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.

So I'm learning the rules for Deathwatch so I can start a session with my gaming group, and I'm confused by the full auto rule. At full auto your bs is increased by 20 AND it allows you to hit more then once. Why would you never fire a gun at full auto if it's rule is so good?

Full Auto takes a full action, meaning you can't do anything else on your turn (like move). And of course, you consume more ammo (though it's seldom a problem).
Full auto is a preferred mode of fire when available, but it's not always tactically possible to use it.

It's still unbalanced. Deathwatch combat is easy mode most of the time, but the +20 for Full-Auto just makes it easier. I suggest using the Black Crusade/Only War method of combat:


Standard Attack (1/2 Action, +10 to BS)
Semi-Auto/Swift Attack (1/2 Action, +0 to BS, +1 hit for every 2 Degrees of Success)
Full-Auto/Lightning Attack (1/2 Action, -10 to BS, +1 hit for every Degree of Success)

Dawnofthedoug wrote:Why would you never fire a gun at full auto if it's rule is so good?

Although I'd prefer a more "fluid" progression myself, I don't have a problem with the bonus and would, in fact, be bewildered by a penalty that makes it unlikely that you hit even just once whilst firing multiple bullets. Imo, the balancing comes from the ammunition consumption that Backfire mentioned - though this of course works only if the GM is enforcing these limitations, and threatens you with the possibility of ammo shortage during a mission. Furthermore, I firmly believe that single-shot should only ever be a superior choice to burst fire if the weapon itself offers any particular traits warranting it, such as sniper rifles offering a higher accuracy and damage per shot. But a bolter on single shot? Honestly, I feel that this should only ever be considered for snapshots, but not the standard attack. It just "feels" weird, though this is of course a matter of interpretation and personal preferences as well.

Having played characters with both single-shot sniper weapons as well as burst fire guns, I can only say that it's never been a problem for me thus far. Of course, gameplay experiences may vary between the individual players, which is probably why this is such a controversy and you're bound to hear lots of different opinions on which approach is best. Personally, I think that guns like bolters and autorifles are thematically meant to be used with bursts, so it just feels really, really odd if players would prefer to use them as single-shot weapons just because that somehow makes them more likely to hit their target. I suppose this is something where weapon balancing just gets in the way of realism and/or immersion.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's still unbalanced. Deathwatch combat is easy mode most of the time, but the +20 for Full-Auto just makes it easier.

Yeah, it's still OP especially when you compare all kinds of ways to negate disadvantages using Full auto, and special rounds to negate weakness of the Bolt weapons. And even if you use Errata weapons which are less powerful.

Really, I doubt they playtested Deathwatch at all...

This discussion again? OP, you'd better check the FFG forums, there's threads and posts upon posts concerning the full auto in well, every 40k RPG forums.

Backfire wrote:
Really, I doubt they playtested Deathwatch at all...

I'm pretty sure they did. Play-testing Deathwatch makes up about half our sessions, if not more so. I wasn't a play-tester for the core rulebook (we hadn't started play-testing for them yet), but if it went through anything like the core rulebooks I have play-tested (Black Crusade, DH2.0), then I can tell you that it goes through heaps of it, and over several months. FFG are no slouches when it comes to getting people to play their games.

I choose to exercise my right to remain sceptical When I started playing Deathwatch, first reading of the weapons table told me that there was no point using anything else than Bolt weapons. This was even before I was aware of special rounds (most notably Kraken rounds). First combat we noticed how much the Bolt weapons with their great chance for exploding dice slowed the game, and how powerful it made them. In our second combat, we easily killed 2 Daemon Princes (!). After that, we began to use Errata weapons which were slightly less gross.

Honestly, I can't believe stuff like that would have escaped even cursory playtesting - probably not even proper proofreading.

I like the setting, but as a system, Deathwatch was a big disappointment after DH and RT.

Backfire wrote:
Honestly, I can't believe stuff like that would have escaped even cursory playtesting - probably not even proper proofreading.

Well they didn't have me yet.