Just one observation. Firearms actually do less damage (IRL) than swords or other melee weapons. Just look at the damage some crazy did with a sword in a church a while back. Firearms have all sorts of other combat advantages, which is why they're so useful in warfare but close combat actually does alot more damage. Just think of the trauma caused by a sword thrust (or even a swipe) compared to a bullet.

MDMann said:

...

Oh my god you stumped me! You're wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin.

Seriously though, you just can't compare a measly sword swipe with the internal trauma that ONE SINGLE hollow point bullet causes. Having a sudden fist-sized or larger cavity expand WITHIN your body taking large chunks of your organs with it, is way more lethal than being chopped in the torso with a sword. And that type of damage can in fact occur even from a 9mm pistol.

You need to polish your knowledge about firerarms lad...

well, you can not cut off a head with a 9mm bullet, can you?

Humans are weak and easy to kill (in RL), a single bullet, stab from a dagger, and you are gone. A ungly Ork, well... you might need to cut his head off, since a small hole does not impress a killing mushroom

A bullet makes a small hole, a axe makes a (compared to 9mm) very large hole, or just slices someone in half.

an other point, since i am writing here:

With the RAW you can hit as a meele fighter with a ws of 40 kind of 50 (half aim, standart attack) times if you roll every number once(so roudabout 50 hits/100 rolls)

As a guy with 40BS and a boltgun, you score roudabout 180 hits with full auto/100 rolls.

thats more than 4 times more hits than with an attack without aiming(40x4=160). Thats the point that strikes me

I am working on something to ballance that issue and ill post it in the house rule forum one sunny day

Levyten

Levyten said:

That's not the point. The poster I answered was talking about real life injuries of the respective weapons, hence the regenerative and hardy abilities of fictional space orks doesn't really nor should they come into question.

In real life, guns are WAY MORE lethal than swords or knives. It's just that some people seem to have watched to many action flicks in their lives and they seem to think that all bullets are of the full metal jacket kind which tend to simply pass through soft flesh and leave a small hole. The truth of the matter is that FMJ are not any sort of "standard" bullet, and many people and organisations use hollow point bullets or some sort of innovation on the hollow point. And I can guarantee you that hollow point bullets turn muscle and internal organs into mush. They don't just "pass through" and leave a little hole like the FMJ.

Test it out on the shooting range and you'll see for your self. Use a pig cadavre if you want a realistic anaolgy to the human body. An FMJ bullet might leave a small hole on one side, but the inside of the body will more often than not have a fist sized cavity of shredded tissue. And if you're using something stronger than just a pistol, (like an assault rifle) the bullet will most likely leave a large crater of destroyed tissue on the other side.

An injury from a sword might look pretty nasty, but that's the thing about them, they do most of their damage to the outside of the body with swipes and slashes, but people don't die because of superficial injuries to the skin and outer layer of muscle, they die because of severe bleeding and lethal injury to internal organs (injuries that guns are really adept at achieveing). Also you have to be a skilled swordsman to actually preform an outright kill with a sword, and they are not nearly as "user friendly" as a gun. Untrained people don't know how to lop off a persons head with a sword. Such attacks require practice to do it in one stroke.

I hope by writing this I've been able to put a dent to the naive attitude towards firearms. They are REALLY lethal...

I feel a need to point out that Rogue Trader is a work of fiction, and a work of fiction set in a world that looks and acts like a heavy metal album cover come to life. Realism is not a primary concern. And while guns and swords are lethal, so if a spoon if you jam it into someone's mouth just right.

Attila-IV said:

Once again: I wasn't talking about fiction. I responded to someone making false claims about the lethality of guns and sword in real life. I don't think anyone will confuse my statements nor what im refering to...

Levyten said:

Your not taking into account a whole bunch of stuff-

1. Melee weapons don't jam
2. Melee weapons dont have a chance of hitting your allies
3. Melee weapons aren't affected by cover

It doesn't actually NEED fixing- the guy with the gun has the advantage at range, the guy with the power sword most certainly has the advantage if he can get close enough to take advantage of it.

Also you can eventually get three or four separate attacks off with melee- whereas a full-auto starts off extremely powerful and get less so- one dodge can negate all your hits whereas in a melee if three (of four) attacks hit one of them is guaranteed to deal damage.

Personally I feel that full-auto should provide a penalty to dodge attempts though- your pretty much spending the round in a stationary position blasting away. Perhaps not with a basic weapon but a heavy weapon braced and on full-auto should provide a significant penalty to dodge (if one is even allowed).

alexkilcoyne said:

Ranged vs Meele = the meele can only try to evade the attacks of the ranged guy(finding cover, running)

{its like the rock paper scissors; The ranged guy is the rock, and the mele is the scissors)

Meele vs Ranged= The ranged guy takes his pistol/bayonet and may continue to deal dmg.

{its like the rock paper scissors; The ranged guy is the rock, and the mele is a 10% better rock...)

You gain no disadvantage if u use a pistol in meele, and as a meele guy, you even dont get an advantage if fighting big guys (like hulking orks). You cant parry with a pistol, but you still got more options in a meele as a ranged fighter than a meele fighter in ranged combat.

I thought about giving the meele fighter a "Burst" attack: Full action, one extra hit every 20DoS, if you roll a weapon "jam", your oponent gets a free attack. You can parry/dodge those attack like auto fire with DoS...

What upsets me is he fact that, as said above, you hit as a meele fighter only your WS%(e.g.40%) of rolls, while a full auto guy deals 1.8 hits per roll...on average. The meele guy does not get a chance to be as devastating in meele as the ranged in ranged combat...since the RT is the only char that gets multible meele attack prior to lvl 7, as RAW.

Levyten

Levyten said:

In other words: melee characters have an innate disadvantage against characters armed with firearms. What's the problem? It seems perfectly reasonable. In fact, melee characters in DH and RT have too many benefits if you compare it to real life. So what if characters armed with firearms can use pistols in melee. Would you go up against a guy with a pistol if you just had an axe in real life? I know I wouldn't.

There's no reasonable reason for giving melee characters any more benefits than they already have...

Varnias Tybalt said:

Thats because you've never had someone swing an axe at you. :-)

my point is that meele has no big advantage vs a ranged guy. Since a ranged guy can shoot you into pieces from range, a meele guy should be capable to cut someone into slices from close, but thats not the case...and my point.

Quote from Zarkhovian_Rhythm: "Thats because you've never had someone swing an axe at you. :-)"

An Axe sharper than the sharpest samurai katana...Mono sharp

p.s. Is the fantasy Warhammer RPG more ballanced regarding Meele vs Ranged ? Or would a single Legolas still kill 10 Aragorns with ease?

Zarkhovian_Rhythm said:

Uhm...

That's not entirely true, so im not sure I understand your rethoric here.

Personally I'd try and run away regardless if the guy is armed with a gun or an axe. But I'll tell you this, I would fear for my life a hell of a lot more if someone was waving a gun in my face than if he was armed with an axe.

An axe you can block, but you can't block or even run away from a bullet.

Levyten said:

And you can do that, against people with basic and heavy weapons. Pistols were designed for melee to close range, so your point about their "unbalanced advantage" is kind of moot.

It doesn't matter if you stand 10 meters away or if you're in my face wielding a knife, if I hold a loaded Glock in my hands I will have just as easy time to inflict some deadly damage on you. In fact, it's even better than a knife or a sword because I don't have to worry about crap like making sure my cut is adequately preformed to inflict lethal injuries, I just have to point and pull the trigger.

Im sorry, but I don't see your point here. Firearms should be way more lethal than any melee weapon. Melee weapons already have unrealistic advantages in the game system as it is (like having power swords able to slice through armour or "explode-a-person"-power fists working like shoving a hand grenade down the throat of anything it hits), plus the fact that you can DoS-dodge a full auto burst from a firearm, but you can't do the same against multiple attacks.

If anything, it is the melee weapons that should be nerfed, not the firearms...

Varnias Tybalt said:

Mind elaborating? Its not every day I get to hear a story about someone having an axe swung at them... Was it real?

Admittedly I participate in medieval re-enactment on occasion and therefore don't get "real" weapons swung at me. But I have been hit with 3/4 inch Ratan weapons and even at half strength they leave some nasty bruises.

Varnias Tybalt said:

Dude... You still have to aim at the person while their trying to knife you... And if their in range for a knife thrust, their too close for a pistol to be effective. It sounds like you think having a gun means you win in a fight 'nough said.

Zarkhovian_Rhythm said:

No, I´d rather not elaborate too much. I'll leave it at saying that im lucky I didn't get hit at the time, because the first swing went wide and I managed to catch the axe before the guy who swung it could come about for a second. And yes it was a real axe, although not a war axe, but the kind you use to split wood with.

And yes, even blunt stuff can leave nasty bruises but that's the thing about them (and even real axes), there are only so many places you can get hit with an axe that will pretty much guarantee a deadly hit in the human body. Mainly because they are arm-powered and can't cause too much kinetic force in a small point.

A bullet on the other hand will hit you with a kinetic force that is super-human, and on a much more concentrated point. In fact there have been a witnessed phenomenon called "hydrostatic shock" which seems to imply that if a bullet hit a particular part on the human body, the impact will result in a shockwave carried across the body by it's fluids and can seriously injure parts of the human anatomy located far away from the actual point of impact.

Although there is some surround controversy regarding this theory, there have been instances where people get hit in the torso but are also afflicted by severe brain haemorrages, because the shockwave caused by the bullet is so forceful as to strain and pop blood vessels.

But since it has yet to be completely proved, we can reasonably assume that a bullet will hit you with super human force (they are powered by a chemically induced explosion after all).

True, an axe could very well sever someones head, arm or leg from someones shoulders if adequately applied and this would most likely result in a rapid bleed out. But in most cases an axe will not cause so much severe tramua to internal organs and bloodvessels as a bullet would. Especially in the case of hollow point or dumdum bullets that will "mushroom" on impact and tumble around inside if you with some serious jagged cutting edges and shred all tissue it connects with rather than just passing through you or impact with a bone like full metal jacket bullets do.

Zarkhovian_Rhythm said:

Huh?

You know that firearms lose their effectiveness the farther away the target is rather than the closer it is, right?

For instance, take a sub-machine gun like the MP5. In a range of 5-10 metres emptying a clip into someone will shred them. But if you move beyond it's maximum range (150 metres) you could quite feasibly be protected by a leather jacket.

While it is true that it's harder to align a rifle sized weapon in such close quarters, a pistol is a no-brainer to use on that range. In fact you don't even have to use the iron sights on such short range. It is in fact a matter of "point and pull the trigger". While you won't be very precise of course you'll most likely hit. The massive kinetic force of the bullet will do the rest for you.

Thank you for your responses.

How much combat have you seen? It sounds like a lot judging from your previous posts, and apparent expertise on the subject.

And also when did the guy with the axe come after you? I mean that was crazy.

Zarkhovian_Rhythm said:

Fortunately I haven't seen too much combat. Im just a gun enthusiast and have an interest in different styles of melee weapons (like medieval weapons, and I have a soft spot for japanese katanas as well). But then again, all men tend to have a little fascination for these things, even if the degree varies, right?

But aside from that, I guess I have the type of personality that can attract unwanted attention from violent people (I tend to stand my ground verbally when I get mistreated instead of backing down). I haven't started any fight myself, but I have been engaged in a few. Some involving no more than kicks and punches, others involved improvised melee weapons.

I'll usually run from such instances, but sometimes you can get cornered.

As for the guy with the axe... Well alcohol can have a severe effect on certain people and some can really go over the edge when they're drunk or high. In fact, this other guy I used to know (who even celebrated mid-summers eve at my home one summer) is doing jail-time right now for having stabbed three people one night. Two of them were at the same party as him, and the third one (who died from the injuries) was just a family man who happened to live in the same area as the party and had nothing to do with whatever situation that made this guy go over the edge.

The guy who did these things were reportedly drunk and under the influence of drugs too, and from what im told he was probably in a foul mood well before it all happened. Which just goes to show that you should never drink or get high to forget or distract yourself from whatever's eating you at the time. The substances will just amplify whatever you keep bottled up inside and might very well make you do stupid things. Sure these stupid things can vary in severity, some people might just rant and say hurtful things to friends and loved ones. But others might do worse things like joyriding in cars or grabbing a knife and stab or grabbing an axe and swing it at someone.

Now im not gonna go all "anti drugs and alcohol" or "anti guns and knives" because frankly, I don't believe these are really the cause of all these bad scenarios. The cause of it all is just bad judgement and human stupidity, so I hope everyone will keep their wits about them and know when it is alright to go out and drink and when it might be a better idea to stay at home and work through whatever's eating you. So to summarize: we're the cause of all the bad **** that happens in the world, not guns, knives, bad relationships, drugs or alcohol. If everybody makes sure to improve themselves and being smart then many of these things can be averted. Knives and alcohol are just the catalyst for disaster, not the cause.

Anyway, back on topic...

alexkilcoyne said:

That Chainswords don't jam, is a failure in the rules.

It happens in the 40k novels.

Dahak said:

When a gun jams, it stops spewing death. When a chainsword jams, it's still a large heavy object with serrated teeth.

The former prevents the intended function, the latter merely poses a minor inconvenience.

Quite a lot of silly stuff here... first, what is actually meant by "game balance" ? All characters equal? In what way? There would be no combat specialists if everyone was equally good with weapons and tactics and I don't see people demanding that all characters be equally good at trading or learning, for example. In reality, people are not equal in ability, at all, in fact some people have no area of expertise to speak of whatsoever and they are the very poorest of the poor in our societies because it means they have little to offer in exchange for remuneration - "unskilled manual labour". RPGs set up characters so that overall they are at least roughly equal, in many cases (and frequently far above the teeming masses), although in reality there's no need to do this; you're playing a role in a cooperative storytelling, essentially, someone else could be the king of the know universe and you nothing more than his scullery maid and the story might still be interesting and worth telling.

As someone with some real knowledge about combat (although I'm not claiming Grand Master status or anything) a few salient points about the reality (as opposed to the WH40K-verse):

• Firearms are called "the great equalizer" for a reason; a relatively unskilled combatant can seriously injure or kill another opponent regardless of that opponent's own skill, at significant range. This trend started with crossbows, which, unlike traditional bows, especially 'longbows', didn't require years of training and conditioning to use - you simply point and fire, then reload.
• Being attacked is scary, being attacked with a handweapon is especially scary today because it's so rare and the majority of people are utterly unprepared psychologically as well as totally untrained in the use of or defence against them. However, they are nowhere near as lethal, overall, as automatic firearms and that is especially true with almost any firearm in the hands of a marksman.
• Scary as firearms are, the energy in an individual bullet is much less than people imagine; a 0.45 calibre pistol round of the kind used in the famous M-1911 sidearm, has less energy than a one-pound bag of sugar dropped from your counter-top, at the start of its ballistic path. A healthy adult man will deliver significantly more energy with a single punch. The reason bullets work well when used correctly is that they penetrate and rupture vital organs and blood vessels, not that they deliver enormous amounts of energy - think efficiency not brute force.
• A trained opponent can close and disarm you from twenty feet away, making this an effective minimum distance for relying on even a pistol, longarms are far more unwieldy with a corresponding larger ideal engagement range, given the need to actually aim, in reality, to have a hope of hitting a target, though a burst of automatic fire will tend to persuade people to stay away.

So, then. In practice, I.E. "real life", wielding a sword when people are using firearms (including some truly horrifically powerful ones, such as plasma weapons and the like) is foolhardy in the extreme... WH40K, however, has always overpowered melee combat in order to make it viable because it's more fun to have two opposing commanders scrapping it out while their underlings watch than it is to have them hiding at the back with the most 'bad-ass' longrange weapon they can find. This break with reality is deliberate and an essential part of the character of 40K but it certainly doesn't need any more emphasis, given that it would actually be utterly unviable. Don't get me started on the silliness that is using a chainsaw as a weapon, either... :¬)

Gaidheal, best post in a five page thread with nothing more to add really !

Levyten said:

For the most part, yes. There are no automatic weapons (well, none that are readily available to the players without GM fiat) so there is less of a damage bonus. Plus, WFRP has the original iteration of Righteous Fury, in which the player only gains a single additional d10 damage if he gets a natural 10.