Jump to content

Azazael

Members
  • Content Count

    40
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About Azazael

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    -
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    Stord, Hordaland, Norway
  1. I understand. :-) Taking "Lethality" away from players is rarely a popular choice after all, especially after they have spent some XP on gaining some skill or another. You easily get the "you're replacing my precious Bolgun with What?" reaction. hehe I think that players who "were" highly trained snipers would still find themselves being so. A sniper with just a regular hunting rifle with Man-stopper rounds loaded, could still grant the following Damage: 1d10+9 I, Pen 7, +6 Critical Damage. Add to this +1d10 I if the Pen of the attack was equal to or more than the target's AP on location struck. This is after choosing hit location as well mind you. In most cases, a shot would be an instant kill. :-) I personally don't think this is more complicated, as the DoS are easy to calculate (and you still would need to do this according to RaW anyway). In general there are less 1d10's to roll for, which translates into fewer RF's and following BS Tests) and f a target is hit well, there is probably less of a reason to keep track of the lower criticals on the tables (as they most likely will be quite dead on account of the Critical Damage Bonus). The only thing that complicates things a little bit, is the Pen of the Attack vs. the AP of the rmour, but that is not especially hard or tricky after all. If penetrated, just add +1d10 to dam. I know it seems complicated, especially to the Accurate Description in the RAW alone, but I don'tthink this will pose much of a problem at all here. I think that it might actually speed up the game in fact, but in truth, that remains to be seen. Haven't gotten the chance to test it out yet, so... Sister Cat said: Glad you liked it. And don't get me wrong, I actually like your ideas, and the reasons behind them. But when I consider them practically, for my games, I just feel my players would consider them unnecessarily complex to keep up with ... especially for those who were highly-trained snipers. So ... there ya go.
  2. Can't recall seing any Accurate heavy weapons either, but I think that if there is one that I do kind of miss, it is the Heavy Sniper Rifle (comparable to the 12,7mm ones that exist today). This could be a heavy weapon, with the ability to damage light vehicles and the like in DH. I imagine that such a rifle would requre a Bipod to keep it steady, at least for a true "accurate" shot anyway. With the exception of the Lon-las, there doesn't seem to be any military specific sniper rifles (SP) in the game so far. I haven't gotten my copy of Deathwatch though, so I can't say if they have something there. I imagine the reason that the reason that there is no such thing as an accurate Lascannon (although technically possible workmanship-wise I guess), is that a shot to someone's head vould more or less leave someone without a head in the first place, and that it would be hard to justify doing any additional damage, claiming you hit the eye or something similar. I think this would be more than covered by the normal damage roll, and the RF rule in the event of an extremly unlikely hit occurring. Brother Praetus said: I'll have to try it out and see how it flies. Not very many Accurate heavies that I recall seeing, but seems like it might be an okay idea. Though, now I've got the thought of a pattern of MP Lascannon with Accurate truly devouring a tank in one well placed shot. Which, honestly, they should be about able to. -=Brother Praetus=-
  3. Not a bad idea balance-wise Face Eater. Most weapons will be limited to 3 hits in this anyway, with only a very few exceptions. One of the nicer benefits of it is that it will also make Dodging Semi-auto fire "harder", since you get more hits on average. I am for many of the solutions that help bring forth Semi-auto fire a bit more in the game, but even if I do like the intended game effect, I think I would rather approaach the problem from a different angle in this case. Personally, I am not a fan of additional Talents being introduced, as it is already enough to keep in mind with the errata and any forthcoming new Career options. I would rather do something with the "core" mechanics of the game, to work more "within the system" as it were. Still like the "core" idea itself though :-)
  4. To avoid any confuison, Azzazael is me. I discovered that I had a near identical former username (probably from long ago). Didn't realize I had logged on with that username whn I posted the reply.
  5. I have made a lot of changes to the original list that I posted here, and those two weapons systems you mention I removed the suggested limitations for. The list has been severly shortened, and for reference I can add the list (after modifications) as I have it right now: Storm Bolter; require an SB of 6. Heavy Bolter; require an SB of 6, OR the Auto-Stablilized Trait and SB 5, OR a Tripod Mount, OR SB 4 and a Bipod mount. Autocannon; require an SB 10, OR a Tripod Mount. Plasma Cannon; require an SB of 7. MP Lascannon; require an SB of 8, OR a Tripod Mount. Assault Cannon; require an SB of 10 (after all modifications) and the Auto-Stablilized Trait. Multi-laser; require a Vehicle mount (power source assumed to be to big/bulky/heavy to be carried by any man). Heavy Flamer; doesn't require any Bracing at all to be fired, and can not in any way benefit from having a Bipod or Tripod Mount. First of all, the above limitations overrule any use of the Bulging Biceps Talent, or normal rules of Bracing (i.e. you can't just slap an Bipiod on an AutoCannon, and you are good to go (unless you have the needed SB in the first place). I have worked on the list somewhat since the last time, but I still FIRMLY believe that basing the use of such massive, bulky and powerful weaponry (often described as having a tremendous recoil) just on Weight/Bulging Biceps Talent is not nearly enough. Some people may disagree, and that is fine, but for those who think that "normal (non-augmented) humans lugging around the likes of autocannons and such weaponry is a bit "off", considering the 40k setting as portrayed in the years after Necromunda, this might be something for you to try out. The list is not complete by any means, but it does include most of the weaponry that are descriped/depicted in the fluff (not Necromunda though) as being beyond normal soldiers to "use" alone. Finally, I agree with you on what you say regarding Stubbers and Missile Launchers. The Heavy Stubber can be the 40k equivalent of an M-60, and can be carried and used withing hte normal rules. The missile launcher might go both ways, since they come in many sizes (some even with their own "seat", but in the end I came to the conclusion that it aslo worked fine within the standing rules. My original though was to distinguish it from the RPG Launcher, but as you say, even though it is a 35kg weapon (as listed), it is perfectly possible for normal soldiers to fire one (although they would probably use a Tripod (as in the I.G codex) if they had one available and were going to fire a bunch of missiles, but that has little to do with the rules as such. borithan said: Chaplain Uziel said: Heavy Stubber; require an SB of 4. Missile Launcher; require an SB of 4. Well,much of the point of a missile launcher is to give a normal person access to an awful lot of firepower, as their whole design is as such as not to produce any recoil (or very limited recoil). I would get rid of a SB requirement for a missile launcher, or at the most make it 3. The only consideration is how much they (and their ammunition) weigh and the rules already take care of that. Also, many things that "heavy stubbers" represent are entirely portable by one man. Yes, the .50 cal-a-like from the current GW models would be a hard push for one guy to carry, and pretty much impossible for him to fire, but if you look at Necromunda models and other things "heavy stubbers" also include things like MG34s, M60s and similar. These, while being a pain in the ass to carry long distances, are explicitly designed to be portable enough for one man to carry and fire (even if his mates have to help him out if he wants a decent ammo supply). If we look at the "water-cooled heavy stubbers" of the Deathwatch intro games the increase in damage they get in fact suggests that the Heavy Stubber as in DH is in fact one of these lighter types.
  6. That might actually work. Have you game tested this yourself Honn? Haven't spendt long considering it yet, but at first glance it seems like it might be a valid option. It will sure force people to actually use Semi-auto fire more, and also the use of cover would be increasingly important for those with Full-auto weapons. Honn said: Long thread and lots of discussions that does not seem to actually be about semi vs full-auto, so I must admit I haven't read it all. But has anyone tried rules along the following lines? Full-auto: When using full-auto, the character looses his reaction for the round. (Similar to how an all out attack prevents your from defending yourself).
  7. Some CONSTRUCTIVE critisism at last. :-) One of the things I based the damages around, was the Helpless Target rule in the rulebook. If you can stand with a pistol aimed at someone's head at point blank, how can a sniper with a rifle 200 meters away reasonably claim to hit even a moving target, and deal a hefty potential +2d10 damage to his shot? After all, any damage based on the power of the weapon itself, is represented by it's Dam and Pen values in the first place, and something like a scope only lets you perceptivly get closer to your target. I also wanted there to be a marked diferense between an untrained sniper (talent wise) and one that was just a good shot (BS). It might also make Guardsmen players conscider the "sniper" direction after rank 6 more often, as this is now not something eveyone is nearly equally skilled at. I liked the idea of the pistol not getting the damage bonus at beyond medium/normal range. I'll cosider adding that. Thank you :-) Sister Cat said: Chaplain Uziel said: I think I might have come up with another solution Well, I certainly can see these changes adding a bit to realism, and giving your players/NPCs more tactical options. So, I like this version more than your first iteration. I do like the idea of giving Accurate Pistol weapons some of the same benefits as Accurate Basic weapons. But I think I would keep it simple, say: All Accurate Basic weapons get the damage bonus on Aimed shots, but only at Medium or longer ranges. While all Accurate Pistol weapons only get the damage bonus at Medium or shorter ranges. But like some others, I (personally) don't see the need for them. They unnecessarily add to the complexity, IHMO. And, added complexity tends to slow the game down. Again though, if that's what you're going for, then by all means your version seems a reasonable alternative.
  8. I saw players use semi-auto quite often. Mainly because they had reasons to conserve ammo -Ammo is rarely a problem in most games, as ammo itself has little weight (for simplicity's sake, we rule that Ammo for Pistol and Basic weapons are 0.5kg/clip), and this allows them to have some spare ammo on them without any problem. Ammo is also generally cheap. Technically, if you just use the weight limits for carrying in the rulebook, you may easily bring all the ammo you could concieavably ever need. I'd like to Semi-Auto being used on its combat merit alone, and not just for saving ammo. Personally I preferred a Lasgun to an Autogun for three reasons: - The Lasgun is reliable, the autogun isn't. So weapon jams were a lot rarer. - Lasgun ammo is much easier to replenish. - The Lasgun has twice the clip size, so it will last twice as long if the autogun player is conserving ammo. Longer if the autogun is only fired on full auto. -I am a fan of the Lasgun as well in fact (recently posted the Skitarii Tech-Guard Career on another website, which has been tailored to the use of las weapons), but I still don't think it can compare to the benefits granted from having an utogun. Full-auto is SO much better in RAW, and that is before you even include special ammo types like man-stopper bullets or the Mighty Shot Talent, which they benefit enormously from. The occational weapon Jam is a small price to pay for all the damage you can do in a sigle round of combat, and the greatly increased chance in which you actually have to cause that damage in the first place. So I understand why players don't often choose the lasgun over the autogun, but I'm still happy too see that it happens from time to time. I understand that arbitrary rulings are not always the way to go, but most rules are just that in fact. Even going by weight alone when dealing with the use of heavy weapons, is also an arbitrary ruling, The RAW might be arbitrary at first, but it has had years to prove itself in playtesting and actual gameplay. -Strange they missed so much and had to release an errata which intended to fix so many small mistakes and oversights then. Even though the core rules are pretty solid (they were pretty much based on WHFRP, 2.Ed), I seem to recall that the Dark heresy rulebook project was in fact not so long in production, although I can't say this for certain. That still comes down to definition of terms, so it really matters litte. My general impression of companies making RPG's are that they generally don't have that much of an economic backbone, and needs to get things out on the market as quick as possible. Even though I love Dark Heresy, I can't honestly say that I'm satisfied with all the books released, especially those in the beginning. Tale a look at the Dark Eldar in the Purge the Unclean book as an example (just to mention a good one), they can barely hurt a squirrel with their splinter rifles, and actually damaging the likes of a Storm Trooper would be impossible (assuming you don't allow RF for all). Not everything is great, just because it is official. Dark Heresy does generally have a high standard though, and is quite easily adaptable if one does some work on it (compared to many a system). How do your houserules compare to the RAW in actual playtesting ?Oh wait, you admitted that you haven't had a problem heavy weapon player, meaning you have no results to compare your testing to. - Our math shows doesn't show any problem. - Our gameplay experiences show no problems. - Your math only shows problems when you make assumptions that don't fit any gameplay I've heard about. -First og all, that I haven't had the problem with a player myself as a GM doesn't mean that I havent played in a group where this wasn't a problem. Also, I do tend to get the players to use heavy weapons (although saying that it is a regular occurense is overstating it), it is just that it is then usually fired from a Vehicle. Since it is a futuristic game, the Acolytes generally have some sort of transportation available to them (they have a small handfull of vehicles presently). There is precious little of that "we have to cross the spine of the world on foot from LOTR feeling you have in fantasy games", wwhich can get a bit boring after years of gaming. We did however have a Servitor with a heavy weapon (tech priest henchman) for a while, and even with just BS 30, the bonuses from Full-auto and generally Short Range, made him more than usefull enough. He was not overpowered in any way though, but then again, he only had a Heavy Stubber mounted. So how do you justify your assumption that players will be willing to take the dodge penalty and risk fatigue just to carry a heavy weapon ? -They probably wouldn't if they were going on long journeys on foot (since Fatigue builds up), but since the heavy weapon in question could easily be tranported longer distances in a Vehicle, they wouldn't get fatigued at all most likely. In the unlikely event that this happened, the Psyker could take care of that with Dull Poin anyway. The -10 to Ag test is no worse than that for wearing a Poor quality Armour. How do you justify them continuing to do so after the gm has hostile NPCs prioritise the heavy weapon guy whenever they can because he has the most dangerous weapon ? -That is a question which may a have a lot of factors in it, depending on the whole situation, depending on who the enemies are, terrain, etc. Not everyone will recognize the weapon for what it is before it is too late for one thing (especially Beastial Targets and such), and many don't have the range to match heavy weapons at all and might be gunned down before closing the distance. The other players might also still be the more immedaite threaths from the NPC's view (such as one closing in with a chain axe or a flamer, etc), which would make it unrealistic to alway pick on the heavy weapon guy. Also, once fired, an autocannon would leavy most enemies duck for cover if they were smart in the first place. How do you justify them continuing to do so after the gm has made it clear how the heavy weapon hinders investigations ? -They know this, and I've answered to my view on that clearly before. This is probably the major factor to keep this in check, but that has very little with the reality of basing the use of an assault cannon on the weight table alone. Nothing at all really. The original post was meant for those GM's, who couldn't justify saying no to one or more of their player's wish to run around with the likes of an Assault Cannon. There is simply no RAW rule against it. In my personaly view, it is better that the players know what they can reasonably expect to be ablo to carry and use as early as possible, so that they don't spend XP on something that they can not use (other than mounted from vehicle or tripod) anyway. The topic was never intended to include any debates on the Heavy Weapons in social situations aspect at all. That is as far as I'm conserned, a whole other matter. Unless the dragon stays in the air, what exactly is the problem with it being killed with swords ? -where to begin. That would probably best compareto you in SWAT armour being killed with an angry smurf with a toothpick. You'd probably just roll over him and crush him to a pulp, leaving you with a nice broken toothpick on your west... An autocannon is not comparable to an 12,7mm weapon (fully automatic), even a heavy bolter fires a larger caliber bullet than that (explosive as well). An autocannon is a typical weapon you would usually find on a light Tank (as the main weapon). You are forgetting about bolters firing rocket propelled ammunition. This means that if a bolter round had the same mass as a regular bullet, the bolter round can cover the same distance with less recoil because it doesn't get all its velocity from the launching charge. -I'm not actually. I know this. But Bolt Weapons still have a massive recoil, leaving only a very few able to use something like a Storm Bolter. I might be mistaking here, but I seem to recall something about Grey Knight in Power Armour using suspension technology to be able to use Storm Bolters. They are in any case, usually only used by Terminators, and that's not because of their weight alone. The explosive part means that a bolter round can do the same damage as a heavier regular bullet, because the bolter round has a damage mechanism on top of momentum. -Agreed. But an autocannon is still not a 12,7mm equivallent. The closes weapon to that is probably the Ortlack or Ursid-Pattern Heavy Stubbers found in RT. When have you ever seen, even the largest of real-life solders fire a full-auto 12,7mm weapon system without a Tripod/Vehicle mount? The only one I have seen that cound do this, was "Roadblock" from the old G.I Joe series, and that was a cartoon character... Are you confusing reality with cartoons ? -Just making a point, which I think you understood perfectly well... If not, why even bring up the cartoon ? -see above... If you want to bring up fiction, I'm sure we can find a few action movies to support our side. -go ahead, don't think you will find may with the kind of bulky WW 2 inspired weaponry used in DH being used by a lone soldier without any bracing, but it might be fun too see anyway... I am not out to "destoy" heavy weapons, Full-auto Weapons or Accurate Weapons at all. Then you are just destroying them through incompetence. -Thank you. That was meaningful. If you know anyone with competent with heavy weapons like that you can find in the 40K setting (which can support your view that I'm wrong when I claim that the bulk of them can't be used just based on wight and Bulging Biceps), let me know. I do think that the makers off the codexes, specifically the IG codex are agreeing more with my than you as to whom can run around with Assault Cannons, Mulit-lasers, Lascannons, Plasma Cannons, autocannons and even Heavy bolters. The gunnery Sargeant Harker is a good exaple to what I based my idea around, and claiming that I am incompetent regadrind weapons which we have very litte to compare them with today, is just redicolous. Who does? I would however, like to se the diversiity of weaponry actually being used more. Then spend some time to think of a solution and be willing to listen to the people with relevant experience when they tell you what you did wrong. - I'm more than open to other solutions, but so far people have just nitpicked and claimed that basing using such weapons on the merits of weight and bulging Biceps is good enough, which I think most people who has followed the 40K setting for a while and who take the time to look atthe weight rules, will deem unsifficient. Who has relevant experience with the likes of even the likes of a Heavy bolter? Just because someone here might have fired an M60 or something in the army, that is not really relevant. Even I have fired an M60. doesn't make me any kind of expert regarding anything more than the use of a heavy stubber. As opposed to what you did which is come up with an incomplete solution, then making stuff up or ignoring people when they tell you how bad it is. -If I ignored anyone, I apoligize. Making stuff up? where does that come from?? This has in our gaming group made for a much better game. so there is no need to feel sorry for my gamers. They all have from 15-25 years of RPG gaming experience, and they have not objected. If you have a group that experienced, why are you worried about problem players ? -At present, the players are at rank 5-6, and haven't had the chance to train the skills they like etc for a while (being in the middle of the Haarlock campaign), but I would rather let them know early as to what that can or can't do as early as possible, than to have them spend XP in reach of an "unnatainable goal". Unless they somehow get their hands on a suspension unit or get the Muscle Graft (good quality) cybernetic, they won't be running around, playing Rambo with a autocannon any time soon. Which part are you making up, you being worried about problem players or your gaming group ? -Making up? Where does this come from? Aren't I allowed to have an opinion about a set of rules on even just reading them alone? If you are going to tell us that you have a problem player in your group, that will raise two questions: - Why didn't you mention him/her sooner ? -I don't. And I won't. But I'd like that to be on the merits of the rules, and not just my opinion of what anyone is able to use or not. I just want some rules that give the players some expectations which are in line with the general use of Heavy Weaponry in the 40K universe, as being portrayed in nearly all litterature, pictures and various 40k games out there. - If you can't control him, why is he still in your group ? -I'll never thorow a player out of a group, just because he's not thinking the wy I am. We are all different, with varying opinions being the norm. I'd rather make a guideline/rule which the player's all know about, and are in agreement of before it even becomes an issue in the group. None of us wan't to see the combat aspect of the game turn into just a series of endless machine-gun battles. Unlike most futuristic RPG's, the 40K universe is actually one of the few in which Melee is a good option, and this balance is one of the things which make the players want more or 40K in the first place. If futuristic high-tech guns are always the order of the day, I think my players would actually find other RPG's to play. Why bring up melee at all ? Melee has always been powerful option with the RAW, if the melee character can get into melee range, your rules don't change that. -No they don't. wouldn't change that for the world eiter. It is that "IF" thay is the key in my book. If just about anyone is capable of using the most powerful of heavy weaponry, then Melee might become less and less of an aspect in the game, as fewer and fewer actually make it that far. There has been some complaint on the forum of psykers, especially the damage dealing ones being to powerful and that they can often ruin things (well, al least do more harm than good gamewise). At least they are limited by the dangers of using their powers, as well as the range of most of them. I can't really imagine that most games would be enriched by ading someone with an Assault Cannon in their hands on top of that. Buy hey, that is just my opinion, and I'm sticking to it! Finally, I just want to say that none of us are "experts" in 40K, so I think everyone's opinion has the right to be heard. This whole discussion has just been a whole waste of time, as nothing constructive has come out of it at all. Why people even bother spending their time on the House rules section just to tell people they are wrong, I don't get at all. Constructive critisism, or even coming up with an idea of your own is fine. After all, if you don't like the idea, and you don't want anything to do with it, just leave it alone and let people whom agree in the first place get a chance to help out instead. I'm not going to bother spending any more time justifying my view in this case. This is it. It's been a fantastic waste of time, instead of what I hoped could be a valuable source of constructive input from fellow gamers. I imagined that that was what this part of the forum was for after all.
  9. I halfway agree with you there, but under the condition that the Psyker had previously bother to explain what he could do, and perhaps shown them under calm conditions. Even then, I'm not sure they would become Immune, but it would definetly help. However, if he has not bothered to do this, and just goes... surprise!, Then I wouldn't blaim any PC who thought something bad (possession perhaps) had happened to him, and acted accordingly. Somonelse said: It kind of doesn't make sense though that an ally would suffer its effect when my psyker is on their side and that they know about it. It's sort of like having a Dragon fighting for your side, building up morale and causing fear against the enemy. Or in Dark Heresy, a Demon meeting it's followers.
  10. If you increase the Threshold of all Power rolls for say +2 for each Fatigue Level, then a Fatigued player will even think twice of using Dull Pain. Have tried it for a while now, and now the Psyker is actually rest and or mediates before "safely" using his powers again. He does however use Dull Pain in a pinch. QUOTE efidm=199068] I've tried to get him to be more careful with his powers, but when captured his first action (after healing himself) was to 'channel the warp.' meaning to just use his powers at full strength, not really activating any of his powers but mess around with stuff with the specific intent of inflicting some perils of the warp. I told him that he knows it's a very bad idea, and more akin to putting a live grenade in your lap and hoping you hurt everyone else around you more than yourself. He spent the rest of the game after that passed out from a combination of self inflicted fatigue damage and brutal beating he got after that. He was sure that if someone could wake him with a stim for even a moment he could use dull pain to take all the fatigue away (I had him woke up at fatigue level 6 with a stim before, not very lucid but awake). I wonder how much is dull pain supposed to remove? If he keeps using it he would be all fine in seconds. And how much fatigue is even posible? he got up to 12 levels of fatigue (that's more than his total wounds) because of critical damage and perils of the warp.
  11. Nice to see someone sharing my view on the use of the more powerful of heavy wepons (that you can't bascially leave it to weight and bulging biceps alone). I haven't gotten my copy of Deathwatch yet, but I suspected it had gotten some serious limitations (mounted or Terminator Armour only). If I have to guess, they probably have given it the Storm quality as well (since that didn't exist as IH came out). But as we are on this thread, does the book contain any stats regarding something as powerful as a Daemon Prince btw? QUOTE efidm=382358] Well i personally consider anything other than heavy stubber and heavy flamer to require full deployment and a 2 man team to move/fire it. Mp Lascannon, multimelta, assault cannon,missile launcher, heavy bolter, plasma cannon, multilaser and definitely autocannon- all push the envelope with just their own weight, but the weight of ammo and inability to carry enough ammo to warrant their use (who wants 10 shots from a heavy weapon when you can have hundreds from basic weapons per person). I'm glad in the Deathwatch core book assault cannon are listed as a mounted weapon, even for space marines. I'd argue that if we use the most recently published material, that most heavy weapons should require a half action to deploy before you can fire them. Maybe reduce this to a free action if you have bulgin biceps (you brute strenght the weapon into position). Also allowing an ammo loader to use his own actions to reload, allowing the gunner to carry on firing for longer.
  12. I think I might have come up with another solution, which also solves a couple of other issues in the game: One of the things that didn't quite make sense to me, was that it it was perfectly possible to get a +2d10 (with 3x RF chance on top of that as well) at All ranges with an Accurate Basic Weapon and at the same time, you couldn't perfectly do this with an accurate duelling pistol at even a distance of five meters. I also found that +2d10 to pure Dam, wath a bit unrealistic (when you look at the other weapons that your find in the game), especially when you take into consideration the 3x chance for RF. I have taken a closer look at this, but before I write any more, I must saythat I use the rules for Called Shot from the Rogue Trader Game (A Called Shot being a Full Action for a Single Shot), so it is pretty much based on the idea that you actually have some idea of what you are aiming for when you make the shot, even if you don't spend 3-6 additional second to use the AIM action. The Aim action itself is not needed for any of the rules below to be applied, but it will possibly increase your chances to both hit and to do damage automatically. Here is the changes as I have made them so far: "Accurate". +10 to Hit when using the Called Shot Action, or single Shot at Long and Extreme Range. +1 Dam for Each Dos, to a maximum of +4. IF the Pen of the attack is equal to or more than the Armour of the target at the location hit, then you may add +1d10 to Dam (which can not cause an RF). This +1d10, does nor work against targets with the Daeomic or Living Nightmare Traits. "Deadeye Shot Talent" In addition to reducing the difficulty of making a Called Shot to -10, it also grants a +1 Critical Dam for each DoS, to a maximum of +4. "Sharpshooter Talent" In addition to removing any negative modifiers for making a Called Shot, the talents also grant +1 Pen for each DoS, to a maximum of +4 (in addition to the +1 Critical from Deadeye Shot). "Called Shot Action (Full Action Single Shot)" Dodging a Ranged Called shot is now Hard (-20). Making a Called Shot at Point Blank Range with a Ballistic Weapon, now adds +1d10 Dam, assuming that you did cause Damage in the first place (i.e. the target lost one or more wounds, after reductions for toughness and armour). No additional Dam vs. targets with Daemonic or Living Nightmare Traits. This additional +1d10 has no chance of granting a RF. Accurate quality takes presedence over this dam bonus, so you won't get +2d10. In effect, this does several things: -Makes nearly all weapons more deadly at Point Blank Range, if the attacker bothers to make a Called Shot. Noy, you can actually blow someone's head off with a Hack-Shotgun, without having to roll RF's. Or any other weapon for that matter. This allows for what I like to thing off as more realistic gaming situations. If someone is pointing a gun at your face at 2 meters, you might now cosider listening to what he has to say, even if you have a bit of armour or above average armour. also works for excecutions, and cool assassinations. -It makes ALL Accurate weapons more dangerous. A noble with a duelling pistol can now be equally dangerous as a sniper with a rifle. -It ties the +1 Critical Dam/DoS and the +1 Pen/DoS) to those who might reasonably have some actual training with making precise and deady shots, but still allows anyone to effectivly use Accurate weapons. Especially the Sharpshooter will benefit from this, as he reduces the enemies the efect of the enemies Armour, and thereby increases his chances of scoring that +1d10 to Dam. Being a professional Sharpshooter now means something more than just having a high BS and a scope. -You can't no longer do unrealistic damage to Vehicles. Your sniper Rifle will never equal a Melta Gun. -Removes the 3x chance of scoring RF', which I think served to make accurate basic weapons comparable in pure Dam, to weapons which they should never have been reasonably compared with, especially in the hands of relativly untrained peronel. -Makes weapons and special ammo with a higher PEN very powerful in the hands of snipers, but still won't let them to amazing amounts of Damage with no actual ability to Penetrate some Armour first. Now, remember that Manstoppers (Pen 3) and a good Shot from a Sharpshooter (Pen +4) grants a total Pen of 7, which allows you that +1d10 (as well as +4 for Accurate on top of that regardless), with just the basic Hunting Rifle. You will however, have some slight problesm hurting the likes of SPace Marines in power armour, but if they don't justify you having to get a proper Sniper Rifle, than what does? You will still probably wound them. Add to this, the possibility of +4 to Critical Damage if you do get a target down to a +1 Critical. -Remeber that the Mighty Shot and Crack Shot talents will make you even deadlier still. Questionable Methods said: To get back to the core argument about Accurate weapons being OP - why not then require a talent to unlock the +1d10 dmg/DoS? Would that alleviate your concerns that anyone can pick it up and become Uber?
  13. Thank you, and that is fine. To each his own as they say. It all comes down to the kind of game one wants I guess. You are right, I have modified each of the firing modes somewhat. We tend to focus on the investiagion aspect on the game more, but I feel that the game mechanics need to be in place, or you may end up having a hard time actually "telling a good story". I know it comes off a litte "odd" to people, but the rules we use take into account for RF for all NPC's as well, and has to be balanced to account for that. amongst other things. I see why people have some problems with it, cause it's hard to just apply half the puzzle. I admit they are not perfect, but I do think the rule changes benefit the role-play aspect of it as a whole. I honestly don't think people have cosidered the whole picture here either, for one thing, this rule aslo allow for the use of the Accurate Quality, for ALL weapons, which means that your "gunslinger" may insted get another nasty trick up his sleeve, even if he won't have the same success s before, running around with an Autopistol in each hand and just about taking on everyone in general. More on this later. Bladehate said: I won't really get into another long analysis Chaplain. Some of your posts I have agreed with, some I haven't. This is definitely another one of the latter. In a game where full auto is the damage king, nerfing the alternatives to FA seems counter-intuitive. Of course, reading your threads collectively it's pretty clear that you feel the basic combat system itself needs extensive tweaking. I am not sure why you feel such extensive modification is even necessary. However, I don't think most people feel the same way which is why you're generally getting a negative response, even though you are posting it in the right forum. I wish you luck in your game, but I think I prefer the original product to your alternatives.
  14. I have nerfed Full Auto a bit yes, but I don't agree that the modifications are heavy, illogical or that they somehow ruins Full-auto weapons at all.. For these reasons: 1. Full Auto Weapons get +20 to BS, and 1 extra Hit pr DoS. Compared to all other weapons (Single Shot and Semi-Auto). Full-Auto shooting, is also typically way less accurate than Single Shot, and Semi-auto Shots, which line up their shots better, typically going for the target's center-mass, and much more easily keep their aim on target throughout the burst. The potentially massive number of additionaly hits (although comparably poorly "aimed"), typically allows for Full-auto Weapons to generate a whole lot more RF's, and still claim the increased chance of causing RF's, on account of the higher BS modifiers involved. 2. I Actually would like to see more Semi-auto weapons being used by players. As it stands now, they are always second best and people never choose them if there is an comparative Full-auto weapon. How often do your players fire their Autogun on just Semi-Auto after all? It is just no incentive to do so, or even go for Semi-Auto Weapons in the game. 3. When it comes to the Talents (Crack Shot and Mighty Shot), Full-Auto weapons benefit from these like no other weapons in the game, on account on the sheer number of hits typically generated. Personally, I think Full-Auto weapons would have a much harder time keeping their aim center-mass on target, and therefore being the typical weapons ably to claim bonuses which I attribute to coming from good shooting (the bullets do have the same velocity after all). This is my main idea for an incentive for more skilled shooters to use more Semi-Auto weapons, over Full-Auto. Not everyone have Mighty Shot or Crack Shot after all. 4. Mighty Shot and Crack Shot are typically not the first Talents a player gets access to, and allowing theese to just favour Semi-Auto and Single Shots, would help to distuingish between between more "professional troops" (like Storm Troopers with their Hellsguns), and relativly untrained rabbly, who typically choose 40K equivalents of the AK-47, which is still dangerous in unskilled hands (but which still become a whole lot more dangerous in skilled hands on accounts of the additinal hits generated). 5. Full-auto weapons have the Suppressive-Fire and Overwatch options as well, making them even better and more flexible still. This is just how I houserule them, and there are probably a whole lot of other solutions (which seems to be the indication when one reads here on the forum). The reason I have chosen to do it this way, it that it is a simple way to do it, and I think it serves it's purpose quite well. I try to avoid introducing a whole lot of other modifiers to the game (having to use a calculator to figure out what to roll below is not the way I like to go) and even to avoid chainging what is already written in the rulebook already (if possible). I will answer about accurate weapons in the relevant thread. I understand that arbitrary rulings are not always the way to go, but most rules are just that in fact. Even going by weight alone when dealing with the use of heavy weapons, is also an arbitrary ruling, you just have to do the math first. I'll admit that for some of the weapons I listed, the weight and Bulging Biceps rule might be fine to play with as they are, but I'll never agree that weight, bracing an the Talent required, is enough to justify being able to carry and use an Autocannon (with Bipod) for an average Soldier (Strength 30%, Toughness 30%, total XP 700, icluding the 400 one starts the game with, capable of carrying 78 kg at the very most). The idea of him being able to brace such a weapon in a window frame, and firing this kind of weapon, in Full-auto mode no less, is bordering on the same realism that allows you to kill a 300ft dragon with swords in D&D. An autocannon is not comparable to an 12,7mm weapon (fully automatic), even a heavy bolter fires a larger caliber bullet than that (explosive as well). An autocannon is a typical weapon you would usually find on a light Tank (as the main weapon). When have you ever seen, even the largest of real-life solders fire a full-auto 12,7mm weapon system without a Tripod/Vehicle mount? The only one I have seen that cound do this, was "Roadblock" from the old G.I Joe series, and that was a cartoon character... I am not out to "destoy" heavy weapons, Full-auto Weapons or Accurate Weapons at all. I would however, like to se the diversiity of weaponry actually being used more. Yes, in my games, Full-auto has suffered a slight setback (for the more elite soldiers), but they are still the typically the best weapons to have around. This has in our gaming group made for a much better game. so there is no need to feel sorry for my gamers. They all have from 15-25 years of RPG gaming experience, and they have not objected. None of us wan't to see the combat aspect of the game turn into just a series of endless machine-gun battles. Unlike most futuristic RPG's, the 40K universe is actually one of the few in which Melee is a good option, and this balance is one of the things which make the players want more or 40K in the first place. If futuristic high-tech guns are always the order of the day, I think my players would actually find other RPG's to play. Radomo said: So, you've nerfed Full Auto heavily, made Accurate weapons completely useless, and now you're on to heavy weapons. It really seems like you just don't like how deadly weapons are in general. You seem to be ignoring the fact that getting Str 45 and Bulging biceps requires your feral world guardsman, on average, 450 xp + the appropriate HWT training and to be rank 5 (if you elite advance Bulging Biceps before this rank, that's your fault, not the rules). Even if you allow for a 20 in Str, they still need to be rank 5 before they can fire from the hip without penalty. It's your game, so do what you want, but I'm very glad I don't play in it. I'm not a fan of arbitrary rulings.
  15. I notice that you didn't answer my question of which current-day weapon you would consider an autocannon to be the equal of, both conserning weight and recoil. Also, a SB+TB 6 Guardsman (or whoever else for that matter), can carry up to a maximum of 78 KG (not comfortably thoug, but only -1 to Ag bonus and -10 to all Ag-Tests). 78kg-55 (autocannon) is 23, which means he could actually wear a full Storm Trooper Carapace (17 kg) and still have 4 Kg to spare. This is an untrained conscript too mind you. So When you claim that the weights of the heavy weapon, is enough of an discouragement rule-wise, I most strongly disagree. There is no chainging my mind on that one. I'll even give you a worse example. If one Lascannon is 55kg, then one can reasonably assume that a twin-lascannon (such as found on the mighty Land Raider (with a whole other clip capacity I know) is around 110 kg. Technically, according to the rules, someone with "heroic" characteristics (lets say SB 5 + TB 5 for simplicity's sake), is fully capable of pushing himself to carry 157 Kg. This means he can, according to the rules on p,215, carry around a Twin-Lascannon, and he could have worn a full suit of Light Power Armour (with the suit turned off) and still have 7 Kgs of maximim "Exceeded Carry" capability left. Ah, yes. The Bracing. I do believe I stated that the Guardsman braced the weapon in a window frame (which is probably better tha on a pile of rubble as the excampe on the Bracing description pn p.127. You don't NEED a bipod or Tripod to brace a heavy weapon according to the rules, but even if you assumed a Bipod was mounted (which is more in line with a weapon that you would be able to carry and use, than a tripod), it would still change nothing. If you still think any of this is "reasonable", and that the rules made by the authors are blanced in any way or form on this issue, well, I don't really rhink I can say any more to convince you otherwise. N0-1_H3r3 said: Chaplain Uziel said: Now, I have a question for you. What current-day weapon would you compare the likes of an autocannon with? And can you ever se ANY man being capable of using it without the aid of a tripod and another soldier to help him out with it? You're forgetting the weight of the rest of the guardsman's gear, and of any ammunition he's carrying; a naked guardsman may have no issue hauling around an autocannon by himself, but add in the weight of his armour and other equipment, and things become more problematic. Beyond that, the entire purpose of a tripod in game terms is to enable bracing. That is essentially what bracing represents, so claiming that anyone can use a heavy weapon without a tripod, etc is overlooking that the weapon still needs to be braced before it can be used effectively.
×
×
  • Create New...