Currently, I have the strong feeling, that automatic fire (RoA > 1) is too strong and outplaces called shots, single shots or simple RoA 1 shots by far.

This is not only to the chance to hit multiple times and inflict multiple wounds with one attack, but even more with the multiple chance to get righteous fury and strike critical hits.

This are the reasons, why I feel that this is a huge balance-killer here and most people will always tend to use high-RoF weapons with high RoA application.

In previous systems, auomatic fire always had the drawback to make jams more likely, which was a good method to make you think about it a second time. It was a good concept and worked well, though it did not differ between short barrages and large barrages.

So, why not increase the chance for weapon Jams by X%, where X is defined by the RoA over 1.

Example: I fire with a weapon that has RoF2 with using 2AP

--> 2*2= RoA 4 --> thats 3 more than 1 and leads to 96%-3%=93% chance of a Jam

So up to a RoA of 6, it is still not a harder penalty than in DH1, below this, it is softer, above harder.

And it is only logical that more bullets also mean a higher chance of jams.

It might sound a little too complicated for some of the "narrative"-boyz as usual, but it is not a big deal. RoA over 1 is seen quite clearly and only has to be subtracted from the usual 96.

Honestly, I think people worrying about full auto are worrying needlessly. As far as I can see from some quick and dirty number running, it plays out like this;

High RoF weapons tend to have lower damage than more single shot oriented equivalents. This means that, while they do hit MORE, their chance of actually breaking DV isn't always stellar. This basically leads to a situation where higher RoF weapons have potential to cause more wounding hits, but also have potential to do absolutely nothing. It's a risk vs reward situation for sure.

With higher damaging, lower RoF weapons, you're much more likely (often guaranteed) to score a wounding hit. This is especially true of well defended enemies, which means basically it becomes a matter of slower weapons being the go-to for protected enemies, and high RoF ones being your best option for weaker, lightly armoured enemies. This seems like a good balance to me.

I'm not opposed to your idea though, although I think the math is a little cumbersome. I just think people need to take a real critical look at how damage, RoF, DV and the wounding system actually works before claiming automatic weapons are 'better'.

I very mildly disagree with the premise, but do so because I believe the issue with the multiple hits right now is more the erroneous "each previous wound is a +5" system currently given to the game, whereas autofire could be a straightforward and simple "less killy, more debilitating" choice for some weapon types.

That said; I'd simplify it in the following fashion: With a chart.

Single Shot: 98-00

RoF 1: 96-00

RoF >1: 94-00

Each additional AP spent on RoF >1: -2%

Reliable: +5%

Unreliable: -5%

So, a Reliable weapon never jams unless cycling shots at a ridiculous pace.

Single Shot weapons are very unlikely to screw up, and if reliable even a poor quality one won't jam.

Standard RoF 1s [as in, upgrades/powers/etc whetever could bring this higher] are the normal setup, and reliable ones don't jam.

RoF 2+ jams 7% of the time, +2% per AP spent. Generally this means a flat 10% chance for 3APs, since folks tend not to want to use all four.

So, a poor quality un-reliable autogun spending 3AP on firing is looking at jamming on 85 or higher.

If you ask me the real problem with rate of fire at the moment has nothing to do with guns. If your S 78 lightning-attacker is swinging his sword with an agility of 91 7+ times per turn with no risk of accidentally letting the thing slip out of hand, things are just plain strange.

Problem with the new wound system is, that 1 damage which breaks defence, is already enough to cause a wound.

So, autopistol aside, most weapons with high RoF are perfectly able to deal at least 1 damage to inflict their wound and therefore easily become wound-monsters.

Thats ok, but should be balanced by a higher Jam-%

Even aside the balance-thoughts, it is just much more logical, that firing in high speed several bullets is much more likely to make your weapon jam.

I mam even open to an upper limit of penalty, lets say 91+%, but I definitely am against using the same % for 1 bullet as for several.

As I said, even all previous publications dealt with this differently, why not now ?

This belongs to one of those changes, that really made things worse rather than better, alongside with missing range modifiers, skipped grappling rules and lost sniper rules with accurate.

Change for the sake of change is not good.

I very mildly disagree with the premise, but do so because I believe the issue with the multiple hits right now is more the erroneous "each previous wound is a +5" system currently given to the game, whereas autofire could be a straightforward and simple "less killy, more debilitating" choice for some weapon types.

That said; I'd simplify it in the following fashion: With a chart.

Single Shot: 98-00

RoF 1: 96-00

RoF >1: 94-00

Each additional AP spent on RoF >1: -2%

Reliable: +5%

Unreliable: -5%

So, a Reliable weapon never jams unless cycling shots at a ridiculous pace.

Single Shot weapons are very unlikely to screw up, and if reliable even a poor quality one won't jam.

Standard RoF 1s [as in, upgrades/powers/etc whetever could bring this higher] are the normal setup, and reliable ones don't jam.

RoF 2+ jams 7% of the time, +2% per AP spent. Generally this means a flat 10% chance for 3APs, since folks tend not to want to use all four.

So, a poor quality un-reliable autogun spending 3AP on firing is looking at jamming on 85 or higher.

If you ask me the real problem with rate of fire at the moment has nothing to do with guns. If your S 78 lightning-attacker is swinging his sword with an agility of 91 7+ times per turn with no risk of accidentally letting the thing slip out of hand, things are just plain strange.

Thats a very good concept.

I would second my own one to yours indeed.

Have you actually looked at the numbers and done the maths on how these factors relate though, Gaunt? I get that you have the feeling that full auto weapons are more appetizing; I did too, originally, but after looking at the numbers, it seems a lot less black and white.

Nimsim ran the numbers a while ago, and found something similar to what I'm trying to say. Albiet, those tests were with the pre-errata values, but if anything they show that you can easily balance low RoF vs high RoF weapons using raw damage output.

Dont try to counter it with situational examples.

Varying the variables (armour, toughness, damage values of the weapons in comparison) can create a lot of different outcomes.

If you use an autogun and make:

a.) a automatic shot with 2AP

or

b.) a called shot (also 2 AP) with 1 bullet

which one is better ?

Yeah - no long time needed to evaluate that.

As long as there is no real decision to be made, it is not balanced.

Of course there are weapons which need to be better for a certain application than another (an autogun therefore is generally better for automatic shots), but the current state of balance is ridiculous.

Making called shots should be an interesting option, not something tied to just special weapons to do so.

I'm not really trying to make a point about called shots here, although you do have a point. In fairness, if you're dealing with an enemy who, say, lacks a helmet, it may well be a much better option to make the called shot. After all, if they're well armoured everywhere else, it may well end up that your shots all get soaked, due to hitting limbs and torso instead of the head. And that's kinda the point of called shot, no?

If you use an autogun and make:

a.) a automatic shot with 2AP

or

b.) a called shot (also 2 AP) with 1 bullet

which one is better ?

Yeah - no long time needed to evaluate that.

I'm not sure how that's a good point. A weapon designed to spray small caliber bullets around *should* be more effective when it's used to spray small caliber bullets around. Likewise, a weapon designed for sniping should be worse when used shooting from the hip.

Having said that, I basically agree with you and I'll use this post to plug an option that I think we've both mentioned before: have the Called Shot action provide +Dos as a damage bonus . I think that's a more elegant fix to the problem than increasing jamming. It doesn't require changing any weapon qualities or statistics, and allows any gun-toting player to choose between many-hits-normal-damage or one-hit-more-damage tactics. Also, unlike your jamming suggestion, it will speed up combat and make it more lethal, rather than slowing it down. I don't think we really need rules that *increase* the amount of game time it takes to play through a 30-second combat.

Would be a good option indeed. I really wonder why something lime that never was implemented. It would balance a lot of things.

And just a short rule passage:

> Bonus damage per DoS for Called SHots

> a slightly higher bonus per DoS for Accurate Called Shots -- Snipering

This would also solve the lack of melee assassination rules, if you give attacks against surprised targets the same higher bonus as accurate ranged weapons, and give an attack bonus to attacks into the back of unaware targets.

Regarding weapons having their more effective side: of course a weapon should have its preferred use. I am just saying that right now, if a weapoin has the option to auto fire - there is NO reason to EVER fire a single called shot.

I'm not really trying to make a point about called shots here, although you do have a point. In fairness, if you're dealing with an enemy who, say, lacks a helmet, it may well be a much better option to make the called shot. After all, if they're well armoured everywhere else, it may well end up that your shots all get soaked, due to hitting limbs and torso instead of the head. And that's kinda the point of called shot, no?

Yes.

have the Called Shot action provide +Dos as a damage bonus . I think that's a more elegant fix to the problem than increasing jamming. It doesn't require changing any weapon qualities or statistics, and allows any gun-toting player to choose between many-hits-normal-damage or one-hit-more-damage tactics. Also, unlike your jamming suggestion, it will speed up combat and make it more lethal, rather than slowing it down. I don't think we really need rules that *increase* the amount of game time it takes to play through a 30-second combat.

I also find this appealing. One should not that this is basically a buff to single shot weapons though, since you pretty would always make called shots with them. Not that I necessarily mind that, just saying. It would also be a buff to overcharge for the same reason. Expect to see some freaking scary overcharge called las shot attacks from mooks who still have 2 ap left to hide/evade/aim.

As mooks just have 3 AP and need 2 AP to attack (1 AP for Called SHot + 1 AP for the attack), even more, if the wepon has a lower RoF than 1.

So, yes, it would be a buff, but a needed one, and, as Called Shots costs 1 AP anyway, it still is not a too big buff.

If you score lets say 3 DoS on a called shot, it would be +3 damage and maybe 1 less armour at the hit location than usual.

So +4 damage on this shot for a quite good hit. If using auto-fire, you would have get 3 hits with the same shot, which probably would have caused several wounds, but a little less precise, which means, that the chance for a wound is lower (but you might get several and have a higher chance for RF).

In this scenario both choices are valid.

If giving accurate an additional bonus on top, you make it worthwile again (as currently +15 instead of +10 without the chance to carry over aiming into the next turn is not much).

Lets say accurate weapons get +2 damage per DoS - now thats a sniper weapon !

If you want things less dramatic, only give +1 damage per 2 DoS at Called shots, and +1 per DoS if accurate.

Mooks have 4AP as of the most recent update, actually.

They have ? Thats good imo - makes it easier to have everyone having the same amount.

Overread that.

In this case you better be careful

But its not much better to let them shoot auto at you ;D

Certainly most of the threshold burning that has happened so far in my DH2 campaign has been as a result of full auto or the equivalent in melee.

+DoS to damage is a nice, simple rule (which is good), and makes carefully aimed shots better (which is good).

It's also not going to do that much damage - the +4 is about right for a realistic maximum, so it doesn't break the game.

Unless you intend to parade a plethora of unhelmeted sororitas and stormtroopers in front of your players, I generally find called shots pointless; yes you could strike the sliiiiightly less armoured spot - or you could just fire more shots, which is generally better.

I don't think accurate weapons necessarily need a double benefit on this rule - they should already be landing a 'better' hit anyway.

You might be right about accurate. But shouldnt it be changed to +20 instead of +15 then ?

IIRC it was light that in previous systems ?

Unless you intend to parade a plethora of unhelmeted sororitas and stormtroopers in front of your players, I generally find called shots pointless; yes you could strike the sliiiiightly less armoured spot - or you could just fire more shots, which is generally better.

Called shots generally come into their own when cover is involved, more than anything.

You might be right about accurate. But shouldnt it be changed to +20 instead of +15 then ?

IIRC it was light that in previous systems ?

It was, but Aim also used to be the equivalent of 2AP (sort of - Reactions complicate the math).

Aim has gotten better (at least more flexible) for non-Accurate weapons, but the general mechanics now provide fewer bonuses, so it's not that straightforward.

I do agree that Accurate needs a boost, though. Especially if the sniper rifle and long-las remain at 1/2 RoF, making them essentially less accurate than an Autopistol.

As discussed before - automatic is also quite effective against targets in cover.

About as effective as a single called shot, except with much more ammo expended. You have a CHANCE to do better, but it's a minute one, assuming the enemy is mostly covered by the cover.

I will say that the numbers I ran (I stand by the auto weapons being balanced in terms of damage potential) didnt take righteous furies into account, which are a flat advantage that higher RoF has. Higher RoF also has the ability to make greater use of Aim and other actions. Most of the high RoF weapons do have reduced damage outputs (not counting heavy weapons and melee) compared to low RoF weapons, but that only balances the extra hits advantage, not the righteous fury and action versatility ones.

Edit: to clarify, I think things are balanced if you only look at damage potential, but they aren't balanced if you add in the other things.

It is as you've said. But when something is balanced only if we ignore how useful it is AND the criticals system of the game, well... We may as well be saying "it's all perfectly balanced if we ignore the numbers that say it isn't", and the versatility aspect is HUGE. And in that we include actual accuracy? Brutal.

Which means...there is still something to be done in favour for low-RoF weapons and for called shots in comparison to auto.

Something which can be integrated into the current mechanics as smoothly as possible, because the beta comes to an end.

A damage bonus for called shots by DoS would help with the called shot inferiority, a free +5 on attacks per RoF below 5 would help the missing action point flexibility. It could be reasoned that you, besides the weapon needing more time to be used, have a longer time to be aware of the combat situation. It is kind of a free half-aim, so to say.

I don't know that adding new and separate mechanics is the right solution. Just as logical might be to simply balance lower RoA weapons better. Make them more desirable. If a single shot weapon can't compete because a single shot weapon is single shot and you want to add damage to that single shot attack then maybe just make single shot weapons do more damage.

I can see how both accurate and especially called shot are decent places to add damage, but as it stands, those are things high RoA weapons can also have, buffing them does not necessarily make people want to switch away from their repeaters.

That said, I have not found my players preferring high RoA weapons exclusively. Plasma weapons and even an inferno pistol see at least as much play as Smite, autopistols, autoguns, lasguns, or even the autocannon the party brings along when they are done being subtle.

In short, I am not certain this problem is as big as the thread is making it out to be or that the proposed fixes would do the job or be worth the trouble.

I am willing to be convinced, but I remain unconvinced so far.