HappyDaze said:

Stop press: Mankind's finest warriors armed with finest multi-role weapon available.

I personally don't have a problem with that. I'd be a lot more concerned if a HB WASN'T a superb weapon.

I just don't get what the problem is, here. Are players sulking because what is in WoW terms a DoT character does more damage than a tank (sweeping completely under the carpet the fact that it's far less survivable), or are GMs getting upset because monsters are being gunned down? If it's the first, then the players need to wise up a bit, start looking on the positives and... well... stop demanding 'balance'. This isn't 4e, and every game is imbalanced. If it's the GM, then can't you guys just throw in another horde or Elite or just engage the Dev in melee combat?

Direach said:

Can't combine All-Out Attack with Multiple Attacks though. Both are Full Actions. Can only be combined with Furious Assault (is that confusing or what? Furious Assault vs Furious Charge) which is a bit of the poor man's Swift Attack.

Alex

Siranui said:

Except the best multi-role heavy weapon (at least in the Imperium) is generally the missile launcher. The heavy bolter is an anti-personnel and supressive weapon.

Siranui said:

I don't personally have a problem with the weapons being powerful, or the occasional one shot of my carefully crafted bad guy. I gave that up a long while back.

My issue is that it's a rank 1 weapon that outshines many of the later game weapons, which leads to little variety in weapon selection and little variety in approaches to combat situations. It also increases the GM's difficulty as they need to continue to come up with new and compelling ways to make it so everyone gets their time to shine in the game- I'm not talking 'balance' here I'm talking about each player having a good time because they get to feel that they contributed equally to the success of the mission (and gimping the dev by engaging in melee or using a horde to distract him every time will get old and predictable). In a combat focused game, many of those objectives are going to involve being really good at killing bad guys.

My other issue is as Dave says; I just don't think it 'feels' right within the other weapon systems, the HB shouldn't feel better than a missle launcher or lascannon when dealing with armor. It should feel that way with hordes and the like. My players didn't mind the slight damage reduction (especially when I told them I was upping other weapon damage like meltas and plasmas) not because the assault marine was bitter that he wasn't killing as many guys, but because it made the weapon feel more like a heavy machine gun that way than a killz-all, which is what most of the group's vision of the weapon was.

Just wanted to add something to the arguement that dev can't survive melee very well. Our teams Dev learned acrobatics and uses the half action to tumble out of melee then his other half to full auto things in the face. So engaging him in melee just means he gets the point blank bonus and has a reason to use his reaction. While I love our Dev, it seems his is extremely hard to deal with. Also, his armor has the history that takes away penalties when moving so he is pretty much always at +60

Little Dave said:

Err... I think that you're viewing it too much as a SAW. Remember that it fires bursts of 25mm high explosive armour piercing rockets. I wouldn't strictly call that anti-personnel. It should chew through light armour with horrific effect. It should be stopped dead by MBTs and the like, but I see anything else as fair game. It should almost be a waste to use it on human targets, because of the excessive overkill. Remember: We use 30mm ammunition to chew up armoured vehicles in the real world, too.

The missile launcher is still a great weapon; and very flexible. It's main problem is the difficulty of using it in more confined quarters, at close range... which is an environment where the majority of DW firefights seem to take place.

Xandarian: Well; firstly, acrobatics is a very niche skill that not everyone can get hold of. Secondly; the GM needs to put the party in even more close confines to avoid the problem. If the party are jammed in a sewer pipe, with swarms of stuff attacking front and back, then there's nowhere to 'tumble' to. Thirdly: Why is the GM allowing the Marine carrying a heavy weapon to perform cartwheels anyway? Part of the drawback of a heavy weapon is that you don't have a spare hand, and you have an enormously bulky bit of kit to carry around. It's not at all out of order for the GM to impose a penalty to the check. Next up: You can't use a half-action to full-auto anything... it's a full action unless you have Deathwatch suspensors. Finally; I imagine that the dev only has about a 60% chance of success anyway. So the marine is onyl getting away with his little stunt about half the time anyway.

Oh yeah: As for the later-game choices for heavy weapons not being 'as good', I think a lot of that has been repaired with the newer plasma and melta weapons in RoB [Although they were rather poor choices beforehand]. The missile launcher I still see as viable too, and the heavy flamer certainly still has a place. And of course...there's the atomiser cannon, which looks pretty grim in the right application! But generally I do feel that the Heavy Bolter is the right tool for pretty much every job, except dealing with really heavy armour, and I feel that's the right approach.

My problem with the HB is also how it makes it really hard for the other palyers to have their moment to shine, it's like sticking an ascended Inquisitor PC in a rank 2 DH game.

The difference between melee and ranged combat is massive, it only closes up a bit once melee charcters get access to power weapons in normal DH, in deathwatch the power of the heavy bolter combined with the shooting rules means gap stays wide open all the way through pretty much. Your HB is your go to solution for every combat situation bar heavy armour.

Siranui said:

I don't. I don't feel it's the right approach if the Devastator makes hordes of Termagaunts or Hormagaunts disappear. Only virtually one shots Master-tier enemies like the Broodlord or Hive Tyrant. Most other specialties (with other weapons) pretty much stand aside and watch in awe.

It's mostly about inner party balance.

Alex

Only if the party have a problem with it.

I don't see the dev as stealing the glory, to be honest. He's nothing without the meat-shields to screen him, and assault marines get more than their fair share of glory in games I've seen. It's a bit like having an evoker in the party.

I'm surprised that your melee guy is going so well.

My experaince with the 40k roleplay games is that melee is no gain for a lot of drawbacks, the most common sight is a melee guy moves up to fight, flails around ineffectively and a turn later his oppenent disengages and the other enemies turn around to shoot the nice juicy close range target whilst his shooting based companions hide in cover.

Banjulhu said:

I too have seen this to be true. Melee needs numerous Talents just to catch up to where ranged starts, and while this may reflect the guns>swords idea of RL, it is at odds with the WH40K theme that things get 'settled' up close.

Well if the melee guy rushes forward completely unsupported; that's gonna happen. That's the player's problem, not the rules, though. I've not seen a group with only 1 melee type. Normally there are at least two. What happens (assuming the party are aggressing and taking ground, rather than fighting a defensive battle) is that they hang back and pop away for a few turns with sidearms and toss in grenades, while the ranged guys thin the numbers, then the melee team uses cover or smoke to move up and finish the fight. Meanwhile, the ranged guys pick off anyone not in melee and use overwatch and suppressing fire to protect the melee types. So the first half of the fight is range-dominated, and the second half melee dominated.

Smoke solves a lot of problems. The Astartes are fine with it, while creatures in it an being meleed can't be given cover-fire by allies, so aren't going to disengage with a space marine hot on their heels. If players are advancing and standing in the open and getting shot by people who aren't being suppressed by their team-mates, it's the player's fault, not the rules.

Sure: The GM can mess around with people disengaging under cover, but that's quite game-y. There are plenty of occasions where there's no physical room for people to disengage, or it's just not viable. And the idea of people in hand-to-hand combat neatly disengaging under cover-fire from companions firstly requires a good level of tactical acumen and coolness under fire (ie: Tau: Maybe yes. Rebel scum: no), is slightly abusing the turn-based nature of the game, and is also a bit unsporting of the GM. Disengaging is a game mechanic that GMs should toss out when it becomes dumb. If you are fighting a marine and you want to back out of the fight, what is going to happen in a world that isn't turn-based? If you back away he's going to follow up step-for-step, and your ally will never get the clear shot. If you turn and run, he's going to be a yard behind you and your ally will never get the shot. Disengage-and-shoot is only a problem if you slavishly obey and manipulate the rules, rather than use common sense. That's not something a GM should be doing, except under exceptional circumstances.

Rather than GMs complaining that devs are too good and making nerfs, how about just throwing the melee types a bone and not pulling stunts like the one suggested? How about leaving the bad guys there to go toe-to-toe with the melee guys and letting them feel awesome, instead of shafting them for trying to do their thing. Or swamp the party with melee types that then have to bail out those less good at it. the GM shouldn't play using 'best practice' tactics all the while and then make mechanical adjustments. Instead; play combat differently and balance that way.

If the first half of the fight can be accomplished at range, then why bother to close for the finish? Even the Assault Marine can be brutal with a bolter and bolt pistol combo and early access to T-WF(B).

This assumes that the guy with the heavy bolter hasn't just ended the combat within 3-4 turns.

Because the assault players want to close and finish so they can do their thing. And because there are going to be foes who have ducked back into cover and are pinned and need flushing out. Devs can't shoot what they can't see.

Multiple hordes and spread out foes cut down the effectiveness of the bolter. Smart foes will move to get out of the beaten zone and deprive the dev of targets.

If a guy is turning everyone to pate with a heavy weapon, then he becomes a priority target. Devs get those extra wounds, because they'll need them when they start to get back what they dish out.

Siranui said:

Because they want to do the less effective thing is pretty silly. Foes that duck into cover are why grenades and flamers are used. Devs can shoot through cover too - and if we're talking about an Imperial Fist Dev shooting through cover with a Heavy Bolter, anything short of Armaplas, bulkheads, and Plasteel is meaningless.

Multiple hordes and spread out foes are generally more troublesome to the assault guys than they are to the bolter boys. Good mobility from a jump pact still doesn't keep up with bolter rounds.

As for being a priority target, it doesn't really matter much when everyone starts upgrading to heavy bolters. In fact, this would even be encouraged as a way to prevent one guy from becoming a priority target.

Siranui said:

The disengage stunt I detailed does not have to be pulled though, similar effects are yielded as soon as the melee guy's target is dead because he is now stuck in the open which menas close range fiery death is soon to follow.

Swamping the party with a load of melee enemies does not work becuase the melee PC can not actually do anything to stop the bad stuff happening to his non-melee friends stuck in combat except kill his own opponents a little faster (having a max of 4 damage rolls per turn and an average of 2 under normal circumstances means enemies rarely fall over in one go) and unfortunately before you get to the swamping enemies phase you'll typically find that the by haveng them close on the line of guns they usually dies to SA and FA fire.

As to 'best practice' what do you do when you acolyte/trader/marine comes up against proper enemies that actuuly should be using the best tactics to counter the PCs and win? Water them down into bad guy light mode where they suddenly go from being iconic enemies of manking to well bolter fodder?

To let the melee types get their moment to shine you do have to throw them a bone already, but to me that is wrong. The system should inherently be set up and designed to reward all that take part, you should not have to go out of your way to twist and poke the intended flow of the game to give each player that is of a certain type have their epic moment.

DnD 4th ed is in my opinion one of the worst set of rules for roleplay mechanics but has an absolutely fantastic system to do combat in, every class is viable, every one has something they can do every turn and no one class overall is better than another and better still to work well all roles are needed together a mix of Tank, Striker, Controller and leader function better than a limited role team.

There's little to say that hasn't already be said, but the matter of overpowering abilities I find is a fault of consistently set piece battles. GMs should use the fact that Deathwatch are consistently sent into non-standard combat situations. Sewers, hive spires, caverns, space hulks, abnormal physical planes, Hello Kitty worlds, stuff like that. Along with non-standard combat, make better use of each team member's respective skills. Maybe the Assault Marine is also the team's stealth expert, or pilot. The Dev might be the demo-expert. It's easy to forget that Marines aren't just monstrous combat machines, some even straying into warrior-scholar realm. These are are skills that can be used to draw the focus away from the big guns.

Data007 said:

In Deathwatch, if violence isn't the obvious answer, then try rephrasing the question.

HappyDaze said:

Melee is not less effective than an untalented assault marine using a bolt gun.

Character careers are a character's preferred role within the Watch. Assault troops with HBs are not assault troops. The Watch Captain denies your absurd request for everyone to carry a heavy weapon.

Swamping them in melee certainly does work. Granted there are no 'bodyguard' talents. The Dev has to fight defensively for long enough for the assault marines to finish their foes and help them out. If they don't fight defensively with that in mind when jumped by Stealers, then it comes under the 'players are stupid/not the GM's problem' umbrella.

I've already said that 'perfect' tactics have their place in some situations.

I think we've hit the crux: You like 4e because you think that everyone should be balanced in combat. I think that's incorrect, and I think it's the most appalling RPG I've ever laid eyes upon (bar FATAL). In today's infantry, the guy with the squad automatic 'outshines' his comrades. Is that 'wrong'? No, because there is more to life (and the game) than shooting more people than the guy next to you. RPGs do not have to be perfectly balanced in every way. Not every player has an equal role in combat. You choose a character based on what role you want to play, in the full knowledge that some are better in combat than others.

Assault Marines have fantastic mobility (jet pack), survivability (increased number of reactions and the jet pack to get them out of trouble) and practicality (they don't have one hand permanently tied up carrying a weapon). That's more than enough payback for maybe not being able to kill as many mooks.

Let's look at what the Dev does: They sit in the middle of the party and shoot things. Devs don't scout around, quietly silence guards, act as pointman... they just get to kill a few more people. I'd personally rather get involved with the cooler things an assault marine can do, and I view the Dev's role as horribly restrictive and limited to the point where I wouldn't want to play one. I think letting them rack up a decent body-count in the right terrain is kinda payback for everything that they are missing out on. Don't be jealous of the Dev: Pity them.

HappyDaze said:

Then why'd you call the Deathwatch at all, when you could just send the Guard?

Siranui said:

No actually I like 4th ed combat not because of equality but because each character can do their own thing and it is worthwhile, my leader buffs, my tank pulls aggro, my striker kicks ass and my controller debuffs, the best and most entertaining fights are when all of these things come togther, you take part in every battle and feel like you did something that helps achieve victory.

And real life be damned, in 40k melee is meant to be just as powerful as shooting, the ultimate bad asses and the most iconicly cool units of the Imperium are all about shoving some kind of weapon (Powered for your convenience) down the throats of thier enemy because guns just don't do the business with quite as much satisfaction. And so into Deathwatch I walk hoping to be able to re-create my Salamander DW captain (I was sad enough to create an entire DW strike force back in the day of witch hunters and daemon hunters, most of which was absorbed into my salamder 3rd company), who in the course of many campaigns has went toe to toe with nearly everything that can be thrown his way (including the Nightbringer) But what do I find in Deathwatch, i find that if I create him using the rules then the rank one dev he leads into battle makes him look like an incompetant. I can not play the marine I have fielded on the table top for all these years

Banjulhu said:

Does your Salamander Captain have vanilla SM Captain stats?

Alex

Siranui said:

An 'untalented' Assault Marine with a bolter can still perform quite well with Full Auto and Short Range giving him a fairly good chance to hit. Optionally, he can provide suppressive fire while the better shooters pick off targets. The weapon's damage is perfectly adequate without any Talents to boost it. At this range, he can better make use of cover (doing so in melee is difficult) if he wants to fight more like a RL soldier (some players do). Since - in my experience - most of the group is better at range than in melee, sticking to ranged with them makes it easier to stay in support range for squad abilities. Melee becomes the fall back result when the enemies force you into it rather than something that our assualt marines have desired to be engaged in.

I have yet to see an Assault Marine with a heavy bolter, but I have seen one use a heavy flamer to great effect since he can still use a half action to move (with ump pack) and still fire for a half action. The Watch Captain understands results are what matters, and is happy to see that we're making good use of the Req allocated to us.

Besides that, just because your specialty is one calling doesn't mean you're exclusively tied to it. Sometimes the AssMan needs to shoot and sometimes the DevMan needs to poke things with a stick. IME, the former happens far more often (and, thankfully, more efectively) than the latter.

Data007 said:

Violence comes in many flavours. Sometimes the Guard really would be the better answer, and I hope that GMs keep that in mind - I don't like to see a 'special forces team' sent to do what really is better handled by bulk rank-and-file troops. Regardless, I can't think of any mission the Deathwatch would be sent on that doesn't involve violence either as the primary or (in the case of some covert ops) secondary method of resolution.