That's why I'm thinking it ought to be limited by range. It'd be perfectly fitting for a shot made at, say, 10 meters or so!

Brother Orpheo: Thanks! Curious to see what you end up with.

Maybe just add utility to called shots as they are to make them more useful. For instance maybe a called shot to an unarmored area deals a minor critical.

I can't see a called shot for every single fire shot working in a universal way. It doesn't make sense that firing a hand cannon over a wall without without looking just to keep an enemy at bay would be classified as a called shot. The same goes for firing a single fire gun on the run without the necessary talents to do so.

I'm talking about Single Shot, the combat action, which is distinct from Blind Fire and Hip Shooting, which is what you're talking about. I'm not talking about a specific weapon, I'm talking about the game's action economy. That's what you all should be talking about.

Please, cps, tell us more about how we don't know what we're talking about. It's incredibly helpful and not at all obnoxious and inflammatory.

Hip shooting by the RAW as we know them is an action that requires use of a specific talent. Elior seems to be specifically talking about lack of accuracy due to firing after a movement action. But why don't we let Elior clarify instead of putting words in his mouth, eh?

I can't see a called shot for every single fire shot working in a universal way. It doesn't make sense that firing a hand cannon over a wall without without looking just to keep an enemy at bay would be classified as a called shot. The same goes for firing a single fire gun on the run without the necessary talents to do so.

I'm talking about Single Shot, the combat action, which is distinct from Blind Fire and Hip Shooting, which is what you're talking about. I'm not talking about a specific weapon, I'm talking about the game's action economy. That's what you all should be talking about.

I stand corrected however it should be renamed something other than Called Shot if this is the case. ;-)

What I was saying is that a Called Shot typically means that a person is purposely trying to hit a specific object or area of the body. A Called Shot however would likely require a Aim Action to do so.

Therefore, if one is blindly firing at something or firing at someone on the run, they would not be able to take an Aim Action at all.

I've always preferred the way DH 1.0 treated called shots, as a penalty instead of an action. That said, my players have a difficulty separating called shots and aim actions and always seem confused when I explain that aiming at an enemy isn't the same as aiming at someone's head.

This thread is pretty terrible, by the way.

Then leave- problem solved.

Please don't take this as a personal insult to anyone: How many of you have actually fired a fully automatic weapon personally? I know I'm not the only vet on this board but given the train of this thread I am curious! I know the current system is not perfect and does not take into account "walking fire" and any number of other actual firing techniques but I fail to see a better way than the BC/OW system without needlessly complicating the rules. I mean, If you want frighteningly realistic gunplay, Check out the old Twilight 2000 rules. VERY realistic but also VERY convoluted. As much as I loved the game it got truly painful to GM a basic firefight! OW while not perfect strikes a pretty good balance between realism and gameplay. The modifiers fo close range and point blank can cancel or even reverse the effects of fully automatic fire while long range exacerbates them. This is a fairly elegant system that is fairly realistic IMO. What's the problem?

Please don't take this as a personal insult to anyone: How many of you have actually fired a fully automatic weapon personally?

I have! And I'm also okay with the system. except the fact that you can put a full-auto attack into a single human-sized target. That's just ridiculous.

I have and I don't like it
I think GURPS does it a LOT better without being complicated at all, by adding recoil and adjusting the bonuses on the basis of shots fired. To me, it makes sense that a lot of bullets increase my chance to hit at all, while reducing my overall accuracy. Of course, I haven't been in combat, only being a recreational shooter, so I may be biased.

-But the current rules do adjust for recoil: each round fired on automatic is 10% less likely to hit than the previous round. I agree with Radwraith : further adjustments in the name of 'realism' would just be needless complications.

I'll go one step further and say that if DH2 take a step towards greater complication compared to DH1 I will strongly consider passing on it. But then, I don't see realism as a worthy game design goal in the first place.

Yeah, but full-auto decreases my chance to hit at all, and in semi-automatic my shots past the first are 20% less likely to hit. That just doesn't make sense to me, sorry, and it breaks the feeling of the game for me a bit. Along with other elements, of course. As I've said elsewhere, I love the fluff in the game, but the crunch feels pretty wrong in some places.
The SS/SA/FA split is one of them.

Please don't take this as a personal insult to anyone: How many of you have actually fired a fully automatic weapon personally? I know I'm not the only vet on this board but given the train of this thread I am curious! I know the current system is not perfect and does not take into account "walking fire" and any number of other actual firing techniques but I fail to see a better way than the BC/OW system without needlessly complicating the rules. I mean, If you want frighteningly realistic gunplay, Check out the old Twilight 2000 rules. VERY realistic but also VERY convoluted. As much as I loved the game it got truly painful to GM a basic firefight! OW while not perfect strikes a pretty good balance between realism and gameplay. The modifiers fo close range and point blank can cancel or even reverse the effects of fully automatic fire while long range exacerbates them. This is a fairly elegant system that is fairly realistic IMO. What's the problem?

As someone that has some limited firearms experience (including automatic), by no means a vet; I don't really see the problem either.

Having a bonus for Single Fire and a penalty for Full-Auto makes perfect sense to me.

I'll go one step further and say that if DH2 take a step towards greater complication compared to DH1 I will strongly consider passing on it. But then, I don't see realism as a worthy game design goal in the first place.

Realism for the sake of realism isn't a worthy design goal, but internal consistency with the setting you're trying to portray is.

The two tend to be confused.

That said, even from the POV of realism, the issue of recoil is just not big enough, taking internal consistency in mind; a lot of the weapons in the 41st millennium likely have little to no recoil, depending on what kind of weapon is being used.

Having a bonus for Single Fire and a penalty for Full-Auto makes perfect sense to me.

Technically, the first bullet from Full Auto is no more affected by recoil than the only bullet from Single Fire...

Adeptus-B makes a good point - one could say recoil is already part of current Dark Heresy rules if you keep the indirect "penalty" of DoS in mind. You need to roll +10 higher to hit with the 2nd shot, +20 with the 3rd, and so on.

The only way to inject even more realism would be to split up this system to allow for different guns having different indirect penalties - for example a lasgun's successive shots only requiring you to roll steps of +5 above the required number, an autogun having steps of +10, heavy stubbers in steps of +20, etc - with the potential for proper Bracing or equipment to further modify this number.

Unfortunately, I guess this just comes across as unnecessary complex, though it might've been an interesting way to balance the damage of the heavy bolter.

@ Lynata: Sort going to your earlier point; There are already 2 modes of "Full automatic fire". Suppressive fire which, as you pointed out earlier would be the primary use of full auto at extended ranges and full auto burst which would be used in CQB. Aimed semi auto bursts would be used by basic weapon wielding troops in medium range firefights. Single shot to me infers a certain degree of "Aiming" intrinsic to it where as the action of "Aiming" is a more concentrated version and thus stacks with the single shot bonus. Mechanically this explains why a person can be fairly accurate on a gun range but not be able to hit the broad side of a barn in combat! The only change I would suggest is doubling ammo expenditure for suppressive fire since these tend to be longer bursts than what happens in close combat.

How about something along the lines of ammo expenditure and ranged stuff.

Get rid of the individual bullet tracking which is a hassle and rarely comes up. Instead, just give guns an ammo rating from 2-5 or something. Single shots mark off one ammo the first time they are fired in a combat. Semi-auto marks off one ammo each time. Full auto marks off two ammo. Weapons with a single shot quality always mark one ammo even for single shots.

Keep suppressive fire as it is, mark off two ammo.

Have semi-auto give an attack bonus. Make a Semi Auto (X) quality with X as effective range

Have full auto work like the old flamer with a spray effect and a dodge penalty for each degree of success (only one chance to dodge). Full Auto (X) quality with X as effective range.

Only single shots can be aimed, and all Aimed shots are called shots.

You negate a big chunk of ammo tracking (just have checkboxes on the weapon sheet), you get a heavy differentiation of shot types, with each kind being suitably brutal. Semiauto has a high chance to hit, single shot conserves ammo and can be carefully aimed, and full auto can clear a room easily at short range.

How about something along the lines of ammo expenditure and ranged stuff.

Get rid of the individual bullet tracking which is a hassle and rarely comes up. Instead, just give guns an ammo rating from 2-5 or something. Single shots mark off one ammo the first time they are fired in a combat. Semi-auto marks off one ammo each time. Full auto marks off two ammo. Weapons with a single shot quality always mark one ammo even for single shots.

Keep suppressive fire as it is, mark off two ammo.

Have semi-auto give an attack bonus. Make a Semi Auto (X) quality with X as effective range

Have full auto work like the old flamer with a spray effect and a dodge penalty for each degree of success (only one chance to dodge). Full Auto (X) quality with X as effective range.

Only single shots can be aimed, and all Aimed shots are called shots.

You negate a big chunk of ammo tracking (just have checkboxes on the weapon sheet), you get a heavy differentiation of shot types, with each kind being suitably brutal. Semiauto has a high chance to hit, single shot conserves ammo and can be carefully aimed, and full auto can clear a room easily at short range.

Pardon me saying so but this seems more complex than what we've got at first glance.

I think that the complexity of it is more to do with how much it's different from the original rules. You cut out the rules on ammo and firing rate. Add a clarification to the list of actions for how much ammo they cost. You cut out the rules on degrees of success adding extra hits and how armor works on them. All that's left is an accuracy bonus for semi auto, and rules for full auto that make it always hit at short range unless dodged or with cover to act as armor. The biggest complication is that multiple hits with melee weapons need different rules.

Yeah, but full-auto decreases my chance to hit at all, and in semi-automatic my shots past the first are 20% less likely to hit. That just doesn't make sense to me, sorry, and it breaks the feeling of the game for me a bit. Along with other elements, of course. As I've said elsewhere, I love the fluff in the game, but the crunch feels pretty wrong in some places.

The SS/SA/FA split is one of them.

Yeah, the change from +0/+10/+20 in DH1 , RT and DW to +10/0/-10 in BC & OW was motivated purely by 'game balance' rather than 'realism'. I was originally put off by the change, but I've come to accept it (unlike BC / OW 's purely random Righteous Fury).

It might be worth asking: should there even be modifiers for RoF? Or would Action Points (adapted to the OW RoF rules, rather than the clunky system from the Beta ; i.e. 1 AP for Single, 2 AP for Semi- and 3 AP for Full Auto) provide enough of a balancing effect that additional modifiers are unnecessary?

It might be worth asking: should there even be modifiers for RoF? Or would Action Points (adapted to the OW RoF rules, rather than the clunky system from the Beta ; i.e. 1 AP for Single, 2 AP for Semi- and 3 AP for Full Auto) provide enough of a balancing effect that additional modifiers are unnecessary?

I like the idea of range, fire mode and weapon type all modifying BS tests. I'm just not entirely sure how to go about it.

Ranges could be something like:

Close Combat (CC)

Short Range (SR)

Medium Range (MR)

Long Range (LR)

Weapon Types could have the following inherent modifiers:

Pistol Weapons: CC +0, SR +0, MR not allowed, LR not allowed

Basic Weapons: CC not allowed, SR -10, MR +0, LR -10

Heavy Weapons: CC not allowed, SR +10, MR +0, LR -10

Fire Modes could have the following modifiers:

Single Shot: CC +0, SR +0, MR +10, LR +0

Semi-Auto: CC +0, SR +10, MR -10, LR -20

Full-Auto: CC +0, SR +20, MR -20, LR -30

+++

If taking an approach like this, though, it might be a good idea to split the Basic Weapons Type into two Assault Weapons and [insert Snazzy Name] Weapons Types.

Or one could invent new Special Qualities, but my inclination would be more Weapon Types. There's a metric ton of SQ's already and only 3 Weapon Types. It's going to be easier to remember one or two Types than one or two SQ's.

Then again, it might not be necessary to do either. Maybe some combination of modifiers alone the above lines, can balance things out to satisfaction. I won't claim to have done the maths or anything, this is the product of a few minutes of thinking.

Weapons with the accurate quality gives extra damage for single shots, which makes it similar to semi-autoing.

I like the variable ap idea to reach a compromise. Although, I didn't find the ap system to be particularly complicated.

Despite having never played the game, I was somewhat fond of the way Inquisitor handled ranges. From what I recall guns didn't have set or maximum ranges, but instead had range classes. The class would determine how difficult it was to hit at any given range (eg. 0-10m +10, 11-30m +0, 31-80m -10, 81m+ -20), and that would determine the modifier. So guns had essentially an unlimited range (which would be true for close-quarter engagements), but the type of weapon is what determined how likely you were to hit. A pistol was never "out of range" because of some arbitrary figure, it just got far harder to hit with.

BYE

Despite having never played the game, I was somewhat fond of the way Inquisitor handled ranges. From what I recall guns didn't have set or maximum ranges, but instead had range classes. The class would determine how difficult it was to hit at any given range (eg. 0-10m +10, 11-30m +0, 31-80m -10, 81m+ -20), and that would determine the modifier. So guns had essentially an unlimited range (which would be true for close-quarter engagements), but the type of weapon is what determined how likely you were to hit. A pistol was never "out of range" because of some arbitrary figure, it just got far harder to hit with.

That would simplify the book-keeping; the downside is that that system doesn't reflect the variable 'effective' range of each weapon- a Lascannon is deadly at a far greater distance than a shotgun...