Should there be STR and AGL limits placed on weapons and armor? (e.g. you need a 45 STR to wield a bolt pistol, 40 AGL to wield a chain sword, 45 STR to wear carapace) I feel this would limit the min-ing and maxing of weapons and add diversity to characters (so is everyone carrying a bolt pistol and wearing carapace armor?).

And I do realize I should have used their instead of there in the title.

I like the basic concept.

The idea actually came up once already in the Inquisitor's Handbook, with a bolt pistol that took a certain amount of minimum SB (think it was 4) to use without a penalty. I was a little sad to see that (afaik) it never came up again after FFG took over the line.

There's quite a bit of potential in such a mechanic, especially when it comes to heavy weapons where you could say something like "get SB 6 somehow and you can Brace without something to prop it up on". Or better yet, "Bracing" could then become an action valid for all Basic and Heavy weapons in that if you do it, it lowers the SB requirement to operate that ranged weapon without penalty by 2, so characters who are somehow too flimsy to use a voltgun could prop it on a sandbag or window to circumvent the issue.

Adding diversity ?

It seems more that it would reduce it. Take a bolt pistol for example. Players are going to run up against foes where las/SP weapons are ineffective. So they want stronger weapons. Which means that they are going to push up strength in order to wield the weapons they want to use. So you lose the low strength characters who want to carry bolt weapons.

Then there is the issue of making sense. I'm assuming the reason for the strength requirement on guns is recoil. An SP weapons bullet gets all its momentum from the gunpowder charge. It's killing power comes from its mass and the velocity it's doing when it hits the target. A bolt gets some of its momentum from the launch charge, more from the rocket motor in every single bolt. While its speed is important, its killing power also comes from the bolt exploding.

Thus bolt weapons are going to have less recoil than SP weapons, meaning a lower strength requirement. Plasma and melta weapons, possibly much less. None on las weapons, including heavy las weapons.

Is strength even the right characteristic ?

The strength/toughness differentiation seems to be that strength is used to physically affect things around the character, toughness to resist things affecting you. Recoil is something you'd want to resist, so toughness would be used to resist recoil.

Carrying capacity already takes care of "you must be this strong to carry this gun".

How do you justify agility requirements on chain weapons ?

In some systems I could see it as "you need to be this skilled to use this weapon". But agility doesn't represent skill with melee weapons in DH. Weapon skill does.

Maybe a strength requirement for lifting the melee weapon high enough to use it. But we already have carrying capacity.

All good points, and something that should be taken into consideration when further fleshing out the concept.

That being said ... the diversity issue comes down to just how high you'd set these requirements, and for which weapons. SB 4 for the bolt weapon in the Inquisitor's Handbook, for example, seemed reasonable. It's a scant 5-10 points above the normal starting characteristic (30ish), and something you could even compensate with powered armour ... or the "Brace" action, as I suggested above.

Also, you could potentially use various upgrades to ease the requirements so that weaker characters would "only" have to deal with additional Requisitioning and "wasting" an upgrade slot if they absolutely do want to go for a weapon they'd otherwise be too frail to use reliably.

On a sidenote, rather than just recoil, I'd also see it more as generally lugging that gun around, aiming with it. A lot of the weapons in 40k seem to be "supersized" and probably not easy to handle if you don't have the arms for it.

This would not only explain the penalty (if it were recoil, your first shot shouldn't be affected) and make it far easier to balance the guns (lasguns aren't that big, but plasma and melta weapons look quite a bit heavier!), but even allow the same requirements to be attached to melee weapons, essentially using Strength to first "unlock" the full potential of your Weapon Skill with a particularly heavy weapon such as an Eviscerator.

Yes, we already have carrying capacity, but just because you're able to schlepp something around doesn't necessarily mean that you're able to apply your WS/BS 100% to it. Rather, carry capacity would mean that you can use it at all -- with a penalty, if you're too weak.

Plus, I think a lot of groups tend to discard CC anyways as it's too much bookkeeping ...

I agree that Agility should probably best left out of the equation, though -- other than armour lowering it, kind of like DH2 already does by RAW.

I put the agility component on the chain sword to represent the players ability to not chop their own limbs off. I could see using weapon skill also or have two requirements, agility and weapon skill. I came up with this after looking at the alien weapons and trying figure out how a player is going to pick up an Ork chopa or wield a kroot gun without double joints (and the problems of letting a player get a Tau pulse rifle). The bolter example was because of the bulkyness factor but could also apply to hand cannons and such.

What problem are you trying to solve with these changes, exactly?

What problem are you trying to solve with these changes, exactly?

I feel this would limit the min-ing and maxing of weapons and add diversity to characters (so is everyone carrying a bolt pistol and wearing carapace armor?).

So you're trying to increase diversity of certain equipment choices by reducing the number of characters who can use them, rather than address the reason people are choosing them in the first place (i.e. they are objectively better options)?

I put the agility component on the chain sword to represent the players ability to not chop their own limbs off.

Here I'd just take the Eviscerator from DH1 as an example, where a "Jam" (roll of 96-100 on the WS Test) would threaten the wielder. Though the player would still get to make an Agility Test to avert harming him- or herself.

But I'm not sure if I'd actually advise to apply this rule to any melee weapon rather than just the unwieldy Eviscerator. It sounds pretty punishing, and melee combat doesn't need further disincentives. However, perhaps in combination with the Strength requirement ...? So that if you're strong enough, you wouldn't have to fear losing control of your weapon.

This way, you could even re-introduce the Eviscerator mechanic into DH2 (where it was made safer to use), and simply give it a high Str requirement where it'd become safe like it is by current RAW.

None on las weapons, including heavy las weapons.

Lasers do actually have calculable recoil (photons carry some momentum), though presumably too little to matter. Aside from that, the laser might heat up the air along its path, causing it to expand. This could then conceivably push on the barrel and feel like recoil to the user.

Aside from that, the laser might heat up the air along its path, causing it to expand. This could then conceivably push on the barrel and feel like recoil to the user.

Yeah, I recall this was how "lasgun recoil" was explained at least in a few novels I read.

I have a feeling it'd be negligible, but ... rule of cool, etc.

I have a feeling it'd be negligible, but ... rule of cool, etc.

And if any setting favors rule of cool over real-world physics, it is the 40K setting.

For las weaponry, I imagine most of the Str requirement is less to do with recoil as it is the actual weight and bulk of the weapon. Even a Space Marine has to carry a Lascannon on his shoulder; normal guys shove them around on little carts; they're not made of feathers!

Though that's only true for the lascannon, and applies to any heavy weapon. I believe it was the batteries that were so heavy; a mechanised Imperial Guard weapons team has one guy carry the cannon and the other the ammunition (like with some recoilless rifles ), whereas a Space Marine just puts the latter on their back.

Though that's only true for the lascannon, and applies to any heavy weapon. I believe it was the batteries that were so heavy; a mechanised Imperial Guard weapons team has one guy carry the cannon and the other the ammunition (like with some recoilless rifles ), whereas a Space Marine just puts the latter on their back.

Whilst this may be true, it doesn't invalidate my point A lascannon might have a relatively low Str requirement compared to other heavy weapons that do have recoil, but it should still have a higher one than its little brothers (lasrifle, long-las, etc.) and a higher one than most basic recoiled weapons.

Whilst this may be true, it doesn't invalidate my point A lascannon might have a relatively low Str requirement compared to other heavy weapons that do have recoil, but it should still have a higher one than its little brothers (lasrifle, long-las, etc.) and a higher one than most basic recoiled weapons.

Okay, you also mentioned las weaponry in general, so I thought you were arguing that a lasgun would be heavier than a bolter or something.

I'm not sure whether a lascannon is truly heavier than the other heavy weapons. Compared to the mortar, it's most certainly true. The heavy bolter would be debatable, especially once you add the ammunition to it. It certainly looks more unwieldy due to its size, but ... now we're getting to the "interpretation" bit in regards to what metal (if any!) they're made of.

I'm not sure whether a lascannon is truly heavier than the other heavy weapons.

Whether it's heavier or not is moot for the purpose of STR requirement. A STR requirement represents the difficulty of wielding it effectively without the requisite Strength. Whether that requisite Strength is to lift the dead-weight of the weapon or resist the recoil or whatever else, is beside the point.

I think we're arguing past each other -- the only thing I wanted to point out are that I don't think a lasgun is heavier than a bolter, or even an autogun. With the lascannon, I actually misread your earlier post and thought you were saying it'd be heavier than the other heavy weapons, prompting a "not sure about that" response.

So you're trying to increase diversity of certain equipment choices by reducing the number of characters who can use them, rather than address the reason people are choosing them in the first place (i.e. they are objectively better options)?

I think this is the meat of the issue. Every campaign is a race to ditch your lasgun and acquire a bolt or plasma weapon as fast as possible, with a suit of power armor and a power sword to boot. Most characters that are possible in these game lines would probably have very little access to weaponry, and would stick with what they have for long periods of time.

Look at Eisenhorn, for example. He never had power armor, let alone the Acolytes in his service. Most of them had shotguns, las pistols, and the like - doing plenty fine with just those weapons. Plasma/Power/Melta and even Bolt weapons should be so prohibitively expensive or hard to acquire that really only an Inquisitor could feasibly get them.

Plasma/Power/Melta and even Bolt weapons should be so prohibitively expensive or hard to acquire that really only an Inquisitor could feasibly get them.

But ... it doesn't make a lot of sense for an Inquisitor, who can requisition anything from a small revolver to a Naval battleship, to not kit out their warband with the best gear possible under the circumstances. I think it would be pretty silly if Inquisitorial operatives were outgunned by hive gangers wielding bolters and plasma guns like they do on Necromunda!

The setting itself should already cater to the differing mindsets by way of the different operational methods employed by the various Inquisitors. Some are more cloak and dagger, and if your group agrees on preferring a low-key approach - where arms and armour more subtle than the stuff people would expect on a Space Marine would play a role in maintaining their cover - then that's totally fine. And if the players want to rawk around with heavier guns, there's the militant approach, which is entirely valid as well and brings with it a set of different challenges.

Really, it should come down to what the players actually want.

I think the problem is that there is no mechanical benefit to making 'characterful' equipment choices rather than just powergaming.

In the Black Library novel that came out in support of DH1 (back in the day), there was a scene where a newly recruited Acolyte (obviously a Scummer) was offered a choice of weapons from an Inquisitor's personal armoury, and he earns the party leader's approval by choosing a reliable Stub Revolver rather than a flashy bolt- or plasma pistol- a completely idiotic (bordering on suicidal) choice in the actual game. And Kal Jericho's signature twin laspistols are, statistically, joke weapons in WH40KRP .

The only push-back against this that I'm coming up with at the moment would be to create Talents that improve specific weapons and armour (like Weapon Specialization in D&D ), so that non-optimal equipment chosen for being in keeping with a PC's style could be made statistically viable.

But, yeah, something that rewards characterfulness over raw statistical superiority is sorely needed...

But, yeah, something that rewards characterfulness over raw statistical superiority is sorely needed...

Hmmm...I don't know. There's something to be said for taking an "underdog" weapon (stub revolver, laspistol, etc.) and still being a complete badass with it, certainly, but I don't know that you need a reward for it (i.e. weapon specific talents or the like). Sure you can take a more powerful gun and be better, but who's going to have the better reputation? The guy who takes down all comers with a poxy laspistol or the guy that "needs" a bolter? Introducing a "reward" for less powerful equipment runs counter to the whole "I'm amazing 'cos I only use crappy gear and still win" reputation thing and also limits or pigeon-holes characters into only using the weapon they've specialised in.

Talents improving a weapon's physical properties (apart from something like a conditional BS/WS bonus because you've Mastered a specific weapon by using it for a very long time) don't sound very realistic, and as if they'd defeat their own raison d'etre. As Jolly P already alluded to, if you want to make a lasgun just as good as a bolter, why have different weapon profiles to begin with, rather than just a general one coupled with entirely cosmetic appearances?

I think there are narrative benefits to choosing different weapons, though, one of which I've already alluded to in the previous post.

By picking a lasgun rather than plasma or bolter, you would:

• be a lot less conspicuous ("Hey, look at that guy. Must be rich. Not from around here, huh?")
• have a much easier time acquiring reloads ("You're looking for bolt ammunition? Well, ma'am ... I know a craftsman in the lower district who might be able to help you, but it's going to take a few days.")

Yet this is also a topic that affects the entire group, so it should be discussed on that basis. If everyone laments the loss of character in the damage race, then there is the option for a more covert operation where they simply should not afford to run around with fancy stuff.

But if it's just you ... well, if you are that new Acolyte in the novel, and you deliberately pick an arguably weaker gun, then you might have the respect (or the silent amusement) of the rest of the established team. But you should certainly not expect your shots to be as devastating as those from the one with the plasma pistol.

And Dark Heresy is actually still biased towards your preference in this comparison, for plasma pistols should hurt more than they do here (the difference in raw damage being a whopping 3 points).

Personally, if I were a GM, I'd try to throw the team into different situations to keep them on their toes. Some where they can go "all out" with all the fancy stuff they've collected, and some where they need to keep their heads low and not attract any undue attraction. This way, there's also a reason for Acolytes to keep their first weapons around as "backup" rather than discarding them entirely.

Having different aliases should play an important role in a covert campaign, and these aliases need different weapons that would suit to what you want to portray!

create Talents that improve specific weapons and armour (like Weapon Specialization in D&D )

something that rewards characterfulness over raw statistical superiority is sorely needed...

You've chosen a terrible example to make your point. Weapon Specialization in D&D is a flat math bonus that is, depending on the edition, mandatory for martial classes or highly recommended in order to be effective in combat without actually adding any interesting mechanics.

The lesson of D&D is that math bonuses (or fixes, depending on how you look at it) are boring and that narrative control (in D&D, magic) is interesting. To make use of this lesson, a game should have equipment choices that have different narrative impacts, rather than a mathematical tier with clear best and worst choices.

By picking a lasgun rather than plasma or bolter, you would:

• be a lot less conspicuous ("Hey, look at that guy. Must be rich. Not from around here, huh?")
• have a much easier time acquiring reloads ("You're looking for bolt ammunition? Well, ma'am ... I know a craftsman in the lower district who might be able to help you, but it's going to take a few days.")

In my own campaign, these two things have proven more than adequate to keep most of the PC's using SP and melee weapons most of the time.