Having run two campaigns in Dark Heresy, what is concerning is that despite having the Inquisitors Handbook and its collections of guns, and providing weapons for use, my parties have all pretty much bought the same weapons.

Armaggedon Autoguns with manstoppers

Normal Autoguns with manstoppers

Orthlac mk 4 pistols with manstoppers

Does anyone else have this happen in their games? Do you do anything to encourage them to use different weapons? I realise better weapons exist, but they are mostly prohibitively expensive.

It's because these weapons epitomize a powergaming tactic with a compromise to cost of ammunition. Especially the Armageddon pattern autogun with manstoppers. The manstoppers beef up the Pen value, while at the same time being pretty inexpensive, and the Armageddon itself provides a nice auto-fire function along with a decent clip size.

Sure a bolter would've done more damage and had more pen, BUT at 16 thrones per bolt it will shrink the contents of the PC's wallets pretty fast.

If you want your players to do something different, just tell them to stop powergaming. Or just send really big nasty monsters their way that will laugh their ass off at their puny autoguns with Manstopper rounds.

Well, I reguladed their guns a bit, and left the rest to their own imagination.

The guardsman has (had) a spectre and a bolt pistol, both gained in game after being the victim of the weapons

Our resident Moritat does not use a gun, though she has seen an Harlequin in action a now craves a Kiss

The Psyker has a flamepistol and a bolt pistol

The Adept has a Fatebringer with special ammo

The techpriest actually bodged his gun together in neigh heretical style, it is still in the so so period and only works half of the time, its a compact twin-linked hellgun.
Perhaps when he has time to improve it I'll grant it the new "Storm" special ability...
Though that is beast is mighty hungry...

Any time that I GM I always limit what the players are able to carry, not unlike gun laws here in the states. Only real difference is Guardsmen, if they can justify how they have the kit then no issue except how they resupply. And I don't think I have ever made it easy for players to gain access to black or grey market weapons or ammo (which is where I put all but basic ammo).

All that causes players to use both books for their kit.

In my online games where I am a player, as well as a GM, we don't have repetition at all. The only thing we nearly all have is Normal Main Rulebook bolt pistols. Other than that, I have a best-quality mono sword and so does the group's Noble. Hmm, there's nothing else I know about. We're not power-gaming to the extreme. We have our quirks and traits, simply making it handier and easier, but we're not going nuts on the best stuff only.

Well, after "why is this happening" has already been stated... is that really that bad? They all go for the same gun. The one that "gives them the most for their gelt".

I do not mean to sound offensive, but "so what?"

If your game is combat-oriented, it had to happen sooner or later.
If it is not...does it matter?

Gregorius21778 said:

Well, in a away it does. It's not that great roleplayingwise when the player characters act like they know the rules of the RPG. Sure if the characters are the type of people that know a lot about weapons they would opt for an effective firearm. BUT many weapons in DH are described as being effective and the "tool for a pro", fluffwise even if they aren't all equally good ruleswise.

So the way it looks is that the players are abusing the rules in favor of roleplaying their characters. That's why it could matter a LOT...

Varnias Tybalt said:

First I would say, it stands to argue if they are really abusing any rules. In my opinion, they are using them. The weapons are (ruleswise) penetration, damage, range, rate of fire, weight, durability and clip size. All of this can be easly seized up if you know how to handle a gun and go on a shooting range. In the 41st, a lot of people know how to handle a gun. And if they can count, it is not "rpg-heresy" if there pc decided that they do not have the coin to feed a bolter. A lot of logistics and/or pro´s of REAL professional forces came to the same conclusion (and are thereby wearing indentical weapons) without having ever seen any "rolebook for real life".

But let´s say you are right and I am wrong. Is this "abuse" that big that one should start a discussion with the gamers about it and start to introduce house rules/ house limitations for not allowing them to carry identical guns? One that will make them feel "rail roaded" (deserving or not?). After all, how does the role playing experience in the game benefit from arguing with your players about the way/reasons they bought/use their guns?

I think even if this is an "abuse", the "cure" would be more harmfull then the disease is.

Well, in my game the Armaggedon is the size of a LMG/SAW with a 7.62x51mm caliber. These are hard to hide and are not the subtle types of weapon. In fact they are clearly weapons of war and heavily restricted outside warzones, thus everyone carrying one would be heavily scrutinized by the local Magistratum.

Man-stopper rounds are hard to get by. Only my groups Assassin almost regularly gets a few rounds for his Hunting Rifle by the local Sons of Dispater guild house.

I do not really need to encourage my players to use different weapons (only my groups Arbitrator and Assassin sometimes tend to exploit a little) as they use the full spectrum of weapons more or less. Even then, most of my players are wielding pistols most of the time, as the ranges in most fire-fights are often rather short and they are easier to hide in the investigative undercover missions they are mostly on.

Crimsonsphinx said:

I understand why those are chosen. My group is the opposite, except for a few basic weapons they all have different types and models.

Psyker has Ironclaw, Sniper has long las and stub auto, Scum has the autopistol and a Cleaver of all things. .. etc. Their only common equipment are the silenced good quality autoguns they've looted from enemies. Since 3 of 5 players have constant access to Inquisitor's Handbook I'm amazed they haven't power-gamed up their characters more, although I think this is more fun.

Try to encourage the players to chose weapons and other gear from what they find and encounter in the game. You could enhance the coolness of weapons - for example the scum uses a best quality autopistol looted from a criminal that used it to blow two people apart with headshots, one being a fellow PCs - even though he would get a much better weapon by selling the autopistol and buying a normal version of a better autopistol.

I've also allowed a Cleaver (from Illumination) to attain a degree of holiness after taking out a demon - even though the weapon is seriously underpowered (1d10+2) for a two-hander compared to the Great Weapon the scum still lugs it around.

I never said it was a bad thing, I am just worried about a lack of variety. Sure I limit enemies to basic weapons from the rulebook, unless they are important, simply for ease of gaming and book keeping.

Ammunition tends not to be an issue in my style of games. Most players buy three spare clips [or there abouts] at the start, and still have plenty of ammunition left by the end of the story [often 6 to 8 sessions] I don't do much in the way of combat. So I guess I would prefer it if my players chose weapons on a different basis than effectiveness alone, unless said character would know.

Eg I have no problem at all with a Metalican gunslinger buying the best pistols. That makes sense in his line of work. But what would an adept or cleric know? Unless the gunslinger or someone else in the know went shopping with him.

Crimsonsphinx said:

Well unless your players happen to be in the right place at the right time it could be difficult to aquire enough of these kinds of weapon. They may not be overly rare, at least not in Hives, but that doesen't necessarily mean they come off the rack in the local gun store. And unless one PC with high Inquiry does all the shopping, most characters have difficulty succeeding at the tests to get the gear they want.

Gregorius21778 said:

Depends on your point of view i suppose.

Personally i despair at the apparent proliferation of essentially the 'skirmish wargame' approach to Dark Heresy, as evidenced by the endless 'gun threads' here.

However the OP has a point...and here's for me where that point REALLy sticks in the craw...

What are the iconic weapons of 40k?

Boltguns and lasguns.

THESE are the weapons everyone should want.

The OP should have lamented that everyone uses either boltguns or lasguns...this is 40K after all! But he can't because they don't...

The fact that neither of these weapons seem to get much use (with the autogun/manstopper combo being basically an irresistable no-brainer to combat-focussed players) says to me, yet again, that the designers REALLY stuffed up on the weapons design and combat rules...

Ah well...

So...why do players always use the same guns? Because they are the best options available so why wouldn't they?

I will try to address some points made here.

As GM, I normally allow the party of players to buy anything they can afford at the start, provided their character realistically can carry it and they bother to write into their background why they have anything especially rare and/or unlikely. My games are typically based around investigation, researching and infiltration, with bits of combat. More Mission Impossible than Rambo if you will

Noone has ever had to buy ammunition beyond purchases at the start in any games I have run. I simply don't have that much combat. Usually most people buy 3 spare clips or there abouts for their primary weapon, and often only a single clip for any secondary weapons. Noone has ever had to buy extra ammunition. If there is one encounter per session involving fighting [thats been planned by me anyway] then that is very rare. Less than 1/5th of my gaming sessions are involving combat.

People do use autoguns because they are very effective for the money. On a rare occasion someone carrys a lasgun as a backup for their autogun, but thats because it has a 60 round rechargeable capacity in a clip. Perhaps on desert/death worlds, with no ammunition supply, people would use las weapons more often.

Noone would dream of owning a bolter. Even noble characters would rather buy a 'Geddon and soup it up with fire selectors, grips, red dots etc. I think thats quite sad personally

I even placed a bolter in one of my games for the group to find. With some ammunition, and they still decided to sell it off, going into a lot of effort for the scum to find a fence who would deal with such weapons. The running joke is using a boltgun is like plugging your credit card into it, bleeding you dry in a couple of shots. Having looked at the bolt weapons, the strength 6 bolt pistol is definately a nice bit of kit. I would certainly consider it if I were a player, but I have not been one since having the IH.

What concerns me is a much more powerful weapon, like a plasma or melta pistol/gun has vastly cheaper ammunition. Something like 20 times cheaper. Sure the gun is a lot more expensive, but players don't tend to see things like that.

Also, everyone, has a mono edged sword. Im not bothered about that, but its just a point to make

Crimsonsphinx said:

Really sad, I agree. Especially because having weapons with extremely expensive ammunition let's you have that noble smugness about the fact that each pull of the trigger blow so much money away it could buy a hundred more clips of additional ammo for the more poor PC's in the group.

(said the man whose Noble PC use a Kayher Addin Duelling Las, a Custom mauler bolt pistol and a cathechist pattern stake crossbow for which the ammo costs 50 thrones a pop )

Oh and remember! Nobles fire their weapons with their pinky stretched out.

@Luddite

What are the iconic weapons of 40k?

Boltguns and lasguns.

THESE are the weapons everyone should want.

The OP should have lamented that everyone uses either boltguns or lasguns...this is 40K after all! But he can't because they don't...

The fact that neither of these weapons seem to get much use (with the autogun/manstopper combo being basically an irresistable no-brainer to combat-focussed players) says to me, yet again, that the designers REALLY stuffed up on the weapons design and combat rules...

Actually, both of these weapon types are exactly the way the background material makes them out to be - bolters are what you use when money is no concern and something needs to die, period. I expect them to see a lot more action in Rogue Trader.
As for lasguns, they're a guardsman's weapon. In our Imperial Guard campaign, with its permanently nightmarish logistics, I've fired my reliable 3 shot burst long after my autogun-wielding groupmates started angsting over every single bullet.

@OP

It's all about choosing the right tool for the right job. In campaigns with very infrequent and comparably harmless combat, the Armageddon is obviously the best weapon. In more combat-heavy campaigns, its limited ammo capacity generally proves to be its downfall.

For limited use SP weapons tend to be more effective than Las weapons. On the other hand, as i drastictly demonstrated to my first group, Las weapons do not need further supplies during longer operations. For the IG not having to transport another cubic ton of ammo to another planet is a lot of saved energy/manpower/ressources. Even for PCs with an Enginseer in the group Las weapons proof their worth when they are on a not so civilised planet for some time since he can recharge the batteries while just getting enough bullets for one autorifle clip can become a comlicated task.

Not to mention: very few Las Weapons have the Full Auto fire, shooting longer while Autoguns run out of ammo after 4 rounds, while not dealing much more damage (since most bullets miss unless you have a lot of boni). Some may not consider this noteworthy, but make 'em count bullets for a few evenings and they should notice how much really hits.

As for the bolt-weapons: just watch the guy with the Plasmagun incinerating himself due to overheating, while the Melta-shooter still has to run a few rounds to get his targets into range. For me, there is no weapons superior to the other, but maybe that's why i make Bolt-ammo cost only half of the listed price. Put it's in a better comparison to the Plasma- and Melta-ammo.

My guys pick auto over las on most days for one reason and one reason only:

By the rules you need full auto in order to use supressive fire.

DocIII said:

Yes, those rules are pretty wierd. I mean look at the long-las for example. It is the Imperial guard equivalent of a sniper rifle, and in the military snipers usually perform two roles: marksmanship AND troop supression.

If you know that there's a sniper in the area, you take cover and stay pinned in order to not getting hit. Perhaps we need a house rule for sniper weapons? Letting them use their own form of supressive fire and perhaps provide a penalty for targets when they try to aviod pinning?

Varnias Tybalt said:

I don't know if any house rull is needed exactly. They are two different kinds of supresion; one through brute force fear and the second through common sense. One stands little chance of actualy hitting the character and, as such, needs an additinal mechanic to make characters duck their heads down where as the other has, usualy, quite a good chance of hitting and, since the upgrade to accurate, a good chance of really putting the hurt on them prompting those who want to survive to seak cover.

Graver said:

That's a fair point. If you can't see what's shooting at you, and you're being hit hard from somewhere, it'd seem best to find cover and work around the situation. At least, that's how I'd roleplay a character (characters with insanities like Invulnerability excluded of course)

I was considering running a game on a world with very limited modern technology, so people would buy different weapons that were not so ammunition hungry. The problem I would then have is players would moan that it was too much like WFRP which we also play.

I like the expensive rounds for bolters. I think they are a really good weapon, but 15 thrones a shot is just a bit too much for me to stomach. Maybe 10 might be more acceptable. I was considering having players be able to buy subsidised bolt rounds through the inquisition, or indeed be provided a set amount of them free if they purchased a bolter.

However limited ammunition purchasing ability will also put off players from equiping themselves with a gun that has a tiny clip and expensive rounds which are hard to come by.

If you set it on a low tech but they got to keep a certain amount of ammo then most combat would with very low tech weapons but they would feel like kings when they actually shoot something (or they fire off all their ammo early and are reduced to hitting things for the rest of the adventure).

I've got pretty loose requisition rules in my game. In the Inquisition hq they had to go through hoops for a limited supply of ammo (if he uses more he'll have ot pay for it) and with the help of someone who has very good inquiry and barter he got 6 on a naval warship although we weren't to question 'how far he would go for 6 bolt shells'.

Crimsonsphinx said:

Considering the real world analogy that Bolters are based on (the gyrojet gun), the ammunition is not at all too expensive.

Varnias Tybalt said:

However if you want people to be encouraged to use a bolter, the price is too high. Especially compared to a flask of plasma or melta gun ammunition.