I use melee because it doesn't waste ammo. I enjoy burning and exploading chaos cultists but ultimatly rounds/fuel are limited (and very expensive if there bolt shells). Also we were fighting a huge hoard spamming out loads of dakka. I just seem safer to engage them in melee with their crummy primitive weapons.

hey!

I'm an assault marine from the space wolf.......

and when time need, I put away my bolter and extract my axe.......

(it's only a matter of roleplayng )

Partario said:

A round that strikes a target and eliminates it isn't a wasted round. As for rounds/fuel being limited, that's not the base assumption in Deathwatch. In Deathwatch you have sufficient (standard) ammo such that it is unnecessary to track it.

HappyDaze said:

It's wasted if the foe could easily have been dealt with via a combat knife, if the combatant then runs dry, just as the genestealers hove into view.

And I don't think it's fair to say that the 'base assumption' is that players never run out of ammo. I don't know of any GM that allows infinite ammunition, and even the errata points to the option of a defined limit. And that defined limit is rather low!

HappyDaze said:

And that's a totally fair way to play the game, but when the question comes up 'why use melee' the motive of the question isn't normally 'I play in an all shooty game, and we never engage in hand to hand combat, should I play a diplomat?' The question is usually motivated by 'shooting looks mechanically superior to melee, what is my motivation to play a non-shooting character?'

Your point on understanding the GM's themes is a good one, but the rest of your argument feels needlessly confrontational. But yes, you should probably check with your GM to see what style of game s/he is running.

From a purely mathematical perspective shooting is king. Anything that melee can kill shooting can kill it better.

But melee has a cool factor that ranged combat does not, it is just more satisfying to some players to know that they took an enemy down using their characters strength rather than by the power of the gun they hold.

As to ammount of ammo, a Dev comes with at least 1000 bolt rounds for his bog standard heavy bolter when the rule of three is used, he will not run out of ammo.

Siranui said:

The Errata points to an optional way of tracking ammo (and,IMO, suggests an absurdly low load of ammunition). The default rule in the book is unlimited stock of standard ammo. Whether you know a GM that plays by the default rules is irrelevant.

Charmander said:

I never said it was 'all shooty, never hand to hand' - I said that no one believes that melee is a superior choice to shooting. Even those that have a preference for getting up close and personal know that they're taking a generally less effective approach, and most of us will only use melee weapons as a fallback option. The only motivation for melee is personal preference, and it's not one we've felt at all inclined to artificially bolster in effectiveness (we don't believe that everyy race, scenario, mission, etc. should be set up to force hand to hand engagements).

Banjulhu said:

How so? 250 in the backpack + 3 x 60 clips?

"As a general rule, the GM may opt to use the “rule of three,” meaning that each Space Marine has three reloads for each ranged weapon unless otherwise noted."

Using an ammo backpack increases the size of the heavy bolters clip to 250, so three extra re-loads for a heavy bolter with a backpack ammo supply give you 1000 rounds

Banjulhu said:

actually the ammo back contains only 250 rounds - if you wanted 3 extra reloads for that you would be carrying around 4 seperate backpacks!? - the rule of 3 covers standard clips and ammo refills only not backpacks.

sgtgrarm said:

Where abouts in the errata does it state that?

it doesn't but common sense dictates that if a FULL backpack contains 250 rounds of ammo - how on earth are they supposed to carry another 3?

That's how our group has played it, since yes, all indicators are that a 'full' backpack is 250 rounds. We don't follow the rule of hammerspace, and as such, have no real options to carry extra backpacks. However, we've alleviated this by spreading around a half dozen of the standard heavy bolter magazines, while I, the Devastator, carry around the boxes of special ammunition.

Data007 said:

now THAT makes sense to me as a functioning combat squad would share the load but there's no way they'd hump round an excessive amount of heavy ammo like that (weight might not be too much of an issue to an astartes but the bulk would be silly).

Carring around multiple backpacks seems excessive (unless you've got a rhino in tow). Spreading ammo around the squad in clip form seems semsible (it what real soliders do when they have heavier equipment). I also quite like the idea that a devistaor has to ration his shots.

I'm not a fan of the three clip rule as is it just seeems too small, which I think is an attempt by the game designer to add the element of limited ammo to almost every mission. Do anyone know how many rounds a real soldier carries with him/her?

HappyDaze said:

And that's fine, and true, for your group. Your GM (not sure if it's you or not) essentially builds encounters that allow this type of solution- but again if that's what your group enjoys no one can or should stop you.

If you played in my group I promise you'd have a different experience, and that melee character would be more of an essential part of the kill team. And I'm not sitting here 'forcing' encounters or giving non-hth races melee capabilities to make my AM feel better about his choice. I simply try to reflect the 40k style of big explosions and up close brutal hand to hand in my adventures/encounters.

@Partario: Current modern day military forces cary far more than 3 reloads for their weapon, and it will vary quite a bit depending on on country, service branch, unit, weapon type, deployment parameters, etc. The Codexes and background fluff suggest however Sapce Marines only carry 3 reloads into assaults and the like. Take that as you will.

situation dependant but besides the 1 in the weapon there may be 4-10 clips, sometimes 12 if webbing and supplies allow.

There is also the caveat that "reload" doesn't necessarily equal number of clips. Since the standard DW bolter is fitted with a fire selector, a reload may actually consist of 3 clips or equivalent box magazines. Following that interpretation a normal load out would be 3 reloads or nine additional clips for a boltgun. The Devastator, with heavy bolter, would get one backpack plus 3 clips.

Partario said:

Never enough.

If engaged in assault operations (which is pretty much every Deathwatch adventure), soldiers carry as much as they can. That goes double for grenades.

If you're not carrying at least a dozen mags and another few hundred rounds loose, plus a belt for the squad automatic, then you're some kind of optimist. The 'three reload' rule is far too little ammunition.

Charmander said:

In Deathwatch, it's not the GM's job to build encounters. He builds Missions. Proactive players have a fair shake at 'building encounters' once on the Mission and if they are smart, they'll play to their strengths. The biggest thing is detecting your enemy before they detect you. Space Wolves with high Perception are very helpful here, but other tactics - like setting explosives ahead of your ambush position to take out the inevitable melee rush before they can get to you - are good too. I don't like seeing engagements viewed in terms of 'encounters' like it's a D&D dungeon crawl. That's likely part of why I don't glorify hand to hand either.

HappyDaze said:

That is probably the best thing I have seen anyone say about how the game should be played.

HappyDaze said:

A very good point, and one with which I do not disagree; I was trying to be brief, so I probably lost some of my intent by chosing the word encounter. Apologies in advance for the longer post (like it’s a surprise coming from me).

When building a mission, a GM generates the environment, the NPCs both good and bad, and mission parameters. In order to create a compelling and challenging adventure, the GM needs to think cleverly, as if he were a PC if you will. A GM failing to do so can often result in some of the situations described here in the forums such as complaints about the Hive Tyrant dying in one shot or hordes posing no credible threat. Based on prior threads, I feel we’re essentially on the same page here, correct me if I am wrong.

When I say ‘build an encounter’ what I’m trying to say is setting the scene for that portion of the mission. Say you have an objective to clear out enemy x from some holy site or something else appropriate to get the DW to set foot there. The GM needs to create the structure, determine the composition of the walls, figure out the enemies that are in it, determine their mindset and what intel they have or don’t have, etc.

If the enemies the GM puts in there don't lend themselves to hand to hand, or the inside of the structure is open with good lines of fire, there is a good chance you'll see fewer hand to hand encounters. But it the structure is say closed and narrow, cryptlike with a maze of passages and has filled the place with genestealers or striking scorpions or the like, there is a greatly increased chance of hand to hand encounters.

There is no guarantee of types of encounters with clever players, and there shouldn’t be, but my point is still the same at its core- if you have a variety of set pieces, enemies, environments, and worlds, you’re likely to see a variety in your encounters, even with proactive players that play to their strengths. The options above both speak of different flavors within 40k, and both are valid choices, and neither one truly forces your players into a particular course of action.

This is also not to say if a group likes a particular play style (in your example using close combat as a last resort of sorts) that the game can’t or shouldn’t be targeted so that they can play to their strengths. And I actually agree that encounters shouldn’t be forced and shouldn’t use the same ‘formula’ time and time again (and the HB shouldn’t be nerfed by magically putting him in hand to hand every encounter).

Charmander put into words far more elegantly what I tried to say in my earlier post in the thread.

Terrain is *so* critical in every game that has guns. Guns are good, and should be (which is why we don't equip contemporary armies with rapiers and axes.), and the GM needs to consider that. If the party are facing Tyranids, then the GM needs to restrict those lines of fire, visibility, and things that play to the strength of players, or be willing to accept the fact that 80% of everything that is thrown at the party will die before rolling attack dice. But that's ok, too: because you have more of them! It doesn't matter how many hordes the PCs gun down before they close to melee, because it's not like a little piece of you dies every time they never make it to melee. Indeed: If a lot of monsters make it that far, then the PCs have kinda 'lost' the fight, and the only thing that is gonna save them is a competent tank stepping up to buy them some more time!

'Aliens' would have been a dull film if it took place in a vast rolling grassland, and 'Tremors' wouldn't have worked in an urbanised area.

Even with ranged foes, terrain is critical. Cover, concealment, range are all things that need to be considered.

It might not be very fair to constantly place foes in terrain that advantages them and stymies the PCs, but it's certainly fair to do it a lot of the time; especially against clever foes. And if the players manage to out-think the GM and turn the tables so that they can fight on the terms THEY want to fight, then good on 'em. A fight made dead easy by planning is more deserving of XP than a tooth-and-nail fight that the PCs just stepped into on the GM's terms.