Hi!

I have been thinking of removing the full auto burst from bolters (Astartes and RT versions), in order to make them more fluffy (as of p11 of 4ed SM codex, as well as in lexicanum , it is said that they fire only 4 round bursts and that doesn't feel like full auto to me) and to tune them down (so I would make their RoF S/4/- ). As I havent been playing DW yet, how this sounds to you? From my rather short readthrought of the core rulebook, most special talents give bonuses both to bursts and full auto, therefore not making some talents completely obsolete (and they could still be used with storm and heavy bolters.. which is nasty!).

Also I have been thinking to reduce a d10 from all Astartes bolt-weapory damage as after all they fire same type of projectiles at similiar velocities (as bolts are self propelled) than the "civilian" versions. Marines are total monsters in combat, but currently their bolters are just too good (and unfluffy, as they match Tau pulse rifles).

According to the RPG, "civilian" and Astartes bolt weapons don't fire the same ammunition. Astartes ammo is of a sufficiently different quality, and can be fired at a higher initial velocity, etc, than a civilian weapon due to the constitution of the Adeptus Astartes, that it is simply just better than that of civilian quality.

Plus, reducing the damage caused by the weapons would make them useless against any number of enemies, such as Chaos Marines, Crisis Battlesuits, etc. You just wouldn't do any damage to them, on an average damage roll, which is entirely contradictory to the image of the bolt weapon in 40k.

The way I thought of it, reducing damage would also give more strategical depth into the game, as special ammunition would almost be required to combat tougher enemies. With Vengeance or Kraken rounds, the tougher enemies would still go down quite fast. Bringing a plasma- or meltagun with you (which I think are too weak in turn) would help as well. Even in TT, bolters are quite useless against Battlesuits or CSM, as they don't penetrate and wound only on 4+ (so a marine needs to hit like 12 times to make CSM a casualty).

It should be like "A hive tyrant! I wish I would have taken that plasma gun", not "A hive tyrant! I fire my bolter at it in full auto, it'll do more damage anyways" (Fire rounds rapid shoudn't work always).

I have no objection of bolters slaughtering tens of normal "mooks", but they seem to be too powerful when against the elites.

I personally agree with Millandson, whilst the may fire the same calibre of round at .75 they could easily fire in sufficiently different fashion, also with the enemies your Marines will be going up against they'll want that 2d10 damage. Yes it's high, but I think the worst mistake can be to make your players feel like the aren't marines, like they're just blokes in big armour. My logic when I'm running a game is a case of if the Marines are killing stuff too easily I'll throw more stuff at them at once, or have a harder alternate enemy lined up to test them. Rather than fiddling too much with stats of weapons.

As far as full auto fire went, that one made me ponder too. I'm rationalising it in my mind as rather than the gun firing at full automatic the Space Marine himself fires either once, twice (two trigger pulls) or a burst of four in my mind is why "full auto" would give them +20 (they're not just blinding letting the gun buck as they open up so they can keep it on target) and also keeps in line with the fluff that Boltguns don't go fully automatic. But I do understand that way of thinking, and why people would want to change that. If you want to it's totally up to you, I won't be personally

Bolters don't need toning down, if anything the other guns need to be buffed a bit.

Also, there's a need to balance against melee weapons. With the Unnatural Strength trait and the boost from your Power Armor, you could easily have +10 or more damage added to your melee weapons. Which is almost 2d10 worth.

I have played like 20+ games with the Dark Reign's Astartes-fan expansion for DH using Luddites bolter rules (bolter's basic damage d10+8), and for me it seems that the higher close combat damage balances out as you get less hits than with a rapid firing bolter (and close combat should be more badass than the bolters anyways, it is way more cool to beat enemy to death than to shoot them). Also I feel that Marines should be able to do greater damage in close combat, after all, they have been enchanced to do that (also in this way they can damage the nasties, which bolter wouldn't have that much effect on).

Also because of this DH marine experience, my players already know what playing a marine means, so Deathwatch is just an upgrade for them (better stats, more wounds, more focused on marines (the DH expansion was sometimes slightly lacking)).

I was also thinking of adding +d10 to the damage of meltagun and plasmagun (I know that this has been gone throught in different posts, so not let get bogged on it. I am pointing it in regards of the balance in lessening the damage of bolt-weapons). And we use the old, DH-style RF rules (only +1d10 damage per Righteous Fury).

But if not counting the damaging the enemies part, is there something else what would go wrong? Oaths? Some new talents? Should I try this?

The Dark Reign Astartes rules obviously, however, we're balanced with the new, official, Space Marine rules. I'd probably advise running a few games with the rules as standard, without houseruling anything, before fiddling with things. It might turn out that, after trying it, you don't think it actually needs changing in the face of actual experience with the new rules, and if you do feel things need changing, you'll have a better idea of what needs changing, and to what degree it needs changing.

That last point remains one of my questions after a "First Blush" look at the Deathwatch rules. Does the RAW make for a good game at the expense of an exploration of the Marines given the high degree of "buffing" to the basic Marine engendered by all the Solo and Squad Mode abilities, as well as the Oaths, the "Astartes"-level this or that, etc. Need to give it more than an hour of reading through the book before I come to that decision, but I've got the feeling that it will come out as a "good game" (to your degree of good) in need of some pruning...

We'll see, though.

Kage

Dige said:

Nerfing the Bolter you opt for a more melee centric play, instead of a balance between the two. With the 2D10+X of the Bolters which are the main weapons of everyone you make it possible for people to play a "shooty" character instead of having to feel like they're worthless unless they get into melee which something only should be done (unless you're playing an Assault Marine) if the opportunity presents itself, such as Orks rushing in.Plasma Weapons have their ups, for instance they have higher Pen, and can increase that with maximal mode which also has a +2 Blast which is perfect with destroying hordes, and auto RF.

However if I were to allow the change Plasma Weapons to compete with Bolters, I'd take off the Recharge on maximal but increase ammo consumption by another 2. So 5 ammo consumption per shot but add a +2 Blast, +1d10 damage, and +2 Pen. Your basic Plasma Gun that's 2d10+9, Pen 10; Blast (2), Overheats, Volatile. However it only has 8 shots in this mode before needing 4 Full rounds to reload, and I would change Overheats to that it does weapon damage with pen. This would allow it to be on par with the Bolter, seeing how the Bolter can fire on full auto more times than a Plasma can on maximal, but the Plasma runs a good chance of melting your hands off due to the amount of backwash.