The Sniper Rifle hits harder than an autocannon? Really?

The Sniper Rifle hits harder than an autocannon? Really?

Its ok, neither of them can kill in one shot! (oh god why?)

Full-Auto is king once again, as consecutive hits will score explosively higher Wounds.

Ugh.

And they've removed bonus damage from the Accurate quality. Wonderful.

I sincerely hope I misread something, but Armoury section just doesn't look right

1. We have a bolt pistol being less deadly than a needler. C'mon, penetration of 2 for bolt weapons? No, really?

2. Robes (you know, this fabric-like thing your average spellcaster wears) has armour of 3 while a light power armour has armour 6? Nevermind the fact that the bolt pistol can't now penetrate a robe...

3. We also have only three damage types now - Energy, Impact and Rending. Personally I was hoping to get Flame as a separate entry, because you know, there IS a difference in how your body reacts to a lightburn and being boiled in flames...

What is really disappointing however is the removal of Explosive damage type. Yes, formally an explosion can still be categorized as one of the (damage types) listed above - but again, the enveloping effects of a blast usually combine the damage types.

Take even the *basic* shrapnel blast for example - first you get the blast impact (I), then the heat wave (E), then you're being shredded by metal shards ( R ). The old Explosive damage type neatly reflected the lethality of just such a damage.

I sincerely hope I misread something, but Armoury section just doesn't look right

1. We have a bolt pistol being less deadly than a needler. C'mon, penetration of 2 for bolt weapons? No, really?

2. Robes (you know, this fabric-like thing your average spellcaster wears) has armour of 3 while a light power armour has armour 6? Nevermind the fact that the bolt pistol can't now penetrate a robe...

3. We also have only three damage types now - Energy, Impact and Rending. Personally I was hoping to get Flame as a separate entry, because you know, there IS a difference in how your body reacts to a lightburn and being boiled in flames...

What is really disappointing however is the removal of Explosive damage type. Yes, formally an explosion can still be categorized as one of the (damage types) listed above - but again, the enveloping effects of a blast usually combine the damage types.

Take even the *basic* shrapnel blast for example - first you get the blast impact (I), then the heat wave (E), then you're being shredded by metal shards ( R ). The old Explosive damage type neatly reflected the lethality of just such a damage.

Considering that Explosive was always the most lethal damage type (consistently killing at lower Critical Damage results than other types), it's weird to see them suffer this nerf.

Hmm,. looking at the new rules, to fire one aimed shot from a sniper rifle takes 4 AP.

To fire one called shot from a sniper rilfe takes 4 AP.

To fire an aimed, called shot takes 5 AP, i.e. not doable.

Called shots used to be free, why now make them pay for it?

By defintion, aiming a rifle is taking your time and lining up an accurate shot, there should be no difference what part you want to shoot.

I should also add the shooter would not be able to Evade as that requires 1 AP in reserve.

Note, that since fractions are rounded up, I'm not seeing anything that says you can't fire a sniper rifle with just 1AP. Yes, some of the specialty attacks (e.g. the stuff that happens out of turn order) may require extra AP to trigger a less than 1RoF weapon, nothing in the attack section says having an RoA of < 1 means it still isn't just 1.

I quote:

Rate of Fire (RoF): Used to determine how many times an
attack is capable of hitting its target. In the common ranged
and melee attack actions, rate of attack is determined by
multiplying the weapon’s rate of fire by the number of action
points spent to perform the action. However, other attack
actions can use different methods to determine rate of attack.
Some weapons have a rate of fire that is a fraction such
as “1/2,” “1/3,” or “1/4.” In these cases, these weapons
cannot be fired unless the action being used to attack
multiplies their RoF above 1. For example, with the basic
Ranged and Melee Attack actions, a weapon with a RoF
of 1/2 would require 2 AP to achieve a rate of attack of
1, and 4 AP to achieve a RoA of 2. If the resulting rate of
attack ever still includes a fraction after the multiplication,
the result is always rounded down. An attack using a RoF

of 1/2 and 3 AP would still only have a rate of attack of 1.
If the character does not spend enough AP to get the RoA of
an attack action over 1, the attack fails.

I see the tradition of having disparities in mechanics between the Gear and Combat chapters has been maintained.

I sincerely hope I misread something, but Armoury section just doesn't look right

1. We have a bolt pistol being less deadly than a needler. C'mon, penetration of 2 for bolt weapons? No, really?

2. Robes (you know, this fabric-like thing your average spellcaster wears) has armour of 3 while a light power armour has armour 6? Nevermind the fact that the bolt pistol can't now penetrate a robe...

WHAT? Bolters, the iconic astartes weapons have pen 2 and robes have armour 3? That makes no sense, and power armour as low as 6 in comparison? That doesn't seem even remotely right.

Nope the Armoury seems strange.

I sincerely hope I misread something, but Armoury section just doesn't look right

1. We have a bolt pistol being less deadly than a needler. C'mon, penetration of 2 for bolt weapons? No, really?

2. Robes (you know, this fabric-like thing your average spellcaster wears) has armour of 3 while a light power armour has armour 6? Nevermind the fact that the bolt pistol can't now penetrate a robe...

WHAT? Bolters, the iconic astartes weapons have pen 2 and robes have armour 3? That makes no sense, and power armour as low as 6 in comparison? That doesn't seem even remotely right.

It gets better. Power Weapons are at Pen 3, as are Melta weapons. The best Pen value in the system is the Eviscerator (which has no special armour-piercings abilities historically) at a whopping... Pen 4.

Basic cloth robes have 3AP on the chest, while a Worker's Coverall has 3AP on the Arms and Legs. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. I made a thread about it.

Yup the Armoury is bad real bad. Im just gonna use the only war Armoury instead and keep the good old weapons rules. They need to scrap the armoury and build a better Version than that.

A melta, that at least in the tabletop can slaughter tanks like no tomorrow has barely enough pen to go through an adepts cloak? Has the person who made the armory any references to either the fluff or tabletop rules? Or hell, even the other game lines and their armouries? I'm fine with changing the numbers, but they have to be relatable to one another.

A melta, that at least in the tabletop can slaughter tanks like no tomorrow has barely enough pen to go through an adepts cloak? Has the person who made the armory any references to either the fluff or tabletop rules? Or hell, even the other game lines and their armouries? I'm fine with changing the numbers, but they have to be relatable to one another.

Flak armour of the sort found on billions of Guardsman, has 4AP on the chest and limbs. A civillian groundcar has 30AP on the Front facing (inexplicably double that of a Chimera APC...)

A meltagun does 2d10+4 damage, Pen 3.

That meltagun both doesn't fully penetrate Flak, and will not deal enough damage to kill someone without the user rolling Righteous Fury.

Someone with a Meltagun needs to be within 15m of a civilian car to activate the Melta quality (which now ignores Armour completely within Half the weapon's listed range, rather than the old double Pen within that same range; odd switch in my eyes) or else he literally cannot inflict any damage to its front facing.

A melta, that at least in the tabletop can slaughter tanks like no tomorrow has barely enough pen to go through an adepts cloak? Has the person who made the armory any references to either the fluff or tabletop rules? Or hell, even the other game lines and their armouries? I'm fine with changing the numbers, but they have to be relatable to one another.

Flak armour of the sort found on billions of Guardsman, has 4AP on the chest and limbs. A civillian groundcar has 30AP on the Front facing (inexplicably double that of a Chimera APC...)

A meltagun does 2d10+4 damage, Pen 3.

That meltagun both doesn't fully penetrate Flak, and will not deal enough damage to kill someone without the user rolling Righteous Fury.

Someone with a Meltagun needs to be within 15m of a civilian car to activate the Melta quality (which now ignores Armour completely within Half the weapon's listed range, rather than the old double Pen within that same range; odd switch in my eyes) or else he literally cannot inflict any damage to its front facing.

Granted I don't play imperial guard, nor am I a major fluff buff but I have some knowledge but this doesn't sound remotely like warhammer 40 melta weapons. I understand certain things have to be changed when it goes over to an RPG but meltas melt talks, against humans they should be overkill.

And I presume you mean can't damage the car on the front facing, what about the chimera?

Honestly, melta should have a bonus to vehicle damage like they have on the tabletop, and at short ranges it should go through power armour like butter.

What about plasma? Has plasma been improved? is it viable compared to other choices?

A melta, that at least in the tabletop can slaughter tanks like no tomorrow has barely enough pen to go through an adepts cloak? Has the person who made the armory any references to either the fluff or tabletop rules? Or hell, even the other game lines and their armouries? I'm fine with changing the numbers, but they have to be relatable to one another.

Flak armour of the sort found on billions of Guardsman, has 4AP on the chest and limbs. A civillian groundcar has 30AP on the Front facing (inexplicably double that of a Chimera APC...)

A meltagun does 2d10+4 damage, Pen 3.

That meltagun both doesn't fully penetrate Flak, and will not deal enough damage to kill someone without the user rolling Righteous Fury.

Someone with a Meltagun needs to be within 15m of a civilian car to activate the Melta quality (which now ignores Armour completely within Half the weapon's listed range, rather than the old double Pen within that same range; odd switch in my eyes) or else he literally cannot inflict any damage to its front facing.

Granted I don't play imperial guard, nor am I a major fluff buff but I have some knowledge but this doesn't sound remotely like warhammer 40 melta weapons. I understand certain things have to be changed when it goes over to an RPG but meltas melt talks, against humans they should be overkill.

And I presume you mean can't damage the car on the front facing, what about the chimera?

Honestly, melta should have a bonus to vehicle damage like they have on the tabletop, and at short ranges it should go through power armour like butter.

What about plasma? Has plasma been improved? is it viable compared to other choices?

The car has better armor than the Chimera. The Chimera has 16 armour on the front facing.

You are correct in assuming melta, "capable of turning a Space Marine in full Terminator Armour into a pile of slag," should have a Pen value higher than Guardsman's flak.

Plasma lost its old Maximal quality and is left with the dinky Overload, allowing you to spend 2 ammo per shot for an extra +2 damage. A Plasma Gun does 1d10+12, Pen 2. Compare to Only War's Plasma Gun: 1d10+7, Pen 6 (if fired on Maximal, it became 2d10+7 Pen 8).

The clip for the Plasma Gun went from 40 to just 6. It does reload twice as fast, however.

Nerfs all around!

Who would have tought plasma needed a nerf, I suppose i wasn't unused enough.

So the melta can pierce a chimera but not a car? Wow, wonder what the PDF actually does when a world goes in revolt.

Do the rules have anything compared to Felling from BC/OW?

Also, noticed your signature. do you have a link to the conversion?

Who would have tought plasma needed a nerf, I suppose i wasn't unused enough.

So the melta can pierce a chimera but not a car? Wow, wonder what the PDF actually does when a world goes in revolt.

Do the rules have anything compared to Felling from BC/OW?

Also, noticed your signature. do you have a link to the conversion?

Felling (X) still exists, yet the X value seems to do nothing. Felling now halves the TB of the target for the purposes of reducing damage. (So TB4 would only reduce 2 damage).

Needle weapons, Hunting Lances, and Amputator Rounds all have Felling. Sniper Rifles appear to have lost it.

Here you are! http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/73935-dark-heresy-2e-conversion-peach/

Called shots used to be free, why now make them pay for it?

Since Deathwatch (and maybe ROgue Trader) Called Shots were changed to their own Full-Round Action, rather than just being a -20 penalty. They seem to have wanted to continue making Called Shot's harder with this version then, However, that change made Called Shots terrible (particularly in Black Crusade and Only War, where standard shots were +10, and all attack actions were otherwise half actions).

I see the tradition of having disparities in mechanics between the Gear and Combat chapters has been maintained.

Of course there will be. It is an FFG game, and to make matters worse it originated from a game developed by GW, the two worst major games companies for rules inconsistencies and proof reading.

What is interesting, is called shot is at least now immensely more useful since any given wound will result in some location based condition.

A melta, that at least in the tabletop can slaughter tanks like no tomorrow has barely enough pen to go through an adepts cloak? Has the person who made the armory any references to either the fluff or tabletop rules? Or hell, even the other game lines and their armouries? I'm fine with changing the numbers, but they have to be relatable to one another.

Thanks the Emperor I didn't buy the beta rules. What were the writers thinking? And what about the testers, for that matter?

A melta, that at least in the tabletop can slaughter tanks like no tomorrow has barely enough pen to go through an adepts cloak? Has the person who made the armory any references to either the fluff or tabletop rules? Or hell, even the other game lines and their armouries? I'm fine with changing the numbers, but they have to be relatable to one another.

Thanks the Emperor I didn't buy the beta rules. What were the writers thinking? And what about the testers, for that matter?

I think when you realize just how amazing the "no armour" of the new melta quality is its not quite as bad.

Anyway, as an aside, how do people interpret the interaction between amputator rounds (gives felling, which halves TB on defence) and Eye of Vengence (gives bonus damage equal to the defence score of the target).

If Eye of Vengence's bonus damage is modified by Felling, then it makes the two essentially incompatible, or at least, no bonus for using both. It actually makes it better for a sniper to use expander rounds (-1 damage, but +2 pen) with Eye of Vengence, as at least then they get one more effective damage in.

Anyway, as an aside, how do people interpret the interaction between amputator rounds (gives felling, which halves TB on defence) and Eye of Vengence (gives bonus damage equal to the defence score of the target).

If Eye of Vengence's bonus damage is modified by Felling, then it makes the two essentially incompatible, or at least, no bonus for using both. It actually makes it better for a sniper to use expander rounds (-1 damage, but +2 pen) with Eye of Vengence, as at least then they get one more effective damage in.

Why do you think that amputator rounds and Eye of Vengeance wouldn't stack? The way I read it, Eye of Vengeance would add bonus damage first, and then when comparing the total damage to the enemy's defense, the amputator rounds' effects would come into play.