Hello, where are the rules for using ranged weapons as ad hoc melee weapons? I'm sure that using a bolter to club a tyrannid can't count as an improvised weapon, because that would mean that the space marine would be better off dropping it and using his fists, which doesn't seem reasonable. The Unarmed Master rule gives 1d10+ Strength Bonus damage if fighting with no weapon, which is likely to be better than a bolter with a Astartes Combat Knife attached which is 1d10+2. The can't be right.

Bolter said:

Hi,

Only pistols can be use to fight in melee and only in a single shot.

Basic and heavy weapons aren't madfe for it so you will be in fact less effective with a bolter club than with your fist.

A bolter with melee attachement make 1d10+2+ strength bonus so a little more usefull than just your fist. As all melee attack you add the SB to damage.

I support the idea a bolter would be an improvised weapon if using it to club someone.

A space marine using his fists would be hitting more accurately than a slab of metal, and a monomelecular edge combat knife would definately do more damage.

Remember, most basic knives and swords we have in the 20th century would be considered primitive weapons in the DW ruleset. We've had armour pretty much immune to such weapons over a thousand years now. Pretty sure spacieval-age armour would be even better. (Called Shots to slip that knife into unprotected locations to beat the armour allowed of course, guess here's a reason to use called shots eh?)

I have to say, there is a place for a space marine to show utter contempt for his enemies by bludgeoning them to death with his boltgun. The implication being they are not worthy of having the ammunition wasted on them or even a decent melee battle.

And for many enemies this is not only possible but even relatively effective.

Primative weapon doing 1D10-2 +12 damage to a guardsman with armor 3. Might take a few hits to pulpify him, but not many.

There's no dispute here. Deathwatch Core Rulebook, pg.56: "Hitting someone with the butt of a basic ranged weapon (such as a boltgun) counts as an improvised weapon." If you want to use your bolter in melee combat and stay effective, get a melee weapon attachment. Heck, if one of my players asked me, I'd be willing to come up with rules for a power bayonet. Wouldn't be cheap, but if they wanted it, I'd let them use it. Say, same stats as an Astartes Power Sword, loses Balanced, costs 24 requisition- since the mono costs 7 (4 more than a combat knife) and the chain costs 9 (4 more than a chainsword).

Gaire said:

Getting a bit off-topic but….

I've always wanted a "power-chainsword" for my Blood Angel assault marine. Now that would be expensive and hard to find!

herichimo said:

They already have power-chainswords. It is a relic called the Frost Blade.

I'd just bump the renown and requisition of a power sword and give it tearing. Gave the Blood Angels player in my game a relic Glaive Encarmine (yeah, it's redundant to make a relic into another relic, so what?) with tearing. Considering I was throwing everyone a piece of archaeotech or relic gear at that point (Space Hulk that had a lost Astartes ship from the Great Crusade), I don't feel like I was overpowering the character.

More like power blade, not powers sword. Or chain dagger, not chainsword for chain bayonets.

The Chain Melee Attachment uses the stats for a Chainsword sans-Balanced, so using a Power Sword without Balanced makes sense for the theoretical Power Melee Attachment.

The damage of an unarmed attack for a Space Marine is 1d10+SB.

The damage for using a combat knife would be 1d10+SB+2. 2 points better, as well as coming with an extra 2 points of penetration.

Also, as you can hold the bolter in one hand, you don't have to drop it to punch someone. As another aside, even with both hands full you can still kick someone for unarmed damage, hence why it is called "unarmed" damage and not "punching" damage. I even allow headbutts.

Don't forget elbowing and headbutts.

The sheer bulk of the Astartes Bolter seems to be primarily reinforced housing for the mechanisms inside. The technological principles behind the boltgun are relatively simple, and given the reduced kickback due to the fact that they're smooth-bore, I doubt that the reinforcement is necessary for it to function effectively in that regard. Bolters of all stripes are big, and they're heavily armored because they're designed to take a lot of punishment. This is especially true when one looks at bolt weapons made for Astartes.

There is no doubt in my mind that Astartes boltguns are so heavily armored because they were intended to be used as a weapon every which way. Hell, they look like they could take a series of glancing blows from a chainsword and still function perfectly fine (machine spirits willing, of course). Those things are made for clubbing. Because they are made to be used by Space Marines.

Cryhavok said:

While they are certainly intended to last a long, long time, bolter parts are replaceable. Bolters are also smoothbore. The shells are ridged, and this ridging, when combined with the fact that bolt-shells are self-propelled, gives them the accuracy one would typically find in an assault rifle. The juddering of a bolt weapon would be bone-shattering if they were actually rifled like most other solid-projectile weapons.

When I said the boltgun was made for clubbing, I didn't mean for extended periods. I meant it was designed to withstand the stresses associated with being used by an astartes, including being used as a melee weapon should the situation arise. All astartes weapons are designed to take a ton of punishment, and most, if not all, can function as makeshift melee weapons, and are designed to withstand the stresses of being used in such a manner. If they weren't none of those relics would have survived.

In the novel Helsreach, Chaplain Grimaldus was swinging his plasma pistol around (bear with me, please) by its power-cable as though it was a flail. Plasma pistols are hard things to get your hands on, even for a well-established Chapter like the Black Templars. Nor are they something one would break, even if one's end was imminent. Grimaldus treated it as a weapon even after it had temporarily outlived its intended use as a ranged weapon, and it survived the battle.

My point is that one should not be particularly worried about using one's astartes ranged weapons as Improvised melee weapons for the purposes of attacking and parrying, taking the appropriate penalties for being Primitive and Unbalanced. And, of course, running the risk of being destroyed when doing so as is appropriate to the weapon that is being parried or blocked. (Giving chain weapons a 25-75% chance of destroying the improvised weapon in his situation seems appropriate, depending on the weapon's class, as it would indicate the astartes ranged weapon is perpendicular to the edge of the weapon, rather than striking the flat of the blade as one is ideally supposed to when parrying. Power Weapons should destroy the Improvised weapon uttlerly).

There's a subtle difference between the boltgun as I am arguing it, and the Ripper Gun. I am arguing that the boltgun is designed to withstand being used as a club, as a probable eventuality in the hands of an Astartes. The Ripper Gun is a club, having its own rules as a melee weapon seperate from an Improvised weapon.

Again, a bunch of these ultimately boils down to house rules

@Nikollo thanks for clearing that up. I do not disagree that bolters can be used as improvised weapons without breaking. That is plain common sense. I was misinterpretting your earlier comments to mean you thought they should be much better than an improvised weapon. As that isnt what you were saying, I have no disagreement with you.