When a character attempts to requisition custom ammo, he specifies which weapon it is for, and each successful requisition test obtains up to 2 full clips of the desired ammunition.

Is it just me, or is this an overly vague rule that simplifies things to a silly extent? For some reason, acquiring 16 shells for your bolt pistol is just as difficult as acquiring 96 for your heavy bolter. Put a backpack ammo supply on that heavy bolter? 480 bolts. All the same test though, because it's just 'two clips'.

I say we should move back to the old DH system for this. Each type of ammo should be listed with an actual quantity, and each acquisition acquires that much ammo. Add modifiers for acquiring multiple items in one acquisition (why aren't these here already?) to allow for people to acquire more ammo in one go.

Thoughts? The only benefit to the current system is it's a bit simpler. Oh, and also, some listed quantities and modifiers for plain old normal ammo would be nice too.

I'd say a backpack is no clip, but a single item to get.

But for different clip sizes, I would stay on the two clips -> makes it easier (both for us and the seller, as he has not to sell the single bullets).

Agreed on everything, Tom Cruise.

• Bullet counts (not clips - too exploitable and confusing)
• Multiple item modifiers
• Acquisition values on regular ammo (even if it's trivial - it's much easier to house-rule them out than in)

I'd say a backpack is no clip, but a single item to get.

But for different clip sizes, I would stay on the two clips -> makes it easier (both for us and the seller, as he has not to sell the single bullets).

Bullets are generally sold in boxes, not handy, pre-prepared magazines. That's what this'd represent. You don't buy a 'clip' of shotgun shells, you buy a box of fifteen. I think the current rule is great for groups who don't keep track of ammo too heavily, but it's awful for those who do, it just comes across as exploitable and unfair. Make the 2 clips thing a sidebar for groups who are light on the book-keeping, it'd take a few lines, if that.

I have concerns that Players will, say, make an Acquisition for ammunition for an Autogun when they (or anyone else, for that matter) do not even own an Autogun, thereby knowingly "cheating" the intent of the rule, but "it's okay because it's under the table." I'm not saying that my Players do this. What I am saying is that there definitely are Players that will do this. In order to prevent this, Acquisitions need to be more than a set of guiding numbers. They need to be detailed rules, with specific statements included that admonish such shenanigans, not guidelines that "abstract" item quality, quantity, and magic money into favors, debts, and scare tactics. I think this is why many people are not pleased with losing Thrones as an economy system. These rules do not have to be so comprehensive as to invade ten more pages of text, but there has to be a way to divorce the GM from some of the mundanity (my new word) of shopping, and to do so the rules need to combine the abstract of the Acquisition process (the interaction and resolution of searching for items, bargaining, and agreeing on price) with the detail of individualized "price" lists.

When PCs had Thrones, they made Inquiry Tests to determine availability, and spent Thrones if they had them.

Abstract the system, and one-half of a gaming session suddenly becomes "Shopping With The Kardashians"...the GM knows more about the setting than the Players, so the Players are constantly asking "Would this even be available here?" and the GM puts the actual game "on hold" to do the the round robin, one player at-a-time, to resolve getting a gun, some blessed ammo, a set of micro-beads, and some snack bars.

Example (abstract): I have a pistol that has a Clip capacity of 6. I need ammunition. I tell the GM I'm going to attempt to acquire ammunition, but what I don't say is that instead of acquiring two Clips for my pistol I am instead attempting to acquire two Clips for a different gun that also uses "bullets" but that has a much higher Clip capacity. If quantity modifiers become included in the Acquisition process, I instead attempt to acquire only one clip and still end up with 5 or 6 times the ammunition for "free." I've made that Acquisition, I've followed all of the "rules", I just silently sidestepped the fact that I don't own gun X that has a higher Clip capacity, both reducing the number of times I have to resupply and I essentially "shoplifted" some free ammo.

I'm partial to the details. I prefer to have the bookkeeping rules available. I expect my Players to keep track of their carry weights/encumbrance, their ammo supply (I recommend the movie 'The Last Outlaw' as an example of the importance of ammo discipline), even how many times they can use a medkit before it becomes a nearly-empty box of bismuth tablets and anything but useful. I use all of these things to set tone, pace, and to remind the Players of the desperate nature of staying "on the trail" too long without a break for resupply...or healing, for that matter.

Sorry. I'm a bit opinionated regarding this topic. Acquisition is a wonderful idea. It just needs more detail, otherwise it's just a sloppy guide to acquiring a) free stuff, or b) stuff that isn't even needed/can't be used.

I say that, then I admit to making a set of House Rules for Acquisition that are intended to streamline the process by divesting the GM of unnecessary involvement.

I'm with Tom Cruise on this one: ammo quantities currently are ill defined, and boxes with specific quantities is a good start. Twenty-four shotgun shells to a box, fifty .22 rounds in a box, etc. Normal ammo is relatively plentiful, but should involve some difficulty (low stock, raised eyebrows) in its acquisition if you're picking up ten boxes...

I think a lot of Orpheo's concerns on gaming the system would be accounted for by just saying that acquired ammunition only works for the weapon it was acquired for. Guns in real life have different calibres and ammunitions; I'm not going to be able to use bullets for a revolver that I'd use for an assault rifle. I don't think DH needs to state the type of ammo used for each individual weapon because a single lasgun or autogun represents different makes, models, etc. from thousands of worlds. Standardization is not going to always be the case. Just add a line saying "acquired ammunition may only use ammunition acquired for that specific weapon, at the GM's discretion." Voila!

But that explanation is a bit iffy for some guns. Plasma, las, and flamers definitely come to mind. It's hard to have different calibers of fuel. I just don't see why we can't have both. Include the whole 'two clips' thing as an optional rule for people who play it book-keeping light, and include acquisition amounts for those who want to go into the extra detail. It wouldn't take up any more space.

But that explanation is a bit iffy for some guns. Plasma, las, and flamers definitely come to mind. It's hard to have different calibers of fuel. I just don't see why we can't have both. Include the whole 'two clips' thing as an optional rule for people who play it book-keeping light, and include acquisition amounts for those who want to go into the extra detail. It wouldn't take up any more space.

True. But it is easy to have different shaped fuel tanks. Sure, the fuel is the same, but the tank for one gun does not fit onto another so the ammo can't be used. Transferring fuel from one container to another might work, but it will require extra tests from the player attempting it. Maybe extra equipment for stuff like plasma fuel.

For las weapons, replace fuel tank with battery. Now consider modern batteries and how different batteries produce different voltages and currents. Sure, they all produce electricity, but it's different enough that the wrong size of battery will not work to power a device even if you do make it fit.

For some reason, acquiring 16 shells for your bolt pistol is just as difficult as acquiring 96 for your heavy bolter.

The availibility of ammo is the same as the availibility of the weapon itself. Looking at the first update, the bolt pistols availability is -30. Heavy bolter -50.

Thus those 96 heavy bolter shells are more difficult to acquire than the bolt pistol shells.

Yeah, that's a good point that I totally overlooked, although a similar example could easily be made for bolters with backpack supplies. It's a questionable as hell disparity, that the same test can get you much more of ammunition which is, by all means, the exact same **** (if anything the bolter would be LARGER caliber).

The availibility of ammo is the same as the availibility of the weapon itself. Looking at the first update, the bolt pistols availability is -30. Heavy bolter -50.

Thus those 96 heavy bolter shells are more difficult to acquire than the bolt pistol shells.

So? Now I have 96 instead of 16. Woohoo! Hey, why do you guys keep stopping to buy ammunition?

Conversely, it's a -10 test to acquire two arrows.

Conversely, it's a -10 test to acquire two arrows.

Compare it to real life. Bullets are mass produced. Arrows are not. Thus there are more people selling bullets.

Also, for anyone who has easy access to both, how do their prices compare ?

Conversely, it's a -10 test to acquire two arrows.

I'm not saying this is the justification, but arrows are reusable.

Not saying it's perfect but, if this isn't fixed by the time we start playing, I will be working with a set of hose rules as follows.

- All weapons acquired through requisition or character creation come with 3 clips or 15 rounds

- Any time the character has the time and opportunity to replenish ammunition for a weapon they can bring it to a total of 3 clips or 15 rounds without rolling a requisition test. This can only be done for any weapon they possess.

- Additional ammunition can be requisitioned in the same way as requisitioning the weapon and gets you 2 clips or 10 rounds. This can even be done for weapons you do not possess

- Ammunition requisitioned for a weapon can only be used with that weapon. It may not even be used with another weapon of the same type

This means that unless the GM deliberately wants it there's no chance of the players running out of ammunition. It also stops people trying to play the system.

In the case where the PCs have to scrounge the dead for ammunition I would have them do intelligence (if they have the appropriate weapon use training) or tech use tests to find the correct type. Unless the DM states otherwise the PCs can never share ammunition.

Compare it to real life. Bullets are mass produced. Arrows are not. Thus there are more people selling bullets.

Also, for anyone who has easy access to both, how do their prices compare ?

I'm not saying this is the justification, but arrows are reusable.

The problem isn't so much the availability, it's more that you can only get two at a time. Who's going to want just two arrows?

I know you could always make multiple tests but it just doesn't seem right to me.

Who's going to want just two arrows?

Cupid, the lesser-known, good-intentioned Daemon of Slaanesh?

Also, as a point, heavy bolter ammunition is simply far more common than bolt pistol ammo. Every vehicle in the Imperial Guard seems to have at least a heavy bolter, and every squad also packing heat, whereas bolt pistols are generally reserved for officers etc. and seem to function as not only weapons but symbols of status. Thus, the supply of bolt pistol ammunition is relatively low with only a few special rounds made for it, but demand is also low so your test is easier. On the other hand, once you find someone who will sell you special heavy bolter rounds, they can sell A LOT to you.

Similar thing goes for boltguns, but remember that not all bolters are marine bolters. Think of your Basic class bolter as being a special small automatic grenade launcher, and the bolt pistol version being the "look what I can fit in my pants" version.

I wouldn't mind an extensive 'inventory' section added to the rules. I would probably shift it entirely towards the narrative:

"No, you CANT have any plasma cells now. The forest doesn't have any."

For fully automatic weapons you could adjust 'clip' to mean 'bullets used in a full auto attack' in order to counter their larger magazine sizes.

I really welcome the requisition system, the idea that the acolytes had to pay for their equipment out of their own pocket always seemed really strange to me when they were agents of one of the most powerful organisations in the Imperium. I ended up adopting the DW requisition system quite a long time before this but with a stipend of Throne Gelt given to the Acolytes for 'expenses' as part of the mission equipment, any unused money to be returned with receipts of course (we had a wonderfully anal branch of the administratum that dealt with their book keeping).

While it might sound strange though, I know a lot of my players who enjoy 'shopping for equipment' parts of the game because its an interesting chance for them to negotiate in character. If anything I think reducing it to a few simple dice rolls really hurts this. On the other hand if you don't want a player to find something you can just make it too much of a pain in the arse to get hold of, or have their investigations for a plasma pistol really jepordise the secrecy of the group. But then again I like to keep the 'big' guns like plasmas and meltas really rare in the civilian population, and I like my Acolytes to have to operate very cloak and dagger. Makes the game for more atmospheric, you wanna kick in a door and unleash with a boltgun play deathwatch.

I really welcome the requisition system, the idea that the acolytes had to pay for their equipment out of their own pocket always seemed really strange to me when they were agents of one of the most powerful organisations in the Imperium. I ended up adopting the DW requisition system quite a long time before this but with a stipend of Throne Gelt given to the Acolytes for 'expenses' as part of the mission equipment, any unused money to be returned with receipts of course (we had a wonderfully anal branch of the administratum that dealt with their book keeping).

While it might sound strange though, I know a lot of my players who enjoy 'shopping for equipment' parts of the game because its an interesting chance for them to negotiate in character. If anything I think reducing it to a few simple dice rolls really hurts this. On the other hand if you don't want a player to find something you can just make it too much of a pain in the arse to get hold of, or have their investigations for a plasma pistol really jepordise the secrecy of the group. But then again I like to keep the 'big' guns like plasmas and meltas really rare in the civilian population, and I like my Acolytes to have to operate very cloak and dagger. Makes the game for more atmospheric, you wanna kick in a door and unleash with a boltgun play deathwatch.

This is a great way to GM and I applaud you for it, but the rulebook doesn't encourage GMs to play this way. At face value, to acquire any item all you need is a simple, single die roll. I believe that FFG haven't gone far enough in giving GMs tools and guidelines to create mini-adventures such as these. It might be fine for those of us who have played traditional RPGs before, but perhaps not for newcomers.

Sorry to Necro this topic, but it still is relevant. As for the bolter example.

2 clips of bolt pistoll = 16 + 8 per DoS

2 clips of bolter ammo = 48 +24 per DoS

And we know they use the same caliber of bolts (unlike the heavy bolter)

Maybe it make sense to switch to single-shot tracking and re-use Rogue Trader acquisition section scale modifiers and amounts?

Start from the lower values of the ranges (like a box of ammo) and rise the amount of acquired ammo with extra DoS.

I like that, I even came up with some ideas for that (box sizes of ammo) trying to blend realism with game balance.

I agree that the rules are somewhat...poorly explained, but exploitable? Game Masters word is final. Personally I've said they only get to aquire ammo for weapons they have and in general they get 3 clips/magazines ready to go. No idea which of those words is the right as english is not my native tongue.

Game Master's word sure is final, but optimally the rules should function without unnecessary GM intervention.