Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
GauntZero

Are needle weapons strong enough ?

43 posts in this topic

What do you think ?

 

I think, compared to Sniper rifles and longlas, they are a little too weak, given that they are very rare.

 

Maybe it would be good to increase the Felling-X ?

 

This would only really help though, if felling also gets an effect against non-Unnatural Toughness targets.

 

Or should Toxic be buffed a little ?

As there now is a chance to use detox in time (since Update 4), should toxic maybe add damage accourding to the targets DoF at the Toughness test ?

Or inflict 1 additional fatigue ?

 

Other ideas ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are soundless and have no muzzle flash, no? That's the point in using them, not killing power.

 

Plus, you can load them with tranquilizers etc.

Edited by bogi_khaosa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think each weapons should have its own niche; otherwise you wind up with various weapons just being more powerful versions of each other (see: heavy bolter and multilaser). The needle weapons are assination weapons.

 

Come to think of it, doesn't the weapon leave almost no discernable wound? The guy falls over; nobody knows why. No alarm is raised.

Edited by bogi_khaosa
GauntZero likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue with the needle rifle is there's the suggestion of using alternate toxins but there isn't much in the way of mechanics to facilitate that. Or any toxins worth shooting into people for that matter.

Edited by Tom Cruise
n00b f00 and Morangias like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue with the needle rifle is there's the suggestion of using alternate toxins but there isn't much in the way of mechanics to facilitate that. Or any toxins worth shooting into people for that matter.

So much this. My group never used needlers because of that, and the near-uselessness of generic Toxic weapon trait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that the only toxins worth injecting into adversaries are ones that are intended to buff you is kind of hilarious. Killing enemies with hardcore withdrawal symptoms is a little silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that the only toxins worth injecting into adversaries are ones that are intended to buff you is kind of hilarious. Killing enemies with hardcore withdrawal symptoms is a little silly.

I can honestly say, I never thought of doing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a few drugs in the splatbooks with such nasty side effects that taking them is basically equivalent to lighting your character sheet on fire. Not sure why anyone would use them for their intended purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a few drugs in the splatbooks with such nasty side effects that taking them is basically equivalent to lighting your character sheet on fire. Not sure why anyone would use them for their intended purpose.

Indeed there are. I just never considered the possibility of stuffing enemies with them to trigger those effects, as I kinda lost interest right after determining I'd have to suffer permanent brain damage before ever considering using them on my char.

 

Mind you, I'm not exactly opposed to them being there, as I consider their presence a matter of verisimilitude - in our world, people take all kinds of crap with ridiculously devastating side effects for a "kick" that's often hard to define, so I consider those drugs to be the 40k equivalents of dirty crystal meth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, assuming that the needle actually kills the target.

 

A weapon that is a guaranteed one-shot, one-kill is a bad idea.

 

But a needler (I am assuming the stats in DH2 are the same as in the other game lines) fired by a competent sniper stands a pretty good chance of killing somebody in one hit.

 

Generic heretical noble, TB3, 10 Wounds.

 

Average damage with 5 degrees of success = 16.5, rounding up to 17, drops target to 17 - 3 - 10 = -4 crits.

 

Sniper obviously has Mighty Shot and a good BS, so add 3 to that. That's -7.

 

He probably has crack shot as well, so that's another minus-something (2?). That's -9. So, he's dead without any toxic effect,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be easy to set up good toxic rules.

 

Set up a list of alternative toxins (10 would already be sufficient).

 

All weapons with the toxic quality may exchange their standard toxin with one of these.

 

All weapons with a tox dispenser may also exchange it.

 

A tox dispenser gets 10 uses out of 1 dose, ranged weapons get 10 bullets per 1 dose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be careful you don't wind up overpowering the needle rifle though.

 

After all, it is NOT supposed to just be a better (or inferior) version of the sniper rifle or long las; it has a niche. The sniper rifle and long las SHOULD be better at plain killing power than the needle rifle.

 

(Though the SR and LL are themselves a little redundant, except that the LL is more noticeable but has higher damage potential -- so there is a high-power rifle that is obvious, a medium-power less obviuous one, and a lower-power very inobvious one. See? Niches! :).)

 

BTW, I don't know if this has been carried over into the DH2 Beta, but in BC/OW Accurate weapons have to deal with the fact that, if you take a Full Action Aim to shoot someone and he can see you, he has a +30 Dodge. I just noticed this  rule, so I thought I would bring it up.

Edited by bogi_khaosa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you please point me to this rule? It seems very odd to me and I'd like to read it for myself :-) 

 

In the Black Crusade rulebook, in the example modifiers for the Dodge skill.

 

It's seems logical; you have much more time to get out of the way.

Edited by bogi_khaosa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you please point me to this rule? It seems very odd to me and I'd like to read it for myself :-) 

 

This rule has a note in the skills section (dodge & parry). I think it would be better to integrate it into the combat section though (along with the modifier for defending in cover).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Could you please point me to this rule? It seems very odd to me and I'd like to read it for myself :-) 

 

This rule has a note in the skills section (dodge & parry). I think it would be better to integrate it into the combat section though (along with the modifier for defending in cover).

 

My opinion: If it's a combat element not in the combat section, it's not rules but fluff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The wording there is:

Character can easily detect the attack and has at least a Round to avoid it.

Which to me reads as applying to slow attacks, say, a charge from a long distance, or a rock falling from a high distance, where the attack is ongoing for more than a round. The full-action aim isn't technically part of the attack, if I read the rules right, and it isn't particularly easy to detect. I think in the case of someone aiming at you at short range (or point-blank) you get your full turn to react, which you can spend moving to cover and using a guarded action. This will gain you +20 or +30, and might prevent the attack entirely. *

The bonuses for full and half cover are neat though.

* Which would let the other guy seamlessly transfer his aim bonus to someone else, which I personally hate, as you are aiming at something, not magically boosting your shooting ability. *grumble*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The wording there is:

Character can easily detect the attack and has at least a Round to avoid it.

Which to me reads as applying to slow attacks, say, a charge from a long distance, or a rock falling from a high distance, where the attack is ongoing for more than a round. The full-action aim isn't technically part of the attack, if I read the rules right, and it isn't particularly easy to detect. I think in the case of someone aiming at you at short range (or point-blank) you get your full turn to react, which you can spend moving to cover and using a guarded action. This will gain you +20 or +30, and might prevent the attack entirely. *

The bonuses for full and half cover are neat though.

* Which would let the other guy seamlessly transfer his aim bonus to someone else, which I personally hate, as you are aiming at something, not magically boosting your shooting ability. *grumble*

 

I would say it's easy to detect; the guy is spending a full 5 seconds to point his gun at you, after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, at point-blank range, I'd agree. Keep in mind, though, that Short Range for a Long-Las is up to 75m and up to 100m for the Sniper Rifle!
I don't think at this range, in a firefight, it would be easy to notice...

Even if it is easy to detect though, it doesn't matter, because you do not have one Round to avoid the attack: It's over in a (literal, for the Long-Las) flash! I'd still read the rules as applying to slow-moving attacks, and maaaaaaybe mêlée attacks preceded by a full-action aim, because these strongly remind me of telegraphed / theatrical attacks, where it's clear where the blow is going to go.
However, to stay consistent, I'd have to disallow that.

Someone once mentioned on the forum, that it is relatively easy to write an email to FFG support and get an answer on some questions. I think I shall do so now :)

bogi_khaosa likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe short range should have a max limit.

 

To call 100m a short range seems a little odd.

 

Maybe, short range should be granted only up to 20m max.

 

Or even better - until PerB*5m

Edited by GauntZero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ranges have to do with weapon specific accuracies. In other words, short range is relative to the weapon.

 

Lets take a silly example of weapony goodness. A Stub Automatic and an Earthshaker Cannon (artillery!) These weapons rely on more or less the same principles. Use a small explosion to shoot a thing over there --> Short range on a handgun is ~10m-ish. For artillery it's probably around 750m (I'm not an artillerist so not 100% certain on what counts for short range amongst artillery).

 

Of course this is an extreme example. But my point that short range, whatever that means in context, should be relative to the weapon as it is now and not a factor of user proficiency. For user proficiency, see Characteristic Tests.

 

100m as 'short' range on a sniper rifle is perfectly reasonable. Saying 50m is short range for lasguns/conventional assault rifle type weapons is also perfectly reasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand...

 

But hasnt also the perception an influence ? I mean...if you hardly can see the target, it is also more difficult to place a shot well...isnt it ?

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