How many clips can each Space Marine carry and how many weapons can they slot on their person? Can they sling a heavy weapon on their back or permanently taking up one hand just to carry the thing? Are there rules to govern what they have space for?

I see the rules for carrying capacity on page 208 and I don't want to rehash a dead horse. I'm new to this and haven't even DMed the first session of Deathwatch, I just wanted to have a response for the rules when my players go, "Sooo... how many rounds do I have?"

Aside from total weight limitation (which, as per the rules-as-written, is a bit ridiculous), there is no hard and fast rule for such limitations. As far as I know, every GM uses their own method - or does not enforce any limits at all. I believe the book suggests starting with at least 3 clips of ammo for every weapon, but iirc it was not capped.

Here is a previous thread discussing the same issue, with some input from other players, as well as suggestions to use in your game.

Personally, I'd say this is something your group should determine by itself. Look at Space Marine artwork and think about where you would put all the stuff you want to bring along without making your characters look silly.

Thanks

I did a search of this after posting the topic, 'cause I had seen some various threads on it and wondered if there was any reasonable consensus on it. I see the one primary, two secondary for their characters, which is good. Everyone wants options. But the ammo thing is going to kill my team hardcore if they don't get reloads. As it is, having a fire selector gives the marines their best option because it assures they have at least three clips docked in their weapons they can draw from before worrying about a reload.

My player who just rolled up a devastator shouldn't feel the pressure of only having 25 shots per game session with a 250 round backpack. I want them to feel powerful, with a need for tactical weapon discharge, and ammo conservation, but I don't them to feel penalized for being able to unload a junk ton of rounds. So what if they want to light up that tau with a ten round burst? They shouldn't feel crippled thinking, "Yeah... but a single well placed shot from my bolt pistol will kill him..."

There should be times where they walk up and gank him with all of their combat knives, but I don't want that to bog them down.

So another question is, is it 3 reload clips per weapon, per marine? Would 3 bolter clips translate to six bolt pistol clips?

Just a thought. If they carried more than that, would they be limited with agility tests per clip?

If they carried more than that, would they be limited with agility tests per clip?

That's really up to you. The book does not enforce such limits (you'd be free to even discard the idea of clip usage altogether, at least for standard ammunition, and consider it resolved with a simple Reload action). Though even if it did, it'd be in your power to change it!

If you want to introduce drawbacks, I'd say a simple Agility penalty - just a penalty, no extra Tests - would make sense. Keep it simple. Perhaps a -10 for any and all Agility Tests if they are "over-equipped"?

Or, if you're feeling evil, you could take away their Black Carapace perk of reducing their Size from Hulking to Normal.

It never really made any sense to me, anyways (you're harder to hit because you can move so fast? even when you're not moving? and why is this not connected to Dodge?).

Personally, 6 pistol clips feels waaay too much, but that might just be due to personal experience/bias (German Air Force, represent! ). A bolt pistol is a side arm; just because its magazines have a smaller capacity you shouldn't feel a need to "equalise" it with the primary weapon - the boltgun. Unless you're running around with a melee weapon in one hand, there should be no reason for you to draw the pistol until the bolter is empty, jammed, or otherwise damaged/lost.

So, my suggestion - and please, by no means feel bound by this! - would be 3 spare magazines for the boltgun and 2 for the bolt pistol. This way, and including the clips already in the weapon, you'd have a grand total of 42 shots for the bolt pistol, and 168(!) for the bolter. That's 56 3-round bursts just for the latter. It'd take a lot of enemies to use that up, even if your guys are trigger-happy!

You do not understand my players.

You do not understand them at all.

Lol, they are hardcore aggressive gamers, lol. They tally up their kills and try to best each other in combat. They are not shy about dusting up anything not in their party, regardless of the game.

But moreso it's for devastators who don't want to spend a 10 round burst on a single unit. Rather, he could walk with his heavy bolter in one hand or mag-locked under his backpack ammo supply and bolt pistol almost everything else.

Also, is there any reason to believe they couldn't one hand a bolter? It's a basic weapon, just a slightly larger bolt pistol with different firing specs.

But moreso it's for devastators who don't want to spend a 10 round burst on a single unit. Rather, he could walk with his heavy bolter in one hand or mag-locked under his backpack ammo supply and bolt pistol almost everything else.

Devastators certainly are hampered somewhat in that they use bigger bursts, though I'd actually regard this as working as intended. The team is supposed to complement each other, rather than competing for kills. If your players really want to do the latter, they need to learn to live with the consequences - in this case, increased ammo waste.

On a sidenote, when you say 10-round bursts, it sounds as if you're still using the unaltered stats from the book. Is this intentional? The Errata (see PDF here ) offers modified profiles with lower bursts, which means that clips ought to last longer.

Also, is there any reason to believe they couldn't one hand a bolter? It's a basic weapon, just a slightly larger bolt pistol with different firing specs.

Not really. The book actually has rules for that, I think.

In Dark Heresy, there was a penalty associated with one-handing it, but I think in DW this is compensated by either the power armour or the Marines' natural strength.

lol, nah, it's all in good fun that they compete for kills. It's not a kill steal, it's just a mark of, "Yeah, I got that." Not even so much competing, as trophy collecting.

Is the Errata like a d20psrd for Deathwatch?

Lol, they are hardcore aggressive gamers, lol. They tally up their kills and try to best each other in combat. They are not shy about dusting up anything not in their party, regardless of the game.

Welcome to the right game! As long as they demonstrate total obedience to their superiors, they are free to do so. Though dusting influential people like planetary governors without **** good reasons might invoke some serious, serious trouble. They best restrict themselves to dusting xenos and known heretics, there's plenty of stuff to do there to keep them busy for a while!

lol, nah, it's all in good fun that they compete for kills. It's not a kill steal, it's just a mark of, "Yeah, I got that." Not even so much competing, as trophy collecting.

Is the Errata like a d20psrd for Deathwatch?

I wish my players had a bit more of that glory-hunting.

The errata is essential to make the game work properly. Consider the Core Rulebook Windows Vista. The errata will turn it into Windows 7.

Or, if you're feeling evil, you could take away their Black Carapace perk of reducing their Size from Hulking to Normal.

It never really made any sense to me, anyways (you're harder to hit because you can move so fast? even when you're not moving? and why is this not connected to Dodge?).

The sole reason is that it makes the game simpler because with Marines and mortals you cannot forget to include the size modifier then. With Hive Tyrant's you're likely to not forget about it.

Alex

Nitpick:

The sole reason is that it makes the game simpler because with Marines and mortals you cannot forget to include the size modifier then. With Hive Tyrant's you're likely to not forget about it.

What's so difficult about it? Deathwatch doesn't even have human PCs, and even if it had them (it might use them as NPCs), then those with PA would still get the full penalty - making it even more complicated because now you have three different versions (normal, +speed +size -sneak, and just +speed -sneak).

The only thing to keep in mind would've been "enemies attacking your players get a +10 bonus because HUGE". I don't see where that should be hard, if you have to remember the other two perks anyways.

If DW wanted to simplify things, it should have started with the ton of additional rules it tacked onto the game, some of whom are just as weird.

As far as I can recall, they plan on expanding off of the Deathwatch Core Rulebook with other player characters not specifically Space Marines. This way, they can have built in rules for characters not always and forever in Power Armour with Black Carapaces.

Humm - whilst DW as a setting certainly has this potential, I'm not sure its narrative focus and mechanics would lend themselves well to such an addition. Unless they'd plan to scale up non-Marine characters by a similar margin to have them "fit in" with the larger-than-life power level, which might not fit their vision. Especially when looking at previous "mix games" like Black Crusade.

On the other hand, they have published some "outrageous" abilities, weapons and entire career advancements before ...

But where did you hear about this?

(apologies for being somewhat off-topic here)

I think I saw it in the video advert they made for it:

...

Also, is there any reason to believe they couldn't one hand a bolter? It's a basic weapon, just a slightly larger bolt pistol with different firing specs.

The rules say Space Marines can fire Basic weapons one-handed without penalty. I had a bit of a problem in my campaign when one of my players realized that he could fire two Flamers this way without penalty, since they require no roll to hit. I started a thread in the Rules Questions section about how to deal with this; there were some good suggestions, but then someone pointed out that two flamers were small potatoes, and I was in for real trouble when my players started Requisitioning two storm bolters each! With this nightmare scenario looming on the horizon, I emplimented a 'house rule' that only Pistols can be fired simultaneously . Combined with the 'five hands' rule, I think this should curtail some serious 'power gamer' excesses.

If you use the errata damage rules (which you probably should) then heavy bolters cap out at RoF 6 instead of 10, making a backpack last that much longer.

In the games I have run even pre-errata, the Dev never had much trouble "only" having 25 shots per mission, and was put into melee enough that his bolt pistol got a good bit of use too.

Or read it on some side panel in the Core Rulebook.

Ohh, that. Yeah, nevermind.

There's a sort of handwaved acknowledgement that players have the option of mixing the different games - but personally, I am of the opinion that both the differences between the rules (as the game line sort of "evolved" from one instalment into the next), as well as the different narrative focuses that influenced the design of each game (and thus its power level) make crossovers highly problematic.

It depends on what the respective players want out of the game, and how they see their characters perform, though. Supposedly, there are some groups that made it work.

...

Also, is there any reason to believe they couldn't one hand a bolter? It's a basic weapon, just a slightly larger bolt pistol with different firing specs.

The rules say Space Marines can fire Basic weapons one-handed without penalty. I had a bit of a problem in my campaign when one of my players realized that he could fire two Flamers this way without penalty, since they require no roll to hit. I started a thread in the Rules Questions section about how to deal with this; there were some good suggestions, but then someone pointed out that two flamers were small potatoes, and I was in for real trouble when my players started Requisitioning two storm bolters each! With this nightmare scenario looming on the horizon, I emplimented a 'house rule' that only Pistols can be fired simultaneously . Combined with the 'five hands' rule, I think this should curtail some serious 'power gamer' excesses.

Oh, see, I have absolutely no problem whatsoever if my whole squad requisitioned storm bolters to dual wield them. You know how I'd handle that? Ammo restrictions with three clips per weapon and I would huck gene stealer after gene stealer after gene stealer at them until they were down to chainswords/combat knives then give them some ranged units to have to deal with.

You want that much fire power? Imma give you something to shoot it with, hope you have enough rounds!

I personally think it'd be a riot of fun to pit some normal marines against something like a series of tau fire squads and Orks. Basically anything that wouldn't instantly make them insane/corrupted/terrified and see how they handle the tactics. Space Marines almost don't need tactics xD ...just range enough to fire bolts!

Oh, see, I have absolutely no problem whatsoever if my whole squad requisitioned storm bolters to dual wield them. You know how I'd handle that? Ammo restrictions with three clips per weapon and I would huck gene stealer after gene stealer after gene stealer at them until they were down to chainswords/combat knives then give them some ranged units to have to deal with.

You want that much fire power? Imma give you something to shoot it with, hope you have enough rounds!

But then you end up being the one subverting the Requisitioning stage. You are tailoring the enemy to Gear selection. The basic idea of Requisitioning and Oath-taking is to have the player's correctly assess in advance what is needed for the job. That's the fun part of it.

Alex

Oh, see, I have absolutely no problem whatsoever if my whole squad requisitioned storm bolters to dual wield them. You know how I'd handle that? Ammo restrictions with three clips per weapon and I would huck gene stealer after gene stealer after gene stealer at them until they were down to chainswords/combat knives then give them some ranged units to have to deal with.

You want that much fire power? Imma give you something to shoot it with, hope you have enough rounds!

But then you end up being the one subverting the Requisitioning stage. You are tailoring the enemy to Gear selection. The basic idea of Requisitioning and Oath-taking is to have the player's correctly assess in advance what is needed for the job. That's the fun part of it.

Alex

I don't see it as subverting the requisitioning oath-taking process. If they have the requisition to afford storm bolters, two for each person, then I'm fine with that. But if it's a continual bread-and-butter power gaming play on their part, I'm going to absolutely adjust what they encounter so it doesn't break the game.

They have a part to play to prepare for what they encounter, they're the players.

But as the DM, the one running in it, I have absolute authority over what happens to them, lol. It's my job not to let the game get stale or broken by their decisions. I'll take it easier on them if they're having trouble, but if they're doing really, exceptionally well with their gear choices, I want to give them a challenge. That's my philosophy on DMing. Nothing sucks more than watching an uneven battle with your players--either from them getting TPKed all the time, or from them having no challenge against what they face. It's my job to equalize it.

Ultimately, it's your call - and if your group has fun with it, no worries!

I have to agree with ak-73, however, that to me it'd feel as if the GM is "playing against the group". Your intentions are noble, but they subvert the idea of a living, breathing world (which would not know about what the players are bringing along until it actually sees them) in favour of the enemy opposition instantly and automatically scaling to the players' power (I've ranted a bit about such MMO-like concepts here ).

It's the same personal preference that lets me seriously dislike fudged rolls, regardless of whether it happens in favour of or against the players.

If you don't want to address the players' tendency to .. well, yeah, to power-game, you could perhaps soften the effect not by having the world auto-adapt to them, thus "stealing the initiative", but rather devise more dangerous missions that present a bigger challenge, with an opposition whose composition feels like it simply belongs there, rather than being tailored specifically to counter this one team of Deathwatch PCs. Don't let the players' plans change anything. Only their actions.

At some point they're bound to reach their limits - though getting there might be a bit bumpy. But that's what they get for pushing the envelope. In the Grim Darkness of the 41st millennium, being a hero only gets you more dangerous assignments.

(and maybe you're already doing it this way - if so, apologies for the misunderstanding)

Ultimately, it's your call - and if your group has fun with it, no worries!

I have to agree with ak-73, however, that to me it'd feel as if the GM is "playing against the group". Your intentions are noble, but they subvert the idea of a living, breathing world (which would not know about what the players are bringing along until it actually sees them) in favour of the enemy opposition instantly and automatically scaling to the players' power (I've ranted a bit about such MMO-like concepts here ).

It's the same personal preference that lets me seriously dislike fudged rolls, regardless of whether it happens in favour of or against the players.

If you don't want to address the players' tendency to .. well, yeah, to power-game, you could perhaps soften the effect not by having the world auto-adapt to them, thus "stealing the initiative", but rather devise more dangerous missions that present a bigger challenge, with an opposition whose composition feels like it simply belongs there, rather than being tailored specifically to counter this one team of Deathwatch PCs. Don't let the players' plans change anything. Only their actions.

At some point they're bound to reach their limits - though getting there might be a bit bumpy. But that's what they get for pushing the envelope. In the Grim Darkness of the 41st millennium, being a hero only gets you more dangerous assignments.

(and maybe you're already doing it this way - if so, apologies for the misunderstanding)

We're saying the same thing.

I have to agree with ak-73, however, that to me it'd feel as if the GM is "playing against the group". Your intentions are noble, but they subvert the idea of a living, breathing world (which would not know about what the players are bringing along until it actually sees them) in favour of the enemy opposition instantly and automatically scaling to the players' power (I've ranted a bit about such MMO-like concepts here ).

It's the same personal preference that lets me seriously dislike fudged rolls, regardless of whether it happens in favour of or against the players.

I don't agree. A mission where the players' gear allows them to easily overwhelm everything would be boring to run, let alone play. I don't see a point in playing an RPG if there's no challenge. May as well watch a movie instead, if the outcome is pre-determined.

I don't agree. A mission where the players' gear allows them to easily overwhelm everything would be boring to run, let alone play. I don't see a point in playing an RPG if there's no challenge. May as well watch a movie instead, if the outcome is pre-determined.

Well, I agree that such a game would be boring - but I firmly believe in the GM being supposed to strive towards creating a challenging mission in the first place, rather than throwing artificial obstacles in post-drop.

In an ideal world, the process would be like so:

- GM comes up with a ridiculously tough task

- players convene and come up with a plan + smart requisitioning

- difficulty level is lowered to "merely challenging"

The problem with upping the challenge if the players request 2 Storm Bolters each is that it will make the players in turn look for even more outrageous outfits. Where's it going to stop?

Plus, players as I have come to know them, would be the first to complain if you'd start to have dual-SB Chaos Marines appear.

Alex

The problem with upping the challenge if the players request 2 Storm Bolters each is that it will make the players in turn look for even more outrageous outfits. Where's it going to stop?

Plus, players as I have come to know them, would be the first to complain if you'd start to have dual-SB Chaos Marines appear.

Alex

Of course there's limits, it's not like they'll be able to dual wield rocket launchers or heavy bolters. It stops as soon as they reach the limits of the game mechanics. Chaos Marines wielding two storm bolters sounds like a lot of fun, I'll have to give that a try