Then it goes on to say what you said. Let's not cherry pick quotes shall we?

You're right, in my haste I quoted only part of the rule. I wasn't trying to cherry-pick anything. Mostly I just wanted to correct your assertion that you can roll higher than the maximum value on a die (note how the book defines a d5).

The rest of it was mostly pointing out that the whole exercise was rather pointless, as you don't compare the performance of an unskilled combatant with a good weapon to your expert assassin with the objectively worst weapon in the game.

Personally, I'm all for having tiered weapon lists (40k is particularly suited for it), but trap options, like weapons that exist solely so one can't say "daggers don't exist in DH2," are utterly pointless and bad game design.

Sure, it only deals 1d5 damage, but Strength Bonus counteracts Toughness Bonus and do you really think a bog-standard Knife should easily be able to penetrate "hard" armours like carapace and feudal plate?

SB will only ever get you so far, though. Assuming you've got an average guy with SB3 getting into conflict with a Rambo-type opponent of TB4, possibly even 5. Even a simple robe will give him +1 AP on top of that, for a total of 5 or 6 damage reduction. That means the attacker would have to roll at least a 3 (60% chance) or a 4 (40% chance) on the d5 to inflict even a single(!) Wound.

In my opinion, that just doesn't reflect what a knife can do, even if wielded by someone who isn't an elite assassin with decades of training. Donning flak armour practically makes one immune from getting stabbed, apparently.

The ability to replace a damage die helps somewhat, but I remain convinced that knives should still be more dangerous.

Melee weapons would be a lot more useful if SB was used as part of a weapons AP. (e.g. Sword AP=SB (mono takes away primitive quality adds +2 AP) , Chain blade AP=SB+2, Two handed chain ax AP=2xSB)

The rest of it was mostly pointing out that the whole exercise was rather pointless, as you don't compare the performance of an unskilled combatant with a good weapon to your expert assassin with the objectively worst weapon in the game.

The same sort of thing applies on the reverse; the unskilled guy with a good weapon will do a lot of damage if he hits, but that's the crux of the matter "if". He's unloading with BS:30, which is good for 2, maybe 3 DoS. Then the veteran gets to Evade. If he's a combat-focused vet, then he's likely got a decent Agility and a respectable Dodge, giving him a damned good chance of simply avoiding the hit altogether. The unskilled guy doesn't have that luxury. Sure he could get lucky, I suppose, but I wouldn't fancy his chances.

Personally, I'm all for having tiered weapon lists (40k is particularly suited for it), but trap options, like weapons that exist solely so one can't say "daggers don't exist in DH2," are utterly pointless and bad game design.

I think we've had this discussion about "bad game design" before and I know we don't see eye-to-eye on it, but I'm of the opinion that putting in an option to make a knife, objectively a worse weapon than pretty much anything else that's actually designed to be a weapon, the equal of superior weaponry is worse design for a simulationist game (which I think DH2 is, or at least tries to be). A knife should be an option and it should also be a worse option than pretty much anything else.

SB will only ever get you so far, though. Assuming you've got an average guy with SB3 getting into conflict with a Rambo-type opponent of TB4, possibly even 5. Even a simple robe will give him +1 AP on top of that, for a total of 5 or 6 damage reduction. That means the attacker would have to roll at least a 3 (60% chance) or a 4 (40% chance) on the d5 to inflict even a single(!) Wound.

In my opinion, that just doesn't reflect what a knife can do, even if wielded by someone who isn't an elite assassin with decades of training. Donning flak armour practically makes one immune from getting stabbed, apparently.

The ability to replace a damage die helps somewhat, but I remain convinced that knives should still be more dangerous.

Bear in mind that your "Rambo-type guy" is well above average with TB:4 and of Herculean proportions with TB:5. That's one tough hombre. If we're going to assess the efficacy of the humble knife, compare averages; SB:3 vs. TB:3 is dead-average human and cancel each other out. That leaves 1d5 vs. whatever armour is being worn. Clothes, which incorporate your leathers and heavy robes reduce it to 1d5-1. That's a 20% chance of negating all damage. For the other 80%, you're dealing 1-4 points of damage. BUT, there's also a 10% chance of rolling a 10, inflicting automatic Critical Damage if anything went through Armour and Toughness.

Now let's give our victim some actual armour; Flak, under the circumstances, represents pretty much everything from police issue stab vests to military grade armoured jackets, granting AP 2 or 3. Now there's a 40-60% chance of negating all damage and a 60-40% chance of doing 1-3/1-2 damage...and still that 10% chance of automatic critical damage if anything at all goes through. Hardly "immune".

It's only when you start looking at the armour (actual armour, remember, not just clothes) with Availability of Scarce or higher that you get into the sort of territory where a knife becomes completely useless (i.e. at best it will do 1 point of damage, even with Righteous Fury). Sure, that doesn't seem like much for Player Characters, who start with items of that calibre, but that's the availability of the likes of Krak Missiles, Sniper Rifles and Void Suits; not exactly the sort of stuff you're likely to find down the local grocery store. Is it really all that reasonable to expect a common knife to be of any use under those circumstances unless you're a very skilled knife-fighter?

So...what do I take from all this? Assuming average sort of guys, a knife has a good chance to take down an opponent in what? 4 or 5 hits, assuming no "solid" blows (i.e. Righteous Fury). Increase that to maybe 7 or 8 hits if he's wearing commonly available armour. If a penetrating hit triggers RF, however, the fight is basically over. Any result over 1 on the Crit table for the Body results in a (potential) Stun, leaving the victim very vulnerable to the next attack. This seems pretty ok to me; a knife can be deadly, but unless someone gets a good solid blow in (represented by RF), a series of cuts can be dealt with.

There's no possibility of a 1-hit instant kill (for average guys), I'll admit, but if you want to start going into that territory, you'll also need to consider it for the Autopistol (which, whilst better than a knife, has similar difficulty in 1-shotting someone) and in order to compensate, better weaponry will have to be similarly buffed, making the game generally more lethal. It's a way to go, certainly, but I'm pretty sure the game is deadly enough as it is!

Melee weapons would be a lot more useful if SB was used as part of a weapons AP. (e.g. Sword AP=SB (mono takes away primitive quality adds +2 AP) , Chain blade AP=SB+2, Two handed chain ax AP=2xSB)

Don't forget that even the humble Knife can be modified; a Best Quality Mono-edged Knife is 1d5+1, Pen:2 and grants +10WS (which equates to +1 DoS, so potentially increases damage too). It doesn't look like much, but it goes a long way when you start stacking up the Talents.

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.

My response to that would be to emphasize the disadvantages of the powerful gear:

- They are not subtle. Carry them all the time and your enemies will notice you and react. Maybe they rush their timetable. Maybe they acquire some weapons to deal with you. Maybe they go to ground until the PCs leave. Walk around in gear that's concealed and/or stuff everyone in the area has and they won't notice.

- Power Armor has a limited power supply. 1d5 hours is plenty for combat, but not enough for walking around all the time.

- Ammo supplies. Lasguns can be recharged easily in most places. Every other gun needs players to acquire ammo.

When the PCs have worked out who needs purging then power armor and big guns will be really useful. But they will hinder investigations. This goes both ways. If the cultists are trying to remain undetected, that also limits the gear they are carrying around in public. So the PCs should still be able to handle them when they try to jump the PCs.

This is all without using the subtlety rules.

Bear in mind that your "Rambo-type guy" is well above average with TB:4 and of Herculean proportions with TB:5. That's one tough hombre.

Well, yes. Like I said, Rambo-type, so naturally above average.

Entirely within the range of what can be achieved by a character just buying Toughness advances, mind you.

4 or 5 hits before you'd actually start to go into the Criticals, you mean? The "Wounds" hitpoint shield, after all, adds yet another layer of protection.

I'm also vehemently opposed to regard Righteous Fury as a "solid blow". It's a magical damage bonus, nothing more, nothing less -- as evidenced by only the heroic player characters and major NPCs being able to avail of it, but not the common mook aka the average person without plot armour (see p. 227).

Also explains how your knife would suddenly be capable of punching through powered armour and wound a Space Marine ... as long as it's wielded by a player character.

I certainly wouldn't want to see a random knife hit being able to drop someone in one go, but rather a happy medium between that and its current uselessness, and for it to better reflect reality. When you're hit by a knife, it should have guaranteed consequences. But like I already said earlier, this is more a criticism aimed at the role of TB rather than the weapon itself. The profile is fine, if it'd just be used with a different injury system.

But like I already said earlier, this is more a criticism aimed at the role of TB rather than the weapon itself. The profile is fine, if it'd just be used with a different injury system.

I can dig that. Whilst there are aspects of the injury system I like (e.g. the DoS replacing a die roll), on the whole it's...I dunno, a little unsatisfactory; TB as armour is definitely part of that. But that's a conversation for another thread, I guess (heck, a lot of this debate has been, really).

As for Righteous Fury, I get where you're coming from. To expound a little on my perception of it, though; the reason mook-level NPC's don't get to use it is because PC's need plot-armour. Fate points go a little way towards providing some, but the dice-gods are cruel and statistically speaking if every Mook got to use Righteous Fury, then the game would be that much more deadly. It's a design decision to make the game more heroic, I guess; a cinematic rule in a largely simulationist system. Heroes can 1-shot mooks all day long in a film or book, but it takes an Antagonist to 1-shot a Hero (preferably in a dramatic way). If we went around letting mooks shiv Heroes without wearing them down first, what sort of world would this be? So yeah, just call it a magical damage bonus if you like, but actually "on the screen" (as opposed to "behind the scenes") it translates as that "solid blow" that makes the crucial difference in the fight. I think we're on the same page, to an extent, it's just that you're reading the direction and I'm reading the dialogue (or something like that...I'm not good with film related analogies).

As for Righteous Fury, I get where you're coming from. To expound a little on my perception of it, though; the reason mook-level NPC's don't get to use it is because PC's need plot-armour.

It's a question of philosophy -- on one hand, though I am biased towards PCs and NPCs playing on the same level (where any advantage ought to be a result of clever planning and tactics), I'm not too averse to a distinction between "heroes" and "mooks", but on the other I'd want it to be as unobtrusive as possible, so as to not even get to the point where you'd have to employ suspension of disbelief.

For example, mooks not having Critical levels is fine; they still get hit and they die like everyone else, and the GM can just insert locational damage effects narratively. Righteous Fury on the other hand makes weapons more powerful than they're meant to be, and that's just ... too flashy for me. I mean, in theory , a dozen juves could kill a fully armoured Space Marine just by pelting him with blunt rocks.

It's a thin line.

Oh, and I certainly didn't want it to sound as if I dislike DH's combat system in general. The DoS-for-damage (which I only learned about recently thanks to this forum) for example is something I consider cool. Just the actual injury mechanics - what happens to damage once it is applied to a target - is one of my eternal gripes.

Still, all in all DH2 has reinvigorated my interest in the game. There's still a lot that I would "fix", but there have also been improvements and interesting new additions, so there's that. Besides, they can't make everyone happy, and I'm sure I'd count as "hard to please", if only because the system and the setting are stimulating my creative juices and I have a weird obsession with consistency.

Increasing the requirements to use a weapon won't stop people from using that weapon. It will just delay them from using it. Once they meet the requirements, they will use it.

Currently if I want to use a bolt pistol I get bolt weapon training. Then I get a bolt pistol.

If I need SB 4 I first get strength up to 40, then bolt weapon training*, then I get the bolt pistol. All the strength requirement has done is delay my usage of the bolt pistol by a few sessions. If you want players to use specific items less, you need to give them permanent disadvantages. Not temporary ones.

It could be argued that additional requirements serve as a permanent disincentive on the basis of the character being able to use those XP elsewhere, though...

It's not a permanent disadvantage (and neither should it be, imho), just a sort of "tax" that has the player sacrifice something elsewhere if they're really dead-set on a specific loadout. And perhaps that sacrifice will increase overall group balance by allowing characters with more easily acquired equipment to buy one or two Talents that make them shine more in combat? Or at least that's the theory.

It could be argued that additional requirements serve as a permanent disincentive on the basis of the character being able to use those XP elsewhere, though...

It's not a permanent disadvantage (and neither should it be, imho), just a sort of "tax" that has the player sacrifice something elsewhere if they're really dead-set on a specific loadout. And perhaps that sacrifice will increase overall group balance by allowing characters with more easily acquired equipment to buy one or two Talents that make them shine more in combat? Or at least that's the theory.

Pity what you will actually get is players delaying/skipping non-combat advances because combat now costs more XP.

It could be argued that additional requirements serve as a permanent disincentive on the basis of the character being able to use those XP elsewhere, though...

It's not a permanent disadvantage (and neither should it be, imho), just a sort of "tax" that has the player sacrifice something elsewhere if they're really dead-set on a specific loadout. And perhaps that sacrifice will increase overall group balance by allowing characters with more easily acquired equipment to buy one or two Talents that make them shine more in combat? Or at least that's the theory.

But unfortunately, not the practice. Weapons Training is a paltry sum of XP, without any sort of prerequisites. One thing I did in my first campaign was to establish RP prerequisites for Weapons Training. You wanted to become trained in shooting plasma pistols? Better find somebody who can teach you that. I like to think that the average 40k person is so tech-ignorant that learning how to reload/maintain/unjam different types of esoteric weapons isn't something you just figure out on your own.

It's kind of funny, there were quite a few things I did as a first-time GM that actually worked really well - I think that first campaign was the best one my group played.

Pity what you will actually get is players delaying/skipping non-combat advances because combat now costs more XP.

If someone actively wants to minmax, they'll find a way regardless of how many or which disincentives you insert in the game. Chances are, they would not have purchased non-combat advances anyways , as they were too focused on combat. So, nothing lost, nothing gained -- it's simply not a player I think would contribute much to the game, at least in terms of crafting the atmosphere.

One thing I did in my first campaign was to establish RP prerequisites for Weapons Training.

That's something one of my groups did for just about anything, and I really like it that way. Granted, that was another game (The Dark Eye, 4th edition), but it had no levels and free XP distribution as well -- you could buy just about anything at any time, with two requirements: you had to have the XP, and you had to explain to the GM why your character just got better at it. So no stuff like buying ranks in the Swimming skill whilst the group is travelling through the desert.

Pity what you will actually get is players delaying/skipping non-combat advances because combat now costs more XP.

If someone actively wants to minmax, they'll find a way regardless of how many or which disincentives you insert in the game. Chances are, they would not have purchased non-combat advances anyways , as they were too focused on combat. So, nothing lost, nothing gained -- it's simply not a player I think would contribute much to the game, at least in terms of crafting the atmosphere.

Realizing that your weapons aren't that effective against foes you keep encountering and deciding to get something better is a perfectly in-character reason to want to switch from las/sp weapons to something better. So I can easily see the players you want in your game wanting bolt weapons. The more you make bolt weapons cost them, the less flavourful advances they can take.

As for minmaxers, I've found the best way to deal with them is to play systems where minmaxing is easy. Cut out the effort they go to in order to figure out an optimal build and you cut out the pride they have in finding one. Cut out the time they spend theorycrafting to find the optimal build and they will probably spend that time thinking about roleplay. Especially when they aren't going to be much better that players who pick their upgrades for roleplay reasons. Other things I also do are:

- Non-combat content where their character doesn't have much to do because they only know combat. Boredom will encourage them to diversify their character. They will be warned about this during character creation.

- When a player takes an advance, I ask them to justify why there character would be willing to put time and effort into acquiring it. It turns out that if they think about it, they are more willing to declare an advance out of character than I am.

- During character creation I get each player to come up with a motto about how their character behaves. If they act in line with the motto, they earn less XP at the end of the session. Note that what counts is the character trying to follow it, not if the succeed.

Targeting the mechanical aspects of a minmaxers build is targeting the things a minmaxer likes to work with. The things they take pride in figuring out. Plus, as you say, If someone actively wants to minmax, they'll find a way regardless of how many or which disincentives you insert in the game. Increase the XP costs for the build they want and they will pay it.

Realizing that your weapons aren't that effective against foes you keep encountering and deciding to get something better is a perfectly in-character reason to want to switch from las/sp weapons to something better.

It is, but not necessarily at the expense of everything else. There can be a balance, and I think that should be the default state any player should aspire to. You already alluded to that yourself when you say that players would take "flavourful advances", so all it really comes down to is to find out how far you can stretch things.

Although that would, unsurprisingly, be different from player to player.

On a sidenote, a GM that lets players realise that the enemies they encounter are too much for their guns really has no right to blame them for gearing up. This debate, however, was supposedly aimed at a situation where a group would not have such a hard time and instead players simply gravitating to better guns because ... they were better. And because that's what people usually do in any game.

I like the three points you listed, though, and certainly agree with them!

Another thought comes to mind, that ability limits on weapons, equipment, and armor allow for a good/best quality and add on parts change in ability limits. (best quality rocket launcher needs a 30 STR instead of a 40 to wield). This would give the GMs a whole new option to reward players with "treasure" without jeopardizing game balance.

Possibly.

Does the game demand it? No. Would it be an elegant system? Yes, in my mind.

Having a required strength bonus to wield without penalty one-handed, two - handed and braced is arguably neater than the current pistol/basic/heavy system -and can easily adapt for stuff like astartes weapons (I've got strength 60 and augmetics out the wahoo but can't use a marine bolter), pistol-and-a-half weapons like hand cannon and las carbines, and so on.

I dont like giving restrictions that say flatly "you can't do this". As noted, if someone's S25 scribe is prepared to jnvest the XP to learn to use a storm bolter, he should be able to. But if he's barely got the combined S/T bonus to lift the sodding thing, asking him to do a brace action before opening up with a twin-barrelled, semi-automatic RPG doesnt seem unreasonable...

And yes, some weapons will be better mechanically than others. In the hands of an equally skilled fighter, few things match a stormbolter. The imperium's terminator elite wouldnt use them if that wasnt the case - but raw fighting potential isnt the be all and end all. Thats where the GM comes in - this isnt a simple battlefield situation, and questions like acquiring ammo, subtlety, etc can all be used. Stub guns dont show up on an energy-scanner auspex, for example...

I dont like giving restrictions that say flatly "you can't do this". As noted, if someone's S25 scribe is prepared to jnvest the XP to learn to use a storm bolter, he should be able to. But if he's barely got the combined S/T bonus to lift the sodding thing, asking him to do a brace action before opening up with a twin-barrelled, semi-automatic RPG doesnt seem unreasonable...

True. But how do you decide what is a reasonable requirement to wield the weapon ?

We are talking about weapons that are designed to be used by humans*. 30 is the average value for humans in a characteristic. If the weapon requires more than that you have to know why the weapon was intentionally designed to be something most humans don't have the strength to use.

Then there is the realism angle. I've already said why it's going to be hard to convince me that any weapon is going to kick as much as a similarly sized SP weapon. So if you go with realistic requirements, you're just encouraging people to move up to bolter and plasma weapons sooner because they have lower requirements. If you don't go with realistic requirements then any claim that you're trying to encourage players to go down flavourful routes will be an obvious lie as your restrictions have nothing to do with lore and everything to do with you making players spend XP in unflavourful ways (eg, the Sage buying strength advances) because you don't want them to get hold of powerful weapons.

You're also punishing people for picking flavourful or non-combat character creation options over minmaxed combat focused options, because the minmaxed combat focused options are likely to have the aptitudes that make meeting your requirements cost less xp. How is a rule change that hits the minmaxers less than everyone else supposed to discourage minmaxing ?

*Not Space Marines. Their weapons kick more because the designers knew that the Space Marines could handle it. Plus it servers as crude biometric security.

Thats where the GM comes in - this isnt a simple battlefield situation, and questions like acquiring ammo, subtlety, etc can all be used. Stub guns dont show up on an energy-scanner auspex, for example...

Yes. Changing what the optimal loadout is depending on the situation is better than making the optimal loadout more expensive without changing how optimal it is .

True. But how do you decide what is a reasonable requirement to wield the weapon ?

We are talking about weapons that are designed to be used by humans*. 30 is the average value for humans in a characteristic. If the weapon requires more than that you have to know why the weapon was intentionally designed to be something most humans don't have the strength to use.

Just like in real life: The weapon is either too effective to just pass out on even for specialist use (anti-material rifles, "elephant guns"), making the organisation consider a more limited use in exchange for what it brings to the table -- or weaker humans could use it with a supporting apparatus like a bipod/tripod or mechanical augmentation.

The heavy bolter in 40k is a good example. Some few folks are actually to lug it around solo, but the average human needs either a pod (IG weapon teams) or a special armature (SoB Retributors) to use it.

Then there is the realism angle. I've already said why it's going to be hard to convince me that any weapon is going to kick as much as a similarly sized SP weapon. So if you go with realistic requirements, you're just encouraging people to move up to bolter and plasma weapons sooner because they have lower requirements.

In my opinion, bolt and plasma weaponry would have different factors worth considering, in particular availability of ammunition and maintenance -- so whilst I would see them become more attractive in terms of physical requirements, this could be compensated elsewhere.

You're also punishing people for picking flavourful or non-combat character creation options over minmaxed combat focused options, because the minmaxed combat focused options are likely to have the aptitudes that make meeting your requirements cost less xp. How is a rule change that hits the minmaxers less than everyone else supposed to discourage minmaxing ?

You can't really discourage minmaxing. Someone who really wants to make a combat monster will do so anyways as long as they are able to choose between two or more options.

Rather, I'm under the impression that such a rule would add to variety and lend more "meat" to the overall atmosphere of interacting with one's equipment. It's something for the normal player to toy with, not for minmaxers. The only way to deal with the latter would be constant GM intervention.

*Not Space Marines. Their weapons kick more because the designers knew that the Space Marines could handle it.

Technically, Space Marine weapons would kick less , as they are launching the same ammunition with more weight in the weapon. The heavier something is, the more kinetic energy must be expended to move (or stop) it.

This doesn't seem to be the case in this RPG line ever since Marine gun damage was buffed from its original values in DH1, though. I suppose here they shoot special rounds which not even the Inquisition has access to.

Just like in real life: The weapon is either too effective to just pass out on even for specialist use (anti-material rifles, "elephant guns"), making the organisation consider a more limited use in exchange for what it brings to the table -- or weaker humans could use it with a supporting apparatus like a bipod/tripod or mechanical augmentation.

True. But we already have rules for bracing heavy weapons or becoming strong enough to not need to do so. I like that removing the need for bracing requires specific talents/augmentations, as that means that it's not just a matter of strength for holding the weapon steady. It's also a matter of knowing how to hold it steady.

What weapons in game would you call equivalent to big-game or anti-material rifles ?

That is weapons that create more recoil than normal because a bigger/faster bullet is the best way to kill the target.

In my opinion, bolt and plasma weaponry would have different factors worth considering, in particular availability of ammunition and maintenance -- so whilst I would see them become more attractive in terms of physical requirements, this could be compensated elsewhere.

Those would be fine. They make sense. Availability of ammunition is already in the rules. Difficulty of maintenance just means the party needs a single person capable of performing it, so that's not likely to do much. They are changes that could actually work at accomplishing the stated objective. They are things that alter which weapons are optimal for the situation.

A minimum stat to wield a weapon is none of those things. It just increases the one time cost of the option. It does nothing about how optimal that option is.

True. But you can encourage it by making the more powerful options less obvious or by increasing the difference between what a minmaxer and a player who picks advances for RP reasons will get from their character. Basically, anything that rewards minmaxing encourages it.

The best you can do against minmaxing is to align what the lore says should be optimal with what the mechanics say is optimal. For example:

- If the lore says the ammo is hard to come by, make the ammo hard to come by. If you don't have enough ammo to fire a gun, it's no longer the optimal gun to use. Now the minmaxer will either adapt to the optimal gun having changed or start whining*. If he whines too much, boot him from the group.

- If the lore says the gun is difficult to maintain, then someone is going to need to make regular maintenance checks of an appropriate difficulty or the gun won't work. A gun that won't work is less optimal than a working gun and the minmaxer should be smart enough to see this. If they don't adapt, see the previous point.

- If the lore says the weapon would attract unwanted attention, make it attract unwanted attention. Make sure the players know that and the minmaxer might decide to bring along a less suspicious weapon. If he keeps bringing the suspicious gun along, encourage the other players to deal with it in-character. I'm a GM who requires the PCs to have a reason to work together. If one PC is so much of a problem that the other characters want him gone and are able to make the problem PC leave in-game, then that PC is gone. Even if the PC survives, it's out of the game and the player needs to make a new character.

Strength requirements increase the divide between the lore and game mechanics.

*I have run into minmaxers who used builds they found on the internet.

Take someone who wants to make a knowledge based character. A character focused mainly on knowing things. That character isn't going to be exceptionally strong. Being an acolyte they get into fights and find that their las weapon is insufficient.

How does forcing the bookworm character to gain some muscle, and thus spend less XP on what makes them different from the combat focused characters, in order to be useful in fights increase character diversity ?

True. There are two competing interpretations of Space Marine weapons. The first is that they use the same ammo, which means that they would have less recoil. The second is that they are dangerous for mere humans to use, which would require them to use different ammo. I prefer the second one.

True. But we already have rules for bracing heavy weapons or becoming strong enough to not need to do so. I like that removing the need for bracing requires specific talents/augmentations, as that means that it's not just a matter of strength for holding the weapon steady. It's also a matter of knowing how to hold it steady.

Yes, but it's a one-for-all rule and it applies to heavy weapons only. I think it would be more interesting if each weapon had its own value on how tough it is to handle, and Bracing as an action would simply modify it. That way, a character could operate some weapons without Bracing but not others, etc.

Personally, I think that would add to the overall combat experience.

What weapons in game would you call equivalent to big-game or anti-material rifles ?

That is weapons that create more recoil than normal because a bigger/faster bullet is the best way to kill the target.

The hand cannon is the most obvious example. It even comes with a special rule that imposes a flat -10 penalty to BS unless wielded with both hands or a recoil glove.

A character with sufficient Strength should be able to use it one-handed without the penalty. The same goes for characters with powered armour -- where the Strength bonus from the armour would of course count against the proposed STR requirement of the gun. It all comes together nicely. See where I'm going with this now?

A minimum stat to wield a weapon is none of those things. It just increases the one time cost of the option. It does nothing about how optimal that option is.

It does by making that option less attractive to anyone but those who would want to specialise into building up the necessary pyhsical requirements.

If you're arguing on the basis that every single player would feel compelled to do so just because they want to wield that weapon, then we're quite simply not on the same page. This mechanic would be intended for the average player, not minmaxers who don't care about non-combat options.

Take someone who wants to make a knowledge based character. A character focused mainly on knowing things. That character isn't going to be exceptionally strong. Being an acolyte they get into fights and find that their las weapon is insufficient.

How does forcing the bookworm character to gain some muscle, and thus spend less XP on what makes them different from the combat focused characters, in order to be useful in fights increase character diversity ?

This would actually be a mistake of the Gamemaster, who should now ask themselves why the las weapon was considered "insufficient".

To be "useful in fights" should not necessitate owning what is considered the best gun. If you look at it from that angle, I'd say the game is already poorer for it, because those "flavourful options" you were talking about won't be a viable thing.

This doesn't seem to be the case in this RPG line ever since Marine gun damage was buffed from its original values in DH1, though. I suppose here they shoot special rounds which not even the Inquisition has access to.

I've always understood it's meant to be even heavier calibre, though - a 'normal' bolter is 0.75 cal, whilst an 'angelus' is 1.0 cal - so the weapon kicks proportionally harder.

I've already said why it's going to be hard to convince me that any weapon is going to kick as much as a similarly sized SP weapon.

Again, this is a difference of perspective. A lot of people say bolters should have a lower recoil because it's a small charge which 'lobs' a round out of the end, then the rocket motor accelerates it up to 'impact speed', as opposed to a normal projectile, which fires a round out at maximum speed with one big bang.

However, the arms of the imperium for which bolt weaponry is intended don't really do subtlety. More likely - to me - that the weapon has a full-sized propellant charge, and kicks exactly as much as you'd expect a 0.75 calibre hand cannon to* but then the rocket motor in the round ignites and accelerates it even more - resulting in the narratively infamous effect of bolt rounds on anything remotely human.

Yes, but it's a one-for-all rule and it applies to heavy weapons only. I think it would be more interesting if each weapon had its own value on how tough it is to handle, and Bracing as an action would simply modify it. That way, a character could operate some weapons without Bracing but not others, etc.

Personally, I think that would add to the overall combat experience.

Exactly so. I don't think that you should have any weapon that any 'normal' human can't use - if they're prepared to use the weapon two handed and braced against something.

Okay...maybe.a S25 human using an Astartes -calibre Heavy bolter, even on a pintle mount, is going to be unworkable. But any normal heavy weapon - even something like a stormbolter or heavy stubber, is usable by a normal human if it's on a fixed mount.

I'm not suggesting that increasing your strength lets you use new weapons, but that it lets you wield the same weapon more effectively - which also gives Strength Bonus a practical effect in combat for ranged characters as well as melee ones, because it increases your mobility and flexibility whilst using said weapon.

Take a Godwyn pistol as an example. Anyone with Weapon Training (Bolt) can try to use it.

An astartes-calibre bolt pistol is a sidearm.....for a marine. Someone similarly borked out with drugs, augmetics, or catachan heritage, can also wield it one-handed.

If a strong-but-not-ridiculously enhanced human wants to use it, he'd better use two hands, despite it theoretically being a 'pistol'

If someone is less than average strength, then they're going to be treating it more like a heavy weapon, needing to fire it two handed from a brace or weapon sling, and complaining how the hell anyone thinks a gun like this qualifies as a 'pistol'.

* Which is "Fethloads". Look for a video of the 0.6 Cal Pfeifer-Zeliskner revolver on Youtube for an example.

I've always understood it's meant to be even heavier calibre, though - a 'normal' bolter is 0.75 cal, whilst an 'angelus' is 1.0 cal - so the weapon kicks proportionally harder.

Any and all bolt weapons have always been the same calibre both in GW codex fluff as well as even the descriptions in Dark Heresy and Deathwatch, though -- .75 for pistols and rifles, 1.00 for the heavies.

An argument could be made that the Marine version has more propellant and thus a longer slug with still more weight (and thus kinetic potential), but if you're looking at the cross-sections from the 3E rulebook, for example, Astartes bolt rounds are pretty short already, so it'd get difficult to make them even shorter for normal humans.

And then, of course, we have humans and Marines using the very same guns in sources like GW's own d100 Inquisitor game.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't follow an interpretation where Marine guns have a higher calibre, more weight, more damage, etc - actually, I'm sure a lot of Black Library novels might agree with you - merely pointing out that this was evidently not the idea Games Workshop was going for, and as such is a deviation from the original material. As you probably know, I'm a firm believer that GW wanted Marines to be a lot more "balanced" than many fans want to give them credit for.

Dark Heresy's weird disparity is probably best justified simply by saying that the Space Marines get better gear than even the Inquisition. It's weird and doesn't fit the setting, but it's the only way you could explain stuff like an Inquisitor's Terminator armour having less AP than the Marine version, even though both are carrying themselves and there's no reason for the Human version to be lighter. Same for Marine flamers or plasma weapons burning at higher temperatures, etc.

Again, this is a difference of perspective. A lot of people say bolters should have a lower recoil because it's a small charge which 'lobs' a round out of the end, then the rocket motor accelerates it up to 'impact speed', as opposed to a normal projectile, which fires a round out at maximum speed with one big bang.

However, the arms of the imperium for which bolt weaponry is intended don't really do subtlety. More likely - to me - that the weapon has a full-sized propellant charge, and kicks exactly as much as you'd expect a 0.75 calibre hand cannon to* but then the rocket motor in the round ignites and accelerates it even more - resulting in the narratively infamous effect of bolt rounds on anything remotely human.

He's got a point in terms of codex fluff -- the 2E Wargear tabletop supplement does mention that bolt rounds leave the barrel "at slow velocity". Besides, a .75 hand cannon's kick would be lessened quite a bit if it is as bulky as a bolter (it'd more be a "push" like with the fabled 4G shotgun ), and that is before we even assume that the Imperium could simply utilise a variety of recoil compensation mechanisms as they already exist today.

It pretty much boils down to: Do you WANT normal Humans to use Marine guns, or do you WANT the latter to stand apart at any cost, even when it's against the original creators' intentions? Either can be justified, all depending on which sources you wish to subscribe to.

Exactly so. I don't think that you should have any weapon that any 'normal' human can't use - if they're prepared to use the weapon two handed and braced against something.

Yep! Maybe I should have stressed this part more in the earlier argument about people no longer being able to use some weapons or supposedly being pigeon-holed into buying specific advances. I suppose one could say it's more like characters with the necessary requirements getting an advantage with the weapon: that they can use it at any time, without first having to prop it up.

Chances are non-combat characters are going to run for cover, anyways, which is where they can Brace. On the other hand, very strong characters may now be able to use heavy weapons without bracing.

Exactly so.

The same mechanic has two different effects at opposite ends of the (fairly narrow) spectrum of strength values for unaugmented humans - at low-to-normal, It defines what normally pistol- or carbine- weapons need to be used two handed, and what rifles have to be braced. At high-to-very high, it allows you to play sergeant harker and heft that heavy bolter unbraced, or start doing chow-yun fat impressions with a lascarbine in each hand.