I don't think it's a stretch to say that if it's an option for every sergeant, that the Chapter has a sufficient number to outfit every sergeant if every sergeant were so inclined.

Hmm, depends on how you interpret those rules. Does the Imperium also have enough power weapons to give every single Sergeant in the Imperial Guard one? Because it's an option there, too.

In my opinion, the minimum standard is defined by whatever a unit starts with by its default profile. Wargear options represent battlefield trophies, heirlooms, rewards for exemplary behaviour, or a specialist formation that has been given priority in terms of equipment distribution.

But let's assume for a moment that you are spot on: If the Space Marines would intentionally eschew power weapons even if they could give them to every 9th dude in the Chapter, wouldn't this mean that the player this thread is about is spot-on with his refusal?

Right, but the fluff clearly doesn't agree with the crunch there.

Well, I'd say this is an effect of the Deathwatch having better access than the regular Astartes Chapter! Do note that the fluff was referring to Space Marine Chapters in general.

I only disagree with the idea of your off-the-mill Marine Chapter having that much advanced gear lying around, not its availability in the Deathwatch RPG.

Agreed! Or punch him. you can't sever natural attacks IIRC.

... which is quite weird if we think about it! I'd be tempted to houserule it (just like power weapons also destroying an attacker's weapon by parrying, instead of just when being parried), but whilst realistic, I suppose it might be too punishing.

Actually, thinking about it - if power weapons in this game can only destroy other weapons when they are being parried, why not just Dodge instead? There's no way an opponent can actually force you to parry him. Problem solved!

Yep, the Power Field effect does nothing against a Natural Attack, likewise you can shoot them with your bolt pistol up close in case they're armoured (Kraken rounds are your friend here). TBH though I don't see the value in taking a Chainsword or even an Eviscerator as Sig Wargear. You can normally afford a normal one out of Requisition anyway and the MC bonuses are not That great.

Actually, thinking about it - if power weapons in this game can only destroy other weapons when they are being parried, why not just Dodge instead? There's no way an opponent can actually force you to parry him. Problem solved!

Sundering procs on the power-weapon-wielding-defender's Parry Reaction, not a power-weapon-wielding-attacker's Attack action that happens to be parried. So it's always the defender's call whether they try to parry and sunder the attacker's chain weapon.

I'm not sure that came across right.

Eldar E is armed with a power sword and is attacking Astartes A, who has a chainsword. E attacks and A can choose to dodge or parry; he picks parry for whatever reason. However E's Power Field sunder rule does not apply; there is no chance to sunder per the rules on p. 143. Then A's initiative comes up. A attacks E; E parries successfully and gets to roll for his power sword's Power Field to sunder A's chainsword.

D'oh, you're right - for some reason my brain had it filed the other way around!

Guess it shows that I've never used a power weapon so far.

Yeah I think allowing E to sunder on both offense and defense is really OP. It may make more sense for it to only work when you attack with a power field and that field is parried, putting the onus on the defender to dodge or get sundered...I dunno. It certainly world make sense for it to proc both when parried and when parrying, but again, that's really good.

Actually, thinking about it - if power weapons in this game can only destroy other weapons when they are being parried, why not just Dodge instead? There's no way an opponent can actually force you to parry him. Problem solved!

Assmarines [lawl] are usually better at parrying than dodging

Yep, the Power Field effect does nothing against a Natural Attack, likewise you can shoot them with your bolt pistol up close in case they're armoured (Kraken rounds are your friend here). TBH though I don't see the value in taking a Chainsword or even an Eviscerator as Sig Wargear. You can normally afford a normal one out of Requisition anyway and the MC bonuses are not That great.

It's all about the style

By the way, I figure the attacking weapon would shatter IF the defending weapon was BLOCKING, which is a bad parry.

A good parry is done deflecting the attack, for blocking said attack would require lot more energy and wouldn't provide chances to counterattack like a parry would.

But a power sword can shatter enemies weapons, and an adequate swordsman know to use it to his advantage and would try to BLOCK attacking non-power weapons and would not try to block power weapons if he has none. [that's why vanilla an attacking power sword cannot shatter stuff in combat, i guess]

I'll personally house rule that:

A power weapon attacking a non-power weapon has no chances to shatter said weapon, for noone sane would BLOCK a sword that can pulverize your own, and would try to deflect the hit.

A power weapon defending a non-power weapon has the standard chance to shatter the attacking weapons if the parry roll has 2 or more Degrees of Success.

Btw, apologies for my heretic misuse of grammar: as you may have seen english is not my native language

Assmarines [lawl] are usually better at parrying than dodging

Sure, but if I know that contact with the enemy weapon has a high chance to just disintegrate stuff, I'd always opt for evading said contact altogether rather than trying to forcefully deflect it with something I might still need in the future.

Such as my own close combat weapon.

By the way, I figure the attacking weapon would shatter IF the defending weapon was BLOCKING, which is a bad parry.

A good parry is done deflecting the attack, for blocking said attack would require lot more energy and wouldn't provide chances to counterattack like a parry would.

Hmm, I think you've actually just delivered a reason (or a plausible explanation, anyways) for why the RAW has power weapons sunder the opponent's weapon only when defending: The wielder is aware of the properties of his weapon, essentially forcing a high-energy impact of the attacker's weapon onto his powered blade and thus turning the attacker's strength against his own weapon, so to say - whereas the opponent with a non-powered weapon parries with the intent of minimising the contact, and thus the threat to his weapon.

Personally, I think your houserule is gimping an important thematic feature of the power sword, and introducing an unnecessary mathematical element when you could just as well lower the 75% chance to a lesser value (or at least remove this chance entirely and make it depend entirely on the DoS).

How about placing the onus on the other party, by making it depend on the DoS of the Attack roll - basically reflecting the skill of the weapon's wielder to adjust their attack and "pull their blow" when their lightning reflexes notice it will get intercepted?

Or, switch the entire thing around and have it depend on the power weapon being parried, not parrying with it - so that the character without a power weapon has to choose whether they want to dodge or parry. You could then introduce a Parry penalty for a special "deflecting" move that has a reduced or no chance for the weapon to shatter, if the wielder is willing to cope with a -10 or -20 modifier to the Parry test?

Assmarines [lawl] are usually better at parrying than dodging

Sure, but if I know that contact with the enemy weapon has a high chance to just disintegrate stuff, I'd always opt for evading said contact altogether rather than trying to forcefully deflect it with something I might still need in the future.

Such as my own close combat weapon.

By the way, I figure the attacking weapon would shatter IF the defending weapon was BLOCKING, which is a bad parry.

A good parry is done deflecting the attack, for blocking said attack would require lot more energy and wouldn't provide chances to counterattack like a parry would.

Hmm, I think you've actually just delivered a reason (or a plausible explanation, anyways) for why the RAW has power weapons sunder the opponent's weapon only when defending: The wielder is aware of the properties of his weapon, essentially forcing a high-energy impact of the attacker's weapon onto his powered blade and thus turning the attacker's strength against his own weapon, so to say - whereas the opponent with a non-powered weapon parries with the intent of minimising the contact, and thus the threat to his weapon.

Personally, I think your houserule is gimping an important thematic feature of the power sword, and introducing an unnecessary mathematical element when you could just as well lower the 75% chance to a lesser value (or at least remove this chance entirely and make it depend entirely on the DoS).

How about placing the onus on the other party, by making it depend on the DoS of the Attack roll - basically reflecting the skill of the weapon's wielder to adjust their attack and "pull their blow" when their lightning reflexes notice it will get intercepted?

Or, switch the entire thing around and have it depend on the power weapon being parried, not parrying with it - so that the character without a power weapon has to choose whether they want to dodge or parry. You could then introduce a Parry penalty for a special "deflecting" move that has a reduced or no chance for the weapon to shatter, if the wielder is willing to cope with a -10 or -20 modifier to the Parry test?

Well what about 3 DoS and the attacking weapon shatters?

2 DoS if All Out Attack\Charge

4 DoS if Guarded Attack

Blocking is not always more easy than deflecting, so a general and realistic rule does not exist.

I probably would not implement another rule that required tracking of DoS for proccing an additional effect. Really to me if you're attacking a Necron wielding a power scythe with a chain sword, you're just asking to lose that sword, and that's on you. This happened in a game of mine while another player was taking a turn GMing. Was pretty hilarious.

I got one word for you: Feint.

Relatedly, has any of you considered removing the Attack subtype from Feint. I would like characters to be able to Feint and Standard Attack in the same action because otherwise a successful Feint could simply trigger a Disengage by the enemy everytime .

Alex

I got one word for you: Feint.

Relatedly, has any of you considered removing the Attack subtype from Feint. I would like characters to be able to Feint and Standard Attack in the same action because otherwise a successful Feint could simply trigger a Disengage by the enemy everytime .

Alex

I was going to make a point that furthermore, I think that it is the job of the GM to not play shenanigans like that, and act as the opponents would've acted, and, having just been subject to a successful feint, they'd be no more inclined to do the Disengage action in a narrative sense than they were before.

Then I realized that this would likewise apply to players that have been Feinted, and I have no trust in players not doing shenanigans like doing Disengages after being Feinted.

I would simply disallow the Disengage Action. This has the added benefit of making Feint slightly more powerful.

...on the other hand, Feint is a Half-Action as it is, leaving a Half Action that can't really do anything at all. You can't move, you can't Disengage, and you can't attack. All you can realistically do is.. Delay, Ready or.. Aim, I guess. Aim would make sense.

But then you'd be better off doing an All-Out Attack. I can only really see Feint having a use for the first attack, after you've just spent 1 Half-Action getting into Melee, when you for some reason did not have the opportunity to Charge.

I'm not sure...

All-Out Attack is awful because it prevents you from using defensive Reaction(s). That's a big metagame issue too: the GM knows a character using AOA can't avoid an incoming attack, and probably will attack that character. Wouldn't even take much IC justification to see "he put his all into that swing and has terrible footing to defend" or whatever.

How come you can't attack after a feint on the same turn? They are both attack subtype but they are not the same action

RAI, but not RAW!, is evidently that you can't combine same subtypes in one turn. From the errata:

'Power Format (page 189): Add the following sentence to
the Action entry: “If the power targets an opponent or does damage
to an opponent, the power gains the Attack Subtype (see page 237),
and thus cannot be combined with other Attack Subtype actions (such
as Full-Auto Burst or Semi-Auto Burst, and so on).'

But my question was stupid because it has already been resolved in the errata:

'Feint (page 237 and 239): In Table 8-1: Combat Actions
and in its entry, Feint should not have the “Attack” subtype.

Dodge (page 237): In Table 8-1: Combat Actions, Dodge
should have Movement subtype.

Manoeuvre (page 237): In Table 8-1: Combat Actions and
in its entry on page 241, Manoeuvre should not have the
Attack subtype.'

Alex

How come you can't attack after a feint on the same turn? They are both attack subtype but they are not the same action

But ALL of the systems (afaik) disallow you from making multiple attacks of any kind, unless you have Two-Weapon Fighting, and for that, specific rules apply (and as always, specific rules overrule general rules).

After some thought, I'm very much inclined to agree with Alex's suggestion to remove the Attack subtype from Feint. I would, however, consider adding Concentration, just to make it clear that any other Concentration-based actions would at the very least take a penalty (depending on whether you allow actions of the same subtype at all - if you don't, then you'd also have to remove the Melee subtype from Feint, if it's got it in Deathwatch).

All-Out Attack is awful because it prevents you from using defensive Reaction(s). That's a big metagame issue too: the GM knows a character using AOA can't avoid an incoming attack, and probably will attack that character. Wouldn't even take much IC justification to see "he put his all into that swing and has terrible footing to defend" or whatever.

HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR DUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.

I think I just had an aneurysm, when I realized that I should've read the description of All-Out Attack, rather than just the Combat Actions table. The three or four distinct groups I've been in, under three different GM:s as well as one group I'm running myself, has been doing it wrong. I'm amazed that no-one picked up on it, at least not to my knowledge. That's four different GM:s that should've known better.

We've been playing it as "All-Out Attack cannot be Dodged or Parried". When in reality, it means that the player loses his Dodge or Parry Reaction. Jesus F Christ this makes me feel like a moron, and this gives Feint and Standard Attack a distinct advantage over All-Out Attack, making for a better tactical dynamic.

So that's it. Feint loses the Attack Subtype. Done. Also, shoot me.

As mentioned, it has lost Attack subtype officially. Also, All-Out Attacks can't be dodged/parried. If you play an Astartes with Killing Strike and are willing to expend a Fate Point.

Also, things like All-Out Attack has made me handle Reactions turn-based, not round-based. Like Dice Pools in Shadowrun (1E/2E at least), they refresh at the start of your turn, not start of the round. Turn-based Reactions prevent this:

"Oh, everyone acted before me? Ah well, I suppose I can go All-Out now because nobody can attack me before the start of the next round anyway."

Alex

PS Sorry, for changing subjects so rapidly.

As mentioned, it has lost Attack subtype officially.

So it has. It lost it after Deathwatch, I think. It still had it in Rogue Trader.

Also, All-Out Attacks can't be dodged/parried. If you play an Astartes with Killing Strike and are willing to expend a Fate Point.

I first read that wrong and was going insane for a moment. You should probably have put a comma there, not punctuation.

Also, things like All-Out Attack has made me handle Reactions turn-based, not round-based. Like Dice Pools in Shadowrun (1E/2E at least), they refresh at the start of your turn, not start of the round. Turn-based Reactions prevent this:

"Oh, everyone acted before me? Ah well, I suppose I can go All-Out now because nobody can attack me before the start of the next round anyway."

Alex

I wrote a long reply to this before I realized... isn't this how it already works? I always assumed that Reactions refreshed when it's your Turn again, and we never paid any heed to the start of a new Round. I wasn't even aware that WH40kRP made a difference between the two, I thought the rules terminology judged "Turn" and "Round" basically interchangeable.

PS Sorry, for changing subjects so rapidly.

At least you stick to the subject during the course of your own post. I change stance while writing and working things out in my head, apparently changing subject even in my internal monologue.

Heh. Don't worry if the conversation sometimes goes off-topic Alex. Herodotus, the father of western history, started one of his 44 books (the first?) with a digression on why digressions were important to understanding.

Thoughts on higher level marines with chainswords:

1. Killing Strike talent. Nothing requires you to give that one bugger with the power sword a chance to parry. Equally, any talents which impede the defender's ability to parry or reduce his weapon skill are doubly valuable.
2. Good quality chain weapons push close to the same damage potential or better due to Tearing , especially if you have Flesh Render for extra extra dice. Combine with any of the (several) abilities which let you trigger righteous fury on an improved roll, and you'll be doling out some serious critical damage. Just avoid the power weapon armed opponent (or just shoot him) and concentrate on shredding generic foes and tyranid beasties.
3. Carry more than one. You can take Signature Wargear more than once. Our local bipedal blender in Black Crusade is a World Eaters bezerker, who regularly takes at least a couple of pairs of chain weapons into battle (and usually leaves two or more of them either shattered or embedded in some one thing)
4. Cheat. Be a space wolf and progress from Chainsword to Frost Blade (or create a custom chapter and GM-writ that they have powered chain weapons after the fashion of the Frost Blade).

We've been playing it as "All-Out Attack cannot be Dodged or Parried". When in reality, it means that the player loses his Dodge or Parry Reaction. Jesus F Christ this makes me feel like a moron, and this gives Feint and Standard Attack a distinct advantage over All-Out Attack, making for a better tactical dynamic.

Common house rule I've seen: keep the +20 to WS to hit, take -20 to Dodge/Parry (instead of making it inapplicable). Might actually be worth using now; as-writted it's utter crap.

handle Reactions turn-based, not round-based.

I have suggested this in my groups but keep being told it doesn't ultimately matter. I disagree but can't think of many circumstances where it actually would (rather than just make more sense). Thoughts?

1. All-Out Attack is useful against hordes, disposing of individual troops enemies quickly and Killing Strikes. Also, if you have a Force Field, you might get away with it.

2. As mentioned above: If it's round-based and every enemy has acted before you, you can afford to go All-Out. This furthers meta-gaming. Making it turn-based prevents that unless the PC spends Fate for 10 Initiative and feels sure that this will make him go first next round. I'm okay with the latter.

Think of a honor duel:

Round-based:

Player A attacks.

Player B then knows that he has nothing to fear anymore and goes All-Out instead of Standard.

In the 2nd round it might be vice versa or not.

Turn-based:

Player A attacks.

Player B does not know who will have initiative in round 2. Therefore he chooses to play it safe and takes a Standard attack.

Or he is willing to bet that he will go first the next round (because, for example, he knows he normally wins initiative because of some bonus).

I handle such things turn-based in almost every RPG I play.

Alex

Maybe if theres a techmarine you could allow him to do something about it?

1. All-Out Attack is useful against hordes, disposing of individual troops enemies quickly and Killing Strikes. Also, if you have a Force Field, you might get away with it.

2. As mentioned above: If it's round-based and every enemy has acted before you, you can afford to go All-Out. This furthers meta-gaming. Making it turn-based prevents that unless the PC spends Fate for 10 Initiative and feels sure that this will make him go first next round. I'm okay with the latter.

Think of a honor duel:

Round-based:

Player A attacks.

Player B then knows that he has nothing to fear anymore and goes All-Out instead of Standard.

In the 2nd round it might be vice versa or not.

Turn-based:

Player A attacks.

Player B does not know who will have initiative in round 2. Therefore he chooses to play it safe and takes a Standard attack.

Or he is willing to bet that he will go first the next round (because, for example, he knows he normally wins initiative because of some bonus).

I handle such things turn-based in almost every RPG I play.

Alex

How would he not know who will have Initiative in Round 2? Do you roll new Initiative each round or something?

Now, I'm not running Deathwatch, I'm just running with Rogue Trader and Black Crusade at the moment, but at my tables, everyone knows the exact Turn Order at any one time (bar hidden enemies). What you suggest sounds super-odd to me.

On the other hand, we already always replenished Reactions on a player's Turn, not at the start of an overall Round, so I never had the issues you describe.

Being traditionalists, we roll init per round in every RPG. Just for the sake of lack of predictability.

Alex