Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hey, I keep seeing autoguns used in fluff, Witch Hunters codex and other places, but does anyone know the rules? I cannot seem to find them anywhere and was just wondering if they've gone MIA.

IIRC they have the same stat line as a standard lasgun. Nothing to different.

yeah, they are just treated as lasguns for game purposes.

same damage ut put, but lasguns are better because the ammo isn't as bulky.

As far as game mechanics go, they are lasguns, and in Necromunda they have a 4+ "ammo roll" as opposed to a lasgun's 2+.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:As far as game mechanics go, they are lasguns, and in Necromunda they have a 4+ "ammo roll" as opposed to a lasgun's 2+.

The lasgun had a -1 save modifier as well, whereas the autogun had no mod.

When described in Dark Heresy there are also keen differences between the grouping of Lasguns and Autoguns. The Autoguns basically could fire on full-auto, and had much smaller ammo clips. Also a couple of them could be thought of as the heavy magnums or magnum-revolvers we have now-a-days.

Also the auto-gun had the penetration (Besides the long-las or however it was called, that had penetration), whereas the Lasguns had "reliable"

grayspark wrote: Also a couple of them could be thought of as the heavy magnums or magnum-revolvers we have now-a-days.

Heavy magnums if automatic could be called a autopistol. But all revolvers are stub guns.

Ahh, you're right. I'm afraid I didn't look too closely into what I wrote...

grayspark wrote:When described in Dark Heresy there are also keen differences between the grouping of Lasguns and Autoguns. The Autoguns basically could fire on full-auto, and had much smaller ammo clips. Also a couple of them could be thought of as the heavy magnums or magnum-revolvers we have now-a-days.

Also the auto-gun had the penetration (Besides the long-las or however it was called, that had penetration), whereas the Lasguns had "reliable"

Also, Lasguns have variable power settings, while autoguns can only adjust rate of fire.

So, in a 40k Setting, would, say, 5 Points/squad be fair to make Lasguns into autoguns (Lasguns but AP6).

Pointless, but fun. And at an average cost of 0.5 points each, why not!

Gwar! wrote:So, in a 40k Setting, would, say, 5 Points/squad be fair to make Lasguns into autoguns (Lasguns but AP6).

Pointless, but fun. And at an average cost of 0.5 points each, why not!

Not pointless against Orks, some Nids, etc.

See I was thinking they'd be a step up from lasguns in some respects, for instance silencers and hard rounds are IMHO a little better than las weapons.

I hate las weapons, with the passion of a thousand suns.
By far most underpowered weapon in 40k. The fluff is there but the game rules are lacking.

Gwar! wrote:So, in a 40k Setting, would, say, 5 Points/squad be fair to make Lasguns into autoguns (Lasguns but AP6).

Pointless, but fun. And at an average cost of 0.5 points each, why not!

...Why would the autogun have better penetration, when its old rules had it actually slightly worse? The lasgun had a -1 armour save modifier, while the autogun had none at all.

the logic is that a Lasgun actually cauterizes any wounds and the energy is easily absorbed by clothing and any other matierial.

solid slugs can transfer energy right through body armour into the flesh. many modern body armour pieces simply allow the soldier to survive, but he will still suffer internal injuries.

solid rounds can also be shaped, energy can't.

Grey Templar wrote:the logic is that a Lasgun actually cauterizes any wounds and the energy is easily absorbed by clothing and any other matierial.

solid slugs can transfer energy right through body armour into the flesh. many modern body armour pieces simply allow the soldier to survive, but he will still suffer internal injuries.

solid rounds can also be shaped, energy can't.

Which isn't much of anything in a game as grainy as 40K, or when the exact penetration and impact of lasgun and future autoguns are not really defined. The only thing we have to go on is the 2nd ed rules, where autoguns had a poorer armour save.

Personally I don't see there being enough difference to propose any difference in play. In Dark Heresy, which is very detailed and focussed on individual combatants the differences are fairly trivial.

The Odessey wrote:See I was thinking they'd be a step up from lasguns in some respects, for instance silencers and hard rounds are IMHO a little better than las weapons.

I hate las weapons, with the passion of a thousand suns.
By far most underpowered weapon in 40k. The fluff is there but the game rules are lacking.

Compared to other 40k weapons they're underpowered. I don't think it's a lasgun problem as much as it is a Shoota and Bolter problem.

Of the 3, the Shoota is probably the best as its S is on par with the Bolter, yet it's an Assault weapon. The Lasgun is Rapid Fire, with a lower strength.

The Bolter needs to be an assault weapon, the Lasgun needs to stay the same, and the Shoota needs to be S3.

I would just use autoguns as count-as lasguns.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:

The Bolter needs to be an assault weapon, the Lasgun needs to stay the same, and the Shoota needs to be S3.

What you just said was, "Space Marines need to be better, Orks need to be worse". I'm . . . not quite sure how to respond to that.

if you have ever read a BL novel with orks in it you will notice that Space marines are amazed at the size of the guns orks carry.

The Odessey wrote:See I was thinking they'd be a step up from lasguns in some respects, for instance silencers and hard rounds are IMHO a little better than las weapons.

I hate las weapons, with the passion of a thousand suns.
By far most underpowered weapon in 40k. The fluff is there but the game rules are lacking.

What would a silencer accomplish in this setting..? In a noisy setting, they make it hard to tell the direction from which a shot is coming, but on the battlefield, I doubt it'd make much difference...

Still, fluff wise I think the autoguns are slightly more handy (although lasguns are sturdier) and I would propose they be treated like shotguns are for Vets,a step up and down.

S4 AP 6 Range 18", sort of like a baby stubber.

The Odessey wrote:Still, fluff wise I think the autoguns are slightly more handy (although lasguns are sturdier) and I would propose they be treated like shotguns are for Vets,a step up and down.

S4 AP 6 Range 18", sort of like a baby stubber.

Why the same strength as a Bolter? S3 Ap6...you've basically created a Hellgun with one weaker Ap....

BeRzErKeR wrote:

NuggzTheNinja wrote:

The Bolter needs to be an assault weapon, the Lasgun needs to stay the same, and the Shoota needs to be S3.

What you just said was, "Space Marines need to be better, Orks need to be worse". I'm . . . not quite sure how to respond to that.

To be more accurate, Space Marines need a better Troops choice, while Orks could easily be more balanced with a less shooty troops choice.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

NuggzTheNinja wrote:

The Bolter needs to be an assault weapon, the Lasgun needs to stay the same, and the Shoota needs to be S3.

What you just said was, "Space Marines need to be better, Orks need to be worse". I'm . . . not quite sure how to respond to that.

To be more accurate, Space Marines need a better Troops choice, while Orks could easily be more balanced with a less shooty troops choice.

Tac Marines are one of the better Troop options in the game.

personally i think autoguns should be range 18" but assault 2

BeRzErKeR wrote:What you just said was, "Space Marines need to be better, Orks need to be worse". I'm . . . not quite sure how to respond to that.

If by 'need' you mean 'to better represent the fluff' then 100% abso-frakkin-lutely. Tabletop marines are utter garbage compared to what they should be, and get massacred by most things they should be laughing off.

if by 'need' you meant 'to balance tabletop gameplay', that's probably not the case. Tactical squads are serviceable, if not powerhouses, while most other primary power armoured troops (chaos marines, BA assault marines, grey hunters, etc.) are all solid, while some are a downright steal (I'm looking at you, Grey Hunters!) for their points.

Actually, reading though my DH rule book, the lasgun has a bigger clip, longer range, more available, won't jam as often, and costs less than an autogun. The only advantage the autogun has is the Full auto mode and wights a single pound less.

Che-Vito wrote:

NuggzTheNinja wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

NuggzTheNinja wrote:

The Bolter needs to be an assault weapon, the Lasgun needs to stay the same, and the Shoota needs to be S3.

What you just said was, "Space Marines need to be better, Orks need to be worse". I'm . . . not quite sure how to respond to that.

To be more accurate, Space Marines need a better Troops choice, while Orks could easily be more balanced with a less shooty troops choice.

Tac Marines are one of the better Troop options in the game.

Chaos has: Plague Marines, Berzerkers, and even regular CSM squads are more versatile and cheaper.

Grey Hunters are better, cheaper, and more versatile.

BA Assault Marines give you a 35 pt rebate on a dedicated transport for viable razorback spam at -10 points and now the thing is fast.

Shoota Boyz are armed with a much better weapon than the bolter in an army that is primarily CC.

It's not really comparable directly, but even Dire Avengers have a much more defined role in an army than Tactical Marines.



With Tactical Marines you're either A) Rapid firing bolters, which is very underwhelming, B) Assaulting WITHOUT a boltpistol + CCW (every other Marine gets this), C) Firing one heavy weapon shot a turn. Big deal. Tactical Marines cost 1 point more than Grey Hunters and CSM, do not come with a close combat weapon, are not as versatile, etc. etc. etc. They aren't horrible but compared to what other Marine armies are fielding, but they also aren't scaled to be competitive in that capacity.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:They aren't horrible but compared to what other Marine armies are fielding, but they also aren't scaled to be competitive in that capacity.

While I agree that other armies (most of those that you have listed have received more recent/codex-creeped codexes) may have better troops choices...it's the standard Tac Marines that usually pull a Vanilla Marine player through a game.

There are a lot of armies that would kill to have something comparable to Tacs. (Necrons, being the big on that comes to mind.)

NuggzTheNinja wrote:Shoota Boyz are armed with a much better weapon than the bolter in an army that is primarily CC.

I'm getting so bored of people talking about shootas as if they're independant of the unit firing it. Yes, it gets two shots out to 18", but those shots are at BS2, which means you're getting 2/3 of hit per boy. From 0-12" marines will double that, equal it from 12-18", and then have an extra 6" where they're scoring hits and the orks cannot.

You can't look at a gun's stats independant of the model wielding it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Luke_Prowler wrote:Actually, reading though my DH rule book, the lasgun has a bigger clip, longer range, more available, won't jam as often, and costs less than an autogun. The only advantage the autogun has is the Full auto mode and wights a single pound less.

Thing is, the 'only' advantage that you list there is a huge advantage, full auto fire dominates DH. Lasguns are rarely seen.