Headhanger said:

I think of it as rather than parrying the "shot" (which would require a talent) you are parrying the "shooting".

In melee you are no longer parrying the bullet jedi lightsabre style rather applying the concept of parrying a sword/fist in a slightly different manner. I see no reason why someone who can parry under normal conditions would struggle to adapt to this situation (or at least try!)

Maybe imposing a penalty to the dice roll if it is a style of fighthing you feel the character would be unfamiliar with would be an idea?

Lupinorc said:

"I'm going to shoot you in the face."

"Oh, well in that case I'll just use my hammer to shove your arm away from me, thus making you miss."

"Why didn't you just dislocate my shoulder? You'd have to reach just as far to do so. In fact, it would have been easier to just break my arm!"

"Oh no. Don't be silly. It's not my turn to attack."

Yes, combat in ttrpg games is abstract, but that's just ridiculous. We're talking about a reaction to something.

Parrying is your last line of defence.

You parry just before the fatal moment.

You're unable to duck out of the way, so you take the incoming blow on your own weapon to deflect it.

You're on the defensive.

You're not leaning into your opponent in order to poke his arm off-centre.

Even if I use a club as an example (I used a chainsword because a) it illustrates the rediculous choice of harmlessly prodding someone when you could just dismember them b) it's a sword, and swords are classically assigned to parrying c) it's 40k and chainswords are awesome) why would you prod someone's arm with a club instead of breaking their elbow? If you're attacking the weapon then you're attacking the weapon, you're on the offensive. If you're blocking an incoming attack, you're defensive - you're not calling the shots - you're reacting to something.

You're desperately scrabbling at a way to make sure whether or not you can use semi- or auto-fire in melee because you can't find the rules for it. But when the rules state something clearly and precisely like "YOU CANNOT PARRY A RANGED ATTACK" you just ignore it. Why? Because it doesn't suit you?

As for the kung fu movies - that's entirely different. You're talking about heroes who have trained exclusively in martial arts and are so good that they can bring nothing to a gunfight and still win. Not only that, but most of those moves are offensive actions. The martial artist moves into his opponent's space, grabs the gun, disarms him, breaks his neck, whatever. Saying "Oh but the gun goes off, if we were playing Dark Heresy then it'd be the mobster's turn, not the martial artist." also doesn't work because the GM in whatever the martial arts film is just said "As you snap the gangster's arm, he gives a curdling yell and his pistol goes off wildly in his paralyzed hand." because then it sounds cool.

When you throw your Landunder blade at the cultist with the heavy stubber, and the GM says "the knife goes right into his neck, he falls over backwards, firing the heavy stubber into the air in his death throes!", you don't complain and say "It's not the cultist's turn! He can't shoot! I wanted to use that heavy stubber and now it has less ammo in it!"

Headhanger said:

So you are saying that we can't use semi/full auto because RAW there is nothing, that we can't parry a pistol in melee because RAW we can't. But then you mock the RAW as being ridiculous? You can't have it both ways!

I wouldn't consider a parry to a last ditch defence (Surely the last line of defence is toughness and armour) infact, when you talk about what a parry is during your post I think you may be confusing it with a block (or at least what I would call a block). A parry (imo) is often used to avoid a attack and gain a favourable position to then attack. May the reason why the person with the hammer in your example couldn't strike at the shoulder of his opponent as he was off balance or the hammer was in the wrong position to cause damage merely save bacon?

A melee isn't always going to right up close and personal but neither is it going to be a spaced out affair all the time due to the swirling nature of a combat. Maybe when the chainsword guy fails to parry it is because of the fact they are to far away at that time? This is a reason why I'm starting to like narrative combat more.

I wouldn't say I'm scrabbling for a reason to use semi/full auto. I see it as a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Likewise I would allow that persons opponent a parry for the exact same reason.

I think the golden rule of roleplay is being forgotten here

"If the RAW are taking away from your enjoyment, do not use the RAW"

Remember melee combat is an abstraction of striking and dodging/parrying, not just the actual blows you roll for. You can't do full auto since you're trying to stay alive in melee without a melee weapon.

Lupinorc said:

blocking: the act of obstructing or deflecting someone's movements
A synonym for block (which is listed as one of the alternate definitions):
parry: impede the movement of (an opponent or a ball); "block an attack"

perhaps what you are envisioning in your turn of events is either multiple rounds of combat or simply the ability to riposte . now in fencing, the riposte (which is french for retort) is an offensive action with the intent of hitting one's opponent, made by the fencer who has just parried an attack.

Stay alive by killing the opponent faster - FULL AUTO!

And why says you don't have a melee weapon? You might have knife in the off hand to parry with. *G*

Letrii said:

Lupinorc said:

So you are saying that we can't use semi/full auto because RAW there is nothing, that we can't parry a pistol in melee because RAW we can't. But then you mock the RAW as being ridiculous? You can't have it both ways!

I don't remember mocking RAW. Can you quote this for me?

I wouldn't consider a parry to a last ditch defence (Surely the last line of defence is toughness and armour) infact, when you talk about what a parry is during your post I think you may be confusing it with a block (or at least what I would call a block). A parry (imo) is often used to avoid a attack and gain a favourable position to then attack. May the reason why the person with the hammer in your example couldn't strike at the shoulder of his opponent as he was off balance or the hammer was in the wrong position to cause damage merely save bacon?

I don't think you can use the word "parry" to mean "not block" here. As far as we can decipher, "parrying" in DH melee is using your weapon to stop someone from hitting you (i.e. WS test to avoid taking damage). To avoid an attack and gain a favourable position would be a riposte or counter-attack (as Chance Silas just pointed out). If you're off-balance, you won't be able to coordinate a good attack, let alone gather the accuracy and control to merely push a gun-carrying arm away from you.

My point is that by the time you have to block/parry/whatever, you're on the back foot. Probably literally (like the guy with the respirator in the above doodle).

And as Letrii says - you've got an autopistol, but you're also trying to avoid being clubbed to death by the Ogryn that's swinging a dead gaurdsman at you. The recoil of full-auto would be enough to knock you entirely off target unless you were fortunate enough to have a very slow opponent.

And then there are further problems! Imagine you say "Yes, you can use full-atuo in melee" and you say "Yes, you can parry pistols in melee" what do you do when you're trying to parry three successful hits in melee from a full-auto burst? There are no rules for "extra" parries like the dodge rules. I know you are going to say that you would just use the same rules as dodging multiple hits, but I'm just pointing out the big gaping hole in the rules for parrying full auto in melee.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=CeHrq_Fs1vk

Parrying a pistol in melee

Varius said:

Good example of a person properly trained to parry a pistol....however, the average acolyte is not trained as such....I would propose creating a talent that allowed a player to do it.

Also, please note how many shots each man takes within each 5 second period (read: round) - it is a perfect example of being able to shoot more than single shot in melee. I know my group will continue to allow pistols to shoot semi/full auto in melee until an errata states otherwise.

Emprah_Horus said:

I don't see your point.

In ranged combat you can move, and then shoot a single shot. Or you can stand still, aim, and shoot a single shot.

In melee combat you can move, and then attack with a simple attack. Or you can stand still, aim, and attack.

In melee combat with a pistol you can move, and then shoot a single shot. Or you can stand still, aim, and shoot and single shot.

It's not a time restriction we're debating, but rather a mechanical one. One of game mechanics/balance and someone having the concentration/opportunity to squeeze off three, four, or even five well-centred shots in melee rather than just one lucky one when they're trying to defend themselves from the eviscerator-wielding maniac who just charged them.

As far as I can see, you're prohibited to a single shot in melee because you don't have the opporunity to use a pistol weapon the way you normally would. There's not enough room, your target moves differently to the way they do when they're not toe-to-toe with you (hence the -20 to BS when you're shooting at someone in a melee you're not involved in), and you're spending a lot of time avoiding their frenzied attacks.

If you have the room and opportunity to use an autopistol to its full advantage in close combat, what is stopping you from using a shotgun or a las carbine?

Luddite said:

This is also the way I see it.

About "Single shots in melee" there was some rules clarifications on the old (and now closed) BI forums. For those interested I found them on the Dark Reign site here

But it really doesn't matter, since the last Errata seems to have made those clarifications obsolete.

As an House rule, I would treat the "Full-auto" action in melee the same way as an "All out Attack" , If you fire in Full-auto while stuck in melee, you may not Parry or Dodge until your next turn. And yes, I would allow pistols in melee to be parried (great clip btw Varius)

Headhanger said:

Truthfully, the problem is "how far is melee" I mean, there is a difference between using a knife and a spear. Inquisitor actually had rules for weapon length, but in intrest of simplification, its too many variables.

But its not the idea of pulling the trigger 10 times and aiming for the recoil, you point and hold down the trigger. With a pistol, its much harder to get to the barrel before they can pull the trigger, plus the fact that they would have much better leverage then you compared to an assault rifle because its weight is distributed down a long barrel, instead of in his grip.

I mean, its more likely that I would go full auto with a pistol in melee with a guy wielding an axe then try and aim well placed kill shots.

Re: Recoil.

Full Auto gives no penalties, only a +20 bonus. This tells me that SP weapons in DH have enough recoil compensation thyat you don't have to worry about recoil.

And of course, there are also las pistols that can do full auto - surely people are not suggestion they cause recoil? *G*

Actually a number of Black Library novels describe las weapons as imparting kinetic energy to their target as well as having recoil. Apparently 'las' is not short for laser. At least as we know them today.

Mauganra said:

I always assume it's mechanisms inside the gun which do have to move and in doing so create kinetic energy which the user will feel. Which explains why DH didn't ship with much in the way of intricate recoil mechanics. Sure a las gun won't buck like a bolter but any movement at all has a chance to foul up your shot unless you know how to compensate, even your own heartbeat.

So much chatter for such a simple problem...

There is no rule currently published by FFG that states you are restricted to single shot only with a pistol while being engaged by a foe in melee that I have seen. If you feel there is, please post a reference.

The Parry action is clearly defined with the following parameters:
1. You may attempt to Parry a successful attack if you are wielding a drawn melee weapon.
2. To Parry, Test Weapon Skill.
3. You may only use Parry to negate melee attacks.

Firing a pistol, regardless of target’s relative position or actions, is a ranged attack. Pistols are, after all, not listed as melee weapons.

Thus, with the caveat that GMs forge the world and can change any rule they see fit;

Can you parry a melee weapon with a pistol? By definition, no, the rules state you are required to have a drawn melee weapon.

Can you parry a pistol shot? By definition, no, as parry requires a Weapon Skill test not a Ballistics Skill vs Weapons Skill test.

Can you fire a pistol on full auto when engaged in melee? Yes, there is no rule to prevent one from doing so. Keep in mind that full auto fire is a full action and no additional action may be made (reactions still apply).

Luddite said:

This is spot on.

Can also parry SP rounds with the right talent.

I don't think so, that talent only allows primitive attacks to be parried, I didn't see one that allowed bullets to be parried as well.

See what happens when you go by what you thought you read instead of going and reading it? /facepalm

Headhanger said:

My point was he was able to get multiple single shots off in a short period of time, so why, if you have a pistol that only has full-auto, why would you not be able to pull the trigger and get a full burst?

Since you don't get any bonuses in melee with pistols, i would assume not getting the +20 for full auto is a big enough penalty for shooting full auto in melee. I've never argued that full auto in melee will be well aimed great shots, just that it is possible.

I also believe shotguns and carbines should be allowed in melee, but thats a whole different argument.

Emprah_Horus said:

Not sure about carbines, but if a shotgun is cut down I don't see why you couldn't change it's class to pistol for this purpose. Some shotguns are rather small and easily hip fired one handed in a pinch.

Headhanger said:

Where do you see an actual rule that states you may only make single shots in melee? Unfortunately there is no such rule published anywhere that I can find and if it ever appeared on the old forums it is lost to time for now. Unfortunately there's no basis for this argument without it.

I'd have to say that physical size is what stops you from using a las carbine or shotgun in melee. It's much easier for your opponent to get inside your firing arc, making it impossible for you to get the business end or your weapon actually pointed at them. Not so easy with a pistol sized weapon.

Mark It Zero said:

well the is such a shotgun in IH a hack shotgun that counts as a pistol

In RAW, no, you cannot Parry ranged attacks from any distance. However, seeing as how it's such a standard maneuver in Special Forces, SWAT, SEAL, Mussad, and similar modern melee combat training systems, I don't think it's a major stretch to allow someone to knock a weapon out of the way. Given that these maneuvers make their way into even the most rudimentary self-defense course and are some of the easiest defensive maneuvers to learn, I wouldn't requite a Talent to be able to do it.

However, I must insert the caveat that this violates the RAW. I am a hopeless sinner. Purge me. ;-p