt fed weapons ARE in fact issued to standard infantry units (Think SAW and M240G). These types of weapons have reaped immense carnage on battlefields since WWI!

BTW: I note from your last post that you seemed personally irritated by my post. Please understand that I mean no disrespect or personal insult.

I am not personally irritated. I am, however, rather blunt. This is is not a personal insult. It's just me.

And the reason most armies don't train for full-auto is because, in most circumstances, semi-auto has shown to be more accurate than fully automatic fire, especially when dealing with poorly trained soldiers. This is true in BC.

Also in close quarters, full auto is really useful, especially against tightly grouped enemies. This is also true in BC. The short range bonus helps alleviate the penalty, and you can thus generate a lot of hits and distribute them, increasing your chance to kill someone, and often more than one. The CQ stands for close quarters, after all.

They are also generally really good when wielded by highly trained, experienced soldiers of world class. Like the ones compromising elite special operations units such as the S.E.A.L's and green berets. In short, the ones with high enough a BS to easily handle the penalty and comfortably take advantage of the extra hits and area affecting potential of fully automatic fire.

Also, if we keep the bonus from full-auto, the end result is that an utterly untrained, dimwitted incompetent is MORE likely to hit with full-auto. Which, if we're both accepting the premise that the untrained handle full-auto poorly, doesn't compute.

And my point wasn't that belt feed weapons don't have their uses. It was that if they truly are the weapons all people in all circumstances are more likely to hit with (That old always active bonus makes no exceptions) why are they not the ones issued to the foot soldiers who need the most aid in that very department, rather than to one single member per squad?

As for the idea that talents impart knowledge on full auto usage... sure. You hold the trigger down. Guns, in general, have a very straight forward manner in which you operate them. However, knowing HOW to do it doesn't mean you know how to do it WELL. That comes with experience and skill. Ballistic skill, if you will. Every gang banger with an uzi has been able to fire it on fully automatic. Well, all the gang bangers who managed to find the fire selector. But far from all of the ones who did managed to hit the broad side of barn. Sure, they hit a lot of things, but rarely that one thing they were aiming for.

And, to speak of rules. I know you don't want to, but I feel it's somewhat inevitable when talking about them

So, presume you bring half the bonus back. So that's +10. Which first of all brings back the problem of "Why would I ever not full-auto, or use a weapon incapable of that?" since, hey, that's the same bonus single shot gets nowadays. Sure, you could increase single shot ever further but then you start bringing the to-hit chance of your average 30 BS mook into surefire territory most of the time, which is an issue all of it's own.

Secondly, that's an average of 2 extra hits on every roll. That's a lot more damage most of the time. That starts messing with the survivability of everyone involved, which is a tricky dilemma to deal with.

Also, would you apply the bonus to melee too? If you don't you get the old problem with both having different rules to keep track of and it slows things down and ehhh. Plus, melee already has a harder time collecting to-hit bonuses than ranged does, so you get the old problem were everybody goes with guns 'cause it's the safe bet and then you start discouraging melee, which really is a big part of the 40k setting.

Plus, with a lot of psychic powers getting brought into the same generalized system of single hit +10, semi-auto +0 and full auto -10, you really ought to give those the same bonus, and that's a whole 'nother headache.

The game system has put a lot of work into streamlining it's rule system to be more coherent and consistent. Which means mucking with full auto requires you to fiddle with a whole bunch of other interconnected systems. Sure, I can't stop you if you want to, but I think you run a significant risk of causing something weird to happen somewhere else, and I don't think there will be any gain at all for it.

Lastly, there is a really easy way to make that pesky penalty go away. Take an aim action. With full auto now a half action, you can afford it!

Looking at the full panoply of bonuses available I think I see your point. It is always difficult to see how a game system applies it's mechanics to real world occurrences (IE: Sweep and clear CQB Tactics. Extra points for recognizing what I was talking about BTW! Most players I run into are woefully ignorant of real world military techniques! ). I might consider adding my additional +10 (non-cumulative) bonus to subsequent rounds of sustained full auto fire to Represent "walking fire" onto a target as discussed earlier. Your thoughts?

It's not game breaking, but I think it would, in the end, be one more easily acquired bonus for ranged that it doesn't really need. It's one more factor for players and gm to keep track of, it's one more +10 that melee can't get and, tbh, it's one more hit most weapons really don't need to generate.

Radwraith said:

I have a question for you? Have you ever fired a Squad Automatic Weapon before? If your firing it on the run then you are using the "Spray and Pray" rather then laying down "Suppressive Fire." Also, walking your shots towards your target is not always going to give you a bonus because you are waisting ammo to get to your target (in effect a negative).

In Dark heresy Full-Auto was clearly given a bonus due to the idea that having more shots downrange will make a hit more likely, which is true at least to a point. Short bursts are the preferred means of engaging most targets with modern weapons. The RoF for all Full-Auto weapons in Dark Heresy seems to presume that automatic fire is indeed in the form of controlled bursts. The highest RoF we have is 10, which is from a Full Action, ie 5 seconds action. A true, fully automatic weapons could achieve far more than 10 rounds in that time. In fact, most standard issue small arms would completely empty themselves in about 3 seconds if you just pull the trigger on full-auto (presuming a rough average RPM of 600 and an average 30 round magazine). Clearly that is not what Full-Auto represents. It either represents 1 extended burst (probably about a second long), but with a modicum of aiming, or (more likely) a number of short controlled bursts. A single controlled burst is better represented by the semi-auto RoF.

What I don't understand really is the initial errata change, which made it a hit for every degree of success. Every other degree of success seems enough, especially as it guaruntees that most full-auto weapons would probably waste at least some shots. It was good enough as it was, and that change just made it excessively better.

However, from a game balance/options approach the new system makes perfect sense. Full-Auto was just the first choice at all times, especially if you were not having to worry much about the cost of ammo. OK, Single Shot allowed you to move, but the bonuses of Full-Auto just encouraged standing still to get its bonuses (but personally I would put the blame for this on the situation itself, rather than.on the weapon If you have a free-unhindered line of sight, sustained fire is almost certainly the best option. You have to use other methods to encourage players to move). They then introduced the "move AgB metres" to encourage a bit more movement, but it further bit into single shot's utility. Also, unless you either 1) had no full-auto function or 2) were really wanting to conserve ammo, semi-Auto was pointless. It gave you less of a bonus, which you could match with single shot + aim or red-dot sight, and extra shots were less likely to hit than Full-Auto.

Wanting to keep a more mobile game they went the full-hog and made the other shooting options into half-actions. Now people always had an extra half action to use. However, if you remove the penalty (that you couldn't move) for Full-Auto it just becomes even better. However by now making it less likely to hit you can make it less attractive, so there is now a reason to choose the other shooting options Semi-auto is less likely to get bonus hits, but it isn't penalised as much as full-auto. It also means it isn't now the way for non-skilled shooters to compensate for shite BS. Also, now as they are half actions as well, presumably there is less careful control going on (firing the same number of shots in roughly half the time), so at least some reduced chance to hit makes some kind of sense.

However, personally I am still not convinced. Personally I would have kept the bonuses to hit for Full-Auto and Semi-auto, but I might have switched the "bonus hits" system for each of them (ie semi gets it for every degree, auto- for every two degrees). Semi-Auto would become a half action, and so would become the sort of "default" shooting option (barring weapons not having the option or for ammunition conservation), which it should be. I would also change Called-Shot back to a -20 modifier, rather than a full-action of its own (as I just don't see it ever being used now), but I would only allow it with Single Shot.

In order to keep the system as streamlined and playable as possible i am 100% behind the changes FFG have been making as the line of 40k RP books has evolved. Combat is becoming less and less about who has the highest rate of fire and best initiative and more about specialising in differing forms of combat so that a group of characters can adapt to any situation and to breed some good RP among the players.

If one is looking for a more realistic feel to the weaponry there are two systems i know that handle it well...

World Of Darkness (Uses d10s, you have a variable sized pool of dice, numbers of successes are totalled) has single short medium and long bursts of fire. The longer the burst the more ammo you use and the bigger bonus to your dice pool you receive. In this system your ammunition is your limiting factor and why you don't always run around with Mac 10s and micro-uzis blazing away.

Inquisitor (old GW skirmish wargame, used large miniatures and fairly complex combat rules) had a table for weapon ranges and modifiers. Each weapon had a class ranging from A to J and this was cross referenced with how many yards away your target was. This system was wonderful as it meant that your hulking great lascannon and missile launchers were rubbish against targets up close as you just couldn't bring the weapon to aim in time. Conversely if you tried using an auto-pistol at more than about 30 yards and you'd be lucky to hit with even a single round.

So in my mind, short of introducing modifiers on a per-weapon basis, i don't think the current system can be much improved on without weakening other areas of the game.

borithan said:

That wasn't actually a change in the errata, but rather a clarification. The final version of the playtest used the rules as they've been until Black Crusade, but the final version of the manuscript contained erroneous text.

Personally, the one change I make to Black Crusade's Full/Semi Auto rules (and one I lobbied for during development) is to add a +10 for firing a Braced weapon (note, this doesn't benefit people with Bulging Biceps - that talent removes the need to brace to avoid the normal penalty, but doesn't actually make the weapon count as Braced). In essence, it helps distinguish between firing an Autopistol on the move, and setting up a Heavy Stubber on a bipod, and makes things like Suspensors and Terminator Armour more valuable (as they grant the Auto-Stabilised Trait, which makes weapons count as Braced)

Oh, I had heard that before, but even if it was a mistake I don't actually see why they changed it. Ok, I can't remember how quickly they errata'ed it after release (I do remember it being quite prompt) but there were complaints that Full-Auto was too good from quite early on. I wouldn't have been surprised if this had come up in playtesting, and even without actually playing it (just from reading the rules) it seemed to be an obvious best option at almost all times. With this I am surprised they didn't go "Oh, you know what? It may be a mistake, but it's not like it is a dreadful option with the incorrect rules anyway."