I would like to see Auto-fire become a "ranked" quality, requiring a specific amount of Advantage to activate, similar to the way different weapons have different Critical Ratings. Different weapons have different fire rates, after all. I think this would kill several birds with one stone.

First and foremost, I thoroughly disagree with the +1 Difficulty die for attempting auto-fire. I agree that it shouldn't be easy to score multiple hits, but this is not the way. It makes no sense that I am less likely to hit even once if I fire multiple shots. The first bullet out of a gun is never affected by the fire mode selection. Only subsequent bullets can be affected by recoil at all. If the target is in my sights, pulling the trigger will result in at least one hit regardless of how many additional shots the gun fires. This is even ignoring the fact that the average real-world gun capable of auto-fire doesn't begin to experience any significant recoil until after several bullets have already exited the barrel. Increasing the amount of Advantage required to score an extra hit would go a long way in controlling the uberness of Auto-fire, so the +1 Difficulty nerf would no longer be required for balance purposes.

The binary nature of fire rates has also put a damper on the variety of weapons the book offers. The way the weapons table currently works is that only the Big Guns™ have Auto-fire at all. There is no equivalent of a SMG in the book. There is no equivalent of a bolt-action sniper rifle either, since the closest thing (Heavy Blaster Rifle) has Auto-fire and is vastly more effective when auto-firing than when trying to score a single good hit. It plays more like an assault rifle in this regard. I initially planned to play an Assassin, but when I saw the weapons I said "screw this" and went with Gadgeteer instead. Varying the Auto-fire thresholds would allow for a lot more variety in the weapons.

The added difficulty is not the act of the first shot but the fact that it needs to keep the player from being over powered with a deadly weapon. there are ways to reduce difficulty on weapons with attachments however this is why the rule was placed in to begin with. Perhaps the reason for the added difficulty is the nature of how the gun is made that makes it harder to hit with. like less than accurate sights, bulk making it unwieldy or just a spool up time a split second slower than what a normal blaster would be near instant with a shot.

Tassedar said:

I addressed this issue in my first post. It is an obvious nerf for the sake of nerfing. There are logical and realistic ways to nerf Auto-fire, so this illogical and unrealistic way is a bad choice.

Tassedar said:

I read that it was once kind of uber, but other than that I am not familiar with the history of Auto-fire nerfing. What is the connection between attachments and Auto-fire? The only attachments that reduce difficulty that I know of are the foregrip (which only undoes the penalty that Ranged [Heavy] weapons get at Engaged range) and the telescopic sight (which only undoes the added difficulty of Long range.) I know of no attachment that reduces difficulty flat out or that reduces difficulty for Auto-fire specifically.

Tassedar said:

That could make sense if the weapon were only capable of auto-fire, or if those same penalties applied to single-shot fire as well. However, it makes no sense if penalties based on a weapon's design apply to Auto-fire but not single shots. A minigun-style rotary blaster still has to spool up even if you take your finger off the trigger in between shots.

to your second point.

This is just some of the ways you can make it easier not completly but in some ways its possible to lower difficulty. They nerfed autofire much like they nerfed lightsabers one could simply dominate another player or npc's with a certain weapon. the game must have a challenge so that is why i believe the nerf went in.

Just simply put using a powerfull weapon comes with a drawback the same way everything else in the game is made to be balanced so that it works and not one thing makes you a min maxer however i do think you can find ways in the game to do so. The game is about having fun and if your gm and fellow players find your reasoning plausible then a house rule or a weapon can be made for your tastes and you can enjoy playing the game. But if you are posting hopeing to find people that support your views and back up reasoning to show to the group to say "SEE people agree with me" then i may be your worst enemy here. My suggestion is to really look over your character what skills and manuvers are available to make your character shine and use good roleplay.

As a gm however I have given(made available for purchase) my players nice weapons that are not in the beta book and we use the freebooters guide as well. So I do encourage gm's and players to find ways to personalize their characters.

I did not come here to gather the support of random people on the internet to convince my playgroup. I did not come here for your somewhat patronizing advice either, however well-intentioned it might have been. I came here to provide feedback on a beta product. I don't have a problem with my playgroup and I'm perfectly aware of how to have fun. I just think the rules are wrong.

Every time you make a house rule, you're basically stating that there is a problem with the RAW. The perfect game needs no house rules. Since this is a beta product, I'd assume that the makers would be interested in hearing about your problems.

I think that what is one person's "perfect game" is not another's. What is seen as a problem to one, is not a problem to another. It's most often a matter of opinions and not easily right vs. wrong.

Well looks like you dont like anything unless it agrees with your point however.

Xyx said:

A) Autofire is a "ranked" quality. It takes Advantage to activate each extra hit.

B) Not sure what physics you're talking about, but having fired real weapons, they do experience recoil from the first shot fired. What you're probably dealing with is either better modified weapons, or more experienced shooters who can better compensate for the coming recoil. Which in EotE would be a character with higher skill who has a better chance of getting more advantage to activate more hits. A less experienced person is probably going to either not anticipate the kick, or over anticipate. So, from that perspective the +1 Difficulty, again, makes sense.

There's no SMGs in the books… just as there are no SMGs shown in the Canon.

I think hes talking about the first shot being difficulty increased regardless if he attempts a 2nd autofire shot but my stance on the matter stays the same.

Tassedar said:

Huh?

I did not even express my point. I was just explaining that you two may not be agreeing since you have completely different views on how autofire should be modeled. Either of you could be right in your own viewpoint.

Are you confusing me with Xyx?

Ok since I got berated for making a point when I didn't actually make one, I guess I will contribute my point.

I agree with both sides of this argument in some way. I have a large amount of weapons experience including full-auto and burst weapons of varying sizes. I agree of the notion of that first shot not being affected by recoil, but the later shots are (and much more so then when firing single fire). But, what EotE is modeling here are two different modes of fire. The normal, single shot mode, represents someone snapping off a quick shot at a target without aiming. If I use Aim maneuvers, it represents me taking the time to sight down my weapon, exhale, slowly squeeze the trigger, for a bonus die to hit. Auto-Fire represents firing a burst of shots at a target or targets hoping for a hit. The proverbial spray and pray. When you fire a burst of fire at an enemy, this rarely involves a slow aiming process, it's a quick burst. Ask any soldier if (in general) burst fire is considered as accurate as single shot fire and they will say no. So, +1 Difficulty. Yes it appears by the rules you could use Aim to lessen some of that difficulty to represent a slow, deliberate burst. In fact using 2 Aims would pretty much offset the +1 Difficulty, to represent one viewpoint.

Think of it the right way, both sides win.

Kallabecca said:

Sturn said:

Whether an attack is quick and dirty or slow and deliberate is a deliberate choice that is already covered by the Aim maneuver, regardless of the number of shots fired in the attack.

Sturn said:

If burst fire lessened their chances to land even a single hit, then why would soldiers use it at all?

I think what everbody is forgetting is that it is already pretty hard to land multiple shots even without that +1 Difficulty. Not only do you have to roll a Success for the first hit, you also have to roll a bunch of Advantage for the second hit. It's also unlikely that you'll score any Critical Hits when auto-firing, since you're presumably using up all your Advantage on extra hits. Not that I wouldn't be happy to trade a crit for an extra hit, but it goes to show that those extra hits still wouldn't be free even without that +1 Difficulty.

Sturn said:

crunching the numbers…

108 (37.5%) of those permutations add 1 or more successes. 41 (14.24%) cost no successes and add 2 A or more. 171 of 288 (59%) do no harm.

10 (20.83%) of these permutations add 1 success, 19 (39.58%) of them do no harm. Only 1 adds an autofire hit (+2S) without costing successes (and damage)