PS: I take it my idea with the "Burst and Autofire = only 1 damage roll + bonus" was not well received?

It is a mechanic used by various systems, and it gives a way to make full-auto etc better without being hideously unbalancedly better, so I guess I could be persuaded. What would the specifics be? A bonus dependent on the weapon, or a flat amount? There is the slightly odd thing thing that it suddenly makes full auto-weapons better at penetrating armour.

Personally I always thought the real problem with the whole DH1 system was not full-auto (though I am not totally convinced about the change to a hit for every DoS, rather than 2 as originally published, even if it was a mistake). The fact that full auto was a full-action made me think being forced to choose between moving or full-autoing was sufficient (as long as the GM realised this and made sure fights occured in areas where movement wwas desirable. If you are in a position where you can gun down your enemies from behind cover controlled automatic fire should be the most desirable thing). Also, if proper use is made of supressive fire by NPCs, the fact that it was a full action made it impossible. The real problem in my mind was semi-auto as there was really no reason to use it unless 1) ammo conservation was a big issue, or more commonly, 2) the weapon simply didn't have a full-auto option.

I say the problem is with the damage model of the weapons. If they had a bigger per shot damage output then nobody would bother with full auto as it would be overkill.

I say the problem is with the damage model of the weapons. If they had a bigger per shot damage output then nobody would bother with full auto as it would be overkill.

I disagree- all weapons in RPGs are less deadly than their real-life counterparts specifically to allow player characters to survive an average combat. I don't know a lot of players who will return, game after game, if they have to roll up a new character after every firefight.

The original problem was that between a high TB and Guard Flak or Carapace armour, it made half of the weapons near worthless.

I admit I'm somewhat split. On one hand, I like both the unlimited range as well as the unifying aspect of the range classes. On the other, I'd prefer if it would be simplified even further - perhaps using the ranges provided by Simsum, as if any engagement would feature only four possible "range classes" between the participants.

But perhaps this could be mixed in some way? That the individual weapons have a built-in BS modifier in their profile that would determine a change from one "block" to the next? Like ...

Pistol: 20 (+20/0/-20/-40)

Rifle: 10 (+10/0/-10/-20)

Sniper Rifle: 0 (for X/0/0/0)

... with individual weapon patterns deviating from this standard in a range of up to 5 points. The more accurate a weapon is at long range, the more difficult it is to use at point-blank, and vice versa.

Too simple?

You raise a good point regarding armour, though. We could just accept it as part of the whole abstraction - that just like each additional bullet is not doing full damage, so does the armour also not provide its full protection either.

Or, alternatively, the damage modifier would only apply after rolled damage is reduced by resilience (-> all damage would be nullified if the first shot does not punch through), so we wouldn't have something that has no real chance to penetrate armour suddenly gain this ability just because it auto-fires.

The second is what I'm currently leading towards. It could be an additional condition, regardless of the method used for applying the bonus damage.

The idea behind this is that the total damage would be somewhat lower than or at least not much above the average result of a series of individual shots, all of whom would have to overcome armour by themselves too.

For example, let's say someone fired a full-auto burst on a target with 8 points of resilience. Of the salvo, four bullets hit. The player rolls once for the result, coming up with a result of 9 points of damage (6 on a d10, +3). Each of the additional hits adds +2 points of damage, so the total result comes out at 7 points of damage (9 + 2x3 = 15, - 8 resilience = 7).

If we had rolled for each hit individually, we would have had these results:

1st hit: 9-8=1

2nd hit: 9-8=1

3rd hit: 9-8=1

4th hit: 9-8=1

... for a total of 4 points of damage.

So, not that much of a difference, yes?

That being said, I'm sure that with some weapons there would be a much greater disparity, though it would require the gun both dealing a lot of damage as well as having a high Rate of Fire (Multilaser?) ... but in this regard, perhaps it would actually be beneficial for the game if such weapons would be "nerfed" this way? Hence my comment regarding this being a way to reign in guns like the heavy bolter earlier.

The original problem was that between a high TB and Guard Flak or Carapace armour, it made half of the weapons near worthless.

I had one of my players try to beat a Heavy to death in melee combat with his fists, it didn't go well.

I disagree- all weapons in RPGs are less deadly than their real-life counterparts specifically to allow player characters to survive an average combat. I don't know a lot of players who will return, game after game, if they have to roll up a new character after every firefight.

The damage increase shouldn't be a one-sided change of course. Increase Armor protection too and you have a deal: if you are retarded enough to brainlessly run around naked with your character then you die. It is a decision/consequence thing .

I don't think the problem with combat lies in the damage of each weapon but instead in TB and Pen...

My experience is that damage/TB/Pen values mostly work very well at lower Ranks (with some notable exceptions, namely underpowered Bolguns and Plasma Guns). The system just doesn't 'scale up' as well as I would like...

I agree, the scaling is not very good. In my experience melee weapons vastly outpace ranged weapons as the game goes on. Mostly you as a GM just have to invent custom pattern weapons and special ammo to keep up. I guess that the designers are primarily worried about low rank balance, which is entirely reasonable.

We just houserule weapons to be more in-line (and better) than modern day equivalents. This, in conjunction with our wound system, means behaving poorly in combat leads to dead characters very quickly. Re-worked the attachments, re-worked how many attachments, gave an accuracy stat, etc. Full-auto, in our house rules, is typically used for point blank spray and covering fire, while shooting to kill usually is performed via single placed shots.

Let's talk about Action Points: the only knocks against them that I can remember reading all revolved around Beta1 's clunky RoF rules. Now that the OW RoF system has been implemented, are there any problems with using Action Points that I'm not seeing?

You mean other than necessitating a complete rewrite of what took two months to come to us, back to a system we're led to believe was rejected by the majority of beta playtest feedback?

Let's talk about Action Points: the only knocks against them that I can remember reading all revolved around Beta1 's clunky RoF rules. Now that the OW RoF system has been implemented, are there any problems with using Action Points that I'm not seeing?

I liked the old rules. That said, there could have been some work done tweaking existing/adding new actions. The RoF rules were completely bonkers. Using AP with the OW actions would take a lot of work. Using them with the weapons would be ok . I actually do something similar in my house-rules.

I swear, I must be the only one who liked the RoF system. It was way easy to work with, the only issue was the wonky fractional values, which are easily changed.

I swear, I must be the only one who liked the RoF system. It was way easy to work with, the only issue was the wonky fractional values, which are easily changed.

The system itself was fine. I suppose instead of rules I should have written "values". They were all too low, with the exception of melee weapons perhaps.

Fractional values work for melee weapons, yeah. But most ballistic weapons really need at least RoF 1. I think the fractional values were just put in place to limit how much you can fire in a round.

Personally, I've fixed that in my own houserules by writing some RoF values as X(Y). So, say, a handcannon might have Rof 1(2). The bracketed number is the maximum Rate of Attack you can achieve in any given round. Limits shots without limiting action flexibility.

Fractional values work for melee weapons, yeah. But most ballistic weapons really need at least RoF 1. I think the fractional values were just put in place to limit how much you can fire in a round.

Personally, I've fixed that in my own houserules by writing some RoF values as X(Y). So, say, a handcannon might have Rof 1(2). The bracketed number is the maximum Rate of Attack you can achieve in any given round. Limits shots without limiting action flexibility.

Seems like a clever fix. Most of the rifles my group uses have RoF values around 6-14 though, with the option of firing single shots instead.

You mean other than necessitating a complete rewrite of what took two months to come to us, back to a system we're led to believe was rejected by the majority of beta playtest feedback?

You're overstating it, I think. OW already uses what are essentially 3 Action Points: two Half Actions and one Reaction, so it's not that drastic a change. From what I've seen, the descriptor 'Half Action' tends to be confusing to newcomers to the system, so why not simplify the verbage and gain some tactical flexibility in the process?

You mean other than necessitating a complete rewrite of what took two months to come to us, back to a system we're led to believe was rejected by the majority of beta playtest feedback?

You're overstating it, I think. OW already uses what are essentially 3 Action Points: two Half Actions and one Reaction, so it's not that drastic a change. From what I've seen, the descriptor 'Half Action' tends to be confusing to newcomers to the system, so why not simplify the verbage and gain some tactical flexibility in the process?

I think you might be overestimating the degree to which we can actually expect this to happen. In this new beta, FFG has demonstrated an extreme hesitance to deviate from a system its fanbase already knows. They rolled back nearly every change to the system from the first beta - including ones most people here agree were an improvement.

Let me be clear, I am in favor of a revamp to the core mechanics of the game. I just don't see it as a possibility.

I do think it's hilarious that, now that we have a DH/RT/DW/BC/OW-compatible system we're seeing posts suggesting reintroducing elements that broke that compatibility.

I have expected beginning from the announcement of the scaling back of the changes, that the product we all will end with will be DH 1.5. There will be too many that will complain it is too much like the same game to have any reason to buy it and there will be too many others who will want compatibility with all the products they have already bought.

In the end it will be a little of both and be much better for it.

One other thing with guns. OW shooting mechanics aside, all the guns my group uses have an additional stat, accuracy. Instead of +10 for Aim actions, the Aim action awards a bonus equal to the gun's accuracy. Adds a little variation to the guns and gives something for "good" and "best" qualities to have besides never jamming and extra damage.

I do think it's hilarious that, now that we have a DH/RT/DW/BC/OW-compatible system we're seeing posts suggesting reintroducing elements that broke that compatibility.

Well, everyone who wanted a revamped system got it in the previous beta, so they were content playtesting the rules and suggesting feedback to improve them, while those who wanted compatibility were constantly whining about it. Now that they've decided to go with rules stagnation, the compatibility crowd is content and the people who didn't want Only War with a different skin are whining about it.

From what I can tell a lot of the compatibility crowd didn't quite get what they wanted anyway. No one was calling for a copypasted Only War (which is basically what we got). I'm fairly sure everyone wanted some evolution of the rules, just not quite as dramatic a one as we saw in the first beta.

On this point I agree with T C. I am new to this discussion, as I only just downloaded the beta for the first time on the day they announced the new beta 2, so that is all I can comment on.

From what I can tell a lot of the compatibility crowd didn't quite get what they wanted anyway. No one was calling for a copypasted Only War (which is basically what we got). I'm fairly sure everyone wanted some evolution of the rules, just not quite as dramatic a one as we saw in the first beta.

This. I didn't love the old beta but I could see a playable game in the making (not high paise but it's what I can give) but now I'm not sure I care.

Inept, dont give up so easily. Have faith in the Emperor. We are all gonna house rule bits and pieces anyways. Heck for most role playing games I've been a part of, you can have the exact same rules and 3 different GM's, who, whether subconsciously or not, will inject their own style of play on it and you will have 3 completely legitimate (as far as the rules in and of themselves are concerned) versions. The rules in and of themselves are not the end all be all of the game, yes the rules help or hurt sometimes, but be patient, it will be worth the effort you and the others, as well as the designers have put into it.