I'm not a big fan of the change to the Dual Wielder talent. I think combining dual wielding guns and melee weapons in one skill only contributes to the cookie cutter PC. It essentially makes everyone a better melee weapon and ballistic weapon specialist. Just because someone is ambidexterous doesn't mean that they have the same skill with a gun as they do a sword. Those are two distinctly different arts.

Personally, i'm more of a fan of some characters being specialists in melee and others ballistics rather than closing that gap between them. If someone wants to be a specialist of both, then there should be a sacrifice and cost to it (in this case xp).

I'm not a big fan of the change to the Dual Wielder talent. I think combining dual wielding guns and melee weapons in one skill only contributes to the cookie cutter PC. It essentially makes everyone a better melee weapon and ballistic weapon specialist. Just because someone is ambidexterous doesn't mean that they have the same skill with a gun as they do a sword. Those are two distinctly different arts.

Personally, i'm more of a fan of some characters being specialists in melee and others ballistics rather than closing that gap between them. If someone wants to be a specialist of both, then there should be a sacrifice and cost to it (in this case xp).

I'm ambivalent on it. People are going to favour ranged combat or melee combat one way or another and a single dual-purpose talent isn't going to change that. There are quite simply too many things to buy to be good at either and too little XP to go around. 1200XP is a very large amount for anyone that ever did want to get both.

They could certainly have lowered the XP cost but I would rather have too many talents than too few and not be able see any difference between PCs in combat. The better the variety, the more unique PCs are when compared to each other (assuming that talents are balanced).

They could certainly have lowered the XP cost but I would rather have too many talents than too few to make any distinctions between PCs in combat. The better the variety, the more unique PCs are when compared to each other (assuming that talents are balanced).

Fair enough. When I saw the change my reaction was not "this is good" or "this is bad" but rather "Well, this doesn't bother me " with full awareness of the difference.

I see your point and it makes sense. I guess my only grief is that I can already see my players automatically buying this talent now regardless of what weapon they use (besides heavy weapons of course). I don't like talents that are "auto-buy". Unless one's agility is too low to buy it, they would be foolish not to.

I see your point and it makes sense. I guess my only grief is that I can already see my players automatically buying this talent now regardless of what weapon they use (besides heavy weapons of course). I don't like talents that are "auto-buy". Unless one's agility is too low to buy it, they would be foolish not to.

How is this any different to before, when one or the other was "auto-buy"? Honestly, it makes very little difference, it's only going to affect a small number of situations, and two separate talents that did almost the same thing was unnecessary.

I am also not so sure what to think about it...it had a good think to differ between the two types...

My favourite method would be the following:

- new talent ambidextrous: reduces penalty by -10 for both melee and ranged weapon in the second hand; costs: 200 XP

- Dual wielder: when buying, chose melee or ranged for getting away the other -10 penalty on that category; may be bought 2 times; costs: 400 XP

I'm happy to see all of the excess talents on dual wielding gone, along with the multiple attack talents. Why make players pay a whole bunch of xp so they can pick up and shoot a second gun or swing another sword? Ambidextrous has always been a dumb talent to me. How many people do you know who have trained themselves to be ambidextrous? I can't think of any. I can think of playing in 40k games where I'd have to sit and wait several sessions in order to competently shoot two las pistols or wield a chain sword and bolt pistol. Just let players dual wield. It's cool and fun.

As far as balance and this being a must have talent, I do have some qualms. I think another talent benefitting single weapon wielders should be added. Something like "when a light or one handed weapon is wielded with two hands, add +20 to the attack roll." Now you have a strong incentive with one handed weapons to choose a talent that thematically fits your character.

I also think custom grips and recoil gloves should be banished or even more strongly weakened. Have recoil gloves give a -10 to attack and reduce RoF and custom grip give a -10.

The entire issue is that for the most part, any character only needed to buy 1 of the 2 dual wielding talents. This is because they interfaced only with the weapon type being used in the second attack.

So long as a PC had a "good idea" of the type of weapon they would always be using, then they could just game it out and pick the right weapon.

The only PC that had a difficult time under the original 2 talent system were those that intended to dual wield ranged weapons at times, then switch to dual wielding melee weapons.

That is a truly niche group of PCs.

Why then, should they be "punished" xp wise, so seriously? As the change in this update is pointing out and conceeding, there wasn't.

That said, I'm with GauntZero's suggested change. I do think there should be "some" XP cost for the ability to do both instead of a single type. I just don't think 600xp, or even 400xp from his example, is appropriate.

I'd say either 300-400 xp for Ambidextrous, and 200-300xp for the weapon type classification.

You aren't getting much from the ability to dual wield a specific type of weapon beyond the first. You're just gaining the option to better choose which weapon to make the first attack with (this would matter as it allows players to better judge their actions after the first attack), as well as the ability to dual wield that specific category.

The entire issue is that for the most part, any character only needed to buy 1 of the 2 dual wielding talents. This is because they interfaced only with the weapon type being used in the second attack.

So long as a PC had a "good idea" of the type of weapon they would always be using, then they could just game it out and pick the right weapon.

The only PC that had a difficult time under the original 2 talent system were those that intended to dual wield ranged weapons at times, then switch to dual wielding melee weapons.

That is a truly niche group of PCs.

Why then, should they be "punished" xp wise, so seriously? As the change in this update is pointing out and conceeding, there wasn't.

That said, I'm with GauntZero's suggested change. I do think there should be "some" XP cost for the ability to do both instead of a single type. I just don't think 600xp, or even 400xp from his example, is appropriate.

I'd say either 300-400 xp for Ambidextrous, and 200-300xp for the weapon type classification.

You aren't getting much from the ability to dual wield a specific type of weapon beyond the first. You're just gaining the option to better choose which weapon to make the first attack with (this would matter as it allows players to better judge their actions after the first attack), as well as the ability to dual wield that specific category.

Commissars with a bolt pistol in one hand and a chain sword in the other. Pretty iconic.

I think this was a great change, but mainly because all the existing systems were, in a word, stupid.

Having to buy two separate Two-Weapon Wielder talents was weird. What if I wanted a gun in one hand and a sword in the other (like virtually every Warhammer 40k character, ever)? I had to first specialise in one, then the other? Maybe it made sense for realism, but it was a huge drain on wanting to make that character archetype for a pretty minor reward.

Gunslinger/Bladedancer fixed this. But now it was just weird: I'm great at dual-wielding if I shoot first and chop second? I suck if I shoot last? It's an unnecessary complication.

Now the only problem is that dual-wielding, in general, is incredibly overpowered (ie. the only reliable way to kill non-mooks in one turn). Hopefully that gets scaled down a bit later on.

True Nimsim, dual wielding pistol & sword really feels WH40k so if one talent makes this easier I´m fine with that.

But isn´t the prerequisite a bit low? 45 isn´t all that high anymore. I also feel the talent should make the penalty -10 (and be cheaper).

But what about the mechanics of dualwielding!? If I strike with one weapon two times it counts as one simultanious attack but if I make one attack each with two weapons they count as NOT being simultanious.

Im not sure what a simple solution would be though.

Perhaps if you´d make one attack and added RoA of you weapons and made every other hit with your second hand with -20 on the Mutual attack roll (and -10 with the talent). This would make it harder to hit but with the chans of more hits when dualwielding instead of dealing heavier hits with your of hand.

Honestly - at the moment somehow DUal Wielding does not feel sexy.

I am not sure why...it just doesnt feel good...

Make both Dual Wielder attacks count as a single attack for wound stacking purposes if attacking the same character, but still count as separate for reaction purposes.

Also, what about "dual wielding" with physical/psychic attacks?

I am with you that I dont really undefstand why it is currently handled as 2 attacks regarding wounds.

As also a regular attack can have multiple hits that also do not happen at exact the same second, this is confusing and possibly exploitable...

But otherwise there is not so much benefit on a second handed attack besides the effect that the enemy needs a second Evading Reaction...

Whatever happens, don't mess with ambidexterity again. All it does is add more book-keeping and more complication, needlessly.

As far as I'm concerned the change is only cleaning up the talents to reflect the impact of the dual-wielding rules. Dual-wielding is never not a good idea if have a second weapon, since it's essentially a free extra attack. Maybe that means that the basic rules need to be changed, but I sort of like it this way.

Look at the TT. Look at the artwork. Look at the novels. Dual-wielding is pervasive and iconic. The whole concept of "heroic scale" miniatures for the TT illustrates the purpose of the 40k setting - to make everything epic, turn it all up to 11. Everyone has two guns, unless their one gun is huge. Everyone has a gun and a sword, unless they're using a giant sword bigger than they are.

What we don't want to have happen is for dual-wielding to be prohibitive (too much XP or too harsh of penalties), or for it to involve too much bookkeeping (too many talents and too many modifiers).

Keep it simple, keep it accessible, and keep it awesome.

Dual wielding is strong in its current incarnation, so if the objections are balanced based I do not think the solution is to throw up complexity and xp costs as a temporary road block that merely delay the imbalance manifesting. Instead, change how it works.

For example, one could just require hits from a second weapon to be made with additional degrees of success after the first weapon's RoA has been accounted for. One could even alternate between them if you prefer. If they are identical weapons this is especially easy to track as all you are doing is essentially doubling the action points spent on rate of fire. This would leave dual wielding to the exceptionally skilled, at least insofar as getting maximum value out of it. For most folks throwing up extra hate might be worth it, but there would be little point without high BS/WS unless you had slow firing weapons.

Whatever happens, don't mess with ambidexterity again. All it does is add more book-keeping and more complication, needlessly.

As far as I'm concerned the change is only cleaning up the talents to reflect the impact of the dual-wielding rules. Dual-wielding is never not a good idea if have a second weapon, since it's essentially a free extra attack. Maybe that means that the basic rules need to be changed, but I sort of like it this way.

Look at the TT. Look at the artwork. Look at the novels. Dual-wielding is pervasive and iconic. The whole concept of "heroic scale" miniatures for the TT illustrates the purpose of the 40k setting - to make everything epic, turn it all up to 11. Everyone has two guns, unless their one gun is huge. Everyone has a gun and a sword, unless they're using a giant sword bigger than they are.

What we don't want to have happen is for dual-wielding to be prohibitive (too much XP or too harsh of penalties), or for it to involve too much bookkeeping (too many talents and too many modifiers).

Keep it simple, keep it accessible, and keep it awesome.

Disagree.

Keep it tactical - keep it strategically interesting - keep individual differentiation possibilities - keep a lot of options in the rules (you dont need to use them if you dont like).

If I wanted very simple rules without options, I could play GURPS or another game like that.

I feel rather insulted by over-simplification than pleased, as I very well can handle some level of complexity.

But I guess this is a question of philosophy and personal flavour.

My flavour is rather towards complexity, tactical realism, a lot of options to make the own character an individual and grimdarkism (is that a word ?).

The iconic stuff comes for me mostly with the fluff and the great background, and has definitely nothing to do with simplified rules.

If I wanted very simple rules without options, I could play GURPS or another game like that.

I know this is grossly off topic, but have you... actually played GURPS? Simple rules are NOT how I would describe GURPS.

Anyway, more related to the topic, I think it's important to differentiate meaningful complexity and complexity for complexity's sake. The former is something that's often a great addition, the latter is absolutely needless and just clogs things up. I'd argue bogging things down with extra talents like ambidextrous is, ultimately, complexity for complexity's sake. Like Togath said, all it's really doing is delaying people from becoming overpowered, it doesn't actually fix the issue, it just slows it down.

The "problems" I have with Dual Wielder (as a GM) are A- it's entirely possible to have a majority of the PCs doing it, which is boring and unimaginative from my perspective, and B- I've only a few blokes on my side of the screen that can do it with any proficiency above laughable.

It's also entirely possible to have the majority of your PCs wielding rifles, or great weapons. I don't see the issue, at all. Dual wielding (especially a pistol and a sword) is common as hell in the setting, I see no reason to set the entry bar high.

It should be an option with downsides and upsides.

Currently it is too strong in my oppinion, as 1 talent gives you an option you will always use.

I agree it should be fixed, it is rather overpowered. But the way to fix it isn't to bog things down with extra talents, all you're effectively doing is delaying the problem. Dual Wielding itself needs a nerf, it doesn't need more talents.

I dont see that as a delay - I see it as a players focus.

I want it to stay on its highly powered level, but also at a high cost, where other players invest their XP into other benefits.

You wanna be this crazy dual wielding guys who makes all metallican gunslingers go pale ?

Sure - but you need to invest quite some, as it needs a lot of practise and training to do so.

That's fair enough, but given how common dual wielding is in the setting, I'd rather see it as an option balanced against basic weapons, and easily accessible.

I wonder what a permanent, unavoidable negative modifier when using two weapons a turn would do to fix things? It's the most basic of approaches, but there's not always much need to over complicate things.