HamHamJ said:

You forgot the lazers shooting from their eyes and flames from their rear...

For my games adding a melee attachment will make it "two-handed" in close combat, thats why it loses the balanced quality. It seems like a simple solution without needing any leaps in logic.

I'm not sure. The unbalanced thing seems to me to be because they are swinging such a top heavy and difficult weapon to use in close combat one handed. If the held it in both hands then they could be much more precise with their blows.

Think about it, they go charging in with their main melee weapon and and just sort of make over-the-top swings with the bolter due to its nature. Also, remember, they are space marines, they would probably have the skills and training/enhancements to be able to use a wepon like that semi-affectively.

HamHamJ said:

Makes assault marines with bolt pistols and chainswords pretty crap then. After all, that is the standard assault marine armament and has been for the last 12 years of 40k.

If that sort of thing was possible or even encouraged why are assault marines not actually equipped that way? Why are tactical marines not equipped that way? Because doing that conflates different tactical roles into a single role, making all the different marine designations completely moot. If it was possible then marine companies would have always been equipped this way.

Hellebore

Tarquin Faquar said:

Please no, not again, not like this...

A) It looks ridiculous

B) Try it, try to swing a toy gun with a melee attachment taped to the barrel and try to have it hit anything effectively. No matter how strong you are, there are much more effective weapons, like a knife. As Hellebore mentions as well, if it were possible why isn't everyone doing it already?

C) No.

If you can't munch out when playing a Space Marine when can you munch out?

If you want restraint, I'd suggest Dark Heresy might be more your speed.

AluminiumWolf said:

That's really got nothing to do with it. Games Workshop does not write or design marines that do this. Therefore it shouldn't be something that is possible. If it were then space marine armies would simply consist of 10 squads of dual wielding bolter chainsword squads with jump packs.

I think some of the problem here stems from the absurd carrying capacity given as SB+TB increases. Given the carrying capacity of a space marine they should be able to dual wield heavy bolters if they have pistol grips. That kind of strength (several TONNES) means even something that big and bulky won't over balance in their hands. Something only overbalances in your hands if the weight distribution is beyond your strength to adjust to. As marines can supposedly carry thousands of kgs of weight, they have the strength to carry what would be to us overbalanced objects without any trouble.

So then you have abstracted rules added to prevent this happening (like requiring two hands regardless of strength etc).

IMO you should be able to wield a weapon one handed if its weight in KGs is equal to or less than your SB. Otherwise the balance is too much for your strength to correct and you must use it two handed. This means the number of hands required to use something is directly related to your strength rather than an abstract rule.

Your carrying capacity is how much your arms, back and legs can carry, not your arms by themselves (or a single hand). However the distinction isn't really there and you get absurdities like the above.

Hellebore

I'd rather see PCs dual weilding heavy bolters.

Err on the side of fun.

AluminiumWolf said:

I left my munchkin days a long time back and agree with Meph's comments from back in September:

And in any case I think an RPG is much more fun when not played at munchkin level, such as dual wielding two bolters, hosing on full auto and wildly stabbing about with the two CC attachments. That's, well, a bit out of the spirit of any RPG I feel. As a GM, I can play a much more satisfying combat with a Marine using his combat knife in interesting ways than I would with a marine kitted out to the limits of the game system.

For the record, like DH for what is is. But I like DW for what it is, it just doesn't need to be any more over the top than it already is. So just because I don't want to play in a munchkin game doesn't mean I don't want to play Space Marines. And if munchkin is your cup of tea, or you want it with your marines, knock yourself out. I'm pretty sure Hellebore is right here and GW/FFG didn't intend this to be the case, but then again the primary intent of the game is to have fun so if that's how you get your kicks, cool.

My argument is not against what you think might be fun for your group- and so not really with your ideas; my argument is against the concept that this is somehow realistic or plausable given the existing, majority held feel of the game. In my 40k there is no room for dual wielding heavy bolters, using your jump pack to fly your heavy bolter wielding devestator around, and no unlimited ammo.

But as Kage would say, YMMV.

I think one 'munches out' as a Space Marine by playing a Space Marine.

No further addition is required.

I'm sure twin HBs might be some people's idea of fun, but generally; if it's not been done on Asartes minis, then it's not likely to happen in my games.

Which means that 8-foot swords duel wielded with a storm bolter is possibly in, but two heavy weapons really isn't...