Surrealistik said:

Okay, this one you are really going to have to elaborate on. You can't just say something like that then not offer up any kind of evidence what-so-ever. What exactly about the adaptus arbites is not fanatical and how is some poor schmuck who got conscripted into the Gaurd harder then the guy who's been training (read being brutalized and beaten untill he broke) since he was 8 to serve the Emperor? I really just gotta know...

I said it before: Surrealistik does not want to change his opinion, he just wants us to take his side.

So please drop this discussion before it gets out of hand and ends in a flame war, likely to spill over to other threads.

My last reply in this discussion:

Most likely the designers of BI sat together and worked on the advance scheme for the various classes, this time for the Guardsmen.

The Guardsmen job is to kill, therefore they got WS and BS cheap. The designers had to pick a third cheap attribute.

They ponder:

Strengh? Well, needed to carry things and to make damage in CC.

Toughness? Needed to take that punches and for carrying, so also a good candidate.

Agility? Nope, they are fighters, not dancers. But since its required for a lot of fighting talents, put it in medium.

Intelligence? Nope, thinking ain't their job, so it should be expensive.

Perception? well, no, but not that unimportant, another medium

Willpower? heck no! expensive

Fellowship? No, they prefer shotgun-diplomacy over sweet talk, the third expensive one.

Now, strengh or toughness ... since strengh is (next to carrying capacity, damage-bonus in cc) required for most of those cc-talents they picked it over toughness as the third cheap advance, and made toughness the third medium advance. But to make sure they could still survive longer than other classes they got the highest amount of HP to buy.

I do not know WHAT they were smoking when they made the profile for the clerics, but those are definitly overpowered. Sororitas require the GMs approval (the IH itself states them as overpowered), and are so zealous they hardly fit in any group. Why don't we all point at these two and demand as cheap advances as they do? Because they come with (imo) harder role play restrictions. A priest and a nun-with-gun can't do the same things a 'ex'-guardsman or a scum. When one of these two classes is in my group i keep a real good eye on them for rp, ready to bring down the wrath of their superiors should they 'misbehave'.

Willpower? heck no! expensive

Admittedly, that is one that IMO could be put onto the medium scheme. After all, the guard are the guys not supposed to break under enemy fire.

Cifer said:

That's why you have Commissars.

The job of a Guardsman is to shoot his Las gun on a battlefield.

The job of an Arbite is to enforce order in close quarters.

Close quarters wins toughness.

Ultimately. . .

If you are running the game and you don't like it, change it. That's your prerogative and the glory of the pen and paper game.

Cifer said:

Surely shome mistake? I have a background playing the WH40K wargame, and my experience was that their one big weakness was the tendency to run away at inconvenient moments.

OTOH, since the only units that really mattered were the tanks, this didn't pose a major problem.

Surrealistik said:

250 is average for Player Characters. There is no way to assert that what holds true for PCs holds true for the untold trillions of people who make up the rest of the Imperium.

In fact, the middle advance scheme isn't even 'average'. It's a moderate, but nowhere within the rules is it defined as being some declaration of mediocrity.

Beyond that... well, the Imperial Guard infantry are best known for being numerous, faceless and readily expendable. Doesn't exactly sound like they're eating grenades for dinner, at least not unless you consider it a last meal...

Surrealistik said:

Remembering of course that the Imperial Guard make up a relatively small proportion of the 'soldier archetype' characters (all of whom can be represented by the Guardsman career path, from PDF troopers, hired guns and mercenaries, to Penal Legionnaires, the Tech-Guard of the Adeptus Mechanicus... the list goes on). The Guardsman career path does not automatically mean the character was a candidate for the Cadian Kasrkin or similar.

Surrealistik said:

It all seems beyond consideration, until it happens to you.

Running out of ammo happens. Maybe the games you play in aren't particularly strenuous on player resources? Numerous, resilient enemies with a penchant for melee combat aren't exactly "situational, unlikely, and downright retarded circumstances", at least in my experience. Even being forced to reload gives the enemy time to act without the risk of being shot at, and sooner or later, you run out of room to carry all that ammo you need to keep yourself stocked. Without convenient ammunition dumps after every battle, everything that isn't a lasweapon will inevitably suffer from ammunition issues sooner or later.

Surrealistik said:

I'm talking about a sword or staff to keep the enemy from hitting you... not exactly breaking the bank.

Consider the first example adversary I gave... the Ork. The average Ork Boy has a Toughness Bonus of 8 and two points of armour to the body, and 16 wounds. On the charge, that Ork deals 1d10+10 R, Pen 2, Tearing damage, and in following turns can all-out attack for two attacks around thanks to some choice talents. Orks are, by the nature of their species, numerous and highly aggressive enemies.

Your listed CQC weapons, that apparently make melee redundant, will perform as follows:

• meltagun - Fine for killing an Ork a turn... but why in the name of the Warp are you wasting an anti-tank weapon on infantry... once those Orks hit melee, and if you're packing a meltagun, then your range really isn't sufficient to keep them out of melee, then it's an expensive club that, in the hands of the average human, will deal 1d10-7 damage to that Ork, 1d10-11 if you manage to hit his torso...
• scatterpistol - All but pointless. The 1d10+2 tearing damage of an Irontalon is all sound and no fury against a TB8 adversary, and a whole scatter-shot of 1d10+2 tearing hits is simply a bigger basket of nothing. Scatter weapons fare extremely poorly against resilient enemies. Against unarmoured humans, they're the best thing since cake... but a tougher enemy will laugh them off.
• bolter pistols - getting better, certainly, but human-scaled bolt weaponry still takes a fair few shots to bring down an Ork (damage ends up as 1d10-3, Tearing, for an average of about 2-3 wounds per hit, and thus taking an average of between 5 and 8 hits to bring down a single greenskin).
• man stopper loaded handcannon - manstoppers mean almost nothing against a creature whose resilience comes from sheer toughness rather than armour. After that, the handcannon is worse off than the bolt pistol...

I'm not saying they're a typical opponent... but Orks and Tyranids alike are extrmely good reasons to be wary of melee, if only from a defensive perspective.

Surrealistik said:

Equipment that you seem quite dismissive of elsewhere... afterall, melee is apparently pointless because all guns are so much better.

Do you keep track of carrying capacity? This functionally limitless supply of ammunition, for a main weapon, possibly a heavy weapon, assorted sidearms (two or more pistols, apparently), and a shield to fend off pesky melee combatants... on top of armour and whatever noncombat equipment the character might need to carry will all add up, slow down and tire the character.

That's beyond the consideration of situations where you might not be allowed to carry three guns for every limb you possess and full combat armour... where a compact, easily concealed pistol tucked under a jacket might well be all you can get away with. Were you playing in one of my games, I certainly wouldn't let you bring an autocannon to a knife fight.

How do ranged weapons make up for these effects of melee:

- Lightning attack. Attack 3 times. The opponent can attempt to dodge or parry the first, if they have wall of steel they can parry the second. But they have no defense against the third.

- Ganging up bonus. Unless the opponent has combat master, outnumbering them gives you a better attack rate. Double team makes this bonus even better, so you can have up to +40 to your weapon skill.

- Counter attack. If you parry a melee attack, you get a free action attack at them.

Dalnor Surloc said:

Where does it say that you can't do full/semi auto in melee? (provided you use auto-pistols or a similar pistol-weapon)

Darth Smeg said:

It doesnt - I believe it was an unofficial ruling on the BI forums at one point and people keep quoting it as RAW

I'd have to agree with the entirety of No-1-H3r3's post.

Especially consider an ammo limitation. I've run the Forsaken Bounty adventure for RT twice. The characters only have 2 clips (1 for the flamer) for their fancy powerful guns, and go up against hordes of resurrecting undead puppets. I made sure they kept track of their ammo, because once they run out they are down to melee only. Only 2 of the 5 PCs have a real melee weapon (RT with powersword, missionary with chainsword). The next best thing I think was the pilot with a mono-knife. You won't kill a whole lot using your fists or rifle stocks.

250 is average for Player Characters. There is no way to assert that what holds true for PCs holds true for the untold trillions of people who make up the rest of the Imperium.

In fact, the middle advance scheme isn't even 'average'. It's a moderate, but nowhere within the rules is it defined as being some declaration of mediocrity.

Beyond that... well, the Imperial Guard infantry are best known for being numerous, faceless and readily expendable. Doesn't exactly sound like they're eating grenades for dinner, at least not unless you consider it a last meal...

It's certainly average amongst the careers, and thus mediocre by that metric. Given the scum advances and inclusion, I'd say there's an at least tentative correlation with human ability at large.

Second, as stated countless times prior, I don't think IG are supermen who eat lightning and **** thunder, but they're certainly at least as tough as an Arbite given what's expected of them, regardless of their ability to die in impressive numbers against overwhelming foes with typically superior technology.

Third, Guardsmen and Merc types are certainly tougher than Clerics.

Remembering of course that the Imperial Guard make up a relatively small proportion of the 'soldier archetype' characters (all of whom can be represented by the Guardsman career path, from PDF troopers, hired guns and mercenaries, to Penal Legionnaires, the Tech-Guard of the Adeptus Mechanicus... the list goes on). The Guardsman career path does not automatically mean the character was a candidate for the Cadian Kasrkin or similar.

See above, and many of the 'soldier subsets' certainly have greater than average toughness.

Running out of ammo happens. Maybe the games you play in aren't particularly strenuous on player resources? Numerous, resilient enemies with a penchant for melee combat aren't exactly "situational, unlikely, and downright retarded circumstances", at least in my experience. Even being forced to reload gives the enemy time to act without the risk of being shot at, and sooner or later, you run out of room to carry all that ammo you need to keep yourself stocked. Without convenient ammunition dumps after every battle, everything that isn't a lasweapon will inevitably suffer from ammunition issues sooner or later.

Rarely. Ammo is neither particularly heavy or expensive. Numerous resilient enemies with a penchant for melee combat may not be unlikely and situational, but encounters that feature them without giving you at least a round to mow them down from a safe distance usually are, especially if your group has someone with decent Awareness as it should. The fact is the ranged character is usually at a significant advantage to the meleer. Further, as repeatedly stated and demonstrated, shooting is still quite effective in melee range.

Loving the cherry picked example.

* meltagun - Fine for killing an Ork a turn... but why in the name of the Warp are you wasting an anti-tank weapon on infantry... once those Orks hit melee, and if you're packing a meltagun, then your range really isn't sufficient to keep them out of melee, then it's an expensive club that, in the hands of the average human, will deal 1d10-7 damage to that Ork, 1d10-11 if you manage to hit his torso...

What's preventing you from packing a back up weapon in the event you're packing a meltagun, or alternatively dropping back one square via a number of methods and making a surely lethal attack with a +30 PB bonus?

* scatterpistol - All but pointless. The 1d10+2 tearing damage of an Irontalon is all sound and no fury against a TB8 adversary, and a whole scatter-shot of 1d10+2 tearing hits is simply a bigger basket of nothing. Scatter weapons fare extremely poorly against resilient enemies. Against unarmoured humans, they're the best thing since cake... but a tougher enemy will laugh them off.

You mean Shotgun Pistol (Irontalon is a normal pistol). Which averages approximately 2 damage per hit on an Orc. If you dual wield, you can potentially take down the Orc in two attacks, and this is obviously a suboptimal weapon for the job. Hack Shotguns with Tearing however, prove deadly. 12 average damage per scatterhit due to tearing. Subtracting toughness, that's still 4 damage. Dual wielded, with a fire selector, this proves effective. The Meathammer devastates. 2d5 + 6 Scatter, tearing. It is fairly likely you can take down an Orc with 3 hits (not attacks, hits) from this.

If we assume the Iron Talon (or Orthlax Mark IV) though on full auto with manstoppers, the Orc is still going to take a lot of pain. Approximately 10 average damage due to tearing + 3 penetration = 2 damage per bullet, regardless of where you hit. One will take two to three rounds to kill an Orc. Dual wielding one to two.

Further, handflamers are a great economical, BS based solution to melee Orcs, ignoring their armour, capable of dealing damage, capable of hitting multiple opponents and more importantly likely igniting the enemy, which means that said Orc stands a fairly good chance of no longer being a problem.

Equipment that you seem quite dismissive of elsewhere... afterall, melee is apparently pointless because all guns are so much better.

Do you keep track of carrying capacity? This functionally limitless supply of ammunition, for a main weapon, possibly a heavy weapon, assorted sidearms (two or more pistols, apparently), and a shield to fend off pesky melee combatants... on top of armour and whatever noncombat equipment the character might need to carry will all add up, slow down and tire the character.

That's beyond the consideration of situations where you might not be allowed to carry three guns for every limb you possess and full combat armour... where a compact, easily concealed pistol tucked under a jacket might well be all you can get away with. Were you playing in one of my games, I certainly wouldn't let you bring an autocannon to a knife fight.

That's the thing, you don't need a good MS to benefit from shields, and nullify enemy melee attacks with them.

Second, it's not implausible to have a decent store of ammunition, a shield, two pistol weapons, some miscellaneous gear and a main gun. If you're using heavy weapons, chances are you've got the Toughness and/or Strength to heft around backups. Second, even in scenarios where you can't bring along a complete arsenal, it should be easy to pack a pair of pistols, especially if they're compact.

- Lightning attack. Attack 3 times. The opponent can attempt to dodge or parry the first, if they have wall of steel they can parry the second. But they have no defense against the third.

Dual wielding, scattershot, automatic fire.

- Ganging up bonus. Unless the opponent has combat master, outnumbering them gives you a better attack rate. Double team makes this bonus even better, so you can have up to +40 to your weapon skill.

Autofire/PB bonuses. PB bonuses come into effect when you step away from the enemy, and this can be done without provoking a free attack.

- Counter attack. If you parry a melee attack, you get a free action attack at them.

BS weapons don't provoke counterattacks.

Surrealistik said:

You are wrong. You don't get PB bonus in melee. If you step out of melee this is a move action and (p192 black box)you provoke an attack. Also remember if you take a 1/2 action to move, and you must take at least a 1/2 action to move. Then you can't full or semi-auto. Plus you can't use most ranged weapons other than pistols in melee(page 195). Thus once you are in melee you are real trouble if you can't melee.

PS- My personal favorite melee is a chain bayonet, or mono-shocking bayonet. Attach it to a weapon with full or semiauto. If your enemy runs away you get a full attack followed by a PB full auto the net round. I prefer to arm my guardsman with a grenade launcher and bayonet.

You are wrong. You don't get PB bonus in melee. If you step out of melee this is a move action and (p192 black box)you provoke an attack. Also remember if you take a 1/2 action to move, and you must take at least a 1/2 action to move. Then you can't full or semi-auto. Plus you can't use most ranged weapons other than pistols in melee(page 195). Thus once you are in melee you are real trouble if you can't melee.

I am fully aware you don't get a PB bonus in melee, that is why I specifically said "when you step away from an enemy". Second, there are ways to move away from a meleeing enemy without provoking an attack. Two methods that readily come to mind off the top of my head are the pushing maneuver and Acrobatic disengagement. Obviously you do not do this if you intend to full auto in your opponent's face. Further, pistols work great in melee. Check out some prior posts of mine which demonstrate this.

Surrealistik said:

The Iron Talon looses the tearing quality if you use any ammo other than the special scatter load and the scatter load is primitive. So manstoppers in the Iron Talon mean you get a Pen of 3 with the damage of a normal autopistol and it is no longer primitive or tearing. See Errata page 14

Primitive Scatter shot is going to be pretty much useless against an Orc. I did find them quite useful in clearing off a creature that had wrapped itself around my Tech Priest. He was a little dismayed at first when I said "Full Auto Burst against the Tech Priest" to the GM.

The Iron Talon looses the tearing quality if you use any ammo other than the special scatter load and the scatter load is primitive. So manstoppers in the Iron Talon mean you get a Pen of 3 with the damage of a normal autopistol and it is no longer primitive or tearing. See Errata page 14

Orthlax Mark 4 still works well.

Primitive Scatter shot is going to be pretty much useless against an Orc. I did find them quite useful in clearing off a creature that had wrapped itself around my Tech Priest. He was a little dismayed at first when I said "Full Auto Burst against the Tech Priest" to the GM.

Granted, most shotgun pistols are pretty suboptimal at dealing with orcs. Meathammers however, are superb against them, and hack shotguns are effective. A point blank shot with a single Meathammer is reasonably likely to instagib an orc. Dual wielded, you probably won't even need the PB bonus to instagib an Orc.

Surrealistik said:

There is no 'pushing maneuver' that will get you out of melee. I am assuming you are talking about the Maneuver action. It will allow you to push your opponent 1 square away, but does not put you out of melee. Granted, most melee weapons don't have a range of more than a square, but technically you are still in melee. So, no doing a Maneuver action to push your opponent away and then a half action to shoot w/ a +30 for PB ... you are still in melee so no range bonus even if you are a square apart. Besides which, you can't use a Maneuver action with a pistol. A Maneuver action requires an opposed WS test, and pistols can only use actions and talents using BS. So, unless you are dual wielding a melee weapon in addition to your pistol, you're hosed there. If you're GM is nice he might let you use the pistol as a melee weapon, but then he should probably treat it as an improvised weapon (which has a -20 WS penalty). Technically, though, the pistol can't be used for anything with a WS requirement.

Honestly, my group has found melee to be about as good if not more deadly than ranged weapons. Granted we don't min/max much. Also, many of our encounters tend to be in confined spaces like corridors or rooms than outdoors. Our arbitrator with Shock Maul (or other melee weapon) with mighty blow, double team, and lightning attack can do much more damage and hit better than I (a Sororitas) do with my bolt pistol. So does our Firebrand Cleric with Good quality chainsword. Add in the difficulty getting into melee causes enemies that don't have melee weapons, and the bonuses for outnumbering they tend to get, and it gets brutal. After seeing the arbitrator in melee action, I think our Guardsman has decided to focus down the melee path too.

Don't forget, once you're in melee, enemies not in the same melee also get a -20 to hit you, which is another bonus for melee wielders. Honestly, melee is not really worse off than ranged/pistols. You and your group might be doing something that causes it to seem lopsided, but the general consensus in the thread here is that everyone else isn't seeing the same imbalance. So, it sounds like more of a quirk with your group, and less with the DH rules themselves.

There is no 'pushing maneuver' that will get you out of melee. I am assuming you are talking about the Maneuver action. It will allow you to push your opponent 1 square away, but does not put you out of melee. Granted, most melee weapons don't have a range of more than a square, but technically you are still in melee. So, no doing a Maneuver action to push your opponent away and then a half action to shoot w/ a +30 for PB ... you are still in melee so no range bonus even if you are a square apart. Besides which, you can't use a Maneuver action with a pistol. A Maneuver action requires an opposed WS test, and pistols can only use actions and talents using BS. So, unless you are dual wielding a melee weapon in addition to your pistol, you're hosed there. If you're GM is nice he might let you use the pistol as a melee weapon, but then he should probably treat it as an improvised weapon (which has a -20 WS penalty). Technically, though, the pistol can't be used for anything with a WS requirement.

In most cases, Maneuver will permit you to get your +30 PB bonus, and there's always taking a move action, or Acrobatics. The former will result in a free attack, but it's usually worth it, especially if you're packing scattershot. Second, Shields. They are effective as cover and for parrying, and don't need great WS to use well, and are applicable for Maneuver.

Honestly, my group has found melee to be about as good if not more deadly than ranged weapons. Granted we don't min/max much. Also, many of our encounters tend to be in confined spaces like corridors or rooms than outdoors. Our arbitrator with Shock Maul (or other melee weapon) with mighty blow, double team, and lightning attack can do much more damage and hit better than I (a Sororitas) do with my bolt pistol. So does our Firebrand Cleric with Good quality chainsword. Add in the difficulty getting into melee causes enemies that don't have melee weapons, and the bonuses for outnumbering they tend to get, and it gets brutal. After seeing the arbitrator in melee action, I think our Guardsman has decided to focus down the melee path too.

Don't forget, once you're in melee, enemies not in the same melee also get a -20 to hit you, which is another bonus for melee wielders. Honestly, melee is not really worse off than ranged/pistols. You and your group might be doing something that causes it to seem lopsided, but the general consensus in the thread here is that everyone else isn't seeing the same imbalance. So, it sounds like more of a quirk with your group, and less with the DH rules themselves.

Dual wielded scatter/flamers/bolter pistols, and cheap Full Auto Manstopper SPs > than equally (and even more expensively) priced melee options.

Well, I just lost a quite long and boring post setting out my beef with this plan. Gah.

Bottom line: mathematically, you are quite unlikely to insta-kill an ork with a hack shotgun. You have a reasonable chance with a meathammer, but you are relying on getting righteous fury and then getting a decent damage roll on the RF roll - *or* - getting a lot of hits (5+). This doesn't sound too bad until you notice that these weapons have a clip size of 1. Better hope you get lucky, and aren't outnumbered.

As for getting out of combat, you're going to have to take a free hit every time, because manoeuvring requires a WS roll (at a penalty, if you're using a shield), and as discussed, your WS is now going to suck on account of having dropped it from your cheap advances, not to mention the fact that you think close combat is a waste of time, while acrobatics does not appear to me to be in the guardsman advance tree, nor is agility a particular strength of the class. I hope you are wearing decent armour.

Surrealistik said:

Full auto attack - FULL ACTION

Attacking with both weapons when dual weilding - FULL ACTION

Full auto burst - FULL ACTION

Reloading a hand flamer with rapid reload - FULL ACTION

How do you plan to move from close combat to point blank range and perform a full action in the same turn ?

@ Surreal:
1. Yep, and you take a free attack to do so. If it's an attack from a dangerous weapon, say a shock maul or chain/power weapon, you'll probably use up your dodge reaction, and if you're unlucky might not even get your next half action. Of course, you still need to succeed at your Maneuver attempt, which is an OPPOSED WS test. So, against a skilled melee fighter (who has increased their WS, and is using a best quality melee weapon) you'll have a *very* difficult time beating them.
2. Shields can be useful... but don't forget they take damage like cover, eventually becoming useless. It also deviates from your point of dual-wielding pistols to maximize your firepower. Additionally ... the PC would need both two-weapon wielder talents plus ambidexterity, otherwise they have a bunch of penalties to their WS with the shield. The shield's in the offhand, -20, no two-weapon wielders makes it -40. Not so easy to Maneuver with it any more, when you've got your average 30-ish WS ( then at a -40 for a total of ... 01?) vs a skilled melee fighter's 50-ish WS.
3. Also note that dual-wielding means you have no hands with which to reload or perform any other actions. What if a pistol jams? Also, as mentioned by Bilateralrope firing a single weapon on full/semi-auto is a full action. If dual-wielding, and want to fire both, you are only firing 2 single shots (1 with each weapon) or you are firing a single weapon on full/semi-auto. Honestly, dual wielding pistols isn't very efficient unless you are wielding pistols that are SP-only. Otherwise, you pretty much get the same results with firing semi/full auto. Also mentioned, you won't be able to Maneuver or exit melee and perform a full action. You'll get a single shot. Then your opponent gets to charge you and rinse and repeat.

I'm not saying that pistols are bad. I will even agree that I think in general pistols are 'better' than melee weapons. However, the gap in damage is not as large as you seem to think. Honestly, I think the biggest advantage that a pistol has is the versatility of being able to be used both ranged and in melee (even if it isn't as effective in melee due to the no range bonus). Per hit, a melee weapon (due to adding S bonus) will do more damage, especially if you add in better quality to the melee weapon and mono (or otherwise non-primitive/+ armor pen). Add in all the bonus melee actions that can be taken by a melee fighter (Maneuver, Feint, Defensive Stance, etc), plus the movement restrictions you apply on to your opponent, and melee fighting isn't a bad thing. Oh yeah, and you can get free attacks if your opponent tries to move away from you!

See, it's not all about pure raw numbers, which is what you are getting caught up on.

dvang said:

Just gotta point out one small itty-bitty problem in part of point #3. When duel welding weapons capable of semi or full-auto fire, you can chose to fire the weapons on single shot, semi auto (assuming thy are capable of such) or full auto (again, assuming they are capable of such) both at once. If you have two auto-pistols, one in each hand, you can blaze away with both of them on full auto art once if you so wish. Further, each weapon can be fired on different settings; one single shot, the other full auto if you wish. It's covered in DH pg 197 under two-Weapon Fighting.

Bottom line: mathematically, you are quite unlikely to insta-kill an ork with a hack shotgun. You have a reasonable chance with a meathammer, but you are relying on getting righteous fury and then getting a decent damage roll on the RF roll - *or* - getting a lot of hits (5+). This doesn't sound too bad until you notice that these weapons have a clip size of 1. Better hope you get lucky, and aren't outnumbered.

It's called Fire Selector cheese, and no, I'm not relying on Righteous Fury for the Meathammer, which will do on average 6 damage per hit, accounting for Toughness and Armour. You need only three hits. Not too difficult with a laser sight and PB bonus. Almost guaranteed when dual wielding. Obviously hack-shotgun is sub-optimal, and I've said that much.

As for getting out of combat, you're going to have to take a free hit every time, because manoeuvring requires a WS roll (at a penalty, if you're using a shield), and as discussed, your WS is now going to suck on account of having dropped it from your cheap advances, not to mention the fact that you think close combat is a waste of time, while acrobatics does not appear to me to be in the guardsman advance tree, nor is agility a particular strength of the class. I hope you are wearing decent armour.

Yes, Guardsmen don't have access to Acrobatics, which means dual wielding isn't as good for them as for say, an Assassin. On the otherhand, full-auto pistol spam, and flamers still work well, and of course, a PB meltagun hit is more or less an instant kill if they tank the hit.

@ Surreal:
1. Yep, and you take a free attack to do so. If it's an attack from a dangerous weapon, say a shock maul or chain/power weapon, you'll probably use up your dodge reaction, and if you're unlucky might not even get your next half action. Of course, you still need to succeed at your Maneuver attempt, which is an OPPOSED WS test. So, against a skilled melee fighter (who has increased their WS, and is using a best quality melee weapon) you'll have a *very* difficult time beating them.

Acrobatics, and burning your dodge doesn't matter if you've got a dual scatterblast to gib your opponent with.

2. Shields can be useful... but don't forget they take damage like cover, eventually becoming useless. It also deviates from your point of dual-wielding pistols to maximize your firepower. Additionally ... the PC would need both two-weapon wielder talents plus ambidexterity, otherwise they have a bunch of penalties to their WS with the shield. The shield's in the offhand, -20, no two-weapon wielders makes it -40. Not so easy to Maneuver with it any more, when you've got your average 30-ish WS ( then at a -40 for a total of ... 01?) vs a skilled melee fighter's 50-ish WS.

Shields are obviously employable on a situational basis. The main point of bringing up the shield with respect to WS is to demonstrate that it highlights the vulnerability of WS to the better of two negating reactions, one of which (parry) can be massively and easily bolstered, and subject to counters.

3. Also note that dual-wielding means you have no hands with which to reload or perform any other actions. What if a pistol jams? Also, as mentioned by Bilateralrope firing a single weapon on full/semi-auto is a full action. If dual-wielding, and want to fire both, you are only firing 2 single shots (1 with each weapon) or you are firing a single weapon on full/semi-auto. Honestly, dual wielding pistols isn't very efficient unless you are wielding pistols that are SP-only. Otherwise, you pretty much get the same results with firing semi/full auto. Also mentioned, you won't be able to Maneuver or exit melee and perform a full action. You'll get a single shot. Then your opponent gets to charge you and rinse and repeat.

Between the rarity of jamming, and Fate Points when you really can't afford to have it happen, it's almost a non-issue. Also, yes, I am fully aware Full-Auto is a full action; doesn't really matter when you hit many times more than your opponent and drop him, all without any chance of provoking a counter attack, or being subject to things like shields.

Second, dual wielding pistols is great with respect to shotgun pistols/bolters/handcannons/flame pistols, or in higher power games, meltapistols.

I'm not saying that pistols are bad. I will even agree that I think in general pistols are 'better' than melee weapons. However, the gap in damage is not as large as you seem to think. Honestly, I think the biggest advantage that a pistol has is the versatility of being able to be used both ranged and in melee (even if it isn't as effective in melee due to the no range bonus). Per hit, a melee weapon (due to adding S bonus) will do more damage, especially if you add in better quality to the melee weapon and mono (or otherwise non-primitive/+ armor pen). Add in all the bonus melee actions that can be taken by a melee fighter (Maneuver, Feint, Defensive Stance, etc), plus the movement restrictions you apply on to your opponent, and melee fighting isn't a bad thing. Oh yeah, and you can get free attacks if your opponent tries to move away from you!

See, it's not all about pure raw numbers, which is what you are getting caught up on.

Even when we factor in the tactical options that melee provides of which I am readily aware, don't patronize thanks, it's still not equivalent to the lethality of pistols between scattershot, flames, and full auto, especially given their invulnerability to parrying, counters, and the fact that they are not subject to shield parry bonuses. Melee weapons in CQC may generally be better versus high-toughness opponents, but that's pretty much it, and even then there are pistols that beat them out.

Surrealistik said:

That is indeed cheesy. But fair enough. I don't understand where you're getting the 6 per hit though. The ork's soak is 10, meathammer damage is 2d5+6. So without righteous fury, I make the maximum damage 4.

Yes, Guardsmen don't have access to Acrobatics, which means dual wielding isn't as good for them as for say, an Assassin. On the otherhand, full-auto pistol spam, and flamers still work well, and of course, a PB meltagun hit is more or less an instant kill if they tank the hit.

...

Acrobatics, and burning your dodge doesn't matter if you've got a dual scatterblast to gib your opponent with.

...

Second, dual wielding pistols is great with respect to shotgun pistols/bolters/handcannons/flame pistols, or in higher power games, meltapistols.

I think the problem I'm having is that we appear to be debating whether a hypothetical melee expert is better than a hypothetical ranged expert, on the assumption that the ranged expert has access simultaneously to about a dozen different types of weapon which he can use to suit the circumstance, all kitted out with the best sights and add-ons that money can buy. Whenever the effectiveness of one weapon is questioned, our gun-toting hero just switches to another part of his arsenal.

The original discussion was about whether an imperial guard might benefit from having a decent WS. We've established he doesn't have acrobatics and can't manoeuvre, so every time he leaves combat he takes a free attack, plus the one he took when his opponent charged him. For any given level of weaponry, be it a meathammer vs bulkhead cutters or a meltagun vs a power fist, this seems like a dangerous situation to be in.

Odd. Quote marks evidently don't work the way I think they do.

Off topic, sorry, but...

Cardinalsin said:

Indeed.

Cardinalsin said:

Yes, do go on.

Cardinalsin said:

Ah, yes, the

is apparently an unrecognized tag. In order to break a quote block up, instead of using

you have to repeat the first quote tag that appears at the top when you initially quote a topic. For instance, for this post, your quoted text was [ QUOTE efidm=163176 ] (sans spaces of course).

Sorry for the OT post but I figured that might help out some folks who have trouble with the quoting system here.