I've noticed in every 40k game I've played in person, as well as the game on here, that players do their damnedest to avoid having to use the ready action by dropping weapons rather than taking a half action to stow them. This seems to indicate an issue with the game, driven by actual play-testing. In my opinion, this shows that the ready action is unfun, and prevents players from doing interesting things. There are some responses to this issue.

1) punish players for dropping weapons. This seems like a bad idea to me because it involves more tracking (how many times do you drop a gun before it gets damaged) and because it's punishing the players for wanting to spend their turn doing something interesting. Also, making it a roll to get a free ready action is adding way too much randomness and further chances for screwups for an action that isn't even that interesting (don't roll unless it's interesting!)

2) Make readying and stowing a free action that you may take once per turn, one of each. Just let players get into the fight. You could add that heavy weapons always take a half action to ready or stow, and change quick draw to allowing you a bonus to initiative on the first round of combat (or even just always going first).

I know that the ready action serves a purpose of enforcing reality on player actions. However, these are all people trained in at least one weapon, able to shoot a target on average about 45% of the time with a single shot. This is well above the average for most people, and I would guess for someone that well trained with a gun that they would be able to draw it pretty easily and quickly.

What do other people think? This has some actual playtest background behind it on my end, so I'm curious what other people have experienced. Is your 40k universe littered with dropped weapons?

Hm. Ready/Stow is really just a "fluffy" action. I generally allow my players to make three Free Actions in their Turn- issue a death threat, issue an order, or call out a warning, a flashy flourish of a blade, Ready/Stow items or weapons, even the special attack of Force weapons- and rarely do I need to step in to tell a player they overstepped the Rule Of Three. This came as the result of a player dropping his auspex in favor of being able to aim before shooting. Initially I ruled the auspex might have some permanent glitch (a -5 penalty to it's special uses), but the player reminded me that Imperial tech is quite robust even if little understood, and rather than go around something like that ever again I house ruled the Rule Of Three.

In my experience the Ready action is a reality tax on player actions. The first action they take in any given combat is to draw their weapon, which (in DH1, which we play) precludes all but Single Shot. It doesn't really add anything at all to gameplay, in my experience.

Simply dropping your weapon is actually a legal way to save time in the real life too. They teach this method in the army (seriously). If you look at the photos of modern-day soldiers you can notice that they have a harness that prevents their weapon to fall to the ground when they drop it.

And all you need is to either...

- Take an opponent completely surprised, with his/her weapon(s) holstered.

- Fall vitim to a surprise attack while your weapon(s) holstered.

...to feel the importance of the Ready action .

Uhg! I am learning to hate the term "Uninteresting"! Every time I hear it lately it seems like the person involved wants to ignore ANY sense of realism in favor of "I wanna..." And if I can't I'm gonna cry and whine incessantly! O.M.G! Ok, Rant ends. If your player wants to drop stuff to "Quickdraw" his melta pistol or whatever, do what real "Trained" troops do in real life! Put the droppable item on a sling! In the case of a basic weapon always "ready" because you just reach down and grab it! I wouldn't even charge the character for the sling since they are included on any military grade weapon. This could also work with an Auspex if you placed it on a cross body harness similar to the original Tricorders in Star trek. Ready is an action that applies to retrieving ANY item from a readily accessible belt pouch or harness (Rummaging through your pack takes a bit more time ).

Quickdraw is a talent that allows you to "Ready" a one handed or basic weapon as a free action. I'm sorry boys and girls, not every Acolyte is a western gunslinger! In my experience, people who constantly want to change equipment to "item x" that's perfectly suited to this situation instantly also typically fall into the "chaotic everywhere" type of player! (A player who always wants to do everything at once. Old D&D meme). You want to ready your weapons instantly? buy the talent! Don't want to break your precious widget when you drop it? Put it on a sling! (Also prevents losing it!)

Anyway, The ready action is specifically intended to limit the number of things a character can be doing in a given turn. So yes, I think it's necessary!

What exactly is the problem with dropping your weapon?

What gameplay effect would be improved by pretty much forcing the player to holster it instead? (Since that would almost always be optimal.)

There's a clear tactical decision to be had for dropping versus stowing, and readying if you suspect enemies-- and ways the GM and other players can flavorfully take advantage of it.

Removing that is a narrative loss with almost no mechanical gain.

Hey man, I'm sorry that you don't like interesting games and that you have a hard on for disliking players wanting to do things that are interesting. Tell me more about your sense of realism for this game where we tell stories about cyborgs cutting through tanks with laser swords. Tell me more about how in the books the authors always made sure to meticulously describe the protagonists drawing their weapons and cursing that they now didn't have enough time to take a proper shot at the enemy.

You're telling a story that incorporates a game, dude. Lighten up about "reality."

I'm telling you that not only from a story part is the action boring and non-useful, but that it is boring for the gameplay itself, as players consistently shy away from it. You didn't answer my question on how frequently players are dropping things in your games. Do you play games? Or do you hate the idea of munchkinism so much that all players must sign thee name in blood to the gods of realism?

Here's a hint: for some of us, anyone talking about realism in these fantasy games elicits an almost instant reaction of "this person has no idea how the story part or game part of these things work. Not always true, but it's a good rule of thumb.

And you know what? I challenge you to give me an example of a player abusing these infinite free actions that can't be handled by simple common sense. You don't need a rule to tell players they can't teleport, and I don't think you need one to tell players they can't recite the works of Shakespeare while juggling the contents of an entire toolbox and med kit while readying their syringe. Seriously, please give me something specifically that you are afraid of happening other than "players will break my game by trying to have fun!"

Tell me more about your sense of realism for this game where we tell stories about cyborgs cutting through tanks with laser swords. Tell me more about how in the books the authors always made sure to meticulously describe the protagonists drawing their weapons and cursing that they now didn't have enough time to take a proper shot at the enemy.

You're telling a story that incorporates a game, dude. Lighten up about "reality."

You realize that internal consistency, immersion, and sympathetic resonance exist, right?

Some people actually might enjoy a game (or story) where the characters feel as if they are real people in real danger, rather than having everything handwaved for them.

You may as well argue that Survival Horror games with limited ammunition are 'unfun'. It's pretty much just your opinion.

(And did you seriously imply that authors don't use quickdraw and gunshot timing descriptions?)

Tell me more about your sense of realism for this game where we tell stories about cyborgs cutting through tanks with laser swords. Tell me more about how in the books the authors always made sure to meticulously describe the protagonists drawing their weapons and cursing that they now didn't have enough time to take a proper shot at the enemy.

You're telling a story that incorporates a game, dude. Lighten up about "reality."

You realize that internal consistency, immersion, and sympathetic resonance exist, right?

Some people actually might enjoy a game (or story) where the characters feel as if they are real people in real danger, rather than having everything handwaved for them.

You may as well argue that Survival Horror games with limited ammunition are 'unfun'. It's pretty much just your opinion.

(And did you seriously imply that authors don't use quickdraw and gunshot timing descriptions?)

I looked this up and apparently it's some sort of harmonics phenomena. What does this have to do with game design?

Also I'm really enjoying the leap from "Players are not engaged by the Ready action and circumvent whenever possible so we should just remove it" to "the game is not immersive at all and is just a hand-waved magical tea party".

I'm beginning to suspect that you have no idea what you're talking about and just like to pepper in technical terms. Sympathetic resonance is a music term referring to a vibratory body responding to harmonic vibrations. Are you using this as a metaphor for players responding well to a game that models their own reality? Why not just say that instead of obfuscating what you mean behind academic language? It doesn't make your argument any better.

I question the effect that eliminating the ready action will have on players' perception of the games reality. I can tell you that the people I've played with who are new to RPGs always have to be told that, no, it costs an action to draw their weapon, much to their dismay. And losing an action to draw a weapon isn't putting people in danger. It's. It eliciting the reaction they get from taking a shot and rolling their dice. If you want players to experience danger in combat, it needs to be fluid and fast paced, not bogged down into a series of slow tactical decisions. The ready action has nothing to do with the players experience other than enforcing "reality" on them.

And a lot of the old survival horror games ARE unfun, if you go back and compare them to stuff we have now, because it's almost like video games learn from their mistakes and the problems they used to have. Wonder why it's a billion dollar industry?

And I already said that you could easily make the QuickDraw talent give you a bonus in round one of combat, which reflects gunslingers. You're the one trying To make up an implication from what I said.

I'm beginning to suspect that you have no idea what you're talking about and just like to pepper in technical terms. Sympathetic resonance is a music term referring to a vibratory body responding to harmonic vibrations.

I looked this up and apparently it's some sort of harmonics phenomena. What does this have to do with game design?

You two have really never heard of human sympathy and emotional resonance? Well, I'm not sure what to say.

Uhm, the RPG engine exists to help players model an internally consistent world with stories they find enjoyable:

The descriptive potential for the image of a desperate guardsman tossing his rifle aside to quickly access a sidearm likely has far more utility for grimdark 40k than 'magically' switching between any number of weapons he carries every turn.

If your group doesn't care about that sort of thing, you can easily houserule it.

You used the term sympathetic resonance. Are you in academia? Have they called you out on bull terms devoid of context? This is written, too. You have the time to look up vocabulary. Don't blame your inability to communicate on other people.

Also, I love how you use the term 'magically' as a pejorative when describing a game with space wizards. You know it's pretty easy for most people to suspend disbelief of "oh I draw my gun, aim, and shoot that guy!" This in comparison to "oh I focus my psychic powers and tear a hole in reality." No one is bothering to describe the psyker spending a long time focusing (half action to focus and half action for power) and suddenly finding the system unrealistic. I would hazard a guess that if the ready weapon rule weren't already written down, you'd have no problem playing without it.

I am biased in this one...draw and stowing as 2 actions in sum is a little much indeed.

Making both free actions creates too much flexibility though - especially when shooting at someone who comes into melee and then quickly change to "melee mode".

At least readying a weapon should remain a half action. Stowing could be made a free action.

I think it could work to give you one free Ready action per turn, with others costing a half action. I'd prefer just eliminating it, but getting one per turn could work. Would still keep the idea of heavy weapons always costing an action and making quick draw affect initiative on round 1.

Maybe you could alternatively use your reaction for that purpose if you want to.

I honestly like that idea of letting you draw a weapon as a reaction, and allow a parry/dodge. It also makes sense dramatically. Picture the commissar being charged by irks and blasting away before at the last second he draws his chai sword to block the attack.

I honestly like that idea of letting you draw a weapon as a reaction, and allow a parry/dodge. It also makes sense dramatically. Picture the commissar being charged by irks and blasting away before at the last second he draws his chain sword to block the attack.

That's why we have this nice talent called Quick Draw !

You used the term sympathetic resonance. Are you in academia? Have they called you out on bull terms devoid of context? This is written, too. You have the time to look up vocabulary. Don't blame your inability to communicate on other people.

Also, I love how you use the term 'magically' as a pejorative when describing a game with space wizards. You know it's pretty easy for most people to suspend disbelief of "oh I draw my gun, aim, and shoot that guy!" This in comparison to "oh I focus my psychic powers and tear a hole in reality." No one is bothering to describe the psyker spending a long time focusing (half action to focus and half action for power) and suddenly finding the system unrealistic. I would hazard a guess that if the ready weapon rule weren't already written down, you'd have no problem playing without it.

Now why would you assume those words had only one meaning?

Yes, 'magically' is bad for 40k when there is no 40k magic involved:

If all the characters could just make things happen with no effort, it's probably a story of no effort genericness, not the grimdark future where there is only war.

The mechanics may be designed to reflect the grittiness of the environment, like having to drop your gun because it reloads too slowly and the heretic is reaching his warpclaws for your throat.

If the "ready weapon" rule wasn't written down, I'd probably add it to the game, because they're guardsmen, not mary-sues who can flip between man-portable lascannons, plasma pistols, and lasrifes each and every turn with impunity.

Oh, who knows why myself and CPS would look up a term that was vomited out without context in an attempt to sound intelligent?

And feel free to tell me about these Mary Sues you have carrying around las cannons, plasma pistols, and las rifles. I've seen so many of them myself, just waiting for the ready action to be removed so they can achieve perfection. The world of 40k will surely fall apart if I don't have my players describe every individual conscious action they take, gameplay be damned! How many of your players use the drop action? How many times have you cared to penalize them? Be honest.

Pfft those hypothetical characters would be so far over their carry limit they'd be crushed under the weight.

Unless they were min-maxing powergamers with Strength bonuses above and beyond that of a normal human... FFG should rework the carry weight table to make this threat to verisimilitude impossible. This kind of unrealism cannot be allowed.

I get this image of a GM cowering before his players as they beat him to death with the sections of the rule book saying a one always succeeds and that they can thus use influence to acquire a battle cruiser. The last word's from the GM's lips are "verisimilitude" as his head is caved in with a wound table.

Oh, who knows why myself and CPS would look up a term that was vomited out without context in an attempt to sound intelligent?

And feel free to tell me about these Mary Sues you have carrying around las cannons, plasma pistols, and las rifles. I've seen so many of them myself, just waiting for the ready action to be removed so they can achieve perfection. The world of 40k will surely fall apart if I don't have my players describe every individual conscious action they take, gameplay be damned! How many of your players use the drop action? How many times have you cared to penalize them? Be honest.

Oddly enough, the words "sympathetic" and "resonance" are not particularly out of context when describing the emotional interaction of a fiction.

But I mean you can keep assuming they're only relevant to acoustics and potentially the top google result if you like.

The real question is, why do you have a problem with the story tool of... having to take some time to ready a weapon?

What's the actual issue here?

If you personally want to run a game that streamlines elements of the story, that's fine-- but there doesn't seem to be a reason to change it in the book.

Good GMs can perhaps easily use a dropped weapon or an unprepared acolyte as an entertaining tool.

"I always have my weapon out all the time because it flies into my hands as a free action" seems to be rather counter-productive for the style of game.

In play, I don't see dropped weapons becoming narrative tools because of their frequency. Literally every combat I've played in has seen people dropping weapons when they want to switch. That's no longer a narratively interesting thing to have happen. I can take any crappy system and use creativity to make it mean something. That doesn't mean the system can't be improved. I'll ask again, to everyone, what is your actual play experience with players dropping weapons?

My players like military stuff, so most of their guns have slings or lanyards now. They dropped weapons a lot, and I could tell they weren't happy because some would frown, or hang their heads in frustration. After the auspex thing and the Rule Of Three they seem much less...pouty...when they get surprised.

In play, I don't see dropped weapons becoming narrative tools because of their frequency. Literally every combat I've played in has seen people dropping weapons when they want to switch. That's no longer a narratively interesting thing to have happen. I can take any crappy system and use creativity to make it mean something. That doesn't mean the system can't be improved. I'll ask again, to everyone, what is your actual play experience with players dropping weapons?

So okay, for readying and dropping weapons I tend to run things with an eye to the dramatic tension:

With readying, a play example I recall was when walking down the interior hall of a middle-hive domicile, the arbiter got a bad vibe about how it was being described and said "I ready my weapon".

This caused some tension with the tech-priest, who already didn't consider the arbiter 'too bright', and was examining the architecture.

The arbiter kept that weapon ready for quite some time, and when the party did stumble upon some combat the encounter went rather differently due to the increased actions that arbiter had available. (He was able to draw fire while the others got to cover and pulled out their guns. Except the tech-priest, who stood in the back complaining for a full round.)

If readying wasn't a thing, none of those storied interactions (which I'm abbreviating) would likely have occurred.

For dropped weapons, it depends on the environment. Sometimes a melee combatant will maneuver to kick it away, other times telekinesis to set it off, sometimes left behind if the fight goes poorly. And sometimes the players may get around to picking it back up again.

Though I'm not opposed to hook rigs or slings or the like if an acolyte likes weapon switching-- there may be even more fun things to do with those!