LethalDose said:

In the WEG miniatures rules, there are Repeating Blasters, Medium Repeating Blasters and Heavy Repeating Blasters. Repeating Blasters have two configurations - 'standard' where they are carried by one man and used a slightly heavier blaster rifle, and 'tripod mounted' where they get to use the 'following fire' rule, and if they hit they can take another shot with a -2 modifier (then if they hit with that another at -4 etc.).

I liked to think they looked a bit like .30 cal machine guns.

That Blasted Samophlange said:

I [nearly] completely agree with you, TBS.  I don't think combat should always be the 'best solution', and sometimes, it should be a downright poor choice.  This is similar to a point brought up several weeks ago when a lot of players felt that combat was "too lethal", and since combat had to be such an integral part of any Star Wars, the dev's needed to whip out the nerf bat and beat down all those nasty weapons so PC's could wade through their foes and feel good about themselves.  Thankfully, the initiative seems to have lost momentum.  I really think the game is just lethal enough to as it is, because it always keeps players nervous when they go into combat, and sometimes makes them avoid a fight, which allows for some really interesting story telling.  There's actually tons of instances in the OT where the characters try really hard to avoid combat, so I think this is very 'star warsy'.

I want my players to see an imperial line with a fortified E-WEB (e.g. machine gun nest) and nearly crap themselves at the thought of having to assault the position, directly or otherwise.  However, I would also like to be able to have encounters where the players are supposed to fight and have a henchman with an autofire weapon.  That is difficult to do under the current RAW.  Increasing the cost of activating the ability helps moderate the weapon quality so the players won't avoid combat every time there's an AF weapon present, but will typically try to check first.

Basically, I want them afraid of the GUN.  Not afraid of the MECHANIC.

Short version: I really really like how lethal the combat is now.  The AF rules just take it too far.

I also like the idea of difficulty upgrades as part of the mechanism for multiple hits.  Actually, I like it for ALL the systems (Two-weapon, linked, etc).

-WJL

I'm with LethalDose on this.  The overall feeling of combat danger seems to be about right, and there's nothing wrong with auto-fire cranking that up a notch (or two), but the current rules don't really seem to do that.  Instead, they crank it up so far that, in a galaxy where Stormtroopers exist in large numbers, no force should be able to stand up to them.  A good roll will drop a PC in one shot.  A *very* good roll will drop 2-3.

Lethal prefers doubling the advantage cost to trigger an additional hit.  I prefer the single advantage allowing the conversion of an additional success into an additional hit (and think that could work just as well for the other multiple-hit mechanics).  In practice, the two methods seem to have a similar effect on limiting the number of hits to something that seems really dangerous, but just *might* be survivable.  Lethal's method is more likely to result in extra Successes to make one of the hits really good.  Mine is more likely to result in spare Advantages that can trigger other effects.

As a side note, I find it strange that standard Stormtroopers are equipped with a blaster rifle given that, in the movies, they are quite obviously equipped with carbines.  I find it even more odd since the only difference between the blaster rifle and blaster carbine seems to be that the carbine is 1 Encumbrance 'lighter', and has Medium rather than Long range.  (And it's 50 credits cheaper.)

ErikB said:

I've pictured the .30 cal's like that  as a medium repeaters (not listed in the EotE beta) in the Star Wars Universe.  I see Light repeaters as LMGs, like the M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle.  Mean to be handled by a single soldier, but able of laying down pretty fearsome firepower.  The heavy repeaters are real nasty weapons, like the .50 cal M2.

Similarly, I see Blaster rifles to be like M1 Garands and M16A2, Semi-automatic and pack a punch, and Heavy Blaster Rifles as AK-47s, or other fire select "Battle rifles".

I separate out the M16A2 from the AK because the former chambers the smaller 5.56mm round and is typically not fully automatic (fires 3-round bursts) and the latter chambers the heavier 7.62 round and typically can be fired in full auto.

Probably too much thought there…

-WJL

LethalDose said:

It's possible that the FFG actually considers the Heavy Blaster Rifle to be what you consider a Light Repeating Blaster, and a Light Repeating Blaster to be what you consider a Medium Repeating Blaster.  Adding some in-universe samples of what constitutes each class to the final book will probably help clear that up.

Voice said:

Yep, that's totally possible.  I went back to the WEG 2nd ed book ('cause that's where I learned what's what). The light repeater they list in there is the BlasTec T21.  The WEG book doesn't have HBRs ( I don't think they showed up until Saga ed, which doesn't provide a model designation).  Wookiepedia lists the BlasTec RT-91C as an HBR, though, which is much smaller than the T21 (closer to a modern assault rifle).

-WJL

Voice said:

I actually prefer neither solution, but rather something that was bandied around in a few posts in (I think) the Combat forum, whereby the [adv] cost increased according to the total number of targets hit. It was a little more complicated (though I'd argue no more than converting successes to additional hits), but it kept autofire lethal against groups, but not so good against single targets. I think that's the sweet spot we should be looking for rather than toning it down in every situation.

Stupid not being able to edit posts <grumble, grumble>..

I found the rule I was thinking of:

"the advantage cost to gain each hit on a target is equal to the total number of times they will have been hit by this attack."

I.e.: first hit on original target is free (it's the hit from the successful attack). To purchase a second hit on the original target would cost 2 adv because he is now being hit a total of two times. To purchase a third hit on the original target would cost an additional 3 adv (for a total of 5), because he is now being hit three times. To hit additional target(s), it costs 1 adv each, as each is now being hit by the attack for the first time. Choosing to hit one of them a second time would cost another 2 adv (for a total of three), as that target would have now been hit twice by the attack.

As an example, I'm shooting a group of three enemies with an autofire capable weapon. I roll 2 nett successes and 3 nett advantage. I hit the initial target with my successful attack, I then spend 2 [adv] to score an extra hit on the initial target, leaving me with 1 [adv] to also score a hit on one of the other two targets. Alternatively, I could buy one hit on each of the two additional targets for 1 [adv] each - so I hit all three targets once - leaving me with 1 spare [adv] which I can't use to purchase additional hits (it would now cost 2 more [adv] to hit any of the three targets who have been hit once by the attack), but can spend on other effects. Finally, I could instead choose to hit the initial target once (the initial hit) and spend 3 [adv] to score the first (1 [adv]) and second (2 [adv]) hit on one of the other targets.

LethalDose said:

Why did you have to say it in caps? Now you've made me remember the existence of The Roleplay Game That Should Not Be Named!