Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Luthor Harkon

Accurate rule broken?

Recommended Posts

I also think the new accurate rule is broken. After it was introduced everyone in my group wanted to have a hunting rifle, and even the assassin thought the new accurate rule was too powerful. The accurate quality is by far the most powerful quality now.
Anyway, my house rule to this is, like tearing , you add a d10 for every 2 degrees of success, but only the highest die roll is used. (so if an assassin hit with 4 degrees of success he would roll 3 dice, say he rolled a 2, 7 and 8, only the 8 would count to damage)
For non-accurate weapons used in single shot, we add one to damage for every two degrees of success. But that really has nothing to do with the accurate rule ^_^
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cifer said:

Still doesn't answer the question what differentiates aiming and shooting from aiming, calling a shot to the torso and shooting.

Calling a shot is basically declaring that you try to hit a specific body part, which incurs a penalty. This penalty can however be reduced by taking a proper aim. Not calling a shot means that yu basically fire your weapon in the direction of your target and that you dont care which body part you hit as long as you hit your target. Aiming during this situation means that you trace your target through your crosshairs/iron-sights for a moment, but dont really care which part of the body you're aiming at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, my house rule to this is, like tearing , you add a d10 for every 2 degrees of success, but only the highest die roll is used. (so if an assassin hit with 4 degrees of success he would roll 3 dice, say he rolled a 2, 7 and 8, only the 8 would count to damage)

In that case, the most powerful sniper weapon remains an autogun on FA. I'm not quite sure how this is better...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cifer said:

 

In that case, the most powerful sniper weapon remains an autogun on FA. I'm not quite sure how this is better...

 

 

 

You might be right, but my problem isn’t that everyone in my group yelled “I want an autogun too” but that everyone wanted hunting rifles. To my mind it is just plain silly that a hunting rifle does more damage that a meltagun or plasmagun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not consider the new rule broken, although it is rather strong. Here is why i have this opinion:

A well-aimed accurate weapon can get something between +20 (aim and accurate) and +60 (full round aim, targeter, red-dot sight, half range, accurate).

Now depending on the roll he does 3d10+3 with a simple hunting rifle, with results in a rather high base damage, often enough to kill an enemy instantly.

However, said enemy only has to make a single dodge test to avoid it.

An autogun can strike the enemy up to ten times, every shot 'only' dealing 1d10+3 (rather low average compared to the hunting rifle), but you cannot dodge the whole damage as easily.

Accurate weapons punch hard (if you aim and roll low), but they are easy to dodge. Strong? Yes. Broken? No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont think the rule is broken either.. our group did think this when we first saw the errata but it isnt that often that our assassin actually manages to hit with a roll low enough to get the full bonus. And about 2 weeks ago our guardsman aquired the dual shot skil and proved what a pair of .54 tranter hand cannons can do with it...

So now everyones happy in the group, some players have sniper weapons, some sport autoguns, the sororitas has her bolter & flamer.... so i suppose the choice of weapon is up to the individual player.

And yes, melta and plasma weapons do sometimes seem a little underpowered when compared to all the above hardwear.

S.K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1235 said:

Cifer said:

 

In that case, the most powerful sniper weapon remains an autogun on FA. I'm not quite sure how this is better...

 

 

 

You might be right, but my problem isn’t that everyone in my group yelled “I want an autogun too” but that everyone wanted hunting rifles. To my mind it is just plain silly that a hunting rifle does more damage that a meltagun or plasmagun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, the quote system ate my post.

Short summary  then. Your players are either wrong or reacting to a one sided kind of threat.

If they are wrong, it's not really a balance problem since they could be doing better with mixed tactics, if they are right....It's more or less the GM's fault. In any case the cure is the same, show them what can be done with an encounter. Throw their way five or so hive gangers with poor quality autoguns and leather armour. Use overwatch. Dodge a lot. Score five hits in one round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Use overwatch.

Forget overwatch. Use pinning!

The first few times I tried the Suppressive Fire action, I was pretty overwhelmed by the results... everything in your suppressed zone must make a WP roll at a -20 penalty. For most opponents, that means they have to roll 10 or less. If they don't make it, they have to move into cover and can use only half actions on their turn at a -20 penalty to their BS. Even if you stop suppressing them, they still have to make a roll with a sucess chance of about 2/3. So chances are that you can essentially deny multiple persons their actions for only one full action of your own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is all good and well. I’ve been playing role playing games for longer than I care to remember and been GM’ing for quite a bit of that time too.
My group is happy this the fix to the accurate quality and it works for our style of play, so no worries there.

The new accurate rule has made accurate by far the most powerful quality. It was, perhaps, not the most powerful quality before, since there really wasn’t any advantage of rolling more degrees of success in single shot. But now it is just plain silly, doing an aim shot with a non-accurate weapon (say, a sutogun) shouldn’t be “+2d10 in dmg” different from a accurate weapon. And it certainly shouldn’t be comparable with heavy weaponry
That is my two cents on the new accurate rule anyway
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really understand the problem with the accurate quality to be honest.  Full-auto is far more dangerous to anything not in insane armor, and a full auto or semi-auto attack with a shotgun rips apart just about anything it hits (and yes, there is at least one gun that can do this).  The reason that an accurate weapon can do the extra damage is that you can actually place your shots with some amount of precision, though I'd say requiring a called shot is reasonable (and means that the marksman and deadeye shot talents become even more crucial to a sniper), but I'd also reduce the called shot penalty to -10 if you're just going for a body-hit for the accurate damage bonus.

All in all, the accurate bonus is required to make snipers viable, which they very much should be by any accounting.  I think if you find the lack of bonus on normal "aimed shots" to be odd, make non-accurate weapons able to gain a single +1d10 on an aimed shot that succeeds by 2 DoS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As has been said, Accurate really is about on par with Full Auto, especially at close ranges, with the drawback that they only need to get a straight success on their Dodge. In my games the Sniper Assassin uses a Nomad (they're very high Rank), whilst the Guardsman uses a D'laaku and a Meltagun. It often feels the Sniper is doing more damage, but when the Guardsman actually gets the opportunity to Full Auto at Close (or even more spectacularly, Point Blank) then it's really noticable how powerful Full Auto. I still worry about the damage the Sniper does, simply because as the primary ranged combatant in the party I see the effects of his shots more so than anyone else.

Until the change to Accurate, Full Auto was the only way to go for real damage with a Basic Weapon, which stole a lot of opportunities for people to use something cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luthor Harkon said:

Is the Accurate-rule broken somehow? (Aim – Single shot -- Aim – Single shot -- Aim – Single shot -- Aim – Single shot -- Aim – Single shot…) It is far more powerful than any Plasma weapon…

In my opinion, yes. Adding a full die of damage per degree of success is simply too good.

-K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think it is too powerful you should knock it down to a max of 2D10.  It will still get the single shot accurate weapons a punch.  Either that  make it so that they need to me atleast at normal, long or extreme range to gain the benefits of it, since at close and point blank range pretty much every weapon is accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Khorne-ucopia said:

If you think it is too powerful you should knock it down to a max of 2D10.  It will still get the single shot accurate weapons a punch.  Either that  make it so that they need to me atleast at normal, long or extreme range to gain the benefits of it, since at close and point blank range pretty much every weapon is accurate.

That's already the case, I believe. Each 2 degrees of success grants a bonus 1d10 damage and you can earn this bonus a maximum of twice. So +1d10 for passing the BS roll by 20, +2d10 for passing it by 40 or more. A 3d10+5, Pen 3 attack is still a powerful thing (Hunting Rifle, Manstoppers, Mighty Shot), but (as many others have said) a full-auto burst of manstoppers can do a hell of alot more damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the replies.

In our session yesterday I changed the rules for Accurate weapons in the way that now a full round of aiming is necessary to get the full potential bonus. This way the Aim-Shot--Aim-Shot--Aim-Shot rounds are no more and the rule became a true sniper thingy. I thought our groups Assassin would strangle me (with the support of the groups Carnodon wielding Arbitrator), but surprisingly he was sympathetic to the change. Even he realized that it is far too powerfull and simply diminished the actions (ie. the laughable Las shots) of the rest of the group (especially when I would have started making the enemies tougher because of the rule). I also ruled (someone in the forum mentioned this house rule) that full-auto gives +20 to hit (as usual) but only an extra bullet hit for 2 degrees of success and semi-auto +10 to hit (as usual) and an extra bullet hit for 1 degree of success. It evens out the shooting a little and makes semi-auto fire (most policemen and soldiers learn that short bursts of fire are the most effective way to shoot after all) a viable option (apart from saving ammo).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luthor Harkon said:

 (someone in the forum mentioned this house rule) that full-auto gives +20 to hit (as usual) but only an extra bullet hit for 2 degrees of success and semi-auto +10 to hit (as usual) and an extra bullet hit for 1 degree of success. It evens out the shooting a little and makes semi-auto fire (most policemen and soldiers learn that short bursts of fire are the most effective way to shoot after all) a viable option (apart from saving ammo).

 

You realize that using this rule you are making any full auto weapon useless. No one will ever hit more than five times with full auto.

So if you don't want full auto weapons why not just ban them instead of making them a waste of your players money and time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ItsUncertainWho said:

 

Luthor Harkon said:

(someone in the forum mentioned this house rule) that full-auto gives +20 to hit (as usual) but only an extra bullet hit for 2 degrees of success and semi-auto +10 to hit (as usual) and an extra bullet hit for 1 degree of success. It evens out the shooting a little and makes semi-auto fire (most policemen and soldiers learn that short bursts of fire are the most effective way to shoot after all) a viable option (apart from saving ammo).

 

You realize that using this rule you are making any full auto weapon useless. No one will ever hit more than five times with full auto.

So if you don't want full auto weapons why not just ban them instead of making them a waste of your players money and time?

 

 

Sarcasm? Anyway, I haven't realized that it makes full-auto weapons useless, even though I feared it could be too hefty for the mentioned reason that it is almsot not possible to get more than 4 hits. But even then, I thought 4 hits are more than you could score otherwise and +20 to hit is still a bonus not to be scoffed at and gives you the best chance to hit anything at all. Not that useless in my opinion (even before taking into account the possibility of dealing out very effective supressing fire).

 

Graspar said:

 

Yeah, I think switching the bonuses around and making both modes of fire hit an extra bullet per DoS works better.

 

 

 

No, I think the basic chance to hit at all should be higher with full auto.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only a little bit of sarcasm.

By making full auto hit on every two successes you are forcing anyone who uses full auto (FA) to waste a lot of ammo with every pull of the trigger with little possibility of ever actually hitting. It seems like a punishment for using a FA weapon compared to the crazy bonus for using semi auto (SA).

Suppressing fire is still not much of an excuse to use FA for the fact you’re not likely to hit more than once or twice at most while throwing away 8 or so rounds of ammo at a squeeze.

Mechanically, why would anyone using the swapped hits per success rule ever use a FA action, + 20 to hit or not? You are only going to be able to hit 2-3 times per full auto burst where if you rolled the same roll with SA you are almost guaranteed to hit with every round.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ItsUncertainWho said:

Only a little bit of sarcasm.

By making full auto hit on every two successes you are forcing anyone who uses full auto (FA) to waste a lot of ammo with every pull of the trigger with little possibility of ever actually hitting. It seems like a punishment for using a FA weapon compared to the crazy bonus for using semi auto (SA).

Suppressing fire is still not much of an excuse to use FA for the fact you’re not likely to hit more than once or twice at most while throwing away 8 or so rounds of ammo at a squeeze.

Mechanically, why would anyone using the swapped hits per success rule ever use a FA action, + 20 to hit or not? You are only going to be able to hit 2-3 times per full auto burst where if you rolled the same roll with SA you are almost guaranteed to hit with every round.
 

Well, if you want to get into the reality of burst fire vs auto-fire, handling it in such a way is a bit more accurate. Most of the rounds will end up in walls, pregnant women, people minding their own business in their homes, that dog over there, and maybe two or three will actually hit their intended target. To some, reality may not be suitable for recreational enjoyment ;-).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ItsUncertainWho said:

Suppressing fire is still not much of an excuse to use FA for the fact you’re not likely to hit more than once or twice at most while throwing away 8 or so rounds of ammo at a squeeze.

I beg to differ. Suppressing Fire is the best reason to take a Full-Auto capable weapon. It becomes far less useful when faced with inhuman monstrosities, of course, but against foes with mortal, fearful minds it can cripple a pack of enemies, forcing them into cover and denying them full round actions. Overwatch is a pretty useful tool as well, especially when used on unsuspecting players.

As for the switching of the DoS bonus hits for Semi and Full Auto fire I'm considering it. As mentioned above even when reduced in power a Full Auto weapon still has many, many advantages over a weapon only capable of Semi Auto fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Just to back up from the FA suppressing fire discussion and go back to aiming, I like to emphasise in my games that aiming requires a certain clear head. If a sniper manages to get themselves behind cover and single-kill somebody, well that seems fair, since in my extensive snipering experience (OK, I study physics...) this reflects reality. But in reality also, you have to be a bad-ass to cooly take aim in the middle of combat, even if it's 'only' against a few gun-armed cultists. So if a character in one of my games uses aiming, I first check to see they're not being shot at, charged etc, otherwise I make them pass a WP check to aim and shoot rather than shoot and duck, shoot and draw a close combat weapon etc, or just scream 'die heretic scum!!!' and open up on full auto if their weapon has that option. This is just for normal opponents of course - fear is a completely different (and harsher) kettle of tentacles.

Having said that, probably letting characters buy a 'cool confidence' talent that lets them take aim anyway would be fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...