All Astartes in power armor are able to wield basic weapons without penalty (see page 140; description of basic weapons and page 161; description of Recoil Supression), but not use them in Close Combat. So, if a Space Marine had the Two-Weapon Wielder (Ballistics) talent, would he be able to weild two Basic weapons? The description of the talent specifies that the talent works for two weapons of the same type, which I take it to mean it means either two melee weapons, two pistols, or two basic weapons. Furthermore, page 246; which details the rules for Two-Weapon Fighting, doesn't say anything specifically against wielding two basic weapons, and goes on to state that any weapon which can reasonably be used in one hand apply for this option.

From that, I'm inclined to believe that it's possible to dual wield basic weapons, but every talent for dual wielding ranged weapons applies specifically to pistols, as if nobody in their right mind would fight with two basic weapons, so I thought maybe I'm seeing a loophole where there is none. So I'd like to know if you think that combining Two-Weapon Fighting and basic weapons is at all possible, or not.

Technically shooting two basic weapons is possible as per the RAW, but the majority of the people that post on this forum don't find this idea appealing (though some like it for the pure Speees Mahrineness of it and want that kind of over the topness) and thus we don't allow it.

Charmander said:

Thanks, I thought as much. Charmander said:

By the rules, I think it's technically possible. Except in my case Rule 1 says it's not.

Logic: If marines could all double their offensive power and be twice as effective as soldiers by firing two boltguns at once, all marines would have two boltguns and all marine minis would have two boltguns. And the storm bolter would never have been invented.

As others have pointed out, it's technically possible by RAW. By background, hell no. My compromise was to allow players to fire basic weapons one-handed but that is the only weapon they can use that turn (bracing themselves etc). I've no problem with a boltgun in one hand and a chainsword in the other, so long as people remember that basic weapons don't work in melee and aren't going to be fired along with anything else.

Technically possible, but not with one in each hand. The Arm Weapon Mounting weapon upgrade applied to both basic weapons would be required of a player who wanted to dual-wield Basic weapons in my games. Note that range is reduced by 30% if the weapon is mounted, which can be a significant disadvantage when facing advanced foes like the Tau or Eldar.

Black_Kestrel said:

The Arm Weapon Mounting upgrade only applies to pistols or the Auxiliary Grenade Launcher.

Bah, then Forearm Weapon Weapon mounting is worse than useless. Looks like the only viable option is a shoulder mounted basic weapon controlled via a MIU or the lesser MIU Weapon interface cybernetic implant.

They're quite handy if you want to keep your hands free and yet have weapons mounted. Oh or if you go with a pair of power fists/lightning claws.

Decessor said:

I disagree, a 30% reduction on the already limited range of pistol (which spans 10-30m in Deathwatch depending on type) make them much less useful as a backup ranged weapon and even worse as your primary ranged weapon. The reduced amount of shots you can take at a opponent closing to melee range along with earlier penalties for shooting at Long and Extreme range (43-63m and 64-84m for and AWM Bolt Pistol vice 61-90m and 90-120m with a normal Bolt Pistol) are some of the factors in my original declaration.

Black_Kestrel said:

Fair enough. But with paired powerfists, chainfists and lightning claws you aren't going to get any shots off while advancing at all without arm mountings.

Black_Kestrel said:

Shoulder mountings use the same rules as forearm. Handgun sized guns only, I believe. This is 40k, not Gundam Zen Powersuit Warriors!

They're still far from useless. You cannot be disarmed, you always have the weapon 'in hand', you can have power claws and a ranged weapon.

Also: Your assault marines with their two melee weapons can have a ranged weapon on overwatch and be able to use it if under the auspice of the DA squad pattern.

They also become a lot more useful if the GM is tightly enforcing limits on how many weapons a SM can carry. If you're normally limited to one basic weapon and one or two sidearms/melee weapons, two more pistols bolted on where there normally couldn't be weapons is pretty spiffy. In background, SMs generally don't carry very many weapons.

I would allow a marine to dual-weld Bolters. It happens in Flight of The Eisenstein novel and seems a feasable thing for an Astartes to do. If you can carry a Bolter and Chainsword, then you can carry two Bolters. The downside would be shared ammo (mainly in a mission complication) and that they are not Pistols, so cant be used in close combat. As for Storm Bolters, they were designed to allow Tactical dreadnaught armour to have twice the firepower for one hand, keeping the other for a powerfist.

where in the rules is it said that you can not use a storm bolter with arm mounteding?

The rules have it a little confusing for me, about what weapons could be used with an arm mounting. The conclussion in the forum was that, officially, only pistols and extreme relics (like Malneus Calgar's 2 power fists + bolters) can work that way. I suppose the idea behind the arm mounted weaponry was to put it on-par with Techpriests...

Anyway, I found there is a layer of "action" for the SM's: first, heavy weapons will crush the enemy, then, assault marines qill get close and personal, and finally the rest will fire. Melee characters without jetpacks won't usually reach an enemy before an Assault marine has ended with him (either killing it, or being killed by it, depending on the foe), and ranged characters simply can't compare to a Devastator with Storm of Iron and a very serious investment in a ranged weapon.

Kelldin said:

Under the bit in the equipment section where it discusses forearm/shoulder mounts. The grammar has been a problem for those who do not use English as a first language, but it's very clear.

Siranui said:

Where is there a reference to the class of weapon that can be used with a shoulder mount? I've been looking for a while and haven't been able to find it?

Separately, only ballistic weapons have recoil. A bullpup configured las weapon wouldn't present that much of an issue on a shoulder mount.

Black_Kestrel said:

The Arm Weapon Mounting upgrade on page 156 of the core Deathwatch book only allows for Las Pistols, Solid Projectile Pistols, Melta Pistols or an Auxiliary Grenade Launcher to benefit from that upgrade. Shoulder mounts using that upgrade use exactly the same rules. These rules don't apply for mounting weapons in places like a Terminator armour, which has its own compatible weapons, as detailed in page 164 of the core.

Plus: bullpup las weapon? On a space marine's shoulder? This isn't anime. Maybe in 'Tau Battlesuit the RPG', but in canon 40k las-weapons smaller than las cannon kinda suck, and marines don't use them.

Siranui said:

Eh, perhaps a bullpup plama rifle or flamer would suit you better? I was more thinking in general across all 3 lines vice DW specifically. I'm not sure why you are deriding shoulder-mounted weaponry at the "personal" scale as the AWM specifies forearm or shoulder. Clearly there is some precedent or design intent with that specification.

P.S. Where do I sign up for "Tau Battlesuit: the RPG."

Black_Kestrel said:

Yeah: You can mount a flame or plasma pistol there.

I'm deriding the thought of Marines wandering around with plasma guns attached to their shoulders as it is not in line with canon and theme of the game. A lot of players I know aren't even keen on pistols on the shoulder for Marines, as it's not in keeping with canon. Canon tells us that Astartes shoulder pads are massive because they get hit there a lot. So putting something fragile there seems odd, and I've yet to see a single Astartes mini with such a thing. There are Inquisitor figures with pistols ont heir shoulder, but I've not seen anything else supportive of the idea.

Plus: Balance. The game is not designed to be broken by people wandering around with twin plasma guns on their shoulders.

Possibly via Mekton Zeta. It would be dead easy to retool for it.

Mekton Zeta, now there are some good memories. All I'll say is that slavish devotion to cannon (and which cannon in 40k would that be) might lead to a more "accurate" game lore-wise, it seems that might also be a more boring game as creativity is stifled through conformity.

Black_Kestrel said:

Why a munchkin is not a good idea if alone? Because he forces the whole group to be munchkins, specially the GM who has to account for that extra level of carnage a player has thanks to rules exploit.

Because, you know, whatever a player does, a GM can make better and more.

And Canon is there because, if not, this wouldn't be Deathwatch. This would be "generic game of musculated men in technological armour beating monsters". So, like the "Iron Man expansion for the Marvel RPG".

Now, one thing is to have a bolter mounted on the arm of an assault marine wielding two energy claws, so he can shoot with the same range as the rest of the group (thanks to using Kraken rounds... meaning the player is investing at least 25 requisition points in this). Something else entirely is to have a space marine with four or so weapons mounted in the armor. The Deadnought elite advance is there for a reason, you know? ¬¬U

Black_Kestrel said:

Welcome to 40k!

Creativity stifled by conformity is a massive feature in the universe, and should feature as a game theme, too. It's a very unique aspect of the game that's kinda cool. "Shall we jury rig this to make it better?" "What, and anger the machine spirits and be banded heretical by the A-M? HELL NO!"

Playing within the strictures of canon is part of the draw for any game with a well established background. Mekton Zeta -as it's been mentioned- was completely open-frame and positively encouraged players to do it their way, via the design rules. It's a great game for when you want to use your imagination and creativity as regards technology, and I'll happily be creative in that game where there's a place for it. But 40k-ville is a town of ignorance and ritual, where things are done the way that they are because *that's how it's always been done and doing anything else is bad*, and players should try to embrace that ethos, because it's a massive part of playing in the game world. In many ways, if you throw out the key elements of a game setting, then what point is the setting?

As a comparative point, would I get four light sabres, attack them spoke-like to a spindle on the end of a 10' pole, powered with an electric motor and then hold it out at foes in a Starwars game to create a spinning wheel of lightsabre death? Heck no, because I'm clearly then not really playing Star Wars any more. Characters who exist within the narrative of a game universe should 'comply' with that universe, in the same way that it would clearly be rather absurd for an Astartes to go into battle playing Britney Spears albums through a set of headphones.

I like to be creative, too. But a degree of conformity in equipment is not stifling my creativity, because there are still so many equipment options and combinations. And faffing around with wargear isn't really being that creative: It's just doing the RPG version of honing an army list. Real creativity comes through playing the game itself, rather than coming up with semi-broken army lists (in the case of TT) or equipment for an RPG character.

***

There's also the logical approach. It seems obvious to run out and mount twin plasma guns on every suit of armour. Indeed: The Tau do so. The Imperium and the Astartes do not. What's the most logical reason for that? The nobody in the entire Imperium has every been in the position to think of and build it (which isn't even what the players are trying to do here: They're sending a note down to the armoury to say 'twin shoulder plasma plz'!), or that there is some technical or other good reason why it's not happened?

The munchkin factor has also been touched on. Twin plasma guns on the shoulder in order to keep your hands free is clearly not an idea that is founded purely on thematic lines, but because it's a strong mechanical choice.