Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Einbauschrank

Does the inclusion of Only War rules unbalance DW?

39 posts in this topic

Many are overthinking it Lynata. The rule makes sense in both balance and real life. If you want to use it in DW go ahead, I'd recommend it (among others, but not all of OW's rules). Some have taken to defending their opinions, thus I refute them with facts.

 

 

B. I'm not too keen to false arguments myself.

 

You want it realistic, so do I. Doesn't change the fact others have brought up the "fantasy junk" argument many times against my comments. But I wouldn't use it against other I think its stupid; mention others using it yes, use it myself no.

 

The original full-auto rules are poorly thought out. A full auto gun doesn't fire 10 rounds in 5 seconds, more like 50. But the guys making the game (originally Black Industries a subsidiary of the Black Library, consisting of at least a majority of British 20 somethings) probably never seen a real machine gun outside of the movies and likely didn't know how they really worked. Which is why a weapon with 600 rpm only fired 10 bullets every second and shooting a bucking gun made it easier to hit instead of the logically correct reverse. Again they probably didn't understand this, so we get more 'soft' rules to the current effect. The attack is still meant to be the character jamming the trigger and trying to keep a hold on his gun.

 

The change makes a whole lot of sense on its own. Harder to hit firing full auto, as it should be. Shooting a singular someone with a full rate of fire burst at long range is, to put it bluntly, stupid in real life. The bonuses for short range and the bonuses to hit larger targets or groups of targets countering the penalty also fits together realistically with reality.

 

Then again there are poorly thought out rules, at least for normal humans, which make the change seem too much to some. I am speaking of course of the characteristic rules and those counting on the bonus to actaully hit stuff, or want to use full auto guns as sniper rifles (people regularly referenced as munchkins). In the abstract realm of the TT humans hitting only 1/2 of the time makes sense. Theres a lot of things going on and many aren't actually trying to hit the target. In the RPG realm of DH things are different. So in the end the problem is either from the bonuses for range or the characteristics for BS were off, which causes the heart ache for many.

 

As I have said earlier though, when firing automatically the first shot is invariably affected much of the time. Firing single shots you can take a lighter grasp (also known as correct) on your weapon line up the sights correctly and use appropriate trigger control to keep from moving the barrel off target, and take your time and wait until you should fire to get a hit. When you know your about to do something which could make the weapon jump out of your hand you WILL grab the weapon with a much stronger hold. Only an idiot, or someone who just loves black eyes, will use the same kind of sighting methods (for the same reason you NEVER put your eye directly onto a scope), more than likely not use appropriate trigger control, and just let loose without pause at first opportunity. All of which ruin your accuracy.

 

Nevermind the issues with firing 2-3 1/2 second? bursts in 5 seconds with pauses to "re-aim" taken in between. Honestly, not trying to be mean here, but it sounds like you're just making this up to justify your position. This never happens like that in real life. Simply firing carefully aimed single shots is much more efficient, accurate, and effective.

 

Thats enough for me though, think I'll call this quits unless someone has anything new to inject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not a gun guy, but my understanding is that characters in the WP40KRP games hit MUCH more often than people do in real life. A standard guy in Dark Heresy with a BS of 30, assuming he has the weapon training talent, has a 40% chance to hit a moving, aware man-sized target with a rifle at 50 meters with a single shot with no Aim action. That is incredible accuracy.

 

So I see no problem with needing bonusses to hit. In a real simulationalist game, chance to hit would be 10% or so and you'd be loading bonusses on top of that. :)

 

(Addressing comment in post above mine.)

Edited by bogi_khaosa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The book states "full-auto burst", not "bursts", so that's how I interpret it. Just like I'm fairly sure that the intention behind this rule is that "more bullets = bigger chance of at least one hitting the target".

 

As to the time gap, I would point to the text explaining how close combat works. Just like you don't have two people standing face to face to each other, not moving a bit aside from one melee strike every 5 seconds, you also won't have a shooter stand in place and "only" discharge their weapon (unless they do not actually have their life threatened). They will duck behind their cover, peek over it, duck again, quickly rising up to take aim and let loose a burst of bullets before getting down again. Or, in the open, they will move a bit, fire, perhaps kneel down, signal their friends (Free Actions take time, too!), check what effect their attack had, yell something ...

There are a lot of unimportant yet natural "actions" to fill those precious 5 seconds with, and gunfire isn't the only thing the character needs to do, even when it is the only action that actually has any mechanical effect. Get creative. ;)

 

Oh, certainly, I can agree with that there is other stuff going on. So, yes, I was being a bit silly suggesting 50 rounds as a full turns worth of shooting. However, I still see envisioning a "Full-Auto burst" as a series of shorter bursts as valid. Just like melee attacks are not meant to represent a single attack discrete attack, but the opportunity for a hit over the whole turn, I don't think one attack with a gun necessarily means 1 pull of the trigger (single shot aside obviously).

 

Some have taken to defending their opinions, thus I refute them with facts.

 

The original full-auto rules are poorly thought out. A full auto gun doesn't fire 10 rounds in 5 seconds, more like 50. But the guys making the game (originally Black Industries a subsidiary of the Black Library, consisting of at least a majority of British 20 somethings) probably never seen a real machine gun outside of the movies and likely didn't know how they really worked. Which is why a weapon with 600 rpm only fired 10 bullets every second and shooting a bucking gun made it easier to hit instead of the logically correct reverse. Again they probably didn't understand this, so we get more 'soft' rules to the current effect. The attack is still meant to be the character jamming the trigger and trying to keep a hold on his gun.

 

The change makes a whole lot of sense on its own. Harder to hit firing full auto, as it should be. Shooting a singular someone with a full rate of fire burst at long range is, to put it bluntly, stupid in real life. The bonuses for short range and the bonuses to hit larger targets or groups of targets countering the penalty also fits together realistically with reality.

 

Nevermind the issues with firing 2-3 1/2 second? bursts in 5 seconds with pauses to "re-aim" taken in between. Honestly, not trying to be mean here, but it sounds like you're just making this up to justify your position. This never happens like that in real life. Simply firing carefully aimed single shots is much more efficient, accurate, and effective.

I know the creators were originally Black Industries (though I am not sure of the significance of them being largely British 20-somethings... which I am not sure is actually true). Not sure I would expect FFG to be any better informed, or why you would presume the people working for Black Industries to know nothing. I would also personally expect that someone who didn't know that much would expect a penalty for shooting a burst of shots, not a bonus (as they would tend to imagine film style blazing away from the hip, which is very unlikely to hit anyone, and even in films tends to expend a lot of ammunition to little effect, aside from noise and explosions).

 

I also question your knowledge of the what the designers envisioned. It may be that they just thought of one long extended burst (though I still hold that a bonus is still justified, as long as proper sighting is carried out beforehand), but there is no way for you to actually know that was the case.

 

I will also note it is a design choice shared by several games. For example, GURPS gives a bonus to hit for larger number of shots fired (and is generally quite well researched). Savage Worlds gives a bonus to hit for burst fire (though full-auto fire is dealt with differently). A number of games I have played are similar. Now, in cases where multiple attack rolls are made for automatic fire, then it tends to present a penalty to hitting. This makes sense as any individual bullet is less likely to hit. However, where the action is covered by a single attack roll it usually grants a bonus, and is a good mechanical way of simplifying it. Games where numerous attack rolls are made usually achieve much the same result by simply increasing the number of dice rolls, even if each is at a penalty, which means the chance that at least one hit is achieved is increased, even if each particular roll is likely to fail (Savage Worlds Auto-fire is a bit like this. GURPS 3rd ed auto-fire works in that manner).

 

Now I am not saying the original rules are perfect. I agree there are valid reasons for the change, at least from a game design perspective. I just wasn't terribly happy with them. I will also accept with the change to the rules a lesser degree of control makes some sense. Full-Auto Actions are now half-actions. Purely a matter of game design, but this now means the same number of rounds being fired in half the time. This means that Full-Auto Burst does indeed now look to represent a single one second burst, or very rapid short bursts, with little time for aiming and correction.

 

Carefully aimed single shots do not seem to be the norm in real life, except for specialists like snipers. Rapid, semi-automatic or burst fire seems to be the norm from what I have seen and read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt very much at all, at least for a whole. They have said they are not currently thinking to convert the other games in the line across.

 

I think 2nd edition is going to be a testing board for a lot of their new mechanics, and then once it has settled in they will start to convert the other games in the line. Or not, if 2nd edition was an unmitigated disaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a gun guy myself, but people who are (soldiers etc.) tell me that full auto is in fact more accurate and the reason people don't use it all the time is to save ammunition..

No..no soldier would tell you that...ever.. I was a scout in the army and always scored expert in my shooting scores. Which is the highest marksmen medal achievement you can make. With marksmen being lowest, sharpshooter being middle and expert being top. Requiring 37 out of 40 targets hit during your qualifying attempt.

Simple fact 97% of the rounds fired during the Vietnam war flew over the heads of their targets. Why because of soldiers using automatic bursts on their M-16s.

Throughout your entire basic training (I did OSUT which is One Station Unit Training at Ft Knox) it's drilled into your head. Single round shots not only conserve ammo, but make every round count and actually hit their target. I know I had it drilled in my head for 16 weeks which is how long scouts are at basic for. Not the standard 8

Suppression fire weapons like the SAW were kept around to be just that suppression. Meaning designed to put large amount of bullets down range to keep the enemies heads down and not move. If you do manage to actually hit anything it's just a bonus.

I hate it when people come on forums and make false claims and statements like the one I quoted above. No soldier would tell you what you claimed at least not American soldier. Only Hollywood would tell you that.

Edited by computertrucker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm not a gun guy myself, but people who are (soldiers etc.) tell me that full auto is in fact more accurate and the reason people don't use it all the time is to save ammunition..

No..no soldier would tell you that...ever..

 

 

I'm not lying. I have been told that on this very board. :)

 

Maybe  he was lying about being a soldier. Who knows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm not a gun guy myself, but people who are (soldiers etc.) tell me that full auto is in fact more accurate and the reason people don't use it all the time is to save ammunition..

No..no soldier would tell you that...ever..

 

 

I'm not lying. I have been told that on this very board. :)

 

Maybe  he was lying about being a soldier. Who knows?

 

 

Must have been.  Think of it this way - if you aim, you're going to more accurate than if you don't, right?  Well, after aiming your shot and firing, every gun will have some amount of recoil.  The more powerful the gun, the more powerful the recoil.  No matter how well you absorb the recoil, it will knock your aim off in some direction.  If you set up a gun for 'remote firing' and didn't adjust the gun between shots, you'd see which way it 'shifts' - just like a car without perfect alignment.  Now, if your aim is good you could probably put more shots on a target with a burst in 1 second because ideally they'll cluster; but your aimed shots are going to always be the most accurate (unless you're so bad at shooting that blind luck is better).  

pearldrum1 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or perhaps it was merely a misunderstanding, and one party simply did not understood what the other meant? One does not even need military experience to guess that the successive recoil would mess with the gun's overall accuracy. This is a matter of common sense, and somehow I doubt anyone here would tell you differently.

 

However, perhaps that argument was about autofire simply having a higher chance to hit a target at least once, simply because more bullets mean more chances, as much as recoil would affect them. Realistically, the very first bullet leaving the barrel will have the same accuracy regardless of whether you fire a single shot or a burst - so any additional rounds can only increase your chance to hit, by whatever small degree. Depending on the target's distance and thus tolerance for divergence, autofire thus does increase your "accuracy", if only indirectly, by granting you several chances to hit ... especially if the first round was poorly aimed and the recoil manages to push the barrel closer to your target.

 

Technically, you could even use this to your advantage by factoring in gun climb when deciding what to aim at, essentially allowing recoil to "lead" the rounds towards the target. How much that actually works depends very much on the individual weapon, though, as they would all handle differently due to weight, recoil compensation, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the existence of the Aim action in the rules, wouldn't that imply that regular single shots (without taking the Aim action) is actually 'firing from the hip' without much aiming? As such, wouldn't that kinda invalidate the 'single shots are more accurate' thing?

 

All in all, I feel both rules are lacking in verisimilitude.

 

The DW rule because it makes Full-auto guns better at sniping than dedicated single-shot sniper rifles.

 

The OW rule because it practically tells you that unloading a full autogun magazine into somebody sitting right in your face (point blank range) stands a worse chance of hitting him at least once than shooting one single shot.

 

From a game balance point of view however, I feel the OW rule is way better, because it makes full-auto or not a real choice. In RT/DW full-auto is so good (especially with the multitude of ways to get auto-stabilized trait) that there is really no reason to use anything else (unless for some reason you can't full auto at that point),

Edited by LordBlades

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the existence of the Aim action in the rules, wouldn't that imply that regular single shots (without taking the Aim action) is actually 'firing from the hip' without much aiming? As such, wouldn't that kinda invalidate the 'single shots are more accurate' thing?

 

Well, one could say there's no difference because burst and autofire are similarly used "from the hip".  ;)

But yeah, I think I get what you're saying. The way I interpret is that the first bullet should have an equal chance of hitting the target regardless of which mode you use.

 

A problem is with how the abstracted rules simplify the process by giving out bonuses/penalties and then determining hits by Degrees of Success, rather than having you roll for every single round individually - because if it'd work like the latter, we could have something like in Inquisitor where every shot fired in a single attack adds a -10% recoil penalty.

I both like and dislike that, because on one hand it's realistic, but on the other it means more dice-rolling. This isn't much of a problem for weapons with a "low" rate of fire, because you could simply roll 2-3 dice at once, but it becomes more of an issue if you have something like a heavy bolter or stubber that shoots up to 10 rounds in a single attack.

 

Perhaps the to-hit bonus to burst and autofire attacks should not depend on the attack, but rather the gun's rate of fire, with 2-5 rounds giving a +10% bonus and 6-10 a +20%?

Or, for a more granular progression supporting greater diversity between individual weapon profiles, have every single round add a +2% bonus. (example: 3-round burst = +4 bonus to BS)

 

The formula is simple: more shots = small increase in the chance to hit at least once, smaller chance to hit multiple times, and a lot of wasted rounds as the downside.

Edited by Lynata

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I'd do it would be something along the lines of full-auto doubling range bonuses and penalties to your BS roll. That way up-close spray&pray works really well while at range the odds of hitting anything decreases a lot due to recoil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the BC/OW combat rules make DW better. DW is already on easy mode most of the time, and the last thing Marines need are moer +'s to their To Hit rolls. Making Swift Attack/Semi-Auto +0 and Lightning Attack/Full-Auto -10 helps over all.

BYE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Semi-auto doesn't necessarily have to be "from the hip".

 

Unless they've gone to the Hollywood school of warfare, no one shoots "from the hip". What we have with semi-auto is multiple quick succession shots. There is actually some aiming being done, but it isn't the same thing as precision aiming where you are taking your time, ensuring the reticules line up perfectly, taking wind into consideration, carefully considering target movement, controlling your breathing, etc. You are just pointing the sights at the target and pulling the trigger as quickly as you can. Like full-auto shooting, unless your shooting a VERY big or VERY numerous mass or enemies, you aren't going to hit jack if it isn't very close.

pearldrum1 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0