Hi fellows,

no, this is not just another thread about complaining about the overpowered full auto rules in Deathwatch. If I did understand it so far, we war all quite happy with the 'new rules' showing up in Black Crusade and afterwards in Only War.

I am now just curios about there new rules, since I do not have the new books and try to follow any changes according to the Black Crusade and Only War Fast Play Rules in the according download section.

If I get it right, the best change was to grant single shot a +10 bonus, semi-burst no bonus and full auto a -10 malus. Furthermore in Black Crusade they changed the semi-burst to be a half-action and in Only War even Full Auto became a half action … well. Is this a misprint in the preview booklet?

So what is the best option currently avaible? Using the rules as offered in Black Crusade in Addition with the 'downgraded' weapon stats from the Errata for Deathwatch?

Best wishes,

TechVoid.

Yes, you have the rules for firing right. Semi-auto is +10, Full Auto is -10, all three kinds of shooting are Half Actions. Errata'd weapons are well done.

You should be fine.

Semi auto is +0. Single shot is +10.

Ah,

thanks for the reply. I think I will stick with the ruling that full auto is a full action. It makes just more sense to me, just looking at the time it takes to fire such an amount of projectiles.

Did they have changed the weapon stats in Black Crusade according to the DW Errata? I mean in Black Crusade you can also play a Space Marine thus they need stats for Astartes Weapons like in DW. How are these weapon stats? Like DW or like the 'downgraded errata stats' ?

I just wonder a bit about these DW errata weapons stats because in following supplements there are new weapons (even from the enemies) and it would be interesting to see how they are meant. According to the DW core rules or the changed errata stats.

I mean, I cannot pay a lot of bucks for a rules update which is published as a new rulebook like Black Crusade or Only War.

Cheers,

TechVoid.

TechVoid said:

The Black Crusade stats are in line with the errataed Deathwatch stats. Oh, and as far as DW itself goes to dealing with weapons? Erm… inconsistent. Some seem to be built presuming the errata stats, and some seem to be buil;t presuming the original stats. You even have it happen in the same book (I can't remember which one it is, but it has stats for player weapons, clearly consistent with the errata stats, and then NPC write ups have the old-pre-errata weapon write ups). This isn't too bad when it is standard weapons (which we have errata stats for), but for new weapons which are not easily comparable it makes it difficult to work out if it has been balanced with the old or new stats.

Honour the Chapter seems to use the errata stats, at least going by the relic bolter which does 1d10+11 damage, which is what a Master Crafted Bolter would do with the errata stats. However, confusingly, a lot of the examples use the pre-errata stats.

Thanks for your very hones answer.

I like the books from FFG about the WH40k Setting very much with all the effort they put into. But slowly I wonder if they could have a closer look at the rules they offer. I am satisfied that they seem to listen to the fans since every new system has some changes which very necessary like the careere free advancement in Black Crusade or the changes to full auto …

… but why are the changes not written down in the Errata. Why do I have to look at Black Crusade if I want some better rules for my Deathwatch Campaign. The rules are nearly all the same like the Talents, Traits and Skills but why no clarification or even changes in the Errata.

Is it cheaper for FFG to publish a new system than updating rules to allready existing system? It seem so, since we are then forced to buy the 'new' (or not so new) Core Rules and are left with alone with the system so far …

… slowly it makes me angry.

Cheers,

TechVoid.

TechVoid said:

Also, not everyone likes the changes made for Black Crusade, and wouldn't want them retroactively applied to the older systems. I include myself in this. Personally I feel the only bit of the new rules that I might want to see ported back are the new Righteous Fury rules.

Personally I am more irritated when they keep copy-pasting the same known rules problems that they have errataed in earlier games into the new ones. The Two-Weapon-Wielder rules were a bit unclear in DH, so they made minor changes and clarifications. However, when it came to RT they just copied the original rules and had to errata those as well . I can't remember if the same applied to Deathwatch, but I have a suspicion it did, meaning another whole load of errata for the same thing. I am fairly sure they did solve that issue for Black Crusade, but the significant changes to the rules opened all sorts of new holes they had to fix elsewhere.

I'm more convinced of the Semi-auto/Full-auto system used by DH,RT, and DW. To me it just makes more sense, because thinking about it, you are just putting that many more bullets towards a target. I don't see how that really makes it so that you shoot "worse" than you do shooting a single shot. Having looked through the BC changes to shooting, I kind of wonder "why?", ESPECIALLY when it comes to using it with older systems. Deathwatch is designed to play a Space Marine who is supposed to be depicted as an amazing threat to enemies and here, by taking this system, you are basically equating their shooting of a heavy weapon, to about that of a guardsman's heavy shooting in Dark Heresy. MAYBE it's because I started playing with Dark Heresy, but it seems non-sensical to apply the new rulings to the older systems.

Azamuki said:

You have it backwards, actually. You point at someone, you pull the trigger; one accurate shot. You hold down the trigger; recoil causes the gun to jump all over the place. They call it "Spray and Pray" for a reason.

Downside to that? Nobody will use Semi-Auto unless that's the best RoF their weapon has. There is literally no reason (aside from ammo concerns) to use a semi-auto burst when full-auto hits more often (once per DoS as opposed ot once per 2 DoS) AND gives a bigger to-hit bonus.

Giving Semi-Auto a to-hit bonus over Full Auto is realistically the only way to make Semi-Auto useful and used. That's before getting into BC changes where you can Overwatch and Suppress with Semi-Auto or even Overwatch with single shot, as opposed to Full Auto only in older systems.

I am sort of convinced that these penalties as applied in DH and OW might be too much, given the lower chargen characteristics, but I'm not sure. I do not feel bad adding it to Deathwatch, given that it's easy for a Devastator to roll against TN 130 under the old rules.

borithan said:

C'mon you cannot be serious. Maybe form a highly theoretical point of view. But do you really expect a WH40k player to simply stick with one product line? I thought this rich universe is a feature not a bug. But with these seperate and 'not-meant-to-use-together-systems' you end up with situations like:

"Let's face the eldar in our next Deathwatch Campaign - there are some stats in the Purge the Unclean DH Adventure. But wait they are not meant to be used since it is a another system. We have to wait until eldar are included in DW in some upcoming book."

"Let's face the Chaos Marine from Black Crusade in our next Dethwatch Campaign because the advantage is on our side. While we shoot them with +20 in Full Auto they simply shoot back with a -10 penalty."

"Let's play include the Grey Knights in our next Deathwatch Campaign but wait - we cannot use them since the Psi System works differently…"

From a pure practical point of view it is just nonsense to not rule them all by one consistent system! I understand that FFG has to sell their books and thus spread the informations in several sourcebooks. And if you started to buy one book from another line then maybe you will buy further books for more fluff - which is okay and I can understand. This is good marketing. But if you pay a lot of money for these (yes, books of high optical and material quality) is it too much to ask for a homogeneous system? Do I always have to consider some adaptions I have to make from one system to another. It is a bit annoying.

Cheers,

TechVoid.

Plushy said:

There is the issue of Semi-Auto burst. My personal idea would be to make Semi-Auto Burst a Half-Action, while leaving full auto-burst a full action (maybe fiddle about with how many DoS give hits as well). Then Semi-Auto Burst becomes the "standard" attack, which kind of reflects reality. Called Shots would have been limited to Single Shot only (but only be a -20 modifier, not a separate Full Action which just isn't worth it 99% of the time).

There have been so many changes to various bits (and FFG seem to have been very keen on changing the system, which is why Black Crusade is such a departure, after they were not so strictly held by previous agreement over the line) that things being fully compatible would be impossible. I personally would regard most of Dark Heresy and Rogue Trader as being compatible. The rules are almost 100% identical, and the stats of things work in a generally consistent manner. However, Deathwatch screwed weapon damages so badly I just don't think it can be combined with the others, especially due to the Damage Reduction and Wound inflation that seems to have occurred to compensate. The errataed weapons are an improvement, but have oddities which make it difficult to use with other games, even Black Crusade (Semi-auto only autoguns for example. Very sensible game balance decision, as it would stop hordes of autogunners taking 3 hours to resolve, but doesn't fit the background at all). Black Crusade… the weapon damages are largely back in kilter with DH and RT (though I am not keen on the whole "Astartes Bolter" thing), but the rules changes really alter some things, and certain things don't do what they were intended to if transposed between the two systems.

TechVoid said:

I think the problem here is that, if they wanted every game line to have the exact same system, they'd still be using the Dark Heresy system. To make everything the same, they wouldn't have been able to make the changes that they've made. Since FFG wasn't the original publisher for Dark Heresy, that means they'd have basically been stuck unable to tinker with the core rules. As it stands, the rules are still reasonably close, and it's not that big of a deal to tweak stats and rules to have everything balance out, like in your first theoretical scenario with the eldar in Deathwatch. For Chaos Marines, stick with the Deathwatch rules if that's what your group is using. Or houserule in the Black Crusade-style rules to Deathwatch, whichever you prefer.

All in all, though, expecting FFG to rewrite/errata entire game lines because they've published another game (such as Black Crusade and all the changes that game has), isn't really fair. To incorporate all of the Black Crusade rules, they'd have to rewrite large sections of Dark Heresy, Rogue Trader, and Deathwatch, playtest them all, make sure they can get all the rewritten sections out to the people who want to use them, and still be publishing new books and material for all of those game lines, in addition to working on Only War. It's just too much work.

From what I can tell, FFG doesn't market their books as "Warhammer 40k RPG books"; rather, they're marketed as "Black Crusade RPG books", or "Deathwatch RPG books." The games are meant to be separate lines, even though they're close-ish in rules. Does material get used across game lines by players? Of course. That doesn't mean that FFG is writing it for all game lines rather than just one. If a product is marked Dark Heresy, it's meant to be used in Dark Heresy.

I bet the new rules are designed to be easy to plug in retroactively. They will probably never be officially implemented as such, because there's plenty of paying work that outweighs time spent on errata balancing, and there's no reason to put out a 2.0 incorporating new and better rules if there's not evidence that it will sell at a profit.

For products with no backward compatibility they sure have a lot of 'Here's how to use this with the other product lines' type of stuff in them.

My issue here is that, unless I have missed something, a character can now, under BC/OW rules, half-move with a heavy bolter and fire it full auto, which was one of the things that balanced the HB before.

I'm also not sure what to do with Bulging Biceps vs. Autostabilized -- they seem to be effectively the same thing.

Azamuki said:

It's much more realistic. Full auto fire in the real world is not accurate at all. You can't aim.

Reports from combat during the Second World War and some of the conflicts afterwards demonstrated that barring a significant difference in training, the number one factor that seemed to determine the victor in firefights was whoever could put out the most lead in the shortest period of time possible. Ok, I wll accept that is "small unit combat" rather than "individual shooter".

One of the main reasons for the introduction of the burst function (or double tapping etc), was because a short accurate burst is actually the most likely way to score a hit. Now, just pointing your gun at the enemy and holding down the trigger isn't going to be very accurate but that is not what Full Auto Burst represents , at least based on the time involved and the number of rounds fired. If it was just 5 seconds of randomly spraying an area then it would used about 5 times as much ammo as it does. Instead, based on the fact that the shooters in the game are actually trained and the small number of rounds involved, it seems to be either one single long controlled burst of a second, or, more likely, several aim short bursts. This kind of fire is much more likely to get a hit over a 5 second period than a single pull of the trigger.

This is indeed very interesting.

borithan said:

And what shall Full Auto represent in your opinion?

Furthermore I often heard the argument that you cannot aim if you just pull the trigger. Why? Because of the recoil? I thought exactly that is to be ignored for Space Marines with their Power Armour and thus Recoil Suppression.

Cheers,

TechVoid.

TechVoid said:

Here is how I interpret the fire rates.

Semi auto fire should be viewed as multiple rapidly aimed shots.

Full auto should be viewed as controlled, aimed, burst fire.

What most people view as full auto is not really represented in game. The closest equivalent would be over-watch or suppressing fire. I think Black Industries chose Semi and Full auto as easily understood terms, but fell short of really defining what they are representing.

You are dealing with trained, professional shooters who know how to control their weapons.

ItsUncertainWho said:

Well this seems to fit with the explanation of one of my group members who has much knowledge in that. He also pointed out that the mechanical option of volley fire is nonsense. A well trained soldier would never just pull the trigger and 'hope' to hit. Single shot or short bursts, that all.

But sometimes I have the impression that it all comes down to the artificial rule restriction of not being able to repeat the same action. If you want to make two single shots, then go for it. If you want to make a well aimed shot, then take one half action for aiming.

If now burst fire is a half action then why not simply allow two semi bursts as half actions. Then you could create another feat, instead of swift attack say swift shooting which grants you an additional semi burst per round. Then this Bolter Drill Talent could be skipped which makes no sense. Why can a weapon fire more bullets per turn if you are better trained? Are you able to pull the trigger tighter?

Furthermore you could skip the RoF Section and say that you can fire a weapon in single shot and give it a value how many bullets per turn can be fired as a burst as a half Action. Depending on the repetition rate of the weapon these are (taking the errata) 2 for the bolt pistol and 3 for the bolter.

Then you could even more reason that a single shot grants a +10 to BS and a fire burst simply nothing but you can fire two bursts per round.

Finally you keep the rules that for every two DoS you get an extra hit.

And furthermore you say the Heavy Bolter has the same burst rate like a normal bolter, namely 3, but the Heavy Bolter gets and extra hit for every one DoS. Give this feature just a new name as weapon quality. Maybe 'rapid fire' or something like that. Since the bullets are fired with such a high repetition rate the target has merely no time to move between the incoming bullets. Thus the chance is higher that more successive bullets hit their target.

Cheers,

TechVoid.

TechVoid said:

Controlled bursts.

The more control you have the more rounds you can shoot with control. When firing in full auto mode, Bolter Drill allows you to squeeze off longer bursts and retain accuracy. Astartes are trained to fire 3 round controlled bursts for accuracy. Highly disciplined shooters can fire more rounds while retaining the same accuracy. It's not that the weapons rate of fire is changing, it's the shooter shooting longer bursts. Any weapon with full auto can be emptied in a second or two by holding down the trigger. An expert shooter can control how many rounds that they fire at any given time.

As much as your answer makes very much sense and sounds very well thought …

… this means that the weapon statistics are meant for Astartes and not meant as a general weapon quality. Which, you must confess, sounds a bit odd.

But okay, given the argument that the game systems are not meant to be interchanged, it is reasonable.

Cheers,

TechVoid.

TechVoid said:

We are in the Deathwatch forum….

Think of the RoF as how everyone is trained to shoot when they earn their Weapon Training skill.

If you prefer, read this sentance instead of the one that mentions Astartes: Everyone is trained to fire 3 round controlled bursts for accuracy.

TechVoid said:

Don't overthink things too much.

ItsUncertainWho said:

You're not,though; the rules are the same for Bob the Adept who has never held a gun in his life.