Well, the fairly tricked out rank 2 Blood Angels Assault Marine in the group I play in does on average just as much damage to Hordes as the Devastator does. And his damage output on individual targets is hideous (unless he manages to roll badly on all his attacks).

Heh, I just had to, with all this talk of "clips".

Anyway, if I remember correctly most soldiers carry about 6-8 magazines for their primary weapon and 3-4 for their backup. Though Space Marines are onviously built to handle much greater amounts of weight, so I'd up it to 10-12 for PC's. That gives them plenty of ammunition to fire off, but still makes it something of an issue if they get in to too many heavy firefights.

borithan said:

What is your Dev's damage on a single target like? I suspect on average it will be twice as much as the assault marine.

Why use melee? Why not?

When a horde of hormogaunts with a magnitude of 60+ rolls up with a Hive Tyrant, and some Tyranid Warriors in it the shooting guys are probably going to do as much damage to the monstrous targets as they can. That horde is going to make it to hand to hand. When that happens you *need* someone who is good at melee because you don't want the others in melee if you can help it.

Sure the devastator is going to do 15-25 magnitude damage per round of combat, shooting into a horde. When our group this weekend got swarmed by a horde, my Rank 2 (almost 3) Black Templar assault marine with a power weapon and chainsword managed to pull 23-26 magnitude damage per round. I even had to finish off a warrior from full health solo. When it was done, everyone on the team sans one, was critically wounded and out of fate points. It was a great game and very cinematic.

And why is there a stripper clip w/10 rounds inside the AR? /sigh

Siranui said:

Here's a problem. It should NEVER be about the players' ability to out-think the GM. It should be about the Deathwatch Kill-team's (and their higher-up handlers') ability to out-think the opposition.

Some opponents, like Orks and Tyranids, are not really tactical geniuses for the most part (exceptions exist). While the terrain may not favor it, they might very well come roaring across grasslands even when the GM thinks it's a tactically bad idea for them to do so. The GM should also be roleplaying his baddies, and for some of them that means doing less than optimal (by human thinking) things.

Lucrosium Malice said:

For our group, the Hand Flamer is the great back-up weapon against melee Hordes. No particular skill required, just 1d5+3 hits (2d5+3 hits for our Devastator with Cleanse and Purify) without fuss. We don't like to rely on melee to overcome hostiles, but that doesn't mean we don't plan for it.

HappyDaze said:

You are correct. Poor turn of phrase.

HappyDaze said:

I think you're taking some of our quotations and words a little too literally and not reading the full post (though I understand the limitations of a text based forum). Or you're just trying to pick a fight.

Siranui's point, if I understand it correctly, was that "Aliens" would've been boring on a grassland because the aliens would've just charged across it and been shot to hell. Meaning if you a bunch of orks on a rolling grass field on one side and a kill team on the other, you'll get the exact result you're talking about. The point being that you have to pair your enemies with the world you're dropping them in, and in so doing you can create a compelling set piece and encourage or influence the probability of a resolution and encounter progression.

Charmander said:

I may not agree, but that's hardly the same as picking a fight.

As far as dramatic effect goes, players that constantly dive into situations that place them at a disadvantage just because the GM feels that's the most dramatic are giving up too much control. Deathwatch encourages small groups that can think their way through problems (even if that's sometimes just a "think how/when/where you want to kill the baddies"). I feel like too many GMs use bad plot elements commonly seen in movies - the ones that make us groan - and believe that these are the way to create a dramatic scene. If you've got the kind of players that mock the idiotic choices of the films like I do, that kind of thing will wear thin very quickly.

I can think of plenty of ways to make a dramatic mission in a grassland that doesn't depend on negating the Kill-team's strengths. Perhaps killing the enemy isn't even going to be the source of the drama in such a mission...

HappyDaze said:

Fair enough.

HappyDaze said:

I don't think anyone is disagreeing here, players should play smart, and the enemies the GM makes should play to their in-game personas.

HappyDaze said:

A fair statement, I agree that a fair number of GMs run linear games where the PC choices mean very little, which can lead to being bored. I don't feel that we've seen that in this particular discussion, unless you're taking the simplistic illustration people are using to greater lengths than inteneded such as grass and aliens.

HappyDaze said:

Congratulations. First, I'm not insinuating you should negate the kill team's strengths. Second, you missed one of my key points: if a GM wants to encourage a type or style of encounter or mission or objective or whatever, it can be done WITHOUT the need to force it or use bad plot elements. Simply because you and your group don't use elements in your game that have a significant hand to hand promotion factor doesn't mean other games/groups follow suit. Saying that a melee character helps make a more balanced parties is very true in a campaign or set of missions where hand to hand is a high probability.

To bring it back around again, as for why play the melee character, the campaign focus and mission style can be (as you yourself said) a major factor in what type of characters are useful and should contribute to the decision on whether or not to play one.

The average US Soldier's Basic Combat Load is 7 magazines for his M4, 2 for his M9 Barretta pistol and grenades will vary by unit. During my time in Iraq, NOV 2007-Jan 2009, we were not allowed Frag grenades unless it was a special mission. Some of my Soldiers had flash bang and smoke however. I think the SAW gunner had 400 rounds available to him from our scout platoons. Otherwise, all of our heavy weapons were on the tanks or brads. Infantry companies might have a somewhat different load out. I know they lug around the M 240 7.62 machine gun, but I would have to ask some of my friends how much ammo the MG team carried.

The problem I have, is that based on a lot of what's been said, the HB Devastator has less ammo on him, then the other Marines. That just doesn't sound right.

Brolthemighty said:

Not sure where you get that idea. Even if you only go by the standard you get 430 rounds. 250 from the backpack and three 60-round ammo drums.

Deathwatch might be there to tax the players tactically... or it might not. That's a play-style preference. Some people just want to shoot tons of stuff while drinking beer and eating chips. I don't have an issue with that, but it's outside the scope of discussion at present.

Generally, the GM should set encounters to challenge the party, because ridiculously easy situations are ridiculously dull for players. Easy situations can be used to demonstrate a weakness of the critters which can later be leveraged (seeing xenos disolve when they cross running water as a clue to later blow up a dam and kill a million of them, for example), or can make nice 'warm-up fights' for new players or at the beginning of the evening (Even Buffy got to kick seven bells out of dumb monsters at the beginning of most episodes), but most encounters shouldn't fall into the 'tactically easy' bracket. That means that bad guys should generally play to their strengths, and the default setting for most situations should try to achieve that. Start with things being a challenge, and it encourages thought and planning. If the party can lure 30 genestealers out of the topary maze and onto a football field: great. But starting things off with things tactically to the players advantage is just encouraging players not to think.

Honestly, I've never struggled with the heavy bolter 'ruling' the game, because melee almost invariably has a critical place in a well-run game.

The heavy weapons guy might have less ammo on him, but you can be certain that his buddies are carrying more for him.

And that load-out is fine for patrol operations. But if you were tasked with clearing an urban complex of dozens of hostiles, without vehicle support (such as a Deathwatch style operation), you'd be carrying as much as you could gt hold of!

Seianus said:

I know that when the British Army used the GPMG it was standard practise for the all of the Infantry to carry a 50 round belt each themselves. Of course back then there own rifles.

It sounds to me that the described rule of 3 would be used for all equipped weapons... then an a$$ load of ammo for your main weapon. Possible even carrying a extra box for the heavy bolter.

For most part it shouldn't be an issue but logistics shortages are in factor in some situations, but they (in fact nothing should) be put in as the parties one weakness.

As for using melee, I'm surprised it hasn't come up, tighter terrain against troops that can stealth, fly, burrow, teleport, you might not be able to stop it. In Other situations, crazy as this might sound, you be faced with a fire fight you can't win against troops that might not excel at melee. These days most, if not all 40k armies have shooty troops that dangerous.

Face Eater said:

I always considered Deathwatch a game of tactics. You understand what the enemy is good and what their bad at and then play to their weakness. Space marines are good at everything most of the aliens are only good at one thing. You find ranged to good. Force the space marines to fight the tau. I garauntee they would be forced into melee ranges real quickly or die from the pulse rifles.

Daisuke said:

Well that all depends on how you're interpreting your ammo load out. It more importantly, as has been mentioned, depends on the themes and feeling you want in your games. As others have said, you have to ask what you care about n your game.

As for what '3 reloads' means that's clear as mud too, because 3 reloads for the HB could be the pack plus three 60 round drums/belts/whatever or it could mean 3 packs (a little silly IMO). The same for boltguns, 3 reloads could be 3 magazines or it could be 3 shot selector bound magazines meaning you essentially have 9 mags. Or you could decide that the SMs should act more like modern day forces and carry oodles of ammunition.

You also have to wonder about the rate of fire of the weapons in 40k, and wonder if the ROF is literal or yet another abstraction. As some have said, a ROF of 10 is not really all that rapid, and figuring it takes literally the same time and same concentration to dump 10 rounds down range as it does 4 and you're just as likely to hit with either shot is a little bit of a stretch. Is the HB backpack really only storing 250 1" shells, or is it more than that and the ROF is there as an abstraction to calculate hits and damage, much like hordes, armor, toughness, etc. are all abstracted bits and pieces of a fight?

Personally, I like to at least make my players think about their ammunition consumption, even if it's not an actual limitation. That's where I came up with my personal reload rate of 6 mags for the primary, 3 for your backup, and a single backpack for the heavy bolter (unless they specifically ask for more belts the others can carry). In my experiences so far, except on exceptionally long deployments, the ammo will last the full mission and leave some left over at the end. The players are then conscious of their ammunition supply but aren't constantly fretting over it unless the particular mission themes call for it.

Siranui said:

Easy tactical situations can be used to create openings for other roleplaying challenges. This is where the non-combat portions (yes, they can happen) of a Deathwatch game have time to shine. For some players, these will be far more interesting than even the most tactically challenging combat encounters, which can all seem rather dull after awhile.

As for that topiary maze... burn it to the ground and kill them as they come out (preferably with mines at the obvious egress points).

Lucrosium Malice said:

Because magazine =/= clip

Charmander said:

A slight amendment here: you can a bunch of orks on a rolling grass field and pit it against a kill-team. It just depends on what you call a bunch of Orks. All a matter of scale. Cover and other factors, just allow you as a GM to keep things to a scale more common to many RPG settings.

Alex

there is little difference in US Soldier and Space Marine. (beside spiting acid, armour with nuclear reactor inside, jetpaks, power clubs and guys with skulls on helmets) US Soldiers learn to shoot, Space Marines learn to Hit. (Variation of joke/saying from my military times, simply change Space Marine with Paratrooper)

One more thing, from personal experience i may say that police militarised groups carry only around 3 to 4 ammo change.

And answering original question: because its much cooler than shooting, orks know it, eldar know it, tau dont know it but they are nothing more than runty blue comies with hoves.

With all those load out comparisons, people tend to forget that bolt rounds, especially those for a heavy bolter take up a lot of space. These babies have quite some size.

Considering that, the 250 rounds back pack seems very reasonable. You could have more than 10 times the amount of 7.62mm ammo in there.

Call me hardliner but even 10 mags per guy seems very much. I have yet to see any pic of space marine covered in bolter magazines. Dunno but to me there´s quite difference in how much ammo you have at your disposal (probably indefinite amounts) and how much you can reasonably carry.

Aww you would have liked the terminators in 2nd edition 40k lore, they had 0 (zero reloads). None for stormbolter, assault cannon, cyclone launcher or heavy flamer. And they boarded gene stealer infested space hulks.....

But to each his own

By the same sentiment, Marines shouldn't carry bolt pistols or combat knifes either, because those are also seldom portrayed in artwork.

You won't see pics of Marines carrying reloads because the art is based off the minis, and minis don't carry such things (because it'd be next to impossible to mould). Although; if you go back to RT-era plastic marines, the sprues did indeed have loads of ammo pouches on, so you could festoon your guys with ammunition.

I'd like to point out one or two things:

1) Deathwatch is more akin to Special Forces or Rangers, than to front-line infantry. How many clips does a typical SF/Ranger carry on routine patrols (when not expecting combat)?

2) Ammunition loadouts will vary based on the mission. Remember, that the team won't necessarily know they are going into a combat situation. They need to stay light and mobile, but have enough to last them through an occasional firefight or two until they can resupply. Unless, of course, they know they are going into a "Hot" zone and expect large amount of combat without resupply.

I think the +3 reloads is a reasonable amount to use as a default capacity, considering point #2. If they expecting to go into a combat-heavy area, they can requisition more ammunition. Otherwise, the extra unused ammo just slows them down and interferes with their work. After a firefight or two, if their ammunition is low, they can decide to head back and resupply (if possible). Or, they must conserve their ammunition once they start getting low.

dvang said:

When I was with 3rd and 7th group, they carred a standard combat load of 7 mags but had extra guns and ammo in/on their trucks.