This was a problem in pre-Black Crusade game lines, as Full Auto gave bonuses to hit and extra hits per turn. With the revision that gave it a penalty, and a much-needed upgrade to the Accurate special quality (granting it bonus damage), things became better for Single Shot.

This is no longer the case. As Wounds are no longer a hit point system, and mooks don't simply die at 0, damage is now tracked via progression on a lengthy chart of effects. Hitting a target who has already been hit grants a +5 on this chart.

As such, Full-Auto will be popular. Assuming you hit twice, the first shot will grant the second one a +5 bonus to the chart result. Further hit will most likely kill the target in one burst.

Conversely, a Sniper Rifle is incapable of killing someone in a single hit. Let's say our Sniper Takes aim and hits some poor sod right between the eyes. Even if the target is a normal human being not wearing armor, this hit will not kill him. Unless the hit scores Righteous Fury, the best result the sniper can hope for is a 20 on the Impact - Head table, which is not only non-lethal, but it doesn't even inflict Blood Loss! There is no way to kill someone by shooting them once in the head!

This is absurd!

With the rules-as-written, an elderly Administratum Clerk shot in the skull with a sniper rifle will be stunned for ten seconds, then shake his head and walk it off.

I hope you can see this issue with this.

Remember, this is a Beta release, they want us to pick it apart. It's probably just an oversight. I'm hoping they fix the grammatical errors at least, I've only skimmed over it, but I've noticed plenty already.

I think they should put back the extra damage on accurate weapons, it makes more sense.

Thank you, Surgeon, for that helpful reminder. I was honestly beginning to despair.

"Oh, these guys are being too mean!"

"Oh, this game's gonna be unplayable!"

"Oh, why did I spend that money!?"

You put it all back into perspective for me. Thanks.

Thank you, Surgeon, for that helpful reminder. I was honestly beginning to despair.

"Oh, these guys are being too mean!"

"Oh, this game's gonna be unplayable!"

"Oh, why did I spend that money!?"

You put it all back into perspective for me. Thanks.

Twenty dollars to laugh at a horrid mess of game design before going back to Only War.

Point taken.

Thank you, Surgeon, for that helpful reminder. I was honestly beginning to despair.

"Oh, these guys are being too mean!"

"Oh, this game's gonna be unplayable!"

"Oh, why did I spend that money!?"

You put it all back into perspective for me. Thanks.

Twenty dollars to laugh at a horrid mess of game design before going back to Only War.

Or we could just do this instead of, y'know, bug-testing. Flat denial makes everything better, especially game design!

Thank you, Surgeon, for that helpful reminder. I was honestly beginning to despair.

"Oh, these guys are being too mean!"

"Oh, this game's gonna be unplayable!"

"Oh, why did I spend that money!?"

You put it all back into perspective for me. Thanks.

Twenty dollars to laugh at a horrid mess of game design before going back to Only War.

Or we could just do this instead of, y'know, bug-testing. Flat denial makes everything better, especially game design!

This forum is currently full of threads where I explain issues with the system. I'm helping.

I know, I'm sorry dude. You just kinda caught me off guard there and I got mad for some reason. Carry on, ignore me!

Coming back to the Full Auto question, what do people think can be done to bring it back in line?

It seems (in a vacuum at least, having not actually run through a combat yet) that the way the different weapon classes work doesn't look too bad (at least now the +20 is gone from full auto), it seems that the wound system is at fault here.

Would something as simple as saying only damage (after armour and toughness) higher than the number of wounds the character has causes another wound. It would make scratching an opponent to death slightly harder (and is a rather poor sounding rule, but you get the essence of what I'm trying to do).

No. you can't do that. Read example on page 209. All wounds in attack are resolved simultaneously, so there is no +5 for additional wounds. So you can only get 1 wound per attack.

I don't believe it's right to say you can only get 1 wound per attack. Pg 203 days,

"At the end of a successful attack, the attacker determines

Also, the example you point to even says that the character gets two wounds at the end of the 3 hit attack.

I see what you mean though that wound aren't applied until all the hits are resolved, so don't effect hits within the same attack.

No. you can't do that. Read example on page 209. All wounds in attack are resolved simultaneously, so there is no +5 for additional wounds. So you can only get 1 wound per attack.

I don't believe it's right to say you can only get 1 wound per attack. Pg 203 days,

"At the end of a successful attack, the attacker determines

whether or not each hit caused a wound, and applies any

conditions or effects caused by the attack."

Also, the example you point to even says that the character gets two wounds at the end of the 3 hit attack.

I see what you mean though that wound aren't applied until all the hits are resolved, so don't effect hits within the same attack.

Considering that the wording on Full Auto usually describes them as "extra hits," it makes sense to see each one as a separate wound.

So does full-auto actually add +5 for each extra hit?

Assuming you hit three times, dealing 1 damage past armor and and toughness, do you...

Check #1[Original wound], then 7 [1 + (1 + 5)], then 13 [1 + (1 + 5) + (1+10)] on the table, applying all three effects?

Or, if the hits are in a different location, then 1 + 1 + 1 on each, three separate locations, so no effect from the attack?

So does full-auto actually add +5 for each extra hit?

Assuming you hit three times, dealing 1 damage past armor and and toughness, do you...

Check #1[Original wound], then 7 [1 + (1 + 5)], then 13 [1 + (1 + 5) + (1+10)] on the table, applying all three effects?

Or, if the hits are in a different location, then 1 + 1 + 1 on each, three separate locations, so no effect from the attack?

The last ons is correct, no effect.

However, next round you have +15 on each wound check.

Apologies, I forgot to mention that in the first example, all hits are to the same location.

So it would be 1-1-1, and the next hit at +15, regardless of where the attack hit?

It looks like it's kind of a bit of both. You apply each hit and work out which wound it would cause.

So in your example, 3 hits of 1 damage each, 3 wound chart effects of 1 (basically nothing). However, the character is now wounded 3 times, so any future attacks will have +15 (5 for each wound) applied to the wound effect.

So, the next attack doing the same would cause 3 wound chart effects of 16 (pretty nasty but not dead). The character is now wounded 6 times and basically dead on the next damaging attack.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but that does seem to be the way it's worded.

I'm afraid I see it as:

First hits for 1 on the chart.

Second hits for 1+5 on the chart.

Third hits for 1+5+5 on the chart.

Or am I crazy?

I'm afraid I see it as:

First hits for 1 on the chart.

Second hits for 1+5 on the chart.

Third hits for 1+5+5 on the chart.

Or am I crazy?

It's not brilliantly clear. The only thing to go on so far is on p209 in the example box it says:-

"Note that all the wounds in this attack are resolved simultaneously, so

Whether this is the intended rule or a mistake in the example I don't know though.

I'm afraid I see it as:

First hits for 1 on the chart.

Second hits for 1+5 on the chart.

Third hits for 1+5+5 on the chart.

Or am I crazy?

It's not brilliantly clear. The only thing to go on so far is on p209 in the example box it says:-

"Note that all the wounds in this attack are resolved simultaneously, so

there is no +5 for this second wound, but this will be added the

next time he is wounded."

Whether this is the intended rule or a mistake in the example I don't know though.

Ah, cool, got it!

p. 207

"To determine the wound effect, the

character takes the total damage dealt by the hit (damage

value minus defence value) and adds modifiers for each

wounds he was suffering from prior to the attack:"

Emphasis mine. This is stating that for any given attack you don't get the wound effect bonus from wounds generated by that attack, but rather only from the ones the target had before being attacked.

Cool, this at least helps against the fears we have on high RoF. Doesn't completely allievate them though. Sure, an auto-pistol won't now outright murder you, but it will leave you with a pile of conditions/wounds, which will kill you the next time you're hit.

I'm afraid I see it as:

First hits for 1 on the chart.

Second hits for 1+5 on the chart.

Third hits for 1+5+5 on the chart.

Or am I crazy?

It's not brilliantly clear. The only thing to go on so far is on p209 in the example box it says:-

"Note that all the wounds in this attack are resolved simultaneously, so

there is no +5 for this second wound, but this will be added the

next time he is wounded."

Whether this is the intended rule or a mistake in the example I don't know though.

Ah, cool, got it!

p. 207

"To determine the wound effect, the

character takes the total damage dealt by the hit (damage

value minus defence value) and adds modifiers for each

wounds he was suffering from prior to the attack:"

Emphasis mine. This is stating that for any given attack you don't get the wound effect bonus from wounds generated by that attack, but rather only from the ones the target had before being attacked.

Cool, this at least helps against the fears we have on high RoF. Doesn't completely allievate them though. Sure, an auto-pistol won't now outright murder you, but it will leave you with a pile of conditions/wounds, which will kill you the next time you're hit.

Nice one, thanks for finding the actual rule for this.

Yeah, I feel better about high RoF stuff now too knowing this. At least you've got the option to hide or run away if you get to that many wounds (although possible blind, limping and prone at the time).

I'm apologizing in advance becuase I still don't have a rulebook in hands (it's a matter of hours, though) and can't refer to exact wording. I still think that logically it would be right to count previous wounds from autoburst for calculating bonuses. This makes mechanics more smooth IMHO. It's strange how a person hit with a three bullets can go away with no effects from burst.

Also I want to refer to a real life where a burst from auto-pistol will easily throw you overboard. So I'd likely concentrate on fixing sniper rifle damage instead of nerfing autofire. Bursts kill in real life and DH was never forgiving to it's characters.

You do suffer from each of the,say, two bullets you take on this turn -- each of them is a wound that conveys some effect "right now." But the first hit does not count as a wound for the purposes of calculating the wound effect of the second hit of the same attack. But if you do get hit by both then both count as discrete wounds for calculating wound effect the next time you are successfully attacked.

Seems like, regardless of how it is, the rules have to be clarified at least as it seems to be unclear as to how it works when it comes to wounding.

I don't think it's unclear.

The relevant categories are hits and attacks.

More than one hit can result from a single attack. A hit does not count as a wound for calculating the wound effect of other hits from that same attack. Hits from subsequent attacks do count as wounds for that purpose, however, even if they were the results of the same prior attack.

So a cultist shoots at me and hits me twice. Then a CSM also shoots at me and hits me two more times. When I calculate the wound effect of the two hits the CSM got, I add +10 to the damage of each hit because I took two wounds (at +5 each) from the cultist. But I don't add a further +5 (+15 overall), representing the CSM's first hit, when I calculate the wound effect of his second hit.

But it still shows a problem inherent in the system. The severity of the wounds are often negible but the fact that it's a wound however counts. For instance, if a guy firing his autogun on full auto scores 3 hits, do 3 minor wounds the next guy will have a HUGE bonus to wounding compared to one "harder" shot.

There should be a balance factor in terms of how bad the wounds are and not simply a wound. Suddenly papercuts turn into arteries bursting open, while a sniperround to the head causes severe bleeding but not braind damage.