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.

To balance the utility of the different fire modes. It has absolutely nothing to do with the actual mechanics of firing a weapon in real life and everything to do with balancing the action economy of a game.

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.

To balance the utility of the different fire modes. It has absolutely nothing to do with the actual mechanics of firing a weapon in real life and everything to do with balancing the action economy of a game.

This is where our 2 camps keep clashing isn't it.

I always felt accurate was pretty balanced against full auto in the post errata'd dh1. Full auto had the utility of suppression and ability to hit for lots of bullets and proc fureh, accurate was cheap and did high damage per shot making it more useful against targets with high soak.

There was certainly room for both in our sessions: but not a lot of room for non-accurate weapons unfortunately. We did use semiauto a decent bit because of bolters. After they changed full auto to -10 though(and gave accurate a +10), no one used anything but accurate except for backup in case we ran into a horde.

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.

To balance the utility of the different fire modes. It has absolutely nothing to do with the actual mechanics of firing a weapon in real life and everything to do with balancing the action economy of a game.

This is where our 2 camps keep clashing isn't it.

Sort of, I guess.

If you're referring to the Influence vs Hard Currency divide, that's largely a mechanic of preference - one isn't inherently or objectively better than the other (though both have strong impacts on player expectations and the flow of the game that people certainly have opinions about).

In this case, the argument seems to be whether 'real life' should be the starting point of mechanics - it Makes Sense that more bullets means more chances of hitting, so let's give a bonus to Full Auto fire. They did that in DH1, and it made Full Auto the objectively best choice of combat actions, then, after realizing this, added the Accurate errata that made single shot not pointless.

I am of the opinion that every action available should have some utility. There should be circumstances where you're better off using single-shot over full-auto and vice versa. Knight's insistence that full-auto should get a bonus because it Makes Sense and the knife/powerfist thing belies an ignorance of the basics of game design.

I'm team real life all the way. Give me a setting and I will try to make it make sense. You are the DnD4e to my tales of MU.

No offence if you don't like 4th ed.

I am of the opinion that every action available should have some utility. There should be circumstances where you're better off using single-shot over full-auto and vice versa. Knight's insistence that full-auto should get a bonus because it Makes Sense and the knife/powerfist thing belies an ignorance of the basics of game design.

And I could say you have an ignorance for the real world.

We just want different things from the game. You want everything to have a balanced function (so one thing can be used just as often as the other), and I want a game which is based on our real world (and with 1e's plasma overcharge and accurate quality it was still common in our group that players used non full auto weapons).

Just imagine the situation where two guardsmen are talking with each other after killing some orks.

- I'm out of ammo. How much do you got left?

- 220.

- What? How did you kill so many if you used only 10 shots?

- You know, firing on single-shot has nice little bonuses.

This is just too much for me.

But I can understand your opinion, and I don't want to say my version is better. I just prefer it more.

I am of the opinion that every action available should have some utility. There should be circumstances where you're better off using single-shot over full-auto and vice versa. Knight's insistence that full-auto should get a bonus because it Makes Sense and the knife/powerfist thing belies an ignorance of the basics of game design.

And I could say you have an ignorance for the real world.

We just want different things from the game. You want everything to have a balanced function (so one thing can be used just as often as the other) , and I want a game which is based on our real world (and with 1e's plasma overcharge and accurate quality it was still common in our group that players used non full auto weapons).

Just imagine the situation where two guardsmen are talking with each other after killing some orks.

- I'm out of ammo. How much do you got left?

- 220.

- What? How did you kill so many if you used only 10 shots?

- You know, firing on single-shot has nice little bonuses.

This is just too much for me.

But I can understand your opinion, and I don't want to say my version is better. I just prefer it more.

Not exactly. How often actions are selected is not in and of itself a measure of balance. What I said was that every action available to the players should have some utility and not be overshadowed by any other action in every circumstance (as is the case of single shot vs full auto in DH1). I want DH2 to have a solid mechanical framework, 'makes sense' design or 'realism' be d*mned.

Your little guardsmen scenario makes no sense whatsoever. If it helps, I think full auto should be the best course of action when facing down a mob of orks charging at you.

You could give make all single shots count as called shots (maybe a pen bonus for DoS), semiauto give a bonus to hit, and full auto allow you to hit multiple targets. That satisfies realism, at least as people in the thread have expressed. Single shots can take their time to get off a good hit, semiauto is a controlled burst that allows a better chance to hit a target, and full auto is the balls to the wall unloading a gun with the hope of spreading enough lead to take something out. I think it's also pretty balanced too, yes?

Not exactly. How often actions are selected is not in and of itself a measure of balance. What I said was that every action available to the players should have some utility and not be overshadowed by any other action in every circumstance (as is the case of single shot vs full auto in DH1). I want DH2 to have a solid mechanical framework, 'makes sense' design or 'realism' be d*mned.

Not trying to suggest you're wrong, but I'd rather see stuff like this addressed through character specialisation and specialised weapons.

To be there's two ways to go about making single-shot competitive with burst attacks in typical tabletop combat encounters. One is to re-balance the core combat mechanics to buff up all single-shot attacks. The other is offer specialised ways in which actors can buff such attacks.

To me, the latter is preferable. Because it allows me to merrily pretend those options don't exist, without it having an impact on the combat mechanics as a whole. Basically, it lets you have the killer single-shot attacks you want, and lets me have the slight dash of realism that hosing people with bullets is way more effective than plinking away at them.

I guess it's vaguely comparable to D&D monks. They work out very well for D&D, because if you want martial artists to eat sword an die every time they meet an equipped warrior, however inept, you can just not have any monks running around. While if you want martial artists who can take on adept and fully kitted out warriors and come out on top, you can use monks. Everyone wins.

I always find these arguments of realism amusing given that the people who are so in favor of it tend to have no idea how actual combat works in the past or present.

You could give make all single shots count as called shots (maybe a pen bonus for DoS), semiauto give a bonus to hit, and full auto allow you to hit multiple targets. That satisfies realism, at least as people in the thread have expressed. Single shots can take their time to get off a good hit, semiauto is a controlled burst that allows a better chance to hit a target, and full auto is the balls to the wall unloading a gun with the hope of spreading enough lead to take something out. I think it's also pretty balanced too, yes?

I like this idea. A lot. Each action has its own use case and given proper mechanical backing none would trump the others.

I always find these arguments of realism amusing given that the people who are so in favor of it tend to have no idea how actual combat works in the past or present.

My favorite example of this is someone offhand gave the example of a bow being a weapon that would obviously take a long time to shoot (and thus be limited to a single shot per action, I believe the argument was), clearly never having seen the video where the guy fires 10 arrows accurately in under 5 seconds. See also: grapple subsystems in literally every game to ever include them.

I always find these arguments of realism amusing given that the people who are so in favor of it tend to have no idea how actual combat works in the past or present.

Just to clarify, I'm not in favour of realism, I'm in favour of less super-heroic fiction. "A slight dash of realism" seemed like reasonably informative shorthand for a page's worth of clarification, but I guess I was wrong about that. My apologies. I do hope "super-heroic" does a better job.

As for how combat works, I think the problem is more that nobody actually wants realism, just more or less super-heroic stuff, and that actual combat is a great many things that are almost totally dissimilar in almost every way. It's hopefully stating the obvious, but the one thing real combat isn't, is entertaining.

Id fully agree with you that real combat is awful compared to anything in games or most movies. I'm not really sure that "super heroics" are a good way to describe balancing out single shots and rapid fire. I think that what is being argued for is that if one of them (rapid fire) is getting a super hero buff, then the other one should get an equal buff. Why? Because this is a game an abstraction of combat. Like you said, real combat sucks, and what we have in this game and most other games is stylized fiction combat. That means that the combat in this game should be be interesting and fun. That is why games need to balance out realism with abstraction; the real world isn't always fun and isn't fair, and the more of that you model, the more you lose what makes the game enjoyable.

You could give make all single shots count as called shots (maybe a pen bonus for DoS), semiauto give a bonus to hit, and full auto allow you to hit multiple targets. That satisfies realism, at least as people in the thread have expressed. Single shots can take their time to get off a good hit, semiauto is a controlled burst that allows a better chance to hit a target, and full auto is the balls to the wall unloading a gun with the hope of spreading enough lead to take something out. I think it's also pretty balanced too, yes?

Great idea.

I always find these arguments of realism amusing given that the people who are so in favor of it tend to have no idea how actual combat works in the past or present.

I know how actual combat works, and I think it makes no sense to implement this in a computer game, but it can still be entertaining in a roleplaying game, where combat actually is slow. (rolling etc.) Remember, your characters are not those guys who are being suppressed from a revolver shot, or freezing if their hands are bleeding a bit. They live in the grim darkness of the far future, and they have balls. That's why they are in the Inquisition.

I'm not saying single shot having advantage is stupid, I'm just saying making it more balanced by taking away full-auto's logical advantage is not what I want (nor giving it any non-logical advantages like +10). I liked the single shot specialisation thing however (basically sniper weapons). Finding a vulnerable point which isn't covered by armour, or shooting out the enemy's eyes, makes sense if that's what someone's been training for.

What I like in the Beta:

> Limit on Cybernetics

> Agility Cap by Armour

> Disruptive Blow
> Open character creation system
> characteristics being enabled to be increased once per rank (more variety in values)
> Compact skills
> New Fatigue & Blood Loss Concept

> Dazed & Burning Conditions

> New overcharge, Sapping & Vengeful

> No "Unnatural characteristics" anymore

> Novice/Elite/Master Enemies

> new wound tables with various effects on players (permanent characteristic losses balance higher values out quite fine)

> the +5/+10 wounds and the new way to use Righteous Fury

> new, more tactical AP system

What I miss/dislike so far:

> No range modifiers

> No Grappling Rules
> No sneak Attack Rules

> Surprise still feels a little weak

> No real shotguns (need an own trait !)

> Bugged RoF system

> Psy Powers scaling not good and often too similar powers (esp. Divination!)

> Too restrictive Talent and Psy Power Trees

> Homeworlds not deep enough (and missing Schola Progenium and Feudal World !!!)

> missing an Imperial Navy Background

> Concept for sanctionied / rogue psyker needs to be re-thought

> Un-Touchables dont feel untouchable

I'd keep:

The character creation system

Skills and the way they work

I'd lose:

Everything about the combat system.

Keep:

Talent Trees

Homeworld / Background / Role system

action point system

trademark insanity / corruption based on backgrounds

purchasing psychic powers with experience

armor as damage reduction

dodge and parry

starting gear

INFLUENCE track

SUBTLETY track

Multiple characteristic skills

Vehicle Rules

Dislike:

Current wound system, due to the number of variables.

Would like more:

layers to character creation

backgrounds

roles

With regard to Action Points-

I tend to think these can be made 'compatible' with the rest of the WH40KRP line. Characters currently have 2 Half Actions and 1 Reaction, so, the equivilant of 3 Action Points, basically. Certainly the language of Actions from DH1 should be cleaned up; so, why not substitute 3 Action Points? The main sticking points with APs were the increased book-keeping, and RoF which, to judge from the posts in these Forums, was at best a bit confusing and at worst flat-out hated. I have no idea how to fix the first problem, but the second is easily fixed: tie new APs to the OW RoFs, with Single or Semi- costing 1 AP, and Full auto costing 2 (with some weapons costing extra due to their complexity, i.e. a balancing tool).

Also- instead of every character having the same number of Actions (an artifact of D&D ), what do you think about basing APs on Agility Bonus? This would definitely be more characterful, but it would continue the trend of making Agility the most important characteristic... And it would necessitate caps on characteristics- you definitely don't want PCs to have a potential of 8 Action Points per turn!

Thoughts...?

Also- instead of every character having the same number of Actions (an artifact of D&D ), what do you think about basing APs on Agility Bonus? This would definitely be more characterful, but it would continue the trend of making Agility the most important characteristic... And it would necessitate caps on characteristics- you definitely don't want PCs to have a potential of 8 Action Points per turn!

Thoughts...?

I am fundamentally opposed to AP - in lieu with the wound system, the two make combat drag out and jar the flow of the game (imo). Without the wound system, AP is more palatable, but still something I feel highly uncomfortable with as a mechanic (it seems counter-intuitive to me that a scholar and an assassin could potentially have the same amount of evasions).

However, if AP does stay in some form, I'd be in favor of tying the number to Ag. It is a reinforcement of character differences, although it does make Ag even better. Not a simple change (as overall I'd like to see every characteristic be equally important to character design), but one i could back.

Edit:

Alternatively, adding half (rounding down) a characters AB to the AP would be ideal. For most, that would add 1 or 2, and would keep the AP from getting too crazy even with high stats.

(it seems counter-intuitive to me that a scholar and an assassin could potentially have the same amount of evasions).

Couldn't this easily be fixed by adding some talents which add extra AP for the sake of evasions?

And it doesn't mean all that much. Sure, they have the same amount of evasions, but the scholar's stats will mean he's much less likely to succeed at any of them.

(it seems counter-intuitive to me that a scholar and an assassin could potentially have the same amount of evasions).

Couldn't this easily be fixed by adding some talents which add extra AP for the sake of evasions?

And it doesn't mean all that much. Sure, they have the same amount of evasions, but the scholar's stats will mean he's much less likely to succeed at any of them.

An easy patch, actually, in the same vein of the current systems handling of it. Except for the bit about the scholars stats - the disparity between the characters based on roles and background isn't really that great. They all start with the same baseline rolls, and even though some experience is varied, a pc who wants to be super agile will be super agile, regardless of the 'role' they choose.

And Tom, don't get me wrong, if AP could be refined alot more to something that actually reinforces the archetypes rather than homogenizes them, I'd be a lot more willing to embrace the mechanics. As is, I'll be mucking about with PhilofCalth's Edge of Darkness run, so who knows.

I'm currently working on Agility-based AP.

The basis is Ab = # of AP, capped at a maximum of 6 AP, and certain few Talents and Unnatural Characteristics may increase these. I haven't delved too deeply into this yet, just putting it out that I'm working on a first-draft model. I know some like Unnatural Characteristics, others do not, but as I said I'm still in the beginning draft. I will say that (IMO) Unnatural Characteristics are a good mechanic if Characteristics themselves are going to have caps, they just need to have a closer look at their implementation (which I'm also doing).

EDIT-

Here's what I have so far. I'm pleased with the way it looks (at first read), however, please remember this is seen from within a vacuum. Actions and AP is a significant part of the game mechanics.

Also, as noted by Tom Cruise, I'm working on scaling AP for ranged weapons by taking a look at RoF as it's presented in DH1e through Only War. Honestly, there are far too many weapons listed for the 40K RPG lines. Well, for Dark Heresy and Rogue Trader there are too many (the scaling of weapons between these two are as close as the lines come). I know it's a big galaxy, and everyone loves to get their itchy fingers on their guns, but we can have one autogun named "The Widowmaker" and another named "The Bandit", but at the end of the day it should be in the name and not in slightly better/different stats.

Bleh. I'm rambling. Here's what I have so far...

Following the DH2e Beta resulted in a revisit of the Inquisitor table-top RPG released by GW in...well, some years ago. I can't be bothered to open my hard copy of the book just to reference a copyright/release date. The rules for Inquisitor are (at the time of this posting) still available on Games Workshop's Specialist Games website, and they are free. Free! If you don't have them, I recommend you get them while you still may, if for no other reason that the readers of this post can trace the (partial) origins of Agility & Actions.

I'll start (presumably) at the end of Dark Heresy's development of Actions.

In the DH2e Beta, each PC/NPC/adversary has a (static) number of Action Points (AP) they may spend to perform various tasks and/or Actions during their Turn, with each Action requiring the expenditure of AP. The classification of Actions and their sub-types have been redefined, and these Actions and the Armoury (specifically weapons) have been assigned AP costs. In summary, some Actions require the expenditure of fractional AP (1/3, 1/2), while other require the expenditure of 1 or more full (whole number) AP. With the current (DH2e Beta) AP mechanic, some applications remain a bit wonky, which is not to say it's useless or unlikely to be successful, but I've been looking at it from a perspective that is a bit different from those of the game's developers. More on this in a moment.

I (personally) have never experienced significant (or even memorable) glitches when using DH1e's Action mechanics. However, looking through DH2e Beta's proposed mechanic and that of Inquisitor, I have been inspired to visit (within a vacuum) a hyrbid mechanic based heavily upon Agility rather than a (presumably) balanced static number of AP (such as proposed by DH2e's developers).

There are just a few things to remember when digesting this hybrid mechanic:

• It is intended to replace the current Half/Full Action mechanics in DH1e and its successor game lines
• It assumes the continued use of Unnatural Characteristics as they are presented in Black Crusade and Only War

Shall we begin?

Agility Bonus (AgB) determines the number of Action Points a PC/NPC/adversary can use in his/her/its Turn. The number of AP is limited to 6, unless a PC/NPC/adversary has Unnatural Agility. Very simple.

Next, Actions themselves must be clearly defined, and each must be assigned a number of AP that are needed to undertake them. There are four basic categories of Actions:

• Combat/Evasion- Making and evading melee and ranged attacks
• Movement- Changing of stance, crawling, walking, running/charging, and sprinting/fleeing
• Psychic- The manifestation of Psychic Powers, as well as resisting their non-combat effects
• Utility- Readying items/weapons for use and/or the application of Skills

Movement and positioning are vital to interaction within the role play setting. How far can I move? How fast can I move? How long will it take me to move from point A to point B? There are other considerations, as well- what kind of Actions can I perform while I'm moving?

Following are the Movement Action types and their AP costs:

Alright, rip in. I need some feedback.

EDIT (9/26/13)- I'm still working on this. Movement Actions have been edited in the latest draft- for continuity sake, I've removed excess mention of Combat Action mechanics from Movement Action descriptions. I haven't stopped working on this, except for sleep, bathing, and work. Be patient, please.

One thing with scaling AP is that it might be worth capping the amount of bullets each gun can fire per round. Because otherwise you get the questionable situation of two different characters firing different amounts of bullets in the same timespan, despite doing nothing but holding down the trigger. A minor glitch, but worth patching up.

Oh yeah, the agility being capped based on your armor is lovely, please keep that.