HappyDaze said:

The logic straight-forward: if it could be done and it is efficient, Marines would use it all over the place. If Marines could fire two bolters simultaneously, every Tactical Squad would have at least 50% of Marines wielding two bolters as standard equipment.

Some of us GMs conclude from it not being so that it doesn't work efficiently. Also some of us GMs want to capture the spirit of 40K TT and of the illustrations and allowing two storm bolters as a regular outfit seems to be going against that. Even the gear of the DW in 40K TT doesn't include options for two storm bolters.

Thus in my game: no two bolters, no two storm bolters. No two heavy weapons either. I mean if it would work to wield 2 SBs, it's not like the PCs would be the first and only to do so and I don't want all the marines to run around with two bolters.

Alex

HappyDaze said:

Perhaps the players should realize they don't control the opinions of the NPCs. And a butt hurt player that doesn't like the rules their GM has set should realize that GM is typically spending 10 times the effort, energy, and time creating living breathing worlds so that he/she can spend time playing in it, and is the arbitrator of the rules.

I don't disagree the GM needs to be fair, and that the GM needs to actually roleplay their NPCs and make them interesting. However, the GM gets to set the rules of their game. They pick the house rules to use, they chose whether or not to take the eratted version of rules, they decide whether or not you can actually dual wield automatic weapons. That GM should be careful and keep the wishes of the players in mind both in order to remain a GM and in order to plainly not be a jerk, but it is their game.

Yes, your 40k may have Watch Captains that dual wield storm bolters, maybe even ones inside of power fists, but in mine that honor resides with the likes of chapter masters or folks that are above respected rank. See AK's response as well, for it reinforces/conicides with a lot of why I don't like the ideas of them.

EDIT: Crossing fingers trying to fix the misquote doesn't hork this post

I guess it comes down to whether or not you intend to house rule against the SM being able to fire a Basic weapon one-handed without penalty. By RAW they can, and if you're sticking with that rule, then don't complain when someone decides to pick up a pair of Basic weapons. If you decide to houserule against it, then so be it. It's the rule from the power armour that is causing your problem, not the storm bolter.

In my own play experiences, I've seen a Bolter + Bolter and a Bolter + Flamer combos. Both were quite effective, but hardly broken. These were at Rank 1, and I'm sure that later a Storm Bolter would have replaced a Bolter in each combo, but I'm OK with that. Of course, I find the mini game to be totally outside my area of interest, so whether or not I could find a model with these weapon combos really doesn't matter to me at all, and I'm not going to use that a the reasoning behind a houserule.

HappyDaze said:

Do you use official FFG missions? If so, will you consider modifying traitor marines so that they dual wield bolters and storm bolters too? Because I am pretty sure that the missions were not written with dual SB-wielding marines in mind.

And about Watch Captains: all that had been said is that the GM can use a Watch Captain to not allow a loadout he doesn't consider appropriate. Not that every WC would not permit it.

Alex

HappyDaze said:

True enough. I don't have a problem with the one handed part exactly, it's the dual wielding portion that stacks on it that gives me the creeps. To me it's not a compelling bit of fiction or drama outside of the last stand scenario where Brother McShootALot picks up the storm bolter from his fallen pal and saves the day. Picking up two of them and marching into a pod is further over the top than I like to go. But then again, I make my players count their ammo, too.

To back up my view, I look to what (few) books I've read with SMs in it, the RPG, and the table top. Outside of very special characters this doesn't happen.

And while it's not explicitly broken, neither is having half the party requisition heavy bolters, but it sure doesn't feel right to me. It takes a bit of the grit away, this is compounded by AK's point that if a handful of DW marines are doing it, then every marine in the galaxy would be trying to do this, including Chaos Marines and Imperial Guardsman that buy recoil gloves. Millions of folks dual wielding automatic weapons doesn't add to the setting...IMHO of course...

Pic related.

Alex

Odd. My reply seems to keep getting dropped. Here it is again:

It takes a bit of the grit away, this is compounded by AK's point that if a handful of DW marines are doing it, then every marine in the galaxy would be trying to do this, including Chaos Marines and Imperial Guardsman that buy recoil gloves. Millions of folks dual wielding automatic weapons doesn't add to the setting...IMHO of course...

I don't know about Imperial Guardsmen, but I've seen a RT Archmilitant that loves what his Recoil Gloves let him do with a pair of Pulse Rifles.

And sure, Chaos Marines can do it too. However, this is a RPG, and it's well-known that in RPGs PCs tend towards being exceptions most of the time. Don't ever expect a PC to do what everybody else does especially if the rules support his unusual choices.

Charmander said:

Agreed. While none of my players are of the inclination to attempt such a thing, I have a house rule on standby that kicks the issue in the face should it ever come up: unless specially-designed to operate that way (the guns on the Gauntlets of Ultramar, a Dire Avenger Exarch's vambrace-mounted Shuriken Catapults, etc), a character dual-wielding basic weapons suffers an additional -20 penalty to hit due to the awkwardness of operating two large and bulky weapons simultaneously. It's not an automatic "no", but it's a fairly significant penalty that should at least make people think twice about doing it.

Wielding a bolter or storm bolter in one hand is fine, and entirely appropriate - it leaves the other hand free for a melee weapon, an auspex, or for helping an injured Battle Brother to his feet, etc. Grabbing up a second bolter, etc, as anything other than an act of last-ditch defiance, seems wrong in a way that isn't easy to articulate.

HappyDaze said:

The problem with dual wielding (storm) bolters is that it makes one go like "D'oh - why don't they all do that, it's such a glaringly obvious thing to do." Why would anyone in their right mind (except an Assault Marine perhaps who is being tasked with bodyguarding the shooters) not wield two bolters? Why even sling one Heavy Bolter when you can wield two storm bolters?

Alex

ak-73 said:

The only real reason would be a scarcity of Storm Bolters. This matters much more when equipping a Company of Space Marines and is less of an issue in the Deathwatch where the typical deployment is less than 10 Marines. If you wish to use the mini game, then it's obvious that your typical Marine doesn't spend any Req.

If you want to apply a limit, apply the limit not to the use of such a weapon, but to the Req limits. Perhaps the second item of any given type requested by an individual costs more Req. This means that taking two Basic Weapons would get a Req cost penalty, but so too would taking two Melee weapons.

Optionally, just put a hard inventory list down of what the Watch can provide. As items are lost, remove them. Periodically add in a few new items. So you might have the Req for a pair of Storm Bolters, but if there are only two available, it might be better to take one and let your buddy take the other. This does add in bookkeeping that might not appeal to some.

That's not what I meant though. I meant to express this: if the PCs can dual wield SBs, why don't all Marines at least dual wield bolters? And the special weapon guys can dual wield storm bolters. Or at least the captains and the like. Why isn't the dual wielding of all kinds basic weapons the norm with space marines? If possible and without a substantial drawback, they would have to be stupid not to have many of them dual wield basic weapons of whatever kind. Heck, even wielding an Astartes Bolter right and a non-Astartes Bolter or Autogun left would be much more effective against hordes.

That's a problem I am having with it. It makes non-PC Marines look stupid, tactically unsound, incapable of maximizing their own effectiveness. To me that goes beyond 'PCs are special.'

Alex

HappyDaze said:

I utterly disagree with every point raised there.

As I said before and as it's been reiterated; if it was viable, then every marine would have two bolters. Heck: The USMC would issue every Marine two M-14s, too. But it's not viable; it's a dumb idea. And it is a Commanding Officer's job to stop his men doing stupid stuff. Because as great as they might be at killing things, soldiers try to do stupid stuff if left to their own devices... One could easily draw parallels with the role of the GM. PArt of the role of the GM is to stop players doing stupid stuff that might be perfectly ok by RAW, but so blatantly absurd that a brake needs to be put on it.

ak-73 said:

Then give them more bolters if you think they need it. Optionally, that open hand can be used for a pistol, melee weapon, grenade, auspex, holding on to something, making signals, taunting the enemy, or any number of other things that can't be done if its holding a bolter. I don't see holding a second Basic weapon to be a problem - I see a lack of good encumbrance (including ammo capacity) rules to be the real issue.

Siranui said:

If every member of the USMC could use a second weapon in their off hand (hint - the vast majority are not ambidextrous and also don't have power armour) then sure, why not? I've seen paintball players use two full size markers, and those are proportional to a SM using a bolter (did I mention that the encumbrance rules are a joke). So it is viable, and saying it's not is obviously just idiotic since the rules plainly indicate it is.

HappyDaze said:

The logic behind this line of thought is that since neither in the TT nor the novels nor in the illustrations Marines wield two bolters commonly, it can be concluded that it must be ineffective except for some character model-level marines perhaps. Thus me and others calling the DW rule that is implicitly allowing it nonsensical.

Alex

ak-73 said:

Not commonly done, but possible. Fix the encumbrance rules to be based upon bulk rather than weight and this issue will go away. Using two Basic weapons will become a temporary thing - something done while you're holding the Apothecary's Bolter alongside your own while he tends to the wounded rather than something carried from start of mission to finish. However, there is NOTHING wrong with the rules allowing a second Basic Weapon to be carried and used - you're attacking the wrong part of the problem.

HappyDaze said:

The whole argument relies on it not being commonly done though. That being so allows the conclusion that it's ineffective. (And the temporary thing would clash with requesting 2 storm bolters for an entire mission.)

As for tackling the wrong part, in my game I don't want anyone to shoot a basic or heavy weapon and another weapon at the same time. I don't even care if it's realistic or not or if RAW allows it. That's for my game only. I flat out don't want it. And I am trying to explain here why I don't want it - it feels wrong. And part of why I don't tackle it from an encumberance angle is because I don't want to burden (no pun intended) my game with keeping track of any of that. Instead the players have their standard loadout and I just try to apply some common sense during the game without keeping track of bulk or anything; just rule of thumb applies.

It has come to be part of my approach to GMing in general.

Alex

HappyDaze said:

I've never seen a set of encumbrance rules that wasn't. In my experiences, encumbrance systems in general are a waste of time and effort when it comes to actually running a game.

Still, a quick-and-dirty fix could be attempted to the 40kRP one by removing Unnatural Strength and Unnatural Toughness from the equation - using only basic SB and TB, and then increasing the final weight values by (for the sake of argument) +100% for every size category above Average (so a Strength 45, Toughness 45, with the +20 Str from his armour, has an effective SB+TB of 10 for this purpose, for a Max Carrying Weight of 78kg, doubled due to being Hulking to 156kg... compared to the 1.3 tonnes the same character can carry under the system in the rulebook).

Random thought:

What about incurring 5% Agility penalties for each weapon category carried above one? So carrying a Bolter and Flamer would incur a 5% penalty or Agility tests.

To me (beardy powergamer issues aside), the problem isn't the weight, it's the common sense associated with all those bulky items. All that gear is eventually going to get in the way of things.

Just a random idea, though.

HappyDaze said:

Because you can't hit anything or operate the weapon properly?

Meh... lack of ambidexterity is only a -20, so our marine will still hit a large portion of the time. And the recoil of 5.56mm is pretty light, so he doesn't need PA. It doesn't happen because it's clearly laughably impractical. And y'know... giving a PBI one weapon is ok... he can keep track of it. Give him two and he'll loose count of how many he has...

And I bet those paintball players don't hit very much at all, because firing weapons in one hand is horribly inaccurate as you can't use the sights and lack stability. Both longarms and sidearms are used two handed because anything else is woefully inaccurate.

I love this forum.

I think the mechanic missing here is an expanded table detailing the to-hit penalties that should be caused by firing two weapons, varying by the mass/recoil of each weapon. Similar to D&Ds notion of light weapons.

In other words, normal two handed penalties both weapons are pistols ("light") (the current -30 untrained/ -20 if ambi or TWW/ -10 if TWW and ambi)

A heavier penalty if one basic, one light, and worse if two basic. (maybe an extra -10 if one basic, -20 if two basic, so a base penalty of -50 if untrained, attempting to fire two basic weapons)

And either disallow two heavy weapons, or an extreme penalty (-60 base, rarely an issue, but you could outfit a terminator with two assault cannons, as those are fired one handed).

It would discourage, but make possible, the firing of two storm bolters. Still, the use of motion predictors, Astartes weapon specialization (caps on the maximum negative penalty), masterwork/signature weapons, range, horde size/monster size, and the normal full auto bonus means that this could still become game breakingly dangerous. Perhaps up the penalty, but once again, Astartes weapon spec breaks that.

In other words, a hard accuracy penalty actually is probably not a good method of stopping this.

As HappyDaze says, having the Watch Captain micro manage the loadout of the squad (while valid) is not an appropriate way to handle special forces of this type.

I dislike the notion of altering the core rules for the sake of preventing this. Two weapon fighting is an aspect of the game, the problem is the recoil gloves built into the armour. Problem is, there are plenty of depictions of the one handed use of bolters/storm bolters (my space marine captain in TT uses a storm bolter one handed), so having the gloves is meaningful. Perhaps say the suit can only compensate one basic weapon in this manner?

Once again, I point back to not allowing any other weapons to be carried due to bulk issues. The threat of becoming a popular target for melee should make them reconsider. As in MMO terms, "such high damage output should generate alot of threat."

Also, reloading should be an issue. While it would probably rarely occur in combat, it should take a while. Not certain of this, but the "Draw weapon" action is only for drawing one basic weapon, correct? So even if they have quick draw, they can only perform one draw action per turn. Therefore to have a free hand, it takes at least 2 turns, even with rapid reload, to load both guns.

Finally, just tell the player they're being annoying and a munchkin, and to quit power gaming (note that I am not telling the player they may not do this). Make it so that they actually have something they feel they need to spend req on besides more weapons, possibly extra explosives to deal with certain problems, or other tools.

tl;dr
This is a hard problem, with no good solution in sight. Dual wielding basic weapons is overpowered, this is plainly simple. But at the same time, altering the rules just because something bad happened is not the healthy way to go about it (or at least, thats what Milton Friedman would tell me). Telling players "No, you may not do this" is not a good thing. Let them do it, but punish them accordingly.

Reading through this thread I've been struck by one thing: Two different people have specificly excluded unique models and characters from what should be considered possible in their games. Not what should be normal, but possible. Given FFG has stated repeatedly that DW characters are intended to grow into being such characters, I find it odd that so many people refuse to consider that DW kill-teams brothers are NOT a tactical squad, but are a unique group of hero units. Everything I've read and heard shows that for a large problem the IG might send 5000 men with navel support, the Marines might send a company of 100 with heavy armor, but the deathwatch would send 4 guys in a pod.

Also, to keep this rule related.. a reason (other than the logistical one brought up already) not to give two bolters to every Tac Marine is that they are not trained for it, and may not be easily trained for it. While the RPG gives every DW candidate Abidex, and the two weapon fighting talent may cover every ranged weapon, a "normal" tac marine may not have either, let along both.

Larin said:

Oh, that's something we can agree on. If one of my players came to me and said: I want my PC to be able to use two storm bolters at high rank, I want this to be his trademark, I'd develop some special, costly talent for him. (Costly so that the other players don't go... oh, I want that too... but instead develop their own trademarks.) And he'd get a negative modifier if he didn't use his two signature wargear SBs but say two plasmaguns.

Alex

Siranui said:

Well, by the rules, Space Marines CAN do these things, so your argument is lost.