Luddite said:

Art shmart. Art also says that Space Marines have tiny tiny heads. And I think that's some artist's idea of an Inferno Pistol (which logically should suffer from similar issues as do flamers, but let's not go there), even though it actually looks like a laser-as-seen-in-science-fiction-movies.

It certainly isn't firing in an area of effect cone.

Inquisitor sapiens potensque said:

3meters according to RAW isn't it? where does it say 1 meter?

0-3 meters is point blank range for shooting or melee range if melee combat is declared (negating the PB bonus for shooting while in melee of course - the bonus made irrelevant by the use of the hand flamer).

As to this...

'(I kind of get the feeling that people think "melee" is a couple of guys standing 5 feet from each exchanging blows. I blame battlemaps and hex grids!)'

Skilled combatants will actually have an armed melee engagmeent range of between 6-10 feet (2-3 meters) between them, so DH placing melee at 3 meters isn't far off.

1 Meter would be grapple or wrestling range.

But back on track - the errata says pistols get 1 shot in melee. According to the rules inferno pistol or hand flamer is still the best option since melee represents engagement out to 3 meters.

Luddite said:

Because around 1 meter is the length of somebody's arm + a knife, while hitting somebody from 3 meters away is generally impossible.

Even in "swirling melees" people don't tend to stand at the exact range at which their opponent can hit them. Its kind of this whole "if they can't hit me, they can't hurt me" sorta thing. So anywhere from 1-3 meters is perfectly sensible.

Luddite said:

Point Blank is 3m or less. Melee means your standing right on top of the person, so yes, your more than welcome to stand 2m away from someone and unload with two pistols at full auto, because the only way they can possibly hit you by RAW is with a whip; and there's some dissension on whether a whip forces a target to be in melee - since that means whips have a higher threat range than any other melee weapon. A person trying to hit you with a sword from 2m would be way way WAY too far away.

Ak-73:

I'll skip the confined space =/= melee part and move directly onto the second point... The systems are largely unified but there are differences. If you DM RT or DW book, your players read the "How to Play Section" and you just assume it works exactly the same as DH there will be some issues. Will the system largely work the same? Yes, yes it will - but there are differences across each of them you have to be aware of (ignoring really blatant differences like ship combat and what not). I mean, ****, even at its most basic lets just look at fate - RT and DW allow you to add a DoS to a succeeded test while DH doesn't. I tend to allow this because its .. Actually a nice rule. DW allows for 1d10 health regenerated, unlike DH's 1d5. The 1d5 can suck when you roll a 1, but 10 damage recovered can often be all of a characters health in DH, or a good majority of it. If you want to bring changes from the other books into DH your more than welcome to - I certainly do; but they don't apply in context of DH RAW. If it makes for a better experience or more balanced rules, just reference or say with justification and I really doubt anyone would ever contest it.

I would certainly hope however that a melee user gets more effective in melee than a pistol user. That's, uh, kind of part of the point honestly. Melee users should be vastly more effective in melee than a ranged attacker, and a ranged attacker should be vastly more effective at ranged than a melee person should. Issue ends up coming up when we allow the ranged attack to be godly at ranged, better at short ranged, and than still be fighting on relatively equal grounds as a melee user. Single shot pistol use in melee range is likely a balance concession, not necessarily a "this is so realistic wow!" concession. To stress again : a melee user SHOULD have vastly more versatility in melee than a ranged user, anything otherwise is fallacious. Ranged attackers have multiple ways to try and stop someone from closing with them into melee (and one of many is the obvious ability to give high damage over long range), but they shouldn't be all that comfortable in melee if they have focused on range exclusively.

As for the last point : the problem here is that full auto and what not *has* popped up, and frankly for a lot of this I know I have (and possibly others) been kind of wondering in what way your referring that. I flipped back through the posts and I've seen the question raised before, and I know I asked it directly myself. If your just referring to letting pistols make attacks via swift/lightning attack, thats.. Uh, alright I guess. You can still end up with a ranged user who has apparently mastered the art so much that he doesn't take any penalties to attack at point blank range with two pistols versus the melee user automatic -10. This can be offset, sure, but its kind of strange. If your just talking about making a pistol shot in combination with swift/lightning attack that's already supported by the game. I am still extremely iffy about letting someone make 4 pistol attacks at melee range because there is some damned nasty pistols out there. People have mentioned before things like Inferno Pistols (2d10+4E Pen 12), bolt pistols in general (Mauler from IHB for example: 1d10+5 X Pen 4), yadda yadda. We cannot ignore high powered and expensive pistols if we are going to speak of such talents because it doesn't become exclusive to sh*tty little low damage pistols (and ranged users can much more easily get poor quality weapons - reliable weapons are plentiful; like the mauler, and they dont become unreliable - unreliable weapons really aren't necessarily that bad, while poor quality melee weapons get a further -10 to hit). Sure there are really bloody powerful melee weapons out there like the Eviscerator (1d10+10 Pen 5 Tearing), but that comes with the other downsides of you cannot parry with it and you cannot quick draw it. Oh, and you can hit yourself with it. Power Swords do wonderful damage, 1d10+5E Pen 6 - they are balanced and you can easily ramp up their damage. But even the lowly Mauler with a much much much cheaper price tag could be dangerous as hell. Its only 375 for a common quality one, its reliable so you can make it poor quality easily, and its a bolt pistol so you can put inferno shells into it. Suddenly you can make three attacks for 1d10+5 Pen 4 and than possibly light the target on fire. Woo. Or simply carry an inferno pistol backup. Or grab a cheap autopistol as backup and you can quick draw and suppress anything before it gets to you. The versatility is great.

In short, if you want to do it .. Sure, but it kinds of ends up scaling weirdly. And honestly, I really really really don't see why you need to worry about allowing ranged users to be "effective in CC and not suck in melee". If they don't want to suck in melee they can raise their WS. Its like melee users - if they don't want to suck at range they can raise their BS. Melee users can never function at a long distance through WS, so why do BS users get far more out of their BS? A BS user can already ruin a melee characters day by just suppressing them as they charge at them - and since you can preform two different attack types with each hand, a two pistol user can have one hand suppressive fire the target the other full auto them. That's.. Sure going to suck for them. Or can toss a fire bomb. Or use one of the ranged snaring devices. There is a hell of a lot they can do; and they get more effective the closer the melee target gets to them.

Rakiel said:

This arguement really misses the point of melee in the RAW. Mechanically you're right to say two static people standing futher apart than their weapons reach can't hit each other. But thats NOT WHAT MELEE IS.

'Generally speaking, when two characters are engaged, they are exchanging attacks, parries, dodges, feints and a number of other maneouvres, all of which are rolled into the standard attack'. Dark Heresy p191 (Combat Abstractions box out)

The 3 meter melee range does NOT represent a static 'reach' but the effective distance that two protagonists are fighting at. A man with a knife will circle perhaps at 3 meters before lunging in with a slash or stab, etc.

Rakiel said:

Yes, but its also melee range. The RAW is actually frustrating in that it never actually states how close you need to be to be in melee; nor have i seen it in the errata (if anyone has the reference to where it's stated i'd love to get the page ref).

The reason i suggest melee range is 3 meters is as follows;

1. 'Charge (full action) must begin at least 4 meters away 'to build up speed'' (DH p190)

2. 'Move (half or full action), whenever you end your move adjacent to an adversary, you are said to be engaged with that opponent' (DH p192)

3. 'Point Blank. Rolls to hit a target within 3 meters with a ranged weapon are easy (+30). Note that this bonus does not apply when shooting targets that are in close combat with the character'. (DH p199)

So, after trying to figure this out over two years ago I think i've correctly interpreted that melee range is 3 meters or less.

1. To gain a bonus a charge move must be over 3m away.

2. Engage range is 'adjacent to', i.e. nearby, NOT touching (see dictionary definition note below)

3. Point blank is 3m, but you don't get the bonus if in melee (by implication within 3 meters).

____

Note: Adjacent

–adjective
1. lying near, close, or contiguous; adjoining; neighboring: a motel adjacent to the highway.
2. just before, after, or facing: a map on an adjacent page.
—Synonyms
Adjoining, adjacent, bordering all mean near or close to something. Adjoining implies touching, having a common point or line : an adjoining yard. Adjacent implies being nearby or next to something else : all the adjacent houses; adjacent angles. Bordering means having a common boundary with something: the farm bordering on the river.

___

SO...melee range is 3m. In my opinion.

Why is this significant? Because it really helps in conceptualising the use of 'pistols in melee'.

Point blank (within 3m but not in melee) is no problem. You get the bonus +30 as the target is caught cold and you pretty much can't miss.

In melee (within 3m) allows the weapon to be used but as the opponent is now 'exchanging attacks, parries, dodges, feints and a number of other maneouvres', you don't get the +30 bonus. Why you should also lose the ability to sqeeze off a full auto burst is beyond me.

Rakiel said:

No, that's grappling and wrestling isn't it? Melee is keeping your opponent in threat range of your weapon (for most things like swords or axes, this is 2-3 meters.) 'Right on top' will be fine for grappling and wrestling surely, but hitting someone you are touching with a 4 foot axe? That's not possible either.

That's great if they use a 3m circling range, but the game is arguably portraying the fast and frantic "up in your face" melee style of combat, reflected in seeing people use pistols at all in melee effectively. As far as the game is concerned, mechanics do not support 3m being the range - if your 3m away, your not in melee. You cannot declare a melee attack from anything other than a whip from 3m of your opponent.

Charge requires you to build up speed by being at least 4m away in a straight line, and I can see no reason that this should be saying "melee range is 3m" - charge has variable range and the 4m is listed as a minimum distance you must move in a straight line before you reach the target.

Being adjacent to the opponent means that you are in an adjacent square. The game is based around 1m square's, and sure you don't have to use them, and sure it can become a lot more vague when you say "adjacent" in that context, but it becomes a hell of a lot more clear when you remember that its referring to the 1m squares.

Point Blank specifically refers to 3m OR LESS. The whole "within 3m" is a relatively large part of it. You are not standing directly on the cusp of melee, but your really really really damned close. The character your shooting is out of charge range but they can't just turn and go "Hey, your 3m away from me, I declare we are in melee as you are vaguely adjacent to me."

When I am referring to the standing ontop of the person I am referring to the hexes. I've always seen it universally represented as you are sharing/touching hexes with the target to show targets are in melee with each other. There is also no listed variation for saying you are closer to the target via using swords, pistols, or unarmed strikes. Its all assumed to happen at the same range (within the 1m square).

Rakiel said:

Arguably?

I'd argue not.

Where's your reference for melee being closer than 3m?

Personally, unless you're grappling, garrotting or trying to gut someone with a knife, i think any closer than 3m is actually inhibiting to melee combat.

Rakiel said:

'Based on 1m squares'.

I've definately missed that. Can you give me a page ref for that please?

Rakiel said:

3m is a realistic melee engagment range especially for protagonists armed with swords or similar hand weapons. It certainly isn't 'vaguely adjacent to'. 3m is 3paces. That's exceptionally close in combat terms. It is, in fact, the perfect melee range for armed opponents.

Aslo, the rules on point blank firmly imply that 3m is melee range (as i said), although nowhere is it explicitely stated. However throughout the rules, 3m is the general implication. If you have a page ref that proves otherwise i'd love to see it.

Again, i say the 3m range IS melee engagment range. It makes sense in modelling reality, it seems to be supported as the assumption in many rules, and its significant in conceptualising the use of pistols in melee.

Opions apparently vary though.

Where's your reference for melee being closer than 3m?

What's your reference for it being 3m?

RAW doesn't specify a range as far as i've seen. The closest I can find is that you are in melee with someone if you are "adjacent " to them. Notice the lack of demand for someone to actually have made a melee attack first, being within melee range is by the rules indistinguishable from being in melee.

So what are the effects of your 3m melee range? First of all, it would completely remove Point Blank from the game. Just gone. Secondly, it would mean that in spite of whips being the only weapons with a specified range of 3m all weapons have that range. That's a bit strange, isn't it?

'Based on 1m squares'.

I've definately missed that. Can you give me a page ref for that please?

Sidebar on page 194, The Tactical Map. It out and out says that the game is written for 128mm miniatures on a tactical map with 1inch squares and these squares are 1 metres in game. It hadn't occured to me since we don't use a map but in that context it seems rather clear to me that adjacent means 1m or less apart, and as such is the RAW melee range.

Graspar said:

I presented it above.

Graspar said:

Got it - thanks Graver .

However its in a sidebar. These are options and advice not core rules.

And as it says on the sidebar on p7, 'you may wish to use suitable miniatures' . Optional.

So in the use of miniatures i says each space is 1 meter.

However, throughout the rest of the rules, is i explained above, the implication is strongly that 3m = melee engagment range.

For me its key to appreciating how a pistol can be used in melee, and therefore what rules are appropriate.

Seems the vagueries of the rules are open to interpretation. I've worked on 3m = melee engagment. It makes logical sense and has served me well.

Look I'll largely agree to disagree because it seems to be going no-where; but it does specifically state that the rules are designed so that you may use a tactical map made of 1 inch squares, or if you don't want to use a map just use a tape measure so that each inch of distance equals one meter, or just dispose of it entirely and use a mental snapshot to make a narrative combat. If you want to make narrative combat than go ahead, it can have all the leaping about and what not that static figures may not so easily represent, but the rules are pretty blatantly intended to be used around a 1 inch = 1 square = 1m. Hell, I believe that *every single published adventure* generally has a map, and those maps are all done in 1m squares. I'll freely admit I never use the published adventures however.

Using the 1 inch = 1 square = 1m rule, to be at 3m *or less* range there is 2 inches/squares between you and the target, at most. That means the target is not on top of you and they may not engage you with melee weapons - the only exception in the entire game being whips, which are specified to have a 3m reach. For the melee target to close they must move through those extra 2 inches/squares, and once they are adjacent they are automatically counted as being in melee with you which removes the benefit of Point Blank and allows you to make melee attacks.

If we assume that 3m is melee range, and that melee range is automatically declared when you are adjacent to the target we end up in this weird hazy land - PB is 3m *OR LESS* and is not counted if the target is in melee range. So it is now impossible to ever receive Point Blank because the second you enter Point Blank you are considered to be in Melee range by your rules. Secondarily since we have no fixed measurement for adjacent, which only makes sense if we use the side bar explaining how the scale of the game is designed (keep in mind Emperor's Fury is also in a side bar, the explanations of combat abstractions, the rules for Fleeing, explaining how to combine difficulties - if we speak of these as being implied "optional rules", than it seems silly that the only time optional rules are specifically stated is when they are .. well, specifically stated. We can see in Shooting into Melee an Optional Rule clause. GM may modify rules any time he wishes, but we have no reason to believe that the Tactical Map side bar is completely seperate from anything, since it explicitly states the rules are designed to work around it) - or if we look at other games that use the adjacent ruling.. Which all have tactical maps. Are other games proof of this game? No, but it certainly doesn't hurt when we see adjacent used in the same manner over and over.

Beyond the fact of PB being crushed, I'll point out the same thing Grasper did - why would whips be specified to be the *only* melee weapon in the entire game with a 3m range? This would also mean that this is really REALLY bloody hard to represent on a tactical map or via miniatures, so you might as well throw that entirely out the door, which than mean the maps supplied with adventures might as well be thrown out of the door. That be would be fine if this was a game entirely designed around abstracted combat and what not, they do exist, but all that this house rule does is make rules relatively vague and confusing.

Rakiel said:

Agreed.

No worries.

It seems that, as the OP saiys, the use of pistols in melee remains a messed up bit of the rules, despite successive contradictory errata.

The way i've run things has seemed to work well and the 3m engagement gives a good conceptualisation of what 'using pistols in melee' means. Its probably significant that i don't and never have used 'battle maps and miniatures' for roleplaying. I play skirmish games if i want that.

As we've shown, interpretations differ, and without official clarifications that make sense we'll all have to figure out what works for our groups.

Good debate though!

I presented it above.

You mean the bit about a charge needing 4m to build up speed? TBH I don't see the implication that melee is 3m, nevermind strongly implied. It outright states that those four metres is to build up speed, not sure how you get from there to "this means melee must begin one metre into the charge"

This arguement really misses the point of melee in the RAW. Mechanically you're right to say two static people standing futher apart than their weapons reach can't hit each other. But thats NOT WHAT MELEE IS.

'Generally speaking, when two characters are engaged, they are exchanging attacks, parries, dodges, feints and a number of other maneouvres, all of which are rolled into the standard attack'. Dark Heresy p191 (Combat Abstractions box out)

The 3 meter melee range does NOT represent a static 'reach' but the effective distance that two protagonists are fighting at. A man with a knife will circle perhaps at 3 meters before lunging in with a slash or stab, etc.

This is an argument completely based on your idea of current irl fighting. Tell me where in real life people get into sword fights while wearing armour that can withstand many of the opponents blows. Of course you keep out of reach in a knife fight. You're wearing at most adequate torso protection (in the form of a stab proof vest) and any but the most mild of cuts are going to end you, right there and then. Also, knife fights are different from sword fights, you don't parry a knife with another knife, all you have is your ability to dodge. Get a sword and shield, full plate and/or sci-fi armour however and that's going to change. Besides, realism doesn't mix well with chainswords.

Yes, but its also melee range. The RAW is actually frustrating in that it never actually states how close you need to be to be in melee; nor have i seen it in the errata (if anyone has the reference to where it's stated i'd love to get the page ref).

The reason i suggest melee range is 3 meters is as follows;

1. 'Charge (full action) must begin at least 4 meters away 'to build up speed'' (DH p190)

2. 'Move (half or full action), whenever you end your move adjacent to an adversary, you are said to be engaged with that opponent' (DH p192)

3. 'Point Blank. Rolls to hit a target within 3 meters with a ranged weapon are easy (+30). Note that this bonus does not apply when shooting targets that are in close combat with the character'. (DH p199)

So, after trying to figure this out over two years ago I think i've correctly interpreted that melee range is 3 meters or less.

1. To gain a bonus a charge move must be over 3m away.

2. Engage range is 'adjacent to', i.e. nearby, NOT touching (see dictionary definition note below)

3. Point blank is 3m, but you don't get the bonus if in melee (by implication within 3 meters).

1. To get a charge bonus you must be 4m or more away from your target. This means by definition more than 3m. It's also by definition more than 2m away, 1m away and 3 cm away. Why did you pick three instead of one or two meters away?

2. Yes, adjacent means "next to". One meter away is hardly touching. Again, your argument supports any arbitrary number of metres equally well, unless one considers that on the games stated preferred 1x1m squares one meter is on the adjacent square, three meters is not.

3. Point blank is indeed 3m, I'm not sure how this implies that it's also melee range.

SO...melee range is 3m. In my opinion.

Why is this significant? Because it really helps in conceptualising the use of 'pistols in melee'.

Point blank (within 3m but not in melee) is no problem. You get the bonus +30 as the target is caught cold and you pretty much can't miss.

In melee (within 3m) allows the weapon to be used but as the opponent is now 'exchanging attacks, parries, dodges, feints and a number of other maneouvres', you don't get the +30 bonus. Why you should also lose the ability to sqeeze off a full auto burst is beyond me.

Unaware or helpless targets gives you another +30, which is basically the only way you could be in point blank without being in melee with your rules. So that's either a +60 or nothing.

Also, doesn't this sort of take away all use of basic shotguns as anything but ambush weapons? I mean, you're never allowed to use the scatter rules unless the target is unaware, helpless or just too stupid to live. And without scatter they're just handcannons, but worse in every way (no manstoppers, shorter range, more armour on long range, can't be used in melee, smaller clip size, basic instead of pistol etc. etc.).

I mean, do you really think this was what was intended by the developers when they wrote the scatter rules?

No, that's grappling and wrestling isn't it? Melee is keeping your opponent in threat range of your weapon (for most things like swords or axes, this is 2-3 meters.) 'Right on top' will be fine for grappling and wrestling surely, but hitting someone you are touching with a 4 foot axe? That's not possible either.

Show me a four foot axe and I'll show you a polearm. That's hardly the same type of combat as you'd get with a more modest one handed weapon

Got it - thanks Graver.

It's Graspar actually.

However its in a sidebar. These are options and advice not core rules.

And as it says on the sidebar on p7, 'you may wish to use suitable miniatures'. Optional.

So in the use of miniatures i says each space is 1 meter.

Let me give you a few example of what else is found in sidebars.

Throwing grenades. Righteous fury. That you can't shoot while blind and take a penalty to parry and moving about. What happens when you use a weapon without the right talent. Armour craftsmanship. Weapon craftsmanship. Bracing. Mechanicus implants. That imperial psykers are sanctioned psykers.

Any of these not core rules? Are they optional rules (any more than any rule in DH is optional through the zeroth rule, gm fiat) simply because they are in sidebars?

Anyway, as you aptly pointed out it says that the game is also playable without a grid if you so choose, but that wasn't the point. The point was what the sidebar says about the game design, not the rules.

It says that it was designed with 1x1 meter grid combat maps in mind, that strongly implies that adjacent means adjacent on the tactical map, i.e. on the adjacent square.

However, throughout the rest of the rules, is i explained above, the implication is strongly that 3m = melee engagment range.

Could you explain how your argument favors 3m over say 3.5m, 2m, 1m or 1dm. I don't see it so either my reading is bad or you have unspoken premises, premises that need to be stated if we're to follow what you're trying to say.

For me its key to appreciating how a pistol can be used in melee, and therefore what rules are appropriate.

Seems the vagueries of the rules are open to interpretation. I've worked on 3m = melee engagment. It makes logical sense and has served me well.

If it works for you it works for you. But i would like to see your thoughts on the following problems.

1. The whips, alone amongst melee weapons are stated to have a range of 3m. Why, if melee range is indeed 3m is this the case?

2. Scatter, only for pistol weapons or perfectly orchestrated ambushes. The shotgun is useless compared to a large revolver.

A short answer to the argument about melee range. If melee range is 3m, the whips, with their ability to strike out with a melee attact to 3m, would be nothing special.

Rakiel said:

It depends obviously on creature size. For a Space Marine in armour, 1m is nothing. Also as it stands a Hand Flamer can be used safely in melee combat without a chance of part of the flaming liquid getting deflected back to you.

Rakiel said:

Yeah but if someone posted a question to them and asked them if this rule would go for DH too and thry affirmed, then it would be official, right?

Rakiel said:

But they are not. You can skill a Scum for melee and still be an effective ranged fighter, all you need is a good full-auto rifle and good ammo. In ranged combat, apart from the BS characteristic, it's the equipment that makes the difference. In melee combat, the talents are much, much more important. Swift/Lightning Attack and Step Aside/Wall of Steel. And given the quick draw rules, quick change of weapons when the enemy comes close is nothing.

Rakiel said:

Question: do you really think a ranged fighter wielding an autogun and a melee fighter wielding a chainsword should be on equal footing? The main armament of soldiers are ranged weapons. Modern combat is about ranged combat and even in 40K (5th edition rules not withstanding) there is a dominance to raned combat.

The dedicated melee fighter merely occupies a niche, an important niche but a niche. If an enemy is in charge range, his job is to charge or counter-charge. If not, he can provide an additional gun. The pistol wielder is a short-ranged fighter, effective in an urban environment or other confined spaces. On open terrain riflemen and heavy weapons rule supreme.

Now I don't see why someone equipped with 2 power swords should be vastly superior with 2 bolt pistols. Not game-wise nor realism-wise.

Rakiel said:

Which they do.

Rakiel said:

Again - to be effective with a gun you don't need much. High BS and probably crack shot. Every other talent is a nice bonus but not essential to being effective.

But it's not only that. We were talking about pistols plus lightning strike. So the pistol wielder already does feel comfortable in melee. It's only down to whether he has to the pistol with a Free Action and Quick Draw a Chainsword with another Free Action to be effective in cc. I say: let them continue to use their pistols.

Ruling out Lightning Strikes with pistols will not make the pistol wielder much less effective. He'll be able to outshoot you at short range and still be able to compete. All your doing is forcing him to spend some thrones on a good cc weapon, if that's what you want.

Rakiel said:

Melee users don't have to raise their BS more than 5 points. It means they will lag behind the most dedicated ranged user by 15 points at most which equals 1.5 bullets in a burst. All they need to be effective is good automatic weapon with weapon upgrades and specialty ammunition. The assassin that has got the two power blades also had a Bolt Gun as starting gear. Too expensive to use but very effective. He's good both at melee and ranged.

And the suppressive fire is a bad example: the melee user can suppress him just as easily with an automatic weapon because it doesn't come down to skill there at all. Only to passing your WP tests. Just as an example to show that melee users can be effective in ranged combat.

You're talking about melee specialists as if they were some D&D fighters who don't wear firearms. That's not a realistic portrayal for most melee PCs in DH out there.

Alex

Ak-47:

-Unless the creature takes more hexes, they do not have a larger reach. If they take more hexes, they don't have a larger reach either honestly, they just occupy more squares and therefore can reach further out on squares. A space marine cannot hit you 2m away with a melee weapon barring a whip either, it has nothing to do with their size.

-As for if it would be official if they ran it by the designers: uh, would largely depend on the perspective of the people. As I've said before, and blatant in this thread since not everyone agrees, not everyone takes it as a word of god thing till its actually written down in errata. Many people will follow RAW regardless of the RAI stated by developed fiat. However, sure, if you want to ask and see if every single rule for every single of the books can be applied to every single thing than go ahead - we cannot really pick and choose what we want to adapt and say that only THAT is specifically meant to be used. Either its all or its nothing. This is not a bad thing because it doesn't mean that GM's cannot adapt what they want via the mentioned zeroth rule, but I see no reason to believe that, using the same unresponded to example, they are intending for rank 1 DH acolytes to recover 1d10 wounds via a fate.

-Hold up. So if the scum has a sh*tty BS score he's going to be exceptionally effective at ranged combat with just a good rifle? No, that's not how it works. You can be a bit of a modifier ***** but it sure helps to have a decent BS score. I am not talking about "Oh no a scum can do amazing damage via picking up a great rifle!" I am talking about the overall effectiveness. A straight melee focused character will suffer in ranged combat, I do not see why we have to make changes for ranged characters to attempt to be equally effective in melee combat as they are at ranged. Melee characters should dominate ranged characters in melee, ranged characters should dominate melee characters at range. If they don't go pure stream they will be more effective in their less favored role, but they won't be as effective as if they focused all their XP into becoming a killing machine. If we are speaking of ranged combat, and if we are sticking to double pistols, talents make a huge difference. Hell, even with normal weapons talents make a relative difference since you can get some wonderful things like free called shots with no penalty. Is equipment a huge deal still? Yes, but its also a pretty big deal for melee characters.

-Do I think someone wielding an autogun and a melee character should be on equal footing? Not in the same role. But do I think that a ranged character should be on similar footing in melee by focusing on ranged? No, I do not. This is a RPG game, its meant for balance. There are characters that fairly specify melee (to some exclusion: look at moritat, at most they can use a *bow*. By RAW bow's are never able to become non-primitive, cannot full auto, cannot semi auto, cannot suppressive fire, cannot overwatch or anything of the sort). To say that "No, you are useless because you are useless because you are melee - fight with a gun, and maybe if it gets close you can run in" seems like a giant **** move to me. And arguing realism? Really? Its a setting where people run around with chainsaw swords, and even the TT game you speak of has some very very VERY melee focused squads (and possibly armies, I don't play TT as I've mentioned before, but I am sure it will). If we want to bring realism into the game it can be reflected by the GM any way they want, but we are still in a setting dealing with multikilometer long battleships with the density of foam, with previously mentioned chainsaws and magic. Stuff like "modern armies use ranged weapons" is thrown out the door the second that happens, especially when we are talking about a setting where they can legitimately charge at a person and not get riddled full of holes instantly (or they can shrug off the bullets, largely).

If we are going to talk about pure realism then there would be no melee focused characters and everyone would just have basic weapons equipped with bayonets. However, this is a game, melee characters are meant to be viable, and more importantly they are meant to be fun. I would ask you why you would believe it is meant to be anything else.

-Melee characters have more actions they can partake in .. Melee. That's not what I am referring to. I am referring to the fact its extreme range: ranged guy shooting, long range: ranged guy shooting, normal range: ranged guy shooting, short range: range guy shooting for a bonus, point blank: ranged guy shooting for huge bonus, melee combat: ranged guy apparently still shooting, and than we are talking about giving them multiple attacks and/or full auto so that they are MORE effective in melee. In comparison you have melee characters going: extreme range: nothing, long range: nothing, short range: nothing, point blank: nothing (or whips), melee combat: WOO FUN TIME.

-...Argh, I still bang my head into the wall. What are you referring to? A pistol in one hand and a chainsword in the other, and making use of the pistol in swift or lightning strikes? Its never been a question of ruling that out *THE RULES SUPPORT IT*. This requires absolutely no hand waving, no GM fiat, no house ruling, nothing. Look at the errata, there is a specific clause mentioning pistols. The only time it requires house ruling is if you are saying that pistols are being extended the ability to substitute the melee weapon : ie: 3 attacks with one pistol and 1 attack with the other if you have lightning. Lightning has always allowed 3 attacks with a melee weapon and 1 attack with an off hand pistol. Swift attack the same, minus one attack on the melee weapon; AS LONG AS YOU HAVE THE APPROPRIATE TALENTS.

-That is assuming that melee characters and ranged characters have the same BS. I know I've personally rolled WS based characters that had sh*tty BS just because.. They were WS based characters. I've also rolled WS based characters with fine BS so I could make use of other nifty tools, sure, but its not guaranteed there is going to be some 15 point difference. Especially since BS focused characters can also go routes that bump up their BS - like gun metal city hivers. Yes, if they spend tons of thrones on making their weapon great they will get more out of it. Does this mean they will? No, not necessarily.

-The suppressive fire example is used because the melee character is attempting to *get* to the ranged character, the ranged character is attempting to *keep him away*. If the melee character suppressive fires there goes his entire turn, so he cannot move forward. If he moves forward next turn the other character has a +30 to their WP test because they weren't shot at again. Who than can do whatever the hell he wants, like, say, Suppressive Fire, which works better for what he is doing.

Largely this seems to be going in circles so I am happy to pull the annoying "I'll agree to disagree" card here as well, but honestly once again I have *no idea what you are referring to about making use of pistols with swift/lightning strike*. I know others have commented, I have said in .. Probably largely every single post: its allowed by the rules, so we are not talking about taking it out and putting it in. That would become redundant if so. I don't give a crap if that's put in. The problem comes into play when we allow full auto in melee, and that's what I am against, because two pistols full autoing from melee range is just silly balance wise. It gives the ranged character far too much versatility in a spot where they should be weaker - which is where the versatility argument comes into place. If we are talking strictly RAW I largely have absolutely no problem with it, and I have never made a post against it. Melee characters immediately have the upper hand once they enter melee, and ranged characters have the upper hand when its a ranged based battle. They can both function in the other role, but not as well as a dedicated character.

I for one am outraged that an Adept has to specialize in Lore skills and is worse than other characters in combat. This just isn't fair. I demand to be able to use Common Lore (Imperium) in place of Weapon Skill and in conjunction with Lightning Attack.

Rakiel said:

Well, you got to take your pick: either we argue strictly according to rules - then hand flamers can be fired in confined spaces without any adverse effect to the shooters. Or you try a more simulationist approach - in that case 3m should be close combat range for a SM in power armour.

Rakiel said:

Yeah well that latter thing is easy to explain and remember - that is due to the SM epicness. Anyway it's funny because if I hadn't asked whether the new pistol rule interpretation holds true for all systems all kinds of people here would have dismissed the idea and said that it was for DW only too.

Also I have never argued that all rules can be blindly transferred from DW to DH. I have argued that in instance as the one debated it makes sense to consider DW an update of DH. And I don't think your argument makes sense here either because if some wouldn't believe it until it was in the DH errata they won't believe that pistols can't autofire in melee either because that's in no errata only in an email from Ross to me.

Rakiel said:

Yes it does because even with a fairly low score the difference is usually about 15%. That is not much when using the mechanics. In other %-based systems the difference between meager and very good score is more like 25% or 30%. Now that makes a difference: 40 vs 70%.

If I have a BS of 32, I can still be an effective long-ranged fighter. Hunting Rifle with Laser Targetter and special ammo. Half Action aim + accuracy + laser + short range = 72. 32% of doing massive damage. Not bad for a melee specialist. If I had a BS of 47, the difference wouldn't be that spectacular. The ability to hit body locations at will, for example, would be nice but it's just icing on the cake.

Rakiel said:

Suffer, yes. But not be totally outclassed with the right gear.

Rakiel said:

And I am not seeing that this what's happening.

Rakiel said:

They don't.

Rakiel said:

And again you are failing to make a distinction between pistol wielders and riflemen.

Rakiel said:

No, a balanced game is just one way of RPGing. In fact RPG can work wonderful when it's not balanced.

Rakiel said:

And none of this is happening.

Rakiel said:

So we can fire hand flamer in confined spaces safely then?

Rakiel said:

Yes and by allowing to use Swift Attack with pistols we're not making melee fighters less viable by one bit.

Rakiel said:

And that's where you go wrong. I'll show you how melee PCs work in DH instead:

extreme range: shooting, long range: shooting/approaching, short range: charging WOO FUN TIME, point blank: charging WOO FUN TIME, melee combat: WOO FUN TIME.

None of this changes by allowing or not-allowing firing a pistol in cc with Swift Attack twice.

Rakiel said:

The same thing I have been talking to you for a handful of posts about: using Swift/Lightning Attacks with pistols. In the last post you even called it alright, sort of. Remember?

Rakiel said:

That is what we're talking about here.

Rakiel said:

Unless the melee PC goes first the next turn. Then they charge, Tactical Advance whatever. And they can do that even if they have a BS of 5. Part of he point of technology is making fighting easy. I am giving our adept my autopistol so that he can at least lay down fire, if he can't hit otherwise.

Rakiel said:

Please reread my posts in this thread: allowing automatic fire with pistols in cc has at no point be an issue. This is one of the things we have ruled out immediately. What we do allow is making swift attacks with pistols . I think the phrase making swift attacks with pistols is unambiguous in its meaning. Also note that the talent is called swift attack, not swift strike.

Alex

For the love of god:

I never argued that hand flamers cannot be used in confined spaces. Someone else brought that up, someone asked where it was stated, and I said I assume they are stating it in a simulation "its far more realistic" sense. I have absolutely nothing against hand flamers being used anywhere. You can use it in a 1x1 square for all I care, by RAW there is no backwash and its largely up to a DM/GM to run a house rule by players before implementing it. Since I have never argued a simulationist approach, I am not going to argue that space marines can engage from 3m with a weapon, since they.. Really cannot. Unless we are talking about the whole "space marines can fight over a 3m square engagement range due to backing away and circling.etc.etc.etc." - their reach isn't that long.

The pistols being only able to be fired single shot is, actually, technically in the errata. You didn't bring in any sort of DW rule. The problem has been that the errata states that you may make a "single attack". Its been widely regarded to be rather unclear because technically Full Auto is a "single attack" as well, as well as if you have two pistols you may fire each independently on differing firing modes. Its lead people to be unsure of what the hell they are referring to when they make a "single attack"; is it a "standard attack"? A "single shot"? Or any sort of "attack". That is what he clarified - the wording of the errata existing within DH already - and its something that is shared across DW. It was not something imported over from DW. If it was saying that you could import something over from DW it would be entirely different which comes over to my point.. If we are importing things from DW/RT we cannot really selectively import - doing so makes it a house ruling. We either take it whole sale or we take it not at all, since if the systems are meant to be congruent they would be usable across all levels with some structures not being accessible because characters are not of that system (ie: DH characters cannot make use of RT profit factor by default, nor make use of Squad Tactics in DW because they do not have the requisite abilities to access it - however if the systems were otherwise exactly the same and updates of the same meant to be verbatim applied across all 3, they would be replaceable across all three). This is why I brought forward the fact that something like changing DH fate from 1d5 to DW fate of 1d10 makes a really big bloody difference. You can get by with using another book if you want (a lot of people I've run with in RT don't notice the "you can replace DoS for damage" part of Playing the Game since the games are so bloody similar) but they are not *exactly the same*.

I am not making a distinction between pistol wielders and riflemen because of the fact that we have been talking about pistols and close combat the entire time. Rifles are automatically discounted when you go into close combat since you cannot use a basic weapon in melee, the only thing they can do is quickdraw a melee weapon, use it as a spear via a melee attachment, or try to beat them with it as an improvised weapon. A 32WS character can get a best quality sword for the same price as a hunting rifle plus RDS, so that makes it vs 42WS, they can make an all out attack and roll vs 62WS, so 10% less chance than it would take for the hunting rifle roll via WS focused character. But guess what. None of this is what I have a problem with. What I am against is letting pistols use semi or full auto. That is where you get the imbalance from. Beyond that, you.. Can largely work it out because everyone is relatively effective no matter what, as stated above. Huzzah. This works great. The problem lies in the fact if we let pistols burst in close than it creates a massive versatility change. The reason that talking about making Swift/Lightning Attacks with pistols becomes vague is because its allowed by RAW - there is absolutely no reason to discuss on whether or not it should be allowed. Its told specifically this is okay. This is why I have questioned several times what you were referring to, and kept pointing out that such a thing is already allowed. I have nothing against this at all. I have never had anything against this.

Ye gods.

Rakiel are you actually making the argument that autofire in melee combat would mean that a deicated melee character is equal or slightly worse than a gunslinger in melee combat? That's simply not the case unless we're talking low level metallican gunslinger.

And oh boy, if you thought your melee character was limited due to being outranged, just look at the gunslinger. If your melee character is having trouble at some range he can just get himself a new weapon for that range and be done with it. The metallican gunslinger, by contrast, is not allowed to buy any basic weapon talents at all. You're limited to your Basic SP from character creation and even that suffers a a permanent -10 to bs.

The trick is, melee weapons do more damage. Swift attack with decent SB, WS and an eviscerator and any sort of single combat will be over in 1-3 rounds, the "plink plink" of hecuter bullets harmlessly bouncing off your armour and TB provides decent theme music. If he survives into round three you'll have the added fun of cutting the poor guy in half while he's reloading.

"Don't be silly Graspar, he'll of course use plasma or bolt pistols"

Right, that means no soothing theme music as he'll probably penetrate any armour. But then again, this still doesn't compare in raw damage per hit and the number of hits are now about equal, with the added bonus that it's actually mechanically possible to avoid both plasma bursts.

Dedicated melee combatants with the right gear will always outperform dedicated ranged combatants in melee. The jack of all trades combatant will school both of them and any dedicated combatant will make light work of a character that's not built specifically for combat. As it should be.

Rakiel said:

I am aware of that. I was pointing out that the remark about melee range was valid in that context.

Rakiel said:

Well if you put it that way you can't even import all from DW unless FFG says it is intended as a general update. However you will have to face the fact there will be people who will claim that it is considered to be an update unless common sense tells them a rule is geared specifically for DW.

Rakiel said:

Yes but they would in trouble against a 47 WS fighter with lightning attack. Especially one with a best quality sword.

Rakiel said:

It's not allowed. Swift Attack refers explicitly to melee attacks and that means it's a talent that does not apply to pistols. What is allowed is to combine a two-handed attack involving a pistol in the "off-hand" with a swift attack with a melee weapon in the other hand. But a swift attack with pistols is not allowed by RAW.

Alex

I'm making the argument that giving autofire in melee gives pistol users far too much overall versatility and capability in melee coming from a single stat. I see it as a massive chunk of the segregation between melee and ranged characters taken out - if you see otherwise than to each their own. If we are looking at the metallican gunslinger than we can compare it to the moritat - they are essentially focused ranged and melee as it can get since both can grab the other with no issue.

Metallican Gunslingers take no penalty to using melee weapons (as long as they have a loaded weapon on them somewhere), and Moritat can use bows for ranged. However since they can only use bows (as they require bladed weapons) that means they generally max out on a 40m range (bows are 30m, heavy crossbows at 80m, but both are crap compared to the composite bow). Metallican Gunslingers average 30m with a max range of, say, 40m for Mark IV Las Pistols. A -10 penalty really isn't that bad - melee characters receive that just for dual wielding. If we take the prototypical 32BS person we said earlier, applied the Metallican Gunslinger background bonus of 5 to give them 37, we can still give them a hunting rifle with a red dot sight. Aim, accurate, red dot and likely short range will give them a +40, subtract 10 and firing versus a 67 isn't all that bad. Are they going to get huge DoS? Unlikely, but it can work - and I would certainly expect a metallican gunslinger to have higher than a 37BS... Anyways the average pistol being 30m means it maxes out at 120m, which really isn't all that bad, and can be combined with talents like Marksman to give no distance penalties. Sure they aren't getting bonuses for short range, but they can decent distance. With Basic SP they can even acquire the longest firing weapon in the game - the Nomad, with a range of 250m capping out at 1,000m range.

Eviscerator's have always been stand out ungodly damaging so its hard to draw a real comparison. Trade off has always been the fact they can chop you in half way too easily; which can ironically get bumped up with making multiple attacks but this ends up being in the same vein as jamming, so I'll just press them both aside for the moment. Melee weapons big damage comes from the SB bonus being added in, so you can reasonably expect to gain 3-4 points of damage for every weapon - which means that, for example, the average mono-sword is comparable to the average carnodon (1d10+4 pen 2 for the carnodon, 1d10+SB Pen 2, with an additional 1 damage for being Best if we are in that price range - best quality swords getting a +10 to WS and carnodons getting a +10 due to Accurate). In melee the best quality sword user can make up to 4 attacks (assuming dual wielding), each that must be dodged individually. The carnodons if we allow semi-auto used in melee can get up to 6 attacks, assuming amazing rolls (S/3/- each), and they can be dodged all together assuming an amazing dodge. On average the melee weapon will hit a hell of a lot more and have more capability - though it can also be parried and counter-attacked unlike the pistol. The pistol is going to be less likely to hit but can get up to 2 attacks more in the same damage category. Hell, if we are considering it to be Hecutor's instead at S/3/6 we can get up to a total of 12 hits (6 from each gun), though this still requires (even more) godly rolls.

If we are dealing with RAW rules I have absolutely no problem with it - most of it balances itself out one way or another. Similarly to reiterate as I know I will have to, I have no problem with the swift/lightning attack talents making use of a pistol shot. However, there ends up being really awkward power jumps if we allow semi/full auto in melee and they happen to roll really well. Such is the way of the dice, but I just can't see a real justified reason to allow it - what people have been saying is that it "makes ranged characters better in melee!" by allowing them to only focus their ranged stat and talents and being extremely effective in melee when they can the possibility of (lets use the hecutor example) 12 hits. It blurs the viability a bit.

ED: Okay since a reply was posted while I was writing, Ak-73:

DM fiat is always number 1 - the zeroth rule in essence being the DM can do whatever the DM damned well pleases to do. If FFG would rather try to sneak in DH updates through selling different systems as opposed to their free errata, than .. That would be horrible marketing as its only viable that people pirating the releases would be regularly making sure they are most up to date. My point is that you cannot automatically assume that any of the systems are meant as an update to the previous systems. They can give clues into RAI, but it's just as likely its rules written for DW are the rules written for DW. There will be people that view it as an update and there will be people viewing it something entirely different. I am strictly speaking of RAW so there is a universal grounds. Once again, if you/your group wants to adopt rule changes for the different systems go ahead. I personally love the ability to fire semi/full auto and move in RT, for example... But I won't use it as an example of something you can do in the DH system because its not written in the DH system, so its not going to be universal and there will be GM's that reject that.

Huzzah. You kind of realized what I was talking about in a completely side ways manner. With Two Weapon Wielder: Ballistic and Swift Attack/Lightning Attack you can make an attack with a pistol in your off hand. That is the only way. Well, unless you just whack them on the head three times with your pistol as an improvised weapon but that's really not the brightest way to go about it. You specifically said that a sensible balance would be to "allow the application of Swift/Lightning Attack" and the referring to "pistols with Swift/Lightning Attack" has become a re-occuring thing. Which is allowed by the RAW, which is why.. I never had a bloody clue what you were arguing against me since I was speaking specifically of multiple attacks in melee through a ranged weapon. Essentially saying a sensible balance would be to allow the RAW to function as the RAW is meant to function becomes a very strange statement - if we speak outside of the RAW it becomes bloody weird and that's been what I was poking about. I only really raise an eyebrow with pistols in melee when we bring into play autofire, as something like that can translate into 3 melee hits and than full auto burst into the targets face however many hits you can pull off. That's where it starts to get wonky. Or dual wielding pistols and, once more.. Unloading into someones face with both of them full auto. Allowing swift/lightning to function as normal? Don't care. Allowing single shots and normal RAW functioning? Sounds great to me.

I'm making the argument that giving autofire in melee gives pistol users far too much overall versatility and capability in melee coming from a single stat. I see it as a massive chunk of the segregation between melee and ranged characters taken out - if you see otherwise than to each their own. If we are looking at the metallican gunslinger than we can compare it to the moritat - they are essentially focused ranged and melee as it can get since both can grab the other with no issue.

Metallican Gunslingers take no penalty to using melee weapons (as long as they have a loaded weapon on them somewhere), and Moritat can use bows for ranged. However since they can only use bows (as they require bladed weapons) that means they generally max out on a 40m range (bows are 30m, heavy crossbows at 80m, but both are crap compared to the composite bow). Metallican Gunslingers average 30m with a max range of, say, 40m for Mark IV Las Pistols. A -10 penalty really isn't that bad - melee characters receive that just for dual wielding. If we take the prototypical 32BS person we said earlier, applied the Metallican Gunslinger background bonus of 5 to give them 37, we can still give them a hunting rifle with a red dot sight. Aim, accurate, red dot and likely short range will give them a +40, subtract 10 and firing versus a 67 isn't all that bad. Are they going to get huge DoS? Unlikely, but it can work - and I would certainly expect a metallican gunslinger to have higher than a 37BS... Anyways the average pistol being 30m means it maxes out at 120m, which really isn't all that bad, and can be combined with talents like Marksman to give no distance penalties. Sure they aren't getting bonuses for short range, but they can decent distance. With Basic SP they can even acquire the longest firing weapon in the game - the Nomad, with a range of 250m capping out at 1,000m range.

This is sort of missing the point with the moritat. The point of that class isn't to make the most viable melee character, the point is to make a flavourful, batshit crazy, death cultist. And we weren't discussing careers or alternate ranks, I'll happily concede that gunslingers are a bit to good with combat early on. But the rest can catch up as the ranks move on until you hit somewhere around 6-7 where the character would have been better if he wasn't a gunslinger. That's the very reason I brought the low level gunslinger up, it's the sole case where a gun fu character can outperform a melee character in melee with autofire. But that's hardly a reason to nerf pistols in melee, it's rather a reason to nerf gunslingers.

Eviscerator's have always been stand out ungodly damaging so its hard to draw a real comparison

This is simply not the case. Eviscerators are amongst the better melee weapons certainly, but there are plenty of other examples. The omnisian axe at 2d10+5 pen 6 is even one handed, as is the power fist at 2d10 pen 8 +2xSB. Moving down to more reasonable levels, Power longsword 1d10+6 pen 6, even the mundane greatweapon is a force to be reckoned with after mono. I could go on and on but it think the point is made.

What ranged weapons compare to such statlines? Not pistols, unless it's melta, and then you're not shooting anything outside of 10 m

Melee weapons big damage comes from the SB bonus being added in, so you can reasonably expect to gain 3-4 points of damage for every weapon - which means that, for example, the average mono-sword is comparable to the average carnodon (1d10+4 pen 2 for the carnodon, 1d10+SB Pen 2, with an additional 1 damage for being Best if we are in that price range - best quality swords getting a +10 to WS and carnodons getting a +10 due to Accurate). In melee the best quality sword user can make up to 4 attacks (assuming dual wielding), each that must be dodged individually. The carnodons if we allow semi-auto used in melee can get up to 6 attacks, assuming amazing rolls (S/3/- each), and they can be dodged all together assuming an amazing dodge. On average the melee weapon will hit a hell of a lot more and have more capability - though it can also be parried and counter-attacked unlike the pistol. The pistol is going to be less likely to hit but can get up to 2 attacks more in the same damage category. Hell, if we are considering it to be Hecutor's instead at S/3/6 we can get up to a total of 12 hits (6 from each gun), though this still requires (even more) godly rolls.

This is really a case of apples and sports cars. Damage from carnodon, a "high priced and exclusive" hand cannon and RoF from the hecuter ,"a prince among pistols" gets to compete against the most basic of melee weapons. We could compare the power sword to a stub revolver, but i don't think that would be accurate either.

Wanna compare mono sword? Autopistol or stub auto works, but that's hardly the kind of weapons the dedicated combat characters we're discussing here is going to have. If you spend thousands of XP on gun fu or melee combat you're not going to be happy with basic armaments.

Yes, if you roll well on your to hit you get lots of hits, unless the opponent rolls equally well on his dodge, then you get nothing. In fact, if you do the math you hit less than one shot per round with the two autofire in melee tactic against an opponent with agility equal to your BS, dodge +20 and step aside. Without step aside that number goes up of course, but the damage is still small per hit against something with decent TB and armour. A good melee weapon will still outperform with one or two hits. There isn't even any comparison to a great melee weapon.

A melee character encountering an opponent who dodges or parries everything will feint and be done with it. Parried and counterattacked? Sure, but that's rather well balanced by the fact that they can also parry and counterattack...

If we are dealing with RAW rules I have absolutely no problem with it - most of it balances itself out one way or another. Similarly to reiterate as I know I will have to, I have no problem with the swift/lightning attack talents making use of a pistol shot. However, there ends up being really awkward power jumps if we allow semi/full auto in melee and they happen to roll really well. Such is the way of the dice, but I just can't see a real justified reason to allow it - what people have been saying is that it "makes ranged characters better in melee!" by allowing them to only focus their ranged stat and talents and being extremely effective in melee when they can the possibility of (lets use the hecutor example) 12 hits. It blurs the viability a bit.

That's just the thing, It doesn't cut down viability of "focus only on BS". You don't full auto burst in melee to be effective with BS. Melee is (most of the time) one v.s. one, and a single opponent is less about the number of hits and more about the damage those hits do. You get dual shot, a decent high damage gun (for overkill, take hack shotgun or inferno pistol) and a raincoat. And when the GMs who feel that pistols need to be rubbish in melee houserule dual shot away too, just keep the inferno pistol, it's still way batter than the hecuter on FA within that range.

Friend of the Dork said:

If you want to fire SA or FA into a charging enemy, try engineering that in the rules of the game. The best way I see is this:

Space marine is about to get charged, so delays action,
As enemy reaches SM, SM uses reaction to parry and the delayed action becomes maneuver. Win an opposed WS test to move them 1m away from you.
On SM's next turn you fire SA at a point blank and win the game.

Hooray for iconic sword+pistol combo!

That's really not viable unless the enemy isn't a threat at all, and even then you're only prolonging combat for aesthetics.