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.

Why WOULD you charge your Guardsmen into close combat? Considering that they and the lasguns are both S3, you would be better served either using First Rank, FIRE! Second Rank, FIRE! to get as many S3 attacks as you regularly would on the charge, or running during the assault phase to get to cover and away from whatever you were about to be stupid enough to assault.

If your guardsmen are in CC, it's because you used them as bait.... right?

There are many reasons to engage your opponent in assault before they do to you the next turn. For one, you gain the extra attack and deny them it, so that would mean one less power weapon attack for every equipped model, one less S4 or better attack for every equipped model, and the like. Furious Charge is revoked and other "on the charge" abilities.

Guardsmen also aren't useless in assault, you just need a lot of them and a Commissar. If you have that, you can actually win quite a bit. Shooting everyone off an objective isn't always an option, sometimes you HAVE to get in there to push them out. There are a lot of reasons.

Also, I'm not sure what you meant, because you can't run in the assault phase, if you could, I would definitely do that whenever possible, but since both types of attacks currently prevent Rapid Fire equiped models from doing anything in that assault phase....

Not sure one what you are exactly looking for when you say you want alternative suggestions but how about a “Suppression” rule for charging models. Any unit that assaults and possesses rapid fire, assault, or pistol weapons by over half its models AND did not fire in the shooting phase can spray the area with inaccurate fire with the intention of suppressing the targeted unit and keeping them from reacting to the attacker's charge.

Any unit that has been charge by a unit suppressing them has to pass a leadership test in order to move their models into base to base contact with the attackers models after the attacker has taken their assault move. If the defender fails then they can not move their models but will fight as normal, if they pass they may choose to advance towards the attacker as normal but treat the movement as being made through dangerous terrain in which case each model must roll to see if they been hit by a wild shot. (This may be changed to, on a roll of a one the model as been struck with a shot from the most present weapon carried by the unit if it is too powerful as previously stated)

This is an alternate rule that does not give rapid fire weapons the same benefits as assault weapons when being used by an assaulting unit, but allows them to be used when charging the enemy. I think it may satisfy the requirements you desire as rapid fire weapons along with others types of firearms (but not heavy) are being used, and it takes into account the loss of accuracy such behavior would cause. It can be made into a house rule fairly easily and does not IMHO provided too much of an advantage to any one army I can think of, maybe also make it so the assaulting squad loses their plus one attack when charging because they are fumbling with their guns to take advantage of the charge.

I kinda would like to see rapid fire be permitting to double tap and then assault however they would not get any benefit from using two close combat weapons (this would represent the marine blasting away as they ran forward toward the enemy but not having the time to holster their bolter and whip out their CC weapons.)

either that or three shots instead of two at 12". Two shot just doesn't say futuristic machine gun to me. (i know cries of cheese are about to erupt but I figure with GW cutting the points on most models in horde armies, why not give marines the ability to shoot a little more. Smurfs currently suck in CC. not to mention it strikes me funny that units average 3 attacks on the charge in 40K as well as some who have exorbitant amount of A like khornate deamon weapons etc and yet guns fire once or twice. )

Deuce11 wrote:I kinda would like to see rapid fire be permitting to double tap and then assault however they would not get any benefit from using two close combat weapons (this would represent the marine blasting away as they ran forward toward the enemy but not having the time to holster their bolter and whip out their CC weapons.)

either that or three shots instead of two at 12". Two shot just doesn't say futuristic machine gun to me. (i know cries of cheese are about to erupt but I figure with GW cutting the points on most models in horde armies, why not give marines the ability to shoot a little more. Smurfs currently suck in CC. not to mention it strikes me funny that units average 3 attacks on the charge in 40K as well as some who have exorbitant amount of A like khornate deamon weapons etc and yet guns fire once or twice. )

Don’t think of it as two shots but two burst of ammunition each composed of multiple rounds. A shuriken catapult can unleash something like a hundred shuriken a second but the weapon is only given two shots in the game. Three shots a turn is the amount of fire heavy bolters, multilasers, and shuriken cannons receive. I agree that the game is too combat oriented, but I think your suggestions are too drastic – if you give that to rapid fire weapons you would have to increase the rate of fire to basic assault and heavy weapons. My feelings on being able to fire twice with a rapid fire weapon and then assaulting have been expressed by my previous posts in this thread.

Given the improvement to blast weapons in this edition I would not be opposed to all the 'machine gun' style heavy weapons getting extra dice myself (even so far as doubling them).

Machine guns are just not very scary in 40k compared to their real world performance against wildly charging troops.

But that's off topic.

Jack

Nurglitch wrote:Except that people know what Pistols do and simply adding a Pistol is more elegant than adding a new rule.

The new pistols, the ones that aren't Las Pistols, Bolt Pistols, Plasma Pistols, Splinter Pistols, or Pulse Pisols, would simply be an iteration of the main armament with the "Rapid Fire" type swapped out for the "Pistol" type. So we'd have Kroot Pistols, Hell Pistols, and Gauss Pistols.

This elaboration of the original system is more parsimonius than your suggestion, which changes a rule, and achieves the same result by extending the Pistol rule rather than changing the Rapid Fire rule.

While these would be functional equivalents, people know how Pistols work, have seen how they work on Space Marines, and so there will be less confusion in how the modification is supposed to work, and thus make it easier to implement.

When in doubt, use off-the-shelf parts. Don't reinvent the wheel.

QFT. Reread the whole thread and the only real proposed change that would not be covered using Nurglitch's solution would be changing rapid fire from 12" to "half the range of the weapon."

PanzerLeader wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:Except that people know what Pistols do and simply adding a Pistol is more elegant than adding a new rule.
The new pistols, the ones that aren't Las Pistols, Bolt Pistols, Plasma Pistols, Splinter Pistols, or Pulse Pisols, would simply be an iteration of the main armament with the "Rapid Fire" type swapped out for the "Pistol" type. So we'd have Kroot Pistols, Hell Pistols, and Gauss Pistols.
This elaboration of the original system is more parsimonious than your suggestion, which changes a rule, and achieves the same result by extending the Pistol rule rather than changing the Rapid Fire rule.
While these would be functional equivalents, people know how Pistols work, have seen how they work on Space Marines, and so there will be less confusion in how the modification is supposed to work, and thus make it easier to implement.
When in doubt, use off-the-shelf parts. Don't reinvent the wheel.

QFT. Reread the whole thread and the only real proposed change that would not be covered using Nurglitch's solution would be changing rapid fire from 12" to "half the range of the weapon."

I'm sorry... Let me get this straight. The simpler solution to giving Rapid Fire weapons the option of R/2 Assault 1 is to assume that all players (a) know how pistols work, (b) exclude Rapid Fire to Pistol option from counting as a close combat weapon, (c) or remove whatever additional close combat weapon they are carrying, and (d) will share all properties of the parent weapon except be at R/2.

Problems I see:
(a) There are a goodly number ofpeople who still get confused about pistols, though this is the least of my concern.
(b/d) This is where confusion will set in. You are creating new weapons that don't exist, for one, which can lead to problems of "is this intended, is that intended, are there conflicting rules, what about this and that?"
(c) Dropping weapons. What if the model is carrying a special close combat weapon? Do they lose its abilities, or does the pistol not count as a pistol for the purposes of close combat?

Would not the simpler solution be to give Rapid Fire weapons the additional option of R/2 Assault 1?

Skinnattittar wrote:
I'm sorry... Let me get this straight. The simpler solution to giving Rapid Fire weapons the option of R/2 Assault 1 is to assume that all players (a) know how pistols work, (b) exclude Rapid Fire to Pistol option from counting as a close combat weapon, (c) or remove whatever additional close combat weapon they are carrying, and (d) will share all properties of the parent weapon except be at R/2.

Problems I see:
(a) There are a goodly number ofpeople who still get confused about pistols, though this is the least of my concern.
(b/d) This is where confusion will set in. You are creating new weapons that don't exist, for one, which can lead to problems of "is this intended, is that intended, are there conflicting rules, what about this and that?"
(c) Dropping weapons. What if the model is carrying a special close combat weapon? Do they lose its abilities, or does the pistol not count as a pistol for the purposes of close combat?

Would not the simpler solution be to give Rapid Fire weapons the additional option of R/2 Assault 1?

Simpler as opposed to arming models with pistols? I don't think so. Infantry models using the already common pistol rules can choose to "fire twice, no assault" or "fire once & assault." Pistols have become simplified this edition by becoming assault 1 instead of the third edition ability to fire them as either assault 1 or heavy 2. The rules already exist to get everything you want, so the simpler modification is clearly "rapid fire weapons now get two shots at half range" and equipping models where needed.

As to part C, the majority of the models that carry special close combat weapons already come equipped with a pistol and ccw so the point is almost mute and units can be managed by exception rather than generic rule.

Well you skipped the fact that you're making up weapons and in part C you have actually simply stated, at least by my dissembling, "I don't know how to handle this real problem, so I shall ignore it." Granted, that is a very GW thing to do, but it doesn't really help the situation. Those models exist, such as IG Officers and special characters with access to wargear. Either they will have to not be able to choose to have a pistol or to forgo a Rapid Fire weapon, which limits a player's ability to freely create a character in a way my proposal does not.

So, again, rather than simply changing how Rapid Fire works, we are proposing to change every model carrying a Rapid Fire weapon to also be carrying a pistol version of their weapon, whether or not such a weapon exists? And then point fixing problem models? I'm just not seeing the pros over simply changing Rapid Fire. Are there cons to changing Rapid Fire as I have (currently as of this post) suggested?

I will recap my current suggestion for clarity.

Rapid Fire:
(1) Rx Heavy 1
(2) Rx/2 Rapid 2 (may move, shoot, but not assault)
(3) Rx/2 Assault 1 (may move and assault)

Skinnattittar wrote:Well you skipped the fact that you're making up weapons and in part C you have actually simply stated, at least by my dissembling, "I don't know how to handle this real problem, so I shall ignore it." Granted, that is a very GW thing to do, but it doesn't really help the situation. Those models exist, such as IG Officers and special characters with access to wargear. Either they will have to not be able to choose to have a pistol or to forgo a Rapid Fire weapon, which limits a player's ability to freely create a character in a way my proposal does not.

So, again, rather than simply changing how Rapid Fire works, we are proposing to change every model carrying a Rapid Fire weapon to also be carrying a pistol version of their weapon, whether or not such a weapon exists? And then point fixing problem models? I'm just not seeing the pros over simply changing Rapid Fire. Are there cons to changing Rapid Fire as I have (currently as of this post) suggested?

I will recap my current suggestion for clarity.

Rapid Fire:
(1) Rx Heavy 1
(2) Rx/2 Rapid 2 (may move, shoot, but not assault)
(3) Rx/2 Assault 1 (may move and assault)

Its not a real problem though. Models that do currently have access to special close combat weapons and pistols have clear rules governing how they interact with each other. If an IG officer were to have a rapid fire weapon, pistol and power weapon he chould choose to either fire twice with the rapid fire weapon or fire the pistol once and then swing with both the pistol and power weapon in close combat exactly like a CSM Champion. It is not an actual problem as the number of models with such options are small and the rules for how the weapon choices interact clearly established. Any specific units that are not clearly defined can be managed by exception.

I have also not made up any weapons. Continuing the IG example, you could achieve the same effect by universally replacing the issued CCW with an issued las-pistol (an established weapon) and then making a simpler change to the rapid fire rules (rapid fire range equals x/2 instead of 12"). Whether or not this mechanic is desirable across the board for all armies is a completely seperate issue. But by using the existing rules you could make a simple range to the rapid fire dynamics without inventing weapons or potentially unbalancing units with rapid fire weapons that are not designed to be mobile shooters (i.e. Fire Warriors). Your proposed change also removes a major tactical trade off out of the game by allowing all units to potentially shot and assault in the same turn where as now it is only commonly available to elite units (IG Vets with shotguns) or elite armies (MEQs).

But IG Officers don't have access to four hands, they never have. Even now, you have to choose between a pistol and close combat weapon or exchanging one of those for another weapon, including a Rapid Fire weapon, but then you would have either a pistol or a close combat weapon. You can't have all three.

Why are we suddenly talking about JUST the IG? Tau don't have pistol versions of some of their weapons (pulse rifle, fusion gun, etc...), neither do Necron Gauss weapons, some of the Dark Eldar weapons (old, I know, but they are still a valid codex), and I think some others as well do not have pistol equivalents. I went over these earlier I'm sure.

As for "major tactical trade off," I disagree with the use of "major' but do agree with "tactical trade off". Yes, these units will have an ability, but they will also have to make a choice; stay where they are and wait for the tide, get their two shots in, then get assaulted, or spring from their position (possibly in cover) to counter assault. This will rob their opponent of the charge, but it will also rob them of any benefits they might have had from their original position. If we're talking about IG, Tau, and Necrons (the three most affected by this proposal), then they all have low Initiative, so odds are they still won't get the whole benefit of the charge, as most will be knocked off before their attacks occur.

Panzer, this has been the core of the whole point of this proposal, and you're only now bringing this up? You still haven't addressed how my proposal is more complicated than issuing weapons that may or may not exist in exchange for close combat weapons that also may or may not be issued to the units that will be getting the pistol version of their weapons that may or may not exist.

And yet there already exist models armed with precisely that three item combination. CSMs are the prime example, coming with a bolter, bolt pistol and close combat weapon as standard fare. Apparently four hands is not a prerequisite for this, as you implied, simply the ability to sling a weapon over one's back when about to engage in melee. If the Codex options do not allow for a model to be equipped with three weapons, it is probably by design to prevent all armies from gaining the same ability as another army. The ability to choose between "rapid firing" and "shooting all weapons and assaulting" seems to be deliberately reserved for elite units and armies. By changing the rapid fire rules in the way you suggested, you are taking an essentially SM/CSM gimmick and giving the ability to every other army in the game. Instead, by adding in pistols where appropriate, you can give this ability to specific units or armies by exception rather than changing everything. For example, elite IG regiments or well equipped DE kabals (with the already prevalent splinter pistol) could benefit from this bonus with minor modifications and still leaving units that shouldn't be that tactically flexibile (i.e. Firewarriors, Necron Warriors) as they currently exist. Under your proposal, every unit would essentially behave like an SM tactical squad.

To summarize:
Pistols---allow application by exception. Helps preserve elite flavor of units. Does not change the whole dynamic of rapid fire and potentially unbalance units. Helps preserve game balance.

And it is a huge tactical trade-off. Necron Warriors would now be able to get a premptive charge off on Orcs instead of having to choose between move back or shoot and take the survivors charge. For example, 30 orc warriors approach 10 necron warriors. Assuming two rounds of average shooting at range, there are 23 orcs left by the time they close inside rapid fire range. Normally, the Necron player could choose to withdraw out of assault range or rapid fire. In this case, however, he chooses to move up and assault.

Shooting: 10 shots, 6.6 hits, 3.3 dead orcs (20 remain)
Assault: 20 attacks, 10 hits, 5 wounds, 4.15 dead orcs (16 remain) With average rolls, the Necrons have already killed more orcs than they could before with just rapid fire

Orcs return at the same initiative: 60 swings, 30 hit, 10 wound, 3.3 dead necrons

Warriors win combat, orcs probably lose another model due to no retreat, and the orc mob is now locked in combat during the orc players turn meaning that even if the 15 remaining boys slaughter the 7 remaining warriors, they will be exposed to more necron shooting in the next turn.

PanzerLeader wrote:And yet there already exist models armed with precisely that three item combination. CSMs are the prime example, coming with a bolter, bolt pistol and close combat weapon as standard fare. Apparently four hands is not a prerequisite for this, as you implied, simply the ability to sling a weapon over one's back when about to engage in melee. If the Codex options do not allow for a model to be equipped with three weapons, it is probably by design to prevent all armies from gaining the same ability as another army. The ability to choose between "rapid firing" and "shooting all weapons and assaulting" seems to be deliberately reserved for elite units and armies. By changing the rapid fire rules in the way you suggested, you are taking an essentially SM/CSM gimmick and giving the ability to every other army in the game. Instead, by adding in pistols where appropriate, you can give this ability to specific units or armies by exception rather than changing everything. For example, elite IG regiments or well equipped DE kabals (with the already prevalent splinter pistol) could benefit from this bonus with minor modifications and still leaving units that shouldn't be that tactically flexibile (i.e. Firewarriors, Necron Warriors) as they currently exist. Under your proposal, every unit would essentially behave like an SM tactical squad.

To summarize:
Pistols---allow application by exception. Helps preserve elite flavor of units. Does not change the whole dynamic of rapid fire and potentially unbalance units. Helps preserve game balance.

And it is a huge tactical trade-off. Necron Warriors would now be able to get a premptive charge off on Orcs instead of having to choose between move back or shoot and take the survivors charge. For example, 30 orc warriors approach 10 necron warriors. Assuming two rounds of average shooting at range, there are 23 orcs left by the time they close inside rapid fire range. Normally, the Necron player could choose to withdraw out of assault range or rapid fire. In this case, however, he chooses to move up and assault.

Shooting: 10 shots, 6.6 hits, 3.3 dead orcs (20 remain)
Assault: 20 attacks, 10 hits, 5 wounds, 4.15 dead orcs (16 remain) With average rolls, the Necrons have already killed more orcs than they could before with just rapid fire

Orcs return at the same initiative: 60 swings, 30 hit, 10 wound, 3.3 dead necrons

Warriors win combat, orcs probably lose another model due to no retreat, and the orc mob is now locked in combat during the orc players turn meaning that even if the 15 remaining boys slaughter the 7 remaining warriors, they will be exposed to more necron shooting in the next turn.

-face palms-

Panzer, are you even reading what I am writing?

I did not say there are not units with those number of weapons. You used an example that could not happen, so I pointed that out. Your example of the Orks v. Necrons is less of an example of how pistols can apply and more of an example of how the current assault resolution system is broken (do orks still flee in your case at all? I believe there is something about the number of models in their unit and their leadership....), something that is part of this problem but not really what I am directly addressing. Not only that, but Orks still won in the end (oh no! They have to face more shooting! ... welcome to 40k...).

Ok, I was being polite. But now you are starting to annoy me. I did read what you wrote. And I addressed those points. However, when I pointed out that your objection was already covered under the existing rules, you simply choose to make an absurd statement ("IG officers don't have four hands") followed by a personal attack implying that I am simply too illiterate to understand your genius. You have also failed to address my points on how giving every army with rapid fire weapons the ability to behave like elite armies currently do will affect game balance. Especially since now all armies have the ability to take the charge away from assault armies without significant loss of damage potential. In fact, as illustrated by the Necron vs. Orc example, the damage potential actually increases with the Necrons now being able to throw 30 dice instead of 20.

Also, if you want to make insults on reading comprehension it would help if you fully read the entire post you are being critical of. Since the orcs have over 10 models remaining and are fearless, there is no need for a morale check. Hence why I wrote: Warriors win combat, orcs probably lose another model due to no retreat

I probably should have done this a post sooner, but I am following Nurglitch's example and bowing out. It is obvious that this has become less about constructive feedback and more about trumpeting individual genius.

I think this is similar to something I was thinking. If a space marine with his bolter turns round a corner and a mounstrous creature or huge ork (anything else big and scary) is there he isn't going to fire 1 or 2 rounds at it, hes going to empty a clip into it whilst running away or charging. I think the 40k rules are flawed in the fact that everyone is very conservative about their ammo. Although I can't think of a way to put into game rules fairly because non shooting armies; nids, daemons and sort of orks would then lose out.

lorrylemming wrote: I think the 40k rules are flawed in the fact that everyone is very conservative about their ammo. Although I can't think of a way to put into game rules fairly because non shooting armies; nids, daemons and sort of orks would then lose out.

You mean like bladestorm on the Dire Avengers? 1 extra die per gun, cannot shoot next turn. It already exists in the game, just not for marines.

lorrylemming wrote:I think this is similar to something I was thinking. If a space marine with his bolter turns round a corner and a mounstrous creature or huge ork (anything else big and scary) is there he isn't going to fire 1 or 2 rounds at it, hes going to empty a clip into it whilst running away or charging. I think the 40k rules are flawed in the fact that everyone is very conservative about their ammo. Although I can't think of a way to put into game rules fairly because non shooting armies; nids, daemons and sort of orks would then lose out.

Its already in the rules dice =/= shots fired, just as the attack roll in melee is not representative of s single sword swing or punch. Many of the weapons with single die shots are fully automatic weapons.

Jack

PanzerLeader wrote:...trumpeting individual genius.

Excellent, we have established that I am a genius!

Nurglitch wrote:Sure, but the combination Rapid Fire/Pistol wargear combination does this and does it better.

no it dosen't, want proof, necrons.

Not saying either point of contention in this is right or wrong... but ive always been under the impression that (GW's) thinking in regard to units with rapid fire weapons was that whereas they can fight in CC. Its not their best or even most feasible option, so to give them a better chance of surviving that CC mob thats comeing their way they double up their firepower within that fatal range. Granted, we all know in practice that it doesnt always work that way.

However, i do agree with the idea thats been mentioned previously... pistols should be a universal option for RF units. Or most infantry, however the pistols in their cases. Are a backup weapon purely, for that fatal 12'' range moment where they want to get some rounds on the target. Without giving up their assaulting abilitys ala the current RF rules. Given an understanding that the pistol is a holstered backup weapon which can be drawn and fired at need. It does not replace your primary weapon in any other instance. Its a simple, real world and fluff tolerant option that gives units tactical flexibility without counting on the greater use of "house rules" or relying (lol) on GW correcting something. There is real world prededent behind the idea at least, while i was in the military we were trained to transition to a sidearm (if carried) at need. I see no reason why even your standard IG footsoldier shouldnt be able to do so with the same ability. And im sure examples could be found in the 40k world Fluff wise.

Just my 2 cents though.

How about giving stationary units BOTH the shot at 24 and the two shots at 12?

Well, in reality, only special troops are issued pistols, either because their main weapon is not as flexible (medium+ machine guns, for example), their jobs don't make carrying a rifle around easy (mechanics in some instances), or rank and prestige warrant it (officers, special forces [including paratroopers and the like], etc...).

What I remember was that Rapid Fire weapons represented assault rifles and selective fire weapons. So, semi function for range, auto or burst for when things get close. The function of pistols was to plainly represent single handed weapons. You can pistol whip with the pistol and swing with your other weapon.

The problem with simply saying "all models with Rapid Fire weapons will also have the pistol equivalent of that weapon" is that in many cases, those weapons do not exist. The only few I can think of are Bolters, Lasguns, and Plasma guns, but all the others I don't think they do (I listed them earlier). Not only that, but as an example of further complications, all Guardsmen now carry "close combat weapons." So if all Guardsmen were to suddenly also be carrying laspistols, they would all get +1 attack in close combat! Let's also remember that Space Marines also carry Boltpistols. A strict RAW interpretation would lead to Space Marines carrying two pistols, which I would have to check, but would mean they too get an additional attack in close combat!

So instead of just issuing all Rapid Fire troops with a pistol, why not just give Rapid Fire weapons the option of firing at Assault 1? It's a pretty simple solution I think, with no complications that I can see?

@ Fetterkey : Don't they already? Or are you suggesting they could fire three shots at varying ranges?

I completely agree with you, thats how me and my friends played untill we really read the rulebook (really we treated them as assault 2 but same basic principle)

Three shots, one of which may target a unit up to 24" away. In practice this would mean 3/1.

What does 3/1 mean?

@ BIBBI : I still accidentally play the old way now and again. It's just really intuitive and useful.

I gotta say that Skinnattittar seems correct. it is far simpler to change 2 lines of text in the rapid fire rules than invent 20 weapons and append 2 sentences to every unit description.

I think the game would easily rebalance itself after such a change, practically all armies have rapid fire units so it would even out and I don't see more than minor point adjustments occurring if even that. generally it will just encourage non-assault units to die in assault since most RF weapons are low strength anyway.

Skinnattittar wrote:What does 3/1 mean?

Three shots within 12" and one within 24" if stationary.

HI all.
I may have lost where we are, and what Skinnattittar was proposing.

Is the proposed 'Rapid fire' weapon options to have 3 fire modes.
Heavy 1 max range,(bolters 24")
Heavy 2 , half range ,(bolters 12")
Assault 1, half range ,(bolters 12")

Is this right ?

TTFN
Lanrak.

Stop me if i'm wrong but is the current 5ed rule to try get around the old rapid fire rule is to issue a pistol to all soilders with a rapid fire gun?I being a tau player, have been using the

Rx heavy1
R/2 heavy2
R/2 Assult1

Rules myself with my friends and agree with the proposal of changing 2 lines of RF weapon rules rather than creating 10 new guns, but think that this should be avalible for other races such as space marines. But this seems inpractical to me instead of running into combat with a rapid fire weapon blazing you run towards them putting away a weapon only to grab a new one that does the exact job? it seems a bit stupid to me. I think that this rule should only apply to characters that has a ccw and a weapon that requires two hands so they can get the extra attacks but to use it on a squad of fire warriors with no ccw is very unnessacery and pointless.