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.

I've always been somewhat bothered by the complete lack of distinction between autoguns and lasguns on the tabletop; for many editions now they've shared practically identical profiles and don't seem to serve any distinct purpose, even though they obviously reflect very different things. I've long felt it would be worth setting autoweapons apart from lasweapons.

After some thinking, I believe I've come up with an idea, which fits neatly into the new 10th Edition weapon abilities: the introduction of [CRUDE] weapons.

In Star Wars, there's the established idea of "slugthrowers;" modern-style weapons that fire using conventional ammunition rather than lasers, energy beams, and the like. The Cycler Rifle is a good example. In that setting, slugthrowers play an important role because they can bypass the kinds of advanced technological shielding many vehicles and the like use, designed to deflect the more common energy-based weapons. This is also true of other physical weaponry, such as crude melee weaponry used by some of the less technologically-advanced civilisations.

I think porting a similar idea into Warhammer 40,000 would really give autoweapons a chance to shine; they'd fill a specific niche on the tabletop, and would feel notably different from "a lasgun with a different name."

So my proposal for integrating it into the rules would be something like this:

[CRUDE]
Crude weapons make up for a lack of conventional strength by circumventing the complex shielding systems and technological defences in place to counter their more advanced cousins.
Weapons with [CRUDE] in their profile are known as Crude weapons. Each time an attack is made with a Crude weapon, the target model cannot take an invulnerable saving throw against that attack unless they are a PSYKER or DAEMON.

I've specifically excluded Psykers and Daemons to drive home that this is about bypassing built-in force fields and the like, not overcoming supernatural Warp-spawned wards.

Does anyone think this could be an interesting idea to introduce to Warhammer 40,000? I would grant it primarily to autopistols, autoguns, and autocannons, but it could potentially expand to some other less common weapon types as long as it were generally kept rare and for very specific purposes. I'd love to hear people's thoughts.

No. All known sources of Invulnerable Saves in 40K work just fine against crude slugthrowers. I can't imagine Autoguns negating Daemon's Invulnerable Save.

As for Autoguns being Lasguns by another name, that is a common case in 40K. Lots of weapons are different but the same in the system.

I would recommend you find some sources for how autoguns work and how lasguns work and then see if there is enough of a difference between their description to show up in a game of 40k's scale.

 vict0988 wrote:
I would recommend you find some sources for how autoguns work and how lasguns work and then see if there is enough of a difference between their description to show up in a game of 40k's scale.

Technically, there should be a massive difference because those two work completely differently. I'm talking about boltgun vs shuriken catapult level of difference here. Technically.

 alextroy wrote:
No. All known sources of Invulnerable Saves in 40K work just fine against crude slugthrowers. I can't imagine Autoguns negating Daemon's Invulnerable Save.

As for Autoguns being Lasguns by another name, that is a common case in 40K. Lots of weapons are different but the same in the system.

It's even the other way around, various fluff pieces mention 'primitive' weapons, especially swords and ordinary fire, being comparatively more useful against demons because they are basically 'conceptually killy' - they've been weapons so long that they resonate in the warp and have better chances at harming warp entities. Also part of the reason why demons themselves use swords, axes etc. and few to no guns.

 AtoMaki wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
I would recommend you find some sources for how autoguns work and how lasguns work and then see if there is enough of a difference between their description to show up in a game of 40k's scale.

Technically, there should be a massive difference because those two work completely differently. I'm talking about boltgun vs shuriken catapult level of difference here. Technically.

Boltgun, Autogun and Shuriken Catapult all work more similarly to each other than they all do to the lasgun, with the boltgun being the most different due to being explosive. In the end they all just throw bits of solid objects really fast into their target, the difference being the catapult just fires more as small disks and the boltgun has an explosive in it which will go off after impact/penetration.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To add to the earlier, the fields and similar protection work as well (actually better) against conventional arms in 40k. Exotic weapons are the ones that can ignore it, such as the D-Cannon. In past editions, psychic weapons like force swords would ignore the daemon save too — those are more effective against daemons rather than less because they're disrupting the warp that's holding them together.

 Daba wrote:
Boltgun, Autogun and Shuriken Catapult all work more similarly to each other than they all do to the lasgun, with the boltgun being the most different due to being explosive. In the end they all just throw bits of solid objects really fast into their target

You will laugh, but in the 40k lore, las-bolts (the projectiles fired by lasguns) are treated as bits of solid objects.

Back in Rogue Trader days, there was the concept of 'primitive' weapons and armour. They basically just sucked. Primitive weapons would modify the target's saving throw by +2 if the armour wasn't itself primitive (back then, that meant a primitive weapon would improve power armour to a 2+ save).
Primitive armour was simply completely ignored unless the attack was being made by a primitive weapon.

Also, I don't think allowing autocannon to ignore invuls is a good idea. Autocannon seem to be in a pretty good place at the moment.

Scion of Fate wrote:

[CRUDE]
Crude weapons make up for a lack of conventional strength by circumventing the complex shielding systems and technological defences in place to counter their more advanced cousins.
Weapons with [CRUDE] in their profile are known as Crude weapons. Each time an attack is made with a Crude weapon, the target model cannot take an invulnerable saving throw against that attack unless they are a PSYKER or DAEMON.

I've specifically excluded Psykers and Daemons to drive home that this is about bypassing built-in force fields and the like, not overcoming supernatural Warp-spawned wards.

As others have pointed out, conventional forcefields in 40k do seem to work against autoguns and similar. So you'd have to retcon the lore to say autoguns are an exception. Which would in turn probably raise questions about why more factions don't use autoguns as a counter to targets that rely on their forcefields more than their armor. Iirc, assassins would largely fall into this same problem; being able to shrug off lascannons with their invulns, but being susceptible to humble ganger pistols.

Also, invuln saves cover a lot of ground in 40k; not just forcefields. You've excluded daemons and psykers to reflect this, but you missed things like harlequins who are all extremely dependent on their invuln saves (representing holograms and ninja dance moves rather than forcefields) to survive. Similarly, wyches and banshees with their agility-based invulns would be more vulnerable to crude weapons.

I don't think the behavioral differences between a bullet and a lasbolt are sufficient to warrant a special rule. The fluff for the projectiles may be different, but they're both basically, "Guns you can rapid fire that are less powerful than bolters."

 AtoMaki wrote:

 Daba wrote:
Boltgun, Autogun and Shuriken Catapult all work more similarly to each other than they all do to the lasgun, with the boltgun being the most different due to being explosive. In the end they all just throw bits of solid objects really fast into their target

You will laugh, but in the 40k lore, las-bolts (the projectiles fired by lasguns) are treated as bits of solid objects.

I understand a lot of the responses here. I will point out that the fluff usually makes it pretty clear that autoweapons typically outclass lasweapons in the damage department, largely because lasweapons have a bad habit of cauterising wounds, meaning anything but a direct hit is usually ineffectual. They also struggle in cold weather, but the big upside is that they can carry more ammunition and often have a higher rate of fire.
I can't think of a good may to represent any of that on the tabletop though.

Scion of Fate wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

 Daba wrote:
Boltgun, Autogun and Shuriken Catapult all work more similarly to each other than they all do to the lasgun, with the boltgun being the most different due to being explosive. In the end they all just throw bits of solid objects really fast into their target

You will laugh, but in the 40k lore, las-bolts (the projectiles fired by lasguns) are treated as bits of solid objects.

I understand a lot of the responses here. I will point out that the fluff usually makes it pretty clear that autoweapons typically outclass lasweapons in the damage department, largely because lasweapons have a bad habit of cauterising wounds, meaning anything but a direct hit is usually ineffectual. They also struggle in cold weather, but the big upside is that they can carry more ammunition and often have a higher rate of fire.
I can't think of a good may to represent any of that on the tabletop though.

Cauterized wounds do not bleed, so wounds that aren't cauterized should maybe have a bleed effect? How could you represent that?

At what time of a battle are you going to have the most and the least ammunition?

 vict0988 wrote:


At what time of a battle are you going to have the most and the least ammunition?

Maybe bring in Necromunda style ammo rolls.

After a unit has fired, roll a dice and consult the ammo roll of the weapon. If it passes, then nothing happens, otherwise it runs out of ammo and cannot shoot with that weapon for the rest of the battle.

Lasguns would have an ammo roll of 2+, while autoguns would be 4+, for example.

The only thing i could think of is making some rule like autoguns being rapidfire, while lasguns dont get rapidfire but reroll 1's.

In necromunda, autoguns can score up to 3 hits per shot, while lasguns can't, but lasguns are more accurate to compensate (and usually dont run out of ammo ... ever...)

But then again, I dont think any change is needed, as its fine like it is in 40k.

With forcefields and the like in 40k they tend to operate on energy absorption, whether it be kinetic energy (autogun), thermal energy (lasgun), whatever. The energy hits the field and is either completely absorbed or overloads it and causes it to fail, regardless of the type of energy it is.

From what I remember one importance of slugthrowers was that they were effective against Jedi, being as difficult to block with the force as energy weapons, but very dangerous to block with a light saber as you would spray yourself with molten metal. I don't remember if they had any particular role in beating forcefields or not.

I'm not sure of the difference between 40k forcefields and SW forcefields, so this might all be moot.

It also doesn't make a great deal of sense in 40k without determining what invuln saves are determined by forcefields, agility or other shenanigans.