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

This is, of course, assuming you are fighting 1 on 1. What if you are fighting 1v2, so you get 2 free attacks against you. Besides blowing your single reaction dodge to a free attack, you have the potential of getting hit a lot more during the turn. This also includes not having a dodge for enemies trying to shoot you with the same 'nasty' scatter/full auto weapons you are so fond of.

>>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.

Dodge, in general, is better than parry. The nice thing about parry, though, is that it is based upon WS which is also useful for offense, plus, as mentioned, it can be bolstered with weapon quality and weapon traits. So, for cheaper and more effective spending of XP, a guardsman can get his parry higher than his dodge. But, he has the option to use either in different situations.

>>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.

It may be 'almost a non-issue' for you, but it is a valid issue that could cause concern. Forcing a player to spend a Fate point is actually a pretty big deal. Do you and the people in your group have a lot of Fate points to throw around? You only hit 'many more times' if you roll well on full-auto, and just because you hit him a bunch of times does not mean that you will necessarily be dropping him. Hitting 4 times for 3 wounds each isn't really better than hitting twice for 6 wound each.

>>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.

See, you've got a couple misconceptions in here:

1. Tactical options are a useful component of combat, that ranged weapons don't have the ability to utilize. Maneuver, for example, not only can push your opponent back, but also allows you a free movement to follow them. Granted, many of them don't increase your lethality, but they do have uses. See point #2
2. It's not all about raw lethality. What if you need to capture a guy? Take Down, grappling, or a shock weapon are excellent for this but they don't involve guns. What about a brawl, where you don't want to get in trouble for killing anyone, but you still need to bust some heads? Those pistols aren't going to do much good, but a club, fist, chair leg, or flat of a sword can do the job.
3. It's not all about the raw numbers nor potential. Dice are fickle. Just because something *should* be better, doesn't mean it is in practice. It also means that even though weapon A has the potential to do more damage, that weapon B is useless because it does less than A.
4. Parrying vs dodge. Everyone has the ability to dodge, only those with a melee weapon can choose to parry. So ... it balances out between the two. A ranged weapon can't be parried, and a melee weapon can't be parried by someone without a melee weapon (which is what you are advocating). That's a wash, unless your ranged person chooses to dual wield a melee weapon ... but then we're straying from your dual-wielding pistols is the 'most powerful' and 'melee weapons are mostly useless' point.
5. You admitted melee weapon may be better vs high toughness opponents, but then try to diminish it by saying "that's pretty much it". Ok, then I'll say that ranged weapons might be more powerful against low toughness opponents, but that's pretty much it. Each has its place and utility against various opponents. Also, you add a caveat that there are pistols that 'beat them out' against high toughness opponents. Well, there are melee weapons that obviously beat out pistols ... so again its a wash.
6. Your GM is awfully free with gear if you're easily throwing out dual-wielding unusual weapons and things like meltapistols. Acquiring a single melta pistol shouldn't be easy, let alone getting 2. It's a weapon designed to attack vehicles, so of course it's going to be dangerous when used against a person. Of course, there are RP aspects to this too. A power sword with the field off looks pretty much like a fancy sword, a melta pistol is going to cause a lot of notice. Hard to remain inconspicuous carrying one (nevermind 2) meltapistols on your belt. A sure give away that you are someone 'important', as only the elite of the imperium (primarily military) can use let alone possess them.

If you truly wish to try to enjoy melee weapons, then I suggest as an experiment, that your GM try an adventure or two where ammunition is extremely limited, or have it take place on a world where overt weapons (especially guns) are not allowed or require special permits. (For example, a culture where dueling with swords is in vogue as a means to settle disputes). Or, have it take place on a spaceship. Check out the IH for the Void weaponry and you'll see that they are all designed for minimal penetration. Firing full-auto with manstoppers is the worst thing you can do on a ship, as every bullet that misses (or even those that hit and travel through) could rupture the hull or some important component. Try a more toned down, and possibly less min-maxable, adventure or two and you'll get a better idea for how melee weapons can work and be useful.

Anyway, melee weapons and ranged weapons are more balanced than you wish to believe, and melee weapons are far from useless. Fine, no one here can apparently convince you of that. Your group can go ahead and ignore melee weapons and have fun with it. If that's the way your group rolls, and they enjoy it, that's cool. It's only one way to play, however, and other groups have PCs (and enemies) that do just fine using melee weapons without the hypothetical issues that you are bringing up. If that works for their groups, that's cool too. This in itself, however, should prove that melee weapons are not obsolete nor as broken as you think they are.

Just to throw some promethium on the fire...

Don't shields count as cover when being shot at?

This is, of course, assuming you are fighting 1 on 1. What if you are fighting 1v2, so you get 2 free attacks against you. Besides blowing your single reaction dodge to a free attack, you have the potential of getting hit a lot more during the turn. This also includes not having a dodge for enemies trying to shoot you with the same 'nasty' scatter/full auto weapons you are so fond of.

If you're fighting 2 v 1, obviously that's when you use the Full Auto, which has the added advantage of allowing you to spread out the firepower. Last I checked, melee weapons don't allow you to do that in most cases.

Dodge, in general, is better than parry. The nice thing about parry, though, is that it is based upon WS which is also useful for offense, plus, as mentioned, it can be bolstered with weapon quality and weapon traits. So, for cheaper and more effective spending of XP, a guardsman can get his parry higher than his dodge. But, he has the option to use either in different situations.

Except spreading out stat investments over both is a waste. It's better to have a reaction that defends well against both types of attacks for a fraction of the cost than a mediocre reaction for much less situational ranged attacks, and a great reaction for melee attacks.

It may be 'almost a non-issue' for you, but it is a valid issue that could cause concern. Forcing a player to spend a Fate point is actually a pretty big deal. Do you and the people in your group have a lot of Fate points to throw around? You only hit 'many more times' if you roll well on full-auto, and just because you hit him a bunch of times does not mean that you will necessarily be dropping him. Hitting 4 times for 3 wounds each isn't really better than hitting twice for 6 wound each.

Fate points recover over time first off, and second off, the actual instances where you might have to expend one in the first place (a jammed gun meaning death rather than a painful, albeit temporary inconvenience) are pretty rare to begin with.

Second, rolling well on Full-Auto isn't particularly hard with the +20 bonus.

Third, melee is only ever preferable to most pistols in the event of a high toughness (not armour that is subject to penetration) opponent. In addition, it requires a melee engagement. Super situational.

See, you've got a couple misconceptions in here:

1. Tactical options are a useful component of combat, that ranged weapons don't have the ability to utilize. Maneuver, for example, not only can push your opponent back, but also allows you a free movement to follow them. Granted, many of them don't increase your lethality, but they do have uses. See point #2

Actually I don't. Maneuver is mostly useful for setting up a ranged attack. Beyond that it isn't particularly valuable. The number of maneuvers that are both highly useful and specific to WS are minimal.

2. It's not all about raw lethality. What if you need to capture a guy? Take Down, grappling, or a shock weapon are excellent for this but they don't involve guns. What about a brawl, where you don't want to get in trouble for killing anyone, but you still need to bust some heads? Those pistols aren't going to do much good, but a club, fist, chair leg, or flat of a sword can do the job.

Non-lethal ammo, stun grenades (uses BS), taser-style weapons, etc..

3. It's not all about the raw numbers nor potential. Dice are fickle. Just because something *should* be better, doesn't mean it is in practice. It also means that even though weapon A has the potential to do more damage, that weapon B is useless because it does less than A.

How would a gun with superior damage outputs at all ranges, melee included not be better, especially given the superior versatility of fire arms?

4. Parrying vs dodge. Everyone has the ability to dodge, only those with a melee weapon can choose to parry. So ... it balances out between the two. A ranged weapon can't be parried, and a melee weapon can't be parried by someone without a melee weapon (which is what you are advocating). That's a wash, unless your ranged person chooses to dual wield a melee weapon ... but then we're straying from your dual-wielding pistols is the 'most powerful' and 'melee weapons are mostly useless' point.

Uh again, the point is melee is subject to being negated by 2 different reactions. One of which can actually permit counter attacks, and is easily and cheaply bolstered. This is a very bad thing, and a huge deficit.

5. You admitted melee weapon may be better vs high toughness opponents, but then try to diminish it by saying "that's pretty much it". Ok, then I'll say that ranged weapons might be more powerful against low toughness opponents, but that's pretty much it. Each has its place and utility against various opponents. Also, you add a caveat that there are pistols that 'beat them out' against high toughness opponents. Well, there are melee weapons that obviously beat out pistols ... so again its a wash.

Except that's only true of *most* pistol weapons in melee, while there are plenty of basic and heavy weapons that absolutely blow any melee weapon in the game out of the water. See, basically it's like this. Melee weapons can be occasionally better in melee. Ranged weapons are better all time otherwise. There is clearly no parity.

6. Your GM is awfully free with gear if you're easily throwing out dual-wielding unusual weapons and things like meltapistols. Acquiring a single melta pistol shouldn't be easy, let alone getting 2. It's a weapon designed to attack vehicles, so of course it's going to be dangerous when used against a person. Of course, there are RP aspects to this too. A power sword with the field off looks pretty much like a fancy sword, a melta pistol is going to cause a lot of notice. Hard to remain inconspicuous carrying one (nevermind 2) meltapistols on your belt. A sure give away that you are someone 'important', as only the elite of the imperium (primarily military) can use let alone possess them.

The melta pistol is a high power example I offered as a counterpoint to high tier melee weapons. Lower powered pistols in the meanwhile are generally equal to or greater than their comparably priced melee counterparts at melee combat.

If you truly wish to try to enjoy melee weapons, then I suggest as an experiment, that your GM try an adventure or two where ammunition is extremely limited, or have it take place on a world where overt weapons (especially guns) are not allowed or require special permits. (For example, a culture where dueling with swords is in vogue as a means to settle disputes). Or, have it take place on a spaceship. Check out the IH for the Void weaponry and you'll see that they are all designed for minimal penetration. Firing full-auto with manstoppers is the worst thing you can do on a ship, as every bullet that misses (or even those that hit and travel through) could rupture the hull or some important component. Try a more toned down, and possibly less min-maxable, adventure or two and you'll get a better idea for how melee weapons can work and be useful.

You can't sell the usefulness of melee on ridiculously situational superiority.

Anyway, melee weapons and ranged weapons are more balanced than you wish to believe, and melee weapons are far from useless. Fine, no one here can apparently convince you of that. Your group can go ahead and ignore melee weapons and have fun with it. If that's the way your group rolls, and they enjoy it, that's cool. It's only one way to play, however, and other groups have PCs (and enemies) that do just fine using melee weapons without the hypothetical issues that you are bringing up. If that works for their groups, that's cool too. This in itself, however, should prove that melee weapons are not obsolete nor as broken as you think they are.

How does it prove that? You can do okay with melee, sure, but my point is you will do far better with BS more often than not, even in melee combat, which is silly.

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 point is that even in situations where melee weapons are supposed to excel, ranged weapons can do their job just as well if not better, even with respect to the higher tier weapons. In the meanwhile, BS weapons flat out win at range for obvious reasons.

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.

No, it's more about whether an IG benefits enough from a decent WS to warrant denying a cheap T advance. Second, he doesn't need to acrobatics/maneuver when he can simply unload full auto manstoppers (and spread the wealth between multiple targets if necessary).

If you're fighting 2 v 1, obviously that's when you use the Full Auto, which has the added advantage of allowing you to spread out the firepower. Last I checked, melee weapons don't allow you to do that in most cases.

If you spread out the damage they won't drop as fast. Give the 2 double team and swift/lightening attack. That's 4/6 attacks at a +30 each (20 double team/10 outnumber). WS 35 using best quality mono sword (only costs 190) = 4/6 attacks at 1D10 + 4 (assuming SB of 3) pen 2 at 75% hit. Sounds good to me.

Uh again, the point is melee is subject to being negated by 2 different reactions. One of which can actually permit counter attacks, and is easily and cheaply bolstered. This is a very bad thing, and a huge deficit.

The guy you set up using dual pistols won't be parrying, so that is a non-issue. A counter attack is at a -20 and must be made using the weapon that counter attacks, so if you use a shield take another -10 for being defensive. Hitting on a -30 isn't something you can rely on. Also, hey, i'm a guardsman, i have a high BS and WS, so i will sit back and shoot the guy with a shield. The gaurdsman doesn't have to specialize. You argued that a gaurdsman can do less valuable outside of combat, so take all that xp that an assassin is spending on move silent and conceal, and spread it out over melee and ranged skills. It's not a handicap to be versatile.

If you want to talk about high-powered, not a single bolt, plasma, melta, or exotic has full auto or a semi auto higher than 3. By that point in time step aside could easily be had so between your chance of hitting being lower and my dodge being higher, i have a better chance of surviving. Of course a hit would suck, but thats a given with those weapons. Now dual-wielding power swords with lightening attack and say blademaster. Not the best hit rate, but thats 4 attacks with 1 re-roll. You can dodge at most 2, and parry a 3rd, but that risks destroying what you parry with. Damage-wise the power-sword beats out the bolt and flame pistols, and falls just 1 damage shy of the plasma, but plasma has recharge so the power-sword wins there.

You can't sell the usefulness of melee on ridiculously situational superiority.

You can't completely discount those situations either. It is exactly those situations, which may be rare, that you need a gaurdsmans ability to do whatever.

This all started with you wanting a cheaper Toughness for Guardsman. Of course everyone wants cheap toughness and staying power. Dying sux. The guardsman gets his staying power by starting with some really good armor, and having the most possible sound constitution purchases. As has already been stated the Guardsman class does not necessarily mean a member of the Imperial Guard. It includes many different background types. So tell me why a ganger guardsman should have toughness at 100 where a ganger scum gets toughness at 500. As for the actual Imperial Guard, they are not necessarily all that tough. It depends where they come from as there is no standard Guard training. A regiment keeps whatever type of training they had on their homeworld. The Imperium wants them to be different, to be able to do different things.

The other thing to consider when looking at melee vs. ranged… ammo cost. Yes, the Plasma, Melta, and Bolt pistols do lots of damage but they are very, very expensive to keep ammo for. You don’t ever reload your power sword.

As far as Toughness goes, my guardsman upped his to get to a T40. That was great when it happened. The thing that really made me a tank and my GM agrees was True Grit. Taking half of any critical damage is what has turned me into a beast. Wearing light carapace and with the T4 makes it very difficult to take out my guardsman.

Personally I have no issue with spreading points between my WS and BS I have needed both equally. As a side note, he desperately loves his bolt gun but he has just as many and more important kills with his chain sword. Ever since my chain sword was stolen the assassin in the party has been unhappy with my constant confiscating of his chain sword while he isn’t looking.

>>If you're fighting 2 v 1, obviously that's when you use the Full Auto, which has the added advantage of allowing you to spread out the firepower. Last I checked, melee weapons don't allow you to do that in most cases.

Then you're not spending the half action to move away (through acrobatics or Maneuver) and get the PB bonus, which is what this was referring to.

>>Except spreading out stat investments over both is a waste. It's better to have a reaction that defends well against both types of attacks for a fraction of the cost than a mediocre reaction for much less situational ranged attacks, and a great reaction for melee attacks.

Except my point is that spending stats on WS improves both attack and defense. Sure, the defense (parry) cannot be used all the time. It is still one strength of spending points in WS over Agi.

>>Fate points recover over time first off, and second off, the actual instances where you might have to expend one in the first place (a jammed gun meaning death rather than a painful, albeit temporary inconvenience) are pretty rare to begin with.

Then I would say your GM doesn't give you enough challenging encounters or your group rolls amazingly well, if you don't have to agonize on whether to reroll or save for a 'more desperate' situation. Heck, my group has rerolled non-combat investigative rolls, because we knew that if we didn't get this piece of information the entire mission would be in jeapordy.

>>Third, melee is only ever preferable to most pistols in the event of a high toughness (not armour that is subject to penetration) opponent. In addition, it requires a melee engagement. Super situational.

We don't find it hard to charge into melee, so its not as situational as you might think. Perhaps your group just has, in general, combats in much more open and large areas. Most of our fights end up in rooms and corridors inside buildings, and only rarely outside. Usually a single Charge move during the first round of combat (occasionally a full move/run and then charge the second round) gets us into melee. So, for us, its not nearly as situational. Also, I think you are de-emphasizing the impact of melee weapons. Again, per hit a melee weapon will (in general) do more damage than a ranged weapon. So, I'm not sure it is "only ever preferable". Maybe you prefer it, but that does not change the fact that melee weapons are pretty much on par with ranged weapons overall.

>>Actually I don't. Maneuver is mostly useful for setting up a ranged attack. Beyond that it isn't particularly valuable. The number of maneuvers that are both highly useful and specific to WS are minimal.

I disagree. Maneuver is useful for a variety of things besides giving yourself some space to use a ranged weapon. Force an opponent out of a doorway so that your allies can move past or flank the enemy. Force an opponent away from the self-destruct button/lever. Move your opponent and yourself out of a dangerous /precarious position (like crumbling floor). Etc. These are just a few examples off the top of my head, and I am sure there are many more.

>>Non-lethal ammo, stun grenades (uses BS), taser-style weapons, etc.

And how often in this thread have you espoused the use of non-lethal ammo? You're all about the manstopper rounds to min-max your damage. Without manstopper rounds and their PEN, you make a melee weapon MORE dangerous and versatile than a ranged weapon. Stun grenades require you to draw and throw (with an off-hand, or else sacrifice their main hand). They'd need quick draw to make it worthwhile, and it would impact a lot of their combat actions. Whereas simply having a melee weapon can be used in a lethal and non-lethal manner without changing weapons. No need to buy special ammo, swap clips or reload, etc with a melee weapon. It's there and reliable.

>>How would a gun with superior damage outputs at all ranges, melee included not be better, especially given the superior versatility of fire arms?

I have yet to see it proven that a gun always has 'superior damage' when within melee range, and you are also not taking into account the increased chance of hitting for melee weapons over guns when within melee range.

>>Uh again, the point is melee is subject to being negated by 2 different reactions. One of which can actually permit counter attacks, and is easily and cheaply bolstered. This is a very bad thing, and a huge deficit.

Except it is only easily and cheaply bolstered if the opponent focuses on melee, which you are advocating AGAINST. So, against your dual-pistol wielder (or ranged weapon only wielder), a melee opponent is really at an advantage and does not have to worry about being parried. It is also easier to get bonuses to hit with melee weapons, than it is for ranged weapons in melee range. So, you know, it isn't as big a deficit as you think it is.

>>Except that's only true of *most* pistol weapons in melee, while there are plenty of basic and heavy weapons that absolutely blow any melee weapon in the game out of the water. See, basically it's like this. Melee weapons can be occasionally better in melee. Ranged weapons are better all time otherwise. There is clearly no parity.

Except basic weapons can't be used in melee, which is what we are talking about. So, saying that basic and heavy weapons blow melee weapons out of the water is comparing apples to oranges. Yes, outside of melee range, ranged weapons (especially basic and heavy) are better. Inside melee range, though, melee weapons are just as dangerous. Overall, yes ranged weapons are 'better' because they can be used in lots of situations because they have range. I thought we were discussing combat in melee range, though, where I am saying that melee weapons are just as dangerous as ranged weapons. If your group has the majority of your combats at long distances, than certainly ranged weapons will be superior. As I said, my group tends to have combat in more confined areas (our enemies are cunning ... and so are we. Those ranged weapons can be used against us too!) so, getting into melee range of an enemy never seems to be much of an issue (we also have an arbitrator with two cybernetic legs, so he can run/charge quite a distance too).

>>You can't sell the usefulness of melee on ridiculously situational superiority.

What is ridiculous about having an adventure on a spaceship, or with low-tech culture, etc? Or, an adventure on a Feral/Outland world where there is no ammo to be had? You get the ammo you carry with you, and once its used up... seems reasonable to me. For instance, take the Rogue Trader demo scenario. It takes place on a spaceship. As well, each PC only has 2 clips of ammo and there are quite a few enemies on board. They can't just 'restock' their ammo whenever they like. Once they use up their ammo they must rely on melee weapons. I know when I first bought my bolt pistol, I only had 4 rounds for it because that is all that I could afford. It could be (and probably should be) a common issue.

>>How does it prove that? You can do okay with melee, sure, but my point is you will do far better with BS more often than not, even in melee combat, which is silly.

I've given you quite reasonable reasons how your statement of "...you will do far better with BS more often than not, even in melee combat..." (emphasis on melee, of course) is incorrect. It is your opinion, based upon your experiences, not a fact. In my opinion, based upon my experiences, melee is on par with ranged when within melee. If my group can have good use of melee (and I don't see other people chiming in to support your side), then it is reasonable to conclude that melee does work. It might not work for your group's playstyle, but that does not mean that melee weapons in DH are broken, ineffective, or inherently worse (inside melee combat) than ranged weapons.

>>The point is that even in situations where melee weapons are supposed to excel, ranged weapons can do their job just as well if not better, even with respect to the higher tier weapons. In the meanwhile, BS weapons flat out win at range for obvious reasons.

Again, this is your opinion and not fact. I have already listed numerous advantages that melee weapons have, besides raw damage. Even in raw damage, there are some advantages of melee weapons over ranged weapons. Yes, ranged weapons are better at range (obviously), and (pistols) can be good in melee as well, so overall pistols are more useful and are 'better' because of this. When you look at issues beyond ranged combat (such as melee range, and roleplaying), then melee weapons are just as useful and effective as ranged weapons. You have said nothing to disprove it.

>>No, it's more about whether an IG benefits enough from a decent WS to warrant denying a cheap T advance. Second, he doesn't need to acrobatics/maneuver when he can simply unload full auto manstoppers (and spread the wealth between multiple targets if necessary).

True, the original original question was regarding Guardsmen and getting cheap T. Lots of people have already given you lots of good reasons why it is fine as it is. It just doesn't agree with your opinion on the matter. A Guardsman is mostly there for numbers, and is trained to handle a variety of situations. Hence, he has lots of weapons training/practice (ie. WS and BS are easier to increase) so he can handle close-in fighting as well as combat at range. For personal protection, a Guardsman PC relies more on their armor (which is relatively cheap for them) than an actual physical propensity to be hardier than the other people around them.

I've also provided a variety of reasons and situations where unloading full-auto manstoppers isn't necessarily better than a good reliable swing of a mono sword/hammer.

Ok, this dead horse has been beaten until it's less than skin and bones. I am apparently not going to convince you, and you aren't apparently going to convince anyone else. So, there really isn't a point in continuing this discussion further. Thanks for the interesting discussion and I'm going to try to refrain from saying anything more lest I further beat poor Mr. Ed.

Then you're not spending the half action to move away (through acrobatics or Maneuver) and get the PB bonus, which is what this was referring to.

What's your point? The fact is that it doesn't matter whether or not the pistol wielder is being gangbanged or engaged 1v1; he always has a good option. Acrobat Scatter or Full Auto

Except my point is that spending stats on WS improves both attack and defense. Sure, the defense (parry) cannot be used all the time. It is still one strength of spending points in WS over Agi.

Except you don't need the redundant offensive power of WS. Agility grants stealth, speed, skill competency, and dodge. WS grants you situational offensive and defense prowess. BS allows you to use the best, most versatile weapons in the game. No contest at all.

Then I would say your GM doesn't give you enough challenging encounters or your group rolls amazingly well, if you don't have to agonize on whether to reroll or save for a 'more desperate' situation. Heck, my group has rerolled non-combat investigative rolls, because we knew that if we didn't get this piece of information the entire mission would be in jeapordy.

I'll say this much; if you keep getting into situations where you need to spend Fate points all the time, either you're doing it wrong, or your GM is being overzealous on the difficulty.

We don't find it hard to charge into melee, so its not as situational as you might think. Perhaps your group just has, in general, combats in much more open and large areas. Most of our fights end up in rooms and corridors inside buildings, and only rarely outside. Usually a single Charge move during the first round of combat (occasionally a full move/run and then charge the second round) gets us into melee. So, for us, its not nearly as situational. Also, I think you are de-emphasizing the impact of melee weapons. Again, per hit a melee weapon will (in general) do more damage than a ranged weapon. So, I'm not sure it is "only ever preferable". Maybe you prefer it, but that does not change the fact that melee weapons are pretty much on par with ranged weapons overall.

First off the notion that a melee weapon (in general) will do more damage on a per hit basis than a ranged weapon is patently wrong. Pistols probably, Basics possibly, Heavy Weapons? Only with respect to the absolute worst ones.

Further, if someone's close enough to melee me in the first or second round, I still get my full-auto at +30 for close range with my more powerful weapons. Most of the time that means said charging character is dead or badly wounded. If the weapon in question is Heavy, overkill, and/or multiple kills is likely. Then when you close, hey, I've still got the full-auto, scatter, flame, etc...

I disagree. Maneuver is useful for a variety of things besides giving yourself some space to use a ranged weapon. Force an opponent out of a doorway so that your allies can move past or flank the enemy. Force an opponent away from the self-destruct button/lever. Move your opponent and yourself out of a dangerous /precarious position (like crumbling floor). Etc. These are just a few examples off the top of my head, and I am sure there are many more.

Situational, unlike the reliable damage you can do with a proper attack at any range in the same time.

And how often in this thread have you espoused the use of non-lethal ammo? You're all about the manstopper rounds to min-max your damage. Without manstopper rounds and their PEN, you make a melee weapon MORE dangerous and versatile than a ranged weapon. Stun grenades require you to draw and throw (with an off-hand, or else sacrifice their main hand). They'd need quick draw to make it worthwhile, and it would impact a lot of their combat actions. Whereas simply having a melee weapon can be used in a lethal and non-lethal manner without changing weapons. No need to buy special ammo, swap clips or reload, etc with a melee weapon. It's there and reliable.

You tried to make an argument, and I gave the obvious retort. You praise the versatility of MS weapons in that they can stun, and perform non-lethal damage; so can BS counterparts, and as for swapping clips/reloading, two words; Fire Selectors. Keep up the min-max until your opponent's weak, then lay down the stun.

I have yet to see it proven that a gun always has 'superior damage' when within melee range, and you are also not taking into account the increased chance of hitting for melee weapons over guns when within melee range.

What increased chance of hitting given Laser Sights and Semi/Full Auto bonuses, and I never said always. In fact I specifically conceded there are situational occasions when even Scatter/Full Auto pistols are beaten out by melee.

Except it is only easily and cheaply bolstered if the opponent focuses on melee, which you are advocating AGAINST. So, against your dual-pistol wielder (or ranged weapon only wielder), a melee opponent is really at an advantage and does not have to worry about being parried. It is also easier to get bonuses to hit with melee weapons, than it is for ranged weapons in melee range. So, you know, it isn't as big a deficit as you think it is.

Except you again totally fail to understand my point which is that MS is subject to two counters, one of which is easily bolstered, and that mooks may well opt for, and no, a melee opponent is at no advantage when he's sucking Full Auto blasts (perfectly reliable and substantial bonus to hit) every turn. You seem to think it's about PvP (which BS is still better at btw), when no, it's really about performance overall versus a variety of threats.

Except basic weapons can't be used in melee, which is what we are talking about. So, saying that basic and heavy weapons blow melee weapons out of the water is comparing apples to oranges. Yes, outside of melee range, ranged weapons (especially basic and heavy) are better. Inside melee range, though, melee weapons are just as dangerous. Overall, yes ranged weapons are 'better' because they can be used in lots of situations because they have range. I thought we were discussing combat in melee range, though, where I am saying that melee weapons are just as dangerous as ranged weapons. If your group has the majority of your combats at long distances, than certainly ranged weapons will be superior. As I said, my group tends to have combat in more confined areas (our enemies are cunning ... and so are we. Those ranged weapons can be used against us too!) so, getting into melee range of an enemy never seems to be much of an issue (we also have an arbitrator with two cybernetic legs, so he can run/charge quite a distance too).

Again, thanks for stating the obvious. I know basic weapons can't be used in melee, and no, it's not at all analogous to comparing 'apples to oranges', especially when options exist to use Basics after being engaged in melee.

Second, melee at its best is nowhere near as deadly as ranged weapons at their best. It's sad that pistols are even arguably superior to melee weapons in melee in most cases.

What is ridiculous about having an adventure on a spaceship, or with low-tech culture, etc? Or, an adventure on a Feral/Outland world where there is no ammo to be had? You get the ammo you carry with you, and once its used up... seems reasonable to me. For instance, take the Rogue Trader demo scenario. It takes place on a spaceship. As well, each PC only has 2 clips of ammo and there are quite a few enemies on board. They can't just 'restock' their ammo whenever they like. Once they use up their ammo they must rely on melee weapons. I know when I first bought my bolt pistol, I only had 4 rounds for it because that is all that I could afford. It could be (and probably should be) a common issue.

It's not difficult to carry hundreds of rounds with you unless they belong to a particularly heavy weapon, and ammo's cheap. On spaceships hand flamers and scatterguns are accessible and viable melee alternatives. Even autopistols man penetrators work too unless you're in a particularly sensitive area.

I've given you quite reasonable reasons how your statement of "...you will do far better with BS more often than not, even in melee combat..." (emphasis on melee, of course) is incorrect. It is your opinion, based upon your experiences, not a fact. In my opinion, based upon my experiences, melee is on par with ranged when within melee. If my group can have good use of melee (and I don't see other people chiming in to support your side), then it is reasonable to conclude that melee does work. It might not work for your group's playstyle, but that does not mean that melee weapons in DH are broken, ineffective, or inherently worse (inside melee combat) than ranged weapons.

Actually you haven't and it's not based on experiences, it's based on the numbers which are in turn facts. Can melee be better at what it's supposed to be better than BS at? Yes. Is it usually better? No. Not unless you're benefitting from the purview of some situational circumstances (super high toughness opponents, gangbanging, ultra-sensitive envionment).

True, the original original question was regarding Guardsmen and getting cheap T. Lots of people have already given you lots of good reasons why it is fine as it is. It just doesn't agree with your opinion on the matter. A Guardsman is mostly there for numbers, and is trained to handle a variety of situations. Hence, he has lots of weapons training/practice (ie. WS and BS are easier to increase) so he can handle close-in fighting as well as combat at range. For personal protection, a Guardsman PC relies more on their armor (which is relatively cheap for them) than an actual physical propensity to be hardier than the other people around them.

No. It's not that it doesn't agree with my opinion, it's that it's not consistent with the facts, which clearly indicate that in most situations, BS is better in the vast majority of cases, thus WS is largely redundant, thus the Guardsman deserves another cheap attribute advance that's consistent with his flavour and nature, i.e. Toughness (which ironically enough is better, and more reliable than armour as a means of reducing damage). Furthermore, as demonstrated by a bare majority of the careers, exceptions to the attribute advance patterns seen amongst several of the careers is the rule. Lastly, superb physical endurance and conditioning is required for the range of professions that make up the Guardsman career.

I've also provided a variety of reasons and situations where unloading full-auto manstoppers isn't necessarily better than a good reliable swing of a mono sword/hammer.

And again, I've acknowledged that situationally, melee can be better, situationally being the key word.

Surrealistik said:

Fun fact: the whole game is situational. Every combat encounter, every action scene, every potential brawl is a distinct situation with a distinct context, be that the result of adversaries, terrain, available/situationally viable armaments or anything else, in various combinations. No fight, no element of the game exists in perfect isolation from everything else. Consequently, what may be objectively best "by the numbers" is a notion rendered largely irrelevant by the fact that every circumstance a group will find themselves in should be (and unless you have a really unimaginative or lax GM, will be) sufficiently different to require a different approach each time.

Sure, a lascannon or autocannon outperforms any melee weapon in terms of damage all the time... but how often, exactly, do you expect to be allowed or able to carry that weapon? A light pistol and/or a simple melee weapon is socially acceptable in many situations; heavy anti-tank weapons are not. So what your pistol is more effective than your fists: your weapons were confiscated at the door because the establishment's owners don't want gunfights there.

If you're armed and prepared for all out war, then maybe you get to tote around the big guns, but the majority of circumstances during an investigation (given the focus of Dark Heresy, not exactly an uncommon circumstance) should not make the useage of heavy weaponry, anti-tank weapons and similar high-power devices routinely viable.

I have read most of this thread, getting gradually more and more bored with the arguing as I went on.

Considering this is a game that is played by imagining scenes, set in an imaginary universe, using imaginery weaponry (to an extent), I cannot believe the sheer amount of pointless arguing over an issue like toughness being cheaper to purchase for a Guardsman. I know other points have been discussed but I will ignore that. The amount of statistics people go into to choose the best career, the best weapons for that career has never washed with me at all. If a member of my group was found to be calculating stuff like this and I was GM'ering a mission, I would be purposely harder on their character to disuade them (and other group members) from doing this sort of thing.

@Craig: lol. I feel the same way; yet somehow cannot stop participating. It's internet rubbernecking

Hang on. When you're using fire selectors, I'd have to rule that it takes time to select the fire. So when you fired your first shots, you'd have to drop one, pull the switch to the next clip, and then fire. You would have one round to fire two shots, half an action to chamber a new round, and then another half for one shot. While you're getting chopped by Orcs.

And if you're facing less Orcs than you have usable shots in your tiny clips, that's a GM fail for not properly scaling an encounter.

Surrealistik said:

Interesting. Gameplay doesn't bear you out. Our guardsman has actually focused entirely on melee, and has been one of the hardest characters to kill, as well as one of the most lethal characters. His very first order of business is to get into melee range and jack the enemy up, which he does with zeal. Soon as he hits level 4 and he gets to use his chainsword, I imagine he's going to be a walking charnal house and will explode his damage more frequently. The Cleric of all people is right behind him with a monosword. It's actually generally felt in my group that while ballistics will blow you away if you're not smart, the game turns WAY lethal once you get into melee range.

With his strength bonus and his weapon, he traditionally severely outdeals ranged damage. In general, against armored opponents, most of my players deal no damage to 6 points of damage per attack with lasguns. The guardsman routinely blows past 10 points of damage in single attacks, and he's only like level 2 right now. His strength modifier helps blow through toughness and light armor, and he rolls almost pure damage.

Granted, anything other than point-blank range is going to put the dude in a pinch, but he has some ballistics weapons for that. However, unless you're fighting in open terrain, statistically the FBI states that most gunfights happen within 20 feet, aka Point blank range, where our guardsman is once again able to leverage his melee abilities. Ironically, most shots also miss in the real world due to high stress factors (and the +30BS modifier is just that, BS, but it works both ways), but I've found that in realistic scenarios, mid, long, and extreme ranges only come into play on special occasions. I had one "long" range firefight, and that was between two sniping characters.

So yes, let's take an assassian and a guardsman. The assassian gets to dual weild, and gets scatter, while the guardsman runs off and rolls back 5 minutes later in a preaditor tank, because his piloting skill includes this heavy machinery. Granted, this isn't a normal scenario, but hey, we're talking about theoretical matchups in a barren landscape at range, which is about as unlikely as it gets, and in this case, where a guardsman is by himself, he fights smarter, not harder.

Surrealistik said:

IG are trained to rely on their equipment (ie: armor, guns, swords, vehicles, death thingies, etc). The arbi? They take bumps sans armor more often in their calling.

Also, with a few notable exceptions, I've always read in canon about the IG dieing by the tens and hundreds of thousands in any military assault. If you want endurance, send in the Space Marines. If you want a meat grinder operation, you send in the IG.

Melee is where my group can do the most damage, although they mostly prefer to fight at range.

The group,s assassins are quite deadly at range and no slouches up close with power weapons but for doing a hell of a lot of damage quickly the absolute king is the Guardsman with an eviscerator. He can carve through Slaugh and Ogryns in a single round and those suckers suck up bolt rounds by the magazine. And most personal force fields don't work against melee attacks.

Are you just checking to see how many people you can simply ignore their arguments, assert your opinion is right over the multitudes of other's arguing the opposite?

Well then. Good social experiment you have going on here.

Fun fact: the whole game is situational. Every combat encounter, every action scene, every potential brawl is a distinct situation with a distinct context, be that the result of adversaries, terrain, available/situationally viable armaments or anything else, in various combinations. No fight, no element of the game exists in perfect isolation from everything else. Consequently, what may be objectively best "by the numbers" is a notion rendered largely irrelevant by the fact that every circumstance a group will find themselves in should be (and unless you have a really unimaginative or lax GM, will be) sufficiently different to require a different approach each time.

Sure, a lascannon or autocannon outperforms any melee weapon in terms of damage all the time... but how often, exactly, do you expect to be allowed or able to carry that weapon? A light pistol and/or a simple melee weapon is socially acceptable in many situations; heavy anti-tank weapons are not. So what your pistol is more effective than your fists: your weapons were confiscated at the door because the establishment's owners don't want gunfights there.

If you're armed and prepared for all out war, then maybe you get to tote around the big guns, but the majority of circumstances during an investigation (given the focus of Dark Heresy, not exactly an uncommon circumstance) should not make the useage of heavy weaponry, anti-tank weapons and similar high-power devices routinely viable.

Here's the important thing that you're ignoring; non-situational weapons that are mechanically better in the vast majority of circumstances are better than situational weapons. Yes, there are exceptions where melee is preferable, but on the whole, Ballistic Weapons are superior and obviously the way to go. Even in cases where you're not allowed to bring your biggest, baddest heavy weaponry, your mere pistols still tend to be better versus all but opponents but those with the greatest toughness and armour; unlikely opponents when conducting a largely peaceful investigation, but likely in conflict heavy situations where you're allowed to outfit for war.

Hang on. When you're using fire selectors, I'd have to rule that it takes time to select the fire. So when you fired your first shots, you'd have to drop one, pull the switch to the next clip, and then fire. You would have one round to fire two shots, half an action to chamber a new round, and then another half for one shot. While you're getting chopped by Orcs.

And if you're facing less Orcs than you have usable shots in your tiny clips, that's a GM fail for not properly scaling an encounter.

By RAW, fire selectors have no such limitation, and my arguments are contingent on RAW. Also, if you're actively trying to battle more Orcs than you have fire power to combat, either you're doing it wrong by standing and fighting, or your GM is for forcing you into that situation.

Interesting. Gameplay doesn't bear you out. Our guardsman has actually focused entirely on melee, and has been one of the hardest characters to kill, as well as one of the most lethal characters. His very first order of business is to get into melee range and jack the enemy up, which he does with zeal. Soon as he hits level 4 and he gets to use his chainsword, I imagine he's going to be a walking charnal house and will explode his damage more frequently. The Cleric of all people is right behind him with a monosword. It's actually generally felt in my group that while ballistics will blow you away if you're not smart, the game turns WAY lethal once you get into melee range.

With his strength bonus and his weapon, he traditionally severely outdeals ranged damage. In general, against armored opponents, most of my players deal no damage to 6 points of damage per attack with lasguns. The guardsman routinely blows past 10 points of damage in single attacks, and he's only like level 2 right now. His strength modifier helps blow through toughness and light armor, and he rolls almost pure damage.

Granted, anything other than point-blank range is going to put the dude in a pinch, but he has some ballistics weapons for that. However, unless you're fighting in open terrain, statistically the FBI states that most gunfights happen within 20 feet, aka Point blank range, where our guardsman is once again able to leverage his melee abilities. Ironically, most shots also miss in the real world due to high stress factors (and the +30BS modifier is just that, BS, but it works both ways), but I've found that in realistic scenarios, mid, long, and extreme ranges only come into play on special occasions. I had one "long" range firefight, and that was between two sniping characters.

So yes, let's take an assassian and a guardsman. The assassian gets to dual weild, and gets scatter, while the guardsman runs off and rolls back 5 minutes later in a preaditor tank, because his piloting skill includes this heavy machinery. Granted, this isn't a normal scenario, but hey, we're talking about theoretical matchups in a barren landscape at range, which is about as unlikely as it gets, and in this case, where a guardsman is by himself, he fights smarter, not harder.

Uh. Your players are using lasguns. That's the problem. Lasguns are mechanically some of the worst firearms in the game. Of course they're being outperformed by the meleer.

Also, the Guardsman doesn't get to use tanks in any theoretical matchup against the Assassin if the Assassin doesn't get to employ something comparatively valuable, or better yet, one shots the melee happy Guardsman from some hidden position (only to vanish again should he survive and repeat the process).

Are you just checking to see how many people you can simply ignore their arguments, assert your opinion is right over the multitudes of other's arguing the opposite?

Well then. Good social experiment you have going on here.

Nah, although they seem to be doing a very good job of that themselves; it is an interesting thought though.

Surrealistik said:

For someone trying to convince us to adopt a house rule you sure do use the phase RAW as if it were gospel. It does say that it switches magazines in the description for a fire selector and 1 shot weapons clearly don't have magazines.

Damnit, I was trying to stay out of this thread. It's like drug.

But also seeing as many of your duel weilding pistols has effective ranges of 2-30m people might say that's pretty situational, your shotgun pistols are innefective at half that which is pretty much charge range. And what your forgetting about melee is that once 1 person is in melee everyone is either in melee or shooting into melee and If you are about to say that you can offset called shot penalties (or these fatepoints that you seem to be using for everthing) then your guys are high enough level to be spreading the points out between melee and shooting.

In fact I'm not entirely sure only being good at shooting or melee is required for the system.

In my game there's a mostly shooty assassin (who has all the talents and still find points melee skills) and a melee guardsmen. By the time the assassin is ignoreing called shots the guardsman is killing guard equivalents in one hit with a power axe (and recently has a powerfist) neither of them is entirely restricted and very much the able to use the best weapons for the job.

For someone trying to convince us to adopt a house rule you sure do use the phase RAW as if it were gospel. It does say that it switches magazines in the description for a fire selector and 1 shot weapons clearly don't have magazines.

Technically even single shot weapons can be equipped with a fire selector.

But also seeing as many of your duel weilding pistols has effective ranges of 2-30m people might say that's pretty situational, your shotgun pistols are innefective at half that which is pretty much charge range. And what your forgetting about melee is that once 1 person is in melee everyone is either in melee or shooting into melee and If you are about to say that you can offset called shot penalties (or these fatepoints that you seem to be using for everthing) then your guys are high enough level to be spreading the points out between melee and shooting.

Actually Pistols are still fairly effective when they're used within the Long Range increment at a -10 penalty. Only when the Extreme Range penalty applies do they prove ineffective. Further, if your opponent is at such ranges, you've always got basic and heavy guns; the whole point of pistols, including is to allow shooty characters to hold their own in melee range which they do very, very well. The fact that they don't strictly require you to be adjacent to your opponent, have line of movement towards him, and furthermore waste your time approaching him is a big bonus.

Second, no, you cant use silly blanket statements like 'once 1 person is in melee everyone is in melee'. Doesn't work that way. What you seem to be forgetting is that melee requires you not only to have line of sight, but also line of movement to your opponent, and requires a time investment that could be better spent hosing down people with lead.

Lastly, I don't know where this whole 'fate points being used for everything' nonsense came from. Fate points are only used by shooters when death is a possibility because they got a ridiculously unlucky jam at a crucial moment. That said what do you mean 'called shot penalties'? It's called Full-Auto. It offsets the -20 modifier. Laser sights, and close/extreme range also offset it. If you're actually involved in the melee, you don't suffer the penalty. In addition, why on earth would you waste precious XP on melee as opposed to utility skills and traits when shooting covers everything?

In fact I'm not entirely sure only being good at shooting or melee is required for the system.

In my game there's a mostly shooty assassin (who has all the talents and still find points melee skills) and a melee guardsmen. By the time the assassin is ignoreing called shots the guardsman is killing guard equivalents in one hit with a power axe (and recently has a powerfist) neither of them is entirely restricted and very much the able to use the best weapons for the job.

Does your Assassin know what an Autocannon is? Is he aware that he can instagib *multiple* targets at extreme ranges far more reliably and faster than your Guardsman can, while being able to stealth to boot?

Ouch, now that has to hurt. I mean so much stupidity ... or maybe you can't feel it because of it.

Yes, that was an insult, i'm clearly in violation of the usual code of civilty, but that last argument was too much.

Autocannon?

What kind of DH are you running when it is appropriate for your PCs to bring something like that? A 'little' Tank-Hunt?

Autocannons (or other heavy weapons) and stealth? Only till the first shot, then the half the hive knows where you are.

Not to mention: why, for Holy Terra's sake, should an Assassin use said Autocannon (or other heavy weapons)? The Guardsmen is far better suited for those since he can carry them (without penalty thanks to cheap strengh) and can even dare to fire them unbraced (again cheap strengh for Bulgin Biceps). Have i (and others) not mentioned before that this is his job?

The way you describe how easy it is to 'always' have enough Basic and Heavy ammo ready would make me as another GM wonder where you are playing and how stupid your adversaries are. Not to mention how lenient the (local) Arbites are about the collateral damage your group is causing since you seem to always a heavy weapon with you.

Now, if you'll excuse me i have to take an aspirin and report myself to the Mods for my rude comment.

Surrealistik said:

Per the rules as written, you can't dodge or parry on your turn (since Reactions can only be spent when it's not your turn). So if the opportunity attack hits, it hits. And since you can't even do it without the Hip Shooting Talent, and you can't use Manstopper Rounds with a shotgun pistol, you'll do feck all damage. Even with Mighty Shot and the Talents to aim for the head without penalty, you're still only doing d10-1 damage against a Kill Squad Trooper or d10-2 against a Gun Servitor, let alone a serious opponent.

Hid he just say called shots on full auto?.... er, no chance (DH, p198)

And an Assassin with an Autocannon? Hmmm... Im with Segara82 here (and im fairly sure most of the rest of us are too).

Or is there going to be some "Assassins should have cheap strength progression" argument beginning here, so they can actually carry the **** thing and its ammo? (55kg!!). The previous argument that "Assassins can instagib anyone with an Autocannon better than others" is a waste of time.... ANYONE with an autocannon, the skill to use it and a reasonable BS is gonna be proper scary.

Whilst it may have started off on a reasonable premise, this thread has got WAY out of hand...

S.K.

He also said firing full auto into combat to offset the difficulties of firing into melee. Clearly your GM is being VERY kind to not use the optional rule on page 196.

As a GM, if one of my players' characters tried to get an autocannon, I (and his/her Inquisitor) would begin to doubt said character's sanity.

bogi_khaosa said:

I've done pretty well to keep out of this once I said I would, so I'll keep this short. It seems apparent from Surreal's posts that he and his group don't proscribe to most things 'situational'. They don't play DH (primarily) as an investigative or secretive adventure. They obviously tend to load up with whatever weapons they want and slug it out with enemies in ranged firefights. They are more of a "cleanse & purge" mop-up acolyte group.

This is certainly one way to play DH, don't get me wrong and Surreal I'm not bashing on you or your group. However, it is obvious that the majority of people here (or at least ones posting) play a different type of DH game. We have more investigation, and more restrictions from our GM. Our groups need to remain low-key for the first half (or more) of the adventures while we investigate and identify the heretics, before (or even if) we attempt to apprehend or eliminate them. While for you 'situational' is a rare occurance, for many of us 'situational' is actually 'usual'. In your campaign it is obvious that ranged weapons are king because you have almost no roleplaying restrictions. Sure, if you can carry as much ammo as you want, and meet enemies at long ranges, and can carry around an arsenal of weapons and autocannons without anyone batting an eye ... duh, yes ranged weapons will be better and there is no reason not to load up on the most powerful ranged weapons that you can.

However, many of us posted that our campaigns are not so free-form. We have an investigative and 'low-key' portion of adventures where our characters can't be toting around heavy firepower all the time, don't have access to planetary armories, etc. The 'situations' that we are pointing out, that you are dismissing as infrequent (for you) are actually quite prevalent for us. Thus, it makes sense that we find melee much more reasonable and on-par with ranged weapons than you do. For your group, yes you are correct that melee probably isn't worth it. For us, however, it is. Thus, a blanket statement about ranged weapons being better than melee weapons must be false. In some campaigns this statement is true, but in others it isn't. It really depends on how the campaign/adventure is run.

Ouch, now that has to hurt. I mean so much stupidity ... or maybe you can't feel it because of it.

Yes, that was an insult, i'm clearly in violation of the usual code of civilty, but that last argument was too much.

Autocannon?

What kind of DH are you running when it is appropriate for your PCs to bring something like that? A 'little' Tank-Hunt?

Instances where we can potentially expect to fight things like Chaos Space Marines and Daemons.

Autocannons (or other heavy weapons) and stealth? Only till the first shot, then the half the hive knows where you are.

Not to mention: why, for Holy Terra's sake, should an Assassin use said Autocannon (or other heavy weapons)? The Guardsmen is far better suited for those since he can carry them (without penalty thanks to cheap strengh) and can even dare to fire them unbraced (again cheap strengh for Bulgin Biceps). Have i (and others) not mentioned before that this is his job?

Autocannon is actually quite managable with the Assassin if you have sufficiently high base Strength and/or Toughness. Purchasing a Toughness advance or two isn't a bad idea either. Yes, you don't get Bulging Biceps, but that talent is a joke when you consider how completely devastating Heavy Weapons are when properly braced. Taking a -20 penalty to hit each round you remain unbraced on your Full Auto just sucks royally.

The way you describe how easy it is to 'always' have enough Basic and Heavy ammo ready would make me as another GM wonder where you are playing and how stupid your adversaries are. Not to mention how lenient the (local) Arbites are about the collateral damage your group is causing since you seem to always a heavy weapon with you.

Now, if you'll excuse me i have to take an aspirin and report myself to the Mods for my rude comment.

Rifle bullets are cheap. Very cheap. Heavy bullets are equally cheap. Both are extremely easy to find and accessible. Rifle bullets furthermore weigh very little. Second, many of our combats do not take place in a hive or space ship. When they do, our weapon choices are obviously more restrained.

Per the rules as written, you can't dodge or parry on your turn (since Reactions can only be spent when it's not your turn). So if the opportunity attack hits, it hits. And since you can't even do it without the Hip Shooting Talent, and you can't use Manstopper Rounds with a shotgun pistol, you'll do feck all damage. Even with Mighty Shot and the Talents to aim for the head without penalty, you're still only doing d10-1 damage against a Kill Squad Trooper or d10-2 against a Gun Servitor, let alone a serious opponent.

True, I did overlook that. Still, taking one hit to reliably attack with a +30 point blank bonus is not a bad trade at all when it comes to a Scatter weapon, especially with something like a Meathammer. You don't really need Manstopper Penetration when you do sufficient raw damage. 5.5 - 1/2 damage isn't bad at all when it applies several times over. Further, if you make an Acrobatics test or partial Move as a Half Action, you can bring some pretty devastating, and relatively cheap single shot basic weapons to bear, like a Meltagun, Meathammer and Flamer. Again, even if you take the hit, it's often worth it.

Hid he just say called shots on full auto?.... er, no chance (DH, p198)

And an Assassin with an Autocannon? Hmmm... Im with Segara82 here (and im fairly sure most of the rest of us are too).

Or is there going to be some "Assassins should have cheap strength progression" argument beginning here, so they can actually carry the **** thing and its ammo? (55kg!!). The previous argument that "Assassins can instagib anyone with an Autocannon better than others" is a waste of time.... ANYONE with an autocannon, the skill to use it and a reasonable BS is gonna be proper scary.

Whilst it may have started off on a reasonable premise, this thread has got WAY out of hand...

S.K.

The point is that Assassins can do it far better than the average Guardsman, and sooner. It's not a 'waste of time' because having that stealthy first strike against an oblivious target is huge. Huge enough to be significant when contrasting the weapon being used by someone with basic proficiency and ability. This way, the time required to set up is not truly an impediment, and you get a massive bonus to hit because you generally set up within close range of the target, and he's unaware of you. No dodge, and +60 to hit (Surprise + Close Range + Full Auto). Huge. Massive.

Also with respect to called shot penalties, I am referring to the penalties for firing into Melee. Full-auto negates them. The rule that makes this potentially dangerous is completely optional, but even if it were enforced, the penalties are mitigated.

This is certainly one way to play DH, don't get me wrong and Surreal I'm not bashing on you or your group. However, it is obvious that the majority of people here (or at least ones posting) play a different type of DH game. We have more investigation, and more restrictions from our GM. Our groups need to remain low-key for the first half (or more) of the adventures while we investigate and identify the heretics, before (or even if) we attempt to apprehend or eliminate them. While for you 'situational' is a rare occurance, for many of us 'situational' is actually 'usual'. In your campaign it is obvious that ranged weapons are king because you have almost no roleplaying restrictions. Sure, if you can carry as much ammo as you want, and meet enemies at long ranges, and can carry around an arsenal of weapons and autocannons without anyone batting an eye ... duh, yes ranged weapons will be better and there is no reason not to load up on the most powerful ranged weapons that you can.

Silenced solid projectile weapons even in cases where stealth is required is often better than melee. The only exception is when your opponents have extraordinarily high toughness and armour, which tends to be pretty rare in investigations (cultists are exactly the best armoured and toughest opponents), so even then the utility of melee is situational and questionable. My games have their own fair share of investigation, and full auto silenced pistols work far better than chain/power swords.