More of an opinion question than a rules question: at what point is Requisition of common wargear "excessive"? For example, if you wanted to carry 10 frag grenades instead of the usual three. Or 20 grenades? 40? Does it seem OK for another member of the squad to carry an additional backpack ammo supply to refresh the Devastator when his payload runs low (or to carry an alternate supply of specialty ammo)?

Direach said:

You have to ask your players: do you really think you will need it? If they think they need that much ammo and the mission doesn't call for it, perhaps they should spend more time on the shooting range, practicing accuracy. Plus it's not exactly the way to get renown fast in my book.

What self-respecting DW carries more ammo/grenades than standard equipment unless there is **** good, concrete reason for it? Don't they believe in their ability to prevail without it? Maybe some players need to get out of the adventurer mind-set and into the Astartes/Heroes of the Imperium mind-set. You can do it, if necessary with bare hands. I urge you to take a look at the illustration in the News section about the Emperor Protects supplement. The marines all just carry combat knives.

In short: whatever the GM says is excessive is excessive. End of debate.

Alex

When an OP asks for opinions, I don't think anyone but he or a moderator can call an end to debate.

I don't feel it excessive if a team takes extra gear/ammo/weapons on a mission that CAN be successfully completed with minimalist gear, simply because a marine's life and the INCREDIBLE amount of money and effort involved in training him is worth an extra few grenades so long as they can actually contribute to the mission meaningfully.

My opinion is that a team should try to prepare themselves with enough to not only complete the mission as it is given, but to deal with a reasonable amount of complications to the mission (an extra 2d10 km to walk through a warzone, the potential supplies might be cutoff, etc.). What is excessive is going to depend on the mission, the GM's style (how off-mission does he tend to take us?), and the item in question (Aside from a single mission-specific target, even a single vortex grenade is extremely excessive).

Space Marine commanders, in universe, are incredibly capable tacticians able to study the arts of war for hundreds of years before attaining high ranks - they'll be aware, both on a tactical and personal level, that the question is not Whether a mission will get complicated, but HOW. So long as a SM commander isn't an idiot, he WILL grant a buffer zone of requisition to deal with the inevitable complications that arise from anything but the most straightforward, simple mission... and what's the point of using Deathwatch veteran space marines on a straightforward, simple objective? On the same token, what's the point in denying the best tool for given specialist skill sets and training (ammo for a Devastator, grenades for generalists, etc) when the **** REALLY hits the fan?

Personally, I would suggest that allies carrying extra ammo packs would probably be deemed excessive in most cases... but less so in an active warzone environment where the density of enemy is going to require a lot more ordnance to clear out and supplies are anything but reliable. I'd probably only allow them to transfer an ammopack from one marine to the other in the presence of a techmarine (or as a last resort, a marine with Tech Use), though.

Unusualsuspect said:

I think the opinion he is expressing is that if the GM says its exessive then its the end of any debate (amongst the gaming group).

If you can't carry it all, it is too much.

Basic rule of thumb to go by.

You are being dropped onto a world being eaten by Tyranids, can you really have too much heavy bolter ammo?

There was no debate to begin with, but thanks for ending it.

Obviously what the GM says goes, that's a given. There's no conflict in our group about this, I was just curious where everyone else stood on the subject, as player or GM. Please feel free to contribute your thoughts, if you wish.

It had originally occurred to me that grenades + Bolter Assault might be a very effective way of dramatically reducing a horde's strength right from the start, hence my speculation about additional grenades; but now I think that full auto bolter fire with hellfire or metalstorm rounds is almost certainly a better method.

Which leads to another question: is there any reason, apart from Requisition cost, why hellfire rounds are not a better choice against a horde than metalstorm rounds (when fired from a standard boltgun)? I believe the damage to magnitude per hit is the same, but hellfire do not lose damage and penetration, and ignore natural armour.

Direach said:

I am imagining that the metalstorm probably has a larger spread of shrapnael, so that would be taken into consideration.

King Jareth said:

Yes. And let me just add that a Space Marine's best weapon isn't his bolt gun, or an extra ammo backpack or a load of krak grenades. It's his unshakable faith in the Emperor. <g>

Alex

Direach said:

Using metal storm, you need to shoot something with a soak of 8 to even have a chance at doing 0 damage, and I'd probably not require a roll for anything under a soak of 11, as the chance of getting less than 2 or less on all 3 dice is low enough to not bother. For normal or Kraken rounds, there's no point in rolling unless it's a Horde of Traitor Marines.

I think the real difference is completely due to Requisition. In general, if something is a horde, it's expected to be a nuisance, not a major enemy. Just count the Mag and save the dice rolling.