PDA

View Full Version : Should individual types of pistols give individual bonuses?



Void_Dragon
06-05-2009, 22:10
Hello,
I start this thread to discuss something that has been bothering me for...10 years already?
Why is it that having a bolt pistol or a plasma pistol gives the same bonus in close combat than a laspistol? Seriously, doesn't make much sense. The point of the bonus attack is that you can use your pistol in close combat effectively (whereas with a bolter you can't unless you have special training - true grit).
So, if you are using a bolt pistol in hand to hand... why are your attacks resolved with the basic strength of the trooper instead of the gun's?

The only possible explanation that I can come with is that having a pistol in hth combat works this way:
Comissar with bolt pistol - Rarrr! You smelly ugly ork, come and face the might of the emperor!
Ork - Grunts and comes closer.
Comissar - Hey, look, I have a bolt pistol! Look at it! Shiny and new! You want it? Good puppy!
Ork - Grunts in confusion and stares at the bolt pistol.
*Comissar uses the moment of distraction to hit with his chainsword instead of pulling the trigger and shooting a minirocket to the face the greeny ork.*

Now, this example is ridiculous, but... honestly... that's the only way I can interpret the rules in a "real" world situation right now.
Does anyone have a logical explanation as to why all pistols work the same in close combat?

chromedog
06-05-2009, 22:12
Game mechanic.
Stop trying to use real world logic in the game. It doesn't work.

Maidel
06-05-2009, 22:12
Play rogue trader...

each pistol (if i remember correctly) was allowed to be fired in combat and thus, had different effects.


Then try and play rogue trader with more than 20 models each - and say goodbye to the rest of the day.


LONG and laborious and didn really make an awful lot of difference.

Eulenspiegel
06-05-2009, 22:13
Maybe one of the coming editions will see pistols giving an additional attack with the pistolīs shooting profile, but using WS.
Might be interesting.

As for now: pistols are costed accordingly, Plasma Pistols would be almost twice the cost if you could use them in close combat as well.

gamer2456
06-05-2009, 22:13
at that range I imagine they're wacking an enemy with it rather than shooting

SimonL
06-05-2009, 22:20
It's simply to streamline the game, as Maidel said. RT and 2ND Ed. had different rules for every single weapon. Now a chainsword does the same damage as a pocketknife...

count chocula
06-05-2009, 22:23
because they are using the butt of the pistol in cc b/c it is rather hectic and shooting when your squad is in hand to hand is a very bad idea

Maidel
06-05-2009, 22:29
Interresting nuggets from back when individual weapons were used everywhere:

Rogue trader - characters can make one attack per weapon per attack on their profile - so having two weapons in close combat DOUBLED your attacks...

Second edition - hand flamers... used templates in close combat AND if you didnt kill the model in the first turn - he might still be on fire in the second and subsequent turns!


ah memories... I could go on, but basically every close combat became one long drawn out memory game and you ended up with counters next to everyone because their were either on fire, drugged, gassed, under a pyshic influence OR EVEN PREGNANT.

anyone who gets the last referance gets a cookie - but I aint making it up!

Col. Tartleton
06-05-2009, 22:32
I'm going to bet genestealers are involved.

As someone with no real knowledge of the specialist games, do necromunda and Inquisitor have those kinds of detail and dare say realism (which is a stretch in any game)

catbarf
06-05-2009, 22:33
because they are using the butt of the pistol in cc b/c it is rather hectic and shooting when your squad is in hand to hand is a very bad idea

That makes no sense at all. Close range is the best place to be using a pistol, you're not going to miss.

If you have enough room to swing your pistol as a club, you have enough room to point and pull the trigger without hitting a friendly.

Maidel
06-05-2009, 22:44
I'm going to bet genestealers are involved.


You can have a cookie :D

And yea - necromunda is basically 2nd edition rules (unless an update changed it) so it should still have it all in.


That makes no sense at all. Close range is the best place to be using a pistol, you're not going to miss.

Not forgetting that CC is not a static thing - its all about running in charging and firing as you go and then subsiquent rounds are still moving about.

Sheena Easton
06-05-2009, 22:47
Perhaps allowing a stand & shoot type "charge reaction" with pistols would be worth looking into.


That makes no sense at all. Close range is the best place to be using a pistol, you're not going to miss.

If you have enough room to swing your pistol as a club, you have enough room to point and pull the trigger without hitting a friendly.

The trouble is that combat isn't static, so while you might not miss, you might not be hitting the thing you are aiming at and instead have just shot someone from your own team - plus in close combat, you don't have time to point and pull - you'd get one, maybe two shots that may or may not hit on the way in (which would be represented by you shooting with pistols on your previous shooting phase), but after that its down to hitting things with sharp and pointy bits of metal or clubbing them with guns. Therefore it does actually make sense.

count chocula
06-05-2009, 22:48
[QUOTE=catbarf;3547177]That makes no sense at all. Close range is the best place to be using a pistol, you're not going to miss.

then have it rebound off the ceramic Armour back in to you :)

Maidel
06-05-2009, 22:51
then have it rebound off the ceramic Armour back in to you :)

Maybe thats why quard dont do well in close combat against marines...

Then again, lasers shouldnt 'bounce' unless the marines are wearing mirror armour :p

Epicenter
06-05-2009, 23:01
It's mostly about simplicity and not having to figure out, "Okay, which attacks are my pistol attacks and which attacks are my CCW attacks?" or the 2nd and RT dilemma of "hey, did my plasma weapon fire last turn?" or "what mode did I fire my plasma gun in last turn"?

Now, think very carefully before you answer "well they could just do all their attacks with the best one."

If you do that, most CC-only weapons become superfluous. For instance, let's take the plasma pistol. If you were allowed to fire a plasma pistol in combat, Space Marines wouldn't ever take Power Weapons again. What's the point? Plasma pistol offers the same AP with a higher strength than swinging a sword. It's even worse for Imperial Guard. IG wouldn't take power weapons OR power fists ever again as the pistol is far more effective than either weapon.

Imperial Guardsmen would also CC with a bolt pistol if plasma pistols were too expensive. Now, a certain proportion of IG are able to fight with the same strength as Space Marines.

Let's not even get into the humorous results of my Sisters' Seraphim CCing with Inferno Pistols. Powerfists? Who needs Powerfists...

Xelloss
06-05-2009, 23:18
Lots of things in 40k doesn't make sense because the system is initially flawed (D6 with 1 always miss doesn't make good probability steps) and added to that have been simplified heavily to quicken the game.
For pistols to be balanced in melee, it should exist like in inquisitor a parrying system that gives advantages to have melee weapon over guns... It would take way too long to play.
(well it could be interesting to play a 500pts army with the inquisitor system, with several players on each side it could be doable...)

Lord Humongous
06-05-2009, 23:49
As someone with no real knowledge of the specialist games, do necromunda and Inquisitor have those kinds of detail and dare say realism (which is a stretch in any game)

In Necromunda you split up your hits in HtH evenly between the weapons you used. Hits from pistols are resolved using the pistols profile. So yeah, it gives an advantage to having a nice pistol in HtH. There's some oddities as a result, and I wouldn't want to try using Necromundas hth rules in 40K. As mentioned, they are essentially just 2nd edition 40K rules.

I'd expect Inquisitor has its own way of handling such things, probably with a fair bit more detail and less randomness.

Alessander
07-05-2009, 00:11
Yes, check necromunda to see how 2nd edition worked. Use a plasma pistol in close combat, those hits are resolved at the str of the plasma pistol. then again, almost every melee weapons too had some str benefit (either it's own strength number, or a bonus to str).

Inquisitor is a completely different game, with different methods of rolling and hitting.

Lord Cook
07-05-2009, 00:22
If you want a really interesting question, why does a fist inflict the same damage as a bayonet, and how can the bayonet inflict the same amount of damage as an industrial chainsaw?

Pokpoko
07-05-2009, 00:31
If you want a really interesting question, why does a fist inflict the same damage as a bayonet, and how can the bayonet inflict the same amount of damage as an industrial chainsaw?
because close combat is a hectic thing, and you want to swing that chainsaw carefully,to avoid hitting your friends.at least going by the logic used here to explain why a explicitly close-combat weapon like pistol can't be shot in said close combat:D

catbarf
07-05-2009, 00:45
The trouble is that combat isn't static, so while you might not miss, you might not be hitting the thing you are aiming at and instead have just shot someone from your own team - plus in close combat, you don't have time to point and pull - you'd get one, maybe two shots that may or may not hit on the way in (which would be represented by you shooting with pistols on your previous shooting phase), but after that its down to hitting things with sharp and pointy bits of metal or clubbing them with guns. Therefore it does actually make sense.

Have you seen the intro to Dawn of War? It perfectly summarizes the 40k melee- a short-ranged firefight. Not only is the Sergeant doing things like putting three bolts into the face of a charging Ork before gutting it with his chainsword, but a Heavy Bolter gunner is using his weapon to provide support.

Mathematically, the only way for you to have a substantial chance of hitting friendlies when firing is if your melee looks like a sardine tin.

Given the danger argument, wouldn't it be more dangerous to be swinging a heavy, ponderous chainsword around than firing sure hits into a close target?

AngryAngel
07-05-2009, 05:19
Ok, normally I wouldn't side with catbarf on much. However he's right. Why do you think officers used revolvers in such combats as the civil war. It was a short range weapon, rapid fire, and could be used in conjunction with a sword for close range melee combat.

The only time I would imagine people in your squad being hit by the shots your taking would be if you were body to body in the combat.

I'm guessing its just game balance, but I have wonderd the same thing as well.

catbarf
07-05-2009, 11:33
The only time I would imagine people in your squad being hit by the shots your taking would be if you were body to body in the combat.

Even then, the statistical likelihood of hitting a friendly is very low, even if you close your eyes, pick a random direction, and fire.

borithan
07-05-2009, 14:16
or the 2nd and RT dilemma of "hey, did my plasma weapon fire last turn?" or "what mode did I fire my plasma gun in last turn"?In Rogue Trader you also had to think "Did I fire my plasma gun two turns ago?" It initially had a two turn recharge, not one.



If you do that, most CC-only weapons become superfluous.I like this idea...

Sheena Easton
07-05-2009, 22:44
Have you seen the intro to Dawn of War? It perfectly summarizes the 40k melee- a short-ranged firefight. Not only is the Sergeant doing things like putting three bolts into the face of a charging Ork before gutting it with his chainsword, but a Heavy Bolter gunner is using his weapon to provide support.

Mathematically, the only way for you to have a substantial chance of hitting friendlies when firing is if your melee looks like a sardine tin.

Given the danger argument, wouldn't it be more dangerous to be swinging a heavy, ponderous chainsword around than firing sure hits into a close target?

A computer game (designed to look COOL!!!!!) isn't representative of an actual close combat either. If it is all short-ranged firefights, then having a close combat weapon would be pointless, those lightning claws / poisoned weapons / powerfists / scything talons etc would be completely useless... or do Genestealers stand 2' away and hiss menacingly in the general direction of those terminators whose armour they can rip to shreads with their rending claws...

Pokpoko
07-05-2009, 22:47
The rulebook even states, in the fluff description of the assault rules(at least it did in 3 and 4ed) that a close combat is a mix of short-ranged firefight, and actual hand-to-hand. It's all dynamic,so when one has a chance to send a few snapshots at the enemy he does so.

Templar Ben
07-05-2009, 23:02
Game mechanic.
Stop trying to use real world logic in the game. It doesn't work.

That is really all that can be said. Liberties are taken to make the game play faster and for it to be easier to learn.

I would love using 2d6 with adding or subtracting modifiers for cover, concealment, penetration or weather effects but that is not the game for GW's core market. I won't draw any conclusions from that. :angel:

catbarf
07-05-2009, 23:33
A computer game (designed to look COOL!!!!!) isn't representative of an actual close combat either. If it is all short-ranged firefights, then having a close combat weapon would be pointless, those lightning claws / poisoned weapons / powerfists / scything talons etc would be completely useless... or do Genestealers stand 2' away and hiss menacingly in the general direction of those terminators whose armour they can rip to shreads with their rending claws...

It's a short-range fight. It's close enough for a melee combatant to get within striking range quickly, hopefully without being shot, but it's not absolutely packed in. Besides, why would it be too close to shoot but not too close to swing a large and unwieldy melee weapon?

Sheena Easton
08-05-2009, 00:09
It's a short-range fight. It's close enough for a melee combatant to get within striking range quickly, hopefully without being shot, but it's not absolutely packed in. Besides, why would it be too close to shoot but not too close to swing a large and unwieldy melee weapon?

But if it is - as you stated earlier - "a short-ranged FIRE fight"


It perfectly summarizes the 40k melee- a short-ranged firefight.

which implies they run up to pistol range and just stand there taking pot shots at each other. Meaning those poor Genestealers, Flayed Ones, Wraiths, Bloodletters and any other troops without pistols have nothing to do and whatever weapons they have (such as power weapons & fists, chainswords, force weapons, lightning claws, bayonettes, bolters, lasguns, shootas, rending claws, knives etc) are useless altogether as they can't use them in a firefight. Unless they are throwing them which would leave them weaponless after on or two shots at very short range...

Which isn't what happens anyway. Once a unit gets into an assault, they are in proper close quarter fighting. Which is down to fists, blades, power weapons, talons, knees to the groin and the occasional shot with pistols.

Short ranged firefights are represented by the SHOOTING phase and any shooting that takes place within 12"

Templar Ben
08-05-2009, 00:10
There is a reason that soldiers in the US carry pistols but don't have fixed bayonets on their rifles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T58mFGimmjw

Dexter099
08-05-2009, 00:11
You're whacking the guy with the butt of your pistol half of the time, since it's very hard to get a clear shot.

Or using it to parry.

Templar Ben
08-05-2009, 00:15
You're whacking the guy with the butt of your pistol half of the time, since it's very hard to get a clear shot.

Or using it to parry.

Hmmmmm, no.

Pistol shot beats pistol whip every time.

Some of us have fought at those distances.

Treadhead_1st
08-05-2009, 00:29
I like to view close-combat on a situation-by-situation basis. And no, I don't think Pistols should give bonuses in combat, mainly because they'd have to be stupidly expensive to be balanced, and would also render CC-only weapons moot.

I justify most Marine/Guard combats as short-range firing. Bolt Pistols are only Str4AP- in combat because it's too close range for the bolt to gather enough speed to penetrate armour effectively (2-stage weapon). Lasguns are Str3AP- anyway, so it's no different for Guardsmen.

However (from training, though this is apparently rare circumstances these days) there are close-combats that can really only be described as brawls. Think of the scene in Saving Private Ryan where Melish(sp?) is fighting the German - they wrestle for the rifle before struggling over a knife - completely interlocked the entire time - you try shooting someone when they're trying equally hard to point the pistol out the way and rip your head off with an extra limb they happen to have for being a Xenos/mutant.

Sure - initially I can envisage a Sergeant standing there popping away WW1 style with a pistol - but very, very quickly it's going to get to the stage of being no-holds-barred and you simply cannot *point* the gun at an enemy because it's swinging all over the place as you try to stop the other bloke taking it and shooting you - whilst doing the same to his gun.

W0lf
08-05-2009, 00:50
Bigger question is why chainswords have no advantage other then couting as a CC weapon...

If you read fluff chainswords are pretty damn nasty. They should be at least S5

Pokpoko
08-05-2009, 01:05
Bigger question is why chainswords have no advantage other then couting as a CC weapon...

If you read fluff chainswords are pretty damn nasty. They should be at least S5
yes,but they are even more cumbersome than a pistol in close combat,so i guess they can only be used in the shooting phase before everyone magically ends tangled up in one,cartoony pile of bodies.

Lord Humongous
08-05-2009, 01:09
Simple reason is because most of the time (IE, for most attackers vs most targets) it would make no difference. The times when it would are the times when you took something like a plasma pistol but neglected to take something like a melta bomb or powerfist, which is when the game rewards / punishes you for having / not having units set up for the tasks you put them to.

techman
08-05-2009, 01:54
HMMM lets think about this...Your in a middle of a MAJOR BATTLE (40K is now all about large scale battles, the only reason I'd classify it skirmish is the fact that you can move models without using square bases and flanks and whatnot). You dont really have the time to have this giant rocket bullet hit your enemy without worrying about it hitting your allies. In a real fight (as far as I've seen) there isnt much room to maneuvor, you do NOT want to get far enough away from your opponent for them to be able to react, everything is done in a I attack they attack I attempt to miss,parry,dodge it. Half the time in a fight your on the floor trying to get back up.

As quoted from 2 ed back....the best weapon in the world is useless if your enemy is bashing your brains out with a rock

Oh yeah...DOW scene...yeah they had way too much room to fight...plus the seargent charged into melee with a HEAVY BOLTER IN HIS SQUAD!!!! Seriously dont judge a cinematic scene made to look cool (I loved it when I first saw It) to real life.

MasterDecoy
08-05-2009, 02:35
A note on assaults:

WW2 tactics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epZAqSNmKC4

Excellent game BTW

The basics involve using 2 fireteams: Team 1 = supression, Team 2 = Assault\

Team 1 supresses enemy by firing at them, pinning them in place, once supressed team 2 flanks the enemy squad and gets into a postion where the enemys cover will not bnenifet them. Not as easy as it sounds, you have to do this while the enemy is trying to do the same for you.

catbarf
08-05-2009, 02:59
You dont really have the time to have this giant rocket bullet hit your enemy without worrying about it hitting your allies.

Here's an idea, a little bit of math. Suppose the entire melee takes place within a ten-meter radius. And suppose that one guy in the center of it decides to close his eyes and fire in a random direction. He's got ten squadmates, and they're positioned around the outside of the fight.

The chance of him hitting one of them is about one in six.

And that's assuming that all his allies are equally spaced in the combat with him at the center, rather than mostly behind or to the side of him.

And that's assuming he's not aiming at all.

And that assumes he's firing on the same plane as them- a high or low shot is going to miss.

And that's a rather small area for a melee.

No fight's going to be so closely packed that hitting a friendly is a real possibility. Add in the fact that there's a very low chance of missing your intended target at that range, and it's pretty simple. The idea of shooting being impossible due to friendly fire holds no weight.

Besides, how is a Guardsman's fist as strong as his laser rifle?


Oh yeah...DOW scene...yeah they had way too much room to fight...plus the seargent charged into melee with a HEAVY BOLTER IN HIS SQUAD!!!! Seriously dont judge a cinematic scene made to look cool (I loved it when I first saw It) to real life.

Uh, it's not real life. That's the point. So watching a video set in the universe we are arguing about provides more evidence than arguments based on principles that may not be valid in this fantasy universe.

techman
08-05-2009, 04:13
Yes that factor works, if the enemy give his time to fire..If I have my enemy pinned or wrapped up fighting me so that he can't use his bolter I'm going to keep it like that and wait for an opening.

HEY GUYS LETS MAKE A 10 METER RADIUS FOR HIM TO AIM WILDLY AND SHOOT ME!!!!!

Weapons are knocked from hands in melee....no matter how Iron your grip is (and apparantly every xenos is just as strong as a SM)

In the gaming perspective...is you want to have that work go play 5150 by two hour wargames...your looking for skirimish...not mass battles.

Johnnyfrej
08-05-2009, 04:28
If you are going to argue "realism" for 40k, then I think 40k should use the WoTR turn system. Both players roll for priority, then move, then shoot, then assault. This makes more sense then simply one person doing all that then the opponent getting his turn. If it was a "realistic" situation, the unit about to be assaulted would react to the charging unit. Why doesn't 40k have a Stand-and-shoot reaction like Fantasy? (gawd, did I really just say that?)


Have you seen the intro to Dawn of War? It perfectly summarizes the 40k melee- a short-ranged firefight. Not only is the Sergeant doing things like putting three bolts into the face of a charging Ork before gutting it with his chainsword, but a Heavy Bolter gunner is using his weapon to provide support.

Dawn of War isn't really a good example. Not every battle in 40k has 100 Marines vs 130 Guardsmen.

MasterDecoy
08-05-2009, 04:39
I actually think both the DoW intro's are excellent example's.

An assault encompases all point blank engagments (short range firefights as well as melee)

exactly the sort of cinematic vision I see when my troops are on the table.

AngryAngel
08-05-2009, 07:03
Even if your enemies squad is right up on you, doesn't mean you won't be able to snap off pistol shots into them. As has been said, sure they won't just let ya shoot them, however it would be easier to fire a pistol then swing a huge sword if the space was as close and confined as people are saying it is.

There would be varying distance in the fight, and yeah I think shooting would be an option. Unless they were all wrestling, however even then if you had a pistol, wouldn't you try and use it to shoot them at that point blank range ?

catbarf
08-05-2009, 11:20
Weapons are knocked from hands in melee....no matter how Iron your grip is (and apparantly every xenos is just as strong as a SM)

And this is a problem for pistols and nothing else?


Dawn of War isn't really a good example. Not every battle in 40k has 100 Marines vs 130 Guardsmen.

How can you pass judgment when you haven't even seen the video? It's Space Marines and Orks.

Templar Ben
08-05-2009, 13:35
Actually it is so uncommon for someone to know a pistol out of your hand that if that were to happen it would definitely be worth reporting.

Here are some police stats since they often are involved in shootings and the vast majority take place under 20 feet. That is about 4 inches on a tabletop.

http://www.virginiacops.org/Articles/Shooting/Combat.htm

I have done too many building sweeps and had engagements from contact to 5 feet to think that the rules accurately reflect the situation.

Thing is, the rules are not trying to reflect reality. It is a game written by people whose military experience is that they have seen some war movies.

Johnnyfrej
08-05-2009, 14:30
How can you pass judgment when you haven't even seen the video? It's Space Marines and Orks.
I have every DoW except DoW2. I know which video you are talking about. I was refering to the gameplay. Did the Sarge not get his Bolt Pistol knocked out of his hand during the first DoW Intro?

For mankind
08-05-2009, 15:03
Realistic use of a GUN in 40K????
Well lets say an assult cannon is an aquivalent of a nowaday gattling, that can fire up to 3600 rund per minute, and only can hit four times max?
Same for Heavy Stubber and the range of a lasgun and so on.

If Guns would work realistic in 40K than of course you get a bonus in close combat, but than that will only happen once in a year, because everbody will be shoot down.

TheFloatingHead
08-05-2009, 15:04
I always figured the advantage of having a pistol in combat, especially something smaller, like a laspistol would be when it got into those sardine like close combat experiences. In a situation like that a weapon with low recoil would be perfect for when you're right up against your opponent and you can try and jam that muzzle in some vulnerable sensitive part (stomach, joints, groin, neck) and let loose a couple of rounds. A pistol is the kind of tool I'd like to have to shoot a downed opponent while being able to maintain a guarding position with the actual close combat weapon, not being distracted making sure that downed opponent won't be a threat. It's not the thing I see so much carefully aiming at that guy over there, but as something to get in real close to the enemy to negate the benefits of their own weapons (such as long swords) and to be able to take advantage of opportunity to shoot opponents.

psyduck86
08-05-2009, 16:36
To me, the CC bonus is reflected as that holding a pistol makes it much easier to use a melee weapon in your free hand. You don't have the time or concentration to both shoot and swing, but the fact that your firearm isn't encumbering you gives you an advantage in combat.

Lord Humongous
08-05-2009, 19:51
To me, the CC bonus is reflected as that holding a pistol makes it much easier to use a melee weapon in your free hand. You don't have the time or concentration to both shoot and swing, but the fact that your firearm isn't encumbering you gives you an advantage in combat.

If that were the case, having a CCW alone (several units do) would give the same bonus as a CCW & pistol.

catbarf
08-05-2009, 20:02
One other thing- Don't Ork Burnas count as power weapons in melee? Surely they would be unable to use such bulky weapons in the tightly-packed melees of the 41st millennium!

Treadhead_1st
08-05-2009, 21:57
Even if your enemies squad is right up on you, doesn't mean you won't be able to snap off pistol shots into them. As has been said, sure they won't just let ya shoot them, however it would be easier to fire a pistol then swing a huge sword if the space was as close and confined as people are saying it is.

There would be varying distance in the fight, and yeah I think shooting would be an option. Unless they were all wrestling, however even then if you had a pistol, wouldn't you try and use it to shoot them at that point blank range ?

Yes - you can shoot them on the way in. But when a 200+pound green gorilla has a grip on your wrist that's shattered the bone, and is about to bite your face off whilst throttling you, that pistol is useless. That's the kind of brawl 40K is meant to represent, not modern day incredibly-short-range shooting and follow-up bayonette charge (shooting whilst running in, too).

I guess the closest modern-day analogy I can find is the WW1 trench battles. People fighting to the death in a 1-m wide bit of dirt with no more than 10m LOS (assuming well constructed, zig-zag trench). It's this kind of environement where people stop shooting the firearms and concentrate on trying to stab, punch or club the nearby bloke whilst avoiding the same happening to them - packed in like sardines with their fellow troops/the enemy.

Plus, it's far easier to grab a gun/ than it is to grab a sword - it's sharper, for one ;) There's a reason most troops carry the odd extra (small) knife/knives in addition to their bayonettes - they are small things that are perfect in small confines. Pistols require time to aim, even at short range. In 40K, the guy may blow the brains out of the first man facing him, but before he can shift his aim to the second bloke he's got an iron bar through the chest and is being trampled. So, I think the combat mechanisms are meant to represent people blocking with the weight/bulk of the firearms and then clubbing the enemy with them (hence 1A for pistol+CCW rather than for just Pistol - mainly because there are no Armour Save Modifiers and therefore no Parry bonuses, it's easier to justify this as +1A)

RichBlake
08-05-2009, 22:41
I'm going to bet genestealers are involved.

As someone with no real knowledge of the specialist games, do necromunda and Inquisitor have those kinds of detail and dare say realism (which is a stretch in any game)

In Necromunda you firstly roll dice to see who "wins" combat, this is effected by how many attacks you have and how many close combat weapons you have. Then the "winner" gets as many attacks as they "won" by. These are then split between your pistol and your close combat weapon.

For example I win combat by 5 so I get 5 attacks, I then shoot three times in combat with my plasma pistol and have 2 attacks using my chainsword. The former is like S5 with -2 to armour saves and the latter is +1 to strength.

In Inquisitor when you are in close combat you are in base to base contact to start with. At that range it is assumed you are almost on top of each other. At this range all you can do is use your pistol to smack them in the face with the butt (this counts as unarmed attacks, the exception being the Naval Pistol which is so heavy it counts as an improvised weapon) and use your CC weapon (if you have one). You get to choose what to use.

However one of the actions allows you to "step back" and fight at arms length. At this length only reach 4 weapons (think spears and polearms) can be used but you can fire your pistol. Since it needs a calm head more then a steady aim though it uses WS instead of BS.

In 40K unless you make the system complicated (like Necromunda) it would be impossible to make fair and fun. No most of it doesn't make sense, but neither does the fact that Drop Pods carefully avoid landing on top of my rebel commander.

Also Catbarf, 10 meter radius? Are you nuts? The melee in the 40K universe represents hand to hand fighting right next to each other, a bit of that may include firing at each other at close range but it's "arms length" like Inquisitor, as in all I need to do is step forward and I can skewer you.

Pokpoko
08-05-2009, 22:51
To all people that say pistols aren't used in 40k's CC:
WHY are they issued then? WHAT purpose do they serve? Pistols can't be used effectively beyond a very short range(in firefight terms at least), they have,usually, crap stopping power when compared to "big" long weapon's cartridges...however, they are far easier to manipulate and point in small,confined spaces...like close combat situation, but since we ruled out close combat, then i guess they are used as nice belt-decorations.terrible waste of material for a simple piece of art, if you ask me:P

count chocula
08-05-2009, 23:20
To all people that say pistols aren't used in 40k's CC:
WHY are they issued then? WHAT purpose do they serve? Pistols can't be used effectively beyond a very short range(in firefight terms at least), they have,usually, crap stopping power when compared to "big" long weapon's cartridges...however, they are far easier to manipulate and point in small,confined spaces...like close combat situation, but since we ruled out close combat, then i guess they are used as nice belt-decorations.terrible waste of material for a simple piece of art, if you ask me:P

let me try to answer that in order asked

for medium to short ranged Fire fights. to fight in cramped areas like sewer halls, ship halls ,etc oh and thy are not hard to conceal. fire fights don't always happen hundreds of feet away and a pistol is a good SIDE ARM. um pistols can easily stop a man running at you and having a 50 cal in a cramped area is not a good idea (like you said). see cc in 40k is nothing like it is now ( as far as i know) we don't have massive cramped cc with thousands of gaunts, orks, etc maybe the closest are ww1 battles were there was a massive cluster fu*** of people pushing against each other frighted out of there mind.

over all though i don't think that we should even try to make sense of gw ruling as it leads to very long discussions like this one =)

RichBlake
08-05-2009, 23:54
To all people that say pistols aren't used in 40k's CC:
WHY are they issued then? WHAT purpose do they serve?

Firstly pistols have a range of 12" and their equivelent in rifle form (laspistol vs lasgun, bolt pistol vs boltgun) usually fires the same distance without standing still to aim. From this we can assume that in the generalisations that are 40K we can assume that Pistols have a similar effective range as to firing a weapon on full auto (or semi-auto).

In terms of CC the way I'd explain it is the pistol gives you an edge in close combat, easily firing as you charge forward keeping your enemy ducking or hitting one with a shot. This "edge" that is granted to you with the weapon is represented with +1 attack.

The only other "fair" way to do it is to say "OK pistols AREN'T used in Close Combat, so you need two close combat weapons to gain an extra attack". This totally throws everything off balance and also make no sense as why would Assault Marines armed for assault get the same attacks when charging as 10 guys with boltguns?

Yes it's not particulary accurate, yes it makes no sense that a plasma pistol gives my Imperial Guard sergeant an extra S3 attack in close combat. However it's also the case a representative system would slow down and/or throw off the balance of 40K.

40K is all about generalising things, Space Marines are T4, Orks are T4 and Yarrick is T4. According to 40K they are equal, but if I were rating them I'd say it goes: Yarrick > Orks > Space Marines. Yarrick being tough comes from sheer willpower and bionics and he's not quite as tough as an ork, Orks aren't as tough as Space Marines.

If you want accurate representations play Inquisitor. If you're happy to think "well, it's only a rough representation" then suck it up.

Treadhead_1st
08-05-2009, 23:55
To all people that say pistols aren't used in 40k's CC:
WHY are they issued then? WHAT purpose do they serve? Pistols can't be used effectively beyond a very short range(in firefight terms at least), they have,usually, crap stopping power when compared to "big" long weapon's cartridges...however, they are far easier to manipulate and point in small,confined spaces...like close combat situation, but since we ruled out close combat, then i guess they are used as nice belt-decorations.terrible waste of material for a simple piece of art, if you ask me:P

Several reasons:

1) to distinguish Officers and NCOs (Guard) - Napoleonic era and some WW2 forces still used this. Sort-of impractical.

2) So that troopers carrying cumbersome weapons can fight back quickly (it would take a while to set up a Heavy Bolter if some Tyranids came out of the woods to one side/round the corner of a corridor - the Pistol would allow them to draw and fire quickly.

3) As a back-up weapon: running out of ammo in a firefight is a very, very bad thing. Being able to drop the primary weapon (rifle of some sort), quickly draw a pistol and continue firing (or making the enemy duck so you can run to cover) can be life-saving.

4) In buildings, ship corridors etc where confines are tight - you can shoot down someone before they reach you (ie before close-combat starts) but are not encumbered by a lengthy weapon (which may hinder turning around or, in the narrowest corridors, prevent you from getting it up to the shoulder).

I apologise for the innuendo in that last point - I'm British and couldn't help it :evilgrin:

Pokpoko
08-05-2009, 23:55
see cc in 40k is nothing like it is now no,you're right, as soon as they get within 5 meters of the enemy all 40k factions immediately forget how to pull the trigger apparently. not to mention that to get those "huge, cramped melees" you need very specific conditions-already a cramped terrain,huge number of enemies, and no way to shoot them before they get to you. any other terrain will produce a series of short, close-range firefights with occasional outbursts of actual hand-to-hand combat. Orks and Tyranids may push for bodily contact in combat, but any other race(civilized,let's call them),will prefer less random and more controlled CQB's.

I mean, what next, we'll find out tanks in 40k can't shoot bacause they aren't anything like our tanks,and therefore they need at least 50 km's of LOS to engage the enemy?

RichBlake
09-05-2009, 00:31
no,you're right, as soon as they get within 5 meters of the enemy all 40k factions immediately forget how to pull the trigger apparently. not to mention that to get those "huge, cramped melees" you need very specific conditions-already a cramped terrain,huge number of enemies, and no way to shoot them before they get to you. any other terrain will produce a series of short, close-range firefights with occasional outbursts of actual hand-to-hand combat. Orks and Tyranids may push for bodily contact in combat, but any other race(civilized,let's call them),will prefer less random and more controlled CQB's.

If you play Guard vs Guard you generally see the squads from both sides get close to each other and start shooting. The only time I assault with Guardsmen is with the Command squads or with Veterans with shotguns. The exception being if I have Creed in which case I get Furious Charge.

Guardsmen hit on 4s and wound probably on 4/5s anyway, it's exactly the same as CC but your opponent doesn't get to strike back.

I think you're just playing against or with the wrong armies. Marines, Orks, Nids, Some Eldar Units, Daemons, Some Dark Eldar units and Chaos Marines are all geared towards hand to hand fighting anyway.

AngryAngel
09-05-2009, 04:43
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. Some seem to believe once people get into CC that they, with the force of a mighty magnet, jam up into each other wrestling the entire time.

Some of us appear to think, and this is my view, that the CC represents close range fire fighting as well as hand to hand fighting. As even if a gaunt, ork, whatever was crashing down on me I'd be trying to shoot it with a pistol, or opening up with a bolter/las gun/ similar weapon.

In my mind it makes more sense they'd be able to get at least a couple steps away sometimes to shoot at their enemy. As one of the benefits to being so close would be, they wouldn't need much time at all to aim.

As for the green gorilla breaking your wrist to make ya not shoot. Well that would also keep you from fighting very well with hand to hand anyways, wouldn't just keep you from shooting. As well if its a marine, they'd be just as strong or stronger then the green gorilla most of the time. So then who is to say they wouldn't hilt smack the thing in the face and then, while stunned or knocked back a step, plug him a couple in the face or chest ?

Shooting can take place in very close confines, and I doubt they just jump at one another and wrestle around on the ground in the CC.

Poseidal
09-05-2009, 10:12
If you want accurate representations play Inquisitor. If you're happy to think "well, it's only a rough representation" then suck it up.
I wouldn't recommend this. 'Accurate' is not a good description of a system where Space Marines do more damage flicking marbles at someone than firing his Boltgun.

I would use Dark Heresy or even 1st ed 40k, which is better for this than Inquisitor.

Askari
09-05-2009, 10:50
As well if its a marine, they'd be just as strong or stronger then the green gorilla most of the time. So then who is to say they wouldn't hilt smack the thing in the face and then, while stunned or knocked back a step, plug him a couple in the face or chest ?

That's a good way to look at why the Plasma Pistol has the same strength as a Bolt Pistol in melee... you beat your opponent away with an arm or kick to the groin, whatever and then if you "wound" your opponent and they fail the save, then you've shot them to the floor with whatever weapon you had, point being it's the elbow bash (i.e. your Attacks) that's given you the opportunity to do so.

The_Outsider
09-05-2009, 16:20
I propose bolt weapons give -1S in CC because at such minimal ranges the shell would not have tiem to arm itself and thus rely solely on kinetic energy (which would be fairly low given the gyrojet needs time to accelerate).

Similarly las weaponry should grant +1S due to the far lower chance of thermal blooming because the distance is so short.

--

See, when we start applying logic to 40k the game undermines itself because it isn't based upon cold, hard facts.

Enjoy S4 guardsmen and S3 marines when using their pistols in CC.

RichBlake
09-05-2009, 16:28
I wouldn't recommend this. 'Accurate' is not a good description of a system where Space Marines do more damage flicking marbles at someone than firing his Boltgun.

I would use Dark Heresy or even 1st ed 40k, which is better for this than Inquisitor.

While exagerated you do have a point, however that's due to simple tweaks in how much damage weapons do. Im my opinion Dark Heresy isn't more accurate then Inquisitor, but each to their own.


I propose bolt weapons give -1S in CC because at such minimal ranges the shell would not have tiem to arm itself and thus rely solely on kinetic energy (which would be fairly low given the gyrojet needs time to accelerate).


To be fair, as the Munitorium Manual says, the bolts are fired at a "relatively low velocity" not "low velocity" before their fuel kicks in.

I'm pretty sure it's possible to fire a Bolt Pistol at someone point blank and for the bullet to enter their body, then explode, it's just the bullet wasn't moving as fast.

While Novels aren't everything there are plenty of occasions where they shoot someone at point blank range with a bolt pistol and it kills them.

Shrapnel
09-05-2009, 17:32
While Novels aren't everything there are plenty of occasions where they shoot someone at point blank range with a bolt pistol and it kills them.
Case in point, Commissars

prezo
10-05-2009, 13:23
in the gaunts ghosts novels Gaunt often uses his pistol to fire shots soon after killing his current opponent, at a time like this you wouldn't have a enemy trying to bite your head off because your squad mates would usually be putting the hurt on them

Havock
10-05-2009, 14:09
If you want a really interesting question, why does a fist inflict the same damage as a bayonet, and how can the bayonet inflict the same amount of damage as an industrial chainsaw?

Space Mauhreens!