Jump to content



Photo

Devistators don't requisition the big gun


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#1 Tyrrell

Tyrrell

    Member

  • Members
  • 54 posts

Posted 06 May 2014 - 01:14 PM

Imagine that your kill team is going on a mission where you'll want to have a missile launcher/ las cannon/ multi melta  or some similar gun.

 

The obvious character to give it to is a devastator if you have one in your kill team. However in my games it typically goes to the apothicary, the librarian, or a tactical who has the command special ability rather than the bolter special ability.

 

The reasoning that goes on is this: Our devastator has this pretty darned great heavy bolter that saved our rears on the last misson.  We need to requisition a big gun for this mission but lets give to this other fellow, that way we get to have the mission required weapon and keep the heavy bolter in the kill team.

 

Has this been your experience as well?



#2 Lynata

Lynata

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,171 posts

Posted 06 May 2014 - 01:41 PM

Hmm, depending on the specifics, this might qualify as either meta-gaming, or perfectly acceptable for their roles and situation. Tactical Marines in particular went through the proper training, and it's pretty much their job to adapt to changing circumstances as the situation demands. If the heavy bolter is considered a too valuable tactical asset, it seems only right to keep it around, even though a regular occurrence might make it sound as if you should take a second specialist along. Have you perhaps considered adding an NPC if your group perceives the transport of such mission items as a hindrance to their fun?

 

If I were the GM, I'd have no problem giving such weapons to a Tactical Marine - an Apothecary or a Librarian, however? Ehh ... maybe my interpretation of the Space Marines is a bit narrowminded, but I just don't think everybody ought to behave as if they were Dirty Harry in Space, and as if standards would not exist.  :P


  • Green Knight, CaptainStabby and pearldrum1 like this

#3 ak-73

ak-73

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,057 posts

Posted 06 May 2014 - 01:50 PM

It's perfectly okay. Consider this: Sternguard can have heavy weapons too.

 

Devastators in DW aren't really Heavy Weapon guys, if you look at advances. They are more generally the shooting specialists. If you want a sniper, for example, take the Devastator specialty.

 

Heck, they all can take heavy weapons if they want to and can afford it. Might be not so hot in melee though because you only have one hand free.

 

Alex


  • Annaamarth likes this

My 40K Blog (essentially a Best Of FFG Forums):

http://www.40kroleplay.weebly.com

House Rules, Rule Clarifications, Game Aids, New Creatures, consolidated official Deathwatch Squad Mode rules, 40K Tabletop to 40K Roleplay comversions, etc.


#4 Annaamarth

Annaamarth

    Member

  • Members
  • 415 posts

Posted 06 May 2014 - 04:07 PM

I think it's crucial to remember that in Deathwatch, most marines are Tactical Marines- by which I mean that they have gone through the Scout-to-Assault-to-Devastator-to-Tactical progression that Astartes go through (or whatever it), or the Neophyte-to-Initiate progression or the Bloodclaw/Swiftclaw to Grey Hunter progression, just like any squad sergeant in an Assault or Devastator Squad.

 

This means that an Assault specialist can use a heavy bolter- there is nothing preventing him from flying around and letting the dakka loose after he lands, he's just restricted to using the 60 round box mags instead of the backpack ammo supply.  By the same token, any Tactical specialist can requisition a multi-melta, missile launcher or lascannon- but he'll probably want the maglock for his bolter, because every tactical specialist likes flexibility.

 

I don't view this as metagaming- I view this as the Killteam making strategic selections during the requisition phase.  This is what the requisition phase is for, so... :)


  • Tyrrell, SonofDorn, Kshatriya and 1 other like this

RIP AND TEAR THROUGH THE TIDE OF BLOOD WITH BATTLESUIT PILOT. SUPLEX HIVE TYRANTS. DO WHATEVER, YOU'RE PILOTING A HUGE-ASS MECHA.

 -Errant, on how Rogue Trader ought to be played


#5 Kshatriya

Kshatriya

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,686 posts

Posted 06 May 2014 - 05:56 PM

Has this been your experience as well?

Yes, very much so. The Devastator is quite more valuable with its Specialty abilities and certain pieces of wargear/armor history as being an optimal Horde-destroyer with his free heavy bolter, versus lascannon-sniping (which it doesn't do noticeably better than other roles). And I've often seen other Specs pick other heavy weapons (particularly the heavy flamer and soundstrike missile launcher) based on Chapter flavor (BAs and Salamanders with flamers, for example, or Apothecaries with heavy flamers to purge dangerous emissions or Tacmarines taking a backpack missile launcher to round out its arsenal with a bolter and specialty bolts).

 

Hmm, depending on the specifics, this might qualify as either meta-gaming, or perfectly acceptable for their roles and situation. 

By its nature, the Req/arming/leader+Oath stage is very influenced by OOC decisionmaking. This isn't a bug or something to be squashed; it's abstracting the kind of conversation that would naturally occur IC as the KT prepares to deploy. It may be a bit meta, but it's a far cry from OOC vs IC knowledge about enemy species, or the like.


Edited by Kshatriya, 06 May 2014 - 05:57 PM.


#6 Lynata

Lynata

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,171 posts

Posted 06 May 2014 - 08:08 PM

By its nature, the Req/arming/leader+Oath stage is very influenced by OOC decisionmaking. 

 

Certainly - let's just say there are limits as to how I'd let my OOC desire to use a cool gun or win the mission in the easiest way imaginable influence what I would consider "acceptable wargear" for a character. ;)

 

I admittedly could have phrased it better, though! The meta term is a bit misleading.



#7 ak-73

ak-73

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,057 posts

Posted 07 May 2014 - 02:30 AM

 

By its nature, the Req/arming/leader+Oath stage is very influenced by OOC decisionmaking. 

 

Certainly - let's just say there are limits as to how I'd let my OOC desire to use a cool gun or win the mission in the easiest way imaginable influence what I would consider "acceptable wargear" for a character. ;)

 

I admittedly could have phrased it better, though! The meta term is a bit misleading.

 

 

I don't know. Maybe an indication of handing out too much Req then. I think if you give a team the right amount of Req, let them freely choose and then have your NPC Watch Captain give the whole requisition lists a brief sanity check, it shouldn't be a problem.

 

Devastators are more suited for Lascannons only because they tend to have the highest BS and so are most likely to make that critically important attack on the advancing Chaos Land Raider. Especially at long ranges - which is where they shine.

 

Also - pro tip: A tactical with Bolter mastery, Bolter Drill and Mighty Shot is better than any Devastator with the HB (against non-hordes). A tactical is half a Devastator anyway (the other half being commander).

 

Alex


My 40K Blog (essentially a Best Of FFG Forums):

http://www.40kroleplay.weebly.com

House Rules, Rule Clarifications, Game Aids, New Creatures, consolidated official Deathwatch Squad Mode rules, 40K Tabletop to 40K Roleplay comversions, etc.


#8 Lynata

Lynata

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,171 posts

Posted 07 May 2014 - 05:55 AM

Devastators are more suited for Lascannons only because they tend to have the highest BS and so are most likely to make that critically important attack on the advancing Chaos Land Raider.

 

Well, and because it's their role.

 

I'm a big fan of maintaining the structure and organisation of a military unit when roleplaying one, and in the case of the Space Marines, part of this means that members of the team are specialising in some area, which they will be expected to dedicate themselves to. Simply put: An Apothecary lugging around a missile launcher might find himself in the awkward position to choose between either his duty as the medic or his duty as the team's missile gunner. If you want someone switching back and forth, get the Tactical Marine. That's what they're for, and that's why (in GW's rules) most of the Deathwatch consist of them.

 

But as I said in my first post, perhaps my perspective of the Space Marines is too narrowminded for some. If others are fine with a less organised approach where everyone equips what they want, that is of course entirely up to them!



#9 pure tanith fury

pure tanith fury

    Member

  • Members
  • 62 posts

Posted 07 May 2014 - 06:38 AM

I can understand the Dev keeping to the Heavy Bolter, from the little my group played it was a devastating weapon. If you have more than one in the group you may want to use some GM ruiling to force one of them to take the more specialist weapon. I would never allow an Apothecary or Librarian to take gear like a Heavy Weapon (regardless if they know how to fire one or not). That is not their role on the battlefield and they have been studying their specialist abilities and skills for a long time. They would have equipment geared to their specialty. I would allow a Tactical Marine the special weapon if it had to go to someone else.


  • Lynata likes this

#10 ak-73

ak-73

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,057 posts

Posted 07 May 2014 - 07:05 AM

Well, the spirit of the game is relatively wide autonomy though. That is part of why they have been drafted to the Deathwatch after all: because they have shown initiative. As such, I would minimize intrusions into how specialists decide to gear up for the mission. Heavy weapons have no specialty restrictions. In a KT without Devastator, a librarian might be called to wield a heavy bolter. Though I wonder why if you have a OP psy power like Smite.

 

In short: a KT should have the freedom to define roles on their own at mission start. Again, the Watch Captain is only performing a cursory sanity check. That's my 2 thrones.

 

Alex

 

PS I am not sure who could and would not permit a librarian to field a Heavy Bolter...


Edited by ak-73, 07 May 2014 - 07:07 AM.

My 40K Blog (essentially a Best Of FFG Forums):

http://www.40kroleplay.weebly.com

House Rules, Rule Clarifications, Game Aids, New Creatures, consolidated official Deathwatch Squad Mode rules, 40K Tabletop to 40K Roleplay comversions, etc.


#11 pure tanith fury

pure tanith fury

    Member

  • Members
  • 62 posts

Posted 07 May 2014 - 07:35 AM

Well, the spirit of the game is relatively wide autonomy though. That is part of why they have been drafted to the Deathwatch after all: because they have shown initiative. As such, I would minimize intrusions into how specialists decide to gear up for the mission. Heavy weapons have no specialty restrictions. In a KT without Devastator, a librarian might be called to wield a heavy bolter. Though I wonder why if you have a OP psy power like Smite.

 

In short: a KT should have the freedom to define roles on their own at mission start. Again, the Watch Captain is only performing a cursory sanity check. That's my 2 thrones.

 

Alex

 

PS I am not sure who could and would not permit a librarian to field a Heavy Bolter...

 

 

It is more they would most likely not take a Heavy Weapon. If I was playing a Librarian I would play him where the HW would be a hindrance to his abilities. Making it harder to draw in and concentrate on the Warp energy he would need to draw upon. It really isn't about who will not permit him to use it it's more he would not use one. Maybe in the heat of battle if the weapon was dropped by an injured or dead brother the Librarian might pick up the weapon and fire it.

 

As the GM you may tell the player that the character looks at HW's as a hindrance to his powers. If the player insisted on using the HW I would penalize any rolls the player makes to use his powers.

 

Yes the game's rules allow for nearly every weapon to be accesible to nearly every character type. Does this mean it should be done? Not really. Regardless of a SM's training some do go into more specialized training. So a Librarian spends most of his time trying to control his powers to use them more effective and not train with specialist weapons.



#12 Errant Knight

Errant Knight

    Member

  • Members
  • 554 posts

Posted 07 May 2014 - 07:47 AM

I'll chime in with most of the others.  I think the dev would be best with the specialty weapon, say the lascannon.  Anyone can deal with a heavy bolter, but the dev is best with the las or multi.  I can remember one mission we played in the past where most of the team kitted up with heavy bolters.  We were going up against a tyranid swarm and we knew it in advance.  The KT had 3 heavy bolters, but the dev carried a las on the possibility of a big bug showing up, and the assault marine carried a flamer or heavy flamer (don't remember).  It would be hard for an apothecary to use a HB with the narthecium/reductor, though, or a librarian with a force staff.



#13 ak-73

ak-73

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,057 posts

Posted 07 May 2014 - 08:31 AM

Part of the reason is that there is no penalty to wearing a heavy weapon. If you'd give, say a -20 to dodge because of its bulk, this wouldn't be an issue. And it would enforce much more a strategical decision of: how many heavy weapons do we need at all and which?

 

Librarians probably wouldn't take a heavy weapons anyway because they are more melee than shooting and their psy shooting is god mode. Apothecaries have lousy advances though and I can understand if their player looks for an extra oomph.

 

Alex


  • Kshatriya likes this

My 40K Blog (essentially a Best Of FFG Forums):

http://www.40kroleplay.weebly.com

House Rules, Rule Clarifications, Game Aids, New Creatures, consolidated official Deathwatch Squad Mode rules, 40K Tabletop to 40K Roleplay comversions, etc.


#14 Annaamarth

Annaamarth

    Member

  • Members
  • 415 posts

Posted 07 May 2014 - 08:51 AM

If the team has the requisition for a slew of HBs and Plascannon, then okay- do that.

 

I'd wonder if the requisition wouldn't be better spent on other gear in most cases, but hey.

 

In the end, it's up to the Watch Captain... and what the Armory can sustain.


RIP AND TEAR THROUGH THE TIDE OF BLOOD WITH BATTLESUIT PILOT. SUPLEX HIVE TYRANTS. DO WHATEVER, YOU'RE PILOTING A HUGE-ASS MECHA.

 -Errant, on how Rogue Trader ought to be played


#15 Lynata

Lynata

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,171 posts

Posted 07 May 2014 - 11:14 AM

Part of the reason is that there is no penalty to wearing a heavy weapon. If you'd give, say a -20 to dodge because of its bulk, this wouldn't be an issue. And it would enforce much more a strategical decision of: how many heavy weapons do we need at all and which?

 

Well, just because the rules don't apply a penalty doesn't mean you have to roleplay as if there was no difference. :)



#16 Kshatriya

Kshatriya

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,686 posts

Posted 07 May 2014 - 11:26 AM

As the GM you may tell the player that the character looks at HW's as a hindrance to his powers. If the player insisted on using the HW I would penalize any rolls the player makes to use his powers.

 

This reads like a house rule blatantly designed to penalize one Specialty for daring to stray from what the GM believes to be "appropriate" wargear for that Specialty. Thus it is an absolutely terrible house rule.

 

 

I think the dev would be best with the specialty weapon, say the lascannon.  Anyone can deal with a heavy bolter, but the dev is best with the las or multi. 

I disagree here, and my experience is quite the opposite. Anyone can get OK BS and mods to hit with a melta or lascannon's single shot. Not everyone can reliably hit with most rounds from a heavy bolter.

 

The Dev's best Specialty Ability lets it hurt Hordes more and the heavy bolter is the best weapon to kill Hordes due to its RoF, in conjunction with Metal Storm ammo.


  • Lord Master Igneus likes this

#17 pure tanith fury

pure tanith fury

    Member

  • Members
  • 62 posts

Posted 07 May 2014 - 12:42 PM

 

As the GM you may tell the player that the character looks at HW's as a hindrance to his powers. If the player insisted on using the HW I would penalize any rolls the player makes to use his powers.

 

This reads like a house rule blatantly designed to penalize one Specialty for daring to stray from what the GM believes to be "appropriate" wargear for that Specialty. Thus it is an absolutely terrible house rule.

That's the thing though, the GM in this case the OP disagrees with the choices the team makes. At this point the GM needs to penalize using the wrong weapons with the wrong specialty. This will hopefully in the future change the squad's decision making. That or the GM needs to limit their RP so they cannot get these weapons.

 

Also a Space Marine is chosen for the squad he will join because of a particular skill he possesses. So when a Librarian is picked for a squad it is because of his psychic abilities, not his versatility. An Apothecary is chosen again for his skills, hard to save a fellow marine's life when you need to be laying down covering fire. A Tactical Marine would be chosen for his ability to fill in where the squad will need him.

 

You are letting the rules of the book override un-commonsense. Just because the book's rules allow something doesn't mean you need to allow it as a GM, it even states this in the book. If the group wanted nothing but Heavy Weapons they all should have been Devs.

 

Why roll and build up a Librarian if you are going to waste him sitting in the back laying down covering fire? It's like renting a 40' tractor trailer to go pick up the hammer you bought at the local hardware store. Can it do the job? Yes. Was it the best thing to do? Probably not.



#18 Kshatriya

Kshatriya

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,686 posts

Posted 07 May 2014 - 01:17 PM

The GM does not need to inject his personal opinions into the game as a reason to change the RAW. That's creating a house rule for the wrong reasons. The notion that the GM "needs" to penalize the player for the player making a choice is pretty crazy to me. 

 

If the GM really doesn't want a Librarian using a heavy weapon (which breaks NOTHING - I'll note that psychic powers are already quite a bit better than a heavy weapon; Avenger alone is superior to the heavy flamer for killing Hordes for example and the psychic threat rules in DW are ludicrously not-dangerous) he has IC options like the Watch-Captain's advice to steer players away from that choice. Taking that to the next level, i.e. creating a mechanical setback to enforce his opinion over the player's vision is heavy-handed and comes across like the GM acting like he's god of the table.

 

 

Also a Space Marine is chosen for the squad he will join because of a particular skill he possesses. So when a Librarian is picked for a squad it is because of his psychic abilities, not his versatility. An Apothecary is chosen again for his skills, hard to save a fellow marine's life when you need to be laying down covering fire. A Tactical Marine would be chosen for his ability to fill in where the squad will need him.

Every Space Marine is trained in using weapons. Every Space Marine is expected to contribute to the kill-count AND be an expert in his field if he is a super-specialist like an Apothecary, Librarian, or Techmarine.

 

A GM thinking "Apothecaries should never cover fire" is just enforcing the Apothecary as the D&D gimp/healbot and taking away the player's autonomy to play his character as he sees fit - as a hero in his own right who just so happens to also be a master surgeon. 

 

 

Why roll and build up a Librarian if you are going to waste him sitting in the back laying down covering fire? 

 

Cuz the player might want to do that? And it's not the GM's role to police the player's idea of fun especially when it doesn't break anything?

 

 

You are letting the rules of the book override un-commonsense. Just because the book's rules allow something doesn't mean you need to allow it as a GM, it even states this in the book. If the group wanted nothing but Heavy Weapons they all should have been Devs.

 

 

This is hella logically-fallacious.



#19 Tyrrell

Tyrrell

    Member

  • Members
  • 54 posts

Posted 07 May 2014 - 01:58 PM


That's the thing though, the GM in this case the OP disagrees with the choices the team makes. At this point the GM needs to penalize using the wrong weapons with the wrong specialty. This will hopefully in the future change the squad's decision making. That or the GM needs to limit their RP so they cannot get these weapons.

 

The original poster just thought it worth mentioning and wondered if anyone else had seen the same thing in their games.  I didn't really have any big issue with it.



#20 pure tanith fury

pure tanith fury

    Member

  • Members
  • 62 posts

Posted 07 May 2014 - 02:15 PM

You know what there is no sense in arguing the rules or background history of the universe the game is played. There are a lot more important things to worry about.

 

Sorry to the OP for turning it into a battleground. Also just read your response and realized we took this a few steps too far. I took it from your post heading that it was not something you liked the group doing.






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS