I never claimed otherwise, just warned you that there are worse examples.

I was just trying to save you from a heart attack

What's the problem with 6 minimum damage?

Snipers are not superhuman godlike entities. They can graze.

"Realistically," 6 is too much.

Anyway Accurate is the most overpowered weapon quality in the game as far as I can see.

It is not really overpowered.

Powerful? Yes, if you roll good.

But without it sniper rifles would not work as intended.

Versatile Shooter from OW that puts the extra damage dice to about any SP weapon you use ... that is something I consider overpowered.

OK, "powerful." The point is that it's a nasty quality.

I thought Versatile Shooter only worked on non-Basic weapons with the Accurate Quality? Of which I think there are only two (needle pistol, vindicator cannon).

I'm currently at work and AFB, i'll check again this evening.

Anyway Accurate is the most overpowered weapon quality in the game as far as I can see.

Gotta disagree there. In my experience, the worst offender is Storm.

What's the problem with 6 minimum damage?

Snipers are not superhuman godlike entities. They can graze.

"Realistically," 6 is too much.

Anyway Accurate is the most overpowered weapon quality in the game as far as I can see.

They can graze, sure. But not when the hit is nearly perfect. The way damage works in this game is pretty ludicrous as it is, since it almost doesn't matter at all how accurate the shot really is. A perfect shot between the eyes should not deal 6 damage.

That's why in my opinion high caliber sniper rifle such as Exitus should have a really high minimum damage, because of the very fact that it has a very low rate of fire, low clip and is really, really awkward to use.

And that's besides the point entirely, because the point, again , is not whether it's overpowered or not, it's whether how it works actually fits the description. And by no stretch of imagination it does, in it's current state.

If you think that such a huge sway in damage of the weapon and it's complete lack of connection to actual accuracy of the shot is reasonable, sure, ok, I am ready to accept it. Hell, I can see it as a merit, but then present them as such in the narrative . Tell the players and GMs that they're really buying into a weapon that's terribly uncertain. Don't try to sell them that this is somehow a very powerful weapon that can take down huge targets easily and that it utilizes shooters skill to the maximum making it an ideal tool for a devote marksman, because it clearly isn't.

As it is, someone with high ballistic skills is better off with an autogun. Because autogun can score up to 10 hits with a good roll. That's 10d10+20. Even at 5 hits, a really mediocre result for someone with the skills of a Vindicare Assasin, it's still 5d10+10. And as an added benefit you can split that between targets. It's really awkard when an AK47 seems to benefit more from an accuracy of the sniper then the god-damned sniper rifle.

Technically, you only have a "perfect shot between the eyes" if you actually do roll the highest number on your damage dice. Imo, it's always been a bit problematic how the BS test only governs whether you hit at all, or don't, whilst how well you hit is determined by a separate damage roll. But the rules are what they are.

Also, much of the damage from multiple autogun hits can be negated multiple times by AP and TB. A single high-damage sniper round will have its damage reduced once, with the rest of the damage being applied without being lowered further. As such, against enemies with high armour and Toughness, I'd prefer a single shot weapon with high damage, whereas autofire is more useful against lesser enemies.

Not that I wouldn't agree on the rifle still deserving a somewhat higher minimum damage, mind you. It'd just ... feel better that way, and I agree it would lend more strength to the role of a sniper. Not to mention the description issue, although this could be said for a whole lot of weapons in this system.

This is something that I think contributed to the Deathwatch errata. More dice skews the probability curve and greatly ups the chance of RF, which was the big issue with DW's heavy bolter one-shotting Hive Tyrants. The errata increased the static damage bonuses, reduced the weapon from 2d10 to 1d10 and lowered the RoF to compensate average damage across 6 max hits vs 10.

A hit that does 6 damage is not a perfect shot right between the eyes by definition. If you rolled that, that means you grazed. The effectiveness of a hit is a combination of to-hit roll and damage roll, not just to-hit roll.

If you raise minimum damage, you are in effect saying that there is no such thing as slight grazing. Slight grazing is literally impossible for the sniper. Not only will he reliably one-hit-kill or seriously wound things, he will ALWAYS do it.

Mind you guys, for a long long time before any supplements or even errata, the only weapons that could have been called (because sure as hell not considered ) "sniper" rifles were the hunting rifle and the long-las. And they had 150m of effective range, so up to 600m at extreme range. Considering our modern sniper rifles can easily stay accurate at 4000m... Those are rather poor excuses for "sniper" weapons.

For a long time, it seemed to me like that was the whole point- that for some reason, in the Grim Darkness of Far Future sniper rifles don't exist and everybody just runs at people with swords. And in a way, it was cool. It seemed totally unrealistic, but I didn't care, there was a certain charm to it.

And then all the errata and expansions started coming out, begining with Inquisitor's Handbook and the Nomad rifle, I think. And I had no idea what to make of any of it since then. It seemed like at some point, the game just decided that it will start supporting the idea of playing long-range marksman. But it never really supported it mechanically. It merely started writting narrative that seemingly tried to fool people into thinking that, yes, you can play a sniper in Dark Heresy.

You never really could. That was never the point. I can only atribute that insulting sugar-coating to fan preassure really. And I can't hold that against the Devs. But I would rather not have a chance to play a sniper, then be lied to by the narrative that I can, because those rules clearly can't handle it.

A hit that does 6 damage is not a perfect shot right between the eyes by definition. If you rolled that, that means you grazed. The effectiveness of a hit is a combination of to-hit roll and damage roll, not just to-hit roll.

If you raise minimum damage, you are in effect saying that there is no such thing as slight grazing. Slight grazing is literally impossible for the sniper. Not only will he reliably one-hit-kill or seriously wound things, he will ALWAYS do it.

Well... Yes. Sorry, but that's the point of being a sniper . If you hit, most things die. Up that to 11 with Vindicare.

That's why I am not saying it should be possible. I think it shouldn't. All I'm saying is that the game shouldn't lie about it. If playing an actual sniper is something not supported by the game, then don't try to persuade people that they can do it, with only some clever wordplay and no mechanics to back it up.

Well you can't play a sniper that shoots at 4000 meters, but you can certainly have a guy that shoots at long range relative to everything else and does massive amounts of damage with each hit.

What's the issue?

A hit that does 6 damage is not a perfect shot right between the eyes by definition. If you rolled that, that means you grazed. The effectiveness of a hit is a combination of to-hit roll and damage roll, not just to-hit roll.

If you raise minimum damage, you are in effect saying that there is no such thing as slight grazing. Slight grazing is literally impossible for the sniper. Not only will he reliably one-hit-kill or seriously wound things, he will ALWAYS do it.

Well... Yes. Sorry, but that's the point of being a sniper . If you hit, most things die. Up that to 11 with Vindicare.

That's why I am not saying it should be possible. I think it shouldn't. All I'm saying is that the game shouldn't lie about it. If playing an actual sniper is something not supported by the game, then don't try to persuade people that they can do it, with only some clever wordplay and no mechanics to back it up.

I don't get it. You're saying that snipers always kill their targets when they hit them? They don't.

A hit that does 6 damage is not a perfect shot right between the eyes by definition. If you rolled that, that means you grazed. The effectiveness of a hit is a combination of to-hit roll and damage roll, not just to-hit roll.

If you raise minimum damage, you are in effect saying that there is no such thing as slight grazing. Slight grazing is literally impossible for the sniper. Not only will he reliably one-hit-kill or seriously wound things, he will ALWAYS do it.

Well... Yes. Sorry, but that's the point of being a sniper . If you hit, most things die. Up that to 11 with Vindicare.

That's why I am not saying it should be possible. I think it shouldn't. All I'm saying is that the game shouldn't lie about it. If playing an actual sniper is something not supported by the game, then don't try to persuade people that they can do it, with only some clever wordplay and no mechanics to back it up.

I don't get it. You're saying that snipers always kill their targets when they hit them? They don't.

I'm saying that grazing people with a freaking Exitus rifle is utterly absurd, considering that by it's writeup, it should reliably destroy Land Speeders at the very least . If you want to have it random, have it random, but then don't pretend that it isn't, simple as that.

Does it explode in fluff? As far as I know it is a large slug projectile -- which means it can graze, unless it's magic.

I think we're confusing something here. "Reliably destroy landspeeders" means "most of the time it will destroy landspeeders," not "it is guaranteed 100% to destroy a landspeeder."

Actually destroying a landspeeder is not that hard -- going by memory they have 15 front armour and 15 structural integrity, so an Exitus Rifle should do it with some regularity even from the front.

Does it explode in fluff? As far as I know it is a large slug projectile -- which means it can graze, unless it's magic.

I think we're confusing something here. "Reliably destroy landspeeders" means "most of the time it will destroy landspeeders," not "it is guaranteed 100% to destroy a landspeeder."

Actually destroying a landspeeder is not that hard -- going by memory they have 15 front armour and 15 structural integrity, so an Exitus Rifle should do it with some regularity even from the front.

Except, whether it will destroy it or not, is not reliable, it's random.

Does it explode in fluff? As far as I know it is a large slug projectile -- which means it can graze, unless it's magic.

I think we're confusing something here. "Reliably destroy landspeeders" means "most of the time it will destroy landspeeders," not "it is guaranteed 100% to destroy a landspeeder."

Actually destroying a landspeeder is not that hard -- going by memory they have 15 front armour and 15 structural integrity, so an Exitus Rifle should do it with some regularity even from the front.

Except, whether it will destroy it or not, is not reliable, it's random.

Something that has a high chance of doing something is reliable by definition.

As pointed out above, the chance of rolling 4 ones is .01%.

If you raise minimum damage, you are in effect saying that there is no such thing as slight grazing. Slight grazing is literally impossible for the sniper. Not only will he reliably one-hit-kill or seriously wound things, he will ALWAYS do it.

That's a fine effect for the Vindicare, but I think non-Ascension assassin snipers are pretty good as-is and don't need changes.

If you raise minimum damage, you are in effect saying that there is no such thing as slight grazing. Slight grazing is literally impossible for the sniper. Not only will he reliably one-hit-kill or seriously wound things, he will ALWAYS do it.

That's a fine effect for the Vindicare, but I think non-Ascension assassin snipers are pretty good as-is and don't need changes.

Well I agree with you; my position is that snipers are very playable (except for the 4000-meter part) and very deadly.

When the OP means "sniper" he doesn't mean "sniper" -- he means "guaranteed killing machine who literally cannot fail to make a kill."

Sniper shots to the head - or wherever - are not inherently more dangerous than any other hit with a rifle-type weapon.

In the Grim Darkness of the Far Future any hit to the head or vitals with anything from a lasgun and up (bolters anyone? or a MELTA GUN!?) should probably instakill anything human (including unarmoured marines). Oh and 'human' includes PCs :-D

More realistic? Maybe. More fun? Not at all.

Especially not when couple with players' sometimes unreasonable assumptions about what a sniper can do...somehow they think they (certain breeds of players at least) can find hidden spots high up where they can't be seen, reached or shot back at. From where they can see all, know all and kill all.

If you raise minimum damage, you are in effect saying that there is no such thing as slight grazing. Slight grazing is literally impossible for the sniper. Not only will he reliably one-hit-kill or seriously wound things, he will ALWAYS do it.

That's a fine effect for the Vindicare, but I think non-Ascension assassin snipers are pretty good as-is and don't need changes.

Well I agree with you; my position is that snipers are very playable (except for the 4000-meter part) and very deadly.

When the OP means "sniper" he doesn't mean "sniper" -- he means "guaranteed killing machine who literally cannot fail to make a kill."

And I have to stress, yet again, that I agree that it shouldn't be possible.

All I'm saying, is that I would greatly appreciate the books being honest about it. Is it really so hard to get?

40k RPG fluff is based, in large part, on tabletop fluff. On the tabletop, the Vindicare can 1-shot Land Raiders (or could in previous editions at least). FFG likely does not have the power to rewrite the existing fluff, which dictates the power of the Exitus and contributes to its fearsome tabletop rating.

At the same time, directly porting the tabletop stats to make the Exitus able to insta-kill Rhinos, Vultures, and Land Raiders terribly upsets the balance of the game. So, in that case, there's a discrepancy between fluff (which likely cannot be changed) conflicts with the crunch (which has to be reasonably balanc----looooool I couldn't finish that).

I'm not really sure what the issue is.

40k RPG fluff is based, in large part, on tabletop fluff. On the tabletop, the Vindicare can 1-shot Land Raiders (or could in previous editions at least). FFG likely does not have the power to rewrite the existing fluff, which dictates the power of the Exitus and contributes to its fearsome tabletop rating.

Sure they can. FFG has been rewriting existing fluff all the time. The Vindicare himself is an example of this, considering that normally every single mission would have to be authorised by the High Lords of Terra, whereas here he's just added to the group as a permanent asset.

GW doesn't care as long as they keep to the most simple basics.

I think the people at FFG have already been rather clever about this, actually, by giving the Exitus rifle a rather sensible damage profile (2d10+2 Pen 5), with only the special Turbo Penetrator kicking it up to 4d10+2 Pen 9.

As a GM, I'd simply give a Vindicare only a single Turbo Penetrator, or a single clip of 10, and tell him to take good care of it as he won't get a replacement any time soon, forcing him to rely on the standard rounds for most enemies, and only breaking out the good stuff for critical assassinations. This way, I would not see a balancing problem with giving it a higher minimum damage.

Besides, is a maximum damage of 42 not a balancing concern already? The current profile only means the result will be highly random, fluctuating between "it's not even a scratch" (Toughness Bonus ftw) and "ohmygodinstakill!". This in itself is something I actually find more worrying than the "merely average" minimum damage.

If it were up to me, I could see the Turbo Penetrator being changed to a flat +10, which not only increases the minimum damage but also lowers the maximum damage to 32, somewhat reducing the lulzy randomness.

It's a "hypervelocity heavy gravity round" - even a grazing shot should hurt. A lot.

Eh, I see them as adding to the fluff a lot, with few changes, but a lot of "FFG canon" from their designs of the sectors and their inhabitants. From the outset I disagreed with including Vindicare as a playable career though, let alone one that an adult street killer could get into with a few strings pulled. I don't think Temple Assassins should have fully-formed personalities developed through normal human growth and socialization. Doesn't really fit the missions they do very well.

I think 2d10+2 is pretty shoddy at a baseline though. But I'm guessing it also has Accurate.