Under the old rules, every turn you had just one choice to make - either you stood and unloaded the most lead your gun could release at the moment, or you had to move and do a single shot because something about the scene made the former choice ill-advised. This generally locked everyone up in a very static paradigm where anyone was only moving when it was absolutely crucial for their survival, but other than that everyone just stood and shot. Yes, even the guys with single shot only weapons, because why wouldn't you take advantage of the aim action when you're already shafted by your weapon choice? At least this way, you can match the (also shafted) semi-auto guy in accuracy, if not in damage. Meanwhile, the full auto guy was always on top - he either used the only option available at the moment (single shot + move or just move) or he used the best option available in the game.

Hmm...I think that being "locked into a static paradigm" as you put it is self imposed. my players are not the duck and fire types..not saying they don't do it mind you, maybe one or two will do it as another move 'round the target to outflank them or get close enough for a charge into melee range. Dark Heresy's combat is well beyond shooting mooks and ducking behind crates If you or your players always do that, then the party is lacking balanced and is very specialized in my opinion. I'll just put a guy with a couple of grenades or have some sneaky melee character to have'em change their method of doing things and/or exploit their weaknesses...As for taking advantage of the aim action when stuck with single shot? Red-dot laser sight, get to move, shoot and get an aim equivalent bonus to my shot without wasting half action to aim. And really, every player I had with a full auto gun used the full autofire here and there rather than all the time, saving ammo was actually counted, as they did not run around with 10 magazines on their person...3-4 was the magic number.

In the new paradigm, a ton of situational modifiers influence your choices of movement and firing modes, and unless your character is a hardcore shooter, full auto may become so situational, it's not worth bothering.

Again, I lack to see how the new system suddenly makes numerous new options appear. Options, by the way, that were already present when the old system was there. Those restrictions are self-imposed at best, the result of min-maxing at worse.

Kinda like everyone love their two-handed Swords/Axe in D&D, but no one takes the Halberd, despite the brace, tripping and 2 damage type it does, or does damage output the only way to judge a weapon's worth rather than its overall capabilities?

That is when they don't go one handed weapon to get that shield.

You need to move behind cover, do you shoot single or full auto, or maybe semi if the gun allows all three?

That 'added' option to move into cover and fire any of the 3 modes is only there because shooting actions are now half actions, making no real difference between single, semi or full apart from the bonuses.

Right now, that actually depends on your overall BS level, as well as range modifiers and the enemy's evasion ability level and you have to weigh the relatively safe option of landing a single accurate hit (which can be dodged more easily) versus the greater risk and greater reward of spraying him and hoping more bullets connect.

Under the old system, it came to the same really...and greater risk shooting full auto? The only risk you're getting is wasting more bullets and +5% chance of jamming. Not really a whole lot of risk involved.

And sometimes, you're just lucky to catch an enemy in point blank with enough time to aim, in which case you unload like there's no tomorrow - it's a no-brainer under both rulesets.

So you're telling me, under the new system, you'll only got full auto if you happen to be at point blank? So having a +30 for range and a +10 for aiming?...Also aiming on full auto is just another point that the new system is rather lacking.

The risk he's talking about is the risk of missing, which means the enemy might be alive to shoot back. In DH that risk is put on singelshot for some reason. It seems backwards.

Singelshot has the least damage potential and is the easiest to dodge, full auto has the most damage potential and is the most difficult to dodge. Giving full auto +20 makes no sense as it allows full auto an easier time getting several hits in. And I do believe RAW does allow a full auto toting acolyte to move, aim and then next round do a full auto for the added.

If you think this is min maxing then let me tell you, I have had players who have had 0 experience in RPG's before exept computergames pick up on this during character generation, and they're not min maxers it's just such a huge glaring error in gameplay mechanics. It can be worked around, it SHOULD be worked around but rules as written is broken.

It's very simple, actually. DH gives you three options:

Single: lowest accuracy, lowest damage potential, some mobility

Semi: medium accuracy, medium damage potential, no mobility

Full: highest accuracy, highest damage potential, no mobility

It's only logical to use single when having some mobility is an issue, and it's literally never logical to use semi unless there's no option available at the moment to use full. This is regardless of all other tactical considerations. Enemy at short range? great, you'll land even more hits by spraying him. Enemy at long range? Thanks to the magic of full auto, you can still hit him easily, and maybe get an extra hit or two, so why settle for less?

Sniper rifles somewhat boost the usefulness of single shot, as they offer higher damage from a single hit, which may be much welcome when dealing with some creatures. They also remove the mobility out of the equation because they require you also take an aim action.

Contrast BC/OW, where mobility stops being an issue, and the options are following:

Single: highest accuracy, lowest damage potential

Semi: medium accuracy, medium damage potential

Full: lowest accuracy, highest damage potential

Which is the best option? That depends. Do I need to genuinely worry about accuracy? Do I need to move or do I have time to aim carefully? What range am I at? Obviously there's an element of choice involved.

Now, am I saying all you need to do in DH is stand behind a piece of cover and spray full auto? No, I'm definitely not saying that. Sometimes you have to move some distance, or throw a grenade above enemy cover, or set up the situation for the melee specialists to close in and begin whacking. What I'm saying is, whenever you can afford to spend a whole turn in the same place, just shooting at the enemy (and that's still quite often, mind you), full auto is strictly superior to all other choices, and that it obviously limits the number of tactical options available just by virtue of being this much better.

So what I'm saying, Braddoc, it's your players way of doing things that's self-imposed. My players just do what the system rewards them for doing.

EDIT: Also, you completely ignore the tactical value of killing the enemy as soon as possible, which is a big concern, especially in low-key games like DH and OW. Taking damage is much more bothersome than wasting ammo, and dead enemies can't deal damage to you. A team unloading simultaneously with full auto fire under DH rules and killing multiple enemies instantly can reduce the damage taken by the team more significantly than diving for a few points of cover.

So you're telling me, under the new system, you'll only got full auto if you happen to be at point blank? So having a +30 for range and a +10 for aiming?...Also aiming on full auto is just another point that the new system is rather lacking.

You could always Aim and then full-auto, it was just that you couldn't do it in the same turn. Now, this always made it less appealing (and you are getting +20 already), but it was always an option.

The risk he's talking about is the risk of missing, which means the enemy might be alive to shoot back. In DH that risk is put on singelshot for some reason. It seems backwards.

Singelshot has the least damage potential and is the easiest to dodge, full auto has the most damage potential and is the most difficult to dodge. Giving full auto +20 makes no sense as it allows full auto an easier time getting several hits in. And I do believe RAW does allow a full auto toting acolyte to move, aim and then next round do a full auto for the added.

If you think this is min maxing then let me tell you, I have had players who have had 0 experience in RPG's before exept computergames pick up on this during character generation, and they're not min maxers it's just such a huge glaring error in gameplay mechanics. It can be worked around, it SHOULD be worked around but rules as written is broken.

I'll have to re-read DH, because IIRC, aiming actionS cannot be taken with semi/full shooting actions. And yeah, for people who never played it, of course they'll jump on those stacking bonuses, that's a nobrainer. computer RPG experience count as paper RPG experience in my book, as getting a +1 is better than a +0 any day of the week, computer game or not.

It's very simple, actually. DH gives you three options:

Single: lowest accuracy, lowest damage potential, some mobility

Semi: medium accuracy, medium damage potential, no mobility

Full: highest accuracy, highest damage potential, no mobility

It's only logical to use single when having some mobility is an issue, and it's literally never logical to use semi unless there's no option available at the moment to use full. This is regardless of all other tactical considerations. Enemy at short range? great, you'll land even more hits by spraying him. Enemy at long range? Thanks to the magic of full auto, you can still hit him easily, and maybe get an extra hit or two, so why settle for less?

Sniper rifles somewhat boost the usefulness of single shot, as they offer higher damage from a single hit, which may be much welcome when dealing with some creatures. They also remove the mobility out of the equation because they require you also take an aim action.

Contrast BC/OW, where mobility stops being an issue, and the options are following:

Single: highest accuracy, lowest damage potential

Semi: medium accuracy, medium damage potential

Full: lowest accuracy, highest damage potential

Which is the best option? That depends. Do I need to genuinely worry about accuracy? Do I need to move or do I have time to aim carefully? What range am I at? Obviously there's an element of choice involved.

Now, am I saying all you need to do in DH is stand behind a piece of cover and spray full auto? No, I'm definitely not saying that. Sometimes you have to move some distance, or throw a grenade above enemy cover, or set up the situation for the melee specialists to close in and begin whacking. What I'm saying is, whenever you can afford to spend a whole turn in the same place, just shooting at the enemy (and that's still quite often, mind you), full auto is strictly superior to all other choices, and that it obviously limits the number of tactical options available just by virtue of being this much better.

So what I'm saying, Braddoc, it's your players way of doing things that's self-imposed. My players just do what the system rewards them for doing.

EDIT: Also, you completely ignore the tactical value of killing the enemy as soon as possible, which is a big concern, especially in low-key games like DH and OW. Taking damage is much more bothersome than wasting ammo, and dead enemies can't deal damage to you. A team unloading simultaneously with full auto fire under DH rules and killing multiple enemies instantly can reduce the damage taken by the team more significantly than diving for a few points of cover.

Well, two things I felt reading your posts and Ghaundan's.

1-the self-imposed limits my players has are based in role-play. for example, the assassin's stub autos are her former master's who's had a hand in her father's death; The Sollex Tech-Priest believes in the inherent superiority of las wepaonry, due to his cult's 'upbringing'. Doing what the systems rewards them for doing sounds more like roll-play to me. Not saying ti is, but it sounds like it.

2- Dodge is a reaction, and everyone got a single reaction per round. So if the mook ever dodge a single shot, the others are sure to hit him, short of actually missing the shot.

Granted, everoyne using a full atuo gun sounds good, but to me, it sounds like everyone's its own team, just stuck with other one man cell. Team cynergy appears to be a non-issue.

Well, two things I felt reading your posts and Ghaundan's.

1-the self-imposed limits my players has are based in role-play. for example, the assassin's stub autos are her former master's who's had a hand in her father's death; The Sollex Tech-Priest believes in the inherent superiority of las wepaonry, due to his cult's 'upbringing'. Doing what the systems rewards them for doing sounds more like roll-play to me. Not saying ti is, but it sounds like it.

1. This is not a matter of this discussion.

2. All the more reasons for you to cherish the rules that don't make the assassin and the tech-priest shoot themselves in the foot for fluff.

2- Dodge is a reaction, and everyone got a single reaction per round. So if the mook ever dodge a single shot, the others are sure to hit him, short of actually missing the shot.

Meanwhile, shooting full auto decreases the chances of both him dodging and you missing, so again, using full-auto is a no-brainer here.

Also, there are enemies with Step Aside and ridiculously high chances of dodging, and sometimes with rules that allow for even more reactions, or with force fields - in all those cases, taking such a bastard down is much easier with autofire than with trying to deplete his defenses.

Granted, everoyne using a full atuo gun sounds good, but to me, it sounds like everyone's its own team, just stuck with other one man cell. Team cynergy appears to be a non-issue.

In my experience, the prevalence of full auto weapons under the old rules is exactly due to team synergy. We tend to have many characters who are not primary combatants, and in their case, taking an autogun or an autopistol is a surefire way to contribute meaningfully to any combat scene. An Adept with 27 BS can take his trusty stub revolver and keep missing most of the time, or he can take an Orthlack autopistol and keep spraying it for a respectable 47% chance of landing at least one hit, perhaps more. At the very least, he can keep laying down suppressive fire to give his team and advantage and still have a chance (though admittedly minuscule) of hitting someone. The thing is, with all the benefits of autofire, there's really no reason to ever not have that option readily available to your character.

On the other hand, after switching to BC/OW rules, the same Adept is much better off taking an Accurate one-shot pistol and stack up on grenades, as the bonus for hitting with single attacks makes him able to contribute more effectively this way. Likewise, the dedicated melee guy will rather not take an autopistol as a sidearm, at least not until he invests in a few BS advancements to be more of a universal warrior. At the same time, the shooting specialists will neatly take either automatic weapons or sniper rifles, because right now, both options have strong advantages. This easily creates the tactical variance which you seem to confuse with team synergy.

Maybe not the main theme, but it is related: using the system's full auto rule appears to be an automatism on the sheer base that it is the best option is playing the system rather than playing within it...As for shooting themsleves in the foot, it never happened, but there's been a few occasion where they ended up slicing themselves wiht their melee weapons thanks to a horrible critical.

In my experience, the prevalence of full auto weapons under the old rules is exactly due to team synergy. We tend to have many characters who are not primary combatants, and in their case, taking an autogun or an autopistol is a surefire way to contribute meaningfully to any combat scene. An Adept with 27 BS can take his trusty stub revolver and keep missing most of the time, or he can take an Orthlack autopistol and keep spraying it for a respectable 47% chance of landing at least one hit, perhaps more. At the very least, he can keep laying down suppressive fire to give his team and advantage and still have a chance (though admittedly minuscule) of hitting someone. The thing is, with all the benefits of autofire, there's really no reason to ever not have that option readily available to your character.

On the other hand, after switching to BC/OW rules, the same Adept is much better off taking an Accurate one-shot pistol and stack up on grenades, as the bonus for hitting with single attacks makes him able to contribute more effectively this way. Likewise, the dedicated melee guy will rather not take an autopistol as a sidearm, at least not until he invests in a few BS advancements to be more of a universal warrior. At the same time, the shooting specialists will neatly take either automatic weapons or sniper rifles, because right now, both options have strong advantages. This easily creates the tactical variance which you seem to confuse with team synergy.

This is where we got to agree to disagree. Everyone with autoguns was not and is not, prevalent in my groups. Even the adept kept his revoler, only taking a pump-action shotgun as extra. He use range, red-dots and ganging up to get bonuses to hit. He, nor the other acolytes, went with full auto to compensate for their crappy BS. They're not combat careers, they know it, and go about supporting the guardsmen and assassins rather than being 'competition' to them, if you allow the expression.

Granted, if your team went with really non combat careers, like adept, Psyker and Cleric, then yeah, they might go with autogun/pistols to compensate and not be a push over in combat...but that would be like a guardsman trying to handle an aupex or hacking a cog-engine it's not his main reason to be.

Maybe not the main theme, but it is related: using the system's full auto rule appears to be an automatism on the sheer base that it is the best option is playing the system rather than playing within it...

Since apparently nobody ever bothered with it, allow me to do the honors and invite you to join us in the 21st century of roleplaying games, a glorious time where roleplay vs rollplay has been proven to be a false dichotomy and thus swiftly dismissed.

As for shooting themsleves in the foot, it never happened, but there's been a few occasion where they ended up slicing themselves wiht their melee weapons thanks to a horrible critical.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here: Shooting oneself in the foot .

That's what your players are doing for not using full auto whenever possible. That's also what you're doing by sticking to the rules that make them suffer mechanically for their flavorful choices rather than switching to a readily available ruleset that respects their choices and represents them all in a reasonably balanced manner.

This is where we got to agree to disagree. Everyone with autoguns was not and is not, prevalent in my groups. Even the adept kept his revoler, only taking a pump-action shotgun as extra. He use range, red-dots and ganging up to get bonuses to hit. He, nor the other acolytes, went with full auto to compensate for their crappy BS. They're not combat careers, they know it, and go about supporting the guardsmen and assassins rather than being 'competition' to them, if you allow the expression.

Granted, if your team went with really non combat careers, like adept, Psyker and Cleric, then yeah, they might go with autogun/pistols to compensate and not be a push over in combat...but that would be like a guardsman trying to handle an aupex or hacking a cog-engine it's not his main reason to be.

Nobody is truly a noncombatant in the Imperium. There's a reason absolutely every career starts with a weapon or two and some armor: it's an extremely violent world where even common people risk getting caught up in combat quite often, and the Acolytes of the Inquisition, much more so.

In such a world, it's natural that people will look for the means to defend themselves - and in the best way available to them, kinda like people nowadays go with a whole array of state of the art lethal and nonlethal weapons whenever they need to protect themselves, rather than sticking to proven but outdated sticks and stones. Under the rules o DH/RT/DW, that "best way available" is always full auto, full stop. Knowing that, there's no real reason for anyone to not use full-auto weapons whenever possible.

Since you're so proud of yourself and your group "playing within a system", imagine that from a character perspective: You're the frail Adept of the Administratum, forced into the Inquisition by virtue of your superior intellect and knowledge, who suddenly finds himself interacting with the most violent parts of the everyday existence in the Imperium much, much more often than you'd like it. You have a stout Guardsman and a creepy but effective Assassin between you and the world of hurt most of the time, but both your superior intellect and the duo's condescending gazes tell you it's not wise (nor really possible most of the time) to sit fights out and let them do their job. Fortunately, you've been given rudimentary gun training and even issued a revolver upon entering the Imperium's service. So you keep it with you, use it and... find that it really sucks. You can't hit the broad side of a barn reliably, enemies keep ducking out of the harm's way and even when you do finally hit, the effect is negligible compared to what the combat duo is doing. You may go through the motions of helping your team in combat, but it's obvious you're not actually helping much, if at all.

Then, one time, during a shootout with some underhive scum, the Assassin is hurt badly. You rush to help treat her wounds, drop your revolver and start staunching the bleeding. She'll live, maybe, but you've got more problems to worry about as two hivers are closing in on your position. You reach for the autopistol she dropped, squeeze the trigger and - whoa! - the guys are dead, like, really quick. You squeeze the trigger again and take out another bandit harassing the Guardsman nearby. It's beyond questioning that you couldn't have done the same with the revolver, ever.

After this scene, how do you justify not getting your hands on an autopistol and using it as your combat mainstay? Remember, in character for a smart guy who wants to keep himself and his teammates alive.

Maybe not the main theme, but it is related: using the system's full auto rule appears to be an automatism on the sheer base that it is the best option is playing the system rather than playing within it...

Since apparently nobody ever bothered with it, allow me to do the honors and invite you to join us in the 21st century of roleplaying games, a glorious time where roleplay vs rollplay has been proven to be a false dichotomy and thus swiftly dismissed.

I started in the 20th, so I can't comment on that..

As for shooting themsleves in the foot, it never happened, but there's been a few occasion where they ended up slicing themselves wiht their melee weapons thanks to a horrible critical.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here: Shooting oneself in the foot .

That's what your players are doing for not using full auto whenever possible. That's also what you're doing by sticking to the rules that make them suffer mechanically for their flavorful choices rather than switching to a readily available ruleset that respects their choices and represents them all in a reasonably balanced manner.

Ah that expression..I thought you meant it in a "roll a crit fail" kinda way..my mistake!

This is where we got to agree to disagree. Everyone with autoguns was not and is not, prevalent in my groups. Even the adept kept his revoler, only taking a pump-action shotgun as extra. He use range, red-dots and ganging up to get bonuses to hit. He, nor the other acolytes, went with full auto to compensate for their crappy BS. They're not combat careers, they know it, and go about supporting the guardsmen and assassins rather than being 'competition' to them, if you allow the expression.

Granted, if your team went with really non combat careers, like adept, Psyker and Cleric, then yeah, they might go with autogun/pistols to compensate and not be a push over in combat...but that would be like a guardsman trying to handle an aupex or hacking a cog-engine it's not his main reason to be.

Nobody is truly a noncombatant in the Imperium. There's a reason absolutely every career starts with a weapon or two and some armor: it's an extremely violent world where even common people risk getting caught up in combat quite often, and the Acolytes of the Inquisition, much more so.

In such a world, it's natural that people will look for the means to defend themselves - and in the best way available to them, kinda like people nowadays go with a whole array of state of the art lethal and nonlethal weapons whenever they need to protect themselves, rather than sticking to proven but outdated sticks and stones. Under the rules o DH/RT/DW, that "best way available" is always full auto, full stop. Knowing that, there's no real reason for anyone to not use full-auto weapons whenever possible.

Since you're so proud of yourself and your group "playing within a system", imagine that from a character perspective: You're the frail Adept of the Administratum, forced into the Inquisition by virtue of your superior intellect and knowledge, who suddenly finds himself interacting with the most violent parts of the everyday existence in the Imperium much, much more often than you'd like it. You have a stout Guardsman and a creepy but effective Assassin between you and the world of hurt most of the time, but both your superior intellect and the duo's condescending gazes tell you it's not wise (nor really possible most of the time) to sit fights out and let them do their job. Fortunately, you've been given rudimentary gun training and even issued a revolver upon entering the Imperium's service. So you keep it with you, use it and... find that it really sucks. You can't hit the broad side of a barn reliably, enemies keep ducking out of the harm's way and even when you do finally hit, the effect is negligible compared to what the combat duo is doing. You may go through the motions of helping your team in combat, but it's obvious you're not actually helping much, if at all.

Then, one time, during a shootout with some underhive scum, the Assassin is hurt badly. You rush to help treat her wounds, drop your revolver and start staunching the bleeding. She'll live, maybe, but you've got more problems to worry about as two hivers are closing in on your position. You reach for the autopistol she dropped, squeeze the trigger and - whoa! - the guys are dead, like, really quick. You squeeze the trigger again and take out another bandit harassing the Guardsman nearby. It's beyond questioning that you couldn't have done the same with the revolver, ever.

After this scene, how do you justify not getting your hands on an autopistol and using it as your combat mainstay? Remember, in character for a smart guy who wants to keep himself and his teammates alive.

The problem with that scene is that, if I were an adept with a superior intellect stuck with a guardsman and an assassin, couldn't hit the wide side of a barn, and actually know for sure that I'll saw combat, and want to be kept alive alongside his mates, I would do a few things:

1-Actually practice my firearm skill, going beyond what weekend training they gave me when I got press ganged. Smart as I am, I should prepare for the eventuality that the guardsman and assassin won't be around to protect me all the time and that one day, my own survival will rely squarely on my shoulders and my ability with a firearm.. That would be including getting both my cellmates on it, as they are obviously better skilled and experienced as I, gaining their insights, learning their tricks and such.

2-If I'm smart, I would make sure that, if we ever go into combat, we'll always get the upper hand, either with ambushes, kill zones, surprise attacks and so on. I know i would, since i,m bad at it. My partner surely would like it as well, save up on ammo.

Also an aupex, always great to detect people and not get jumped.

3- Let the guardsman/assassin go batcrap crazy first, and let me pick off who's too busy to duck out of their way (in other word, let'em waste their reaction dodging their attack, so they can't dodge mine)

Doing that, I might not even reach the end of your example, having been counseled about an autopistol well before (or any other firearm, like a shotgun, lasgun, autogun etc etc), or being quite competent with my revolver that the only reason to pick that autopistol would be to either get more ammo, throw it at someone or firing it, already knowing its capabilities because I just fired off my last shot the second before.

I was one of the advocates for this new system for standard/semi/full auto, and I'm glad they kept it.

And cudos to you Millandson!

Braddoc, my final word, not because I tire of the discussion but there's nothing left to say for my part, that your group RP's up their characters and do take subpar weaponry as a result of that is great! It's in the spirit of the game and indeed a vital part of the roleplaying experience. Personally I treat the PC's that meta/power game harshly. If their character would so something stupid in the situation they're in, then they should do it!

But the rules do not support it that well, it just doesn't. And rules that don't advocate sticking to the fluff, diversity in character and weaponry while giving the players options with varying risks and rewards are not good rules. You can houserule it and make it so, but that has no bearing on rules as written but the flexibility of pen and paper roleplaying games.

Edit: And thanks for a pleasant, grownup debate.

I guess some people wanted realism in their sci-fi fantasy setting for some reason and yelled loud enough that it happened.... a concept of realism or that Marines are somehow equal to a normal human....

The problem with this frame of mind is twofold.

1: Full auto being overpowered makes single shot weapons utterly pointless. Why bother with snipers, rocket launchers, plasma, etc. when you can do more damage with an autocannon? It does a disservice to all the other weapon types.

2: You can argue that space marines should be more powerful than humans. Yes, they generally should be. That's not the issue, not remotely. The issue is that an astartes bolter or heavy bolter was overwhelmingly superior to all other astartes weapons, including astartes plasma, astartes melta, astartes chainsword, etc. It doesn't make space marines "cool" to have only one weapon (the heavy bolter) be the best weapon for all circumstances. PLUS then there's specialty ammo.

1- Sniper rifles, rocket launchers and plasma gun can be carried and fired by a single person with ease; an autocannon is too heavy and bulky to be carried anywhere without having someone else helping you and dragging the ammo and the tripod around too. Some Also enjoy discretion and subtlety, which is nigh impossible to have with an autocannon.

2-It is a heavy weapon used by a single trooper, using a full action to fire solely in full auto, combined with talents and trait that only the devastator has. 'prety sure it won't be as destructive or badass if a Tac or Assault or Tech-marine uses one, as they lack the specialists talents and trait the Devatator has.

The other weapons you stated are either basic specialist weapons or a melee weapon. That would be saying that the lasgun is OP and unbalanced as it has more range and does more damage than a primitive knife or brass knuckles. As for the bolter, it is the main weapon of the astartes, powerful, flexible, as much a symbol than it is a weapon. I do not see why or how they should equip the marines with anything less than the best..

Ghaundan: No problem for the debate. but I would still argue against your last paragraph; the first section of the book do explain what is a role-playing game, and while it as been quite a while since I read the DH one, but here is a Copy/paste paragraph from the DH beta core (bold added by me for emphasis)

What Is a RolePlayIng game?
A roleplaying game is a storytelling experience in which
the players build a narrative by taking on different roles
in an ongoing adventure. Throughout the course of the
game, the players embark on harrowing journeys, thrilling
investigations, and intense battles. The roleplaying game
presents a set of rules that helps guide this narrative
as it unfolds. In addition to the rules of the game, every
roleplaying game has three key elements: a number of
players (usually four to five players works best), a Game
Master, and an adventure.

Further down, under "Player characters"

[...] During the game, each player chooses the intentions and actions of his character,
making these decisions based on his character’s personality and motivations [..]

As you see, they talk about narrative, the story. The rules are there for the narrative, not to allow players to take the absolute best mechanical way of winning and using it from start to finish. Having less than optimal weaponry (according to most present) is not a weak move, as it has its base motivation in the narrative aspect of the Player characters' background, actions, experience and 'operational procedures' so to speak.

So DH, while it may have some unbalanced weapons and such, is not the main reason to be. Careers are diverse, weapons are different enough to be used in a multitude of situations, and options, risks and rewards are based on the current scene the PCs are in; shooting in melee can be a good thing to help the assassin for example, but you do run the risk of ending peppering your friend rather than the cultists.

This should be the expected number of hits you get with a particualr base to hit and fire mode:

Base
to hit  S    -/2/-  -/3/-  -/-/4  -/-/5  -/-/6  -/-/7+
0.2    0.3    0.2    0.2    0.1    0.1    0.1    0.1
0.3    0.4    0.4    0.4    0.3    0.3    0.3    0.3
0.4    0.5    0.6    0.6    0.6    0.6    0.6    0.6
0.5    0.6    0.8    0.9    1.0    1.0    1.0    1.0
0.6    0.7    1.0    1.2    1.4    1.5    1.5    1.5
0.7    0.8    1.2    1.5    1.8    2.0    2.1    2.1
0.8    0.9    1.4    1.8    2.2    2.5    2.7    2.8

So semi and full auto are marginally more effective when you get to a base to hit of 40%.

The ideal gun looks something like S/2/4 which gets you most of the advantages of semi and autofire without running you of out ammuntition that quickly.

How does it look when you factor in opponents' ability to Dodge?

Just doing the math in my head roughly, I don't think you're practically ever going to hit a genestealer without full auto.

Assuming a genestealer has similar stats to a Wych (Ag 59, Unnatural Agility 3, Dodge +20) you aren't going to hit it with full auto either, since the unnatural agility means that they'll dodge all of the shots you can reasonably be expected to get if they manage to make their dodge roll.

Your best bet are accurate weapons and double teaming the target, as the accurate weapon has both a high chance of generating a base hit, and being a hit hard enough to require the other guy to bother to dodge.

Assuming a genestealer has similar stats to a Wych (Ag 59, Unnatural Agility 3, Dodge +20) you aren't going to hit it with full auto either, since the unnatural agility means that they'll dodge all of the shots you can reasonably be expected to get if they manage to make their dodge roll.

Your best bet are accurate weapons and double teaming the target, as the accurate weapon has both a high chance of generating a base hit, and being a hit hard enough to require the other guy to bother to dodge.

Hmm, looking at the Jerich Reach stats, a Deathwatch Genestealer is much less agile than this Wych! Ag45, UA (x2), Dodge +10.

As you see, they talk about narrative, the story. The rules are there for the narrative, not to allow players to take the absolute best mechanical way of winning and using it from start to finish. Having less than optimal weaponry (according to most present) is not a weak move, as it has its base motivation in the narrative aspect of the Player characters' background, actions, experience and 'operational procedures' so to speak.

So DH, while it may have some unbalanced weapons and such, is not the main reason to be. Careers are diverse, weapons are different enough to be used in a multitude of situations, and options, risks and rewards are based on the current scene the PCs are in; shooting in melee can be a good thing to help the assassin for example, but you do run the risk of ending peppering your friend rather than the cultists.

You keep missing the point. It's cool that your players are willing to shoot themselves in the foot for the sake of style. But you know what'd be cooler? If the game didn't force them to choose between style and effectiveness. It's exactly what the change to autofire rules introduces - a more balanced combat environment where more choices are mechanically valid.

I really like the changes, but I think they might have gone a bit too far on the Autofire mode. As pointed out, it now seems to work well for those with very high BS, or at PB range, but not for grunts, ork boys etc.

In fact during my first session I noticed that Ork Shoota Boys have no mechanical reason to fire full auto at all, as their poor BS means that they can't hit with more than one DoS anyway. So much for "more dakka."

Now this could be fixed by giving the ork Shootas an trait/talent I like to call More Dakka, which gives a +20 on Autofire tests (or something). But rather than add rules, It's generally better to alter them.

Here is a proposal:

Singe shot: Stays the same.

Semi-Auto Mode: +0 BS, one hit for every DoS

Full-Auto Mode: +10 BS, one extra hit for every TWO DoS.

This makes FA just as good as single shot for hitting with that first round (before the recoil kicks in), but after that getting additional shots on the target is harder than with the more controllable SA mode. Full auto mode combined with Aim action makes it as good as it was in DH pre-errata, but unless you have other bonuses it's unlikely to hit with more than 2-3 shots and most of the ammo is wasted.

Comrade stabilized heavy weapons will be terrifying though, as they should be. SA could be very deadly, but the low RoF (2-3) should keep it in check.

How does that sound?

Bad. Reserving effective FA for specialists is the main point on the change - the better shooter you are, the more fire you can reliably put on target.

Orks are supposed to be lousy shots who waste a ton of ammo effectively shooting the air with reckless abandon and ultimately killing their mark with the sheer overwhelming volume of fire, so it's totally working as intended. What you might want to check out is the "give 'em sum dakka" Talent from Rogue Trader which lets an Ork use Suppressive Fire as Half Action.

I really like the changes, but I think they might have gone a bit too far on the Autofire mode. As pointed out, it now seems to work well for those with very high BS, or at PB range, but not for grunts, ork boys etc.

In fact during my first session I noticed that Ork Shoota Boys have no mechanical reason to fire full auto at all, as their poor BS means that they can't hit with more than one DoS anyway. So much for "more dakka."

This used to be my opinion, but then I started to think that "more dakka" could better be represented by loads of Suppressive Fire.

You keep missing the point. It's cool that your players are willing to shoot themselves in the foot for the sake of style. But you know what'd be cooler? If the game didn't force them to choose between style and effectiveness. It's exactly what the change to autofire rules introduces - a more balanced combat environment where more choices are mechanically valid.

I do not see how the game forces players to choose between stryle and effectiveness. Accurate weapon counter balance the full auto fire of automatic weapons, while pistols and other handguns can be hip shot (single shot might I add) in melee. Flamers just **** ignore BS and force your target to roll rather than the shooter.

There IS options, just that for some, it seems that if you cannot use all firing modes out of your autogun with the exact same degree of effectiveness or strength, anytime you want, it is a worthless weapon.

Really, it seems people forget about details like 1 reaction/round, surprise, other curve balls a GM can throw at the players.

The change to the rule only changed the adventage to single shot rather than full auto; not fixing anything, just leaning on the other side.

Whatever, man.

You keep missing the point. It's cool that your players are willing to shoot themselves in the foot for the sake of style. But you know what'd be cooler? If the game didn't force them to choose between style and effectiveness. It's exactly what the change to autofire rules introduces - a more balanced combat environment where more choices are mechanically valid.

I do not see how the game forces players to choose between stryle and effectiveness. Accurate weapon counter balance the full auto fire of automatic weapons, while pistols and other handguns can be hip shot (single shot might I add) in melee. Flamers just **** ignore BS and force your target to roll rather than the shooter.

Accurate is the second best option right after autofire under the old rules, yes. It's also still clearly inferior against enemies with a Reaction left, or an active force field.

Autopistols can be shot in melee as much as stub revolvers can, the difference between them being, one outperforms the other in every other situation.

Flamers are only kinda good against tightly clustered mooks, and if they're that tightly clustered, you can probably take down a few of them with one full auto burst from a high RoF weapon before they enter flamer range.

There IS options, just that for some, it seems that if you cannot use all firing modes out of your autogun with the exact same degree of effectiveness or strength, anytime you want, it is a worthless weapon.

That's a strawman and you know it.

It's a worthless weapon if it is actually worthless, as single shot weapons are in DH next to comparable full auto weapons.

Really, it seems people forget about details like 1 reaction/round, surprise, other curve balls a GM can throw at the players.

I do remember that. It still has no bearing on balance between weapon firing modes.

The change to the rule only changed the adventage to single shot rather than full auto; not fixing anything, just leaning on the other side.

Since full auto is still arguably the superior choice for dedicated shooters, I'm safe to say you're factually wrong here, on top of making an unhelpful claim.

I mean, how do you expect they fix the imbalance without actually rebalancing things?

Anyway, I'm done. It's clear you won't be persuaded, and it's not like I have any business persuading you. I respect your lifestyle choices.

Heh...very well then. I still stand with the facts I gave.

I'm quite satisfied with the old ruleset.

My players are as well.

It is a good ruleset with its advantage and its flaws, like all ruleset

For us, there's no point in changing to the OW system as we prioritise RP over mathhammer statistics.

In the real world, professionals who use weapons actually pick the weapons that they think will be effective in a given context. That is, they base their choice on realworldhammerstatistics.

In the real world, professionals who use weapons actually pick the weapons that they think will be effective in a given context. That is, they base their choice on realworldhammerstatistics.

Who are you telling this to? I am having trouble seeing that.