The problem in the RPG is you don't have concepts (well, kind of, but it's a stretch) of suppressing fire, cover fire, etc., all of which can consume ammunition- in some cases vast amounts of ammo. You're also looking at an RPG where a single shot can kill 10 guys, and you're looking at a situation where in combat the PCs have an exaggerated likelihood of hitting their enemy targets.

If you base the RPG load out on real world numbers you’re going to very likely end up in a situation where you’re essentially giving the players unlimited ammo but requiring them to mark it off. That’s fine, but I think you’re missing a thematic part here, which is to either make your PCs think about ammo or to let them not have to worry about it.

Pick what theme you’re going for and disregard 21st century soldiers. FS, for my group, took 6 reloads for the tac and about 30 extra rounds for the dev, and FS is a loooong adventure. 10 magazines would've removed the ammo considerations from the players alltogether.

dvang said:

SF typically don't perform 'normal' routine patrol activities because the normal grunts can do that. They more usually performing deep penetration patrols, often hundreds of miles behind the lines. In which case, they carry *vast* amounts of ammunition. Like 'I can't even lift this' amounts.

The concept of a Deathwatch Kill-team being sent on a mission and not 'expecting' combat is very bizarre. If combat is not expected, then you send some Guard or something: Not the finest 'special forces' Astartes. Sure: If you don't expect to be in a fire-fight and are just going to get take-out, or doing the shopping, then 3 reloads is fine. But I'm struggling to think of a time where the GM outlines the mission and the players decide that there's not likely to be any combat!

Given the vast carrying capacity of Marines, a few magazines isn't going to slow them down. Heck: If I was playing a tactical marine and had no jump-pack, I'd be petitioning to carry at least another 250 rounds in a back-pack, in addition to all my magazines.

eh: 1 shot ten guys? How? Remember that Horde Magnitude does NOT strictly equal the number of critters in it.

Unlike a normal guardsman an Astartes should/is expected to make every round he fires count. So being deployed with less ammo may be a weird point of honor showing how much better they are than mere mortals.

moepp said:

I'm pretty sure that ammo isn't stored in the entire backpack, just on a relatively small box that attaches to the top of the standard SM backpack. I'm not so sure it really could store as much ammo as you're suggesting.

HappyDaze said:

Not specifically, but you're looking at a x3.3 multiplier in size from 7.62 to 1", not accounting for length and other bolt versus bullet oddities, so while not 100% accurate the argument of significant size difference is still there.

Siranui said:

Sorry, I forgot I have to be quite literal here and not use any exaggerations for illustrative purposes. That one shot could be 1/5th of a guy or it could be several guys, depending on the horde type, magnitude, description, and the weapon, ammo, and talents used to blow the hell out of them.

Regardless of a specific numerical statement on hordes, PCs tend to use less real world tactics and still outperform real world counterparts while consuming less ammunition. This is exaggerated even more when playing with Marines. Comparing a real world combat load out doesn't really translate well into the mess that is 40k unless you just need a number to 'feel good' about things. If you deploy with 200, 300, or 400 rounds for your standard boltguns, or 500 rounds for your heavy, most missions will simply translate into unlimited ammunition, and most players will treat it as such.

ItsUncertainWho said:

Yeah but suppressive fire should be a standard tactic (and it is) and that is an ammo waster.

Alex

ak-73 said:

True, though one might think that with large calibre explosive rounds you wouldn´t need as much ammo as you do with small calibre firearms to achieve a similar effect.

And that with small and deadly efficient units, such as kill teams you wouldn´t need to sustain it for long before the action which your suppressive fire is covering for is carried out.

I think the astartes can do better than make extensive use of suppressive fire.

moepp said:

Exactly!

Like getting your assault marine into melee!

Lucrosium Malice said:

Or using your guns to kill the enemy instead of wasting the ammo on surpressing fire.

Banjulhu said:

That is a bit erroneous though. Some enemies like the Tau you better suppress to allow your Assault element to safely reach them in close combat.

Alex

Which Tau would you suppress?

Like Daemon Princes, Crisis Suits and Stealth Suits will pretty much fall in a single burst from a dev with a heavy bolter and crack shot (I have yet to meet someone that plays a dev without crack shot) and fire warriors are better suppressed by normal bolters and killed off with the heavy bolter as a single round from a heavy bolter is all but garanteed to kill the fire warrior unlike the boltgun in which two hits or more are probably going to be needed. Even with fire warriors I am more inclined to just have a kill team open up on a unit of fire warriors and kill them quickly unless its a massive number if them.

Banjulhu said:

Yeah. Our group has nerfed all Bolt weapons for that reason specifically. Bolters are TOO powerful.

Banjulhu said:

Fire Warriors are troop-tier enemies, that means they are supposed to be hordified. Also it's not so easy to hit a Stealth Suit on the move with Hard Target and its stealth capabilities.

And you right now have met someone who plays a Dev without Mighty Shot. And without Unrelenting Devastation. Just ask PrimarchX, my GM there. :-)

Alex

Banjulhu said:

Actually I don´t think ak-73 was talking in terms of game rules exclusively.

But also in terms of background and narrative elements. Considering that it´s perfectly feasible to suppress a group of fire warriors.

However, I don´t think that space marines would use suppressive fire in the same excessive manner as regular troops would do. Not as much of a "bread´n butter" bog standart procedure and in a much more calculated and controlled fashion.

Short, controlled bursts instead of exhaustive hails of bullets. They probably got a better feel of much led is enough to get it done and, due to their excellent protection, I figure, they can be much more selective in terms of what actually needs suppressing and what doesn´t. Etc, etc, simply leading to considerably less ammo going to waste.

That being said, there are prolly a lot of groups around which tweak the game rules to fit to their liking, and I for one have the greatest respect for well tweaked game rules.

Regarding the question of what you need melee for: A genestealer can run 72 metres per roundcharge 36. If on open ground, it's easily possible for his buddies to be more than 2m away from him, in which case you can't catch them all in a full auto burst. If in cramped corners, he's now in melee anyway.

Yes, there are a lot of missions where the kill-team has the opportunity to choose the terrain they fight on, but there's an equal number where they can't, without that automatically meaning the GM is a railroading talentless hack out to get his players.

Tribute said:

So what you're saying is that Melee is useless because a team only needs one melee specialist to cover all of its close combat needs. And that furthermore Randed is brilliant, because a single ranged specialist can cover all of a team's ranged combat needs?

I mean could you not make a similar argument that goes something along the lines of: "Why use rangedmelee? With Psychic powers you can dish out damage at range,in close combat, protect your fellow party members, communicate with each other, control the minds of your enemies, communicated with distant planets via astrotelepathy, steal the secrets of your enemies,foresee the future. What else do you need? One ranged to soften the enemy up a bitone melee to mop up anything that's left after you're finished with them."

All your examples really demonstrate are that (a) as the game stands, Devastator marines arguably have the highest damage output (which, if the game was a straight who-can-deal-most-damage competition, might be an issue)that at team with at least one ranged specialist in it is better than a team with zero ranged specialists in it.

At the end of the day, a team consisting of a Devastator, an Assault Marine, an Apothecarya Librarian is going to be significantly more effective in a wider variety of situations than one consisting of four Devastators.

You always need someone to play the Cleric. lol