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.

IMO,

1. Power-Armor and better couldn't care less if shotguns were made S4 since vs. the standard power-armor statline, this is a jump of 0.074 casualties/shot to 0.111 casualties/shot

2. Going to S4 vs guys in carapace armor, this is a jump of 0.16 casualties/shot to 0.22 casualties.

3. Going against guys in mesh armor, this is a jump of 0.22 casualties/shot to 0.30 casualties

So, theory-hammer states that going to S4 actually increases lethality towards marines by 50% and increases lethality to everyone else by 33%.

However, in reality, because the armor save roll trumps all "to hit" and "to wound" rolls, a 50% increase of a negliglbly small amount is generally pointless and tends to hurt lightly armored models - especially since the shotgun alows followup assaults.

And you are also stating the commonly produced AK for the cheap market. The better quality and produced ak's that haven't been in the hands of peasants in a field are rather quite accurate, and still very reliable. Our guys still pick up the crappy ones to use in combat, especially the special forces. But anymore you don't want to be the one firing off an ak in any area as it is very distinctive and will get you shot at quickly.

6" range is way too limited and again, it would never be used. One thing that would give you an odd alternative would be to make it S3 flame template. But then you start slowing down shooting when a lot of shotguns are involved.

I call Bollocks on that Toreador, the AK is highly reliable becuase it is built to such low tolerences, low tolerences = low precision= end result low accuracy. Tighten it up and it will shoot better, but then you loose the magic of the design. Personally I own a Mac-90 chinese export, pre ban. High quality, not some surplus nag. Even with the work I put into it, I would not take a shot at a deer with it past 150 yards.

Back on topic.
6 inch assault 2, means that it is a close combat weapon. You would probably never use it unless you were about to charge someone. Add in the the 1 str 4 attack at init 10 in close combat, and you have a viable option for str 3 units. Its not like it would ever beat a bolter, and thats the point. But at least it would offer and advantage over a lasgun, or a ccw, bolt pistol.

AKs are very reliable. They pay for that with a certain amount of imprecision and slop in their design. They also tend to have a lot of trigger slap, which is unpleasant to shoot. But there's a point at which you can't get any more reliable, or, at least, the differences in reliability are totally negligable.

There's also developments in materials and manufacture which impact things. Polymer frames and receivers are not prone to rust, for example. I'm not aware of any AKs made from anything besides steel, and steel will rust. ARs, by comparison, are aluminum alloy, and do not rust as quickly as AKs do.

Further, bear in mind that there's more going on in the evolution of combat rifles than the actions themselves. The AK and AR really have a lot more in common than different. Both are gas driven, rotating bolt designs. Perhaps the biggest difference, the reason why the AR was originally purchased, was the change to the 5.56mm round. The AK has subsequently been rechambered for a very similar 5.45mm round, but the point remains: The AR wasn't a failed attempt to build an AK. It introduced a number of new concepts, including synthetic furniture and 5.56mm ammunition.

I own a pair of AR15s and a Romanian AK. I have experienced failures with the AK. I have taken it out of long term storage to find that its oil coating had evaporated, and it had developed rust spots, and needed to be thoroughly cleaned and re-oiled. Neither of my ARs have failed to function, and that's with minimal care on my part. It's anecdotal, but I think the differences are much less pronounced than people presume. AKs can malfunction, and ARs can run perfectly. Contrary to the stories, you can't fill an AK with dirt and expect it to work well. Conversely, if you care for an AR, it will function correctly.

How about a dual profile? Something like

S4 12" assault 1
S4 6" assualt 2

or
S3 12" assault 2
S4 6" assault 2

I also always though shuricas should have a split profile S3 at 12" to 24" S4 at 12" or less.

Kyoto: The idea of a lesser S for shotguns at longer range is a good one. Shotguns are known for rapidly losing effectiveness with range. The rate of fire drop change is less fluffy, but the S change is a very good idea.

That actually makes sense Kyoto.

And yes, I have owned several AKs over the years, and some civilian Car-15s. I also shot military issue of both in the Army. I say what I do because of that experience. There was a huge difference in the ex Iraqi AKs we fired and the Hungarian and Romanian built ones. they were a lot nicer, very little slop and quite accurate at range. A huge difference. The M16 still had a better accuracy out 100 meters beyond that, but the round really doesn't carry great energy at that point. I also carried a bunch of different M16s over the 8 years I was in. They weren't near as bad as people said, if you took care of them, but in a lot of situations you can't. Light rust and jamming under fire is a big difference. Early war after action reviews are great to read. The number of out of action weapons is amazing. Almost like rolling a jam die on every shot. The military keeps wanting to change and go to a different round (bigger) and different weapon (g36?), but because of politics they won't.


That is a good fix Kyoto. I like it.
I like the second better.

Trying to keep the AK pointed at the target is quite hard if your not used to it, the recoil makes it wsnap upwards. Nice gun though. I always liked the M16 though. Never fired one, just liked the look of it better.

First of all, I want to apologize to Kid Kyoto for going off point for a second here.

Sorry. with all the talk of M16 vs AK you all are missing a huge point of why the US changed from 7.62 to 5.56. (At least i don't recall seeing this in previous rants). The US offically changed over to the M16 because Russians were using 7.62 (as do most European nations..at least when i was in service in the 90's). The offical Army doctrine was the main threat from the 1940's to the 1990's was the USSR. If we used 5.56 weapons, then they could not just steal ammo from our dead or captured to be used against us. The AK is a reliable weapon, but so is the M16. A 5.56 will kill you just as quickly as a 7.62. It wall comes down to advantages and disadvantages in war. If you don't believe me, check out US Military doctrine dating from the 50's and on.

Ok, sorry about that!

I love the idea of S4 Shotguns. My IG and Daemonunters would become that much more fun to play. I also would not mind if the shotgun was a S3 12in Assualt 2 and S4 6in Assualt 1. I think all my core units in my DH army would be Arbites from now on if that was the case.

S3 12in Assualt 2 and S4 6in Assualt 2, that would be better

Well, considering the fact that we have never used interchangeable rounds with the Russians, other than what we supplied them with, that seems to be a moot point. We did go to the 5.56 because at the time it seemed like the best option at the time. It was the smallest "efficient" round at the time. More can be carried and it was quite controllable at the time. Weight and amount of rounds carried were the primary considerations. Actually, a 5.56 has less of a chance to kill than a 7.62 round, but we won't even get into that. Don't even get into the reliability of the M16. It isn't near as reliable, but in good conditions and when maintained it isn't bad. The biggest problem is carbon fowling and debris in the receiver.

I really think Kyoto stumbled upon a good option. The Shotgun becomes what it is, a nasty close assault weapon. Not great at range, but up close very dirty. The old Arbites would like it as they discharge numerous rounds at close range, then charge in to the peasants to disperse them with a few good beatings!

I do agree that making it str 4 12" Assault 2 makes the Shuriken Catapult seem even worse...

I always liked how the older shotguns were very Judge Dredd like (Um more the movie version than the comics), and would love to have a couple of squads equiped with them. I think as long as range is not made obscene, you could really have a nice, semi-balanced weapon.

And let me clarify what i mean by semi-balanced. If my Vet Guard, Arbites, human, etc is armed with a weapon that only reaches 12 inches, then I can almost guarantee I will be in hand to hand quickly. I can't think of very many armies, if any, that I would last more than a round or 2 with in that case. It is much like the rest of the Guard, get 1 or 2 good shots in and then go down in a bloody heap.

I think we compare things oddly too. I shuriken catapult is basically the support or carbine version of the shuriken weapons.

So Lasgun is the mainstay weapon of humans.
Bolter is the elite weapon.


Making the shotgun Str4 12" Assault 2 makes it better in close than the lasgun, but not as good, in my opinion as the Bolter. It also puts it into its role as an in close assault weapon. It is mostly in a supporting roll, so being as good as a shuriken cat isn't as bad to me as it first sounded. I would put the shuriken cat as a "carbine" version of the normal avenger shuriken cat and more a supporting weapon in current lists.

I can't see it being overwhelming in the game as it is limited in numbers, and most troops that use them are taking a gamble in getting that close and assaulting. Seems fine to me, though I still like Kyoto's version.

yeah the gample would be mainly for IG as your version would not be to poewerful for them but reasonable.

what i don't understand is why you goofs are comparing a eldar catapult to a Solid slug shotgun. screw buckshot.
it's holy blessed slug to the face time.

Actually what comes out of the barrel is a moot point. What effect we think it should have in game is the issue. What makes a shotgun a shotgun within the context of the other weapons. What would make it viable and still a shotgun?

Posted By Onnotangu on 12/12/2006 12:56 PM
what i don't understand is why you goofs are comparing a eldar catapult to a Solid slug shotgun. screw buckshot.
it's holy blessed slug to the face time.

Yeah.  You're totally right.

In fact, we should make it S6 Assault 1.  S4 for solid slug, +1S for blessed, and +1S for "to the face".  We should make it AP3 too, since "to the face" = no armor, since screaming can't deflect solid "blessed" slugs "to the face".

Game balance has no bearing on what strength a shotgun should be.  I'm sure the fluff section reads something like:  "Imperial shock troops armed with shotguns are used to storm fortifications and smash their enemies at close range with devestating blessed slugs which shatter armor and crush bone." .  Shuriken catapults on the other hand, they're only good for death by a million papercuts.  They're waaaaaay overpowered at S4.  They should be S2.  Maybe heavy 3, but no more than S2.

Its all conjecture at this point, and I mean, we all know that GW perfectly playtests their lists, carefully considers statline tweaks, and comes out with a fantastically balanced, well edited product.

So all you naysayers can just STFU. 

"To the face!" should be AP1 against any model not wearing a helmet.

Posted By The Crawling Chaos on 12/12/2006 1:38 PM
"To the face!" should be AP1 against any model not wearing a helmet.

TheCrawlingChaos:

Crap, now you've done it.  This is a perfect example of why we, the general public can't write coherent rules for Games Workshop games.  Look at the plethora of questions that one ill written rule spawns:

1.  What about tanks?  Is it AP1 vs tanks?  Tanks don't wear helmets!  That would mean that your shotgun could penetrate a rhino!  But then again, tanks don't have faces, and "to the face" clearly indicates that it is the face that is recieving the beating.  What is the ruling on this?

2.  What about tyranids?  Is the shotgun AP1 vs all tyranids?  What about orks?  Some Orks have helmets.  What if there is a helmet covnerted onto the model?  If a carnifex had a greenstuff helmet, does he negate the AP1 rule?

3.  "To the face" seems to indicate that the face is vulnerable... What about guys with bionic faces?  Does he get a save?

4.  The "helmet" reference seems ambigious.  Does it refer to the helmet worn on the head (which doesn't cover the face, and strangely won't protect vs. "to the face" ) or does it refer to the "lower" helmet, without which by association, one might assume the model is emasculated (if possible), and such suffers the AP1 damage...?

1. If the vehicle is open topped and the crew are not wearing helmets, then they get shot in the face. If it is a space marine vehicle that usually counts as not open topped because the crew have armor (such as a land speeder), but the marines don't have helmets, they get shot in the face. Count as AP1 and open topped.

2. Tyranids get screwed by this rule, but that's what you get for not being able to use tools. BUT, if the model has extended carapace, and that carapace is modeled onto the head, then it counts as a helmet for the purposes of "to the face." Some orks have helmets, some don't, the ones that don't get shot in the face.

3. Bionics whether imperial, chaos, or ork, will only count as a helmet, if it is modeled onto the head/face. bionik bonce of course automatically counts as a helmet.

4. Lest the rule become too vague and unworkable, we should work with some absolutes. For purposes of "shot to the face," any helmet should qualify as a helmet. Otherwise, things get muddy.

Modeling can be used to your advantage.

Who remembers Eldar using Lasguns. Yeah. That was something.

And who needs a catapult. REAL Space Elf Ninjas throw their mono-molecular shuikens themselves!

And all Shotgun shots against Nids should count as S10 AP1 No Invulnerable saves when used by IG Troopers named Hicks.

But only during close encounters, I'd say no more than 6 inches.

Shotguns should get a special rule against Plague Zombies too.

and when the explosive impacts of bolter rounds might set off a nuclear reaction.

But most helmets don't cover the face. What about that, huh? Well? I mean, Space Marines, the ones that wear their nifty super helmets, and those spandex panzees, they have proper facial protection from steamy shotgun blasts. But orks almost never have facial protection. Nor do most gaurd, especially Catchans (but they don't have helmets anyway). What about them, huh? Huh? Answer me! HAVE YOU NO SHAME?!?