deinol said:

You want the GM to roll two sixes on 2d6 and say 'you're dead: killed by that IG guardsman and his las rifle'?!! I don't!

RogalDorn said:

Yes there is!

The marine is in cover. He leans around the wall, exposing his head and arm or whatever. If anything hits him anywhere else, it has to penetrate the cover.

He then tries to duck back from an attack, and uses his reaction to dodge. If he makes it, he ducks back and doesn't get shot, if he doesn't, he's too slow.

If you want blanket immunity to lean out, shoot and then duck back so that everything misses you, you're thinking too much like a game. Real world does not use a ugo-igo initiative system. When you lean out to shoot and duck back, people are going to shoot at you, at pretty much the same time. Trying to use a turn-based system to somehow fire at everyone while they dumbly sit there, let you, and don't bother returning fire until you're back in full cover is a bit bizarre.

Face Eater said:

Not in my example. I said lasguns, not hellguns!

I think he meant "I want an RPG where I don't feel like TT is another reality but where Marines don't get killed by a lucky guardsman every 5 shots either".

And if that's his position, then I'm with him, because that's what I feel like playing. As has been said, the idea is to have a feeling of epicness, of Marines tearing through waves of enemies, and in the mean time to get the heroic side, which requires them to do what they were designed to: fight with the most threatening of all foes, and slay them, however injured they may be. And that involves the adrenaline rush (if not for the characters, at least for the players) that comes with lethally dangerous beasts, and the fact that you know that if all hell breaks lose on you, you'll die.

Pure novel marines are either overpowered to the point where you're wondering why they don't go straight into the Eye of Terror to kick Abaddon's arse, or underwhelming when they're not the heroes of the story. I like FFG's take, which I think - as far as I'm concerned - is in the middle of those, and in a place where you can have fun without feeling that you're not playing space marines anymore.

Then again, YMMV.

RogalDorn said:

Have you tried the cover rules as they are? I am amazed at how hard people are to hit in cover.

With head and 2 arms out, you only have a 30% chance of hitting anything not in cover - after you pass you BS test.

Last session my group had, this saved the players lifes many times over. And if you want to forego the cover you need to make a called shot, and will only hit with one round, which can often be dodged.

And the weapons the marines have, can actually fire quite well through cover with the Kraken rounds. So they also benefit from full-auto vs enemies in cover, as they will either be lucky and walk a shot to an exposed area or simply punch through the cover with enough shots to kill their targets behind it.

Ok,

Just read the whole thread... Here is what I see from all the comments:

- Problem is everyone wanting a heavy weapon, most outlandish examples probably came from Kill-Teams with 1 Devastator, 1 Tactical and 1 Medic/Tech/Librarian with a Heavy Bolter.

Restrict 1 heavy weapon per squad. Why not? Seems you can ignore most situations with 1 guy lugging a big thing around, but 2,3 seems ludicrous.

- Problem is a tactical with 3 talents + special ammo and special ability

Isn't this guy supposed to be good?

Not sure these are good examples...

I, for one, would like to be effective with a bolter + regular ammo, with special ammo beeing special. Nerfing too much makes everyone ditch the bolter for another weapon, not 40Kish IMO. The good thing is that it makes melee combat much much better, and this is 40Kish in design.

I'd tweak the situations, raise the bar before making bolters a 2nd choice as everyone is saying they are now.

Isidro

Those who say that don't really think.

Bolters still do massive damage to a Horde at range (at least much better than other typical basic weapons), thye can still kick off some damage on enemies, they have a good range and the simple fact that you can take specialty ammo makes them highly adaptable, and therefore really nice.

Of course, plasma or melta do more damage...But that was to be expected.

Ditching the bolter is now a tactical choice (don't forget, the bolter is free, therefore interesting because you can spend that additional Req on some more goodies/specialty ammo), not a silly choice. But it is clearly not that clever to have a whole Kill-Team ditching it. Really, the bolter is much more in line with what it is: standard gear. Of course, we're talking about the Space Marines here, even their standard gear kicks asses. But if you see guys in tactical squads taking plasma/melta, there is a reason to that: it's because they are more powerful.

The thing is, a Deathwatch Marine has access to so much more advanced gear than the usual Joe in a Chapter, so it really doesn't strike me to see them waving lots of different weapons.

Normal bolters are a second choice. But those are 5 Requisition points each and in no way should be 'better' than things worth 20. They're still great weapons - especially at extended ranges - but they aren't ridiculous any more.

Storm and heavy bolters (20req: same as plasma guns and melta guns) are still firmly a great option. Maybe not the 'number 1' that they once were in *every* situation, but a joint first place with all the other toys prices at 20Req, and certainly still the best in some situations.

The possibility of firing specialist ammo is just extra gravy. It's an expensive option, but makes the bolt weapons superb.

Stormast said:

After all, you don't wan't to be playing a spod in any game, even a Space Marine spod, you want to be playing a named character and how many of them use standard bolters as their main weapons. If if they do use bolter's relic.

Face Eater said:

I haven't read the last three books yet, but for the first half of the Space Wolves books Ragnar Blackmane has probably spent 99% of his time as a Blood Claw running around with just a Bolt Pistol and Chainsword. It's early in his career, sure, but you can't say named characters don't rely on the basics as main weapons.

Brand said:

Sternguard equivalents very much use the trusty bolter. I think it's a bit a pity that requesting the Storm Bolter is a no-brainer. Yes it is better in every regard and it should be. But does it cost enough for what it can do?

Alex

ak-73 said:

I wouldn't go that far. I'd say that requisitioning a plasma gun OR meltagun OR flamer OR powersword OR storm bolter is a no-brainer, as they are all very valid choices for a primary weapon. The storm-bolter takes the edge against light-elites, but it's not king of every hill. Especially now it's so much harder to hit with more than a couple of shots. And remember that each DoS dodges two bolts, rather than one.

Siranui said:

I guess every Tac with Bolter Mastery will default to one.

Alex

bogi_khaosa said:

So lets get this straight at less than 50m with a boltgun or lasgun If I had a chance to aim at the dead center mass of the thing, firing multiple shots at it, My view is unobstructed in anyway I only have a 70% chance to hit the thing. God when I said professional soldiers I wasn't reffering to Imperial stormtroopers.

I'm willing to say I'm wrong on the cover thing. Lets just say my DM didn't play it like that but I think thats the way its supposed to work.

Depends on how good their squad leader is, really. A solid squad mode pattern and the calling of bolter and furious assaults beats bolter mastery hands down, to my mind. It's a good solo mode early on, but I'd personally prefer to go without the damage bonus in exchange for maybe getting that re-roll!

There's a huge difference between theoretical accuracy on the range (where any fool can knock down 300m targets all day long) and under real duress of combat (where you're lucky to hit 20% of the time, even at 50m).

Siranui said:

Really 20% of the time. Hmm you must be a huge proponent of the bayonet rush then. There is a reason why the machinegun and rifling put an end to line battles and that was due to accuracy. Nobody uses bayonet rushs against professional soldiers for that same reason. Training is supposed to help with the duress. Trying to find quotes but can't find anything on real world accuracy, that doens't include suppresion fire, or training shots.

RogalDorn said:

"The thing" is a moving, living target that knows it's being attacked and doesn't want to be hit - the combat rules assume an inherent degree of defensive motion on the part of a target (hence why a basic attack is Challenging (+0), but an attack against an unaware enemy/stationary object is Easy (+30)).

RogalDorn said:

Yeah, really. As incredible as it seems, it is not the accuracy that made firearms the weapons of choice, it is the fact that it is much easier to use them than a bow or a crossbow, the possibility of auto / suppressive fire and the fact that they were much easier to produce en masse . Add to that their deadliness (with the same accuracy, a firearm does more damage because each shot is quite deadly, whereas a bow may just touch your arm and incomodate you without disabling you), and you'll find why they replaced bows as the ranged weapon. Oh, and I forgot, they have a much better range

But the accuracy, really...Well when shooting stationary target you can get a good accuracy (but ironically not on full auto, more when you do single shots, because the recoil definitely drives off the next shot). On moving targets, I've been in the French Army and those who came back from real operations all told me that you just shoot 3-rounds bursts and hope it touches the target. Or, as it is more and more often the case, you're in an urban environment, and then it is really tiny, so the thing is not hitting the target, it's not getting hit. That's why some guys invented cornershots, BTW

PS: oh, of course, that doesn't mean "bayonet rush" is the way to go! Because when you're rushing with your bayonet, the guy in front of you has the time to shoot his burst in your face, and as you're moving towards him, those WILL hurt. And you'll die pathethically.

Anyway, bayonets have been despised since WW1, where people discovered that when you hit someone with that kind of silly weapon mod, you have a 50% chance of hit getting stuck in his body, making you an easy target. No, it's better to have a knife on you. Or a shovel (that's how some did in WW1).

N0-1_H3r3 said:

+1, the whole to hit and be hit system is yet another example of an abstraction.

Stormast said:

I go ***** and trap shooting once in awhile with a friend. He goes like every week and his accuracy is like 90-95%. I'm not arguinbg in low-light, long range, or even urban poping around the corner situations I'm saying a base ballistic skill given the paremeters I was presented that is a man charging straight out you, not zigzagging straight at you, with you having a comfortable time to aim firing in a burst. I'm guessing most people have an 85% chance at least to make that shot.

Most people who are trained to use firearms, yes.

But then again that's the point: you have to have a target that is charging at you, not even trying to avoid at least a bit. And as has been said, the system is an abstraction (a certain number of shots should hit but just pass near the target, etc, etc). And when you're in a combat situation, you don't have the time to aim properly, neither is your position perfect

All of those come into the game system. That's why I'd say not to count on real-world logic too much here. Just think gameplay

Accuracy in real-world firefights is really, really low. This is not really an subject of debate.

Stormast said:

I'll agree but it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I'd rather they have a higher base ballistic skill and have bigger modifiers for movement but I suppose that might be to complex I'm more of a memerise every last detail player.

RogalDorn said:

+20 aim, +30 stationary

with BS 40 you have your 90% accuracy

RogalDorn said:

Yes really. I'm not making it up. Actually, I'm understating it. There's an FBI paper on the matter, that's puts police offer accuracy at around 20%, and felon accuracy at substantially lower, at ranges of less than 15 yards. There's also the sheer ratio of ammunition expenditure of KIA in every modern armed conflict. The former example shows that even at very close range, trained combatants miss. A lot. But it doesn't matter too much if you can keep pulling the trigger. The poor accuracy is down to stress and conditions, and perhaps also the knowledge that there's another dozen rounds in the pipe.

The machinegun and breach loading magazine fed rifle put an end to line battles because they fired more bullets, faster. Not because of accuracy. Accuracy has nothing to do with it. Muzzle loading rifles were hardly inaccurate, but it wasn't until the volume of fire was increased dramatically that men stopped advancing in column.

As to the replacement of bows... well; that was a matter of training. You can teach a man to use a firearm in a few days, whereas a bow takes a lot longer and requires more physical strength. Bows still outranged musketry, even in the C18. But firearms and crossbows certainly co-existed besides each other in battle for a couple of hundred years, and the delivered energy wasn't that different. Bayonet charges are not forgotten,though, and have been used in the last decade by British forces. They only get stuck if you stick them in too far!

It's all an abstraction, and having played many games with different modifiers for targets moving across line of vision, I can say that it's not worth the bother. Especially in what is supposed to be a cinematic game. More accurate PCs also means more accurate foes, and given how PCs are outnumbered, that would increase lethality.