The to-hit bonus is strange anyway.

Why should I hit better with 1 bullet than with several ?

Remember - this is not about taking better aim, as aiming is a seperate action.

If you want to justify single shots compared to semi-auto and auto, give called-shot a boost by granting it general bonus damage by DoS and make it a 1AP action like in the beta so far.

Why should I hit better with 1 bullet than with several ?

Because hitting with rapid fire weapons is harder than hitting with single shot?

BYE

The to-hit bonus is strange anyway.

Why should I hit better with 1 bullet than with several ?

Remember - this is not about taking better aim, as aiming is a seperate action.

Recoil, when you only fire one shot it doesn't really affect your shot, when firing multiple it becomes more of an issue.

E

I mentioned something elsewhere regarding Wounds and didn't get any response, so I'll repeat it here:

What do you think about combining the old DH1 'hit point' style Wounds with the Beta Wound Effects? Maybe require rolls on Effect tables at fixed increments of a character's Wound characteristic (say, 33% steps, so a character with 12 Wounds would roll on a 'Lightly Wounded' table when he takes 4 points, and again on a 'Moderately Wounded' table when he takes 8 points, then on to the current DH1 'Critically Wounded' tables after 12 points). That would reduce a bit of the book-keeping and math from the Beta, while keeping the core simplicity and scale-ability of the 'hit point' system with a little added color (and of course some critters' descriptions would exempt them from Effects- seriously, how would you fight a carnivorous Deathword plant with the Beta system?).

I had this same idea. It'd be easily implemented for the other systems as well. I thing this would be an excellent.

I had an idea that the wound levels would scale with TB. So lightly wounded would be TBx1, Moderate would be x2 and so on.

The to-hit bonus is strange anyway.

Why should I hit better with 1 bullet than with several ?

Remember - this is not about taking better aim, as aiming is a seperate action.

Recoil, when you only fire one shot it doesn't really affect your shot, when firing multiple it becomes more of an issue.

E

Actually, generally burst of shots tends to make it more likely to get a hit than a single shot, rather than less. Now, this is only true if the fire is reasonably accurate in the first place (untrained shooters will usually not be able to place their burst accurately enough, and will be less able to control their fire), only really works up to a certain point (extend bursts don't tend to be as useful, and so most weapons are limited to short bursts) and still tends to waste a lot of ammunition, as many of the shots still miss. Original DH's full-auto was not good game balance wise, but was probably more "realistic" than the +10/0/-10 arrangement.

Actually, generally burst of shots tends to make it more likely to get a hit than a single shot, rather than less. Now, this is only true if the fire is reasonably accurate in the first place (untrained shooters will usually not be able to place their burst accurately enough, and will be less able to control their fire), only really works up to a certain point (extend bursts don't tend to be as useful, and so most weapons are limited to short bursts) and still tends to waste a lot of ammunition, as many of the shots still miss. Original DH's full-auto was not good game balance wise, but was probably more "realistic" than the +10/0/-10 arrangement.

I am not sure I completely agree, there is a difference between spray and pray where you fill the air with lead in the hope that some will hit, and taking a properly sighted shot. I don't mean aiming, that is something more. Also, this is a game and therefore they have to think about game balance. At the moment the OW system means that there is a trade off between the chance for multiple hits and an increased chance to hit at all.

E

Remember, just because you have recoil, your first shot can be as properly placed as with a single shot weapon. And after the first shot, you still have a good chance to hit the target, that's why it is easier to hit with bursts.

I don't see why do we need balance everywhere, it's like trying to make a revolver just as good as a plasma gun.

I don't see why do we need balance everywhere, it's like trying to make a revolver just as good as a plasma gun.

This is not what balance is. You're equivocating balance with equality.

I don't see why do we need balance everywhere, it's like trying to make a revolver just as good as a plasma gun.

This is not what balance is. You're equivocating balance with equality.

Fine, but making single-shooting with an automatic weapon more accurate than using autofire mode is not balancing then.

There have been so many threads about the accuracy of single shot v. Auto-fire. Can we maybe talk about issues more specific to this edition?

Really? How do you figure?

Because in DH1, with full auto providing +20 to hit on top of an additional hit for each DoS, there was literally no reason to anything other than a full-auto weapon. They errata'd in a fix for Accurate that made it more viable, but full-auto was massively overpowered to the point that other fire modes were objectively the weaker option in nearly every case.

So please, explain how shifting bonuses around to make other fire modes viable is not balancing.

A "Full-Auto Burst" was not "pray and spray". It was properly used automatic fire by people with training with the weapon. "Spray and Pray" was probably better represented by Suppressing Fire, which turned a +20 to hit into a -20 (a full -40 swing), as you were just spraying over a general area, trying to get people to duck behind cover, rather than properly sighting the weapon to hit specific targets.

It grated with some people, possibly with a more "cinematic" idea of what fully automatic fire represented. Combining that with the more legitimate rationale of game balance led to the changes in BC and OW.

Of course DH2 didn't have any penalty for full auto fire. Full-Auto Weapons seem to have been presumed fire to full-auto all the time.

So please, explain how shifting bonuses around to make other fire modes viable is not balancing.

I compared it to the idea of making a revolver as powerful as a plasma gun. You said that is not balancing, it's something else. I said ok, but then single-shot being more accurate than full auto burst is not balancing either, rather something more... drastic. (or I could say forcing a bonus which doesn't make any sense).

There was no reason to go with anything other than a full auto weapon? That's interesting, because if I had been sent to war it's sure as hell I wouldn't want to have a semi-automatic weapon instead of a fully automatic. So the original "not balanced" rules smell like reality. Heresy.

Complaining about full auto being overpowered is like complaining about power fists being owerpowered compared to knives.

By the way, newer versions of the original ruleset (from RT onwards) did a really good thing with accurate quality (most single-shot weapons) by giving it d10's for every 2 DoS.

Also, plasma weapons could be overcharged, so they did a great work with improving the rules.

It grated with some people, possibly with a more "cinematic" idea of what fully automatic fire represented. Combining that with the more legitimate rationale of game balance led to the changes in BC and OW.

And, apparently, is still grating on people, judging by the fact that there is a currently-active thread on the OW Forums debating the 'new standard' modifiers of +10/0/-10. I think the DH mods of 0/+10/+20 are more realistic (automatic weapons were invented and became the military standard for a reason . after all), but the new versions make more sense in terms of game balance.

That brings up something worth discussing: since DH2 will now be OW -compatible, what changes/improvements should be made to the OW system to form the next evolutionary step in the WH40KRP line? I have less experience with BC & OW than any of the other game lines, so I'm probably not the best person to rate the strengths and weaknesses of OW ...

Complaining about full auto being overpowered is like complaining about power fists being owerpowered compared to knives.

Way to completely miss the point.

Complaining about full auto being overpowered is like complaining about power fists being owerpowered compared to knives.

Way to completely miss the point.

I think different options dont have to be equalized, but all of them should be an interesting option, depending on the situation.

A plasma weapon might kill you right away, but maybe it needs time to reload; Auto-Fire may cause several wounds, but may have a higher chance of Jams...etc.

I've always been on the fence regarding autofire accuracy. I can see both sides, really. I know my players prefer the idea that Autofire confers and increased chance to hit, then again they also like the way Shadowrun handles autofire. In particular, you can either spray an area to increase your odds of hitting once, or focus fire on one target which increases recoil but also increases damage. I wonder if there's a way to implement this in Dark Heresy.

Maybe you can take a +20 to hit on F/A if you are spraying an area but you get no extra hits per degree of success - or maybe an extra hit per 2DoS but only on separate targets. Alternately, you could take a -10 to hit, but gain extra hits up to your ROF.

(Sorry, double post. Adding to above.)

So please, explain how shifting bonuses around to make other fire modes viable is not balancing.

I compared it to the idea of making a revolver as powerful as a plasma gun. You said that is not balancing, it's something else. I said ok, but then single-shot being more accurate than full auto burst is not balancing either, rather something more... drastic. (or I could say forcing a bonus which doesn't make any sense).

There was no reason to go with anything other than a full auto weapon? That's interesting, because if I had been sent to war it's sure as hell I wouldn't want to have a semi-automatic weapon instead of a fully automatic. So the original "not balanced" rules smell like reality. Heresy.

Complaining about full auto being overpowered is like complaining about power fists being owerpowered compared to knives.

By the way, newer versions of the original ruleset (from RT onwards) did a really good thing with accurate quality (most single-shot weapons) by giving it d10's for every 2 DoS.

Also, plasma weapons could be overcharged, so they did a great work with improving the rules.

Complaining about full auto being overpowered is like complaining about power fists being owerpowered compared to knives.

Way to completely miss the point.

I think we need to agree on what balance is.

I've always been on the fence regarding autofire accuracy. I can see both sides, really. I know my players prefer the idea that Autofire confers and increased chance to hit, then again they also like the way Shadowrun handles autofire. In particular, you can either spray an area to increase your odds of hitting once, or focus fire on one target which increases recoil but also increases damage. I wonder if there's a way to implement this in Dark Heresy.

Maybe you can take a +20 to hit on F/A if you are spraying an area but you get no extra hits per degree of success - or maybe an extra hit per 2DoS but only on separate targets. Alternately, you could take a -10 to hit, but gain extra hits up to your ROF.

That is a really good idea which I might built into my houserule set for the beta so far.

Spray Fire (optional): +5 per additional bullet fired, but no chance of additional hits

Spraying a large area is already possible with suppressive fire.

If you are trying to do this to hit someone, that is just tactically not smart.

You see your intended target -> Take aim -> Shoot, and then try to hit him as many times as possible.

There is just no point in waving your gun in the enemy's direction, because your chances to hit someone are too small.

Well okay, no point is a bit too harsh maybe, I just want to say that it can only be used in really specific situations: dozens of orks coming at you in a small corridor, or having a Ballistic Skill of 10, etc.

Btw, I don't think spray fire should be using your BS... and your chances of hitting somebody should not be the same when you are shooting at 3 people, and when you are shooting at 15.

That's why I dont even want to implement this as a rule in my game. If a specific situation requires it once in a year, then I just use common sense.

I still can't see why would you get -10 for a full auto burst. Just think about it: your first shot is just as accurate as with single shot. Recoil doesn't play a role yet.

It is not like blind shooting - but rather like trying to keep a defined area under fire. Yet a smaller area than something like supprerssive fire would do.

It is something in between.

Has anyone ever given any thought to the idea of Snipers being able to Suppress a target either through a talent or specific action? It makes sense to me that a well-placed sniper would to be able to pin a target after his first shot, even without auto-fire.

You can do thast with Overwatch + the matching talent (forgot its name)