Surrealistik said:

So... you've crunched the numbers and decided that they don't favour melee?

What ever happened to character development that revolved around the character rather than the numbers that represent him?

So you've come to the conclusion that various options aside from the mathematically superior one is essentially worthless, and are complaining because the Guardsman career doesn't support your evaluation of the efficient form of combat... really not seeing how that's a compelling argument. Certainly, those sorts of arguments would go unheeded in any game I'm running, and players who persistently attempted to use such arguments would quickly find themselves no longer in the group.

I don't, personally, go for this number-crunching stats and endless piles of theory approach when it comes to RPGs - quite frankly, it's bad enough on the D&D boards, where average damage per round is routinely calculated to two decimal places (and occasionally to even greater precision) in order to determine the relative effectiveness of powers and characters. You shouldn't need a spreadsheet or a calculator to play an RPG, and the choices made should not necessarily be the mathematically superior ones, but rather the ones most appropriate to the character and the situation, in terms of character development and in-game choices alike.

I've nothing else to say on the matter.

When approaching issues of balance, you must consider them from both a mechanical and RP angle. Neither in this case justifies the Guardsman's 250 upgrade cost for Toughness, given the fact that he is simultaneously surpassed in and out of combat by several other careers, and that, from the fluff vantage, his kind are among the toughest unenhanced men in the Imperium, and are at the very least competitive with your average Arbitrator in terms of physical durability.

This is like a thread on an MMO board. It's not a tournement, nobodies measuring damage per turn, nobody cares that you've decided that there's only way to play a damage character. If that's all that matters play a Assassin, we don't care.

None of this is written in stone but i don't think I'm the only one that doesn't agree with you, guardsmen are the only one of the three classes that can get bulging biceps and that requires a strength of 45 and many people like the idea of that.

Face Eater said:

My arguments are not rooted only in mechanical considerations as I thought I made clear.

Second, bulging biceps are something of a joke. It's often better to suck up half a round setting up in order to lay down some really serious hurt for the remainder of the encounter rather than indulging in snap fire at a -30 penalty.

How many more have to tell you that Guardsmen do fit their role quite well... expertise with weapons and gear and excelling at melee and heavy weapons. I don't feel like anyone's arguments will change your mind anytime soon. So really, do whatever you want. Though I wonder how your disregard for melee (that nobody shares) is affected by a house ruled Toughness advancement. Anyway, there's hope someone in your game will prove you wrong. Have fun.

Ranged weapons rule until you have this done to you.

-Melee guy charges you

-You can't full/semi auto or use a non pistol in melee

-If you back up you are still in charge range, and can fire only a single shot

-If you run he gets a free attack plus he can just run after you as well.

Also some of the highest damaging weapons are melee. Mono-great weapon, chain axe, power fist.... Short of heavy weapons which guardsmen get 1st any way. Plus last I checked guardsmen were 250 on toughness which is just one tier up in exp. That means 5 toughness less which really doesn't matter that much in the long run.

Plus guardsmen aren't the toughest SoB in the Imperium. They are the guys rounded to fill a planet's guard quota. The guys with good toughness scores were able to out run the press gang...... The guard gets a few months basic training. The tech priest gets metal reinforcement to his frame. The Arbiters get years of training. Sure vet guardsmen are tough, but PCs aren't starting as war harden warriors or Kasrki...

Anyone playing the table top game knows they are some of the weakest units in terms of toughness. (Well there are the Tau...) What they depend on is numbers, and support weapons. Most of their tough units are not guardmen, but machines, Ogryns or Commissars....

Consider that most Melee weapons, on average, do more damage per single hit than most ranged weapons. Figure 1d10+x (weapon damage) then add S bonus, (+3/+4 on average). You're looking at a guy with a mono-longsword doing more damage than a guy wielding a bolt pistol when they hit. Admittedly, there are other advantages in play for ranged weapons (range being foremost), but you can't disregard the damage potential of melee weapons so easily... especially as many are quite cheap to acquire. Also consider special properties of Shock weapons, chain weapons, and power weapons, all of which can be pretty nasty and comparable to ranged weapons.

Others have mentioned that Guardsmen get access to various powerful ranged weapon talents earlier. You are also still discounting the fact that a balanced potential is just as important as a specialized. A person specialized with a Basic weapon, for example, is at a disadvantage when in close quarters with an enemy. A guardsman, however, could easily take both BS and WS and be effective at both, shooting until the enemy gets in close, then dropping their rifle and pulling out their mono-sword and taking their opponent on without batting an eye. This fits perfectly with a guardsman being your all-around trooper. Assassins are the ones much more likely to specialize in either ranged or melee. IG should be pretty good, and solid, all around combatants like most military troops.

I also disagree with you that Guardsmen are necessarily the "toughest". Some are, and some aren't. Not every soldier is super-hardy. As has been mentioned, IG are known more for their vast numbers that they can bring to bear and their gear, more than individual toughness. Besides the fact that Guardsmen already begin with 4 armor points in every location, a vast superiority in survivability for starting characters that should not be overlooked.

Besides all of this, and what other people have said, there is a purely rules mechanics/balance issue. Every class (excepting the expanded Sororitas) has a similar formula of costs for stat advances. 2x are primary (cost 100xp), X are secondary (cost 250xp), and Y are tertiary (cost 500 xp). [Note: I don't recall the specific numbers off the top of my head right now]. It's the same for every class, and no two classes are exactly the same. Advocating to reduce the Guardsman's Toughness to a primary stat would require, to maintain balance, one of the current primary stats to be bumped upwards. Now you are changing the focus of the Guardsman career. If you bump WS, you penalize those guardsmen who want to specialize in melee, if you bump BS you penalize those wishing to specialize in ranged, and regardless you penalize a guardsman who wishes to be well-rounded in both. If you drop T without adjusting one of the others, you've now increased the power of the Guardsman overall. What's to say that other careers shouldn't get an increase in one of their other stats too. Is a Guardsman really "tougher" than a Sororitas, a battle-hardened nun raised in a harsh convent and dedicated to purging the enemies of the Emperor? So, are you saying that Sororitas should get T at 100xp too? Oh, and scum have to daily live with starvation, deprivation, and generally toxic environments, unlike the cushy jobs of the Guardsmen. Scum should get T at 100 too to represent their resilient nature. See? We're talking game balance also plays a part, besides 'fluff'.

Couple of things:

#1: Melee weapons are some of the most damaging in the game and are useful/100 advancement MS for Guardsmen isn't useless/redundant:

In terms of damage output these weapons have nothing on the heavy ranged weapons, or even the burst fire of high quality basic weapons, and are clearly inferior to ranged weapons at nearly every point during a campaign, even in CQC. Early on they're beaten out by Scatter pistols. Mid to late they're beaten by dual wielded Scatter pistols. Only late game does Melee even begin to prove superior in hth situations, and in the meanwhile BS does everything far better, and is much less situational.

#2: Guardsmen aren't tough enough to warrant 100 advancement:

Patently untrue when we use a human standard of measurement. Greenhorn Enforcers fresh out of the academy get 100 advancement but IGs that have completed basic training, with undoubtedly more of a physical emphasis do not?

#3: 100 Toughness advancement for Guardsmen would be overpowered:

Assassins not only outperform Guardsmen easily, but they also are significantly more useful outside of combat. Arbitrators are comparatively able in combat, and are far more useful outside of it. It's pathetic that the Guardsmen, so totally nerfed as they are outside of combat are notably surpassed by careers other than the Psyker at it. On top of that, he's one of the few careers with three 500 priced basic advancements.

#1: Melee weapons are some of the most damaging in the game and are useful/100 advancement MS for Guardsmen isn't useless/redundant:

In terms of damage output these weapons have nothing on the heavy ranged weapons, or even the burst fire of high quality basic weapons, and are clearly inferior to ranged weapons at nearly every point during a campaign, even in CQC. Early on they're beaten out by Scatter pistols. Mid to late they're beaten by dual wielded Scatter pistols. Only late game does Melee even begin to prove superior in hth situations, and in the meanwhile BS does everything far better, and is much less situational.

What heavy ranged weapons are you referring to? The heavy stubber? Because pretty much every other standard heavy weapon costs a few thousand thrones. Also, are you really saying that carrying a sword (depending on your surroundings a finely-ornamented sabre or a rusty overly long machete) around will evoke the same reaction as a frigging heavy machinegun?
And scatter pistols? Seriously? Those one-shot/at-least-a-full-action-reload thingies?

Not to forget that as soon as you enter melee, your enemy can't use any basic or heavy weapon anymore...

#2: Guardsmen aren't tough enough to warrant 100 advancement:

Patently untrue when we use a human standard of measurement. Greenhorn Enforcers fresh out of the academy get 100 advancement but IGs that have completed basic training, with undoubtedly more of a physical emphasis do not?

Greenhorn enforcers would likely have a rather similar basic training to the IG - enforcers are less the 'investigate murders' and more the 'pound demonstrants into the mud' variety.

#3: 100 Toughness advancement for Guardsmen would be overpowered:

Assassins not only outperform Guardsmen easily, but they also are significantly more useful outside of combat. Arbitrators are comparatively able in combat, and are far more useful outside of it. It's pathetic that the Guardsmen, so totally nerfed as they are outside of combat are notably surpassed by careers other than the Psyker at it. On top of that, he's one of the few careers with three 500 priced basic advancements.

"Notably surpassed"? I still don't see evidence of that, especially with the guardsman simply having more weapon training talents than pretty much everyone else. Whenever we found some kind of weapon, it was always "Hey, that's a cool one! I must definitely have that - what talent did you say is needed? Ok, hand it over to the Guard..."

Ok, first of all, i love the IG. Ever since i started playing Warhammer 40k in Feb 2003 i preferred those little footstluggers over all those geneticaly improved killermachines with supertoys. Sure, it pains me to put them back in the foam in the dozens (i suck at saving rolls), but i accepted it as the way human life was treted in the dark future.

The advance scheme in DH reflects this very well, in my opinion. Trained to kill both in close combat and at range, with the necessary strengh to be able to hurt someone and carry around all his toys. Toughness is still good, and agility sucks for a reason (they are not ment to dance around on the battlefield). Only the Arbitrator has cheaper Toughness, but wait ... isn't the Arbitrator required to pursue the human scum ALONE while the Guardsmen kill the enemies of mankind in large numbers? Makes sense to me.

The Guardmen get access to most weapon talents earlier than the other classes, and often cheaper too, meaning they literaly can kill with anything. They get the most (buyable) hitpoints, and simply survive longer than most because of that. (if you are lucky, your imperial-word Guradsman starts with 15 wounds, plus the 3 he can buy at first rank push that to 18).

Ranged Combat more powerfull than melee? Ignoring skill and equipment i agree, although melee still has one undeniable advantage: you can't run out of bullets. No seriously, an autogun is superior to a chainsword as long as you have enough bullets. All ranged weapons who make more damage than a chainsword tend to be too big to be unsuspicious. Melta- and Plasmaweapons, once seen, mark that PC as 'well connected', and i better not talk about the big guns. Mono-sword or Chainsword? Meh, they are cheap for a reason. The scatter-pistols? i only know of those cheap one-shot thingies from IH, and please, if that 1 shot misses ... good night. Even if not, you have to roll real low to make a second hit.

Manouver to get you opponent that 1 metre away to shot him afterwards with 1 shot? Requires an opposed WS test, good golly! again you have to be rather lucky to manage that.

I told the CC-Gurdsman in my group to use a ranged weapon (autogun or combat-shotgun) with a melee attachment. He can soften his target(s) up/retaliate in RC, and then give them hell in CC. Ever tried a chain-knive? 1D5+7 with 2 AP (at 'level' 2) is not bad, and he doesn't have to change weapons between melee and rc.

What heavy ranged weapons are you referring to? The heavy stubber? Because pretty much every other standard heavy weapon costs a few thousand thrones. Also, are you really saying that carrying a sword (depending on your surroundings a finely-ornamented sabre or a rusty overly long machete) around will evoke the same reaction as a frigging heavy machinegun?
And scatter pistols? Seriously? Those one-shot/at-least-a-full-action-reload thingies?

Not to forget that as soon as you enter melee, your enemy can't use any basic or heavy weapon anymore...

Actually I'm talking about those fire selector enhanced 3 shot beauties that do assloads of damage and don't need more than one or two +30 PB hits to eviscerate most enemies, and then of course there's the full-auto pistols, and bolters, and hand flamers.

Second, Acrobatics works great for exchanging fire with meleers at +30 bonuses. It's one of several reasons why the Assassin surpasses the Guardsman in combat.

Third, Melee is not only subject to Dodge, but Parry as well. The guy with the pistol and Naval Shield will ruin a meleer.

Fourth, to be honest? I'd find the hulking machine gun capable of laying down a small village more terrifying than a lame sword I can beat out with a stubber.

Fifth, list of Heavy weapons under 2000 besides the Heavy Stubber: Crank Cannon, Heavy Flamer, Autocannon (No melee weapon will match this thing's lethality despite its mere 1000 price tag, not ever), RPG Launcher.

Greenhorn enforcers would likely have a rather similar basic training to the IG - enforcers are less the 'investigate murders' and more the 'pound demonstrants into the mud' variety.

Again, why would greenhorn riot police be necessarily, and considerably tougher than greenhorn IGs?

"Notably surpassed"? I still don't see evidence of that, especially with the guardsman simply having more weapon training talents than pretty much everyone else. Whenever we found some kind of weapon, it was always "Hey, that's a cool one! I must definitely have that - what talent did you say is needed? Ok, hand it over to the Guard..."

Except that with the exception of Heavy Weapons, which both Arbites and Assassins soon access afterwords anyways, both of these careers can easily use any weapon the Guardsman can.

As for evidence, really? Again, Arbites have the best awareness progression in the game (if you don't think Awareness is important, your GM is simply not running your encounters properly), and have superior toughness. At the very least they are competitive with the IG.

Assassins in the meanwhile just have so many advantages over the Guardsman it's ridiculous, but the most important are the best Stealth, Acrobatics, Dodge and Move Speed in the game, the best Dual Wielding progression and superior Awareness progression.

The advance scheme in DH reflects this very well, in my opinion. Trained to kill both in close combat and at range, with the necessary strengh to be able to hurt someone and carry around all his toys. Toughness is still good, and agility sucks for a reason (they are not ment to dance around on the battlefield). Only the Arbitrator has cheaper Toughness, but wait ... isn't the Arbitrator required to pursue the human scum ALONE while the Guardsmen kill the enemies of mankind in large numbers? Makes sense to me.

Except the opposition faced by the Arbitrator isn't anywhere near in the same league as those routinely fought by the IG. Further, the Arbite is not often subject to the same harsh conditions and tests of endurance. Again, I don't see any fluff necessitating an Arbite toughness advantage at all.

The Guardmen get access to most weapon talents earlier than the other classes, and often cheaper too, meaning they literaly can kill with anything. They get the most (buyable) hitpoints, and simply survive longer than most because of that. (if you are lucky, your imperial-word Guradsman starts with 15 wounds, plus the 3 he can buy at first rank push that to 18).

Guardsman potential wound advantage is pretty much non-existent compared to the Arbiters, and negligible compared to the Assassin.

Ranged Combat more powerfull than melee? Ignoring skill and equipment i agree, although melee still has one undeniable advantage: you can't run out of bullets. No seriously, an autogun is superior to a chainsword as long as you have enough bullets. All ranged weapons who make more damage than a chainsword tend to be too big to be unsuspicious. Melta- and Plasmaweapons, once seen, mark that PC as 'well connected', and i better not talk about the big guns. Mono-sword or Chainsword? Meh, they are cheap for a reason. The scatter-pistols? i only know of those cheap one-shot thingies from IH, and please, if that 1 shot misses ... good night. Even if not, you have to roll real low to make a second hit.

Again fire selectors (3x ammo capacity for guns that need 1 or 2 shots PB to kill if that) and full auto, and bolters, and hand flamers. Also, I have rarely, if ever encountered a situation where running out of stupidly cheap stubber ammo was a problem.

Manouver to get you opponent that 1 metre away to shot him afterwards with 1 shot? Requires an opposed WS test, good golly! again you have to be rather lucky to manage that.

Acrobatics is an Agi roll to avoid an attack of opportunity, which also allows you to take a PB shot. If your WS is horrible, you can opt instead to just make a move action and suck an attack of opportunity; doesn't really matter when you're ramming your point blank scattershot into your opponent, and dealing critical damage as a result.

Well, i have not said that ever (and i really mean ever) in a forum before, but once it had to come:

vote for close.

Sorry, but Surrealistik does not want to be shown our points of opinion, but only convice us to join his. Therefore it would be best imho to close this thread before the atmosphere becomes poisoned.

I see your points of view and I reject them because they're baseless as I am quite clearly demonstrating. There's neither a mechanical nor fluff justication for the Guardsman's Toughness pricing. It just isn't there. Opinions aren't correct or valid by weight of popularity; you need facts to substantiate them.

Unfortunately, Sureal, you are rejecting them as baseless and say you are 'demonstrating' when in fact you are only voicing your own opinions. We have provided both mechanical and fluff justifications, that are valid, for the Guardsman's Toughness pricing, you just don't agree with them.

You have a notion of IG being supermen. They are a lot more like common people than you think. For example, I personally have been in the US army and through Basic training. I also know a lot of people who are policemen. I actually think they are very similar. Honestly, the police academy graduates seem to be in better shape overall than the Army Basic Training graduates. It may or may not have anything to do with the curriculum, or it may have to do with the type of person who enters that service. A lot of people go into the Army merely for the college money, for example, so come from all walks of life, with possibly little self-disciple and little motivation to excel. They just want to do their time and get their debt paid. People who go into the police academy, from my experience, do so because they are motivated to do that and to excel at it.
IG in the Empire are actually conscripted, and taken from all walks of life. The majority of them are probably only barely passing their physicals, since all the Empire cares about is that they can shoot the enemy. Etc. This is all valid 'fluff' reasoning. Mechanical, as we said, is for balance. There is a formula for the number of each rank of stat increases for the basic careers. As well, the Guardsman is arranged to be a jack-of-all-trades, handy with anything available from a knife to a powersword to a heavy stubber to a chair leg. Thus, he is given primary stats (and talents) for using a variety of weapons. While this may not be how you envision the Guardsman to be, and may be 'weaker' (at least in your opinion) than specializing, it is a valid template for a career. I'll also point out that a Guardsman character is not necessarily a member of the actual IG. The career also fits in mercenaries, rebels, and other generic 'soldier' types who may or may not have a regimented conditioning program.

I have to agree with segara. We have not convinced you, and you have not convinced anyone else. At this point we're all just beginning to repeat our arguments, which is dull.

Surrealistik said:

Its funny that you say that and yet you offer no facts. You only show how you min-max and choose characters/weapons based on how "uber" they will be. Notice how everyone that has commented has agreed that the guardsman are fine but if you feel like modifying your guardsman in your game, go ahead. There are no facts that show guardsman are supposed to be tough - whether you believe it or not, Arbites are tough for a reason - they have to train to deal with Riots and use non-lethal combat, guardsman are only trained to point and shoot or charge and hack. They are not known to be tough because guardsman are a dime a dozen.

Surrealistik said:

And how exactly would you get the enemy into point blank range without getting into melee range ?

Note that the minimum distance for a charge is 4m, so any melee enemy that stops less than 4m from you without getting into close combat is an idiot. If they go into close combat with one of your allies then you risk hurting that ally.

and then of course there's the full-auto pistols, and bolters,

What do you do if they limit you to a half action ?

and hand flamers.

Hopefully you don't have any allies in the area of effect.

Second, Acrobatics works great for exchanging fire with meleers at +30 bonuses. It's one of several reasons why the Assassin surpasses the Guardsman in combat.

That would work, until you run out of ammo or the gun jams.

Third, Melee is not only subject to Dodge, but Parry as well. The guy with the pistol and Naval Shield will ruin a meleer.

The same could be said about a guy with a pistol and a high dodge chance. So ?

Fifth, list of Heavy weapons under 2000 besides the Heavy Stubber: Crank Cannon, Heavy Flamer, Autocannon (No melee weapon will match this thing's lethality despite its mere 1000 price tag, not ever), RPG Launcher.

Trouble is, they require you to either brace the weapon (thus losing any control you have over combat range) or strength 45 (note that only guardsmen get cheap strength) so you can take bulging biceps. But bulging biceps doesn't negate the -30 penalty for firing a heavy weapon unbraced, it just lets you use semi and full auto fire.

The advance scheme in DH reflects this very well, in my opinion. Trained to kill both in close combat and at range, with the necessary strengh to be able to hurt someone and carry around all his toys. Toughness is still good, and agility sucks for a reason (they are not ment to dance around on the battlefield). Only the Arbitrator has cheaper Toughness, but wait ... isn't the Arbitrator required to pursue the human scum ALONE while the Guardsmen kill the enemies of mankind in large numbers? Makes sense to me.

Except the opposition faced by the Arbitrator isn't anywhere near in the same league as those routinely fought by the IG. Further, the Arbite is not often subject to the same harsh conditions and tests of endurance. Again, I don't see any fluff necessitating an Arbite toughness advantage at all.

The enemies that the IG faces deal out so much damage that any effort spent making the guardsmen survive longer is wasted because it doesn't help. It is much more cost effective to focus on making sure that the guardman deals out as much damage as possible before he goes down.

The foes that Arbitrators are normally expected to deal with are weak enough that the extra survibility makes a difference.

I hate forums that use non-standard BB code.

Its funny that you say that and yet you offer no facts. You only show how you min-max and choose characters/weapons based on how "uber" they will be. Notice how everyone that has commented has agreed that the guardsman are fine but if you feel like modifying your guardsman in your game, go ahead. There are no facts that show guardsman are supposed to be tough - whether you believe it or not, Arbites are tough for a reason - they have to train to deal with Riots and use non-lethal combat, guardsman are only trained to point and shoot or charge and hack. They are not known to be tough because guardsman are a dime a dozen.

Unfortunately, Sureal, you are rejecting them as baseless and say you are 'demonstrating' when in fact you are only voicing your own opinions. We have provided both mechanical and fluff justifications, that are valid, for the Guardsman's Toughness pricing, you just don't agree with them.

I don't agree with them precisely because they are baseless, for reasons I have shown which are factual. How are they not? It is a fact that Ballistics almost always prove superior to melee (again, in a litany of ways I've demonstrated), and thus his 100 Melee Skill advancement isn't particularly useful given his equally priced Ballistics advancement. It is a fact that Guardsmen are one of the few careers with three 500 priced basic advancements, and is behind the curve in advancement pricing overall. It is also a fact that Guardsmen are consistently outperformed by several careers other than the Psyker which are also notably superior outside of combat as well. It is also a fact that canon portrays Guardsmen as being some of the toughest and resilient humans in the 40k universe, such that they are at the very least comparable to the Arbites, which scarcely have any fluff associated with them at all.

You have a notion of IG being supermen. They are a lot more like common people than you think. For example, I personally have been in the US army and through Basic training. I also know a lot of people who are policemen. I actually think they are very similar. Honestly, the police academy graduates seem to be in better shape overall than the Army Basic Training graduates. It may or may not have anything to do with the curriculum, or it may have to do with the type of person who enters that service. A lot of people go into the Army merely for the college money, for example, so come from all walks of life, with possibly little self-disciple and little motivation to excel. They just want to do their time and get their debt paid. People who go into the police academy, from my experience, do so because they are motivated to do that and to excel at it.
IG in the Empire are actually conscripted, and taken from all walks of life. The majority of them are probably only barely passing their physicals, since all the Empire cares about is that they can shoot the enemy. Etc. This is all valid 'fluff' reasoning. Mechanical, as we said, is for balance. There is a formula for the number of each rank of stat increases for the basic careers. As well, the Guardsman is arranged to be a jack-of-all-trades, handy with anything available from a knife to a powersword to a heavy stubber to a chair leg. Thus, he is given primary stats (and talents) for using a variety of weapons. While this may not be how you envision the Guardsman to be, and may be 'weaker' (at least in your opinion) than specializing, it is a valid template for a career. I'll also point out that a Guardsman character is not necessarily a member of the actual IG. The career also fits in mercenaries, rebels, and other generic 'soldier' types who may or may not have a regimented conditioning program.

First I do not think IG are 'supermen'. I think they are exceptionally tough by human standards such that they clearly don't warrant an average progression for the Toughness stat.

Second, the Guardsman career by RAW is an IG soldier conscripted into the service of the Inquisition.

Third, how do personal experience and inapplicable analogues, even assuming they're not manufactured or exaggerated for the sake of supplementing a failing argument prove applicable?

As for mechanical considerations and the pricing 'formula' this has already been addressed.

And how exactly would you get the enemy into point blank range without getting into melee range ?

Note that the minimum distance for a charge is 4m, so any melee enemy that stops less than 4m from you without getting into close combat is an idiot. If they go into close combat with one of your allies then you risk hurting that ally.

Off the top of my head? Maneuver, acrobatics, and standard move actions. All of them work wonderfully. The last gives your enemy a free single attack, but compared to what you stand to dish out with a point blank scatterblast, that's nothing. In the meanwhile, you tear them up as they approach.

What do you do if they limit you to a half action ?

Bolters still own on single fire, and manstoppers aren't shabby at all. They're at the very least comparable to a mono weapon per attack, if not superior.

Hopefully you don't have any allies in the area of effect.

I've rarely found this to be a problem, especially if said allies know I have such weaponry, are aware of its area of effect properties, and generally aren't stupid.

That would work, until you run out of ammo or the gun jams.

Here's the beauty of the strategy; by that time they're generally dead!

The same could be said about a guy with a pistol and a high dodge chance. So ?

You do understand that an attack that can be negated by two separate things is worse than an attack that can be negated by only one, right? Further, that some shields (such as said Naval Shield) offers huge, cheap and easily acquired bonuses to Parry, making it an even worse thing to be susceptible to, while very little (if anything) in the way of equipment offers a comparable bonus to Dodge.

Trouble is, they require you to either brace the weapon (thus losing any control you have over combat range) or strength 45 (note that only guardsmen get cheap strength) so you can take bulging biceps. But bulging biceps doesn't negate the -30 penalty for firing a heavy weapon unbraced, it just lets you use semi and full auto fire.

The range on most Heavy weaponry is ridiculous to begin with. Second, bracing is preferable more often than not, given the outright lethality of Full-Auto with full bonuses. Because this is true, bulging biceps is something of a joke given its hefty prerequisites.

The enemies that the IG faces deal out so much damage that any effort spent making the guardsmen survive longer is wasted because it doesn't help. It is much more cost effective to focus on making sure that the guardman deals out as much damage as possible before he goes down.

The foes that Arbitrators are normally expected to deal with are weak enough that the extra survibility makes a difference.

It does help, if only with logistics, and ensuring the physique of the Guardsman is equal to the conditions he fights in, if not the weaponry he fights against.

Actually, RAW, Guardsmen are generic soldiers for whatever group (I used the career as the "Heavy" for my Necromunda-esque underhive game).

From the entry on Guardsman, DH page 25:
"Guardsmen are the fighters, killers and warriors of the 41st Millennium. Some may be members of a formal army, or even part of the Imperial Guard. Others may be nothing more than mercenaries and thugs. Some may even be convicted criminals, fitted with explosive collars and sentenced to serve in penal legions for pay for their terrible crimes. Needless to say, Guardsmen are neither particularly smart nor sociable. They more than make up for this with their ability to make things die in loud and unpleasant ways."

There you go. Not "Guardsmen are members of the Imperial Guard," but "Guardsmen ... may even be part of the Imperial Guard."

Guardsmen are PDF troopers, IG troopers, mercenaries, underhive gang heavies, mafia thugs, noble house private guards, etc. Now IG troopers may, may be substantially tougher than a normal human, but are ALL of these archetypes so tough as to merit a fast toughness progression? No.

By the way, the Guard isn't one of few careers that have 3 "slow" progressions for advances. The Adept and Psyker also have three "slow" progressions, while the Tech-Priest gets two "slow" and one "N/A," which should probably count. That's 4/8 (50% for those paying attention) in the core rulebook. Meanwhile, NO career gets more than three "fast" progressions."

I also must disagree that Imperial Guardsmen are portrayed as universally tougher than others in the setting. Sure, they're tougher than the average Imperial citizen, but pretty much every DH character should be. Remember, Guard also start off with good armour, which can go quite a ways to explaining their good durability in a combat zone.

Surrealistik said:

And your point here is? You're still arguing that the Guardsman should get four cheap advances (100xp at Basic), which is unprecedented, and while you may feel that the career is underpowered, many of us either disagree or simply don't think about the game in such shallow and purely mechanical terms.

Surrealistik said:

That does depend entirely on what you're fighting against, and what weapons you're using (afterall, some weapons run out of ammo more quickly than others, and you may have been in a few fights consecutively without having the chance to restock). As for weapon jams... well, they're random, and while they're comparatively unlikely, the odds of something happening mean nothing to the guy that the event has just happened to, such as the player in my group who managed to jam a longlas on his first shot of the campaign.

The other consideration is conditions - few fights will be nice, convenient sit-and-shoot scenarios where the sword-wielding loons will be at the far end of your normal range while you sit in cover and unleash volley-after-volley of rapid fire at them. Close quarters, ambushes, particularly difficult-to-kill and/or numerous enemies (Orks and Genestealers, being good examples - the former are TB 8, the latter are TB 6 with 2x 70% dodges a turn, Hard Target and fast movement, and both of them hit much harder than the kinds of weapons easily brought to bear at extreme close range) can force melee upon a group (because while you may not like melee, some enemies love it), which makes being able to defend against it effectively extremely important.

Surrealistik said:

Melee attacks can be negated by a Dodge or a Parry. Not both. If you're fighting an enemy whose Dodge and Parry chances are identical, then it makes absolutely no difference whether he dodges or parries a melee attack - the chance is the same, and he can only use his one reaction a turn to do one or the other for a given attack.

Only for characters whose chances of parrying are greater than their chances of dodging does it make a difference, and until the difference in chances becomes significant, it's barely worth bothering about.

That does depend entirely on what you're fighting against, and what weapons you're using (afterall, some weapons run out of ammo more quickly than others, and you may have been in a few fights consecutively without having the chance to restock).

Ooh, reminds me of our last few sessions - an all-guard (the organization, not the career) group stranded in enemy territory (well, traitorous guard territory). Most of the group had flashy autoguns, hand cannons, one even an Armageddon. I had my lasgun. At the end, I was the only one who could still say "My turn? Why, yes, I'll fire a semi-auto burst." while all others were already contemplating whether to fire a single shot or engage in hand-to-hand...

The manouver Faint is also not to underestimate: an opposed WS-Test followed by an unparryable/-dodgeable standard attack.

When you consider that a mono-upgraded cc-wepon makes more damage per hit than a comparable ranged weapon, they are not to underestimate. a simple sword makes (with mono) 1d10+6 damage with 2 AP. Thats more than a handcannon! Before someone starts babbling abut the damage-output of machineguns i point out that an Eviscerator (IH) with in trained hands deal 1d10+17 damage with AP 5. The simple advantage of the higher base damage makes cc-ability (not only for PCs) worth of a few XPs.

And Hitpoints are an important matter, often more than Toughness. A guardsmen who 'only' rolls the average 5-6 for starting HPs can still get 20+ wounds through his career. In my first group our Guard startet with 15 HPs, bought the 3 in first rank, ... my Arbitrator got Toughness 50+ by the time he got 40+, but he simply outlived me in the longer/tougher fights by having more hitpoints.

Thinking on it, in some situations, close range combat can be safer to engage in than ranged combat. A character with heavy armour facing enemies armed with armour-piercing weapons will often fare better in melee than he would at long range - this is the Space Marine principle, where standing at a distance renders your strength useless and allows the enemy to bring artillery and anti-armour weapons to bear more easiler, while standing up close lets you bring your strength to bear and forces the enemy to fight you with knives, swords and pistols instead of lascannons and autocannons.

A Guardsman in full Stormtrooper Carapace, even if he remains at TB 3, ignores 9 points of damage with every hit... against a heavy weapon, that may not seem all that impressive, as six of that is armour and easily removed. Get into melee, however, and the man dismissive of melee finds himself carrying only improvised, primitive weapons against a man impervious to them (a rifle butt being an improvised weapon, dealing 1d10+1, primitive damage in the hands of a basic SB3 character... and thus unable to deal the 16 damage needed to harm a TB3 character in AV6 nonprimitive armour). If you've got Disarm or a power weapon, it's even better, as you can work to rid your opponent of any of those pesky weapons that could actually harm you.

Running at the enemy in the face of their guns is never going to be helpful to anyone but the enemy - that is obvious in any circumstances... but that doesn't mean that melee is too difficult to get into. Yes, an autogun can put out up to 10 hits if you're really skilled, lucky and in ideal conditions, and a point blank shot from a shotgun will hit several times... but those hits can be dodged with a single roll from a single reaction, while that melee specialist with a mere chainsword is dealing more damage per hit and might well be swinging two or three times a round, only one of which can be dodged or parried (one reaction per round, remember), more if he dual-wields, plus any free attacks he gets from enemies trying to escape him. Better yet, cover is irrelevant in melee, so your enemies can't hide from you that way either. Sitting back and returning fire against that emplaced heavy weapon with its operators nestled in cover isn't exactly effective, particularly if you haven't had the chance to bring along your autocannon or whatever (heavy weapons are, for obvious reasons, not appropriate accessories when working undercover)... but outflanking and stabbing (common sense provides a penalty for heavy weapon operators detecting a stealthy outflanking maneouvre - the gun is too loud to hear their enemy over) brings them down effectively.

Melee is, in the hands of those who approach it with care and consideration, an effective way of dealing with the enemy, and should not be discounted. A Guardsman with a Lasgun (with mono-edged combat attachment), a mono-sword, an autopistol and a shotgun, a couple of frag grenades and his trusty Guard Flak armour can face down against a wide range of adversaries and is not forced to fight in any one way - he can fight in whichever manner is most advantageous to him (or most disadvantageous to his enemy) at that particular moment, and do so reliably. He doesn't excel at any one form of combat... but he's a highly effective form of character when it comes to engaging in all forms of combat. That is, in my experience as a player and a GM for the last two and a half years, the biggest advantage the Guardsman has - he isn't required to pick a single way of fighting... he can engage in any of them as appropriate.

1) 250 xp for the starting advance is quite good. The Guardsman is not getting shafted by getting Toughness at this rate. To argue he should get it cheaper, one has to show that

a) it's more appropriate that he have it than the guys that do.

b) It's balanced game mechanic wise.

2) A Guardsman uses Strength far more than Toughness. What does an infantry man do in real life? He humps a lot of heavy gear all over the place. Guns, ammo, body armour, rations, extra ammo for the heavy weapons, and all that good stuff. He loads and unloads trucks. He hauls stuff from point a to point b. Strength matters more than Toughness. Sure a lot of soldiers endure a lot of deprivation, but that tends to make you unhealthy.

3) The "Adeptus" in Adeptus Arbites means something. A Guardsman may be a guy from a warrior society or some poor shmuck draftee. An Arbites is a member of specially trained and selected elite, with years of training and conditioning (and good medical care and diets). Their job description includes taking out the planetary governor and any PDF and palace guard troops that get in the way if they go traitor. These guys are hardcore fanatics, tougher than your typical Guardsman, but they don't tend to have long marches with a full kit, 20 kilo pack, and some extra belts for the heavy stubber as their job description. For them Toughness matters more than Strength.

4) The other guy with really cheap Toughness are Tech-Priests. The half metal cyborg is clearly really tough.

1) 250 xp for the starting advance is quite good. The Guardsman is not getting shafted by getting Toughness at this rate. To argue he should get it cheaper, one has to show that

250 is average. Do you really want to try arguing that the IG is run of the mill and unremarkable as far as Toughness goes?

2) A Guardsman uses Strength far more than Toughness. What does an infantry man do in real life? He humps a lot of heavy gear all over the place. Guns, ammo, body armour, rations, extra ammo for the heavy weapons, and all that good stuff. He loads and unloads trucks. He hauls stuff from point a to point b. Strength matters more than Toughness. Sure a lot of soldiers endure a lot of deprivation, but that tends to make you unhealthy.

Except your average guardsman requires not only Strength but endurance, resilience to fatigue to effectively perform his job, and thus Toughness. It matters enough to preclude the silliness of a merely average progression.

3) The "Adeptus" in Adeptus Arbites means something. A Guardsman may be a guy from a warrior society or some poor shmuck draftee. An Arbites is a member of specially trained and selected elite, with years of training and conditioning (and good medical care and diets). Their job description includes taking out the planetary governor and any PDF and palace guard troops that get in the way if they go traitor. These guys are hardcore fanatics, tougher than your typical Guardsman, but they don't tend to have long marches with a full kit, 20 kilo pack, and some extra belts for the heavy stubber as their job description. For them Toughness matters more than Strength.

Arbites are hardly fanatics first off, and second, the grunts are not especially 'elite' or superbly trained and conditioned by comparison to the IG.

With respect to N0-1_H3r3's post quoting situational, unlikely, and downright retarded circumstances (really, a BS focused guy not packing a meltagun/scatterpistol/bolter pistols/man stopper loaded handcannon?) does not constitute a valid support for your arguments. Your strawman assertions do not at all explore the lethality of this weaponry, nor its devastating potential in CQC when dual wielded.

And your point here is? You're still arguing that the Guardsman should get four cheap advances (100xp at Basic), which is unprecedented, and while you may feel that the career is underpowered, many of us either disagree or simply don't think about the game in such shallow and purely mechanical terms.

What's your point? There are many classes which have a better, if not vastly superior ability progression as compared to the Guardsman.

That does depend entirely on what you're fighting against, and what weapons you're using (afterall, some weapons run out of ammo more quickly than others, and you may have been in a few fights consecutively without having the chance to restock). As for weapon jams... well, they're random, and while they're comparatively unlikely, the odds of something happening mean nothing to the guy that the event has just happened to, such as the player in my group who managed to jam a longlas on his first shot of the campaign.

It really doesn't, I mean running clean out of ammo? Are you serious? Reloads I can see, although honestly, there isn't much that can really stand up against dual wielded pistol weapons that specialize at CQC, such that you will need a reload before being able to kill them. Weapon jams are scarcely worth bringing up, especially with Fate Points in mind, in the rare instance it happens while you're in CQC.

The other consideration is conditions - few fights will be nice, convenient sit-and-shoot scenarios where the sword-wielding loons will be at the far end of your normal range while you sit in cover and unleash volley-after-volley of rapid fire at them. Close quarters, ambushes, particularly difficult-to-kill and/or numerous enemies (Orks and Genestealers, being good examples - the former are TB 8, the latter are TB 6 with 2x 70% dodges a turn, Hard Target and fast movement, and both of them hit much harder than the kinds of weapons easily brought to bear at extreme close range) can force melee upon a group (because while you may not like melee, some enemies love it), which makes being able to defend against it effectively extremely important.

Here's the thing; your melee weapons aren't going to help you more than comparatively priced CQC ballistic weapons, even in a melee fight, unless we're talking the best of the best melee weaponry.

Melee attacks can be negated by a Dodge or a Parry. Not both. If you're fighting an enemy whose Dodge and Parry chances are identical, then it makes absolutely no difference whether he dodges or parries a melee attack - the chance is the same, and he can only use his one reaction a turn to do one or the other for a given attack.

Only for characters whose chances of parrying are greater than their chances of dodging does it make a difference, and until the difference in chances becomes significant, it's barely worth bothering about.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious; I'm aware. See the thing is your opponent has options, and you're susceptible to more counters, thus the odds of your opponent being able to neutralize your attacks is significantly and clearly increased. This is especially true when you consider that there is readily accessible and cheap equipment in the game that actually improves your parrying tests dramatically.

By the way, the Guard isn't one of few careers that have 3 "slow" progressions for advances. The Adept and Psyker also have three "slow" progressions, while the Tech-Priest gets two "slow" and one "N/A," which should probably count. That's 4/8 (50% for those paying attention) in the core rulebook. Meanwhile, NO career gets more than three "fast" progressions."

And then there were 9 (Sororitas). As stated previously, most careers in the game have a better stat progression than the Guardsman, and some of them have significantly better progression.